VOL. 2 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M. ~mDNESDAY, MAY 4, 1983. NO. 33

Ma y 4, 1983 Tape No. 1717 JV - 1 The House met ~t 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker ~~ the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : Order, please! MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Education. MS. VERGE: Thank you,Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I informed the House of Assembly that government was considering the possibility of scheduling public examinations during the two-week period following the end of this school year. The school year will end, as originally planned, on June 17· Mr.

Speaker, I am now pleased to announce that government has decided to conduct public examinations from Monday, June 20, to Wednesday, June 29, inclusive. Public examinations are now required for only level 3000 senior high school courses. Most level 2 or Grade Xl students are now taking two level 3000 courses and, consequently, will have to write two public examinations. Concurrently with the level 3000 ~curse public examinations will be public examinations for people completing the old Grade Xl program, commonly referred to as final supplementary examinations.

Attached is the level 3 and Grade Xl public examinations schedule. Mr. Speaker, government's decision was made with the benefit of consultation with 3693

May 4th, 1983 Tape No. 1717 JV - 2 MS. VERGE: school board administrators. The deferral of public examinations complements school board plans to eliminate or reduce the amount of time spent on internal final examinations in other than level 3000 courses. The combined effect of these initiatives will allow schools to regain up to two weeks of the teaching time lost as a result of labour-management disputes. This will be particularly beneficial for the students in the Avalon North Integrated School district who lost as much as eight weeks school because of strikes. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Aylward) : Opposition. MR. NEARY: The han. the Leader of the Mr. Speaker, my colleague, our spokesman on education will be a little late in arriving but to use a phrase that my han. colleague used yesterday that the minister still has her hand in the dog's mouth, It is obvious that the minister is trying to redeem herself for her own incompetence, for her own failure to keep the schools opened, Mr. Speaker.

Instead of Government making unilateral decisions and getting involved it would be far better left to the educators, the professionals, left up to the professionals not the non-professionsals like the minister,who failed to keep the schools opened 3694

_! May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1718 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: and as a result we find ourselves in a situation today where you have a chaotic situation in the schools, Mr. Speaker. So we will just have to wait and see,I guess, Mr. Speaker, how it works out. MR. HODDER: She can throw all that garbage into the wastepaper basket. MR. NEARY: That is right. She can try all she wants. There is no way that the minister can redeem herself with the professionals.

What the minister did is unforgivable; forcing the teachers out of the classrooms and the kids out of school is unforgivable, and the minister can try all she wants to reGeem herself, she can make Ministerial Statements every da y, but it is not going to work, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make on behalf of the Premier. Mr. Speaker, the administration has always had as one of its goals ~he smooth and efficient operation of this hon. House - MR. NEARY: Oh! Here it comes. MR.

MARSHALL: - N~twithstanding the hon. gentleman there opposite. Our extensive use of the committee system has done away with the notoriously long and inefficient night sittings, which used to be necessary ever year on budget estimates. The introduction of a Fall sitting devoted entirely to legislation has also reduced the large number of bills that in the old days all too often died on the Order Paper. This administration was pleased to bring in an early budget this year and as a result, the majority of the Budget Debate and related proceedings are already behind us.

It is perhaps appropriate at this time that we review the record of the administration in this House, both from a historical perspective and by way of - . comparison with other Houses in Canada. There is attached 3695

May 4, 1983 Tape No . 1718 NM - 2 MR . MARSHALL: for hon. members a list of actual sitting days of this hon. House since 1949. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the House sat on average less than fi fty days per year during the Smallwood Administration . The average for the ~oores' Administration was a little over sixty -- -- - days per year. The Peckford Administration has not been in pmver that long, so talk of averages is not really appropriate.After the Premier won the Party leadership in the Spring of '79, he shortly called an election which was held on June 1~ ... ·-· - that year. 3696

May 4,1983 Tape No. 1719 ah-1 MR. MARSHALL: This administration has no fear of hard work, Mr. Speaker, and instead of waiting for the Summer of 1979 to expire before opening the han. House,we had it open on July 12, 1979 for a fifty-two day session that did not end until December 14th. It was a record in itself right from the word go. The years 1980 and 1981 - now listen to this, Mr. Speaker -were the only two uninterrupted years under the Peckford administration and the House sat eighty-one and ninety- seven days respectively.

In 1982 , of course, 'saw an election in the Spring - a bitter memory for the members there opposite - but we still managed to sit a respectable fifty-five days in spite of this. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. MARSHALL: Now are the han. gentlemen who are always talking about the way the House is conducting observing? ~.ffi.SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: Every session is a record. It must be educational I Mr. Speaker, to compare the Peckford administration's best year in 1981 with the rest of Canada.

Our ninety-seven day sitting was only topped by the Parliament of Canada with 146 days and the legislature of Ontario with 106 days. All other legislatures sat ninety days or less 1 some as low as forty days in that year. Indeed,if one excludes the House of Commons our ninety-seven day sitting in 1981 compares most favourably with an average of seventy- five days for other legislatures for that year. MR.SIMMS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: In closing then, Mr.Speaker, we think the record of the administration in this House speaks for itself. Not only have we improved the 3697

May 4,1983 Tape No. 1719 ah-2 MR.MARSHALL: efficiency of this operatic~ we have . also shown the dedication and stamina required to remain open for sufficient lenghts of time so as to insure that the people's business is not DillY introduced into this House,it is done here as well. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.SPEAKER (Aylward ;·:• MR.MARSHALL: Order, please! So, Mr. Speaker, this statement is made for both the edification and I know the extreme disappointment to the han. members who during the debate are always saying that we want to close her down. Mr.

Speaker, we want to debate the affairs of the people of this Province and introduce legislation and we shall stay open as long as it is necessary at all times to do the people's business. SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR.NEARY: MR.SPEAKER: Opposition. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker. The han. Leader of the MR.NEARY: Mr. Speaker, they are really down to the bottom of the barrel now. Is it any wonder that the han. gentleman ha~ a silly grin on his face from one ear to the other when he was making that statement. What they are really doing, Mr.Speaker, is making a case to justify closing the House down quickly.

Well just for the benefit of han. members this House has so far met this Session, I believe, thirty-three or thirty-five days. Now , Mr. Speaker, to compare this House to the House back after Confederation is like comparing apples and oranges. Mr. Speaker, in the first place we have fifty-two members and there was only forty-two then. We have ten more now than we had then • 3698

z:~ay 4, 1983 Tape 1720 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: But let us look at the sessional indemnity back in 1949 right up to probably 1966. The sessional indemnity at that time was $3,333.33, which meant that the average member of this House was a part-time politician. The average salary today just for an ordinary backbencher is around $33,000. AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true. MR. NEARY: It is true - including expenses, sessional indemnity, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the total in 1966, the total, $3,333.33 as compared to $32,000 or $33,000, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): Order, please! MR.

NEARY: Hon. gentlemen wanted to make politics full-time and now they should be prepared to stay in the House. Mr. Speaker, as far as the Committee system is concerned, that speaks for itself. We know what the record of the committee system is. Look, here is what this administration have done: They have restricted the time that we can speak on the estimates, they have refused to allow us to debate amendments to Private Members' resolu­ tions on Wednesdays, they have refused to answer questions and I am just in the process of dealing with that now in answer to a question I got on Harch 23rd from the Premier.

And I draw question number 59 to the attention of the media. Look at the answer, and just take a look at a government that was going to give us information, Mr. Speaker. It is frightening when you read the answer to that question and how they are refusing to answer questions in this House. 3699

May 4, 1983 MR . TULK : MR. NEARY: Tape 1720 EC - 2 Parliament is no more . That is right. They are trying to do away with parliamentary democracy in this Province, Mr . Speaker. And all the Ministerial Statements in the world that the hon. gentleman can make on behalf of the Premier or anybody else is net going to justify shutting this House down in a week or ten days while we have so many urgent and pressing problems in this Province, a crisis in the fishery, the hospital crisis. MR. MARSHALL : On a point of order , Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER (Aylward) : elapsed. Order, please ! Order, please!

The hon . member 's time has On a point of order, the hon. the Presi dent of the Council. t>1R . MARSHALL: Mr . Speaker, had I known my simple statement was going to drive the hon . the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) to such heights, perhaps I may not have made it , 3700

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1721 MJ ~ 1 MR. MARSHALL: I made the statement 1he is to comment on it. Now he is entering into areas of debate. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : Order, please! I rule there is no point of order. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition's time has elapsed. MR. NEARY: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: A point of order, the Leader Mr. Speaker, that was not a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I am only responding to that so-called Ministerial Statement that was made by the hon. - AN HON. MEMBER: Your time is up. MR. SPEAKER: new point of order? MR.

NEARY: of order, Mr. Speaker.­ MR. SPEAKER: order. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: MR. TOBIN: ... ·- -- MR. RIDEOUT: ~order, boy. MR. SPEAKER: of order. AN HON. MEMBER: MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: Order, please! Order, please! Does the han, member have a I am responding to a point I ruled there was no point of - is that allowed? Order, please! That was ruled on • He ruled there was no point of I ruled that there was no point , Oh, oh! Order, please! So, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter 3701

May 4, 1983 MR. NEARY: ·• MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : a point of order? MR. NEARY: Ministerial Statement. SOME HON . MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: Tape No. 1721 MJ - 2 is that the Premier - Order, please! Order, please! The hon. member is spea king on No, this is in reply to the Your time is up. The Chair stated to the hon. member that his time had elapsed at the time that the point of order was raised. MR. NEARY: MR. WA..lffi.EN: MR. SPEAKER: Mountains. MR. WARREN: Thank you, Sir. ORAL QUESTIONS 11r . Speaker.

The hon. the member for Torngat Mr, Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development (Mr. Goudie). Some time ago the minister advised that the Voisey Bay ffish ~amp would be transferred to the Department of Development.could the minister advise the House if that transaction has taken place? MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Rural, · Agricultural and Northern Development, MR. GOUDIE: Mr, Speaker, no,that transact~on or transition has not taken place and will not be taking place this year. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The han. the member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I know the minister ~aid, I think it was sometime in April, 3702

May 3, 1983 Tape No. 1721 MJ ~ 3 MR. WARREN: that it would take place on March 31, 1983, Now the minister has changed his decision. Could the minister tell us why he has changed his decision? MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : The han. the Minister of Ru~al Agricultural and Northern Development. MR. GOUDIE: Well, Mr. Speaker, this particular minister has not changed his decision;it was the decision of government that the camp might be better administered under the Department of Development.

However, that has not proven to be the case in our opinion,so my department, the Department of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development,will still maintain responsibility for the operation of that facility. MR. WARREN: MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, A supplementary, the han. the member for Torngat Mountains, MR.

WARREN: Seeing tha,t this building, according to the minister,cost $194,000 to construct and the minister has said that it came out of federal/provincial monies--~hich I think was either 66/33 per cent cost shared or something like that - could the minister tell us if this building is the property of the Government of Newfoundland or the property of the Native people of Labrador? MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker. 3703

May 4, 1983 Tape 1722 PK - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : The hon. Minister of Rural, Agriculture and Northern DevelopMent. MR. GOUDIE: · Mr. Speaker, I think, I could be corrected, but I think the building, the facility itself is within the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Public Works and Services (Mr. Young). I will certainly have to get that clarified. But I think I should also explain to the gentleman for Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren) that the building itself did not cost $194,000.

It cost $194,000 to place that particular facility there, which involves two other buildings in addition to the main camp 1 and involved a rather substantial transportation cost to get construction materia~ in there, equipment in there and get the manpower in and out of Voisey Bay,which is about a three hour run by speedboat using a 35 horsepower Johnson motor from Nain. You can figure out the mileage from that.

So it was a very expensive proposition to construct t~at facilityand place it there. ··--·· ·- In terms of who owns it, I could be corrected,as I say, but I think it is within the confines of the Department of Public Works and Services. MR. WARREN: A supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the han. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the figure I quoted 1 $194,000,is exactly the figure that the minister gave me as the answer to what was the cost of construction of the Voisey Bay fish camp. That is .what the minister said, so that is the cost. Now, Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary for the minister. ··-- [Knowing that this building was built out of federal/provincial monies, has the ministe~ 3704

May 4, 1983 Tape 1722 PK - 2 I)iR. WARREN : considered the proposals - I know it was sometime ago when this government offered the Voisey Bay fish camp for salebutr · think the minister has received some proposals .- has the minister considered any of those proposals or has he been in contact with any of the possible buyers of the fish camp? MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : The han. Minister for Rural, Agriculture and Northern Development. MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I have no proposals to purchase the Voisey Bay fish camp. I do not recall putting it up for sale, although I could certainly double check that.

I do not recall any for sale notices going out on' that particular facility. But I should explain to the han. gentleman 1who probably or obviously does not remember,the facility was constructed out of funding under the Native People's Agreement several years ago; ten years ago,I think, this year ,-and was designed to serve as a training ground for people from the North Coast communities; the communities under the Native People's Agreement, one of which is in my district and the other six communities in the han. gentleman's district.

There were a number of Native people brought in and given the opportunity to develop an expertise in terms of constructing, operating and maintaining -... 3705

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1723 SD - 1 MR. GOUDIE: a business enterprise of that particular nature. For two or three years there was an interest in it, several people were employed there and in addition to being trained , the y were paid for their training. They have since seemed to have lost interest, / and that is where the facility sits right now. MR. WARREN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Ay lward ) : Supplementary, the han. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the minister did mention that some people were trained.

I know it may be a bit difficult 1 but I wonder could the minister, in the next day or so , give a list of the names of the Native people who have been trained there during the past eight or nine year? At the same time, could the minister tell the han. House the government's purpose in / maint aining and keeping ownership of the Voisey Bay fish camp? MR. SPEAKER: The hon '. Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR. GOUDIE: Mr.

Speaker, there were no Native people trained there,unless you want to call my brother a Native person,who was managing the camp and is · probably pretty well qualified to operate it. I mean, it has been maintained and operated for the last ten years · by him. And I should point out that I did not hire my brother, Mr. Speaker~ I am talking ten years ago 7 so no one can suggest any allegations o£ conflict of interest there. In any event, Mr. Speaker, during the first two or three years of operation of that camp, there were several people hired and worked in it.

I think I can remember the names now but I would rather not mention them here . I will certainly endeavour to get them for the hon . gentleman and indicate which . years they were employed there and trained there. 3706

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1723 SD - 2 MR. -NEARY: ' What are you keeping the camp --open -for nm·1? MR. GOUDIE: Why? MR. NEARY: Yes, why? MR. GOUDIE: Well 1 as the hon. gentleman pointed out 1 it cost $194,000 to build that particular facility out of federal/provincial dollars. What would happen to that facility ,I wonder, if it were not maintained by someone? MR. NEARY: Put it up for sale .. MR. TULK: What is the point of it? MR. GOUDIE: There was no for sale ad 1 as I understand or remember 1 but we wanted to find out if anyone was interested in that particular facility..

There was no great interest expressed in it for a couple of reasons. One is that it is a very large 1 expensive facility to maintain if someone private were to take it over,because there is a fair amount of work that should be done to the foundation of the building and to other parts of it. And;secondly, not all that many sports fishermen in North America seem to have that much interest in speckled trout or Arctic char, everyone wants to go for Atlantic salmon 1 and there are no Atlantic salmon,as the han. gentleman knows,in rivers in Labrador North of Davis Inlet, and this facility is North of Davis Inlet.

So rather than leave the facility there to be vandalized, etc., government has decided to hang on to it and use it if it is possible to get commercial bookings. There are 3707

Ma y 4, 1983 Tape No. 1724 NM - 1 MR. GOUDIE: usually t11ro or th ree commercial parties 1 if you will, who come into that facility each year. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : The hon. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at what the minister is saying. I will ask him another supplementary question. Could the minister tell the number of visitors who: attended the Voisey Bay fish camp last year? Also how much did it . cost the go vernment to keep this fish . camp in operation last year, and how much does the minister expect it is going to cost this year to keep the building open? MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I think the figure for maintaing the operation last year, including the cost of employees, was about $20,000 and I would expect this year it is going to be somewhere between $25,000 and $30,000. 'rl1ose are just guesses off the top .o£ my head. I can certainly get the information the han. gentleman is requesting 1 of course. MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the minister is still not responding to the questions in the proper manner.

I wonder would the minister tell the House what will be the purpose, other than stoping vadalism from taking place, of keeping that building open this year? MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Rural, Agricultural and ·Narthern Development. MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, the han. gentleman will remember £rom one of my earlier responses that the facility is being maintained by the provincial government to prevent vandalism and other damages which might occur to that rather expensive facility. _ And this year it will be operating on a care-taking basis. Now if it is possible to bring in one or two or three parties of 3708

MAY 4, 1983 Tape No. 1724 NM - 2 MR. GOUDIE: sports fishermen 1 I see nothing wrong with doing that. That way government would get some revenue from it. There are no bookings at this point in time but up until three days ago there 3709

May 4, 1983 Tape 1725 EC - 1 MR. GOUDIE: were three enquiries. Whether or not these parties will come in and fish there, I do not know, but we want to maintain it in as good a condition as possible with perhaps one of the future objectives being to dispose of the facility, either giving it to the Native groups themselves if they have an interest in operating it 1 selling it outright,or disposing of it in some other way. MR. WARREN: ~~. SPEAKER (Aylward) : Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. The han. the member for Torngat Mountains, a supplementary. MR.

WARREN: The minister said that if visitors come in govern~ent can get some revenue. I will ask the minister another question~ Was there any revenue generated from the visit of Cabinet ministers to the camp last Summer? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister for Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR. GOUDIE: ~~. Speaker, I am only familiar with one Cabinet minister who visited that camp and that was in company with several prominent business people from North America. I do not know if there was any revenue from that or not but I can certainly find out. MR. WARREN: MR. SPEAKER: Mountains. MR.

WARREN: A supplenentary, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the member for Torngat Now that the minister has given the answer that the camp is not viable 1 it is costing the government money, roughly $20,000 last year and maybe $30,000 this year- in fact, $30,000 could have got all of the meat out of the bush inside of Nain - would the minister now consider taking the Voisey Bay fish camp and 3710

May 4, 1983 Tape 1725 EC - 2 MR. WARREN: submitting tenders to see if there is anyone interested in purchasing the camp? t.ffi. SPEAKER (Aylward) : The hon. the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the tender process that the hon. gentleman is referring to, but since the facility was built out of funding designed especially for Native peoples in Labrador, and the concept behind the camp - MR. WARREN: Answer the question. MR. GOUDIE: If the hon. gentleman will stay quiet for a minute so I can answer, he might get the answer he is looking for.

If the concept behind the construc­ tion of that camp was to train Native peoples to operate that type of facility then, in my opinion, they should be given first ri"ght of refusal on that particular facility. SOME HON . MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. GOUDIE: That is the rationale of this particular government. On the matter, Mr. Speaker, of the caribou that the hon. gentleman refers to, he obviously denies by not admitting that the offer was made to him directly by ~taff of my department. MR. WARREN: That is right. MR.

GOUDIE: I made the offer to the L.I.A. and to other groups in Labrador to take money out of the Native People's Agreement, not only to fly out the machines and the meat which wer·e stranded in the country, but take an additional $30,000 if they wanted and feed everyone in all of the communities. Their answer was no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. WARREN: A final supplemen~ary, ~tr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. the member for Torngat Mountains. 3711

May 4,1983 Tape No. 1726 ah-1 MR. WARREN: Now the mtnister says that the Native people will be given first refusal. Why was not the Labrador Inuit Association given first refusal when they submitted a proposal to take over the Voisey Bay fish camp in 1977? MR.SPEAKER (Aylward): The han. Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I was not minister of this particular department at that particular time so I cannot give the gentleman offmy cuff an answer to that particular question.

But let me make an offer to the han. gentleman 1 who has something stuck down his craw today about that camp and I do not know what it is. But if theLIA or the NMIA,or both 1want to submit a proposal,send her in, Sir~ I will deal with her right away. SOME HON.MEMBERS: MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: Opposition. l.ffi. NEARY: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. The han. Leader of the I hope that somebody takes the han. gentleman up on his offer about the camp in these times of restraint, In fact, I want to ask the Premier about the government's restraint programme.

They cannot answer questions on the Order Paper in this House because they cannot research them, they are closing hospital beds,and yet they have a luxurious camp up on the Voisey River in Northern Labrador being financed by the people's money. Now what about the government's restraint programme? Why do they not close it down, give it away, but get rid 3712

May 4,1983 Tape No. 1726 ah-2 .1-ffi.NEARY: of it somehow or other? There is no revenue from it. The odd Cabinet Minister will drop in once in a while and do a little fishing and then go on his merry way. Is there any justification for the government keeping this camp at all? .r-m. HICKEY: That is not what the minister said. MR.NEARY: That is what the minister said. There is no revenue from that camp, maybe one or two fishing parties , he said, in the run of a year,that is all. MR.MARSHALL: MR.SPEAKER (Aylward): President of the Council. MR.MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker 1 a point of order. A point of order. The hon. Mr.

Speaker, this is Question Period .• The hon. gentleman,as usual,is making a speech and 1 as usual, is injecting poisonous remarks. Now, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Question Period is to ask questions 1 and the hon. gentleman is on a supplementary question so he requires no

preamble. SOME HON .MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order,I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to direct his question on the restraint programme. MR. NEARY: What about the government's restraint programme , Mr. Speaker, when we have examples of~te and extravagance like this cabin? Could the hon. gentleman tell us now what he intends to do about this extravagance and waste? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, sure, no problem, Mr. Speaker. It has been discussed many, many times with the minister and we have been in a quandary to know what to 3713

May 4,1983 Tape No . 1726 ah -3 PREMIER PECKFORD : do, One of the alternatives \>7as, as the minister mentioned , to put it up on open tender. Then we thought that perhaps that would not be the best idea because we shouldgive either or both Native associations the opportunity to have the right of first refusal. I think during the last conversation we had that is what we decided we should do with it. Now it is not extravagance and to~aste in the sense that the Leader of the Opposition wants to make it out so that the press would to try to carry it that somehow we extravagantly got camps around. That is not true.

If the hon. Leader of the Opposition remembers it was this administration that got rid of all the camps that were used for extravagance and waste . SOME HON .MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: We were the government before restraint came in that got rid of the Gander cabin and the Adlatok cabin , the ones that were being used,and in which there was a lot of extravagance and waste . I am proud to say we got rid of them . Now we have this one that was built under the 371 4

~- May 3, 1983 Tape No. 1727 MJ - 1 PRE r.1IER PECKFORD: Native People's agreement, a federal/ provincial agreement and is used very, very irregularly by anybody. We have been trying to see if we could stimulate some commercial development up there and the~ be able to pass it over to the Native associations so that they could build on what we had already started so you had some kind of a commercial operation up there.

It has been very, very difficult going because,as the minister said .there is no salmon in that river 0 I was up there once four or five years ago, I have not been up there since, and there is only Arctic char and trout in that river, It has . been difficult to try to attract commercial parties from inside or outside the Province to go to a river where you only have ~ Artie cl'1ar and trout. So it -· . ~ . has not worked that well.

There is not that much being spent on it each yea~ as the minister said, just a caretaker status;$20,000 to try to keep it in good shape~But we are quite prepared,and we talked about it in Cabinet a number of -·-· ~ - ·· · times,to perhaps offer it to the two Native associations to use. Now, the other thing is, of course, they might be able to access - you know,what you can do by the back door is alright if you do not do it through the front door - they might get the funding. 'for · it through the Native's agreement and keep funding it.

So, -whilst it might look like government is no longer financing it, the long and the short of it might be that the two Native associations might take it over and then get the funding tnrough the Native's agreement anyway. 'Ehen it looks all right yet the money is still coming from the taxpayers of Canada and Newfoundland. Whether that be so or not,that is fine and dandy/but we have not spent any 3715

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1727 MJ - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD : money on it because of the very reason that the member mentioned,one,restraint but , more importantly , two, that it has not worked out. It was built years ago 1 I do not know what year it was built, but it must have been built in 1974 or 1975 or somewhere around there . l4.R. GO ODIE: 1972. PREMIER PECKFORD : MR . GOUDIE : 1972, was it? Yes. PREMIER PECKFORD : So we are prepared,obviously , to immediately t.ry to do some kind of a deal with the Native peoples .

You know, it is no good to let it run down if the Native peoples can use it wisely and perhaps make some money on it and train some of their younger people at it. So it is not extravagance and waste. We have a facility and it is now an asset. Let it not become a liability, it is an asset . It has not been a great liability , but it is more 3716

May 4, 1983 Tape 1728 PK - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: of an asset than a liability. How can we use it? Because you are not going to get cornrnerical people to go in there. I mean, we have tried. You are not going to get them, they want to go for the salmon. So you have that building there, now what are you going to do with it and how are you going to make it work? And perhaps we should really try to go the way the minister has indicated and work out a deal with the Native peoples to take it over and use it effectively and efficiently for them. I think that is the way out of the situation,it seems to me. MR. NEARY: MR.

SPEAKER (Aylward) : Opposition. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The han. Leader of the Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the han. Premier would undertake to give the House a full and detailed report of this camp from the day it started right up to the present time: Tell us the ki ,nd of training that was undertaken in this camp, what kind of training, how many people were trained, the cost of it, the cost of maintenance, and operations of the camp year by year~ the revenue received from the camp, and a list of those who visited the camp since it started? MR. SPEAKER: The han. Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: No problem, Mr. Speaker. The long and short of it, I think the minister gave most of information, is that we have been trying to attract cornrnerical people in there and have been unsuccessful. Therefore the amount of money tl "at has been spent there has been just a caretaker thing in trying to work out a way out of it . Personally I think I was in there once 1 and that was before I was Premier. I went in there one time when I was the Minister 3717

May 4, 1983 Tape 1728 PK - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: of Municipal Affairs, I was in Nain and I dropped in to see this facility was there. MR. WARREN: That wasthe last time you were there, was it? PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes. MR. WARREN: That is shameful. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, I know it is terrible. I should be up in Nain and Makkovik and Postville. MR. WARREN: You ought to be up there to see the caribou. PREMIER PECKFORD: Pardon? MR. WARREN: You should go up to see the caribou. PREMIER PECKFORD: Oh, yes, no doubt.

Perhaps the han. member would like to come with me out to Green Bay too and we could drop in in back of Millertown to see some of the moose - .. and caribou in there too. It might be a good idea. MR.. NEARY: in the House? PREMIER PECKFORD: When will we get this report I do not know if I would leave the han. gentleman behind or not, but I think I would. I haT.re a sneaky suspicion the han. member for Torngat Mountains would have a hard job keeping up. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: Is that a Liberal button? You have the Liberal colours. Is that a Liberal button you are flying for the weekend?

PREMIER PECKFORD: No,I am sorry to inform the han. Leader of the Opposition that I do not associate myself with things that are dyinga I associate myself with things that are alive and well. SOME HON. ME~~ERS: MR. NEARY: on the weekend. PREMIER · FECKFORD: Hear, hear! You should come to Gander And on that note, Mr. Speaker, we do not want t:ie camp that we are talking about to die either, we would like for it to be used by the Native peoples up 3718

J May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1729 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: there. It was built, we have inherited it, we are trying to make it work. It does not seem like we can. It is in a care- taker status and we would be pleased as punch to get rid of it. But having the facility there ~nd just see it deteriorate and be nothing does not seem to be the right approach to take. Surely we should try to make something of it and in that vein I think the minister's suggestion seems to be a good one to me. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : Supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, if the han. gentleman thinksanything is dying in this Province, he should come to Gander on the weekend. If he wants to see something that is alive, Mr. Speaker, and on the move in this Province , he should come to Gander. There will be a fair representation from the hon. gentleman's district in Gander and from the member for Baie Verte WhiteBay's(Mr. Rideout). But, Mr. Speaker, would the han. gentleman tell us now when we can expect to get the information that I just requested? Will it take a day, two days, a week?

When can we expect to get the information tabled in the House that I just asked the han. gentleman about in connection with the operation and maintenance of that camp since the time it started? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD : We will get it as quick as we can, Mr. Speaker, for the han. Leader of the Opposition (_Mr. Neary)_ . We are glad that the han. Leader of the Opposition is having a meeting in Gander. They must have enlarged the telephone booths in Gander in recent times, Mr. Speaker, to accommodate them. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 3719

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1729 SD - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) wants to make a flick at my district, the Leader of the Opposition is welcome any day of the week to come down and run against me in Green Bay. We would love to have him down there. He ran away from Bell ~sland~ he is about to run away from LaPoile, fine and dandy! He go elected by a couple of hundred votes - SOME HON. MEMBERS: PREMIER PECKFORD: Forty votes. Forty votes. Forty votes, was it? Down to forty, just skimmed in by the skin of his teeth.

If another day had gone by in the last election he would not have gotten elected. I am glad he got elected, Mr. Speaker, I am happy he got elected, a colourful character in the political scene in Newfoundland, but if the Leader of the Opposition wants to make little flicks and little darts, as he likes to call it 1 from time to time, let him dart down to Green Bay and run against me in Green Bay, and we will see if he wants to keep running around the Province, who will get elected, and who will not. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Alyward): of the Opposition. Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary, the han. Leader MR.

NEARY : Mr. Speaker , I made the han. gentleman the other day a challenge. Now if the han. gentleman is thinking about calling an election - SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: - and the han. gentleman wants me to come to Green Bay to run against him, let him go down to the Governor this afternoon, turn in his resignation, and I will go down to Green Bay next week and take the hon. gentleman an , if that is what he wants. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. NEARY: But he does not have the courage, he does nat have the intestinal fortitude to do it. If the 3720

May 4, 1983 Tape No . 1729 SD - 3 MR . NEARY : hon . gentleman is a fighter , let him show if he is a fighter or a coward . Is he a coward? Go down to the Governor this afternoon and we will have it out . And I would be glad to accept the hon . gentleman 's invitation , now , thi s prese nt day 1to go down to Gre en Bay and ta ke the hon. gentleman on . But if he waits two or three years, Mr . Speaker, welL , that may be a different story . 3721

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1730 NM - 1 SOME HO N. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has told us he is only going to last two terms because everybody knows the hon. gentleman will not be around in the next election. The hon. gentleman is going to get out or he will be booted out ' . by the member for Mount Scio(Mr. Barry). PREMIER PECKFORD: Is this a question, Mr. Speaker? Where is the question? MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mount Scio may take care of him.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Where is the question? 'MR, NEARY: But the han. gentleman did not answer my question as to wnen we are going to get this information. Will we get it before the House of Assembly closes? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, talk about being cowards, he ran away from Bell Island, the han. member did, he could not stay there because he knew the people got wise to him, and now they are about to get wise to him in LaPoile. Now I will run against the hon. member - HR. WARREN: Tomorrow?

PREMIER PECKFORD: Not tomorrow, and,'not the day after tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I have invited - MR. WARREN: When? When? EREMIER PECKFORD: - I have invited the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) to come to Green Bay - MR. NEARY: I will go. I will go. PREMIER PECKFORD: - in the next election and run against me in Green Bay. MR. NEARY: Call it today, I will go. PREMIER PECFORD: That is a prerogative that the 3722

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1730 NM- 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Premier has - MR. NEARY: r see. So you are not going to call one. PREMIER PECKFORD: - now I know the Leader of the Opposition would love to have that prerogative, Mr. Speaker, he would love to that prerogative, but I have a sneaky suspicion he is never going to have that prerogative. MR. NEARY: Go down and call it and we will go. PREMIER PECKFORD: Now I am sorry if the Leader of the Opposition is jealous that he could not win his seat by as much as I won mine. That is too bad. Tough on the Leader of the Opposition.

Tough he was not able to win it even though he ran over · to LaPoile from Bell Island. That is too bad. But when the election is called, Mr. Speaker, that is the time for the Leader of the Opposition to play politics, when the election is called, and then see where the Leader of the Opposition goes; then let him come to Green Bay and run. As far as the answer to the question the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked, I said we will get it as quickly as possible. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward'): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR.

NEARY: If I was Premier of this Province, leading a party, Mr. Speaker, and my vote went down, I got less votes in my own district, if I was Premier, than I got in the last election 1 I would be ashamed for the han. gentleman to get up and talk about that. Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said; I wi~l ·accept the challenge, if the han. gentleman will go down this afternoon, turn in his badge, and let us go down to Green Bay MR. SPEAKER: Order, :< ,p·lease ~ 3723

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1730 NM -3 MR. NEARY: -and have it out. .But he has not got the courage to do it. I challenge him to do it. He has not got the courage to do it. MR. SPEAKER (Ayh1ard): Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. gentleman a final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, could the hon. gentleman tell the House if government had been considering giving that cabin to the Native people be£ore my hon. colleague brought it up in the House this afternoon? M..~. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

For the last year or so, or more than that, it has been discussed in Cabinet on a number of occasions that 1ile should \vOrk out a scheme with the Native groups in order to do that. I do not know, in talking about running against me down in Green Bay, whether the Leader of the Opposition {Mr. Neary) would get the Liberal nomination in Green Bay to start with to run against me. But is the Leader of the Opposition talking about a by-election now or a full­ scale general election? 3724

May 4, 1983 Ta pe No. 1731 MJ - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: Does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) want to challenge me in Green Bay tomorrow in the by-eiection? Is that it, if I can ask a question? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : Opposition. MR. NEARY: PREMIER PECKFORD: now? MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: the games he wants. SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. NEARY: boxed in now, Mr. Speaker. Order, please! The hon. the Leader of the The hon. gentlemen can play - Are you willing to do a by-e~ection Order, please! The hon. gentlemen can play all Oh, oh! The hon, gentleman got himself Mr.

Speaker, wi~l the han. gent~eman come to LaPoile in a by-election right now ·? PREMIER PECKFORD: MR. NEARY: gentleman a question. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. NEARY: Answer my question. Well~ I am asking the hon. Oh, oh! So, Mr. Speaker, the answer from the hon. gentleman is obviously 1no,he will not come. So I wou1d say to the han. gentleman, he issued the challenge in the beginning,now I am going to repeat it. If the han. genlteman has the courage of his convictions 1 and he ~sa fighter, he says he is a fighter, and he tries to portr~y the image of a fi~hter ,not a coward. Now, Mr.

Speaker, Is the han. gentleman a fighter or a coward? Let us have a general election right now and I will come do.-m to Green Bay and I will run against the hon. gentleman. The han. gentleman wonders if I can win the nomination. 3725

May 3, 1983 Tape No. 1731 MJ - 2 MR. NEARY: Well, the fortunes of the L;i.be;r;-

a) Party are so good at the present time there may be a line­ up to take the hon. gentleman on in Green Bay, MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : SOME HON. HEHBERS: MR. NEARY: I was asking? MR. WARREN: Order, please! Oh, oh! But,anyway1what was the question About the cabins. MR. NEARY: Oh, yes. I asked the hon. gentleman there if they had been thinking about giving this cabin to Native groups, Now would the hon, gentleman tell the House what contacts they had made in connection with the disposition of that cabin? Have they contacted any of the Native groups? Have they asked for there opinion?

Have they made the offer or, Mr, Speaker, is this just coffee talk around the Cabinet Room or down in the private dining room? Have they contacted any or the Native groups in connection 'With the disposal of this cabin? PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, now-the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) is trying to twist things.

We had an election a little while ago and we almost eliminated the Liberal Party,and we do not want to completely ext;i.ngui,sh. l.t off the face of Newfoundland all together,but if the Leader of the Opposition wants to come to Green Bay1 an interest in doing - as he expressed MR. NEARY: No, you invited me. PREMIER PECKFORD : -let us today go down, I wl,ll resign my seat as the member for Green Ba~ and we wl,ll run in the by-election and the Leader of the Opposit;i.on can challenge me there as a Liberal candidate. Let us test it now. I mean1the Premier~s prerogative should mean something, 3726

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1731 MJ - 3 PREI-UER PECKFORD : so let us test ·it. If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr . Neary) really is serious and tries to put it on me to be a fighter ,! challenge the Leader of the Opposition now - MR . NEARY: We want a general election. PREMIER PECKFORD: - to come tomorrow in a by-election in Green Bay and let us fight it out 1 if the Leader of the Opposition really wants to play games, SOME HON. MEMBERS : Bear , hear ! MR . NEARY : No,let us go to LaPoile. If we are going to have by -election ,let us go to LaPoile. 3727

May 4, 1983 Tape 1732 PK - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: Let us go to the district that has been Liberal more than any other district in Newfoundland,Green Bay district. MR . NEARY: PREMIER PECKFORD: We want a general election. Let us go to the district that has been Liberal more than any other district in the Province of Newfoundland, the district of Green Bay. So, therefore,the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Neary) should not be scared to resign his seat in LaPoile and come to Green Bay as the Liberal candidate, I say, he might not get the Liberal nomination, but I am sure that will be arranged. MR.

NEARY: PREMIER PECKFORD: There would be quite a line-up! Most things are always arranged by the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure this one can be arranged too. Mr. Jamieson was arranged to come back here as leader in 1979. And they have arranged that the member for LaPoile to stay on for a while until they get ~leader who perhaps can get more seats than the Leader of the Opposition can get. That has been arranged. The member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr.

Roberts) will come out of the woodwork now one of these days and run for the leadership and poor old 'Steve' will have to go into retirement after trying to fight the battle forty-four to eight in the House . They are all ready to desert him over there, just about everyone of them. So let him now, if he really wants to remain Leader of the ~iberal Party,let him beat the Premier in the Premier's district and then the member for the Strait of Belle Isle will not be able to beat him in the Liberal Leadership Convention, Mr. Speaker. He will have it sewed up then. 3728

May 4, 1983 Tape 1732 PK - 2 MR. WARREN: Answer the question nm• ! PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr . Speaker, we will get the information for the Leader o€ the Opposition as quickly as possible . We have talked about trying to put together some kind of a proposal to put to the Native groups and we are willing to pursue that as we have talked about it over the last several months . MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : has expired . MR. NEARY: pretty heavy Question Period . Order,please ! The time for the Question Period Time r eally f lies . That was a 3729

May 4, 1983 Tape No.l733 SD - l ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : DR. COLLINS: The hon. Minister of Finance. Mr. Speaker, after extensive research, but in the spirit of our highly successful restraint programme which we continuoulsy and diligently apply, I would like to put on the table the answer to Question 22, which was asked by the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) on March 15th. 0 0 0 PREMIER PECKFORD: :r-1r. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, if I can interrupt the normal course of events of the day, with the concurrence of the members of the Opposition, I was not here when the House opened. I would just like, on behalf of the government, and I am sure I speak for all hon. members - and I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) should have an opportunity to comment on this too - in welcoming the news that His Holiness, the Pope, will visit our Province.

The news is in the paper today, but I was informed yesterday by the Archbishop that His Holiness will be visiting Newfoundland from noon September 9th to 9:00 a.m. on September lOth, 1984. I thought that since this information has been made public that it might be fitting for members of the House of Assembly to express our gratitude that His Holiness is coming to our Province. It will be the first visit of a Pope to the Province and I think this is the first place that His Holiness will visit on his trip to Canada.

I would just like to, on behalf of the government, and, as I say, I am sure I speak for all. hon. members, express our gratitude for that. MR. TULK: In 1984. PREMIER PECKFORD: I wish the hon .. member for Fogo (Mr. Tulk) would just at least keep quiet when r- 3730

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1733 SD - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: am trying to be serious about something which is extremely serious. I did mention 1984, from noon on September 9th to 9:00 a.m. on September lOth, and that we are very, very happy that His Holiness has seen fit to come to our Province. And I am sure all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians of whatever religious persuasion will welcome him with open arms. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : MR. NEARY: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, we heard the news today, the same as the hon. gentleman, that His Holiness was going to visit Newfoundland in 1984.

We are very, very thrilled about this. We are excited about it. We are completely overwhelmed, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that a world leader of the stature of His Holiness could find the time in his busy itinerary, in his busy schedule, to visit Newfoundland. We are quite excited about it. We welcome the news, Mr. Speaker, from the bottoms of our hearts because, as the han. the Premier indicated, no doubt if His ~oliness follows the tradition and the practice that he has followed in other countries that he has visited he will attract large numbers of people and especially if His Holiness has an outdoor Mass.

It is unfortunate, l1r. Spe_aker, but we can all understand why His Holiness can only visit the city of St. John's and the St. John's area. 3731

May 4, 1983 Tape 1734 EC -1 !>1R. NEARY: We are all disappointed that His Holiness could not come to other parts of Newfoundland but we can understand why. But no doubt if he has an outdoor Mass people will flock to St. John's from all over Newfoundland and Labrador. They will come by car, they will come by boat, they will come by air to see and hear His Holiness. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it would be in order or not, I am going to make the suggestion anyway in all sincerity, not wishing to embarrass anybody.

I do not know if it can be worked into the agenda or not, but I believe the offer should be made that we convene a special session of the provincial Legislature -if it is possible, and it may not be possible -and invite His Holiness to come to the people's House and address the provincial Legislature. It is merely a suggestion of mine. Perhaps,·Mr. Speaker, Your Honour or somebody could pass the message on to the people who are arranging the programme, the agenda for His Holiness. I certainly would like to see it happen. We should make the offer.

If it is rejected well, then, nothing ventured, nothing gained, but I believe we should make the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, to invite His Holiness to come in on the floor of the people's House in special session and have a few words if that is possible, Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : Today being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, we have Motion 11, moved by the han. the member for Carbonear (Mr. Peach). The han. the member for Carbonear. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! 3732

Jl1. May 4, 1983 Tape 1734 MR . PEACH : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise toc;iay to propose resolution number 11 on the Order Paper: ;EC "" 2

WHEREAS Newfoundland has a moral and historic claim to the resources on our Continental Shelf; and

WHEREAS it is a.n undeniable f?lct that Newfoundland brought those resources into Canada upon its entry into Confederation; and

WHEREAS we entered into negotiations on the verbal under­ standing that the Federal Government was willing to consider an offshore agree ·ment for Newfoundland which would be better than the Nova Scotia Agreement; and

WHEREAS the Federal Government has adopted the unacceptable position that Newfoundland must accept an agreement that is no better than, and in some respects worse than, the Nova Scotia Agreement; and

WHEREAS the clear and public position of Newfoundland 3733

Ma y 4, 1983 Tape No. 1735 JV - 1 MR. PEACH: is that this Province must share in a meaningful way the management responsibility and the revenues associated with offshore resources;and

WHEREAS social and economic justice, and the chance for Newfoundland to become an equal Province in Confederation, dictates that the position of the Federal Government is morally wrong and unacceptable to the vast majority of the people of this Province;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House demands that the Government of Canada enter into an agreement with this Province such that our moral and historic claims with respect to the sharing of offshore management and revenues are recognized. Mr. Speaker, to take the beginning of that resolution referring to our moral and historic claim to the resources on our continental shelf, I think it is fair to say that it is difficult to question the fact that this historic arid moral resource that this Province claims rightfully belongs to us was taken into Confederation in 1949 when we joined Canada. I say, Mr.

Speaker, really what is wrong with such a moral and historic claim .? The fact is there that we did take this resource with us in 1949, Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians own the resource that was part of this Province and went with us into Confederation? Is this resource, Mr. Speaker , not a part of the heritage of our Province? It is part of the resource that we have on our continental shelf and nobody denies the fact that that is a part of this Province. And is the claim that this Province makes M~ that it has a historic and a moral right to that resource 3 7 31.

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1735 JV - 2 ~. PEACH: any different than what other provinces claim is rightfully theirs of their land resource? Mr. Speaker, I as one member of this government, cannot see any difference in our claim to the resources that lie o£f our shores and other provinces' claims that 'the resources which are on the land belong : to them I s~ppose, Mr. Speaker, we could even go back to the actual discovery of this Province by 3735

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1736 JV - 1 MR. PEACH: John Cabot if we wanted to and say, Mr. Speaker, that our resource on the Grand Banks, which is part of the continental shelf, is actually what our very discovery itself was, I suppose, based on, and work over the years in our Province has been part of our offshore resource. Our moral claim and,I suppose 1more importantly our historic claim to that resource which lies off our Shores, and I make reference to the fact that prior to 1930 the same narrow, leagalistic issue of ownership of resources below the land of Western Canada was settled and that, Mr.

Speaker, needed no court case to settle ' it, no court case to resolve it, the then existing law =learly indicated that the Federal Government owned these resources, yet, at that time, Mr. Speaker, common sense , as should be the case now,dictated that the people above the land- - for example, the people of Alberta and the people of Saskatchewan, and of Manitoba --should own the resources below their land. That seemed to be a very basic and common-sense approach at that time.

So it was at that time that the law was changed and that the Federal Government of the day recognized that it would be just and quite an appropriate way to cede over to the Westerners the resource that was below their land. That is why today and for the last several years,we can see the wealth and the benefits that the Province of Alberta receives from its vast oil reserves that they have. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, should Newfoundland and Labrador settle for anything less -than those provinces had to settle for?

The resource which was below their land is no different than the resource which we feel rightfully belongs to us today,which is just off our Shores on our Continental 3736

--'-· May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1736 JV - 2 MR. PEACH: shelf. Why should not the resources that are off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland be owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Mr. Speaker, we brought those resources· into Confederation with us and all of the legal decisions that anyone can come up with in the world, I guess, will not make the Grand Banks of Newfoundland the Grand Banks of Ottawa. Common sense really, Mr. Speaker, should demand that we own these 3737

May 4,1983 Tape No. 1737 ah-1 MR. PEACH: resources • Fairness and equity in relation to the ~ historical Canadian precedent dictates that it should be recognized by our federal government, that we do rightfully, legally and morally own the resources that lie off our shores. Any sense of, I am sure, fair play would not deny a Province such as ours the right to these resources and we, r-1r. Speaker, are simply saying that we should be looked upon as the other provinces of Canada have been and we should be able to enjoy the resources, the very rich oil resources that lie off our shores. Mr.

Speaker, I would say that there should be in our minds no .. mistaking this, and in order to reach our goal -and our claim of ownership of our offshore we as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, whether we sit on this side of the House or whether we sit in Opposition 1 we should show -and it is the only way, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to attain our goals by-showing a strong determination. And when we are prepared to insist as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians upon this basic human right, I am sure we all realize that we will have no hope of ever receiving the resources that rightfully belong to us.

On the offshore, I suppose, if we follow along the line of thought of hon. members opposite an3 the thought of our federal government we could, I am sure, see a recurrence of -- - . -- - . the nightmare we had with the Upper Churchill. And I am sure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians,as was echoed loud and clear on April 6th of last year, have no intention of going that route and we want to reap the full benefits that are rightfully , morally and historically ours. In relation 3738

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1738 MJ - 1 MR. PEACH: to our claim as such, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a few remarks that were made 6n October 6 of last year by our Pre~ier 1 \V'hen in a reasonably detailed statement on the offshore resources, he said, 'We believe the offshore resources belong to Newfoundland for historic, moral, legal and tradit~onal constitutional reasons. When Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949 it did so as a separate dominion within the Commonwealth, and it brought into Canada all its resources human and natural, renewable and nonrenewable, on land and under water,' and I am ·sure, ~tr.

Speaker, nobody argues that point. I am sure when han. members opposite see fit to get up and make some comments on this resolution that they will have to agree that at the time Newfoundland joined Canada, in 1949, it did bring these resources in with it. AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! MR. PEACH: Therefore, before 1949 neither the federal government nor anyone else,except Newfoundland, had any claim to any of the resources on land or under water,and if we had not joined Confederation the offshore resources would definetely be ours today.

In other words 1 if Newfoundland had not joined Confederation in 1949 these resources would be clearl y ours. The y would be just as clearly ours as the Avalon Peninsula is part of Newfoundland today, they would be just as clearly ours as the Great Northern Peninsula is part of Newfoundland today, they would be just as clearly ours as is the part of our Province called Labrador, which belongs to New -foundland today. MR. S I11HS : And Cabonear • MR. PEACH: I could refer to Carbonear as another part of our Prov~nce which would fit into the same category, This, Mr. Speaker, is an undeniable 3739

t-tay 4, 1983 Tape No. 1738 MJ - 2 MR. PEACH: fact of history and no matter what one puts forth as argument , it cannot be changed . So, Mr. Speaker, in reference to that same statement, when we joined Confederation in 1949 we passed over certain things to our federal government. I think, Mr . Speaker, this is a point, or several points really, that we should look at very seriously . We passed these over to our federal government at the time and I am sure 37 40

Ma.y 4, 1983 Tape No, 1739 N:M - 1 MR, PEACH: we looked at it in the light that it would benefit us a.s well as benefitting the rest of our great country. We passed over National Defence. We passed over money and banking. We passed over inter­ national trade. However, Mr. Speaker, what we did not pass over we kept. We did not pass over a.t that time education or health, we kept them, we did not pass over the forests of our Province, we kept them, we did not pass over our minera.l resources on land or under water, we kept them. So there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that we kept our offshore resources.

Therefore, I would ask the question, Mr. Speaker, why then do we have such a dispute? If we brought our offshore into Canada and we did not pass it over to the federal government at the time, then why does this fact alone not settle such a dispute? Also, Mr. Speaker, to make further reference to tha.t same statement, it seems a. ra.ther strange situation that we find ourselves in. On the one hand you have OntaJ;"io, Quebec, Manitoba., Sa.skatchewan and Alberta given ownership and total control of their vast natura.l resources to which they have no ownership claim a.t all, Mr.

Speaker, and on the other hand, Newfoundland has had to go to court to prove that they ha.ve the same ~ights to resources tha.t other provinces of Canada. can just simply claim as theirs. How come, Mr. Speaker, the five provinces that ! just ment.i.o~ed can have their resources even 3741

May 4, 1983 Tape 1740 PK - 1 MR. PEACH: though they did not bring them into Confederation at the time, yet Newfoundland cannot have their resources which they did bring into Confederation? This, Mr. Speaker, is rather strange indeed. I think, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness I should refer to the main elements of proposals that our federal government put forth in September 1982 which clearly indicate to me, Mr. Speaker, that their claim to the ownership and the way in which they want our offshore resources managed is far from fair to this Province.

One of the proposals was that Federal Acts and Regulations would apply to offshore Newfoundland just as it does to the Arctic and to the Northwest Territories. The federal government would fully manage and administer the offshore. The federal government would make all of the final decisions. This, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all realize, is in no way fair to our Province and fair to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

To get into the next part of the motion, concerning the verbal agreement in which we were to understand that we would be better off than Nova Scotia yet in some respects we ~ind that we would be worse off, this Mr. Speaker, is, I am sure, unacceptable and should be an unacceptable agreement to not only members on this side of the House but to the hon. members opposite. We all should be fighting with one aim, to get what we can for this Province. And to say thatNova Scotia has settled their offshore differences ~nd signed an agreement, that is all very well to say, or to get up in this hon.

House and read from some of the media• Yet really what does Nova Scotia have? They do not have our resource. As far as I understand, we will burn off more gas than Nova Scotia can produce. 3742

May 4, 1983 Tape 1741 EC - 1 MR. PEACH: So, Mr. Speaker, to deal with all of the great hullabaloo about the fact that Nova Scotia signed an ·agreement with our federal government, what do they have? I understand that Nova Scotia has its agreement signed. How many oil rigs will be working off the Nova Scotia coast this Summer with their agree­ ment salted away, with their 'me too' clause in, I guess, 'If Newfoundland gets something better, we want it too.' Nova Scotia will have four oil rigs working off its coast this Summer. Newfoundland does not have an agreement.

We will have ten oil rigs working off our coast this Summer. So I say, Mr. Speaker, it is very good to say Nova Scotia has its agreement salted away. I am sure that the people of this Province would much rather that we wait andget a far better agreement than the one that Nova Scotia supposedly has ··worked out. Mr. Speaker, the other part of this resolution, the plear and public position on a meaningful sharing of management responsibilities and revenues, this is the part of it that seems to strike nearest to home because it is the part that we are all concerned with, the sharing of revenues • . Mr.

Speaker, if I may take a minute to refer to a letter dated January, 1983, which was sent to the ~tinister of Energy, the han. Jean Chretien, I will make a short reference to it, in which specifically we asked for written understanding on the following points: ''that the joint management board will be an equal one in all of its sense, with its own administrative staff employed by the board and under its full and exclusive direction and control; that there will be an objective means of determination of national energy self-sufficiency 3743 .:.

May 4, 1983 Tape 1741 EC - 2 r--rR. PE,ACB: and aecurity of supply provided ~n the agreement by a mutually agreed independent body which renders final and binding decisions; that there be a fair and equitable sharing of Crown rights;" AN HON . HEMBER: Hear, hear! MR. PEACH: "that there be a cost shared industrial and financial incentives programme to begin inunediately upon signing of the agreement." I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that nobody in this han. House can deny that these are just, reasonable, sound and, I might add, responsible things to ask for in negotiation with our federal government. MR. SPEAKER (Dr.

McNicholas): Order, please! The han. member's time has expired. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the member for Torngat Mountains. MR. PEACH: By leave? MR. WARREN: I will yield. MR. PEACH: I thank the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren). SOME HON . MEMBERS : MR. PEACH: up, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: MR. PEACH: No, no! I will take one minute to clue No, not a second! I will say, Mr. Speaker, that these proposals, we feel, are just and reasonable for our Province. I will continue next day. Thank you. 3 7 41+

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1742 NM - l MR. SPEAKER (Dr. McNicholas): The hon. the member for Torngat Mountains. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WARREN: I would like to respond to this resolution, Mr. Speaker. It is fine and dandy to see a new member of this hon. House bring in such a resolution, however, if we read this resolution in its totality it leans on political lines, Mr. Speaker. We want to see an agreement between the federal and the provincial govern­ ments so, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion, seconded by my hon. colleague from Bellevue (Mr. Callan), that we delete all the words after the first

Whereas and replace it by adding, "BE IT RESOLVED that this House demands that both the provincial and federal govern­ ments negotiate an agreement such that our moral and historic claims with respect to the sharing of effshore management and revenue are recognized." SOME HON . MEMBERS : MR. NEARY: MR. WARREN: I will continue. MR. TOBIN: MR. CALLAN: MR. SIMMS: MR. WARREN: straightforward amendment. MR. SPEl\KER: Hear, hear! A good amendment. If it is in order, Mr. Speaker, Is the amendment in order? We will ask you, you should know. You might want a recess. Mr. Speaker, it is a pretty 0rder, please! I am going to call a reces~ for a few minutes to go in and study this. RECESS 3745

May 4, 19 83 Tape No . 1742 NM - 2 MR. SPEAKER (D'r. McNicholas) : Order, please! I ;rule that the amendment is in order. The hon. the memb .er for Torngat ME>u.ntains. MR. WARREN: Now, we have a resolution on the floor of this House that I hope members on the opposite side, as well as the members on this side, will once and for all s~pport. In our alnended resolution we as~ that an agreement be reached between the federal and the provincial governments to develop our offshore oil resources. DR. COLLI NS: again just to see - MR. WARREN: MR. HODDER: MR. WARREN: Now, Mr.

Speaker - Wou ld you read yo ur resolution No, the Clerk has a copy of it. We will send one over to h~. O~ay, I will read ··the amendment. 374'6

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1743 SD - 1 MR. WARREN: The amendment is, 'BE IT RESOLVED that this House demands that both the provincial and federal governments negotiate an agreement such that our moral and historic claims with respect to the sharing of offshore management and revenues are recognized'. MR. SIMMS: That is what it says in the resolution. MR.

WARREN: No, Sir in the resolution it says, I will repeat, 'BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House demands that the Government of Canada enter into an agreement with this Province such that our moral and historic claims with respect to the sharing of offshore management and revenues are recognized'. So therefore what the han. member for Carbonear (Mr. Peach) is saying is that the Province wants to negotiate ~ut Ottawa does not. Now, Mr. Speaker, .I thought it would be good for the record - I think it is in order and will table it after - to read a response that Mr. Chretien sent to the han.

Leo Barry, MHA, Mount Scio, House of Assembly. I have a copy of this letter and I think it would be proper to read the response and see who is at fault. We have heard the Premier's version, the President of the Council's (Mr. Marshall) version, now let us see what Mr. Chretien's version is, and who is at fault. The han. Jean Chretien wrote back and he said - MR. TOBIN: Are you . reading it in French? MR. WARREN: - there were four questions MR. HODDER: We listened to your speaker in silence now why does not the peanut gallery over there keep their comments to themselves, r.tR.

TOBIN: You are over there by the door because your leader will not let you come in, as· he would not let you come into the House last week because (~naudiblel. 3747

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1743 SD -2 MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, will you ask the hon. member for Burin -Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) to be quiet. Be.caus-e he got so embarrassed yesterday in fr.ont of our federal colleague - MR. NEARY: Now you know why I did not want to give him leave. now.. My hon. friend knows MR. WARREN: There is an example, Mr. Speaker. However, Mr. Speaker, here is what the han. Mr. Chretien said, 'As you know,I spent many weeks negotiating with Mr. Marshall.

Despite the fact that I met the pri;nciple objections of Premier Peckford to the federal offer of September 2nd, 1982, the Newfoundland Government broke off negotiations. Despite the fact that for a week after the breaking off of negotiations I offered to meet Mr. Marshall any place, any time, to try to get a deal and the provincial government refus·ed to see me. 1 Now, Mr. Speaker, is that the federal government 1 s fault? 3748

May 4, 1983 Tape 174 4 PK - 1 MR. WARREN : Here are some of the (S_uggestions that the han. Jean Chretien threw out to the han. ~ember for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry). He said, 'As a member of the House of Assembly you might want to ask Mr. Marshall or Mr. Peckford, number one, Why they would not respond at the negotiating table to the detailed, written position presented by my negotiator~ Now, I do not know if the han. member for. Mount Scio has asked those two gentlemen, but we would expect to have a good answer from them. Now the second one;'Why Mr. Marshall'-I am quotin q from the paper, Mr.

Speaker, so I have to use the name as he said it - 'Why Mr. Marshall would not meet with me to try to reconcile the few points of difference between the position of hisnegotiators and the position of my negotiator?' That was a very straightforward question for the hon. member to ask, and as of yet neither one of those two questions have been answered for the people. Now,the third question; 'You might want to ask Mr.

Marshall why his chief negotiator only attended the first part of the first meeting on revenue sharing?' There is another important thing that the public does-not know. 'Why did the chief negotiator for the Province only attend .the first part of the meeting on revenue sharing?' DR. COLLINS: What is the importance of it? MR. WARREN: ~t is the inportance of it? It is of very much ~~. we have an offshore agreement not an agreement. We have an offshore agreement waiting to be signed. The federal government is waiting to sit down with this Province, however this Province - DR. COLLINS: ~t kind of (inaudible) MR.

WARREN: Because these are the questions that have not been answered, so I am hoping that this letter 3749

May 4, 1983 Tape 1744 PK - 2 MR . WARREN : will g~ve hon . members an opportunity to answer those four specific ques ti <:m s. And the final question - DR . ~ = Who is the chief negotiator? MR . WARREN: Who is the chief negotiator? I do not know . You should answer that one. And finally , ' You may want to ask Mr . Peckford why he would not give a full man date to Mr . Marshall, and why he sat pulling the strings in a hotel room in Montreal,a few blocks from where the negotiations were taking place?' Now, Mr . Speaker, this is ~ whole trouble , the only reason we do not have an offshore agreement today , ~x .

Speaker, because the Premier - and not very ofte n I say this, Mr. Speaker, but I 3750

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1745 MJ - l ~1R. WARREN: believe the hon. the member for St. John's East (~x. Marshall), the President of the Council, here was his one chance in Newfoundland's history where Newfoundlanders would have forgiven his anti-Confederate tactics, all Newfoundlanders would have forgiven all he said in the past. Because he said nasty things about the past administration, he said nasty things about the former, former administration, so here was a chance for the han. President of the Council to be forgiven by all Newfoundlanders, because here he was up there and almost had a deal signed.

In fact, I remember on national television, seeing both gentlemen, the han. the President of the Council and the han. Jean Chretien, both of them walking out through the hallways with the cameras flashing at them and, I suppose, the biggest smile I have ever seen on the gentleman's face since I have knm-1n him, and the reason for the smile on his face was because both he and Mr. Chretien were excited because the deal was almost ready to sign. Now, what happened? This is what happened, the Premier - MR. WOODROW: You were not there. MR. 1vARREN: How do you know what happened?

The han. member from Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow) knows what happened. He knows because the Premier was just across the street pulling strings and he was saying, 'Now, Mr. Marshall, be careful. Do not sign. Do not sign.' And as far as I am concerned, the President of the Council has done what practically 80 per cent of Newfoundlanders were expecting all along. The Premier of this Province is a dictator, 'What I say goes', and that is what happened. That is the whole answer.

The Premier was not satisfied and therefore, 'Do not sign anything.' So the Premier said, 'Okay, look, I am the dictator, I will tell you when to sign that agreement.' And that is why the agreement has not been signed today, and 3751

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1745 MJ - 2 MR. WARREN: that is why, Mr. Speaker, we have three oil rigs now not close to the wellheads, miles and miles off from the wellheads, because both governments have the oil companies out there and they do not know what is best to do . They will not come into the Newfoundland Ports because Ottawa is sayi ng, 'Do not you dare,' they will not go to any other port 3752

May 4,1983 Tape No. 1746 ah-1 MR.WARREN: because the Newfoundland government is saying, 'Do not you dare'.so what did the oil companies do? The oil companies pulled up the middle and went outside the jurisdiction of Canadian waters altogether. I believe that is where they are. So here we have three oil rigs out there ready to go back drilling but cannot because there are no regulations in place. That is the simple reason.

The reason they cannot go back is because neither the federal government nor the Province have any regulations and if they go back and an accident takes place they may be in hot water over it or something.So this is one of the reasons .·why the oil companies are not drilling today. And why we have no agreement is because this government sees fit to say, let us wait it out, and let the young people go to Alberta. You know,this government was talking about saving money, Mr.Speaker. In fact,just look at what was revealed today about the Voisey Bay fish camp. There is what money was .saved.

About $500,000 wasted when this is where we should be saving our money. Here is where we should be making mane~ on the offshore, here is where money should be flowing in by now and this government is wasting it. This government said they never had any money to airlift caribou meat and skidoos out of the country in Nain while at the same time they spend about $500,000 on a fish camp,that has not been used by anyone other than cabinet ministers and VIPs. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what is happening. So with this in mind, Mr.Speaker, I will vote for the amendment.

The amendment is a good amendment and I am sure that my han. colleague from Carbonear who is an up-and-coming,good politican 1and I think he does see 3753

May 4,1983 Tape No . 1746 ah-2 MR .WARREN : the light, is going to come back and vote for the amendment because this amendment is in order. And we on this side do want both the federal and the provincial governments to get together . In fact,I highly recommend that the President of the Council once again be the chief negotiator,or be the negotiator for this Province . But at the same time,I would like to caution him, do not pay too much attention to the Premier ,he will lead you astray. I am sure he will be led astray . If the Premier continues to take the me - too attitude, look, what I say goes, then we will never have an offshore agreement . The only way we can have an offshore 375 4

.... May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1747 JV - 1 MR. WARREN: . ~ agreement is by locking the President of the Council (:t>tr. Marshall) and the Minister of Energy, Mr. Chretien, in a hotel room~ make sure they have lots of food and lots to drink and throw away the key until they come to an agreement. MR. HODDER: Perhaps we should not 'give them a telephone and no food or drinks until they come to a settlement. MR. WARREN: No, no telephones. Maybe they should do what the Micmac Indians did, go on a hunger strike. They convinced this government and they had to give in. HR. HODDER: I say give them no food .or drink. MR.

WARREN: So maybe give them no food or drink and let them go on a hunger strike. Le -t both the President of the Council and Mr. Chretien go into a room and stay in that room, be locked in, no telephones, no connection with the outside world at all, no television to look at, nothing at all, and let them stay in there until an agreement is reached. And I will bet you, Mr. Speaker, that the han. the President of the Council will emerge from that room with an agreement. !.ffi. ~1ARSHALL : Would you keep Mark Lalonde in another room? MR. WARREN: Yes~ All we need to do is keep Mr. Chretien and the han.

President of the Council in one room, no one else connected at all, everyone else stay away and I will bet you any money that the President of the Council would emerge from that room with a piece of paper in his hand and saying, 'Newfoundlanders,I have an agreement'. . -He will get that agreement. 3755

May 4, 1983 Tape No . 1747 JV - 2 MR. WARREN: Not only my instructions , but the instructions of 95 per cent of Newfoundlanders are go and get that deal but please do not listen to the Premier . That is another message that is coming loud and clear from the people, please, do not follow what the Premier is sayin g. The Premier has destroyed Newfoundland so far and he is still destroyincJ Newfoundland so please, do not follow any longer . MR . NEARY : And Cabot . the Premier MR . WARREN : Yes, Mr . Ma .rtin again . It was the Pre.TTtier with his binoculars , and . Mr .

Martin, I think , was ho lding up the binoculars for the Premier, that was what was happening, and this was when the shots were called . Mr . Speaker, again I go back to the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry). I am sure 375 6

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1748 NM- 1 MR. WARREN: the member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry) could have already had a deal settled but the Premier would not allow him and at least the member for Mount Scio had the intestinal forti tude to say, "Okay, Hr. Premier, if I am no good in your Cabinet I am getting out." At least he had the intestinal fortitude to do that. But the President of the council (Mr. Marshall) , the same person who nominated the Premier for leadership, the same person, said, "I will stand by you, Hr. Premier, whatever you say I will do.

If the ship is going to sink I will go down with her, too." That is the attitude of the Premier. The Premier is the captain of the ship, and Mr. Speaker, the ship is sinking. And the Presid~ ·nt of the Council is willing to go down with her. MR. NEARY: But not the member for Mount Scio. MR. WARREN: The member for Mount Scio, he sent out an SOS, but,meanwhile,the Premier would not ~7lieve it. MR. NEARY: Now he looks for a federal seat. MR. WARREN: And the Premier today was challenged to call an election. And what did the Premier do? What did the Premier do, the fighting Newfoundlander?

The fighting Newfoundlander, what did he do? "No,·~ he said, "I. will call a by-election today in my district." That is what he said, "I will call a by-election." By why did he not call a federal election? Why not put the forty-four seats or the fifty-two seats - MR '. TOBIN: How could he call a federal election? MR. WARREN: - I would say the member for Burin­ Placentia West (Mr. Tobin) would not see daylight if - ·in fact, he would not save his nomination fee . with the ignorance he has shown in this House,since he became a part of this House, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr.

Speaker, in closing I want to support the amendment to this resolution. The amendment is in order and I believe that if this House 1 next Wednesday, in a unanimous vote said that we want both the 3757

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1748 NM - 2 MR. WARREN: provincial and the federal governments to join hands, to join forces, and to get back to the bargaining tables and not move until a settlement is reached, then, we would say, 100 per cent of the Newfoundlanders would see a happy day. There would not be any more days of mourning. We would not need any more qays of mourning. MR. SIMMS: general strike. MR. WARREN: No, we would have to call a Yes, I would say a general strike or a general election, either one of them, a general strike or a general election. MR. SIMMS: MR. WARREN: And you talk about irresponsibility.

Irresponsible government, yes. This government is really irresponsible, when they could see 129 caribou left in the country inside of Nain 1 and leave the native people to starve, and at the same time spend about $.10,000 on a fish camp only for government people. That is what you would call a responsible government. That is what you call a responsible government. MR. HODDER: $500,000. MR. WARREN: No, only two years this is, overall about $1,000,000, $500,000 to $1,000,000 spent on a fish camp that has not been used except by 3758

May 4, 1983 Tape 1749 EC - 1 MR. WARREN: government members and VIPs and here we have, at the same time, a responsible government, Mr. Speaker, a government that is really responsible, leaves the meat in the country. I think, Mr. Speaker, a bouquet should go to the German air force and a bouquet should go to Sealand Helicopters and a bouquet should go to Universal and to Petro-Canada. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WARREN: Those four companies joined together, Mr.

Speaker, and saved the day for the native people in Labrador while this government turned their backs on them, This government have turned their backs on every Newfoundlander in every corner of this Province. And, Mr. Speaker, until they get their act together, join forces and come out in support of having the President of the Council (ltr. Marshall) and Mr. Chretien go back to the negotiating table and let them stay there until an agreement is signed, only then will all of us be happy and then we will have our day in the sun. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Dr.

McNicholas) : The han. the member for Burin - Placentia West. SOHE HON. HEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. ~peaker. I would like to make some reference to the motion that was put forward by my colleague from Carbonear (Mr. Peach). I think it was an excellent motion. I find it unfortunate, the way that the member for Torngat Mountains (l.tr. Warren) - and I would suggest it was on the recommendation of his Leader - treated him in 3759

May 4, 1983 Tape 1749 EC ~ 2 MR. TOBIN: this House this afternoo~ when he wanted togrcmt leave to my colleague from Carbonear (Mr. Peach). The member for Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren) was about to do it but his leader told him to sit down, that he was not in charge. I would suggest that this amendment, Mr. Speaker, is just put in to try to cloud the issue, to make it more political than it has ever been and to give the indication that the Newfoundland Government is as much at fault as is the federal govern­ ment who refused to sign an agreement. AN HON. MEMBER: Not true. MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I believe that first of all we have to address it and understand why there is not an agreement reached in this Province today, why negotiations broke off, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that an agreement was reached between the Minister of Energy (Mr. Marshall) and the federal minister, Mr. Chretien. PREMIER PECKFORD: Right on! MR. TOBIN: HR. HODDE .R: There is no question about that. (Inaudible) • MR. TOBIN: There certainly was an agreement reached. That might irk the member for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) who does not want an agreement, Mr.

Speaker - that is evident from his silence on the issue - as well as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary). And I guess he just got his message from the Leader of the Opposition. 3760

May 4, 1983 Tape 1750 PK - 1 MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, we can look at the development of offshore oil and gas, and we must realize that it has to be done in a very modest, and a very controlled manner, not the way the federal government is proposing to do it , because we have to address the social aspect of this as well. Mr. Speaker, we all know that with · development there are social problems. Yesterday , Mr. Speaker, in this han. House the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Neary) - the Leader of the Opposition should hang his head in shame, should apologize to the people of Newfoundland, when we talk about the social inpacts of offshore oil and gas - the Leader of the Opposition stood in this House yesterday and said, 'We are not going down to the Harbour Light and bring back the derelicts'. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should be made apologize to the peop~e of this Province for these statements. I can assure hiT- that the people who are at the Harbour Light arld the people who have been there are there for treatment, not to be insulted, Mr.

Speaker, by such a person as the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that he should hang his head in shame and apologize . ·- .. to the families who have people belonging to them down at the Harbour Light. Mr. Speaker, Webster describes 'derelict' as a destitute person "without a home or a regular job and rejected by society. Now,there are a lot of people in this- Province, Mr. Speaker, and I can say this fran my days as a social worker, I can probably , Mr. Speaker, understand moreso than anybody else in this han. House why the Leader of the Opposition - M~. NEA.RY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (McNicholas}: A point of order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. 3761

May 4, 1983 Tape 1750 PK - 2 MR. NEARY : Mr. Speaker, in case the ho n. ge ntleman does not understand or is unwi~ling or unable to understand perhaps , Mr. Speaker, the Chair might have to re mind the hon . gentle .man that it is an amendment to a Private Membex 's resolution on offshore resources that we are discussing. I know the bon . gentleman in his simplicity and in his ignorancemay not understand that, Mr. Speaker , because obviously, from the trade record of the hon . gentleman 1 he does not understand the rules of this hon . Mouse .

He continuously thinks he is downtown somewhere in a dart league or some similar organization . But , Mr . Speaker, the r~es of this House have to be observed . This is Private Members' Day, we are debating a Private Member 's resol ut ion on the offshore . I think Your Honour was following very closely what t£e poor old helpless me mber for Burin -Placentia West (Mr . Tobi

n) was trying to say, struggling along . Mr. Speaker, they have their hea~ights up today . Just imagine, the member for Burin -Placentia West debating a resolution on offshore. 3762

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1751 MJ - 1 MR. NEARY: Just imagine. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker! Row bankrupt of members are they over there? Can they not get up somebody with a bit of intelligence to debate this resolution so we can have a good debate? So, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the hon. gentleman is irrelevant and completely out of order and that he should be brought back on track, Your Honour. MR. SIMMS: order. MR. SPEAKER(licNicholas) : Recreation and Youth. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of The hon. the Minister of Culture, The hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Neary) being a veteran in this House, of course, _ and having perhaps been ruled out of order more t~ than anybody else in its history, should certainly be ,aware that irrelevancy is a very difficult thing for Your Honour to define. Certainly I am sure the cornrn~nts of my friend from Burin - Placentia West ·(Mr. Tobin) were as relevant as those made by the member for Torngat Mountains, you will recall,Your Honour, who talked about moose and Cqribou and a camp up in Labrador and the like.

I think the comments that my colleague from Burin - Placentia West was making certainly were relevant in that he was talking about some of the social implications,as they relate to offshore oil and offshore development. So, I suggest to Your Honour that this is not a point of order that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the best it could be called, Your Honour, is a difference of opinion between two hon. gentleman. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! To that point of order the point of relevancy is well taken, there is no point of order. The han. the member for Burin - Placentia West. 3763

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1751 MJ - 2 MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr . Speaker, I was certainly doing as my colleague just indicated, referring to the social impact that can happen as a result of the offshore oil and gas and no doubt, Mr. Speaker, in some aspects will occur. Obviously, I hit a nerve with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) and the only way that he could get from the House is squirm from the House, Mr. Speaker.

After insulting the people of this Province, the families who have relatives of the Harbour Light - after insulting these people he should apologize -after insulting these people he crawled from the House. He should be ashamed of himself. I spent, Mr. Speaker, ten or eleven years in the social services field in this Province,working as a social worker,and I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) that people who get treatment at the Harbour Light are not destitute persons without a -regular job and rejected by society,as Webster described it. AN HON.

MEMBER: Who said that? MR. TOBIN: He declared yesterday, ~nd H~ns~rd clearly indicates, 'We are not going down to the Har ·bour Light and bring in the derelicts.' How did Webster describe derelict? 'A destitute person without a h .ome or a regular job and rejected by society.' MR. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : The hon. the member for Port ~u Port on a point of order. MR. HODDER: Mr.

Speaker, I do not see where there is any relevancy in what the member is saying. · We a;re speaking on a resolution on the offshore and th .e member is lowering the decorum of the House and he is not being relevant, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. 3764

May 4, 1983 Tape No . 1751 MJ - 3 MR . SPEAKER (Avl ward) : To that point of order, the hon, the President of the Council . MR . MARSHALL : It is quite obvious, Mr, Speaker, that the hon. gentleman is speaking of the social impact of the offshore on the Province of Newfoundland, I thought the hon . gentleman. was getting into a very refreshing and positive tack in his argument and I suggest the hon . ge ntl eman hear him out and at the end of the time I think he woul d be constrained to agree with us . MR . DINN: You might learn a few pointers . MR . SPEAKER : Order, please! 3765

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1752 SD - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : To that point of order, I rule that rule of relevancy is very hard to define. MR. SIMMS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER: And I would bring the hon. member's attention to the resolution and ask him to relate his speech to the offshore and to the impact of it. Placentia West. MR. TOBIN: The hon. member for Burin Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will continue to deal with the resolution and in so doing, Mr. Speaker, refer to the social impact that the offshore oil and gas is going to have on this Province.

Obviously the hon. gentlemen opposite do not understand that with development of such such magnitude there is, Mr. _Speaker, obviously going to be a social impact that is going to have some bearing on the Province as we know it today. I happened to serve, Mr. Speaker, for a few years on the Social Service Committee of the offshore oil and gas, before I entered politics,and I have some insight into what is going on as it relates to that. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that hit a nerve with him but I certainly hope that the Leader of the Opposition will apologize to the people who have had people in this situation and not insult them anymore. And I find it intolerable that the member for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder} personally, who I refer to as a ~an of dignity, would permit himself to become an ally of the Leader of the Opposition in insulting people such as that. Now, Mr. Speaker, we can go into the offshore, we can look at it in a lot of regards. The President of the Council (Mr.

Marshalll, the man responsible for negotiating - let us get it straight the man responsible for negotiating a settlement, an 3766

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1752 so - 2 MR. TOBIN: agreement, which was reached in this Province - why was the agreement not signed, Mr. Speaker? We all have, I guess, our own feelings on why it was not signed. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that the lack of action or inaction on behalf of the han. gentlemen opposite by becoming allies of Mr. Chretien in these negotiations certainly contributed in some way, Mr. Speaker, to the lack of an agreement. So when the agreement was reached the civil servants were brought in to sign up the agreement, and what had been agreed verbally between Mr. Chretien and Mr.

Marshall was not about to be written. Mr. Chretien would not permit it to be written. So, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Marshall came back and he writes him a letter a~king for his understanding, not his hard,fast position or anything else, 'what is your understanding on the seventeen points that we have reached?' What is your understanding? Where is the response? We have not received it yet, it has not come to this government. But no, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have not put pressure on Mr.

Chretien or the federal government and asked them to respond to the letter, or asked them to show some.common decency and courtesy to the people of Newfoundland. No,indeed they have not. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that agreement was reached I would say that this government, 3767

May 4,1983 Tape No. 1753 ah-1 MR. TOBIN: and make no mistake about it,this government want a negotiated settlement. However, before this can be realized surely it is not unreasonable to ask Mr. Chretien to put in writing his understanding of the basic questions and issues involved. Is that unreasonable, Mr.Speaker? MR. SIMMS: What is wrong with that? MR.TOBIN: No, indeed it is not. And if he does comply with that, Mr. Speaker, I would say that there would be an agreement acceptable to all Newfoundlanders and all Canadians.

We have known what has taken place, we haveknownwhat took place this past Winter in the offshore oil and gas • We know quite well the conditions that existed on the Grand Banks in the area of Hibernia, the ice conditions. Th~s government, Mr. Speaker, issued a stop drilling orde~ to the oil rigs, the oil companies. The oil companies -·concurred with that decision but then carne Uncle Ottawa and said, do not listen to the people of Newfoundland. If there is going to be a tragedy let us have a tragedy. That is basically what they said in their response.

Why were the rigs not taken to Mortier Bay when this government issued instructions that they be taken there, when Mobil Oil concurred that they be taken there? Why were they not taken there, Mr. Speaker, and many people on the South Coast of this Province rehired in the shipyard to do the typ~ of work that they are well noted in the international field of shipbuilding for doing? What happened instead? The Liberal party in this Province led by the leader,carne in this House all smiles, rejoicing in the fact , Mr.

Speaker, that Newfoundlanders were unemployed, that Uncle Ottawa was not prepared to let them take their places where 3768

~1ay 4,1983 Tape No . 1753 ah -2 MR . TOBIN: they should be . Now, Mr . Speaker, I heard the hon . member for Terra Nova (Mr . Lush) a few weeks ago say in thi s bon . House \.,rbat a great Canadian Mr . Chretien was. Yes ,indeed he is a great Canadian . We said and I said earlier,that an agreement was reached - MR. SIMMS : He speaks out of both sides his mouth , too . MR.TOBIN : There is no doubt about that. Well he would not be a Liberal if he did not . - that an agreement was reached , Mr . Speaker , between the government of Newfoundland and Ottawa and was not signed . 3769

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1754 NM - 1 MR. TOBIN: He would not peJ:1!1.it the oil rigs to come into Placentia Bay and get hundreds of people back on the employment roll again. That is what the Liberal Opposition refers to as a great Canadian. The Federal Energy Minister (Mr. Chretien), Mr. Speaker, will not, the federal government will not, permit Newfoundlanders to be treated asequals in this country we call Canada. He will not permit us to be equal with the Canadians of Alberta, the Canadians of Saskatchewan, the Canadians of British Columbia, the Canadians of Manitoba. No, Mr.

Speaker, the philosophy of the Federal Government of Canada is to r keep Newfoundlanders down. That is the philosophy, Mr. Speaker. Now,let us not kid ourselves. The facts are clear that if today there existed in Ottawa a Federal Conservative Government, if, Hr. Speaker, there existed in Ottawa today a Federal NDP Government, we would have our say in the offshore. We, Mr. Speaker, would have our say in the offshore. The facts are clear, it is the Liberal Party of Canada, no other party, Mr. 'Speaker, not the Conservative Party, not the NDP Party, it is . the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr.

Speaker, aided and abetted by the fickle five in Ottawa representing Newfoundland, aided and abetted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) who has not got the courtesy to sit in this House, Mr. Speaker, and listen to what I have to say, because he knows full well that he is, that that man is, Mr. Speaker, as are all the members opposite, partly responsible that there is not an agreement in this Province today. It is not the Newfoundland Government, it is the encouragement, Mr. Speaker, that Ottawa has been receiving from the Liberal Party of Newfoundland.

It is that type of encouragement that has kept these people going. That is why _ there is not an offshore agreement, Mr. Speaker, because the 3770

May 4, 1983 MR. TOBIN: SOME liO$}. MEMBERS: Tape No . 1754 Liberal !'arty of canada - Oh., oh! NM - 2 MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, let us face the facts .. The facts are clear and the . g.entlemen oppos.i.te realize that, that the conservative Government, the Conservative Party of Canada, and its leader, and all of the leadership candidates as I understand it, are willing to give New£oundland it$ day in the sun, are willing to let Newfoundland participate, to control their offshore resources, Mr. Speaker. They are willing to do that. But no, Mr.

Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada;is not willing to do it, MR.' CALLAN: rs your time up yet? MR . TOBTN: No, Mr . Speaker. My time is not up. I have five minutes to go. I am sure that the han. gentlemen opposite wish my time was up. Mr. Speaker, I can stand here in this Rouse, as can forty-four members on this side, and say to the people of Newfoundland 3771

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1755 JV - 1 , MR. TOBIN: that the Conservative Party of Canada is willing to give to Newfoundland its say in the offshore oil and gas. Can the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, stand in this House today and say that the Liberal Party of Canada is willing to give to Newfoundlanders the same type of treatment that they have given to Alberta, that they have given to British Columbia? MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) A point of order. The hon. member for Port au Port. MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, there are not 14 members in the House. MR.

TOBIN: I have embarrassed you again. MR. SPEAKER(Aylward) : Call in the members. QUORUM CALL MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is a quorum present. The han. the member for Burin Placentia West. MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is quite obvious, it is quite obvious that today I am hitting the nerves~ That is four times, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that they have called a point of order to try and stifle me. They shall not succeed. Mr. Speaker, I have stated that I can stand in this han.

House,as can any of my colleagues on this side, and state quite categorically that the Fed-eral Progressive Conservative Party will give to Newfoundlanders its control of the offshore oil and gas. Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman opposite,whoever takes the floor next,to stand 3772

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1755 JV - 2 MR. TOBIN: in this House and say the same thing for the Liberal Party. Can the Liberal Party of C~nada, will the Liberal Party of Canada, maybe I should say, will they give us the same rights, the same type of treatment that the Progressive Conservative Party, that the NDP Party of Canada is prepared to give us? No, Mr. Speaker, they will not and they cannot,because they know full well in Ottawa that if they want to shaft Newfoundlanders, Mr.

Speaker, no matter what they want to do with Newfoundlanders they have the full consent and the full support of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and that, Mr. Speaker - SOME .HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. TOBIN: that is indeed sad. That is indeed sad,that there are people in this Province who are prepared to stand by,Mr. Speaker,those three great destroyers in Ottawa, namely - Lalonde, Trudeau and Chretien - MR. SIMMS: A good point. MR. TOBIN: that there are people in this Province who are prepared to stand by these gentlemen and let them rot Newfoundlanders into the ground. Yes, Mr.

Speaker, they have demonstrated that, it is unfortunate, it is sad, it is disappointing, but Mr. Speaker,when will they ever learn? When will they ever learn .that we have as much right to be Canadians, with as much right as any other person in Canada? ·when will they recognize that, Mr. Speaker? When will they recognize that loyalty to their Federal Liberals, that loyalty to their Federal Party should never, Mr. Speaker, loyalty 3773

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1756 SD - 1 MR. TOBIN: to that federal Party should never exist, should never be put first and Newfoundlanders crus.hed to the ground. Now, Mr. Speaker, will the member for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) or will the member for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock) stand in this House and tell us where the Party stands? Because, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, Newfoundlanders must have a say in the offshore oil and gas development. We saw last Winter in this Province nothing but utter contempt, Mr.

Speaker, for the people of Newfoundland, for the people of the Burin Peninsula, when the federal Minister of Energy (~r. Chretien) would not permit the oil rigs to come into Mortier Bay where people could once again be employed on repairs, would not permit the oil rigs to come into Mortier Bay, Mr. Speaker, and the Opposition walked into this House gloating in the fact, Mr. Speaker, that hundreds of Newfoundlanders were unemployed, gloated in the fact that they could not get employment again, gloated in the fact that Mortier Bay was being rejected by Mr. Chretien. What did Mr. Chretien say?

What did he say, the man responsible, knew all the ice conditions, what did he say? He said, 'I am sorry, gentlemen, I do not know what the big fuss is about. The whole South Coast is completely covered with ice. ' Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the man wh.o made the decision on the lives of Newfoundlanders, th.at is the man who made the decision in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I believe that th.e member for Port au Port should rea;Lly disassociate himself from his leader. We know, I know, Mr. Speaker, full well that the Leader of the Liberal Party in this.

Province is a contemptuous man with no regard for Newfoundlanders. The statements· that he made in this han. House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, proves beyond a shadow of 3774

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1756 so - 2 MR. TOBIN: a doubt the contempt that he has for Newfoi.lndlanders. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : 0rder, please! The hon. member's time has elapsed. SOME BON. MEMBERS: By leave. SO$ HON. MEMBERS : No leave. MR. SPEAKER: Leave is not granted. MR. TOBIN: I will get back to it later, MJ;. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Looking at the resolution I am a little bit surprised that here it is ~Y and we are standing up and still de!Jating this when we had - an election on this main issue that re-elected the Peckford administration and the offshore settlement would be finished. That is over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, and you would not knowbut it was still back in 1979, we are debating the same thing. 3775

May 4, 1983 Tape 1757 PK - 1 MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, how many times s~ce 1979 has this administration changed its position, from total ownership to total control, and now to the position that the Liberal Party has always held, that there must be a negotiated settlement for the betterment of this part of Canada and for Canada as a whole. MR. BAIRD: If Garfield had not (inaudible). MR. HISC0CK: Mr. Speaker, when members on the government side are speaking I do not interrupt them. I ask for the protection of the Chair and members on the other side to extend to me the same courtesy I show them. MR.

BAIRD : Asking the Premier if he would resign, what about that? MR. SPEAKER (McNicholas}: Order, please! MR. HISCOCK: Instead of interrupting me, the member for Humber West (Mr. Baird) should keep the points he wants to make until he gets up and takes

part in the debate. Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Newfoundland has always stated that Newfoundland owns the resource and we should have maximum benefits of jobs, control and spinoffs from it. We have always said that. For whatever reason, the Premier, in a fit of stubborness and on impulse, ended up submitting the issue to the Supreme Court. The member for Mount Scio (Mr. Barry) tells us it was an irrational act and it should never have been put there, but it was put there. we could have withdrawn the case if we had wanted to, but the Premier kept it in the courts.

His thinking, of course, was the same as that of the member for the west Coast who ended up saying, 'Stand up and be counted.' It was the Premier's belief that the three justices of the Appeal Court of this Province were going to stand up and be counted as Newfoundlanders, not as intellectuals, 3776

Ma y 4, 1983 Tape No. 1757 IB - 2 MR. HISCOCK: and not as . jurists, and that they would shirk responsibility and their oaths of office. But instead of going on an emotional binge with all this nonsense of standing up and being counted and saying, •I am a Newfoundlander' and pounding their chests; those jurists followed the rule of law, Mr. Speaker, and ruled in favour of the Nation. ~ gove:tnrrent has many tinas demanded to kn.ow l<'flat everybody's position is on this issue.

I will state mine now once and for all - and you could not say this about a year ago without being called a traitor, and I will probably be called a traitor now by the government side - but I am not a Newfoundlander, I am a Canadian, and a proud Canadian at that, and I believe the Nation of canada owns the offshore. I believe that the Nation of Canada, the second largest nation in the world and one of the richest, has the greatest potential. of any nation in the world, but here we are, ten small provinces, fragmented and tearing at each other's :throats. 3777

May 4, 1983 MR. HISCOCK: in our own Province. Tape No. 1758 ah - 1 We have the same thing going on Tbe Premier is. pitting bay against bay, inlet against inlet, town against town, cove against cove. The people of Cat Arm are saying that people from other parts should not be allowed to work on the hydro project there, people in St. John's are saying people from outside, the bays, cannot came in and work on the jobs here. And this is going on all throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker, because of greed and the lack of jobs. And that is basically what is happening in this country and the world as a whole.

We are becoming so inward and looking at our navels that we are beginning to fail to realize that we are part of a greater whole. If we are going to contribute, if we are going to pull ourselves out of this economic mess and recession that we are in, we have to take a broader outlook, not the small, provincial outlook, Mr. Speaker, that we have in this Province and this country~ But as a Canadian, I believe that because the resource is in this part of Canada, this part of Canada owns it.

And not only owns it, but this part of Canada should have maximum say and control, the spinoffs and eveything else, but not just because I am a Newfoundlander, just because I am in this Province, but because I am a Canadian. I want to see Alberta develop as rich as it possibly can and downtown Hamilton, Chicoutimi in Quebec, Bathurst in New Brunswick, and Cape Breton, I want to see those areas of Canada grow ri~. I am not jealous of any area of Canada. And I say to the member for Burin-Placentia West (.Mr.

Tobin) that this government has always continued to say that we are second-class to oth .er areas of Canada. 3778

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1758 ah - 2 MR. HISCOCK: I do not know how many other people in this Province feel that they are second-class to other people in Canada, but I for one feel that I am not second­ class to anybody in this country. I am not the best, I am not any better or I am not any worse, but I also feel that we have a right to contribute to the greater good of our nation and to the world as a whole. I feel that this administration is very small and petty in its outlook.

This administration is so small and petty in its outlook, it reminds me of the fable about the fox with a piece of meat in its mouth going over a bridge, and, looking downward, the reflection in the water magnified the image of the meat and the greedy fox, wanting what it thought was a bigger meal, let the meat drop from its mouth and lost everything. This government has done the same thing. Because of its pw:e greed we could end up iosing everything. We could have had a better deal from the Conservative government when they were in powe .r for nine months. No agreement was signed. 3779

May 4, 1983 Ta pe 1759 EC - 1 MR. HISCOCK: Mr. Clark gave a letter to the Premier of the day granting ownership and control, but in nine months nothing was done. Now there is a leadership race for the national Conservative Party. ~iho, as Conservatives in this House, in this Province, are standing by the former Prime Minister? Who are on side with him? People in this House got up and said he was the only friend in Canada that Newfoundland and Labrador had. Who is supporting him now? Only the member, Mr. Jim McGrath, has the intestinal fortitude to stand by him. And I will go as far as to say this, Mr.

Speaker: It is okay for us to stand up for our native son, and I wish Mr. Crosbie well, I hope he wins, because I would like to see Mr. Crosbie as Prioe ltinister of Canada with Mr. Peckford as Premier of Newfoundland to see how they would settle the Northern cod, whether it would be Newfoundland stock or Canadian stock. I would a -~ so like to see them settle the economic problems here. If ha~ing the two of them means going on to greater things for canada and Newfoundland, I would like for them to have the opportunity. But it may not happen, yet we put all our eggs in one basket.

And I ~ believe, and I predict here that the next Leader of the Progressive Conservative Par~y will be Mr. Joe Clark again, but only Mr. Jim McGrath has sto~d by him. And I tell you, I am not so sure that, after this leadership convention is over, Newfoundland and Labrador will have a friend in Mr. Clark. With regard·to the offshore, Mr. Speaker, I have always felt, as I said, that it belongs to the nation. I have always felt that the nation has the right to build up each area of the country and if we continue 3780

.. May 4, 1983 Tape 1759 EC - 2 MR. HISCOCK: to chip away at each area of the country ana be mistrustful and greedy, then the end result, Mr. Speaker, is that we are never going to reach our potential, we will always be borrowing $31 billion, we will have two or three million people unemployed, and what can one say about it? MR. BUTT: Wouid you really like the Grand Banks to be called the Grand Banks of Ottawa? MR. HISCOCK: The member for Conception Bay South (Mr. Butt) asks if the Grand Banks of Newfoundland will be called the Grand Banks of Ottawa.

All the oil drilling that took place and is taking -place in Alberta has been done through tax credits at the expense of Canadian taxpayers - the people of Labrador, the people of Pouch Cove and all other areas of Canada, the taxpayers - who made it possible for companies to drill in the Beaufort Sea and in Alberta and off the Grand Banks and off the coast of Labrador. The Newfoundland Government has not given any tax incentives whatsoever to these large international companies to go out and drill. If anything, they have made it very, very difficult. International oil 3781

May 4, 1983 Tape No. 1760 MJ - 1 1-1R. HISCOCK: companies do not like dealing with this government here, and they particularly do not like dealing with Newfoundland businessmen. They feel Newfoundland businessmen are too greedy and their prices are marked up too much. The oil companies feel they are not getting a fair shake and that everybody here wants to become a millionaire or billionaire overnight.

I caution the business community that if this practice continues of trying to reap too .much too soon instead of looking at the long term, then a lot of these companies are going to find alternatives in other provinces. So with regard to our own Province here, I hope that we will have development in such a wa y that we will not have to worry about closing down hospitals in North West River or closing down eye care units. One member who has been in the Cabinet and in the House of Assembly for quite a long time, I believe seventeen or eighteen years, is the member for St. John's East Extern (Mr. Hickey). MR.

HICKEY: It is God's country. MR. HISCOCK: God's country, I would totally agree. I would go as far as to say that Canada is God's country. But with regard to realizing our potential God needs a little helping hand, a little bit of direction. But I would say that when the widows and the unwed mothers and the young men whose unemploument insurance has run out go to the Minister of Social Services, the answer that it is God's country is not good enough. His departm