VOL. 1 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1982 NO. 21

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1217 MJ - 1 The Ilouse met at 10:00 a. m . Mr. Speaker in the Chair. M_!< _. _ ~PE~_!<~~-l!'_1:1:0Se~ 1:_2_~ Order, please! The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, before we get into the Orders of the Day, I would on behalf of the government - indeed the full caucus - want to express my deepest sympathy on the passing of a respected and very dear Newfoundlander, Mrs. Elizabeth Goudie. I particularly want to extend our deepest regrets to the hon. the Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Deveopment (Mr. J. Goudie) and to the entire Goudie family.

While most of us know Mrs. Goudie through the hon. minister,many Newfoundlanders have become familiar with her and the era in the Provinces history which she represents through her publication Women Of Labrador , her autobiography,in which she documents her c,<rly J ifc ,-.nd chanqcs which Labrador hus undcrqone. Tis any one who knows Mrs.

Goudie with attest 1and her book is further evidence of it, she was a true Labradorian and an exemplary wife and mothe~ a person who had that unusual strenght and character to deal with the difficult times and circumstances which the early undeveloped, even hostile Labrador presented. The wife of a trapper, the mother of five children, a person whose kindness and generosity is widely known 1 Mrs. Goudie departs with the affection of all those who knew her ~nd, indeed, those who did not have the opportunity to be so fortunate. The Government of Newfoundland was very proud to recognize Mrs.

Goudie's contribution to the heritage of Labrador by naming the government building in Hap~y Valley in her honour. We mourn her passinq and aqain we extend deepest sympathy to the hon. minister and his family. I would propose that a message of sympathy 2 ~ . .:Jj)

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1217 MJ - 2 PREMIER PECKEORD: and condolences go forward for this House to recognize and to pass along our sympathy to the han. minister and the family of the late Mrs. Elizabeth Goudie. MR. G. WARREN: Mr. Spe.:1kcr. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for Tornqat Mountains. MR. lvARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I second th.1t motion on behalf of our caucus. I first met Mrs.

Goudie in 1965 and practically since that time: every visit that I have ma.de to Happy Valley -Goose Bay I would take the opportunity and qo a no visit ~trs. r.ou<lic when sin• \''.::t:'; ill ilr-t· home• on 11.1111 i ll.•lrl River Road and '"hen she was in the senior citizens' home. 1 remember it was only about two years ago that she said to me, she said, 'Although you and Joe are different politically, you are friends and', she said, 'that is the way 1 like to see vou.' 14r.

Speaker, have a statement 1 want to read in the record, it may take a couple of minutes but it really sho\..rS t11e appt"eciation that J have for th.e late Mrs. Goudie and I will read it1 Mr. Speaker, from my text. ln her no1.,r famous recollectlons of 1i fe in Lab1·ador, Wom~.!:!.._ 9.L~~!).!E~~!> Mrs. Elizabeth Goudie 1o1rote1 "I am very proud of this country Labrador. The name goes very deep 1.,ri thin me. The beauty of its rivers ana lal<es ancl the beautiful qreen forests and the hi 11 s and :he yreat ~·'lito:-Mealy Mountains. 2 l\ .. J ·~ ,j '

June 11, 1982 Tape 1218 EC - 1 MR. WARREN: I look over the hills on miles and miles of hillside untouched by man and I wonder how much longer we are going to be able to keep its beauty. I really believe this within myself and most of the old-timers I have talked to feel the same way. They say we will never have the same kind of peace anymore, but I hope our young people will pick up where we left off and try to keep peace and be proud of this great land." Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in those simple words of astonishing eloquence, Mrs.

Elizabeth Goudie has given all of us an enormous and worthy challenge, that is to restore this land to its once fundamental majesty. Mr. Speaker, few words need to be said on the passing of Elizabeth Goudie. She has left behind her her own eulogy and words that cannot be equalled. Many tears will be shed today and tomorrow for this magnificent human being. It has been said on occasion, Mr. Speaker, that it is too bad that we here in this country do not have Royalty. I think, Mr. Speaker, Elizabeth Goudie has proven us wrong. Many of the members of this han. House have never had the good fortune of meeting Mrs.

Goudie. I want to tell you all, she was unique. She was a true bred Labradorian, a woman of Labrador. She was a fantastic wife and a fantastic mother, according to all reports. On the passing of her dear husband, \'Then Jim Goudie died in 1958, here are the words that she said about him: "We worked side by side for the past forty-two years together and it was pretty rough sometimes. 2 5 ~:

June 11, 1982 Tape 1218 EC - 2 MR. WARREN: "We respected each other, and when he was taken from me, I did not feel too bad. Life is meant to be that way. I think a person has nothing to regret when they are ha?PY and .,.,e were very happy. So I am quib~ content now. There is always something to do and always something to think about:' 2 ,-. J ~j '•

June 11, 1982 Tape 1219 PK - l MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, my only regret is that each and every citizen of this Province could not have met Elizabeth Goudie and stood in the shadow of the warmth that surrounded her. She was a friend to everybody. She will always be with us, Mr. Speaker. I personally will miss her because she was a good friend of mine as well as everybody else's. She left us a message which I would like to pass along to this hon. House and it is the last message in her book The Woman Of Labrador. It says, I quote, "I will never change deep within my heart and I hope I can be a friend to all people.

We should strive to live in peace with one another, and that is the only way to live right". SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Before we proceed with the business of the House,I would like to take this opportunity to especiall y welcome to the galleries Commissioner John D.Haldron the National Commander of the Salvation Army for Canada and Burmuda,who is visiting for the signing of the Centennial Scroll with the hon. Premier and to attend the graduation of the Nursing Class of the Grace General Hospital , and Colonel Albert D. Browning,Divisional Commander for Eastern Newfoundland.

I welcome these two gentlemen to the galleries today. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! ST~TEM~NTS _ BY MINISTERS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Premier. ·- ~ -·- -- 2 ,-· ... , :J ~J il

June 11, 1982 Tape 1219 PK -2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is with shock and disappointment that the Government of ~ewfoundland has learned through the media that the federal government has delayed implementation of its new legislation that would permit a power corridor through Quebec for the transmission of Labrador po\•er. The Newfoundland Government has for years tried to negotiate with the Province of Quebec on this issue and related hydro issues. Each time it \~as clear that Quebec's interests were to get even more from the people of this Province in exchange for giving up very little.

The Newfoundland Government negotiated during these years even though we firmly felt that one province should not have to negotiate rights and powers that other Canadians now enjoy by protection of the federal government. It was asked many times , why does not Newfoundland have the same protection 2-. I Jjt

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1220 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: afforded it for the transmission of electric ryower across neighbouring provinces as other Canadians now enjoy in the transmission of oil and gas? During the last two years the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has been successful in per9)1<1d:j.ng the federal- l:n.n:ea~cr,acy and federal government - • # . • • ~ I. ': • . . ~ '·. . ' • . that 1:1} -C people of N9\'Jfouricl],an~l_ und Lq.brado 'r wc:re ric:>t hlll C~nadi?nq in thi~ mq.tte~.

Xet we find today wh?t Canada . . . . ·. ·, · •. ' . is. all- q.bo~tr the str9ng and powerfu~ provinc~s,especial~y Quebec,can dominate the weak- that the federal government can be rnani~ulated by Quebec even though right is on the side of the smaller province. This callous disregard for basic rights and freedoms from coast to coast make a mockery of the Prime Minister's supposed interest in a Charter of Rights in the new Constitution. I propose,therefore, Mr. Speaker, to introduce the following resolution to this hon. House today:

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland have been second class citizens in the transmission of their energy products since the development of the Upper Churchill; AND

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland deserve the same rights as other Canadians in,the transmission of their energy products; AND

WHEREAS the federal government has now delayed implementation of Newfoundland's right Jf transmission of hydro electricity by a power corridor through Quebec in total disregard of the basic rights that Newfoundlanders should have automatically; AND WIIEREAS this delay is being imposed without consultation with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House condemn this action by the federal government to delay implementation of the power corridor legislation; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House call upon the federal government to stop procrastinating on this issue and give legal effect to the legislation now. 2 5 :ii-i

June 11, 1982 Tape No . 1220 so - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD : I look forward to the unanimous support of all members of this House. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear . MR. SPEAKER (Ru ssell ): The hon . Leader of the Opposition . HR . NEARY : Mr . Speaker, first of all, let me correct an error that the hon . gentleman made in the earlier part of his Ministerial Statement . It was not the Government of Canada that delayed the implementation of this legislation, it was the Parliament of Canada . As a matter of fact, the amendment - SO ME HON • MEMBERS : Oh, oh . MR. NEARY : - there is a distinction , Mr .

Speaker, the amendment was broug ht in by a Tory member of Parliament, the a~endment PREUIER PECKPORD : I do not care what his colours are. MR . NEARY : The hon . gentleman does not care what his colours are . We the hon . gentleman shou ld launch his attack on his own Party . It is his own Pa rty that delayed the implementation . And, Mr. Speaker, all that is happening here is that the proclamatio n of the act will take pl ace six months hence, that is what it means . There is no delay .

As ~ matter of fact, I told the hon . gentlem an in this Hou se a couple of \-leeks ago that we should have been up there lobbying 2 ~l :.; ·.J

June 11, 1982 Tape 1221 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: night and day 1 we should have been fiqhtinq tooth and nail and supportincr the Government of Canada for having the courage to brinq in this piece of legislation. But what it does now, Mr. Speaker - MR. TULK: You warned them of that. MR. }:JEARY: Ye?, ·.'·· I warned him about it and the hon. 'g-entleman ,would not pay any attention to our warning. But what it does now it gives both governments breathing space. PREMIER PECKFORD: We do not need any breathing space over rights. We should not have to have breathing space over rights. Rights come by right, not by negotiation.

MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, we are all Canadians and we are qetting fed up and tired of hearing these anti- Confederate, these anti-Canadian utterances from the other side of the House. SOMF HON. MEMBERS : Shame! Shame! MR. NEARY: It will give both governments breathing time, Mr. Speaker, in order - PREMIER PECKFORD: Why does Newfoundland have to negotiate riqhts? How come we have to negotiate rights? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, nlease~ Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is what we should have today is a resolution thanking the Government of Canada.

The han. gentleman told us a couple of weeks ago that this bill would not go through third reading. DR. COLLINS: Have you heard about Unity '82? MR. NEARY: The bill has gone through third reading. It will be proclaimed six months from now. In the meantime,instead of uttering these anti-Canadian and anti- Confederate remarks, the hon. gentleman should start negotiations 2 ~~ :; i"l

June 11, 1982 Tape 1221 NM - 2 MR. NEARY : with the Government of Quebec. PREMIER PECKFORD: No chance. We are not going to negotiate for our rights . MR. NEARY: Oh, I see, the han. gentleman is not going - PREMIER PECKFORD: We have the rights the same as other Canadians. MR. WARREN: Not a chance. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, even if the act had been proclaimed yesterday, last night, negotiations with the Province of Quebec would stilJ have to take place.

The han. gnetleman is going down to Maine on the 21st. of this month to meet with the other premiers in Eastern Canada and the governors in the Eastern United States, and the han. gentleman then should start his negotiations with the Province of Quebec. PREMIER PF.CKFORD: I started in Vermont t•-.10 years aqo and got nowhere because they wanted the border channed and the five rivers to go through the Province of Quebec. MR. NEARY: I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, if the hon. gentleman wants to get anywhere with negotiations in this Province on the transmission of power, or on the offshore, that he should remove the present Minister of Energy (Mr. Marshall) from the negotiatiQns. There is the stumbling block, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: So, Mr. Speaker, we are not qoinq to support this silly, foolish resolution. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! 2 ,., ., U !.1 I

June 11 , 1982 Tape 1221 NM - 3 MR . NEARY: we are tired - MR . MARSHALL: Mr. Speak:e r, on a po i nt of o rde r . MR . SPEAKER : Order, please ! Order , plea se ! The hon . President of the C~unc i l . MR . NARSHALL: Mr . Speaker, the bon. the Premier has given notice of a resolution that is here , and he has qiven it under Ministerial Statements . The h¢n . ~entleman is debatin g the statement . I know that the bon . the Premier has already indicated that he welcomes debate , but what I suggest to the hon . Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Neary) what we could do is \''e could let the business of the Bouse be suspended and no\., debate thi s resolution in the normal fas hion , bri ng it to a vo·te nt the end of the sitting thi s m orning, and then we woul d hav~ you know, a reasonable airing of the situation in accordance with the normal manner - PR.e ru i:!K i?.&:;Ci\1:'0){.0: Yes , let us put pre s sure on the federal government then. 2 ~ iJ ~· ')

June 11 , 1982 Tape no . 1222 AH - 1 MR . MARSHALL : -so everyone can have a say in the matter befor e we vote on it today because it is important . MR . NEARY : Are you going to debate this resolution? PREMIER PECK FORD : MR MARSHALL : PREMIER PECKFORD : That is up to the House - Yes, \..re make - It is up to the Opposition . We could debate it right away . MR . MARSHALL : We make the suggestion that PREl\liER PECKFORD : MR . MARSH ALL : We are mas ter of our own rules .

We make the suggestion that the resolution th at is being placed befo re the House today by the hon . the Pre mi er be subject to resolution now so that we can have a debate on it and then on the understanding that it would be resolved by the end of this morning because it is from the governm ent 's view of such import that it should be dealt with exp ed itiou sly and immediately . PREMIER PEC KFO RD : It should be dealt with and vot ed on this morning so that we can get it off to Ottawa . MR . SHEARER (Russell) : The hon . Leader of the Opposition MR . NEARY : Nell, Hr .

Speaker, first of all let me conclude my fe\..r remarks by saying again, by repeatin g what I said a few monents ago, we are tired and fed up with the anti-Canad ian attitude on the par t of this administration . We thin k this is a good piece of leg is lation . We commend the Government of Canada for having the courage to bring it int o the parliament of canada . we condemn the national Tory party, '"e condemn them for fighting against it, t-re condemn a Tory MP for bringing in this amendment, that the act not be proclaimed until six months from now . MR. WARREN: You mean a Tory brought il in: 2G·· ·

• ..;.".J, June ll, 1982 MR. NEARY: ~lr. Speaker­ PREMIER PECKFORD: MR. NEARY: part y. Tape no. 1222 AH - 2 A Tory brought in that amendment, Lalonde, brought it in. - under pressure from the Tory PREMIER PECKFORD: They did not succumb to pressure fr om the National Energy Policy. How come they suddenly succumb to pressure on the power corridor. MR. SPEAKER (RUSSELL) : Order, please! Order, please! The hon. Leader of the Opposition is in the opinion of the Chair taking an extraordinarily long period of time in responding to the Ministerial Statement. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, in conclusion T would sQy that as far as debating this resolution is concerned today we will not agree to that because my colleagues have to leave on flights around 12:30 today and they would not have time to participate in the debate. We think we should have more time, Mr. Speaker, to get more details on this because as I said the important thing here is that it gives the hon. - MR. MARSHALL: A point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order.

The hon. gentleman is obviously afraid to debate the matter but the hon. gentleman is not going to have the - PREMIER PECKFORD: Scared. Cover-up. MR. MARSHALL: - luxury of debating it under 2 G ~.' L

• June 11, 1982 Tape 1223 PK - l MR. MARSHALL: Ministerial Statements. I think, Your Honour, the rule is quite clear that the Opposition is given one-half of the time to respond to Ministerial Statements. MR. NEARY: No! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, yes,yes! MR. MARSHALL: The han. gentleman there opposite has consummed more time in responding than the II"\ Premier .. in giving ~s stateuent. So I would submit to Your Honour that he should be asked to take his seat.

If he wants to debate it, you know, if he wants to debate it out in the open,ftne. lnstead what the bon. gentlemen want to do is weasel away into the burrow of Ottawa once again.Well that is their prerogative. But if he wants to .debate it we will debate it,but he is not going to debate it in Ministerial Statements. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER {Russell): Order,please! It appears that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) was entering into the realm of debate,and I would once again give him about one minute to finish up his remarks. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, in that one minute the advice that I would give to the Premier instead of coming up with this kind of inflannutory resolution and the inflammatory statements that the hon. gentleman just made 1it would be far better for the administration to enter into negotiations with the Province of Quebec to try to negotiate a settlement, a resolution of this transmitting of surplus power from Newfoundland to markets on the Mainland and in the United States rather than just continue the war, Mr. Speaker, that will accomplish nothing. MR. SPEAKER: ministers? 2 f' L u !.' 1 Any other statements by The hon.

Minister of Development.

,June ll, 1982 Tape 1223 PK - 2 MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, members of the House of Assembly will ~ecall that earlier this year the government announced the implementation of a provincial building lot subsidy programme. This programme was designed to reduce the price of residential building lots in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation Land Developments located in some eighteen communities across our Province. This action was taken in an effort to assist prospective homeowners ahd the residential construction industry on a Province-wide basis.

The problems being experienced by the residential construction industry are most apparent in the urban centres of the Province where the number of single-detached starts have declined considerably. Nowhere is this more evident that in St. John's where single-detached starts have decreased by almost 80 per cent during the first four months of 1982 as compared to the corresponding period last year. The problem is further compounded in the capital city as recently released figures show St. John's as having the highest rental vacancy rate of any urban centre in Canada.

This will have a significant impact on the residential construction sector as it will virtually eliminate the construction of new rental projects during the foreseeable future. Faced with these factors the provincial government,through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, reviewed various alternatives to aid residential construction in the St. John's area and, as a result , I now wish to inform the House of the introduction of a building lot subsidy programme for Area I of Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation's Cowan Heights development. 2'"'. ,, u ~-' h

June lL 1982 Tape 1223 PK - 3 MR. WINDSOR : This measure was contained in the 1982 Provincial Budget as presented by the hon . Minister of Finance (Dr. Col~ins) . Today I wish to provide details of this subsidy arrangement to members of the House . Effectively immediately unsold residential building lots in Area I of Cowan llei9hts will be reduced in price by 20 per cent . Area I in all consists of 20i7 single family building lots of which 50 were placed in the sales position in mid-1981 and due to economic conditions only 7 have been sold to date. This price reduction will remain in effect until November 30, 1982 2~· ,

June 11, 1982 Tape 1224 EC - 1 MR.

WINDSOR: and will mean savings of from $5,000 to $7,000 per lot. 'l'his will translate into a direct reduction in an individual's mortgage require- ment of between $75 to $105 per month which in turn will amount to a saving of roughly $23,000 to $32,000 in interest over a ~went:y-five year te .rm assuming COIJ!p~rabl.e l]lq 'rtgagt;! rates on r~J1eWal • . . ·· . . ,., 't~ ifacilitat,: the subsequent ' . . . . . ~ pqvi11g of tile .~owan Height~ d~v~lppil!ent; tJ:~s price . . . . . ·. ' .. reduction will be limited initially to the unsold portion of the original offering of fifty lots in ·Area 1.

There will be no rebates offered to those purchasers who had acquired building lots in Area 1 of the Cowan Heights development prior to . June 1, 1982. Mr. Speaker, with the continuing refusal by the federal government to take action toward reducing high interest rates, responsibility again falls on the provincial government to take whatever measures it can given its limited financial resources to assist prospective homeowners and the residential construction industry as a whole.

I fervently hope that the announce- ment of the lot subsidy programme for Area 1, Cowan Heights development will supply the much needed stimulant for the residential construction industry in St. John's in 1982. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before responding to the Ministerial Statement, I notice the two distinguished Salvation Army officers in the gallery, Colonel Waldron and Major Browning, who are here as part of the lOOth Anniversary of the Salvation Army in Canada. 2 G ;_, H

June 11, 1982 Tape 1224 EC - 2 MR . LUSH : I am sure all hon . members would want to congratulate the Salvation Army for their 100 years of service in Canada and wish them well in the future. SOME HON . HEMBERS : Hear , hear! ?·1R . LUSH : Mr . Speaker, first of a I 1 , we should note the terminology here which says that this is a subsidy programme and we should remind all hon. members and the people of Newfoundland that this is not a subsidy programme , it is simply a drop in the price of land . It is just a drop in the price of land that was ovex-priccu , Mr . Speaker, and has now droppcc.l to n1arko t value .

The peculiar thing about this , though, Mr. Speaker, was that last year this party advanced a position with respect to housing owned by the government , by the Cro\vn corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Housing . We advanced a position su ggesting that mortgage rates should be dropped, and in that same statement , saying that lnnJ was a major problem .

And the minister , in responding to th at statement - just listen to this -the mini ster .in responding to that sta temen t said , "I should add, as ~otell , that I am not convinced that the acquisition of land is a critical factor in the overall housinq equation in the Pro vince at this moment ." So , Mr . Speaker, the minister said that the acquisition 2G· ·t

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1225 MJ - l MR. T. LUSH: of land was not a factor, and this rnorn.in<J, of cou1·sc, he is doing just what we wanted him to do, to reduce the price of land. So in September, six or seven months ago,he did not think it was a malar factor, Mr. Speaker, but this morning somehow he think.> 'it is a major factor. We happen to agree, of course with this policy, to reduce the price of land in St. John's nnd ind0cd riqht throughout the Province,but it does not go far enough. Again this fits in with an election promise made by the Premier that this provision would account for 1,900 jobs.

I hope that is correct,but there are a lot of factors in the construction industry quite apart from land price. And the Home Building Association recommended that the government should reduce sales tax. That is another measure that the minister should have taken, that is sales tax on building materials. That would have assisted the construction industry as well, but so far the government have not seen the wisdom of doing this but maybe after a little while the minister will see the wisdom of this as well as he saw the wisdom of reducing the price of buildina lots.

We ho?e also t~at the government will go a little further and reduce mortgage rates wit~ respect to properties and real estate administered by the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, as they have done in other pro vinces, Mr. Speaker. Other provinces have taken this measure to reduce the mortgage rate. So the minister has now seen that the price of land is a factor and the government nmv have reduced the price, it is not a subsidy, the have reduced the price. It was a matter of reacting to a crisis, Mr.

Speaker, where the buildin g lots in Cowan Heights were not selling because they were overpriced and now they have reduced them to the market value. Cowan Heights, I think, last year sold seven out of fifty, building lots, seven out of fifty, in phase one. 2 G 1 n

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1225 MJ -2 MR. T. LUSH: Right now in phase bolo I think they have only sold twenty per cent. So it is a matter of reacting to a crisis,but we say they have not qone far enough. They should reduce the sales tax on buildinq materials, they should also look into reducing moragage rates. MR. G. WARREN: Hear, hear! MR. LUSH: So, Mr. Speaker, this is just a reaction to a crisis situation to land that was undersold <~nd overpriced. SOME HON. M.EMBERS: MR. L. SIMMS: MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Recreation and Youth. MR. SIMMS: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister of Culture, Mr.

Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure today that I \.rill place under the appropriate heading and table before the House the Green Paper on Recreatjon, a document which ~1as compiled by a Committee established under

Section 17 of the Department of Tourism Act on December 4, 1980. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Transoortation (Mr. R. Dawe), then held the Tourism, Recreation and Culture potfolio and in his announeement at that time relative to the formation of the Committee, indicated that the general purpose and nature of the GreE;m Paper Study \vas to identify concerns and issues in 2 G l I

!.. Jun e 11, 1982 Tape No. 1226 so - l MR. SIMMS: recreation in this Province. The committee would then be required to categorize a number of recommendations for submission to government regarding the effects of the leisure delivery system and the provision of recreation services that benefit the people of our Province. The committee was chaired by Mr. Frank Butler, an assistant professor with the School of Physical Education and Athletics of Memorial University, and I am pleased to say that Mr. Butler is seated in the galleries here this morning. Other committee members were Mr.

Frank Clarke, President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Parks and Recreation Association,and a school principal; Mrs. Paula Smythe, Executive Secretary, Newfoundland and Labrador Parks and Recreation Association; Mr. Vic Janes, then with the Corner Brook Parks and Recreation Department; Mr. Bill Matthews, a physical education teacher from - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. SIMMS: - Fortune and now, of course, our colleague,the hon. member for Grand Bank; Mr. Gordon Randell, a sports broadcaster with CBC in Happy Valley - Goose Bay; and Mr.

Terry Harte, a broadcaster from Grand Falls as well as the Vice-President of the Newfoundland Amateur Baseball Association. A series of public hearings were conducted around the Province from January through June of 1981. And in addition to these, written and oral submissions were also made by interested groups and individuals in private sessions. Mr. Speaker, the "Green Paper", as the name implies, is a working document.

It was formally presented to government in October, 1981 and since that time officials of my department have conducted a thorough review and study of the Paper's findings and recommendations. 2Gi )

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1226 so - 2 MR. SIMMS: The Paper states and I quote, "The past decade has seen a tremendous growth in the number and magnitude of recreation oriented progranunes in this Province. Services have escalated from simple low cost operations to complex programmes involving extensive budgets. The provision of community recreation services to consumers involves a large number of government offices and non- government provincial agencies as well as a wide variety of local organizations.

Government, through various programmes, both professional and financial, has initiated and perpetuated a very rapid growth in community recreation." There is a brief historical review of the Department of Recreation that I would like to give to hon. members of the House to emphasize the necessity for such a review. And it began in 1961 when the Fitness and Amateur Sports Act was passed in Canada. In 1964, the provincial government created the Physical Fitness Division within the Department of Provincial Affairs.

In 1968, the Meeker Commission on Sports and Youth recommended the formation of a Recreation and Sports Division in the Department of Education. In 1969, the Newfoundland and Labrador High School Athletic Federation was formed. In 1969, as well, government created a Physical Education and Youth Division in the Department of Education. In 1971, the Newfoundland and Labrador Parks and Recreation Association was _formed~ in 1972, the Newfoundland and Labrador Amateur Sports Federation was formed. In 1973, the Recreation and Sport Services Division was created within a new Department of Rehabilitation and Recreation.

A Youth Services Division was created and an assistant deputy minister with responsibilities for recreation and youth was appointed. In 1976, the Newfoundland Recreation Advisory Council for Special Groups was formed. In 1979 Recreation and Sports Services became a part of the then Department of 'l'ouri.sm, Recreation and Culture.'. And in 2 G I .. ~

June 11 , 1982 Tape No. 1226 SD - 3 MR. SU.\li1S : 19 80, the division was aligned in the new Department of Culture, Recreation and Youth 1"here it nm" stand. And also in 1980, Mr . Speaker, the Newfoundla nd and Labrador Arts Council was established . Obvi.ousl y with such t:f.lpin srrmJth I it was obvious a revie w v1as required of the overall policies and priorities . The hon . members can see from this report when it is tabled that there are many recommendations cover ing provincial government involvement in recreation . 2 r> ' u J (,

June 11, 1982 Tape 1227 NM - 1 MR. SIMMS: And these recommendations involve Provincial recreation organizations, regional recreational facilities, educating for leisure, the role of service clubs in recreation, research and development, the role of volunteers, government financial programmes, and development of the arts as a leisure pursuit. A number of major thrusts have been identified by the green paper and have been received,! might emphasize, by our department in a very positive manner, Mr.

Speaker, and they include: a provincial master plan for facility development; new initiatives in outdoor recreation; a major conference on community recreation; a provincial sport congress; additional field staff enabling government to provide a better service to the people of this Province in the administration and delivery of recreation programmes; the need to develop riches in culture and ensuring that these riches are accessible and a right of all its people; and that there be a major review of the Department of Culture, Recreation and Youth to allow increased visibility and greater emphasis on youth.

In tabling the document, Mr. Speaker, I now ask the general public and those interested to review the green paper and to indicate if the recommendations reflect adequately their concerns in the area of recreation and sport and leisure services. And after receiving further input from the general public the department will again reassess it policies .and progra~es ~nd refine them based on the posi ive. ~ecommendations . . received.· This I feel, Mr.

Speaker, is a ~aji:ii:. document and one . _.. ' ,. that will serve my department ·well i~ · the formulation of future policies in the area of recreation and sport and leisure services. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker. 2 ,, iJ I ~.,

June 11, 1982 Tape 1227 NM - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. !'I'ARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say thanks to the minister for letting me review this document an hour or so before the House opened. I think probably all other ministers could learn a lesson from the hon. minister the OPposition see them in advance. "1R. HODDER: A good man. A good man. letting MR. WARREN: This is a comprehensive document, Mr. Speaker, and again I only just had a very brief hour to go through it. And I think it is a step in the right direction, Mr. Speaker.

However, it is worth noting since the Committee was formed this government has qone through three ministers, this is the third minister since this Committee was formed, and noting that the former Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth had it presented to him in October, and the House was open for nearly a month there last Fall and he did ·not see fit to present it to the House,and now we had to wait until a new minister came in and I must admit that he has only been in the position for about a month or so and it does take time to get accustomed to these things.

But I believe that this document should have been presented to the House back in November. In fact the hon. member for Grand Bank (Mr. Matthews) believes the same thing, and 2 G i R

June 11,1982 Tape 1228 ah-1 MR.WARREN: every other member on that committee. And I have to compliment the members on the committe ,e. I think that they have come up with 241 real good,concrete, recommendations. Now it is up to this government to prove that this committee was worthwhile establishing in the first place. Mr. Speaker, going through the document there are two or three recommendations that I definitely \muld urge this government to take immediate steps to follow up.

And number one is, throughout this Province­ and part of the blame has to go to the federal qovernment­ there are a number of white elephants, there are a number of so-called facilities partially built by LIP grants and not even finished,and those white elephants have to be gotten rid of or brought up to a useful purpose.

This is one of the reconm1endations that is in this report and I hope the minister and his department will see fit to follow "t11at recommendation very closely and, to quote the recommendation, ' 1 that an immediate freeze be placed on new facility construction until existing dormant facilities can be bailed out · and subsequently rendered functional."So, Mr.Speaker, that is one oE the maior, i.n my opinion, major recommendations in the whole commission !eport. Furthermore,Mr.

Speaker, another one there that is very dear td me, and in taikirig to members on the committee~is thclt the dE!pa:ttmerit, the minister should see fit, the .. same as the Departmeh t of Rural,Agricultural and Northern Development has done, to make sure that their presence lS known in Labrador. There are two parts to this Province,there is Newfoundland and Labrador,and often that big, vast 2 G i /

June 11 ,1982 Tape No . 1228 ah -2 MR.WARREN: land up there \.,ith only thirty- five thousand people is forgotten. So I would strongly suQgest to the minister that he would take steps as soon as possible to have a deputy minister or an assistant deputy mini ster stationed in Labrador with an office in Labrador with five or six field workers,because you are tal king about a vast la nd and you need staff .

And one of those recommendations I would al so str ong- ly suqge st to the mi nister that he would seriou sly look at is having a division of his department established in Labrador so that we can carry on wi th sports and physical activities that are nec essary . Mr. S~eaker , the m in ister sa id in his statement that these recommendations have been recei ved in a very posit ive ma nne r. I agree th ey have been received in a very positiv e mann er and , Mr . Speaker , \.,h en you get a report with 240 re comme nda tio ns , when there is a report with 2GIH

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1229 MJ - l MR. G. WARREN: 240 recommendations, Mr. Speaker, shows one thing,and that thing is, since 1949- I will qo Uclck to 1949 - up to the present day the government has not done enough for sports and recreation in this Province. And these 240 recommendations shm•ls that there neer'S to be improvements. So I have to say that right back since 1949 government has not paid enough attention to sports and recreation in the Province and I would think that with the ability and the ohsyical condition of the new Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth (Mr. L.

Simms) that I am sure that the minister is going to bring his ability out and show the oeople of the Province that he is determined to put .Culture, Recreation, and Youth, on a high level with any other department of his government. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 0'1-">L nuESTIONS MR. S. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition . ~J\R. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, in vj0.w of the' concc'rn in this Province about the safety of workers on oil rigs drilling off our coast, would the hon. the Minister of Energy (Mr. tv.

Marshall) inform the House now what set of regulations we are following as far as the seaworthiness of the rigs are concerned and the safety on these rigs are concerned ? Are we still following federal regulations or are there any provincial ' '' regulations 1n pLace controlling safety onboard these rigs? HR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. W. MARSHALL : Mr. Speakc'r, the rcqulJtions - the initial regulations I might state - have been passed by the Cabinet and they are in the process now of being promulqated in the Newfoundland Gazette in which case they will become law.

But I should emphasize that what these regulations ure these are -the same regulations as have been followed pretly \V('\ 2 G i '-1

June 11, 1982 Tape No . 1229 MJ - 2 t~!t : . .!1 :~~~111\ _!. 1 • ..:_ since the drilling commenced out there on the offsh ore Newfoundland because of the fact bhat they encompass, in the main, the same criteria as \vere set down by the federal regulations themselves . There is no magic to this because both regulations strive to provide and require operators to m"intain safety to the highest degree possible given the present state of the art . Since the Ocean Ranger tragedy there have been certain amendments that are beinq contemplated,! understand ,in the federal regulations.

We have made certain changes with respect to life boat provision and the occUPational health .:~nci safety area in our regulations and we do not 2 G? ·I

June 11, 1982 Tape 1230 PK - 1 MR. MARSHALL: envisage, by.the way , Mr. Speaker, that the regulations that we now pass are going to be the final word because we are going to keep our eye on all activities throughout the world in this area and where there is anything beneficial that should be added we will add it and we will amend the regulations accordingly. So the answer to the question from the hon. gentleman is that regulations have been passed, formal regulations have now been passed by Cabinet and these regulations really follow along the same lines as the practice that was followed prior to their passage.

MR.NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : A supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the House know that it was virtually impossible for the Government of Canada to enforce its regulations prior to the Ocean Ranger tragedy.

There appears to be a jurisdictional problem between Canada and the United States, and Canada will not recognize United States jurisdiction inside the 200 mile management zone, and1vice-versa,the United States will not recognize Canada's right to inspect these rigs as to the structure of the rigs, the seaworthiness of the rigs and so on. Now will the hon. gentleman tell the House in the light of the past experience with even the Government of Canada being unable to enforce these regulationsuntiJthe jurisdictional dispute is ended, how does the Province intend to enforce provincial regulations/ MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. President of the Council. 2 ..... , "I ~ 'J .-:_

June 11, 1982 Tape 1230 PK - 2 MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, let us not get confused. The hon. gentleman's question might confuse betw een jurisdictional dispute. 'Jurisdictional dispute' is popularly known in this Province as jurisdictional dispute between the government and Ottawa. But he is talking about the international dispute and he acknowledges that. Mr. Speaker, as far as the government of this Province is concerned we own that resource out there on offshore Newfoundland.

And having a pr oprietar y interest in th c. offshorcoff ~uw[oundland, we determine who are the people or what operators, what licences are given, the validity of licence emanates from the Provincial Government. And the sanction that we will use,and the operators are well aware of the fact despite the fact that there may be some jurisdictional disoute internationally,they are well aware of our jurisdictional claim and they will comply with our requirements.

So consequently what we will do is that we will continue• on to do inspections where they are required and at any time where there is any leqitimate, and I underline the word 'legitimate' as well, where there is any leqitimate complaint with respect to safety of any degree or any extent whatsoever that the government will act and will act quick swiftly to cause the operators to respond as they should respond and the sanction which have is a sanction we always have which is a proprietary interest 2 G i ')

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1231 SD - 1 MR. MARSHALL: the same way as we had it before when we .were enforcing it under

Section 106 of the General Regulations. MR. NEARY : MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary, the hon. Leader Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite right. The jurisdiction that I am talking about is not who owns the offshore , that is not the kind of jurisdiction that I referred to in my question- There is a dispute between Canada and the United States over jurisdiction of semi-submersible rigs and ships that fly the United States' flag within the 200-mile management zone.

And that is something,by the way, that should be sorted out quickly, that is causing a lot of problems. Mr. Speaker, so the question really I put to the hon. gentleman, he answered it by, I think, implying that permits would be cancelled if the drilling companies did not conform to provincial regulations, I think that is what the hon. gentleman meant.

Now would the hon. gentleman tell the House if the provincial government would go as far, if there was any doubt about the structure of these rigs, about the ballast control of these rigs, would the hon. gentleman go as far as to tell the companies to pull these rigs in and have them put on dry dock or their permit would be cancelled? Will the provincial regulations go that far? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, the provincial regulations went that far and go that far now, and I emphasize before the passage of these drilling regulations through Cabinet they went that far in any event,because of the fact that we have already had general drilling regulations which give us that power. Yes, the answer is obvious in the 2G 2

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1231 SO - 2 MR. MARSHALL: affirmative if we had, •and again I underline the word, any 'leqitim~te' reason to suspect. I should point out to the bon. gentleman and the House that in actual fact we were on the threshold of doing this immediately after the Ocean Ranger, when the other two rigs that were out there were taken into Marystown.

It so happened, and I continue to m~ke this statement, that nobody can presume to have any claim. pf _cq~ce~n for human life, neither this administration, the federal administration, for that matter, the companies, the unions or anybody, everybody has an equal concern for the sanctity of human life.

And we had made that decision as a Cabinet to haul in those two rigs before they were hauled in but it so happened that the President of Mobil at the time came tu that particular same decision and ordered the rigs pulled in, I suppose, about maybe five or six hours before he was to have gotten the order from us to do exactly that. So we did not make anything of. it at that particular time because of the fact, as I say, I think that Mobil were entitled to be able to demonstrate that they had this particular concern. So that is an example, Mr.

Speaker, of the way in which we had acted and the way we will act in the future. I again reply that if there isany legitimate, and I underline the word 'legitimate', because \-re have to be awfully careful when reports are made from time to time with respect to the operations of the rigs. It is in the interest of everybody concerned in this Province that the confidence in this particular industry 2 G 2! ~

June 11, 1982 Tape 1232 NM - 1 MR. MARSHALL: not be shattered, and this can be done by rumours and by complaints that are made without any grounds. Whenever complaints are made, as I have always said, they are investigated and they are investigated very carefully. If there is any question at all with respect to snfrtv, whether it eminates from the provision of life saving safeties under Occupational Health and Safety, or whether it operates on the matter of the structural condition of the rigs or the ballast, of course we will act and we would act very swiftly. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Russell) : of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: A final supplementary, the hon. Leader Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, some of the sincere, genuine complaints that were made to the hon. gentlemun were treated rather lightly. And if they had been properly investigated, instead of taking Mobil'sword, telling t~e administration everything was okay, maybe the situation could have been different. Mr. Speaker, there is a problem. In the case of an emergency there is a problem for the workers on these rigs to get off the rigs. There is a problem on these rigs of getting workers off the rigs in case of an emerqency.

That l,lroblem, in my opinion, has not been resolved. If we hdVt' a similar situation develop in a storm offshore on one of these rigs it is virtually impossible, so the experts say, people who know these rigs, that you just cannot get the workers off these rigs. Would the hon. gentleman tell the House if part of the provincial regulations will be to make it compulsory for the oil companies to station a large helicopter on board of these rigs at all times? Is that part of the regulation?

Or will the government see to it that that is a part of the regulations, to keep a helicopter at all times on board of these riqs? 2 ~ / .

June 11, 1982 Tape 1232 NM - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Ru sse ll) : The hon . President of the Council . MR . MARSHALL : Mr . Speaker, I should point out to the hon . gentleman first of all that there has to be recognized and I think everybody in Newfoundland, particularly Newfound lan d proba .bly moreso than any other part of Canada. would realize that there are certain dangers attendant upon the extraction of one's live~ihood from the sea and we certainly have experienced that to our sorrow over the yea rs in the fishing industry as wel~ as in the Ocean Ranger disaster .

You kno1", whether or not it is going to be possible to provide in all instances an 0bsolutc quarantec of safety is extremely questioned . There are risks that are attendant upon this occupation . But having sa id that, may "'e say that with respect to the safety of the workers out there our present regulations have been ~tered from the previous fed eral re gulation s to the extent that additional life boats are required on the rigs themselves . That is put in the regulations themselves . There is also, and thi s comes bnck to the oriqinal statement I made ?. G ;,· ~;

June 11,1982 Tape -No. 1233 nh-1 MR.HARSHALL: about the state of the art of this particular problem . There is also,we are aware,being developed a procedure for the launching of lifeboats, a different type of procedure than is now used. We are on top of that and we are examining that and as soon as that becomes feasible and if it is proven not only to become feasible but also feasible in the sense of being workable and beneficial for the safety of workers and that, we will amend our regulations to require that these procedures to be pu~ on.

As to the stationing of helicopters on them, that has been considered but it is not rea]Jv considered to be a reasonable measure to be taken at this particular time. However, I would emphasize to the House,as I hope my remarks have indicated,that the matter of safety of workers on the rigs is a matter of re•il concern to this government. It always has been and will continue to be,and we will continue to review what I style as the state of the art,from time to time,and when there are improvements we will see that they are implemented. t.o!R. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR.SPEAKER (Russell) : A final supplementary.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR.NEARY: I just have two more questions to ask the hon. gentleman and then I will let somebody .else get in on the Question Period. Could the han. gentleman tell the House now if the Cabinet , the administration have given any thought to barring drilling offshore, say fron1 the end of November up to the end of March, during the hazardous Winter months? Has the administration given any consideration to not allowing drilling to go ahead at all during the 2 G./ l

June 11,1982 Tape No . 1233 ah-2 MIL NE/\RY: -- - time or year when we have these savage storms in the North Atlantic? Will the riqs be pulled in, say, around the end of November and not permitted to go back drilling until sometime around the first of April? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon . President of the Council . MR.MARSHALL: I cannot answer that in the affirmative , Mr.Speaker. All I can say is that that is one of the elements that is being considered and a decision on that will be made in due course,as will decisions with respect to other matters .

Before we make decisions of that nature we have to be apprized certainly of all the facts and we have to weigh all the circumstances very carefully . This is what we are in the proce3s of now doing . Everybody realizes that when these storms occur the situation becomes more aggravated , you know, as time goes on . So we are accessing that as well as we are accessi .ng all other possible lifesaving developments . This is really an evolutionary process in a way , Mr . Speaker, that we had to weig h it and we had to take it and w~ h.1d to t.1k(' c.w h step ns it: colncs and wciyh it very carefully.

And as a part of that weighing I can advise the House that the regulations that have been passed by Cabinet will be tabled in this Bouse, hopefully nex c week. 2 " . • •J / rl

June 11, 1982 Tape 1234 PK - 1 MR. MARSHALL: They have been in the process of being promulgated for the inspection of the hon. member and all members of this House in the matter of the public,and we will be happy to receive any suggestions with respect to same. MR. NEARY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, it was rather sad that people learned in this Province that the service vessels, the supply ships that were servicing these riqs twenty-four hours around the clock were not suitable to rescue survivors from the Ocean Ranger in the rough seas. They were just not suitable to rescue people who were in life- boats and in the water. As a matter of f::~ct we are told that the supply ships that serviced the rigs twenty- four hours did not even have a safety net on board the supply ships., If they had to have sa fetv nets on board ,maybe they would have sa~d some of the victims.

But in the meantime what I ' want to ask the bon. gentleman, we seem to be concentrating our effort on the safety of the rigs themselves. Now what about the supply ships and what about the resuce ships ? '•Jill the regulations make it mandatory :!:or the oil companies to have supply ships servicing these rigs ; that are adequate to rescue survivors,and will they be compelied to have all the latest safety devices and techniques aboard these supply ships? Could the bon. gentleman address himself to that question? 2 G ~! J

June 11, 1982 Tape 1234 PK - 2 MR. SPEAKER {Russell): The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, you know, I appreciate the questions being asked by the hon. member. I know he will appreciate as well, I know he would want me to say this as well,th~t when you are talking about a matter, you know, of such importance as this is of importance in the future,but also very , very sensitive with respect to the Ocean Ranger , I think one has to point out that nobody knows at this stage.

And the anticipation is that it was very unlikely that the presence of supply boats, as a matter of fact.there were supply boats there at the time in the raging seas that appertained on that awful night of February 15 that they would have resulted in any of the victims possibly being rescued. I mean,the seas were monumental at the time, and the general opinion is that it was impossible to effect any rescue in the circumstances from ~these supply boats.

But with respect to his other comments, with respect to the life-safety aids that may be there on supply boats this is, I would emphasize and tell the hon. member and I tell the House a matter of consummate concern to this government.

It is in the process of review and we have dealt with it to the greatest degree that we possibly can within the realms of the state of our knowledge that we presently have,and any further additions to the supply boats or the rigs or any other item, helicopters or what have you, any other vehicle that could be used for life-saving purposes,will be considered and if it is found that it could be of any help at all the companies will be required to implement it. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for Terra Nova. 2Glil

June 11, 1982 Tape 1234 PK - 3 MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister said with respect to life saving equipment that the regulations would now require ) ,.., -, L.. •j ._-,

4: June 11, 1982 Tape 1235 NM - 1 MR. LUSH: more lifeboats and the life rafts and the like. I think one of the people appearing before the U.S.hearings mentioned that it was terrible in this day and age when you can get a man to the moon but we could not get a person off an oil rig or a ship in stormy seas. So I am just wondering to what ·· degree the regulations will require new methods of jettisoning, if you will, life rafts and the like, or is the minister iust waiting for the company to come up with new procedures? Are the regulations requiring that there be new methods of jettisoning life saving equipment?

MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Presdient of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: I can tell the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that there are new procedures being - or new experiments in the world today with respect to the jettisoning of life boats, and this involves shutes from the rig itself.tn these circumstances the boats go on shutes and they come up some distance away from the riq itself. But how effective these are, anj indeed if this mechanism would increase the danger rather than diminish the danger of launching is a matter that is presently under assessment.

And indeed when that experiment has been developed to the stage where we can determine that it is beneficial we will require it to be put in, as I am quite sure the federal government will require it to be put in, and I am quite sure the companies and the unions and everybody will. Because in these areas, in this particular area I would emphasize,althouqh there is a jurisdictional dispute and quite a hot jurisdictional dispute with respect to the offshore, there is no jurisdictional dispute with respect to the matter of the safety of the workers on the rigs, and the safety of the rigs themselves. MR. LUSH: Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for Terra Nova. 2[}~·,)

June 11, 1982 Tape 1235 NM - 2 MR. LUSH: I noticffi also in these US hear~nqs that some matters came up with respect to suits, these - I do not know what the terminology is, but these life saving suits. And I am wondering again what the regulations are here because there was 2 ,~ ·, I u ,j ·.

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1236 MJ - 1 MR. '1'. LUSH: I think, at one poir.t and one has to very careful in quoting what one hears corning out of these things,but I think there was some suggestion that there might not have been enough suits aboard, there was not on _e for every crew member. And.secondly, I am wondering whether the minister is following this ? There was a television story on last night about v. Nova Scotian firm that is mnnnfr~~t.11rinrr ? :ne'"' ~i'::-'e c~ SLLi t and I wonder if the minister is aware of that and whether they are looking at that possiblity?

This rseerned to be an improvement on existing suits to date. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. the President of the Council . MR. W. MARSHALL: We are a1.rare of that, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a matter of, really, general knowledge that there has been a requirement to increase the number of life suits as well as the nur,;ber of lifE>hnr~ts. ;D.nc'l thic: •·•ill r.;ope<>.r in. <:>ur regulations. PREMIER PECKFORD: ~1R. MARSHALL: That will bR in nur :t:P.rrul">ti0!'C:. The hon. gentleman will have our r,'<nil,ltions next- Wt'ck,as [ say,ln inspect.

The other question with respect to the firm in Nova Scotia, yes we are aware of that as we are aware,really,of all of these improvements or professed improvements. And whether the professed improvements are actually improvements is somethinq we are testing. And if we find that suit in Nova Scotia is better than the suits that are presently used,we will - MR. NEARY: MR. MP. Rf;f1 .;D.LL: of the situation. PREMIER PECKFORD: MR. MARSHALL: in fuct, !Ji.~ ~rrm '"'?i:ch thn.t lnst: niqht? Yes. Not last night but I am aware We have ·seen it before. months acrn. I have seen it before. So if these suits, 2 G ~i •

June 11, 1982 Tape No . 1236 MJ - 2 MR . W . MARSHALL : \-.rould more lik.el y protect the worker better , the workers on the riqs than tile present suits, we will require that they be used . MR . T . LUSH : M_R: -~_!'EI\KER_ j RUS_!>E .!lJ ~ for Terra Nova . MR . LUSH : A supplementary, Mr . Speaker . 1\ supplemcnt.1ry, th<! hon. Lh<.> member Mr . Speaker, again there has been some suggestion tha~ many of the workers on these riqs were not trained to do some sophisticated jobs . I \-.ronder if the minister can verify - I have heard coming again out of the u.

S. hearinqs now that there were a set of regulations in effect, I suppose we can call them Canac:H<tn reguliltions I respect inq pn· fcrcnc-C' for Canadian t,.torkers . N0\11 1 were our regulations separate from that? They are saying that there were a set of regulations i.n effect where there was an obligation to have Canadian workers . Were our own regulations in addition to that for local preference? IJil other words, did 1-1e have two sets of prefer<'nc:~· regulations? t-1R . SPEAKER : The hon. the President of the Counci l. MR . MARSHALL: Mr .

Speaker I our regulations, of course 1 related to legitimate preference for Newfoundlanders on the rigs . As for the Canadian reaulatiom;, the~ ?.!."~ requlations with respect to Canadians,as such,on the riqs themselves . 2 G ·~ ,

II June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1237 SD - 1 MR. MARSHALL: With respect to our local preference regulations, they have always been applied as the hon. gentleman knows, but one of the qualifications in the regulations is that before anyone is hired, where qualified, Newfoundlanders have to be used. And this is the basis upon which our local preference requJations were applied so that there would be no way anybody could indicate that because of our local preference regulations tnere were people on that rig or on any rig at any time who are not qualified.

Because the regulations quite clearly indicate that the personnel who are hired they have to use Newfoundlanders, and they have used- I think 962 Newfoundlanders as a result have gotten a job from it. But the fact of the matter is, and this should be very cl~arly known, that it has never been the case where this Province has indicated to the companies that in any job where a Newfoundlander was not qualified that a Newfoundlander had to be hired.

What we had to do and what we are successfully doing, and we are determined to do in the future, is to get over the psychology that if you are from Newfoundland you cannot possibly be qualified for certain jobs. We will end up then being hewers of wood and drawers of water for the next 500 years of our history.

But we have been very careful when we have applied those regulations and in all cases, while we have requested that Newfoundlanders be on it and saw where they are qualified and they have discharged their duties admirably, there has never been an instance where a Newfoundlander has been forced into a job on a rig where he has not been qualified. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, the hon. Leader I guess I only have time probably for about one more question so I would like to make it a 2 ...... '.) 'I ~;

June 11, 1982 Tape No . 1237 SD - 2 MR . NEARY: double -barrelled question . Would the hon . gentleman tell the House if his department ever had any complaints from Mobil or ODECO in be ing forced to hire untrained men for these rigs? ~Tere there ever any complaints in writing or orally, on the telephone.or \·lere there ever any complaints made about these workers being untrained who had to work especially in the control room,in 'these very sensitive jobs?

And would the hon . gentleman also tell the House if the new regulations address themselves to one of the big problems on board the rig, who was in command of the rig? Will the new regulations make ~t compulsory for the compa ny to state who is in charge of the rig? Is it the captain or is it the ~oolpushcr, is it the man wh o has thl' <'xpericncc , the master mariner ,o r is it the landlubber who is only intereste d in drilling for oil? Who is in charge of the rig, will the regulations address themselves to that problem? MR . SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon . President of the Council . MR . MARSHALL : Mr .

Speaker, to my k.nowledge 1>1e have never received any complaints of that nature from the operators of the rig . As a matter of fact, Mr . Speaker, all to the other extreme, we have received compliments,because lvhat has happened is that Newfoundlanders have been put in position and as a result of these local prefere nc e regulations the companies, you see, have been forced to train 2 <" • I *J ,"i I

June 11, 1982 Tape 1238 NM - 1 MR. MARSHALL: Newfoundlanders for jobs, to give young Newfoundlanders the opportunity for employment which they would not have had but for these regulations. And having given them the opportunity then, given that they have the cnnacity, which they have, they have equal to anyone else, they ~ave peen t-ra:!-peq, . qJ1d t}l~re. are many Newfoundlanders today on oil rigs, not j1l13t :j_n Newfoundland but throughout t)1e world, as a result of thos~ local preference regulations, where the young Newfoundianders pave p~efl given an opport].lnity. ~d we are very, very proud of that.

So in answer to th~ hon. gentleman's question, we have not received complaints, but what we have received instead, we have received compliments. W]th rC'spect to the other qu~stion which has been asked by the hon. gentleman, the hon. gentleman knows, and I think the general public knows, that the whole matter of the commann nr an oil rig is a matter that is under consideration by the U.S. Coast Guard hearing, number one, and it is under consideration as well,and it will be,by the joint federal/provincial thing. MR. NEARY: We will not know for another two or three years. MR.

MARSHALL: But we are, as I say, in this and - MR. NEARY: These riqs are out there now - MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, you know, the hon. gentleman is the expert on everything. I am trying to give rational answers to his questions now. The thing is that both commissions are seized with this. It is a matter of concern and assessment by them.

And just the same 1 2 S i~ anything definite comes up it is shown that there is 3. necessity to b·~ any change at all with respect to the operation of the rigs, or the provision of life saving devices on them or what have you, and once it is proven that changes have to be made we will see that they have to be made. 2 G :.i H

June ll, 1982 Tape 1238 NM - 2 MR. MARSHALL: In the meantime,I point out to the hon. member that the question he rises is very complex, and it is one, you know, that the Coast Guard enquiry 'l.S well as the federal/provincial enquiry will be seized with. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: The rigs are still out there drillinq and they should know who is boss. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): A final question, the hon. member for Terra No vQ. MR. LUSH: Mr.

Speaker, it is all very well to say that we have x number of Newfoundlanders on board these rigs,but I am wondering \.,hat moni taring procedures t' ' government have in effect to check on the trainingprocedures, to check on the training methods, to check,indeed,to see if Newfoundlanders are receiving the proper traininq. It is one thinq to say we have 900 workers there, but that does not at all relate to the kind of training they are receiving.

So the question, I am wonderinq what kind of monitoring measures, what kind of monitoring procedures are in effect to ensure that Newfoundlanders are beinq properly trained? MR. SPEAKER: MR. DINN: The hon. Minister o[ Labour and Manpower . Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member does not agree with local preference from the start. He does not agree with - MR. NEARY: This is a serious matter now. MR. DINN: And I will treat it serious if the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) will be quiet for a 1noment. HR. LUSH: Do not be so inane. MR. NEARY: Do not be so silly. MR. DINN: Mr.

Speaker, can I answer the question? 2 ~3 .• '·1

.Tunc 11, 1982 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) MR. DINN: Tape 1238 NM - 3 Order, please~ Order, please! The fact of the matter is that just last year, if the han. member is interested, we went through a very extensive training programme here in Newfoundland. We trainec'l. 2 G :.: il

June 11, 1982 Tape 1239 PK - 1 MR. DINN:. over 553 people for offshore related jobs. We have,as the hon. member knows,courses at the Fisheries College. These courses are filled every time that the courses start. vle doubled the amount of training in certain courses at the Fisheries College in January and, Mr. Speaker, it is an ongoing thing. It is obvious if we had a new Fisheries and Marine Centre we would be able to train more peop;Le and so on. But right now as an example, Mr. Speaker, we have over 9,000 people, 9,685 people registered. Many of these people are trained. They have all the experience required.

Just as an example, our peoplE were so good on the drill off Lahrador, on the Pellerin last year, that thirty of them remained with the rin request and as a result of negotiations with the department. They want to keep the people on the rig year-round,they were so impressed with the training that they had. With respect to, for example, ODECO,when they came in here first to have a look at what we had here with respect t~ people,when they were bringing rigs in, the gentleman \vho has heen on T.

V. just of late opened an office on the 5th floor of the Beothuck Building,and the first day that he opened the office it was filled with people looking for jobs in the offshore and he was shocked and amazed and surprised and, 1.s a matter of fact, went on CBC Television at the time ccnmlimentinq the Newfoundland people and the people who had come in with their certificates of the a~ount of time spent on riqs, for example, on the Beaufort Sea and in other areas of the world,and the experience that they had.

He actually went Oil Cl\C 'l'ult.:vl;;ion o111d WdS 011 LiltelL! lo1 SOiliL' IIJ.illUlt.:~; C<>lll!Jiillll~lllill'.J the numbers of peo?le. As a matter of fact,just after his ') f: ; '

June 11, 1982 Tape 1239 PK - 2 MR. DINN: first drill off our coast came into the - MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! MR. DINN: - Department of Labour and Manpower complimenting us on the workers - t'IR. SPEAKER : Order, please! I am SC)J:ry to interrupt ::"le hon. member. If he would like to finish up the ans,._rer to tile question, I will punnit him ~mother minute to do l>O. MR.

DINN: So just to clarify, the people that we have,as the hon . member can see-there is a monthly report that comes out on this, the mumber of people we have, what their training is, how many people arc trained, and so on. 1\nd we have an oversupply of qualified people in Newfoundland right now , and it is up to the company to get the best - MR. LUSH: That is not what is coming out in the hearing. MR. DINN: - of this pool of people . Well, Mr.

Speaker, it is funny \._rhcn .:In hon. qcntleman or a gentleman comes into Newfoundland,gets people,goes out in a drill and comes in and compliments them,and when all of a sudden when something happens these people are not trained. I find it r~; ~ peculiar. MR. NEARY : Sit down! Go on you bluff,boy,sit down. NR. SPEAKER: Order, Please! Before we proceed with other business 2!) ~ .l

June 11,1982 Tape No. 1240 ah-1 MR.SPEAKER {Russell) : I would like to -welcome to the galleries the Deputy ~~ayor of Springdale, Mr. Fred Goudie and councillor ~1r. Max Goudie who are in the galleries now. I welcome them to the yallerics today. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! REPORTS OF STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. STEWART: MR.SPEAKER (Russell): Hermitage. MR.STEWART: Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Fortune- Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to report that the government's Resources Committee on the estimates which had referred to it five departments,namely, Head Vl Development, Head Vll Mines and Energy, Head Vlll Fisheries, Head lX Forest Resources and Lands and Head X Rural,Agricultural and Northern Development, lwvc considered u 11 thcst~ departments and have passed them without amendment. I would like to thank the members of the Committee at this time, the member for Bellevue{Mr.Callan) Vice-Chairman, the member for Placentia {Hr.

Patterson),the member for Burin-Placentia West (Mr.Tobin), the member for Fogo (Mr.Tulk), the member for Twillingate (Mrs Reid) and the member for Trinity-Bay de Verde (Mr.Reid). And,also,Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a special thank you to theministers ~nd their officials for their co-operation during our deliberatons. Thank you. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 2 ;J ~~ .

June 11,1982 Tape No. 1240 ah-2 ORDERS OF THE DAY PREMIER PECKl•'ORD: Mr. Speaker. MR.SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Under Standing Order 23 I move the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and public business. As I indicated in a Ministerial Statement a few minutes ago,we have had a decision by the feqera+ gover~inent to aTUend a certain part of their energy legislatio~ to delay the impl~mentation of a law which would allow for a power corridor through the province of Quebec. Now, Mr.

Speaker, as I understand it,under Standing Order 23 this matter must be a matter of urgent debate , it must be urgent L h<~ t it- be dc'b,ltC'<l nnw <~nd T submit to Your Honour that it is a matter of urgent debate. The issue itself is urgent,there is no question about that, because we are losing,as a Province,about $2 million a day every day that this gets delayed.

And although one can say after six months the power corridor will not be built or we will not be transmitting power through Quebec, it does delay,the six months does push everything back six months down the road~ So the issue itself is extremely urgent because we are losing over $2 or $3 million a day, if not more,in the sense that the power is not being transmitted and the people of Newfoundland are not getting the benefits. 13ut,Mr.

Speaker, I submit that in the matter of urgency of debate,because if this legislature does not deal now,immediately, with this issue and transmit to the Government of Canada and to the parliament of Canada the wishes of the Newfoundland people as translated through this House of Assembly so that we can counteract this measure of delay right 2~~ ,

June 11,1982 Tape No. 1240 ah-3 PREMIER PECKFORD: now,then we will have failed to ensure that this leqislation goes through i1rumediately and that the interests•Jf the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are protected. 2~J 'i .,

_\, June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1241 SD - l PREMIER PECKFORD: So it is extremely urgent that this matter be debated today, now, so that this Legislature can go on record as opposing this delay in the legislation and go on record as trying to get the federal government and the Parliament of Canada to reverse their decision and allow thts amendment to go ahead immediately so that the people of Newfoundland Cqn have an extra six months,when the development is ongoing, of monies available to them the same way as other Canadians would have it if the laws applied to us as they apply to other Canadians.

So it is a matter of pressing urgency that this Legislature today debate this matter because the matter has just come up in the House of Commons, last night, and the amendments have just been made. And there is time,if we get on the ball today and debate this matter and get this resolution passed,to influence the Parliament of Canada to change the legislation that is presently before the House of Commons to allow for this matter to be dealt with and to allow the legislation to go ahead immediately rather than six months from now. I am still waiting, Mr.

Speaker, for some of the details on the delay, because I am not sure in my own mind, for example, to show you the u~gency of the matter, I am not sure in my own mind that the amendment allows for the mandatory implementation of the law after six months or whether the federal government still has the power to delay beyond six months. So that is a matter we will have to ~et cleared up momentarily. But the urgency of debate is here, Mr. Speaker, because we need now to deal with this matter while it is current and while it is before the House of Commons.

And I submit,therefore,that under Standing Order 23 this House adjournits imrmal - I move,under Standinq Order 23, the adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, that is, the intent of the federal 2 G --~ ti

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1242 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORO: government to delay implementation of the power corridor legislation which is so important to our Province. And if we get at it and deal with it now, that is why it is urgent, it is before the Parliament of Canada, we can influence it then and, therefore, I would wish to discuss that now, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, to that - MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! I think, first of all, the motion and then the statement is passed to the Chair who has to decide whether it is a matter of importance, enough to necessitate an immediate reply.

The Chair has considered this matter and docs feel it is a matter that requires ur~cnt public debate and is prepared to recognize the hon. the Premier. AN HON. MEMBER : MR. NEARY: the thing works. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: decision be overruled . MR. MARSHALL: MR. NEARY: That was a put-up job. Mr. Speaker, that is not the way Questioning the Speaker. Order, please! Mr. Speaker, we move that your What is the motion? We are voting against the ruling of the Speaker, that his ruling be overruled. SOME liON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. MARSHALL: You are appealing it.

In other words, what you are doing with it is deliberately appealing the Ruling of the Speaker. MR. NEARY: We are appealing, that is right. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the Speaker's ruling be upheld. Those in favour of the motion, '1\ye' . 2G4

...!. June ll, 1982 SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEJ\KER: SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER (Russell): 1-IH. LUSH: vote? MH. SPJ\AKER: Tape No. 1242 SD - 2 "Aye'· Those against the motion 'Nay'. 'Nay'. The motion is carried. Mr. Speaker, can we have a standing DIVISION Call in the members. : 2 G l~ ,.~

June 11, 1982 Tape 1243 NM- - 1 MR . SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please: Order , please : Those in favour of the motion please rise .

The hon . the Premier, the hon . the Minister of Fina~ce, the hon . the ~linister of Just ice, the hon . the President of the Council , the hon . the r-H ni s tcr o E Development, the hon . the Minister of Education, the hon . the t1iniste r of Forest Resources and Lands, the hon . the Minister of Fisheries, the hon. the Minister ~es~onsi h le for Communications , the hon . the Minist er of Labour and t-!anpo~o-er, the hon . the Minister of Munjcipal 1\ffairs , the hon . the t-1inistcr of F.nvir.onmcnt, the hon . the Minister of Health, Mr . Reid, Dr . ~!cNicholas, l-!r . Aylward, Mr . Stewart, f.ir .

Carter, l>lr . Peach, Mr . Tobin, Mr . Barrett, Mrs . Reid, Mr . Walsh, Mr . Patterson , Mr. MatthC\vS, Mr . Butt, Mr . Hearn, Mr. 1-l'oodrow. MR . SPEAKER : Those against the most plea se rise. The hon . the Leader of the Opposition, Mr . Ca llan, Mr. Warren, Mr . Hodder, Mr . Tulk, Mr . Lush . SOME HON . MEMBF.RS : Oh, oh! MR • SPEJI.KER : Order, please : Order, please! The result of the vote is t\olenty-eiqht for and six against, the motion is carried . I recognize the hon . the Premier . 2G .. ..J

-'-~ ,Tune 1 J, 1982 Tape No. 1244 MJ - l SOME HON. MErmERG: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed a displav of- what shall I call it'? Itis hard to know what words to use to describe what has happened in this House in the last few minutes. The m~~ber~ .of the Opposition have been caught out, Jl.lr. Speaker, on t~is one. This morning on the media we learned, by way of (The) Daily News and by way of the electronic IJit•di.t,lll>ll Mr·. J,i\lon•k~, LlH• Minisl<•r o[ J·:ncnJy in Ottawa, introduced a number of amendments to The Energy Act that was going through the House of Commons.

That Energy Act had in it a component which allowed for the transmission of Labrador electricity through the Province of Quebec by way of a power corridor. Now, Mr. Speaker, as everybody in this House knows, from the day that the Upper Churchill Contract was signed and power went over the lines from Upper Churchill across the boundary into Quebec,that was the day that not only did we sell out a resource at a very cheap price to another province and thereby lose, now around $500 million to $700 million il year, lxrt: at the Si.lll\C time as that was done a qreat principle was destroyed in this nation.

And that principle was and it was condoned by the federal government of the day and has been condoned by federal governments ever since, PC, Liberal, NDP or whatever they ,.,ere,it does not make any difference to me, a great principle was denied the people of Newfoundland. Which is not to say that Newfoundlanders themselves and the Government of Newfoundland was not to blame for what occurred.

Because there was supposed to be and is under the Constitution a principle which is supposed to apply to all Canadians who live in this nation and that is, in the transmission of energy products whether they be oil and gas or whether they be hydro electricity, 2 G '~'I

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1244 ~\J -2 PREMIER PECl<FORD: that the same rights of trunsmission should apply from the origin of that energy product through neiqhbouring provinces 1 that there was not one la\v for oil and gas transmission and another la\·1 for hydro electric transmission. And fro .1 that day to this day, Hr. Speaker, Newfoundlandc rs have become .::l\v<t rr. of what has happened to t.his ver:y valuable •~csource.

Not only, of course, did we have a power contract which was signed for forty years and then reopened and the price actually go do\o~n for sixty-five years in selling that, not only \vas that contract bad but there was on behalf of all the parts, and the federal government has to take its share of blame, condoning the rights of transmission not to exist for Newfoundlanders as they exist for other provinces and Canadians in the transmissio!'l of hydro electric pm.,cr beinq the same as oil and gas. And so, Mr. Speaker, 1ve have laboured under that situation right up to this present day.

This particular administration \>Then it came into power in 1979, 2 '} ") .

June 11, 1982 Tape 1245 PK - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD : decided that it was time to really take the bull by the horns and to try to do something about this inequitable situation ahd, therefore, we established a task force of lawyers, Newfoundland lawyers who examined all the alternatives that were open to us. And we have a result of that task force report introduced into this Legislature a very , very si9n~ficant piece of legislation called The Water Reversion Act. ~nd it was debated in this House and passed.

And we indicated to Wall Street and to all the financial community that we would 1 before we would proclaim that legislation in which the bottom line says that Newfoundland has control over the water within the boundaries of the Province, that we would have it tested by the highest court in Newfoundland and tested by the highest court in Canada before it would be proclaimed. And we were joyous indeed to listen and read and hear of the adjudication by the Appeal Court of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland three to nothing that this legislation was valid and sound.

And now it is on its way to the Supreme Court of Canada for final adjudication, so that we can, perhaps, change, change over time the present inequitable situation that exists in that contract. That is number o.ne, and we have taken that initiative.

Simultaneous with that initiative of trying to change that inequitable situation that exists in the contract,there was the important overriding principle that in the development of additional hydro resources in Labrador, as well as the Upper Churchill resources which we would hopefully get back,that we would be able to transmit all of that power without having to bargain and barter it away to the neighbouring province which would then 2!] .:1 ')

June 11, 1982 Tape 1245 PK - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: become the middleman and make all the money off it. So that we could get our rights reestablished, not only the existing U?per Churchill contract would be changed to benefit Newfoundland but the overriding principle of being able to transmit energy products through neighbouring provinces the same way as they do with oil and gas through pipelines would be recognized. So we began discussions, this administration,with the federal government and we did that through the Prime Minister's Office and through the Energy Minister's Office.

And we had meetings in Newfoundland, secret meetings in Newfoundland and we had secret meetings in Ottawa. And we persuaded,Mr.

Speaker, we persuaded the federal bureaucracy, we embarrassed the federal bureaucracy, they did not have a counter-argument to our proposal that they must,if they are going to maintain that they are a national federal government, that the same constitutional rights are available to the people of Newfoundland as are available to the people of Alberta, that they must make amendments to appropriate legislation to allow for transmission rights for Newfoundlanders who want to transmit their electricity through the Province of Quebec.

We embarrassed them and we embarrassed them so badly that at end of all the meetings it was clear to us that this team of federal officials would be recommending to the federal government and to the Energy Minister and the Prime Minister to make changes in legislation which would a1iow us to not be in the hands of Quebec and to barter away our additional water resources and even the ones will get developed if The Water Reversion Act is upheld in the Supreme Court of Canada. 2 G i ·

!!! ,rune ll, 1982 Tape 1245 PK - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: And so we were very, very pleased, Mr. Speaker, very , very pleased to learn that when the federal government opened the . • I 2GJ

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1246 so - 1 PREMIER PECKfOHD: House o [ Conunons und s t.1tcmen t s from the Energy Minister, Mr. Lalonde, and others, and Mr. Rornpkey, our representative in the federal Cabinet, that they were going to introduce this legislations. It is not exactly what we wanted, Mr.

Speaker, because we wanted not only a corridor but we wanted to have, if there is capacity on the existing lines in Quebec, on the existing lines from Upper Churchill through Quebec to the other side of Quebec 1 that if there were facilities there available that Newfoundland should have the right to use these facilities, pay for them, pay for their charges, but be able to wheel our power through tha ·t existing line on into the New York State or into Ontario or whoever bought it. We did not want it free.

And if you wanted to have total equality, absolute and total equality, then you should be able to use those existing lines through a decision by the National Energy Board. You would apply to the National Energy Board and if you could prove that there was capacity left on that line through Quebec, then the power from Newfoundland could use that line, pay for its use, whatever the cost was determined by the National Energy Board,by an objective group, determine how much it would cost and to flow on through.

Quebec would get paid for the wheeling charges,for putting it through,and then we would sell it to New York State or to the Province of Ontario or whatever customer it was we were going to sell it to. So if you want total equality- because that is what happens now if there is excess in the pipeline corning from Alberta over to even the Province of Quebec, there is a big pipeline and it is not being used to the full, what happens?

A utility that has gas or oil out in Alberta can go to the National Energy Board and say to the National Energ:r Board, 'We, the utility of Trans-Canada Pipelines apply to the National Energy Board to pump so many cubic feet of gas a day in the pipeline 2,..., j·l.l .,

June 11, 1982 Tape No.l246 SD - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: called', whatever it is called, and whoever owns it. And they apply to the National Energy Board and then,if the capacity seemed to be there, they can transmit that additional qas and pay the price that the National Energy Board sets down. So if you want total equality and that is, of course, what any people deserves by right, then we would also have in that legislation a chance to wheel our power through existing lines if the capacity existed there, if there was a surplus there for us to do.

Of course, the federal government did not go along with that so they have denied us total equality,but they have taken a step in the right direction and allowed in the legislation that they presented, they have allowed for a power corridor. So we would have to have a piece of land through Quebec on which we could build a line and transmit our electricity on to markets in New York State or the Province of Ontario or whatever customer it would be,as I said earlier. So there has been movement by the federal government and, Mr.

Speaker, let it be said loud and clear that it was an embarrassment for the federal government. They have condoned the second-class status that Newfoundland<':!rs have enjoyed on this matter for quite a number of years, all parties. And we were happy to see that at least, although we have not achieved full equality in our 2 G.:,~;

June 11, 1982 Tape 1247 NM - l PREMIER PECKFORD: transmission rights, there had been positive,significant movement by the federal government, and in their ominous energy bill they introduced a component in that which would allow for the power corridor so that we could go ahead and get on with some developments in Labrador and have an opportunity to sell it at a reasonable price so that we could make some money off our power rather than just the people of Quebec.

So away it went, and the energy bill was presented to the House of Commons and unfortunately it was the great, large ominous energy bill which many MPs, Opposition MPs argued against. They did not argue against the power corridor but they argued against the great powers that this act would give the ~nergy H1nister in other fields, in the oil and gas field, and so on. Because it was a very large bill that had many, many components to it. And our Conservative MPs from .Newfoundland were criticized for objecting to the bill. But what they were objecting to, Mr.

Speaker, was not the hydro corridor legislation, or component Of the bill, but the rest of the components of the bill which would give wide-rangin9 powers of ministerial discretion to the Minister of Energy, in the same way as the Minister of Energy now has wide- ranging powers under other acts of the Parliament of Canada. The oil and gas industry are extremely upset with the federal government because of this ongoing ministerial discretion which creates a lot of uncertainty into the investment community and therefore retards the development and exploitation of our resources.

In any case the proposal was there, the component was there and we figured, Mr. Speaker, there was absolutely no problem. We had the acknowledgement of the federal bureaucracy, we had the acknowledgement of the federal minister. He went so far as to introduce the legislation. And we were of 2G~

"' June 11, 1982 Tape 1247 NM - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: the opinion that there was no question, the legislation would be introduced, passed, the legislation proclaimed and then we could go this Spring and make an application to the National Energy Board. As a matter of fact 1the Minister Responsible for Energy (Mr.

Marshall), with the President and Chief Executive Officer of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and their people have been very, very busy in the last two or three months preparing that submission to the National Energy Board, so that the day that the leg1slat1on was proclaimed,the next day the Newfoundland Government would be in Ottawa with an application to the National Energy Board, hand it to tllem, asking for them the movement of some power throuqh the Province of Quebec, and through this corridor which this legislation would provide for. So we were watching the legislation very carefully.

We were qetting some signs. The Opposition had indicated that there were members in Quebec who were aggitating against it, that the Premier of Quebec and some of the ministers of the Party Quebecois Government were arguing against it and so on MR. itORGJ\N: Goinq to Ottawa and having biq press conferences . PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, having press conferences in Ottawa and lobbying. But we did not think that the federal government would ever back down, do a flip-flop on this matter. Now, Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that it was clear to the federal government that 2 G :, t\

June 11,1982 Tape No. 1248 ah-1 PREMIER PECKFORD: we supported this legislation, the Minister of Energy (Mr.Marshall) went to Ottawa and appeared before a Parliamentary Committee on which our position became abundantly clear to all the parliamentarians and to the Government of Canada. It was clear anyway, it was just a facade, it was just: a red herring to maintain that the Government of Newfoundland did not want this.

We were the ones who had been fighting for it for ten or fifteen years, we were the ones who had embarrassed the federal bureaucrats to recommend to their political leaders to go ahead with this· So anybody who could allege that somehow the Newfoundland government were against the very thinq that they had been fighting for for ten or fifteen years must have rocks in their headsto start with. But those allegations were made and we responded to them and so we went to Ottawa. Now during the last meeting,! think it was,that the r.1inister responsil;le for Energy had with Mr.

Lalonde on the offshore,which was not a meeting at all -this was after the election of April 6th,we ~et this call from the Energy Minister, Mr. Lalonde indicating that he would like to have a meeting with our Minister of Energy (Mr.Marshall) on the offshore and 1 of course,we were willing to meet at any time, we have an open invitation out right now for the members of the federal government to meet with us on our proposal 1 and so we agreed heartily and warmly and quickly to the meeting.

And in that meeting I think there was some mention - and the minister responsible for energy can speak for himself Jater, but T think thccc was some indic•1tion Lhcm Mr. Lalonde made,! do not know if it was a threat or a sentence or a phrase, to the extent that,well, the 2'"' D ~."a

June 11,1982 Tape No. 1248 ah-2 PREMIER PECKFORD: hydro corridor legislation and so on, you know, almost hinting that there could be problems with it, and so that led us to accelerate our efforts and for the Minister of Energy to appear before this Parliamentary Committee. And, Mr. Speaker, to hear Mr. Lalonde on the radio this morning you would swear that Mr Lalonde was into intensive and extensive negotiations with the Province of Newfoundland and the province of Quebec to try and bring both sides together.

And I heard his own voice this morning on tape,on one of the radio stations saying that in consultation with the Government of Quebec and the Government of Newfoundland that , you know, we are going to delay implementing this legislation. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely dannerous, this is something else,because the amendments that the Minister of Energy (Mr.Lalonde) put in last night to that bill which delays by six months the coming into force of the power corridor part of the bill, there is no duty or obligation to proclaim that legislation ever.

They have nothing put in that legislation which says that it has to come into effect after six months, nothing in that legislation to say that it has to come into effect after six months. It does not have to be proclaimed. There is no obligation in the piece of legislation to proclaim it 1 so who knows what will happen after six months, Mr. Speaker? rr the Liberal MPs - and this amendment was moved and introduced by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Lalonde) ,not introduced by anybody else.

They have a majority government so they can talk about how many PCs were against it,and I condenm every single Progressive Conservative in Canada who is against this 2 G ~ ,.,

June 11,1982 Tape No. 1248 ah-3 PREMIER PECKFORD: hydro corridor legislation, I condemn every NDP MP who is against this hydro corridor legislation, 2 ~ ;:;

June 11, 1982 Tape 1249 NM - l PREMIER PF.CKFORD: I condemn every MP, of whatever political colour, who is aqainst giving us the same rights as other Canadians. I could not care less what his political philosophy is. SOME liON. MEMDEHS: Hear, hear: PREMIER PECKFORD: And it was moved by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Lalonde), and it was seconded by Mr. Lapointe, a Liberal member from Quebec. Now that is who introduced that amendment and that is who seconded that amendment, two Liberal MPs representing the Government of Canada. And they have a majority in the government. So no matter what Mr. Clark, or Mr.

Lasalle , or any other PC MP or NDP MP says­ you know,you hear the Opposition saying, "Well,some of the Opposition members were opposed to this as well." Well, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government in Ottawa in the last year or so has not been very sensitive to what the members of the Opposition have been saying. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear: MR. MORGAN: That is right. PREMIER PECKFORD: They have not been very sensitive. How come they suddenly got sensitive to the Opposition members on this matter?

So,I mean,that is just a red herring of the first nr<'l«:r and ,as r s"'v ,I condemn any MP who stands in his place, who makes known that he opposes this hydro corridor legislation. Now this was introduced, Mr. Speaker, last night by Mr. Lalonde and seconded by a Liberal member from Quebec. And,as I understand,it it has been passed and there was no consultation. The Minister of Energy ( Mr · Lalond") '•'i'l.S on the radio saying he had consul ted and so em. That is completely wrong! We were not aware that they were going to introduce these amendments.

And I cannot understand for the life of me how a government in Ottawa who pretends and who 2G u

June 11, 1982 Tape 1249 NM - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: got all kinds of mileage during the constitutional discussions, forgetting about all the other parts of it, all the unilaterialism, who got so much- what shall I call it? -so much positive response from articulating that the government -.nd the people of Canada should ',.~vro a charter of rights, of basic freedoms, democratic freedoJTts and rights and powers.

Just imagine, here is a government in Ottawa who proclaims and professes to be all in favour of a charter of rights, so you have an individual living in Coquitlarn has exactly the same rights as a person living in Toogood Arm. I mean,this is the whole idea of a charter of rights, that everybody under the law is to be treated equally. Well, Mr.

Speaker, how can a federal government articulate that position during a constitutional debate and sustain it, when at the same time they are preventing the people in Canada, who live in Newfoundland and Labrador, from having t:heir basic rights of transmission of hydro power from going through the Province of Quebec, while that same Province of Quebec allows an oil and gas pipeline to come from Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Ontario? r:he hypocrisy of it all, the callousness of the way they can deal with us. And what does it demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, what does this demonstrate?

This demonstrates that Canada is not working today because of that Liberal Party of Canada. It demonstrates that the powerful have more rights than the weak, that there is no charter of rights for provinces, thut the powerful can dictate to the federal government, the powerful get all the rights and the weak have to pick up the crumbs.

That is what is happening in this country today, that because Quebec has seventy-five seats in the Parliament of Canada and Newfoundland has seven - only really two, v•e only really have two seats, because there are only two people up there standing up for Newfoundlandr the· other five have sold out long and merry ago. 2 G t".J :

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1250 SD - 1 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear . PREMIER PECKFORD: But seventy-five is greater than seven, not only quantitatively but qualitatively, that rights do not mean anything anymore. And so now we see amendments brought in last night by the Minister of Energy which will delay the corning into effect of this power corridor legislation. And more importantly and dangerously, if the Government of Quebec and the MPs from Quebec can affect this kind of change so easily in the last couple of months 1 what can they do in the next six months, Mr. Speaker?

They can make sure 'that this amendment never get through forever and there is no obligation on behalf of the federal government under this legislation to ever proclaim those ilmen<lments, to 0.vcr sec those amendments be destroyed and the power corridor legislation go through. That can be delayed again, there is no obligation to proclaim it.

So here we are today in Newfoundland and Labrador,after all the things that we have talked about for years, for decades, facing a Liberal government in Ottawa which has blatantly refused to deal with bur offshore dispute with a proposal on the table since January 25th which everybody still ignores. I have not seen anything in the press analyzing our proposal, in any one of the newspapers, on any of the radio stations or the television stations.

I think there was one programme done on the chronology of the offshore by CBC ( television, their s~ecial events group,one time, which did a pretty good job on the chronology of events of the offshore dispute. But who has taken our proposal? Some newspapers on the mainland have and done it. And so here we are today with a proposal on the table to solve a very thorny issue which will give Newfoundlanders some chance to be equal to other Canadians which everybody ignores like the plague.

And I still hear, everywhere r go now, 'How come, how come you are not sitting down to the table?' And we still hear people attacking the government 2 Go '

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1250 so - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: as if we are the ones who are holding up some resolution of the offshore. And we are supposed to now succumb to this pressure, we are supposed to succumb to this pressure now, ~r. Sueaker. And someho~'ll it is a personality conflict between myself and Mr. Trudeau, that I am the stubborn one, that I am the obstructionist, that I am the confrontationist and all the rest.

And we have a proposal on the table, a reasonable proposal, which involves two major concessions by the people of Newfoundland and Labrado~ that we will forget about our ownership and that we will aqre~ at some point in the future 1we have to get less of the revenue split. Two major concessions are ready and yet we are still being attacked as being somehow unreasonable. Well, Mr.

Speaker, so there we are on the offshore and now we have before us what we thought might be a chance to reach some kind of equality in this Confederation over the next ten or fifteen or twenty years , by having this amendment go through, having the power corridor, giving us an opportunity to perhaps , when the Water Reversion Act is declared legal and valid , to have a lot of power on our hands which vle could then transmit ourselves through Quebec, pay our charges on the power corridor and make some money, $300 million or $400 million a year perhaps into the coffers of the Treasury of Newfoundland.

And now we are denied and stymied from doing that by the Liberal government in Ottawa and by any of the other MPs on any side of the 2 Gu ·,

June ll, 1982 Tape No. 1251 PK - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: House who have opposed this kind o[ an amendment from going through. So, Mr. Speaker, that was why this morning after hearing this on radio, I, in my Ministerial Statement, asked to have the following resolution passed in this House today so that we go on record as soon as is possible to let the people of Canada and let the Parliament of Canada and let the Government of Canada know where we stand. WIIEREl\S the people of Newfoundland have been second­ class citizens in the transmission of their energy products since the development of the Upper Churchill; and

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland deserve the same rights as other Canadians in the transmission of their energy products; and WHEREl\S the Federal Government has now delayed implementation of Newfoundland's right of transmission of Hydroelectricity by power corridor through Quebec in total disregard of the basic rights that Newfoundlanders should have automatically; and

WHEREAS this delay is being imposed without consultation with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; TIIEREPORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House condemn this action by the Federal Government to delay implementation of the power corridor legislation; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House call upon the Federal Government to stop procrastinating on this issue and give legal effect to the legislation now. That is the resolution that I want this House to deal with, Mr. Speaker, and to go on record as supporting so that we can send a signal to Mr.

Lalonde and to the HPs in Ottawa, on either side of the House who are against this hydro corridor legislation, that this is a sad day and this is a backward step in our efforts to achieve some kind of equality in the way we have to develop our resources in this Province and to provide some .finances to get on with the job. 2 G 0 r-·,

June 11, 1982 Tape No. 1251 PK - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD : The most dangerous part of it all, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this delay does not necessarily come to an end. It is nor mandatory that this delay be six months . This legislation does not have to be proclaimed . There is no obligation for the Federal Government to proclaim it, so we do not know whether the six months is going to be the end of it or what. And every day that goes by, Mr.

Speaker, this is the other thing, I mean, they ar e really rubbing our noses in it, every day that goes by we are losing $2 million or $3 million a day on this business of the Upper Churchill and having some way to transmit this pO\~er through the Province of Quebec without having to sell it to them .

We need this power corridor legislation so that if our Water Reversion Act is successful, then we have the ability to be able to recoup more money from the Upper Churchill development, forgetting all about the Lower Churchill , \ote can recoup some more money from the Upper Churchill development than we are at the present time, because we will be able to sell directly to New York and other places, with that power that \ve will be able to get back if The t>later Reversion Act rules in our favour, and we have every indication that that will happen , given the Supreme Court of Ncwfoumll.:~nd <.lcci sion . 2,...

I 'J :J

June 11, 1982 •rape 1251 PK - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD : So here we are again today, Mr. Speaker, once again today into a situation of having something thrust upon us from outside which demands a response frorr the people of this Province and demands a response from the Legislature of this Province, an action by the federal government totally inconsistent with what they told us they were going to do 1 they would introduce this corridor legislation , that it would go through and be proclaimed and then we could go to the National Energy Board and make application to get on with the job .

A.nd now we see it delayed six months and perhaps delayed beyond that . So , ~tt. Speaker, you know, the long and short of it is simply that we are going to be poor forever more ,th at this Pro vin ce will never have a chance to go anywhere , that we are not equal Canadians, that we are still being treated as second cl ass citizens , 2 G: ,.1

June 11, 1982 Tape 1252 EC - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: and that we just have to stand up and be counted. I guess the easiest thing to do, Mr.

Speaker, is jusl for~0t il ull, let them take the caplin or let them take the squid, let them do what they want with the Northern cod, let them manage the nose and tail of the Bank how they like, let them play games with the fishermen of Newfoundland on the backs of foreigners, let them do what they want on the offshore, let them do what they want on the hydro corridor through Quebec and just sit down and resign ourselves to our poverty-stricken state and every time we get in trouble just apply for another grant from Ottawa through equali- zation to kee? us going. is the out of resignation.

That is the easy way out, that I do not believe that the people of Newfoundland, who have suffered through so much since 1497 to this day, want this government or want its leaders in this Legislature to suddenly bow under and cave in to another blatant initiative to keep us from being equal in this country. We are going to fight this and fight the offshore and fight the other issues, and the charges of being unfair, the charges of being selfish, the charges of being confrontationists can come at us from all sides, Mr. Speaker. They can come at us from all sides.

We will respond in a rational, decent, reasonable way but we do not intend to relinquish our efforts in establishing those principles - it is, Mr. Speaker, there is no question, we are trying to effect a revolution in this Province without firi1~ n shot. I have said it for the last five or six years and I reiterate it here today. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to change the structural nature of this economony and this society so it will have the same chances of success and affluence and standard of living that other Canadians now enjoy 2 G c; \.,

June 11, 1982 Tape 1252 EC - 2 PREl-1IER PECKFORD: by right, and that is a revolution of the first order . We have bowed under and governments of the past have bowed under . We do not intend to bow under today, tomorrow or ever until the people of Canada, and Central Canada in particular, and the present government in Ottawa realize that you just cannot do that to a people . You cannot keep a people down forever.

I guess the Russians are lea rning that in Poland , I guess they are learning that in Afghanistan, and I guess throughout the world where there is an oppressed people , people who are not being treated equally to others ,.,.ithin the same nation or within the same group, learn that you cannot . Human nature , the human personality , the human soul, '"ill now allow itself to be spurned under th rouqb equality forever. The indivi~ual personality is such, the nature of the Homosapiens is such that it \.,.ill not allow it to happen .

It \.,.ill bow under for a short period of time, it will succumb for short periods of time, but in the end, right and truth will win out and in this cause that we have, right and truth will win out . Unfortunately , we have to suffer while that right and truth is winnin g out . \ve have to suffer . So , Mr. Speaker, there it is. I want this hon . House to go on record as cond emning this action by the federal government . I \vant to see us 2 G 7 11

June ll, 1982 Tape No. 1253 MJ - l PREMIER PECKFORD: as legislators and as leaders of the Newfoundland community, and representing the Newfoundland people, loudly and clearly proclaim our total dis~leasure and disgust with a, delay to ah amendment in the House of Commons last night which will further exacerbate and aggravate an -already difficult situation for the people of this Province and for the government uf this Province. We are not ones - T have to go in a few minutes, five minutes -Fro1n now, for a number of meetings. One with the hon. Mr.

Gray on the phone,to try to negotiate some agreements for the Province. ftJe wi 1 1 neC]ot i at,, reasonably and sensibl~ but we cannot under any attack ¥rom anyboriy who will try to attack us as being confrontationists, we cannot bow down under ?rinciples which are so elementary, really, in the development of any democracy and surely in the development of Canada. How can Canada stand up, how can Mr. Trudeau be in Yugoslavia today and proclaim that he comes from a democratic country. Mr. Speaker, how can he do? He cannot do it.

Be cannot do it as long as we are oppressed on this kind of Jeqisl.1tion. 1\s long as we are oppressed on bcjnq lrc<Jlt'd the way we are on the offshore and on the fishery and the other great issues that face our Province,then this country cannot clearly and unmistakably call itself a democracy nor can it call itself a country that has a Constitution with a Charter of Rights which means anything. They cannot. It is impossible. so, Mr• Speaket, agai~ we are involved in a deba~e, cri~ic~l and historical debate in the history of our Province.

We must and we will succeed in persuading the federal governnent and the authorities in the Parliament of Canada that once again they are doing the people of Newfoundland, the people of Canada, a great disservice in delaying what would have been a great reform in energy in this country which W01ilct 2,.. ' !J '

June 11 , 1982 Tape No. )253 M, J - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD : allow for the people of this Province to be treated in the same way as other Canadians have been t rea ·ted since 186 7. SOME HON . MEMBERS : Hear , hear! PREMIER PECKfQRD : So, Mr . Speaker, I have, I guess , formally done it . I propose that the following resolution be addressed and passed in this House :

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland have been second class citizen s in the transmissio n of their energy products since the development of the Upper Churchill; AND

WHEREAS the people of Newfoundland deserve 2G /

June 11, 1982 Tape 1254 NM - l PREMIER PECKFORD: the same rights as other Canadians in the transmission of their energy products; and

WHEREAS the federal government has now delayed implementation of Newfoundland's right of transmission of hydroelectricity by power corridor through Quebec in total disregard of the basic rights that Newfoundlanders should have automatically; and

WHEREAS this delay is being imposed without consultation with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; THEREFORE BE IT RF.SOLVF.D thilt this House condemn this .-tction by the federal government to delay implementation of the JX>'·Ic!· corridor legislation; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House call upon the federal government to stop procrastinating on this issue and give legal effect to the legislation now. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : MR. MARSHALL: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker. The hon. President of the Council. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a few words on this resolution.

I will make them a few words because I know there are colleagues on this side of the House­ unfortunately there are none on that side of the House. Of cours~ there an~ no collL'i\<JUl' S or mine on Lllc~L sidt' or Llw House, but there are no members, I will say, on that side of the House who will speak. Can I first deal, because I think I would like to deal with - AN HON. MEMBER: The former member for Grand Bank ( Hr. Thorns) ·is in the gallery. 2 G ·,·

June ll, 1982 Tape 1254 NM - 2 MR. MARSHALL: Yes, perhaps we should ask the former member for Grand Bank to come down and speak but I do not think that the former member for Grand Bank, knowing that he is the person he is, would speak in support of his former colleagues on this anyway. Because I think the former , me~per for, ~rand Bank is a Newfoundlander and he would see that this is a Newfoundland issue and not a small political issue. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear~ MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, can I just spend a few moments talking about the reaction that occurred, that we have seen this morning from the members on the other side of the House, the Liberal reaction. This motion is quite properly put before this House.

One of the big problems that we find in conducting the affairs of this House ]s that the hon. gentlemen there opposite do not know the rules of this House and because,when they do not get their own wa~ they act in a fit of pique, and they act in the manner that they have this morning through their own consummate ignorance, which really, in the long run, what it does is it just derrogates this institution.

The hon. the Premier, as any member of this llousc, qot up in this House and made a motion under Standing Order 23 to move the adjournment of the House to consider a matter of urgent public importance that we are now discussing. He gave the reasons for moving it. He passed the piece of paper to Your Honour as he was supposed to do. And I just want to refer briefly to Standing Order 23 (c), "He," that is the mover of the motion, "then hands a statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr.

Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave." Now, i.n effect, the rest of the proceedings of that order were carried ou~ because they were carried out, really, 2 r> 'J I !

June 11,1982 MR.MARSHALL: Tape No. 1255 directly as a result of the disturbance that was ah-1 unjustly kickec up or caused by the hon. gentlemen there opposite in appealing the ruling of the Speaker which,in itself ,was

an act against the order of this House itself. It should never have been done, it should be done in very limited circumstances and it certainly was not warranted in this case. And Beauchesne says, the House of Commons rules sav on page 91, Standing Order 26, ' which is the counterpart of Standing Order 23,' gives considerable discretion to the Speaker in deciding if a subject is a proper matter to be brought before the House! Now the Speaker exercised his discretion and it is a matter of consummate regret that the hon. gentleman opposite reacted in the way they did.

Now the reason why they reacted and deCided to attack the Speaker the way they did was not because of the rules - partly because they do not know the rules. They want to invent the rules according to Neary instead of the rules according to Beauchesne or the Standing Orders. But the other reason was because they did not want to debate this resolution, they did not want to debate this resolution.

They indicated this this morning when the 'Premier made his statement under Statements by Ministers And 1•Then the Opposition was offered the possibility, or it was suggested to them that.why do we not debate this now this morning and if we debate the resolution then we will come to a vote on it and if it is passed it will be sent to the Parliament of Canada? But they did not want to debate it because it is embarrassing to them.They are out of this House because the resolution is 2 n . a l_l I -

June 1,1982 Tape No. 1255 ah-2 MR.MARSHALL: embarrassing to them but the truth of the matter .is, Mr. Speaker, they are really, in sum total,an embarrassment to this House by the conduct which they have chosen to adopt. Now with respect to this news which comes todayr this i