VOL. 4 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. FRIDAY, MAY 11, 1979 NO. 30

The House met at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Tape No. 1233 MR. SPEAKER: (MR. OTTENHEIMER) : ow - 1 Order, please! I am very pleased to welcome to the House of Assemby a delegation of distinguished visitors from the People's Republic of China. The leader of the delegation is Mr. Zhai Zhenrui,who is head of the department of Science and and Technology at the National Bureau of Oceanography in Beijing. The delegation is in Canada for approximately a month and have already visited Halifax and Ottawa.

They are particularly interested in matters related to marine science and technology and during their visit to St. John's will be visiting various sights arranged by c-core, the Department of Engineering at Memorial University 1 and the Marine Sciences Laboratory. I know hon. members join me in welcoming to the House of Assembly distinguished visitors from the' People's Republic of China. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,hear! MR.

SPEAKER ~OTTENHEIMERI: Before proceeding to the routine orders and calling Statements by Ministers,! would like the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair which will enable him to give his ruling in a matter which was reserved by him for a decision yesterday. MR. SPEAKER (~R. CROSS) : Order, please! I am now in a position this morning to give a ruling on the point of privilege that was raised yesterday in the hon. House.

The point that is in question here is not whether or not the materials referred to by the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr.Neary) can be tabled 1 but whether they were able to be tabled at the time that they were. A member must first be recognized by the Chair before they can speak in debate, propose a motion or make an amendment ,and the same rule would follow in the tabling of documents. The hon. member for LaPoile had not been recognized by the Chair when he tabled 321.2

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1234 NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Cross): the documents. Therefore, his tabling of the materials was out of order and will be returned to him. MR. SPEAKER (Ottenheimer) : Order, please! STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS: MR. SPEAKER: The hen. Minister MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, this week really marks the beginning of our forest fire season across the Province and at this time I want to inform the House of the department's plans to cope with any potential forest fire situation which might present itself in our Province this coming season.

This year there will be a total of 119 men utilizing 106 pumps, 30 trucks, 5 helicopters, 7 Canso water bombers, and 1 Otter float plane. This equipment will be ready to cope with any fire situation in the Province and will be employed throughout the regions of the Province. In the Eastern region we will have 6 ranger stations with a staff of 30. In the Central region 6 ranger stations again with a staff of 38. In the Western region 6 stations with a staff of 26. And in the Labrador region 3 stations with a staff of 25.

We are expecting to have the full complement of the fire fighting staff in place some time in the next few days and there is some flexibility involved as well with this equipment. Even with our water bomber fleet we have 3 assigned to the Central region and 1 in each of the Eastern and Western regions, and 2 in Labrador, out they are flexible to move from different parts of the Province in accordance with the demands of each region if required.

While I am confident that the department can deal with any outbreaks of forest fires this coming season, I am concerned over the fact that the initial indications are that water tables are low this year, in fact very low for this time of the year, throughout the Province. So unless we have a very wet period from here on in, from now until the middle of June it looks like a potentially dangerous fire season. We have a potentially dangerous fire season approaching 321.3

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1234 NM - 2 MR. MORGAN: us. So I would urge everyone, Mr. Speaker, travelling in or near the woods to be careful with fire as fire prevention is the best weapon against forest fires. Mr. Speaker, in giving this information to the House I would also like to say that this is National Forestry Week in Canada and today 1 in recognition of that 32:14

May 11, 1979 Tape 1235 PK - l Mr. Moraan: and the work being carried out by the Newfoundland and Labrador Forest Protection Association we are making available to all members of the House, and in fact members of the press gallery as well 1 a black spruce tree seedling, and these seedlings will be available in the lobby of the Confederation Building after the closing 0f the House today and I am hoping that all will avail of them for your own benefit. Thank you. AN HON. MEMBER: MR. MORGAN: Without budworms. Without budworms. MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER): The hen. member for Windsor-Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Mr.

Speaker, for this side I want to say to the han. minister we are happy that he believes that the Province is in a position to combat any forest fires or anything else that we might run into. Of course, it does bring up the question, Mr. Speaker, or it brings up the proposition that we had better work towards a quick solution with the pilots of the Canso water bombers. The situation now, Sir, as we understand it, is that these people who fly our water bombers that the situation has not been settled.

I am not saying that they will take the same attitude as other members of the Public Service take,or other public unions take, that is, to withdraw th.eir services when they are most needed. I 'think it is important, Sir, if the minister would see to it,that there is a solution with the water bombers because that is our one hope in the event that we get outbreaks in the forest of the type we have had over the past years and therefore all the more urgency Mr.

Speaker, that that dispute be settled and that the people in Newfoundland who depend on the forestry would know that we have a firefighting force there 1 the Cansoes are ready to go1 and the decision not subject to something they might think Treasury Board is withholding and that kind of thing. Mr. Speaker, the water tables that the minister mentioned: the fear that there may be a water shortage and a dry season is well-founded. The biggest watershed in Newfoundland today, the 3215

l'lay u. 1979 Tape 1235 PK - 2 lo!r. :lighc: Red !nCJ.an Lake watershed, ac this point in tilDe 1 although che company is trying its ~esc it could not ge e that reservoir full. The runoff is complete, and Price (Nfld . ) is now drawing down, in order to maintain their operation 1 is drawing down the level of the reservoir, even though it neve.r got full to the paine thac it should have or the point that it would have ll!'.der noruliil circumscances. There is an inte.resting situation here, ~!r.

Speak er; I remember taking part: in a debate here a couple of years ago where we gave a ?revious Minister of f'orest..-y the right to declare t!le woods of this Provi.,ce off limit:s 1 to declare a nat:ional fire emergenc~·, to have the right to close down the access roads and that kind of thing. Now, lo!r. Speaker, that mi.:U.st:er never, never exercised t:hat right:, although the paper companies have gone on t:he way they have gone on == years ar.d years, and at any one time on five minutes notice the paper companies decide to say, "This road is clos ed to

May 11,1979 Tape No. 1236 AH-1 MR. FLIGHT: the general publici' that road ,is closed to the general public and they do it by way of saying"fire hazard;' and that is not sitting well, Mr. Speaker, with the people of this Province. And there are a lot of people in this House - MR. SPEAKER: (Mr.Ottenheimer) Order,please! I must point out to the hon. gentleman that the rules only permit him to make some comments or to ask for explanations but not for him to get into debate. MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I consider, Mr.

Speaker, that the statement the minister made telling us what he and the Province plan to do, the state of readiness that we are in to combat forest fires, the fact ~~at the minister has the right,and never exercised it, to close down roads in the event of a high fire hazard seems to me to be germane to that particular statement the minister just made. I want to say to the minister that in future maybe he should exercise the right. We are so concerned that we appear to be criticizing the various paper companies in the Province.

And it is a fact that the general public perceives the paper companies as using a high fire hazard as an excuse to close down a road or to close off access to the woods in the event of a high fire hazard period. I would suggest that ~~e minister would exercise the right the House gave him and at least it would take away the flack from the paper companies and the legislation we passed would serve some purpose. Mr. Speaker, we are happy that the minister feels that the Province is well protected in as far as the forest fire hazard is concerned. MR. SPEAKER:(Mr.Ottenheimer) Fisheries. MR. W. CARTER: 321.'7 Hon.

ML~ister of Mr. Speaker, I would

May 11,1979 Tape No. 1236 AH-2 MR.W.CARTER: like to bring to the attention of the House the situation with regard to the management of our Province's offshore cod stocks which in our view poses a great threat to the fishing industry of the Province. Now this matter of course has received some publicity in recent days in the various news media. Mr.

Speaker, when the current Law of the Sea Conference was commenced some years ago,this Province took the position that in order for Canada to protect our cod and caplin stocks upon which this Province's fishermen depend, it would because of biological reasons be necessary for canada to extend its jurisdiction not merely to the 200 mile limit but to the edge of the continental margin. This position was put forcefully to the federal government in ottawa on a number of occasions. Indeed, Mr.

Speaker, the official position of the Government of Canada when the Law of the Sea Conference began was that coastal states with wide continental margin such as Canada should be given fishing management jurisdiction beyond 200 miles on the basis that otherwise stocks which existed perdominately within the 200 miles but incidently went outside of the 200 mile limit would be subject to unregulated fishing during that part of their migratory pattern which is spent outside of the 200 mile limit. Later on in the Law of the Sea discussions in Geneva, Mr.

Speaker, Canada 1 over this Province's strenuous objections, retreated from its original demand and settled for a simple 200 mile limit. 3213

May ll, 1979 Tape 1237 EC - l MR. W. CARTER: At that time, this Province was assured that Canada's control over fish within 200 miles would provide this country with sufficient bargaining power to assure that countries fishing outside the 200 mile limit would adhere to our standards of management and conservation. We were assured that if countries did not adhere to such standards, a range of measures would be applied to such nations such as denial of licences and/or quotas L"lside our 200 mile zone and the denial of access to our ports for supply purposes. Consequently, Mr.

Speaker, with great reluctance, this Province acceded to Ottawa's change of policy to reduce Canada's claim to a simple 200 mile limit. Now, Mr. Speaker, our worst fears have come to pass. It has come to rrry attention that certain members of NAFO;, wllich is the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, have engaged in indiscriminate fishing outside our zone so as to put in jeopardy the cod stocks upon which our offshore trawler fleet have traditionally depended. Moreover, Mr.

Speaker, I am also informed that such countries have entered into joint ventures in Central American countries not party to NAFO to use flags of convenience vessels to circumvent the conventions quota system. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, these same countries do not permit onboard inspections of their vessels when fishing outside the 200 mile zone,but still within our continental margin, to insure that the conservation agreel!M!nts agreed to in NAFO are adhered to. 'lhe upshot of all this , Mr.

Speaker , is that I am well informed that during 1980, the cod quota for the 3NO cod stocks on the Grand Banks - and .that is, of course, the Southeast tip of the Grand Banks - will have to be reduced to near zero. What, Mr. Speaker, is Ottawa • s reaction to this disaster? Not, Mr. Speaker, to clamp down on the indiscriminate fishing of stocks outside the 200 miles. Ottawa's reaction is to try to pay off these violaters of basic fisheries management principles and to trade away 3213

May U, 1979 Ta.pe 1237 EC - 2 ~. W, CARI'ER: a portion cf cur No:J<the~ cod. stocks in hopes that this will pen~e these ex~imtries to use conservation maasu:es. Mr, Spe~, the Nortrun:n cqd st.cc:ks are the birthriqbt: of all. our Northeast ~ Labrador fishemen and should net :t;le traded off by Ottawa in order to accompl.ish objectives on the Grand Banks fer which there are other strate9'ies possible. Eveey ton cf offshore aocl traded to these foreign countries, Mr. speaker, will. come Qirectly out. of the inshore trap or the middle distant gill. net· This qove%Illll8llt is unreservably opposed to such a co~se Of action. 32ZD

~lay ll, 1979 Tape No. 1238 so - l .>!R. W. CARTER: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask that this hon. House, without debate on the matter, give its unanimous consent to the following resolution: "Whereas indiscriminate foreign fishing has taken place on the continental margin off the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador but outside the 200-mile limit which threatens, amongst others, the cod stocks in the 3NO region of the Grand Banks upon which the Newfoundland offshore trawler fleet depends; And

whereas t.'le Government of canada is proposing to stop such overfishing by trading off cod quotas on the Northern cod stock inside the 200-mile limit; And

whereas such a tradeoff would adversely affect the inshore fishermen of this Province; And

whereas the Government of Canada originally planned to exercise fishery jurisdiction over the entire continental margin adjacent to this Province; Be it therefore resolved that: ~ne, the Government of Canada should not trade off the Northern cod stocks to solve fishery management problems on the Grand Banks; two, that the Government of Canada forthwith extend its fisheries management jurisdiction to the limit of its continental margin irrespective of distance from shore; three, that the Government of Canada instruct all nations fishing on its continental margin outside 200-miles that failure to comply with the expanded fisheries management zone will result in arrest and confiscation of fishing vessels, catches and gear, the revocation of all licences and quotas within the 200 mile limit; and the denial of access to any port in Canada for resupply purposes." SOME l:lON. ~leERS: Hear, hear.

MR. SPEAKER: (Ottenheimer) Before recognizing the hon. the member,I would welcome to the House of Assembly,on behalf of all hon. members, twelve grade ten and eleven students from Cottrell's Cove Academy accompanied by one of their teachers 1 Mr. Bob Gilles. And I want all hon. members to join me in welcoming these students to the Legislature. SOME HON . NEMBEFS : Hear, hear. 3221.

~!a y ll , 1979 Tape No , 1238 so - 2 MR • . SPEAKER: (Ot~nheil!ler) Hon. member for Trinity - Bay de Verd~. MR. F. ROWE: Mr. s~eaker, first of all l would li~ to thank the minister for passing me aJ.onq a copy of the ministerial stauement jU.st before he read it to the Reuse of Assembly. Sir, first of all I 'NPUld like to sa,y that there is much in the minister's statements which we, on this sid.e of the House , agree with

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1239 NM - 1 MR. F. ROWE: and we feel that this is a very, very serious matter. I am sure the minister would agree or otherwise he would not have made this ministerial statement this morning. I note, Sir, that the minister states in the ministerial statement right in the first paragraph that many representations have been made to Ottawa. As I have called upon the minister in the past I would like to do so again, for him to table the instances and the examples of the consultations that he has had with the officials in ottawa regarding this matter.

Just simply stating it does not provide me with any great proof that the minister or his officials have indeed made any great representation to Ottawa in this regard. Sir, another observation from page two there, looking at the need for patrolling and proper surveillance of the 200-mile limit and possibly outside of the 200-mile limit, I would like to resurrect the suggestion made a year or so ago that I think the Canadian Navy should be brought into the whole matter of the proper surveillance and patrolling of the fisheries jurisdiction of this nation of Canada.

Sir, I find the fact that there is indiscriminate fishing outside our zone, placing our cod stocks in jeopardy, that some countries have entered into joint ventures in Central American countries that are not party to NAFO to use a flag of convenience to vessels to circumvent the conventions under the quota system, I find that frightening, Sir, I find it deplorable and I find it very astounding, and therefore I think this is another reason why we should use every bit of energy, every resource available, namely the Navy of this Nation, to patrol and have surveillance over the fisheries zone.

Sir, one thing that I do not necessarily take issue with but I question the minister - Is the minister listening? Where has the minister gone? MR. W. ROWE: He made his statement now, boy. He is finished with it. 3223

xay 11, 1979 Tape No. 1239 NM - 2 MR. N.E.l\RY: Re made his politics now and he is going t.o go and hide away. MS. F . ROWE: Mr. Speaker, on page three t~e minist er refe .rs to the fact thac Ot tawa ' s reaction is to pay !:>ack che se violators of the basic fisheries manag ement ?rincipl es, to trade away a portion of the Norther:\ cod scoeks in the hope s cha t. t.lti.s •.o~ill persuad e these countries 3224

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1240 DW - 1 MR. F. ROWE: to use conservation measures. Now, Sir, I have heard no official release from Ottawa to that effect. There have been some specu- lative stories in a newspaper, I hope the minister is not basing this statement on what he reads in the newspapers,! hope there is somet:IIing a little 1110re substantive than that.

I have read speculative stories that there is a trade off, 11 If you guys will stop fishing off the tips of the GJ:antk Banks 1 you can go up and fish off the Northern cod stocks." I am totally against that, Sir, and I do not think for one minute that the Govern­ ment of canada is in agreement • Probably a bunch of bureaucrats sitting in some office up in Ottawa agree with it ~ MR. W.N. ROWE: There was no statement made on it. MR. F. ROWE: - but there is no statement, no official policy statement made by any Minister of the Crown to my knowledqe to that effect.

Therefore I question that observation by the minister 1 and if there is or has been or there will be a statement to that effect, Sir, I will fight it - MR. MORGAN: (Inaudible). MR. F. ROWE: Talking about cod, Sir: MR. MORGAN: Shameful! MR. F. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, I will fight it as strenuously and as energetically as I would hope the minister would do. Now, Sir, one last observation. The minister has agreed with me, Sir, just a few moments ago that this is an extremely serious matter, a very urgent matter. '!'here is no way, Sir, that we can go along with these resolutions however much we agree with them - MR. W.N.

ROWE: With some of them. MR. F. ROWE: - with some of them. We certainly do not want to agree with all of the observations but we agree with much of what is in the statement. But there is no way, Sir, we will let this matter go without debate. And I give notice, Sir, that at the appropriate time under Standing Order 23(a} I will ask leave of the House to debate this important matter. 32ZS

May 11, 1979 Tape NO. 1240 DW - 2 MR. F. ROWE: Sir, I would like to get the minister's point of view on these matters. It is too simplistic, Sir, for the minister to get up on a Friday morning before the weekend to make the weekend news,to make a nice,fancy ministerial statement. I questioned some of the facts, one of which is the accusation that Ottawa is engaged in a trade-off. I have not heard any-official statement to that effect. so, Sir, now there are certain parts of this statement that we agree with. I would like, and I would hope the minister will- go along and agree with me on this - this is important.

As a matter of fact, I would like the minister to move that we debate these resolutions because it is a matter of urgent public importance. It is the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders in the boats and on the shore and I think, Sir, a simple ministerial statement is just too simplistic a way in which to handle this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON • MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER) : The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. W. CARTER: could I, 322S

May 11, 1979 Tape 1241 PK - l Mr. W. Carter: first of all,the han. member's comments,or at least the doubts expressed; am I allowed to reply? MR. MORGAN: Sure you can reply. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER): Order, please! I must point out that if anybody has a point of order they will have to make it . MR. NEARY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: If the han. gentleman, Sir, is now going to enter into the realm of debate then we would ask for the same privilege on this side of the House as the hon. gentleman is having.

If he is merely going to answer a few questions,that is fine. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: Order, please. Certainly the hon. gentleman only said five or six words; it would be impossible for me to say that he has entered into the realm of debate. As the hon. member to my right is allowed to make some comment and ask for explanations , the han. minister is allowed to make a brief reply or to give those explanations. Nobody is allowed to enter into to debate. The han. Minister of Fisheries. MR. W. CARTER: Mr.

Speaker, with reference to the doubts expressed by the han. member concerning the urgency of this matter - or1 in fact 1 the credibility of the comments contained in the statement with respect to the trade off 1 I can assure him that that is very much in the minds of the people in Ottawa, and I suspect in the absence of some firm opposition from this Province that that arrangement will take place. Mr. Speaker, this is an urgent matter as I pointed out in my statement. In fact, I think that this resolution should be communicated to the authorities in Ottawa no later than within an hour from now - SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear:

Hay 11, 1979 Tape l2'il PK - 2 MR. W. CARTER: - because a decision will be made soon. So I will be communicat:ing this position, Mr. Speaker, to t:he authorities as being the official position of the ~-overnment of the Province and o ur part:y, and if the bon . . members '"ish to debate i t I can give not.ice of a resolution lat:er on t:oday or ~!onday - AN !iON • M.E:.'lB ER : ~!R . W.

CARTER: Sure. - and give us a chance to debate it . 3ut: this will be the position put: forward to Ottawa from the Newfoundland Government as being ~~e position with respect to the impendL~g prob l em with respect to t:he Grand Bank cod stocks . ~. NEARY: We are agreeable for a debate . We can have it now. MR. W. aRTER : Okay. Fine. PRESENTING PETITIONS The hon . member for tl1.e Say of !sla.nds. MR. ';100DRO'd: Mr .

Speaker, this is the third in a series oi petitions that I am presenting and have presented from the residents of the Bay of Islands, or the taxpayers , ! should say, oppo s ing the increase races in hydro . I would like first of all to read the prayer of the petition: 3223

M.ay ll, 1979 Tape 1242 EC - l MR. WOODROW: "We, the undersigned residents of the co111111unities of Cox's Cove, Mciver's, Gillams, Meadows, Summers ide and Irish town in the electoral district of Bay of Islands, do hereby petition our provincial government to disallow any increase proposed by Newfoundland Hydro in 1978-1979. An increase granted d'Wl to the increase in the cost of fuel can be justified due to the fact that we are charged each month on our hydro bill for the fuel used by Newfoundland Hydro. This rate fluctuates each month depending on the amount of fuel used." Now 1 Mr.

Speaker, in making some COIIQIIents on the petition, I would like to state first of all that this represents 2,2.61 taxpayers from the district of Bay of Islands. And I would like first of all to say that I should con9ratulate the people of the Bay of Islands district because they really know what is going on in Newfoundland. Practically everybody now has put his name to this petition • And another CCIIIIIII!nt on it, Mr. Speaker: I would like to say that I am really a little bit surprised that we have not received more petitions on this particular matter in this hon. House.

Also 1 I would like to quote from The Evening Telegram, Tuesday 1 May 1, 1979, because I really think this puts 1 perhaps, a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel. I t was a question from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. You will recall he asked a question of the hon. the Premier, and this is the quote that comes from 'nie Evening Telegram: "Opposition Leader Bill Rowe had raised a matter by asking Peckford whether reports that Newfoundland Hydro will seek a lO per cent increase in electricity rates this Summer are true.

Peckford reiterated the government is now in the process of preparing its Budget and is determining just what its policy will be in terms of electrical rates. • I think 1 Mr. Speaker, this is very encouraging 1 because I read from this quote that the government are conscious of what is going on. Now, in the mean time , Mr. Speaker 1 I feel that all hon. members - SOME liON • MEMBERS : Oh, oh! 3229

May ll, 1979 Tal?e 1242 EC- 2 MR. WOODIIOW: I ~ow wha. t they are makinq COII!IIIents about, Mr. Speaker. I 1;houqht I heard 1 ten thousand dol~ 1 or so-thinq. SOME HQH. MEMBEBS: Oh, oh! MJ!.. WOODROW: Mr. Speaker, this malc!!s we wonder rea.U.y how serious lllelllbers are. 3230

May 11,1979 Tape No. 1243 AH-1 MR. WOODROW: I am speaking on behalf of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I thought the hon. members on the opposite side would really be in favour of this but they take it as a joke. SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER: (Mr.Ottenheimer) MR. WOODROW: Oh, oh! Order, order! In any case 1 to continue, Mr. Speaker. What really concerns me, Mr.

Speaker, as I have said before and as practically everybody knows in Newoundland and Labrador,the problem arises primarily from the cost of crude oil which has gone from fifty cents a barrel roughly speaking ten years ago to sixteen dollars a barrel now in this present year. And number two,also, Mr. Speaker, there has been an increase in the use or in the consumption of the crude oil due of course to the number of people using electricity over the past ten years and also the capital cost of building things like the Hinds Lake and the other things that are proposed for electricity and, of course, the interest.

And I would like to end up, Mr. Speaker, by saying if a hearing takes place with a public utilities board - I do not know whether it will or not- but if a hearing takes place I would hummly ask the Cabinet to consider giving a subsidy so the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will not have to suffer too much because of the increased rates of electricity. I now table the petition, Mr. Speaker, and refer it to the department concerned. MR. SPEAKER: Opposition. MR.W.ROWE: Thank you, Mr.Speaker. Hon. Leader of the Mr.

Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Bay of Islands (Mr.Woodrow) and once more, Sir, he is doing yeoman service on behalf of his constituents in presenting this petition, a petition which has sentiments which are shared by ninety-nine point nine per cent of the people of this Province. 3231.

May 11,1979 Tape No.. 1243 AH-2 MR.W.ROWE: Perhaps everybody outside the government itself shares the feelings, the ideas and the sentiments expressed in that petition. Our people, Mr. Speaker, cannot suffer any more increases in the cost of electricity.

As Your Honour is aware,back some years ago when Newfoundland Light and Power Company and Newfoundland Hydro Commission,as it then was,used to encourage the people of this Province to get involved in electricity, electrical heating, they used to encourage people to burn more and more electricity on the premise,I suppose, that the more electricity that was burned the cheaper per kilowatt hour it would be in terms of capital costs.

Well, Sir, that kind of a policy by Newfoundland and Labrador Power Commission, as it then was,and the Newfoundland Light and Power Company has ~loded in.the faces of Newfoundland Hydro and the provincial government. We now have a situation where individuals are having to cut back on other basic necessities of life in order to keep their homes warm. The hen. member knows that as well as I do,going around his own district particularly in rural Newfoundland. We have a situation where school boards were encouraged to put electrical heating in their schools.

The massive heating required in gymnasiums and gymnatoria and school classrooms and so on in some of our larger schools on the premise that it would be the cheapest way and the most efficient way to heat these school buildings. Now we have school boards, some of which, Sir, are close to insolvency. I am not saying it is all caused by this, but certainly a contributing factor to the cost of maintenance by school boards and the fact that they cannot bear the cost of maintenance, do not have the income, is the fact that they were encouraged to get into this mode of heating some years ago. Mr.

Speaker, every now and then when we suggest that there be a freeze put on electrical rate increases for domestic usage in this Province 1 you get the Premier or some other minister saying,"Sure 1 it will all have to 32~2

!'lay 11,1979 Tape No. 1243 AH-3 M.W.ROWE: come out off the public purse, so you are t~kinq about the same people.What is the difference? It will come out off public money. Instead of people payinq for their electricity ~ills they will ~ payinq it by way of taxes or it will be COI!linq out off their tax dollars. " Mr. Speaker, that is a simplistic and basically deceptive way of looking at the matter. Certainly it ccmes out off the tiiX dollars of the Province but, Mr.

Speaker, tba whole idea of taxation and in spending of moneY by the government is the redistribution of the wealth to a certain extent.. in the )?rovince. , You have many people now who are not teo· well off, who really do not pay much in the way of taxes because their incomes are··· so low, but who have to pay a great deal of money with regard to eleetrici ty and electrical heatin9 particularly. Mr. Speaker, by the goVernlllent itself and 3233

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1244 NM - l MR. W. ROWE: all the people of the Province taking on the financial burden of keeping down further electrical rate increases in the Province, Sir 1 what your are doing in effect is spreading the burden among those who are more able to pay. That is the concept, that is the Liberal concept which happens to fly in the face of the Tory concept often uttered by members on the other side of the House. That is what we recommend, Mr.

Speaker, that is what we would put into effect, and that is that the government representing all the people keep down the cost of electricity in this Province so that theses who are less able to pay, those who do not have the income, do not have the wherewithal do not find themselves saddled with these increasing costs of electricity which eats into food, clothing, shelter, drugs, medication and so on like that, other basic necessities of life. So, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in supporting the han. member's petition. It is a good petition.

I would suspect, Sir, that we will see before this session is over many more such petitions. And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this issue is looming to be the biggest issue facing this Province in the next six months or a year, one of the most important issue and the largest issue facing the government, and the government should do something about it.

There should be a freeze put on electrical rate increases until such time as we know where we stand with the Lower Churchill and the Upper Churchill and what we are going to do, whether we are going to get that electricity here to the Island part of the Province as well as the Labrador portion, whether it can be used for domestic purposes, what the cost is going to be. Let us put a freeze until we know where we are and keep down the rising cost of this very basic necessity of life, Mr. Speaker. I support whole-heartedly the member's petition. MR. SPEAKER (Ottenheimer): The han. member for St.

John's North, and then the han. member to my right. MR. J. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support this petition made by my colleague from the Bay of Islands (Mr. Woodrow), but I would like to make the following points in supporting it: There can be 3234

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1244 NM - 2 MR. J. CARTER: no doubt that Newfoundland Hydro will be forced over the next few years to increase its rates because its costs themselves are going to increase. We could debate for a long time how much their rates should increase on the basis of their proven cost increases. But the problem I see, Mr. Speaker, is that although Newfoundland Hydro sets its rates it does not sell directly to domestic consumers in Newfoundland.

It does sell directly to some rural people still using diesel power, but the large majority of domestic users receive their power from the Newfoundland Light and Power Company. The Newfoundland Light and Power Company in order to increase its rates again has to apply to the Public Utilities Board. And the Public Utilities Board may or may not grant them that increase,or it may grant them a partial increase. But what the Public Utilities Board will not do and cannot do apparently is set the rate structure. And in my view it is the rate structure that is the real villan.

For instance,the small domestic user pays the highest per kilowatt rate and if you look at your electric bill each time you get it you will see the first 100 kilowatt hours are, and my figures are not correct but my comparisons are, your first 100 kilowatt hours are set at five cents a kilowatt, your next 200 are four cents a kilowatt, your next 300 are three cents a kilowatt and the remainder is set at two point five kilowatts. So you have to be a moderately heavy user to get into the cheapest rate.

Now a heavy user of electricity persumably is someone who has a little more of this world's goods and can well afford to pay a little more,

whereas the small domestic user is paying the very highest rate and cannot afford to. We could end up with the following absurd situation 1 that food could cost more to cook than to buy,and if these rate increases which are percentage increases are granted over the years,and some increases will have to be granted because we are all caught in an inflationary situation, then 3235

:otay 11, 1979 Tape No. 1244 NM - 3 )!R. J. CARTER: it is the small user ~~at is going to be penalized, the small, poor,domestic user. And yet at the same time, Mr. Speaker, there are many technological developments that allow us to enjoy the bene!its of electricity while saving power. <or instance 1 the more expensive ~cro .. 'ilve ovens, they are a little more expensive but they ooly use about a third of ~~e power. Pluorescent lights u.se something like half of the power for the same amount of light . They are a little more e:q>ensive to install. So I say turn the rate structure upside downj let the heavy users pay the hiqhest per 3236

May ll, 1979 Tape No. 1245 so - 1 MR. J. CARTER: kilowatt charge - they are the people whc can afford to put in electrical fixtures that will save themselves mone~ - and give the people at the lower end of the scale the benefit of the cheaper rates. And I think this would be the thing to do. Now, I do not think this House has the power to do it1 but I think it should seek the power to do it and that would be serving all of the customers all across Newfoundland. MR. SPEAKER: (Ottenile.i.l!ler) MR. S • NEARY : Hon. member for LaPoile. Mr.

Speaker, I support the petitions, Sir, presented on behalf of 2,200 residents of Bay of Islands who are protesting any further increases in electricity rates in this Province. I want to congratulate the hon. gentleman who presented the petition. And I want to say this, Sir, to the hon. member in all sincerity 1 that with the policy that the hon. gentleman outlined in presenting his petition, I believe, Sir, it is an insult to have that gentleman as a special representative of the Premier in the Western part of this Province. He should be in the Cabinet.

A man of his conscience and his sincerity, Sir, and his compassion - MR. W.N. ROWE: Hear, hear. MR, S • NEARY : - for people should be in the Cabinet because that is where he should be expressing his view. MR. W.N. ROWE: Developing policy. MR. S • NEARY: Developing policy for the administration. Obviously they need somebody in the Cabinet to develop policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, in supporting the petition, I want to touch on a point that was raised by the member for St. John's North (Hr. J. carter) in connection with Newfoundland Light and Power Company.

I believe, Sir, it is about time that the administration stated-in this House or outside the House, it does not make any difference - their views towards provincialising or 323?

May ll, 1979 Tape NO. 1245 so - 2 MR. S. NEAR::!: nationalising Newfoundland Light and Power COmpany. Your Honour will recall that the Government of this Province- Newfoundland Hydro, which is an agency of the GoTernment, a creature of this Government, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation is not a law to itself. It answers to this House through the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr. c. Doody) is responsible to the Government. so you might say it is the Government wbo produces the hydro power in this Province.

Ninety per cent of the hydro power in this Province is produced by Newfoundland Hydro which is saying the same as the Government produces the power. And when we made that decision to produce the hydro power in the Province we allowed a middleman, Newfoundland Light and Power COmpany, to distribute the power. And that is where the profits are !llade 1 in the distribution of the power. we were told recently, Mr.

Chairman, by the controversy that is going on between the mEW union and the Newfoundland Light and Power Company that the majority of the shares of Newfoundland Light and Power Company are owned by people outside this Province, and their profits were never as great, never as high as tltey are at the present time. And I believe that we should give serious consideration to eliminating the middleman, which is part of the reason for the escalation in the cost of electricity in this Province, eliminate the middleman and let Newfoundland Hydro take it over,which should have been done in the first place.

I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, I could never understand 1 and I have asked the former former Premier on numerous occasions why we did not go all the way and, along with producing the power, distribute the power to the consumers, and I have never been able to get a straight answer. I have a feeling I know the reason 1 but it should have been done. When we nationalized the production of the electricity, we should have taken over the distribution of the electricity. Now, Mr. Speaker, let nobody 1 3238

May 11, 1979 Tape NO. 1245 SD - 3 MR. S • NEARY : in this House or outside this House, be fooled by making a statement that it is the regulatory body that decides whether there is going to be increases in rates or not. ~at is not true. All the regulatory body does, Sir, is hold hearings and rubber staap the application which then goes on to the cabinet down on the eighth floor of Confederation Building 1 and it is the Government and the Cabinet who decides whether Newfoundland Hydro gets its increase in rates or net. MR. J. CARTER: MR. S • NEARY : Government can do anything. MR. J.

CARTER: It llas to seek that power. They can net change the rates though. Who can not change the rates? If it gets the legislation through. MR. S. NEARY: Government, Mr. Speaker, Gover=ent can do anything. Government can put a freeze on, as my hon. friend has called for.And any Government that I have anything to do with in the future MR. J. CARTER: MR. S. NEARY : power to put the freeze on now. MR. J. CARTER: structure. Not without legislative authority. Mr, Speaker, the Government has the Not the freeze;to change the rate MR. S. NEARY: The Government can change the rate structure, yes, Mr. Speaker.

When Newfoundland Hydro applies to the regulatory body, which is the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, and they make a recommendation that has to be made to Cabinet, and it is Cabinet that decides whether or not the increase is going to go ahead or disallowed. MR. J. CARTER: I am not talking about that. I am talking about the structure of rates. MR. S. NEARX: If I was the hon. gentleman, Sir, I would go and play with my microwave ovens 3233

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1246 DW - 1 MR. S. NEARY: and my flo~rescent lights that he seems to know so much about that the ordinary people we are talking about know nothing about, the people that we are trying to protect. And I would submit , Sir, that it is high time that a statement of policy was made. It would be cruel, Mr. Speaker, cruel indeed to wait until there is an election called before you hear a statement on whether or not something is going to be done about electricity rates in this Province.

My hon. friend was wondering why there are not 1110re petitions;. we have had thousands upon thousands of signatures on petitions in this House ! The House has been petitioned mere than anything in this world on electricity rates in the last three or four or five years. Why, I think I am after bringing in 75,000 aames myself. People are dis­ couraged,that is why they do not,becauae they figure' it is useless and a waste of time to present a petition in this House about electricity rates.

And the foolish statement that the bon. gentleman read from the newspaper, that, well,we are looking at it, maybe we will do SOIII!!thing about it, That is an election dodge. MR. W.N. ROWE: He is earning his $10,000. MR. S. NEARY: He is earning his $10,000. That is an election statement, Sir, and as I say it will be cruel if the government waits for the eve of an election before they make a move on this matter. MR . SPEAXZR: MR. J. NOLAN; The hon. member for COnception Bay South. Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly to support the prayer of the petition as submitted by my hon. friend opposite.

The hon. the Premi.er 1 who is not here today 1 has stated that it is a great social problem.And as my friend mentioned,! jsut forget the exact number of names we have already tabled in the last four years 1 but there are thousands and tbousands of names. It is probably the most serious social problem that is facing the people of the Province today. 3240

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1246 DW - 2 MR. J. NOLAN: As for the references by the han. the member for St. John's North (Mr. J. Carter) to the Newfoundland Light and Power, I believe the Leader of the Opposition has appeared on various occasions before the Public Utilities Board either for the telephone company or Newfoundland Light and Power on behalf of the Federation of Municipalities, if I am not mistaken. So, there are a number of questions I would like to pose. First of all, why is it necessary, as my friend to my left mentioned, to have the Newfoundland Light and Power there in the first place?

How many provinces in Canada have such a corporate middleman at the moment? MR. J. CARTER: How much would it cost to buy them out? MR. J. NOLAN: Well, that is something I am going to address myself to. But, I mean, I did not hear my han. friend opposite jump up and down when they were going to expropriate BRINCO, and you are now paying over ~20 million a year in interest which this Province cannot afford.

So if we are going to talk apples let us stick with the facts, and the fact is we should be looking at the possibility and the feasibility of nationalizing, and I am not on a socialistic binge at all, Newfoundland Light and Power. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER): Order, please! MR. J. NOLAN: Does my han. friend disagree with it. MR. J. CARTER: No, Sir (inaudible). MR. J. NOLAN: Well, I mean at least let us find out. Maybe it is completely impractical, but at least let us put the cards on the table and find out. MR. J. CARTER: MR. J. NOLAN: SOME HON.

MEMBERS: You found out a couple of years ago. Found out what? Oh, oh! 3241.

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1246 OW - 3 MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER) : Order, please! Order, please! MR. J. NOLAN: The hon. member for Conception Bay South. As I understand it 1if you were appearing before the Public Utilities Board the Newfoundland Light and Power must have sufficient funds to keep_ their plant going. That means if in the next year or two they decide to spend a small fortune in developing their services one way or another it is building up their capital assets, is it not?

And when the day comes down the road they are going to be able to get more money out of the Public Treasury anyway because someone, some enlightened body one of those days is going to make that move whether my friend opposite agrees with me or not. It is as sure as night follows day it is going to happen. Now, why is it, if they found it necessary to do so in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, I believe, Ontario does not have the corporate middle man and s~ many other Provinces in Canada, why is it necessary here? My hon. friend opposite says that we cannot afford it.

But the perception amongst the public is 1 and this is the unfortunate part about it1 that those who are involved in a corporate entity such as the Newfoundland Light and Power, with 86 per cent of the shares owned outside of 3242

May 11, 1979 Tape 1247 PK - 1 Mr. Nolan: this Province 1 that they have more muscle, more strength, more influence with the policy makers in this Province than all of the voters. Now why is that? And this is the question you have to address yourself to. MR. HICKEY: Yet when we bought the BRINCO shares you objected to it. MR. NOIAN: I certainly did because I thought it was the wrong thing to do at the time, plus the fact I was not in the House at the tilne. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NOLAN: Pardon? MR. MORGAN: (Inaudible) Stephenville (inaudible). MR. NEARY: What free enterprise? SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. NOLAN: Free enterprise. You have not had real free enterprise since the 17th. Century. SOME HON. MEMBEF.S : Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER): Order, please! Order! MR. NOIAN: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, for those .who want to raise superfluous arguments and so on, fine 1 it is not going to gain them any points. The gut issue is that it is hurting people out there. And rather than jabs and name-calling and so on 1 they would like to hear people in this House ask some questions, take a look at anything.

Maybe the suggestion I make is completely wrong so therefore get the facts, get the information, lay it before the people in the House and say, 11 Here is why we cannot do it;' But you will not get away any more with sloughing it off. If every other province in Canada practically has found it necessary to remove the middleman, we have to answer the question, why have we not taken that position here? And it is not enough to try to skirt the issue, because it will not wash.

I suppose the prayer of the petition, as I have in so many other cases here in this House, because I know what it is doing to people in this Province- and I am not the only one; and my friends. 3243

May 11, 1979 Tape 1247 PK - 2 Mr. Nolan: opposite, all of them or most of them certainly know. But we have to take a good hard look at it one way or the other. There are too many airy-fairy schemes, and it is not enough to make some kind of an election promise,"we are going to subsidize a portion of the rates 1' and this, that, and the other, because people are wise enough now to know that once the election is over we are going to have a change of tune as we had in 1975. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear: MR. NOIAN: So I support the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker.

And I am saddened by the contempt that some people obviously feel about any suggestion that might seem to help some people who cannot defend themselves in this Province. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear: ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER): The han. Minister of Transportation and Communications. MR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to several questions. I do not know the dates in which they were asked, but the first one I have the question was asked by the han. member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr.

Roberts) with respect to the access road from Main Brook on the Northern Peninsula to Northern Peninsula Highway. There is an access from that community but it sort of comes South and goes out the coast, and I guess it is necessary to build a new access which will go North and connect to St. Anthony. If this access were built it would provide quicker accessibility to the services in St. Anthony. It is a very costly project, so I advised the han. member yesterday or the day before this will be included in the next shopping list to Ottawa. The hon. member for Trinity-Bay de Verde (Mr. F.

Rowe) asked a question of me yesterday or the day before as to whether or not we had any plans to move- it is not the depot 1 actually, it is a unit in Old Perlican. Now what has happened there,as has happened in other 3244

May 11, 1979 Tape 1247 PK - 3 Mr. Brett: places around the Province, the town is sort of growing around the unit, and there is an environmental problem. Inevitably when you have graders, trucks, cars, what have you 1 then you have grease and oil and salt, So it is becoming a serious environmental problem there, and it is our intention to move the unit 1 not necessarily out of the area, but out of the - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. BRETT: Well that is a decision that will be made by the department and not by the hon. member. SOME HON. MEMBERS_: Oh, oh~ MR. SPFAKER (MR.

OTTENHEIMER) : Order, please~ Order, please! MR. BRETT: SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. SPFAKER: MR. BRETT: However it is the intention - Oh, oh~ Order, please! Order, please~ It is the intention of the department to move the unit out of the town, but not away from the area. There was another question asked by the hen. member for Port au Port (Mr. Hodder) yesterday with respect to what we refer to as the Felix Cove By-pass. And the hon. member was quite correct in saying that it is a very, very dangerous situation. The road goes along the shoreline adjacent to the cliff and it is being eroded by the salt water.

I was not aware of the fact yesterday but we are about to call tenders to correct that situation. The road will be moved inland, I think the estimated cost is approximately ~120,00C and as soon as we can get tenders out we hope to do something with that. MR. NEARY: What about \Inaudible) . MR. BRETT: The hon. member for Burgeo-LaPoile asked a number of questions a few days ago, I did not have the answers then. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. A point of order. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, Sir, just addressed me as the hon. member for Burgeo-LaPoile.

There is no such district, Sir. 3245

May 11, 1979 Tape 1247 PK - 4 Mr. Nearv: I would suggest if the hon. gentleman is going to refer to the district that he get his facts straight. MR. MARSHALL: That is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member was probably thinking of the similarity between the two 324S

May ll, 1979 Tape 1248 EC - l MR. MARSHALL: people representing the district. MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) I imagine the hon. minister will probably correct the situation and I will not need to reserve decision on it. MR. BRETT: There were several questions. I think I indicated at the time that the ones to do with the negotiations with the pilots should be addressed to the President of Treasury Board (Mr. N. Windsor), but there were some other questions - How IIWlY pilots and co-pilots and how many 'planes?

Actually, there are nine 'planes - or seven, and I feel kind of foolish because I reali.ze the hon. member knows the answers to these questions before h.e asks them. But we do have seven water bombers and then there is the Cessna and ,of course, the King Air. We have a requirement for eight water bomber crews. We have h.ired seven so far; the eighth is hired on stand-by mere or less, but that eighth person has not been hired to date, There was another question with respect to malting the water bomber crews permanent employees.

I think it is fair to say that we have thought about th.is, but to date we have not made a decision to do that. I have no doubt that the water bomber pi.lots themselves would probably like to be permanent employees, but,as I indicated, we have not decided to do that as yet. The hon. member questioned me about training programmes. We do have training programmes for pilots. They are conducted at the Air Services Division for all pilots engaged in the water bomber operations. This year's proqra111111e began on April 2nd with four crews with a second course underway on April 24th for the balance of the crews.

The programme is composed of ground sch.ool lectures, demonstrations on hydraulic and electrical systems, emergency procedures, weather and environmental data, methods of fire fighting, etc. Each pilot also receives flight familiarization and proficiency chec:Jcs in air, land and water operations i.ncluding scooping and dropping water. Air time is five hours or more per pilot depending on the qualifications. 3247

May ll, 1979 Tape 1248 EC - 2 MR. BRETT: And I think the last question is difficult because there were several questions asked, but I thiM if you Sllllllllarize the whole thing it was the same question asked four or five different wavs. I think the last one the hon. member asked was Is t:hera a traininq programme to train new pilots and co-pilots for the water bomber fleet? And I guess that question is pretty well answered in the previous one. MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) MR. W. N. :ROWE: ORAL QIJESTIONS The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct one or two questions to the hon.

President of the Treasury Board (Mr. N. Windsor), concerning the state of labour negotiations, negotiations with various public servants or people who come under the Treasury Board where negotiations take place. Mr. Speaker, the general impression around now is that there are a great number of public servants who are practically on the brink of walking out on strike and so on. Would the hon. President of the Treasury Board indicate to the House what groups are presently in a state of negotiation with the Treasury Board?

For example, the nurses, the police, vocational traininq school instructors, teachers, pilots or maybe others - those axe some that spring to mind right off the bat• Mr. Speaker, would he indicate which ones are in a state of neqotiations, which ones concerning which negotiations have come to a halt, a dead standstill, and the general status of these various groups of government employees or quasi-government employees as far as negotiations are concerned? MR. SPEAKER: MR. N. WINDSOR: The hon. President of Treasury Board. Mr. Speaker, there are a nlllllber of them - t.'1e hon. gentleman has mentioned several.

The pollee - as the hon. gentleman knows, we are in negotiations with them. Neqotiations have not entirely broken off. We are expecting some further meetings with them and we have indicated to them that we are willinq to sit down and negotiate further once they are. The nurses, as indicated in the media, have rejected our latest offer by vote. It is not a strike vote

May ll, 1979 Tape 1248 EC - 3 MR. N. WINDSOR: by any means, it is just a vote on the offer that we have placed before them. I have had a request from the president of their association for a meeting with me and other members of the board and we propose probably to meet with them on Monday or Tuesday of next week just to hear what they have to say. The teachers are presently taking a vote of sorts on the lastest offer that we have made to them. We expect, perhaps, an indication of their position on that sometime today. The vocational school instructors ' meetings are proposed, I understand, early next week.

Again, negotiations are st.ill ongoing with them. And hospital support staff, again, are meeting with the aid of conciliation officer, and negotiations are ongoing. MR. W. N. BOWE: MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) MR. W. N. BOWE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. A supplementary. Would the hen. minister indicate which groups of the ones we have mentioned are presently without a contract, the contracts have expired? Which groups are presently in the process of negotiation, concerning which the contracts are actually expired and they are operating under no contract? MR. NEARY: Quite a long list. 32J9

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1249 NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Ottenheimer): The hon. President of the Treasury Board. I am not entirely sure which ones. I MR. N. WINDSOR: know the nurses' contract I think is expired and I think the police as well. I am not entirely sure which ones are not expired and which ones are about to expire. MR. W. ROWE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. W. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. minister indicate which if any of these groups are now in a position to actually take a strike vote?

In other words,if they wera to vote on a strike and there was a positive vote they could in fact be out on strike with­ in the statutory time? MR. SPEAKER: MR. W. ROWE: does he? MR. N. WINDSOR: The hon. President of the Treasury Board. He does not seem to be very clear, I am not sure that any of them are really in a position to go on strike• The police obviously could. Of course, they have binding arbitration; they do .:tot have the right to strike. The nurses have not taken a strike vote yet. a strike vote. So really none of them have taken MR. W. ROWE: How many are in a position to? MR. N.

WINDSOR: They may take a strike vote. They can take one whenever they want. MR. NEARY: MR. N. WINDSOR: MR. NEARY: taken a strike vote• The pilots have taken a strike vote. The pilots have. Yes. And the vocational school instructors have How many more? I mean 1 how many more do you want us to name? Ask me the question, I will tell you the answer. MR. w. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. w. ROWE: Mr.

Speaker, we are talking about a very important issue here where massive numbers of the Public Service may in fact be out on strike, or have a walk out which will have a great effect, 3250

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1249 NM - 2 MR. W. ROWE: a terrible effect on the Province. The han. minister does not seem to be too clear on the status of what is going on. I understood that there were a number who were in a position to take a strike vote. I would like to have that information.

Does the minister ~ow,or would the minister do this if he does not know- I am surprised he does not, that he is not on top of it on an hour to hour or minute to minute basis- but would he undertake to give the House an up to date statement by way of a ministerial statement or an answer to a question, you know, when the Question Period is called by His Honour whether the minister, the President of the Treasury Board,would give us an up to date statement as to the present status, where we stand with the various groups who are presently negotiating or have finished negotiations with the Treasury Board? MR.

NE.l\ .. !lc.'!: NR· f'../ · 'N<cF­ MR. SP!::Al<ER (O£'t"e:nheimer ): Hear , hear! As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, I do not think any of these groups have finished negotiations. We are still in the negotiating process with them. Any of them that have the services of a conciliator are in a position to break off negotiations and take a strike vote. There are 1 I think 1 seven, eight, perhaps nine different bargaining units at the moment that might be in that position. MR. W. ROWE: A final supplementary, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: The hen. Leader of the Opposition. MR. W.

ROWE: This one leads out of the questioning of the han. Treasury Board President but I would like to direct it to the Minister of Justice because it does have an effect on the labour situation in the Province, Has the minister asked questions of the Chief or the officers of the Newfoundland Cons~abulary 1 or has the department instituted an investigation itself to determine whether there is any substance to the allegations made by the Police Brotherhood that there are officers, you know,Chief or Deputy Chief or Assistant Deputy or somebody in that capacity, going around with a little black 3251.

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1249 NM - 3 MR. W. ROWE: notebook, sort of spying on the men and taking down names, or taking down comments and so on? Is there anything to that or has the minister not done anything about that as far as investigating it is concerned? MR. SPEAKER (Ottenheimer) : The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. HICI<MAN: I enquired about it and there is nothing to it. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for LaPoile, followed by the hon.gentlemen for Fogo, Windsor-Buchans, and other hon. gentlemen as time permits. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Services, Sir.

Would the hon. gentleman state the policy of the government of his deparment regarding parking in the downtown parking garage for Public Service employees who are moving into Atlantic Place? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Public Works and Services. MR. YOUNG: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the policy is that we are providing - there are only thirty parking lots provided down there and they will be used by the senior staff 1 more or less. Like the policy taken by the federal government,we will not be providing any parking space downtown to the employees. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker. A supplementary. Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman care to indicate to the House who the exceptions to the rule are? The hon. gentleman said there are thirty parking lots purchased by his department. MR. MORGAN: He told you, the senior staff. 3252

May 11,1979 Tape No. 1250 AH-1 ~RY: The senior staff • I want to know who they are in each department. When the hon. gentleman refers to senior staff 1who does he mean? A Deputy Minister, an Assistant Deputy Minister, an Executive Assistant, a Secretary- who are thes-e people who will get these free parking permits? MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: (Mr.Ottenheimer) A paint of order has come up. MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order. I do not want to interfere.

The hon. minister may want to answer, But this the type of question,I suggest to Your Honour,that is of detail that would not reasonably be expected to be within the ken of a minister on the spur of the moment. It should properly put on the Order Paper. The Question Period is for urgent matters and matters that do not require a large amount of detail. Now to ask the hon. minister off the cuff to give the names of thirty people or thirty positions who will have parking places does not seem to come within the realm of either urgency or a question that can receive a concise and appropriate answer. MR. W. ROWE: MR.

SPEAKER: MR.W.ROWE: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised to see the hen. House Leader treat his colleague with such contempt. Surely he is the one to decide whether he needs to take notice of the question or not. As I understood my colleague's question, Mr. Speaker, it was not even requiring the detailed information which the Government House Leader has now alleged he is asking. He is asking for the positions. He is asking how far down in the list of seniority these free parking permits will go?

He started off with Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy - Does it go down to the Director level? Are Executive Assistants of ministers included? That is not detail, Sir. That is a matter of - SOME HON • MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! 3253

May 11,1979 Tape No. 1250 AH-2 MR. W.ROWE: If the hon. minister does not have that kind of information at his finger tips, how far down the seniority list free parking permits are goinq to be allowed, Mr. Speaker, then I would submit the minister is not in control of his department. !'.R.

SPEAKER: (Mr.Ottenheimer) Before the hon. minister replies,with respect to the point of order, it can be argued obviously that this is a matter of detail, it could be argued that an hon. ~ember could put it on the Order Paper,but obviously hon. ministers have choice with respect to haw they handle questions, so I •rill leave it to the hon. minister. MR. YOUNG: There are thirty parking lots provided down there for all the departments. I think at the present time there will be no special permits. They will be down probably to the ADMs and also for the mail cars and service cars. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary. MR. NEARY: What about Executive Assistants? Will they receive a free parking permit in the parking ~arage? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, no lower than the ADMs. MR. NEARY: A supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: A supplementary. Would the hon. gentleman indicate who decides who gets the parking permits? Is it the minister or some other official in the Department of Public Wor~s and Services?

Who makes that decision .of who will receive these special permits, free parking at the parking garage? ~YOUNG: There are no special permits, Mr. Speaker. It was passed by Order in Council and that is who will receive the parking lots. 3254

May 11,1979 Tape No. 1250 AH-3 MR. NEARY: supplementary, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. ottenheimer) MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a A final supplementary. I am asking the hon. gentleman who is it that makes the decisions : to assign these free parking pe:rmits? Is it the minister or is it some other official in the department? Does the responsibility of passing out these free permits rest solely with the minister? MR. SPEAKER: The hen. minister. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, there is no one passing out little special permits. There is no Executive Assistant ha& any special permit3.

There .are several 100re departments to go down there and in all probability some of the staff that have moved down there are using the parking lots now. MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I did point out that that would be the final supplementary. The hon. member may be able to get back to it later on. MR. NEARY: The han. gentleman did not understand my question apparently. MR. SPEAKER: Before recoghizing the hon. member for Fogo1 I would welcome to the House three groups of students. There are ninteen ~rade ll students from St. Augustine's High in Trinity accompanied by their teacher, Mr.

Roland Pickett, seventeen Grade 11 students from Lester Pearson Memorial High in Wesleyville accompanied by their teacher,Mr. Morgan Hill 1 and three Grade 11 students from Lumsden Central High School accompanied by their teacher,Mr. Fred Melendy. All hen. members, I know,join me in welcoming these stud~~ts and their teachers to the House of Assembly. 3255

Kay ll, 1979 SOME HON, MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenhe..illle;-) CAPT, E, WINSOR: Tape 1251 EC - l Hear, hear! The hon. the member for Fogo. Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. w. Carter). I am sure the minister is aware that there is a very important meetinq taking place at Musgrave Harbour by the herring fishe:r::men of that area. Has the minister received any correspondence from those fisher.D&D? Does the minister intend to attend, or what action has the minister taken in this regard? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. W. CARI'ER: Mr.

Spaalc:er, I have received a teleqraa from the fishe:r::men of the Musqrave Hamour area, siqned by, I think, a chap, Harvey Mouland, who is the chairman/spokesman for the group. With respect to the herrinq quotas in that part of the Province, we have wired the appropriate authorities in Ottawa whose responsibility is, of course, to allocate quotas of herring and to do what has to be done in that respect, askinq them to reconsider the situation in the Musqrave Hamour area. And I can tell the House now that we are very sympathetic to the position put forward by the group.

We have some very strong reservations as to the wisdom of closing off the herring fishery at this point in time 1 so we are doing what we can to assist them with their problem. CAPT. E. WINSOR: MR. SPEAKER: for Fogo. CAPT. E • WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A suppleJDentary, the hon. the member I am sure the minister is also aware that those fishermen, or quite a few of them, have gene to great expense preparinq for the herring fishery. MR. W. CARTER: Oh, yes (inaudible). CAPT, E, WINSOR: Unfortunately, just as they got ready to put their gear in the water, the ice came in.

Consequently, they could not get their gear in water to carry on the fishery.

May ll, 1979 Tape 1251 EC - 2 CAPT. E. WINSOR: Would the minister consider some compensation for loss of earnings to those fishermen? They are faced with a very grave problem of not being able to fish and a great debt. MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenhsimer) MR. W. CARTER: The hon. minister. Mr.

Speal!;er, with great respect to the fishermen in the area - but I think the hon. member cannot be serious in lllaking that ltind of a statement - the laws that are prohibiting the fisheJ:lnen now from catching herring and from pu.rsuinq their livelihood are laws that are enclosed by the federal government over which I have absolutely no control whatever. If the herring fishermen, Mr. Speaker, today are forced to reliCve their nets from the water, it is not by virtue of a law that is being imposed by the Province, it is not a provincial responsibility.

It is a law that is being imposed by the federal government, it is their responsibility. And surely, if there is going to be compensation - and I am not denying the fact that II!Aybe compensation is justified - but surely it is the federal government, the people who are making it impossible for these people to earn a livelihood from the herring fishery, who are responsible for providing compensation, and not the Province. CAPT. E • WINSOR: MR. SPEAKER: member for Fogo. CAPT. E. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A final supplementary, the hon. the Mr.

Speal!;er, in view of what the fishermen have said, that they will ignore the regulation and tomorrow 1110rning they will put their nets in the water, what action would the minister take then to defend those fishermen? Would he stand by the fishermen or would he again refer to Ottawa? It is a very serious problem. I am sure the minister is conscious of it that the fishermen are looking to our provincial Minister of Fisheries to come to their aid. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. W. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of sympathy for the problem of the fishermen in that area and I have expressed that 3237

May ll, 19i9 Tape 1251 EC - 3 MR. W. CARl'ER: to them both by telephone and by telegram, but surely the member would not suggest that a minister of the Crown encourage people to break the law or to condone violation of the law. And as sympathetic as I am to their cause, I certainly cannot condone that line of action. I think it is the sort of thing that has to be talked over with Ottawa and hopefully negotiated to their satisfaction. But I can understand their plight and if I were a fisherman, I am sure I would probably feel the same way.

As a private citizen I would probably give the hon. member a different answer, but as a minister of the Crown then I cannot possibly condone breakinq of laws whether they are provincial or federal laws. MR. F. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheilller) for Trinity - Bay de Verde. MR. F.

ROWE: A supplementary, the hon. the member Could the minister indicate in the case of the closing down of the herring fishery in the two areas that we are talking about, whether the same type of indiscriminate fishing of the herring has taken place in those areas as is the case on the Grand Banks with the cod? MR. SJ>E.AICER: The hon. minister. MR. w. CARTER: It is an entirely different situation, Mr. Speaker. The resolution that I had hoped to get through the House this 1110rning had to do with 3258

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1252 SD - l MR. W. CARTER: the indiscriminate fishing of cod by foreign countries beyond our 200 mile limit. I am not aware of any such fishing taking place with respect to the herring stocks. I am not sure that there has been any indiscrimiate fishing of herring in that area. I know there is a lot of concern being expressed by Ottawa with respect to the health of the stock, the condition, the size of the stock,but I do not think it is fair to compare the situation in Musgrave Harbour, as far as herring is concerned, with the situation beyond the 200 mile limit. MR. F. ROWE: MR.

SPEAKER: (Ottenheimer) Trinity - Bay de Verde. MR. F. ROWE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary, hon. member for Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the fact or has he received any complaints from the people in the areas mentioned of indiscriminate trawler fishing interferring with the longliner and inshore fishermen in these particular areas? MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. W. CARTER: Mr.

Speaker, I took that complaint to Ottawa less than a year ago, made a formal request, in person, to the minister and to his officials, followed up with telegrams and letters suggesting -and I can table these if you want to see them. It is no problem. It is on public record my views in that r.espect. I went to Ottawa last year expressly for that purpose to beg the minister almost to impose some kind of a buffer zone to keep out trawlers and larger vessels and to leave the inshore fishing grounds for the small boats who do not have the mobility of the larger fleets. I am happy to say,Mr.

Speaker, that the minister in Ottawa has, to some extent, recognized the problem and is now, I think, in the process of imposing regulations whereby larger ships will be forbidden to fish within the inshore fishing areas. I do not think he has gone far enough but I think it is a good start. 3259

Nay ll, 1979 MR. F. ROWE: MR. SPEAKER: (Ottenheimer) for Trinity - Bay de Verde, MR. F. ROWE: Tape No. 1252 SD - 2 Mr. Speaker. Final supplementary, hen. member Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious situation as the minister well realizes.

Does the minister agree to set up a non-partisan delegation or committee with representatives from both sides of this House to go to Ottawa and make the strongest possible representation on behalf of the fishermen of this Province to establish these windows or boxes or what .have you that the fishermen have for the purpose of longliner fisheries and to establish a twelve mile headland to headland zone instead of just a twelve mile off the land zcne.befcre we have a fish war between the Atlantic Provinces on the East Coast of Canada because the culprits, in this case and in many cases, are trawlers, net just Newfoundland trawlers, but trawlers from the other Provinces on the East Coast of Canada?

AN HON. !-!EMBER: And also our own trawlers. MR. F. ROWE: nnd also our own, That is what I said 1 also our own trawlers, And I think the only satisfactory way of getting around this, Sir, and I ask the minister would he agree to have a non-partisan committee, a small committee made up of both sides of the House, go to Ottawa and make this case as strongly as possible to these federal bureaucrats up there to establish that twelve mile headland to headland limit outside of which the trawlers must stay and also establish these fishing boxes, windows and zones to protect the inshore and longliner fishermen? MR.

SPEAKER: MR. W, CARTER: Hen. Minister of Fisheries. If Ottawa needs further proof that buffer zones are necessary in this Province than what we have already provided- and when I say •we• I mean the people of Newfoundland. The fishermen, through their union, have taken a strong position with respect to the need for protection for the 32GO

~.lay ll , 197 9 Tape No. 1252 SD - 3 MR. W. CARTER inshore fishery. ·we 1 tlle Government of the Province, bave taken a strong; position with respect to the need for buffer zones or some kind of protection for the inshore fi-11hermen. I believe this House of Assemb~y is on record as supporting that kind of a ,proposition. Pretty well every interested groUP in the Province, the fish trades, the union, the Government, the peop~e have made requests to Ottawa begging to have some kind of action taken by them to protect the inshoJ:'e fishenien.

Now, if they need any fw:ther evidence of the need foJ:' such action,well then I am not sure that a co111111ittee from this House wil~ have any lll~ninqfu~ 32~ 1

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1253 NM - 1 MR. W. CARTER: effect on them. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that as Minister of Fisheries, part of the government that is elected to govern the Province, I have taken the representation of the fishermen to Ottawa with that request and I am not sure that the kind of a committee recommended by my friend will have any meaningful effect. But surely everything that can be done has been done. And maybe it is rather ironic, Mr.

Speaker, that the hon. member is now expressing concern in offering to be part of a non­ partisan committee to go to Ottawa to fight for the rights of the inshore fishermen when only an hour ago he refused to give unanimous consent to a resolution that would have that effect. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER (Ottenheimerl: please! Order, please! MR. FLIGHT: Hear, hear! Order, please! Order, please! Order, The hon. member for Windsor-Buchans. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.With regards to his waste disposal programme that he announced for St.

John's to the effect that the Province will spend $3.2 million,the Province would fund totally 1 is the minister prepared to give the Grand Falls -Windsor- Bishop's Falls area the same consideration?In view of the fact that they have been asking the Province to fund an incinerator or garbage disposal method in the Central Newfoundland area where right now the town of Windsor is running out of dumping space;the town of Bishop's Falls is running out of dumping space, they do not have the funds available, will the same programme apply to the Windsor -Grand Falls - Bishop's Falls area? MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. N. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the situation in Grand Falls. I have been out there and met with all three councils and we have discussed the solid waste disposal problems that they are presently having. The type of incinerators that we are putting 32D2

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1253 NM - 2 MR. N. WINDSOR: in the St. John's area in fact would be quite ideal for Grand Falls -Windsor- Bishop's Falls on a regional basis. This is the sort of thing we are promoting and we are certainly considering it.What the cost sharing of it will be I am not in a position to say at the moment but it is the sort of incincerator that we are considering for that area. MR. FLIGHT: A supplementary. 11R. SPEAKER (Ottenheimer) : Mr.

Speaker, the minister referred to what the cost sharing arrangement would be, My question is, why will there be any consideration for cost sharing arrangements in the Windsor area if the government is prepared to totally fund, with no cost sharing, co foot the bilV. The statement here says that tbe Province •·~ill pay for the fa.cilit y . Then why would there be a cost sharing ar=angement with Windsor if che ?rovince is prepared to -una , to-cally , the St . John's dumping facilitie ·s? ~!R. SPEA.>iER: Mr.

Speaker, as I have indicated, we are looking ac that: ~inq, we will be discussing it .,..i th the councils out there again. The cost sharing formula could be one hundred per ent, zero. You know. MR. FLIGHT: MR. SPEAKER: MR. FLIGHT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary. Mr. Speaker, the town of Windsor and the town of Bishop's Falls is running out of dumping facilities. As a matter of fact 7 ~~ere are only months left and they will have to look at finding new sites at an immense capital cost and the only sites available will be in the area that will have the effect of further polluting the Exploits River.

So the situation in Grand Falls, Central Newfoundland is just as serious as the situation in the St. John's area. And, Mr. Speaker, the only reason that they are not gone to incineration or gone to other government sites,is the inability to fund the programme. Now I want to hear the minister justify how he is going to force the town of Windsor and Bishop's Falls to go 32~3

May ll, 1979 Tape No. 1253 NM - 3 MR. FLIGHT: into the expense of land filled dumps and the rest while at the same time he is prepared to totally fund the incineration plants in St. John's. Is the minister prepared and when will the towns concerned hear that the Department of Municipal Affairs is prepared to fund totally, under the same programme they are funding the St. John's incineration programme, an incineration programme for Central Newfoundland, particularly Windsor and Bishop's Falls. MR. SPEAKER (Ottenheimer): The han. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. N. WINDSOR: Mr.

Speaker, I cannot be hearing myself very well. I do not recall saying that I was going to force Grand Falls, Bishop's Falls and Windsor to pay anything. What I said to the han. gentleman - MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) . MR. SPI.AKER: Order, please! ------ -- MR. N. WINDSOR: - is that we will be discussing it with them and we will do whatever we feel is appropriate. MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. My question, Mr.

Speaker, has to do with the minister's department and the former Winter Capital Works Programme that has been a subject of controversy in recent days and recent weeks in particular. In answering a question a couple of days ago from another member on this side, Mr. Speaker, the minister said "Debentures have now been issued by the Department of !4unicipal Affairs and Housing on behalf of the federal government, all that we are requesting as a department is that these debentures be signed and returned to the federal government. 32G4

May 11, 1979 Mr. Callan: for repayment;· Tape 1254 The depqrtment does not accept any responsibility Since I am not allowed under the rules to ask the minister for a legal opinion, let me ask the minister what right does the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing have to refuse the revenue grant to a municipality when, you know, the money is owed to Ottawa the minister says. What right? MR. NEARY: It is cruel, and it is illegal. PK - 1 MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER) : The han. Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing. MR. N. WINDSOR: Mr.

Speaker, under The Municipal Affairs and Housing Act we have the right to do whatever we feel is appropriate in order to ensure that the financial - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order! MR. N. WINDSOR: Does the hon. gentleman want the answer, Mr. Speaker? AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! MR. N. WINDSOR: You know, we have the authority to do what we feel is appropriate in order to manage the affairs of the Province and the department and the finances and so forth.

The legal authority he is talking aboutto the responsibility of the Province, I understood it is quite clear in the agreement with Ottawa that was signed in 1973 that the Province would not be responsible for repayment or be required to ensure or guarantee repayment of these amounts by the municipalities. The agreement was very clear on that point. MR. CALLAN: MR. SPEAKER: MR. CALLAN: A supplementary. A supplementary. Mr.

Speaker, in further answering the question a couple of days ago the minister said in smaller municipalities where their budget may be in the order of $25,000 to $30,000 a year, obviously this amount could not be handled by that municipality. But he says, in certain isolated cases where the municipality approached us and said, 32.05

May 11, 1979 Tape 1254 PK - 2 Mr. Callan: "We cannot pay it. Will you assist us? We did provide some special grants." Let me ask the minister would he lay upon the Table of the House the names of these municipalities that were helped? And is the town of Sunnyside among these communities? MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMER) : The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. MR. N. WINDSOR: No, Mr. Speaker, the town of Sunnyside was not among it simply because they would not sign the debenture. But we will offer to them to pay the first year's installment, the 1978 one.

And when I met with them in my office a couple of weeks ago,I made it very clear to the delegation that came here that once they signed the debenture the revenue grant woul~ be released immediately and we would also pay the 1978 installment on the'debenture,since they were not in a position, and further we would even consider 1979, although we made no commitment on that regard. MR. CALLAN: MR. SPEAKER: MR. CALLAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary. Mr.

Speaker, most of these grants,as I understand it, I know the two in the district of Bellevue in Chance Cove and Sunnyside, for example,the Winter works grants or whatever,they appear now to be loans and not grants, they were used to build municipal buildings. Is it not the responsibility of the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Provincial Government to provide municipal buildings for a municipal government? Why does the minister expect that it is the responsibility of the federal government just because it was done by the federal government, you know?

Why does not the minister say we will pay the bill, they built municipal buildings, we will pay the bill. Because today is the last day, I am sure the minister is aware-or is he?-that today garbage will be collected in Sunnyside for the last time; perhaps; under a municipal government. Next week their lights will be cut off because they cannot pay their bills. MR. NEARY: Do you mean the street lights? 32GG

May 11, 1979 Tape 1254 PK - 3 MR. CALLAN: Why does not the minister say, we will pay the bill and then we will try to collect from Ottawa, because we have nothing to gain but we have a lot to lose. If the people down there who form the Council of Sunnyside, if they decide tonight to resign en masse then,of course,the local government is gone and the minister is left with a municipal building and no municipal government. Why does not the minister sa~ We will forget the whole thing. We will give you back your revenue grant, we will pay the bill to ottawa, and then we will try and collect from Ottawa.

Would the minister consider that? MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTI'ENHEIMER): and Housing. The han. Minister of Municipal Affairs MR. N. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, you know, I am amazed at · the comments of the han. gentleman who aspires,! assume,to be part of the government of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,that he would have such an irresponsible attitude towards the financing of this Province. You know, how do you think that the Department of Municipal Affairs and Housing could absorb all" • of this money? This is a programme - SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER : MR. N. WINDSOR: MR. FLIGHT: MR. N. WINDSOR: Oh, oh!

Order, please! Order! - of $12 million that was provided by Ottawa - (Inaudible) incinerators and (inaudible). - $12 million plus interest. The interest on that is probably another $4 million or $5 million. Seventeen million you are asking us to absorb because of a programme that was initiated by the federal government, loans that were given by the federal government, and you are saying the Province should pay it back? It would have been just as well for us to give grants in the first place. We do not give grants or any financial assistance of that nature for a municipal buildinq.

I think the people of the community have a responsibility, themselves if they want to have a municipal building or a fire hall. We do provide loans. We do assist them in any way we can, but we have no programme of grants and the Province could not possibly afford it. 32\57

May 11, 1979 ~ . S?EAJ<E.~ (MR. O'l"!'ENEEI.MER): Bay de Verde. MR • •• ~: Tape 1254 Pl< - 4 ORDERS OE' THE OA Y' The hon. member for Trinity - Onder Standi3g Creer 23 (

a) I ask leave co make a motion for the adjournment of the ;louse for the purpose of discu ss ing a definite matter of urg ent public im~rtance, Sir . Sir and the motion i s as follo ws :

WHEREAS che protection of the cod stocks and 32~8

May ll, 1979 Tape NO. 1255 OW - I MR. F. ROWE: the extension of Canada's fisheries jurisdiction to the edge of the continental margin is of extreaoe importance and_,;

WHEREAS different reqions have been closed to the herring fisheries in this Province; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the hon. House debate immediately these two important issues for the purpose of receiving the observations and knowledge of all han. members, particularly those representing ~shing districts)in order that the people in Ottawa 1 namely the federal bureaucrats:will hear loudly, clearly and forcibly the · real SOME HON. MEMBERS : oh, oh~ MR. SPEAKER (MR. OTTENHEIMERJ: Order, please! MR. F.

ROWE: and legitimate reasons for reversing certain decisions already made and those intended affecting the livlihood of these fishermen and those people on shore who work in the fish plants in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador :• Now, Sir, since this almost identical bJ the ministerial statement and his resolution, I would expect the minister to second this motion. And have a Eallfledged debate on it so that it can be driven home quite forcibly to Ottawa, the nature and the importance of this particul.ar resolution.

But just in case, the minister, Sir, does not second it I think I had better protect myself and say that it will be seconded by my colleague for Fogo (Capt. Winsor). MR. SPEAKER.: Order, please: It appears bJ me that- bearing in mind the words of the hon. gentlemaa. to my right and the 'hen. gentleman to my left previously-that hen. members if they wish to - SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh~ MR. SPEADR: Order, please: - debate a certain matter the procedure should be to ask for unanimous consent. Standing Order 23 is a very technical and precise Standing Order, Han members can 32o9

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1255 DW- 2 MR. SPEAKER (Ottenheimer): by unanimous consent, now commence to debate any subject they wish to. But 23 is a very technical Standing Order and I think it would put our precedence in doubt for me to now say that this comes under Standing Order 23. Also, Standing Order 23 only permits the debate of one motion and that is that the House adjourn. It is an artificial, if one wishes, motion which cannot be amended and when the discussion comes to an end it is voted affirmatively or negatively and the only result is that one adjourns.

It cannot be amended so there is no way of putting another lllOtion into it. So what I am pointing out is if hon. gentlemen wish to debate matters with respect to the fisheries as have been discussed then it would be, I suggest, by unanimous consent not by Standing Order 23. CAPT. WINSOR: By leave, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. House Leader. MR. MARSHALL: I would like to just address a brief word to the proposal by the hon. member for Trinity-Bay de Verde (Mr. F. Rowe) - MR. S. NEARY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order. MR. s. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. gentleman, Sir, if he stands in his place now is challenging Your Honour's ruling. MR. W. N. ROWE: MR. S. NEARY: is closed . MR. SPEAKER: Is he debating? Is it a point of order? The matter is closed, Mr. Speaker, the matter Order, please! As I understand the situation I put forward the proposition that it would be by unanimous consent that the House would debate this matter, and I presume now the Government House Leader is going to state whether there is consent or not or what the gover nment's posit i on is . 3270

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1255 OW - 3 MR. MARSHALL: Yes, Your Honour, that is exactly what I was going to do, Your Honour, anticipated me. Now, the si~ation is that this is a motion brought up by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. w. carter) this morning. The Minister of Fisheries asked for the unanimous consent for this resolution to go off forthwith as an endorsation and stamped by all members of the House. The Minister of Fisheries has said it has gone through anyway now and it is on its way to Ottawa as the position of the government.

So consequently, it is not really a matter of urgency of debate at the present time because the hon. gentleman there opposite did not choose to join with us at the time and joined with something that obviously does not require debate. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! As I understand it now there is not wtanimous consent to -aebate this subject matter. 1'!R. MARSHALL: 1'!R. WN. ROWE : Because it has already been done, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I may speak. MR. SPEAKER: (MR.OTTENHEIMER) : The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. W.N. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know under what right the hon.

House Leader made his speech but I would assume that I would be given the same opportunity to speak for thirty or forty secands. I am not rising on a point of order. I would say, Mr. Speaker, there is not unanimous consent to debate - 1'!R. MARSHALL : MR. SPEAKER: MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. A point of order. I was replying to the hon. member for Trinity - Bay de Verde (Mr. F. Rowe). The House was asked specifically 3271.

May 11,1979 Tape No. 1256 AH-l MR. MARSHALL: as to the position of the government. The government has given its position. Now the hen. the House Leader has no right himself to enter into a debate on my words. MR. w. ROWE: To the point of order , Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) To the point of order. MR.W.ROWE: I rise to respond to the hon. House Leader's point of order now. I withdraw my request to have a word or two to say on what he had to say.

To the point of order, Sir, let me say this ; if the hen. minister or the House, the government does not agree with this particular resolution then we would gladly consent on this side,if the hon. minister is sincere in what he wants to doJ we would gladly consent to a debate for the remainder of the morning. -it is only an hour or so, on his resolution. Let us have a debate on it. Th~ fact that it might have been sent off by telex or telegram, Mr. Speaker, is irrelevant. Let us debate it now. Let us have a fullfledged debate and get the feeling of very knowledgeable members on both sides of the House.

I would submit, Sir, that all wisdom is not cornered in that side of the House. Let us have a fullfledged debate on his resolution and let us talk it over and let us send off a resolution of the House , if need be,which may or may not be unanimous but which can be sent off to the minister and the bureaucrats in Ottawa. If he is sincere about it let him move his motion , Sir , and we will give unanimous consent as far as we are able to to debate his resolution, his motion without notice. MR. NEARY: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER: There is no unanimou s consent. Order 13 has been called.

The adjourned debate - MR.F.ROWE: A point of order. ----- MR. SPEAKER: A point of order. MR. F. ROWE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was -,;aiting for Your Honour's ruling on the original

May 11,1979 Tape NO. 1256 AH-2 !'!R.F.ROWE: question and again on the point of order and this is why I rise on this point of order. Sir, when I was asking the House for leave or moving the motion under Standing Order 23(

a) I do not know if Your Honour heard it or not, Sir, but he must have heard the hon. House Leader opposite make certain remarks about me and the nature of the resolution. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr.W.Carterl Sir, said that in moving that motion I was playing games and playing politics. And the hon. the House Leader opposite, Sir, MR. MORGAN: MR. SPEAKER: (Mr.Ottenheimer) MR. F.ROWE: Is that not a shame? Order, please ~ I wish the big square mouth, Sir, would just keep it closed for a change. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.F.ROWE: 'nle hen. the House Leader, Sir, said that I had refused unanimous consent.

Sir, that is not t:rue. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! We are now in a situation where some experience tells me that we could go for an hour. If an hon. member alleged that another hon. member is playing politics that is not unparliamentary. That has been alleged back and forth, so that is not unparliamentary. Actually we are now in a position, I think, where the situation is quite clear - I do not see that there is any bona fide point of order.

I do not wish for ' hon. members' sake and the House's sake to get into protracted debate and what can well lead to acrimony - I think the situation is quite clear now and that is that the order of the Day No. 13 has been called, the adjourned debate on Bill 15. The hon. minister. SOl-IE HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 3273

~y u. 1979 Tape No. 1256 Al:!-3 Mr. Speaker, ~t is very unfortunate that: the ti.me left: co me is only L"' che order of t-..-o minutes, as I underst:and it:, to close the debace on this bill because I '"'ould certainly lL~e co take a much longer period of ~me. However, since it: is not: available co me I can only re-emphasize again, Hr. Speaker, thac the sale of the facilicy at Stephenville and the bil~ chat: ~s before che ~ouse now, the imporcanc one - t1R. NEARY: A point: of order. MR. SP~~ (Mr. Ot::t:enheimer ) : A poinc of order. M.~ . N'E:A.!~'f: Mr.

Speaker, che hon . minister just :nade a statement, Si.r, ch.ac could rezlect upon 'tour Honour and the proceeding s of thi s House in the face that: he o~y has a :ew minutes left. I am sure the hon. minister '"'ith his experience must realize that this bill has to c;o into Committee of the Whole ret "Nhen t.'le hon. gentleman will. have more time ~ he so desi::es. MR. MAYNARD: I am calking about: second reading 'Stupid', sit down! MR. m:ARY: So, Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest that: you straic;hte., ouc the minister, Sir, on the rules of c.'le House, that he wiU have more time if he so desires when we go inco Committee of r..."!e Who~e. I • ..,~u have more cime, eve_-y cnember of cl>.e 2ouse ;.ci.U have more ti.me. !iR . SPEAKE.~: Order, please! There is no point of order and I must point out to hon. members th.at points of order sho~d o~y be used "Nhere cbere is some evicence co suggest thac order has bee.~ broken.

May ll, 1979 Tape 1257 EC - l MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) The hon. minister. MR. MAYNA!Ul: Mr. Speaker, all I have the opportunity to do on the Second Reading portion of the bill is to say that it does give me a great deal of pleasure to mcve Second Reading at this time. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! On lll)tion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Ratification Of The Sale Of The Stephenville Linerboard Mill And Its Conversion To a Newsprint Mill," read a second time, ordered referred to a collllllittee of the Whole House, on to1110rrow. (Bill No. 15) MR. W. MABSHALL: Order 27.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Reform The Law Resecting The Property Of Married Persons," -(Bill No. 33). MR. SPEAKER: (Mr. Ottenheimer) The hon. the Minister of Justice. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HICKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I find myself in a position today in rising to lll)ve second reading of a bill to reform the law respecting the property of married persons, in a position where one has to reflect on the law reforms that we have seen enacted in this Legislature in the last three or four years • I think it is significant to note that amongst my colleagues in the other provinces and the uniform law commissioners, that they :rank this administration as one of the leaders in law reform in this period of law development in Canada. Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, I have no hesitancy in saying that the matrimonial property bill which is presently before the House is one of the most significant pieces of law reform that this Province has seen in many years indeed. It is a piece of legislation that recognizes that marriaqe must be an equal partnership, not simply in appearance, but in law. This change of philosophy in the law has been evolving over the past few years. 32(·5

M.ay 11, 1979 Tape 1257 EC - 2 MR. HICKMAN: Indeed, it may not be a tribute to legislators in the areas where the common law prevails that no move was made at all anywhere in the common law jurisdiction, not just in Canada, until really within the last decade. And in Canada it first came to the attention of legislators and law reform commissions in the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Rideout versus Rideout.

And hon. gentlemen will recall that the law, u enunciated by the highest court in the land at that time, imposed an obligation upon one party to the marriage, namely, the wife in that case, that was absolutely impossible for her to discharge. This was a case where there had been a dissolution of 1114rriage.

The husband and wife lived on a farm which was registered in the husband's name and at the time of the dissolution of marriage, even though the wife had toiled long and hard for many, many years and made contributions that may not have been financial in the sense of actually investing money, she had invested time and energy in that operation, she was precluded from a share in the matrimonial asset. We had in this Province taken some steps to apprise ourselves of the problems that one would find in bringing in legislation which would constitute a very massive reform in the family law. This bill,

May ll, 1979 Tape No. 1258 SD - l MR. T. UICK.i'IAN: I believe, when passed by this Legislature ~o~ill mean that we have, in the last four or five years, implemented all of the major recommendations in the report on family law prepared by Or. Raymond Gushue, a very learned gentleman, a legal scholar and a former President of Memorial University of Newfoundland. It was his appointment and the subsequent work carried out by him that put us in a position, at least, were we saw many of the problems that could arise and also, what is more important,many of the inequities that had to be eradicated.

And I think it is significant to note that one of the two researchers for the Gushue Commission was Mrs. Mary Noonan, LLB, now a senior solicitor with the Depaz-tment of Justice, who. together with Miss Margaret Cameron,LLB, another solicitor with the Department of Justice, have done more ..ork, I suspect, in reviewing the law and in assisting me1 as well as putting me in a position in turn to enunciate the principles of this bill to my colleagues who so readily and quickly and enthusiastically support it.

These two lawyers, I say without any fear of contradiction, are the most knowledgeable people in their profession in this Province today on family law. I knew the tremendous amount of work they have done during the past year, year and a half. They were aided in their work by a law student- I think she is at Queens now in her final year - last Summer and the year before,from St. John's 1 Miss Janet Henley, who compiled and assessed the very large reaction that we received throughout Newfoundland from my invitation to Newfoundlanders tc let us know how they felt about reform in matrimonial property law.

Another lawyer who worked with the Gushue Report but has not been directly involved in this 3277

•1ay ll, 1979 Tape No. 1258 SD - :2 MR. T. HICKMAN : particular piece of legislation, but is very knowledgeable in the field of family law, is Mr. David Day, a St. John's lawyer,and I note the approbation from Mr. Day in yesterday's St. John's Evening Telegram. _...-t~ . Speaker, hon. gentlemen will recall that about a year or eighteen months ago I publicly invited the people of Newfoundland to let me have any representations they wished to make with respect to changes in matrimonial property law in this ?rovince. The response was quite good from organizatigns The Status of women's Council of St.

John's, the Status of Women's Council of Newfoundland, the Status of Women's Council of Corner Brook, their branches, I think it was NAPE, a dozen organizations or more came in with very good briefs·, diversified views to some extent, But then the thought crossed our mi11ds that it is sometimes easy to get the snmi ssions of o:rsanized gr ou~ 7 but we want to be certain that these groups a:re articulating the views of the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and a lot of individuals a:re,sometimes, reticent.

We had some individual submissions too to , sometimes , come forth and let their views be known 1 or some of the issues which are quite complicated in law may deter them from getting involved in that kind of dialogue 1

!1ay 11,1979 Tape No. 1259 AH-1 MR. HIClCMAN: so we then 1 through the press and through r.eturn mailing advertisements in the press 1 set forth a series of questions and si.Jnply said if you want to put your name on it you can and if you do not it makes no difference~ butwe would like you to ~~et forth the various issues. And there the response was quite ~ ~../' all Newfoundlanders the opportunity, if they so desired,to let -------- ------us know their views. ~ Now, Mr.

Speaker, firstly this bill, the main thrust of this bill, is to reform the law with respect to matri.Jnonial property and in particular recognize the equal position of spouses as individuals within a marriage. There are several systems that have been tried in various jurisdictions. There is the deferred sharing system of property that some reform commissions recommended. There is the community of interest approach which other jurisdictions have tried but I think have found to be unworkable.

This bill contains certain principles of the deferred sharing system of property but goes a step further than any similar legislation in Canada with respect to the matrimonial property home There it says, 'Beyond all reasonable doubt that the matrimonial home shall be owned jointly by husband and wife~ Now, Mr.

Speaker, I was detracted somewhat, detracted myself somewhat in my opening remarks, when I said that it is significant that because of the problems that sometimes arise in this kind of essential law reform that it is only within the past few years that legislatures have turned their attention to trying to bring laws as related to marriage within the twentieth century.

The simple fact is that from l882,when the Married Woman's Property Act of England was passed, up until the last three or four years - maybe ten years at the most, but I guess it it ten years since the Gushue Commission started looking at it and some 3279

May 11,1979 Tape !fo. 1259 AH-2 MR. HICKMAN: law reform commissions- but really until about ten years ago legislators and parliamentarians in the common law jurisdictions would sit back and indeed boast that the Married Woman's Property Act of England, which was adopted by the common law juris dictions, was one of the best pieces of legislation in vogue at that time and that we should be content to live with it. But under that system and under the law, .Mr. Speaker, as it relates in !fewfoundland today 1 the person in whom title is registered is deemed to be the owner of that property.

And there are procedures, we have the Family Relief Act and other legislation whereby one can try and get into the courts and try and establish certain claims to ownership - onespouse can as against another -but the significant thing is that the courts in the past in dealing with these cases, in trying to determine the ownership principles had to deal with the law in the same manner as they would deal with disputes between two strangers rather than a dispute between two partners to a marriage.

There is a doctrine of law which hon. and learned gentlemen are aware off called the Presumption of Advancement which presumes that if a husband registered a property in his wife's name that he intended to make a gift. · There was a provision whereby this presumption could be rebutted if the court could be satisfied that the gift was not intended 1 but rather a trust was being created· And the same thing applied in reverse and> in a sense? that may have been discrimination against the husband.

That same presumption of advancement could have some serious effect with respect to gifts given in trust by,say 1 a father to a son prior to a father's remarrying. There is an amendment which will eliminate, and I think it is necessary to bring this act fully into focus and fully into play, the presumption of advancement. rhis bill, ~x. Speaker, recognizes a very 3280

May 11, 1979 Tape 1260 PK - l Mr. Hickman: fundamental principle· It recognizes that in the traditional family 1 where one spouse contributes financially and the other contributes in caring for children and as a homemake~ that the person so contributing in the care of the children and as a homemaker must be placed in a position at law- 3.nd that is generally the wife, probably always the wife- where she has equal interest in the matrimonial home.

But the law as it stands today in jurisdictions where legislation has not been brought in recently to change it,and the law as enunicated by the Supreme Court of Canada 1 ignores the contribution of the homemaker and the fact that the homemaker,which is also very relevant, in order to maintain the home and in order to raise the children has been required in many instances to give up the opportunity of making a financial contribution to the matrimonial home because she was not in a position where she could go out and become gainfully employed and thereby be in a position to make that kind of contribution. Mr.

Speaker, there have been 1 again 7 attempts by our courts to balance some of the inequities of the separate property system by the ~se of maintenance orders and lump sum provisions under The Divorce Act. However 1 in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is not adequate for two reasons: firstly, maintenance payments do not recognize a right to a share of property; and secondly, persons should not be required to rely on the ingenuity of a judge to obtain something which should be his or hers by right. As I said, Mr.

Speaker, and I think it is important that in approaching this bill we be aware of the various alternatives that have been looked at, some adopted, some rejected, and all of them in various jurisdictions have been adopted to some degree, because it is a part of the approach that one has to use in ensuring that this bill,which does go further than the others in other jurisdictions 1 is indeed the kind of exciting law reform that I feel it is. In some jurisdictions, 3231

May ll,l979 Tape 1260 PK - 2 Mr. Hickman: early in the gal118, they tried to approach it by way of the community of property option. The community of property system was in the beginning suggested by some law reform commissions as a solution to the problems created by separate property and at one time it was thought to reflect the concept of marriage as an equal partnership. But, Mr.

Speaker, although there are variations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in general what is provided under the community of property system is that whatever property spouses acquire after marriage becomes community property in which each spouse has an equal interest from the date of acquisition, and that when the marriage was t~nated ·the community property is all in the pot, you payoff the community debts, divide the rest of the property between the spouses. But traditionally the community property has been managed by the husband.

This is a tradition which is not acceptable today, and if the -community property system were to be adopted there would have to be some changes certainly to put it into the category of joint manageme,nt. Mr. Speaker, the community of property system was found to be wanting in certain areas, in certain jurisdictions, and I think it is significant to note for the record 32G2

May ll, 1979 Tape No. 1261 NM - l MR. HICKMAN: that under the civil law, which is in force in the Province of Quebec and in areas of Europe and jurisdictions where the Code Napoleon is in force, that there had been that community property concept right from the days of the implementation of the Code Napoleon.

Consequently our sister Province of Quebec has always operated under the community of property system until quite recently and they have now found in Quebec that that community of property system is not a satisfactory approach and they now have legislation either before their House of Assembly, or they have already brought it in, bringing in a far less restrictive system. The next area, Mr. Speaker, an approach which has been used by some jurisdictions is what is called the deferred sharing approach.

The deferred sharing approach is a scheme which maintains separate property during the subsistence of the marriage and on termination brings the property into a community. Onder deferred sharing, on dissolution of the marriage the assets and liabilities of each spouse are determined and the spouse with the greater share makes a payment to the one with the smaller share. The division is not a physical one but the spouse who has acquired less has a personal claim in debt against the spouse who has acquired more.

And like community property,business property is usually included, and certain properties are excluded from that to be shared. There are some advantages to this system. It has the advantage of preserving the separate property concept and consequently it allows the property to be used and treated and mortgaged and whatever else from time to time without the consent of both spouses.

In the jurisdictions, and Ontario is one of these jurisdictions 1 where they have brought in the deferred sharing systemJ they have had to confer a certain amount of discretion to allow judges to make orders that would vary the equal ownership of all the property. And what we are trying to do and whilst the courts 3283

May 11, 1979 Tape No. 1261 ~M - 2 will have cerca:i .n responsibilities and certain discretions, whac we are trying to do in this bill is to eliminate as much of tile con£roncation and uncertainty and che kind of approach ::hac is based on t.he adversary syst:em, i: •-1e can do ic ac all. ;.nd I might, as an aside , say that t.hac approach is t.he same fundamental approaca that: is contained in t~ vni.fied Family Courc law reform chat was brought before chis House two years aqo. And while I think of it , before I forg et it, may I advise this hon .

House that on .June 18, 1.979, which will be a very significant: date in the evolution of law reform in this !?rovi.11ce, the Oni..fied ~ami~y Courc Ace will become law1 che Unified Family Court: as a pilot project:, cost shared between boch ::he Government of Canada and t.he Government: of Newfoundland , I might add on an initiative from che Government of Newfoundland . •,.re can take some pride ':hat we did not: 3284

May ll, 1979 Tape 1262 EC- l HR. lUCKMAN : have to wait for all the other provinces in the case of Unified Family Court to 1110ve. We -re, I think, the first to bring this concept to the Atton1eys Generals' Conferences and to the Government of Canada, and ourselves, together with Ontario and Manitoba, have embarked upon this pilot project in specified areas. The unified Family Court will be a three-year pilot project for meb:opolitan St.

John's and Bell Island, and if it works - and there is no hesitancy in llf/ llli.nd that with the excellent staff who have been hired, tbe marriaC)tl counsellors , the psychologists, the psychiatrists, the marriage - the word has escaped me now - tbe advisors , under the leadenhip of Mr. Justice Ralph Faqan of that court, that the Unified FCUIIily Court pilot project will be datennined at the end of three yean to be somathing that must continua, and hopefully then it wil.l becoma a permanent province-ida operation and a branch of our Trial Division of the Supre!IIEI Court.

But in any avant, that comes in on June 18th. And why I mention that now, Mr. Speaker, is that the whole thrust of that Unified Family Court, as is the thrust and concept and principle contained in tbe Act that - a:re presentl.y debating, is wherever possillle to avoid the adversary approach to tbe resolution of marital problems and marital difficulties. Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill is different from the legislation, I am told, in any other Canadian jurisdiction in one vital a:rea, and that is the co-ownership of a matri1110nial home.

What this bill does is that in effect it says we take some of the deferred sharing approach with respect to some of the assets, but because the matrimonial ho- occupies a special position in family property relations, we feel that this family asset has to be dealt with separately. The matrimonial ho- is the shelter and focal point for the family and it often is the single valuable asset of a marriage. Implicit in the concept of co-ownership of the matri.mcnial home is the philosophy that a non-owner spouse, usually the wife, contributes equally to the home.

Under the legislation that is presently being debated, each spouse will have a right to a one-half 3235

May ll, 1979 Tape 1262 EC - 2 MR. HICXMAN: interest in the matrimonial home irrespective of the manner in which title to the home is taken or when it was acquired. And under this principle in this Act, neither spouse can sell or mortgage tha home without the consent of the other. If one party attempts to dispose of the matrimonial home without the knowledge of the other, the court is empowered to prevent or set aside a. transaction or make an order that one half of the proceeds be paid to the non-consenting spouse.

Also - and these are soma of the technical problems that I a.m sure the hon. the Leader of the Opposition appreciates, which a.re going through his mind as a practicing lawyer What do you do in the case where you cannot find one of the spouses7 - he or she has disappeared. You know, these a.re the things you try to cover in legislation if you can. But there is a provision where a spouse unreasonably withholds consent• say the house is falling down and there is an opportunity for sale, and one spouse says, 1 I cannot afford to keep up the house 1 it is better for both