Volume 4 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 4th. Session VERBATIM REPORT MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1975 <. ' SPEAKER: THE HONO~SlABLE M. JAMES RUSSELL Number 9

March 10, 1975 The House met at 11:00 A.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Tape 270 STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS: IB-1 HON. J.C. CROSBIE (MINISTER OF FISHERIES): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to inform the House that Private Members Day will be tomorrow, Tuesday, if the House concurs. I hope the House will concur because Wednesday will be Budget Day which is normally Private Members Day. The official opposition have agreed or suggested that tomorrow would be their choice for Private Members Day. Another point, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to make a statement now that the government intends to ask the House, and notice of motion will be given tomorrow, to appoint a select committee of the House in connection with matters pertaining to the inshore fishery. What we propose is to ask the House to appoint a select committee and the resolution will contain the names of the members who we would like to suggest the House should serve on it. I will not move the motion today so that we can get from the Leader of the Opposition the names of the persons he wants to represent them on the committee.

The idea would be to appoint a select committee. We are going to ask the member for Placentia East to chair the committee, a -select committee on the inshore fishery to consider the present condition of the inshore fishery of the Island of Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador, the problems facing inshore fishermen, fish plant operaters and those involved in the inshore fishery and to consider any matters having an influence upon or pertaining to the said inshore fishery, the usual power to call for persons and papers and to hear evidence from interested parties and to report back to the House by April 30.

That date was chosen 1of course 1 because the Government of Canada is su~r-ded to have concluded their studies by that time and to be anr.~.incing or ready to announce what measures they are going to take in connection with the East Coast fishery for 884

March 7, 1975 Tape 270 IB-2 the rest of this year. At that time the provincial government will have to decide what steps it 'ldll have to take this year in connection particularly with the inshore fishery. Now, we do not expect, Mr. Speaker this is not a royal commission - a royal couonission report. This select couonittee would give interested parties here in the Province of Newfoundland a chance to outline what they consider to be the present state of the fishery and the problems and what they suggest are some of the answers or some of the things that government may do.

Sinre their meetings would be public, it will give a chance for the problems of the inshore fishery to be discussed and reported to the public. It will be some value in explaining to the public just what the main problems are and to get p~blicity for them. It will not be asked to consider any problems in connection with the offshore fishery or the present trawler situation. The cormnittee would be asked to restrict itself to the problems particularly that affect the inshore fishery.

The co11D11ittee itself could hold its hearings during the ne·xt six or eight- weeks in the mornings or sometimes during the ~fternoon so long as we have a quorum in the House. Then it can report to the House as to what it thinks the main problems are or any sugg~stions the committee may have as to what approaches the government should take or what the real problems of the fishery are. The Department of Fisherie~ will provide staff or secretary for the committee and other necessary arrangements will have to be made by the chairman and the committee. We will see that whatever staff is needed is provided.

AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. CROSBIE: Yes, the committee also if it wishes can arrange to go to five or six centers of the province so it will be easier for people to make~ AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Not just Placentia East. MR. CROSBIE: Not just Placentia East - to make any representations they want to. So, as we see it, this could be a valuable opportunity 885

March 7, 1975 Tape 270 IB-3 for members of the House to be fully informed on what the situation is 1 and the public 1and for us to have a chance to hear what the views of the committee then are as to what should be done. So, tomorrow 886

March 10, 1975. Tape 271 RH - 1 I will give notice of that once I have had ;i clmnce to confer with the Leader of the Opposition as to whome the Opposition would like to have on the committee. NOTICE OF .OTIONS: MR. SPF.AKER: The honourable Minister of Fisheries. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice of the following resolution, that a select committee of this House consisting of the }fember for St. John's South as Chairman, and the l-'inister of Education, the Minister of ~•unicipal Affairs and l!ousinp;, the }~ember for St.

Georges, the Hember for Grand Falls, the Leader of the Opposition and the 'Member for Hermitage, be appointed to consider the law and the regulations that should govern the financing of provincial election cnmpaip;ns, includini all questions with reference to elccti .on contributions and expenses, the possible financing of election expenses from the Public Treasury, the possible limitations upon amounts to be spent by candidates and political parties during election campaigns, the disclosure of contributions made to candidates and political parties for election purposes and all matters pertai~ing thereto, with power to call for persons, papers and records and all other materials.to examine witnesses under oath and to hear evidencc> from all interested parties and with the power to sit while the Fouse is in ncssion or is adjourned.

Nr. Speaker, it was ment:l,oned in the Speech from the Throne that we would a~k the House to appoint such a committee which can sit either 1-1hile the Jlouse is in session or after the House closes in Hay because it may be necessary for them to sit lon~er than that. There is a lot of information now available on the law in other provinces, royal col'llllission reports. T-Je have asked the Province of Ontario to forward us their new legislation and the royal commission report they had there.

There is the federal legislation royal commission report so there is a lot of information that will be available for that committee. Of course, they also can hear submissions from any interested 887

March 10, 1975. Tape 271 RH - 2 parties and 1hopefully, recommend legislation that could be introduced in the next session of the House. MR. SPEAKER: Are there any other notices of motion? ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN: MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Health. DR.A. ROWE: Answer to question number four on the Order Paper of the sixth of March: No payments were made by the Department of Health during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1974, to Nacom Limited, McLean Public Relations or to International Events.

The honourable member can give the names of any other companies - which I do not know - I shall endeavour to answer the portion of his question. Parts two, three and four of the question are not applicable. In answer to the question posed by the honourable Hemher for Labrador South, I understand there is an amount of $4.5 million of federal funding available for 197 5-76, but this amount is not for Labrador in general, but only for communities designated as native settlements. The disbursement of this fund is under the control of the Joint Federal-Provincial Committee and an agreement for assistance to natives.

The co-ordinator for this committee is an official of the Department of Rehabilitation and Recreation and I would suggest that the honourable member might communicate with the honourable minister of that department for further information. The fact is that we have no information in the Department of Health that $1 million of this amount of $4.5 million is earmarked for help. That is the specific answer. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Hinister of Education. MR. OTTENHEillER: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to tahle a reply to a question asked by the honourable Member from Bell Island which appeared on the Order Paper of March 6, presently. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible . MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes. 888

March 10, 1~75. JIR. S_~AKEP. : ~IR. S. NEA.r..Y: Tape 271 RH - 3 ORAL QUESTlO'l~: The honourable Member for llell Island. :11:. Speaker, I put a question to the ~i a is ter of l!eal th last weel· about the health l>azards at hoth Bucl1ans and St. Lmrrence , but ! th.ink the r.iinister mu·st h::we misun<lers.too tl r.ry ouestion l-ecause he riid not a':l.swer t he l)art c1ealin 11 with t he deat hs of miners in St.

Lawrence as a result of expos 11re to radiation in t he mine . flould the minister care oow to make a state c ent on tha t situation t here, if thcre is any thing , to the reports or i.f t hl'l nini~ter' s dc'>art:rnent are investi1?atir. n the si tu11tion at St . La•,:rcnce? The honoura ble ~•iniste-c of Health . 889

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 272 Page 1 - mw DR. ROWE: Distinctly, the portion regarding Buchans, I have looked up the Hansard of that date, and there is no mention of St. Lawrence. I have a statement which I will be prepared to give to the House within the next day or two on the St. Lawrence situation. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, would the minister also care to include in his statement the health hazard at the phosphorous plant at Long Habour, the dust situation at the pelletizing plant in Labrador City, and a report on Baie Verte, asbestosis, you know, as reported in Baie Verte? I would like to have all - AN HON.

MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. NEARY: Well, there is a report rumoured, you know, in Baie Verte. There is some concern about it, let me put it that way. I would like to have the whole thing - AN HON. MEMBER: The health hazards. MR. NEARY: Right, the health hazards - the whole thing included in one report. __pR. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that 1now that he has included several others, it is obviously going to take quite a bit longer to get the relevant information, but in due course, I will be happy to make the statements on these various areas. MR. NEARY: I thank the minister. Mr.

Speaker, I put a question to the Minister of Rehabiliation and Recreation about the government's involvement in the sU111111er games. I still do not have the answer. Does the minister have the information today? HON. T. DOYLE (Minister of Rehabiliation and Recreation): No. MR. NEARY: No, still no answer. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Provincial Affairs, Sir, could inform the House what action he has taken or the government have taken on a request to investigate car prices in this province? 890

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 272 Page 2 - mw MR. SPEAl<ER: Orders of the day. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to answer the question? The Member for Bonavista South, Sir, requested the minister to investigate car prices in the province. What action has the miniseer taken on this request? HON. G. DAWE (Minister of Provincial Affairs and Environment): (Inaudible). MR. NEARY: Well has the minister received any requests to investigate car prices in this province? Does the minister intend to investigate car prices in this province? _!Ill. DAWE: (Inaudible). MR. NEARY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the minister's answer, and I wish to debate it, Sir, on Thursday afternoon during the late show. Mr. - Speaker, would the Minister of Tourism care to inform the House if tenders have been called yet for resoo~ation work on the former CN coastal vessel known as the Kyle? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Tourism. RON. T. V. HICKEY (Minister of Tour:lsm): I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, I got the question right. Rave tenders been called for restoration of the Kyle? Who said we were restoring that? MR. NEARY: The Minister of Health during the election. MR. EVANS: What about the Titanic?

MR. RICKEY: Mr. Speaker, there have been no tenders called for the restoration of the Kyle. I will get the honourable member some details on the Kyle in a m~tter of a few days to sort that problem out. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Premier. In view of the announcement made by the Minister of Fisheries of the select committee of the House, I am wondering what now becomes of the Premier's stated intention of last Fall to establish a board of enquiry to study all aspects of the fishery?

Would there be a board of enquiry in addition to this select conunittee? 891

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 272 Page 3 - mw HON. J.C. CROSBIE (Minister of Fisheries ): Mr. Speaker, the position on that is that there are a number of studies underway now with the federal government and with the provincial government. The House is also going to be asked to appoint a select collllllittee, as I just said, on the inshore fishery. There has been no industrial enquiry commission appointed or any royal commission appointed for several reasons.

Among the reasons are, the difficulties we are having in finding a suitable chairman, that is one reason, and another major reason is because everybody involved in the fishery is being 1 and they !;ave been consulted, have been so busy submitting briefs and putting information before the various agencies of the_ federal government and the province and busy in connection with other matters that are now currently in dispute, both the union and the Fisheries Association, that they suggested to us that we should delay the appointment of ' any such commission of enquiry.

They simply do not have the staff and resources to be submitting briefs and appearing before it, as well as everything else they a~~ doing in connection with the present crisis. A third reason is that while such an enquiry may very well be quite valuable,even if appointed now it is extremely unlikely that it would report for at least a year.

What we are grappling with now is a plan for this year that is going to ensure that the fishery survives this year, until the next two or three;and then developing any plan like that, we cannot wait for the report of the royal collllllission that will not be in for at least twelve months. So while 892

"larch 10, Hl75 Tape 273 (Morning) PK - 1 the government_ have not decided not to go ahead w:lth such a Commission of F.nnuiry it has not heen appointed yet,and it is unlikely that it '"'Ould he for nerhans several months more ~,hen we are clear as to nhat is ha.rmeri:lnp.; this year. In the meantime if honourable gentlemen have any sup.;p.:estions as to who would he an appropriate chairman for such a horly we Pould be p,lad to receive their sup;gestions. '·'fR. ~PE/I.KE~ : 1'he Fon. Hemr.er for ~onavista North. "R. P. S. THm!S: "'r.

S!>ealrer, I would like to direct a question to the }linister of Forestry and Agriculture. In view of the fact that man,· of our local farmers are in financial difficulties because of the marketing conditions, and also in view of the fact that the agricultural ministers in our sister Atlantic Provinces have approached the federal government for financinp; aid for their local farmers, has the minister also approached the federal government for aid for our local farmers in Newfoundland? '9L_ Sl'_F!i,KER: The llon. Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. JlON. _ _F._ COLLINS (MINISTER OF FORESTRY AND AGRICULTURE): Mr.

Speaker, in r~sponse to that I presume the honourable member is making reference to some of the problems which ex'ist in the potato busi.ness in >-fusr,ravetm-m. The 6fficials of the department were in Musgravetown -about three weeks ago, and met with those farmers who cared to attend. A •fair amount of information has been documented. The situation is be:l.ng monitored dailv. As time goes on we will determine what might or might not be necessary to be done.

With regards to the second part of the <JUestion 1we are in daily contact, you m:lght say, with the federal minister concerning not only notatoes but a lot of other commodities. I hope to be in a position in a few days to make a statement on it. ~'P.. SPFAY:P.R: The Hon. '~em1,er for Rell Island. ----- MF. NF.ARY: ~1r. Sneaker, I wonder if the }linister of Tourism ---- ·--· could answer a question to the House. Could the minister inform the House what action he has tal<en to recover excess travel allowances made in connection 1-1ith the Silver Anniversay Celebrations as re-ported 893

March 10, 1975 Tape 273 (Morning) PK - 2 in the Auditor-General's Report? MR. SPEAKER: That question could go on the Order Paper. MR~_NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could inform the House if the ~ractice of issuing excess travel allowances in his department in connection with Confederation Celebrations are still continuing or not? Order, please! The honnourable Member for Bell Island is changing words of the question which _ is essentially the same question as asked previously. f,!R:_N~ARY: No, no, Sir, I asked the minister - MR~-~~EAKER: That question is out of order. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I asked the minister if the practice was still continuing. MR. SPEAKER: question. MR. NEARY: Order, please! The Chair has made a ruling on that Well, Mr. Speaker, will the minister inform the House of the whereabouts of films, and slides produced for his department h;v George McLean? And has he found the hundred prints that could not be accounted for as reported 01 page 23 of th~ Auditor-General's Report? MR. SPEAKER: That question can go on the Order Paper. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, could the minister res,onsible for dumps tell us if a decision has been taken yet on the location of a regional dump for the St. John's area, or has a decision been made to locate the dumo in the Harbour Main District, or in the minister's own district? MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the nay. MR. __ NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for an answer from the minister responsible for dumps. t-<R. SPEAKER: I am sure the honourable Member for Bell Island is aware that a minister is not required to answer a question. I waited for a very short while, and there was no reply from the minister. MR.

NEARY: The senior Member for Harbour Main, Sir. ls the minister going to answer the question? ~~ • SPEAKER: The Hon. Hinister of Provincial Affairs and Environment. 894

''arch lCJ, 1975 Taoe 273 (Hornin&) PK - 3 J.!9..N. G. DAI·~ (!-fINlSTEl! OF J>l>OVT-:-!CIAL AFFJ\TP.S J\Nll ENVIl:OMIIENT) : I was unrler the fMnression that it t·'<lS a rule of t his flou.<:c t!\at d1en a nerson 1,ns refereed to he t••oulr1 either be referred to as the honou r at-le n<"Jnber, or th'! l:onoura hle oinister of such and such a den;irtl'lent. l'e do not knew to ~•horo he is ref.crriniz the Question. rea r: l'c-ar! ',11>_ ',FA":Y: !11 not the !-linii:ter of Pt:ovincial Affairs hetter >'.J.

SJ>ri\KF": nrrler. nleasc! l'ould he C,'lt:C to tell us H the r.overnme11t lave yet taken the decision on 1:here the re~ional d=n is r.oinr. to be located for the St .. Jo!m' s area ? nrrlcr, nlea:ac ! The renhrastnr. of the Quest.ion hy the honou r able "erohe r for nell Island is out of order. The C:hair recosmi?.es another honourable memher. •m . 'IT.A''Y: 'r. ~np.aJ,er, T have a nucstion for t he Hon. ~linistcr of Justice . nrder, nle11<:P ! The Chai r has recol!nized another honou r ahle Mem~er.

I g:1e,;s :;i.nce no othe.r honou rahl e meml•er has a nuestion, T wil 1 reco~nizc the honourable Member for Jlel l Island . ,.,r . Sneaker, T 1·ould lil:c to ask the !'l'ini ster of Justice :l f t he 'liniste r of J>ul-lic 'lorl:s tms actir.p, on ins truct ions from the •·1nister of .Ju,sticc •~hen he carried out a recent ins!)ection of l'ot:t Townshend accOU1panied by one or two polic e officers who were on duty at the time. ~ RON. MEMBER: '!R . ROBERTS: hecause of 1 t. llR , ~Pf.J\KF,ll: lie was all alone. l~1at does ~e mean all alone , a ooliceman was demoted 0rder , olea se! HotL r.

A . nr.1C 1>.N: I t is an internal matter that c;ime before a dul v constituted tril;unal under the nrovisions of the Newfoundland r.onstahula rv Act . It i" noP t he subject matter of an aopeal from the dec:lsion of that tt:ihunal. 895

March 10, 1975 Tape No. 274 NM - 1 ORDERS OF THE DAY: MR. SPEAKER: Order 3, second reading of a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Electric Corporation." I think the honourable Member for Hermitage adjourned the debate and he has five minutes left. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would just like to reiterate one of the points I was making late on Friday, in response to the Premier's statement on Friday in which he indicated that it was his government's intention to introduce legislation to, I presume, nullify the effects of

section 26 of the bill before us, and other sections relating to the answerability or the lack of it, the answerability of the Cabinet to the House on matters of borrowing for the Lower Churchill Development in particular. At that time I said, and I would like to repeat, that the Premier's undertaking, verbal undertak~ng, to introduce that legislation, is not good enough under the circumstances and that the way to remedy the weaknesses, the affronts which are contained in

section 26 and 27 and subsequent sections related to the financing, the way to remedy those weaknesses is not in the way the Premier has suggested, to pass the present bill then introduce some legislation which would have the effect of nullifying the present bill, but the way to remedy that situation is to introduce amendments now to

section 26 and the other related sections, and I call upon the Premier to do that during COllmlittee stage,. to introduce the amendments which will have the effect of making the Power Corporation and Cabinet answerable to the House on the matters of borrowing which are provided for in

section 26. If the Premier does not do it, we in the oppositon intend to do it, and I give notice on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, that we will introduce a number of amendments to the offending sections, particularly

section 26 and 27 and the others, amendments which will make the Power Corporation and the Cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in~Council, answerable to the House on the matters we have mentioned and to which we take 896

March 10, 1975 Tape No. 274 NM - 2 objection. We have already drafted a number of amendments and we now 11:ive notice that these will be brought before the House during committee stage. I would much prefer that the Premier would see the wisdom of what the Member for St. John's South, the Member for St. John's East, the Member for St. John's North, the Leader of the Opposition, and others on this side of the House have said.

I would like for the Premier to see the wisdom of what we have advocated on this matter and introduce himself the amendments which will have the effect of making the House the final control point, the rightful control point, Mr. Speaker, in matters related to incurring large capital debts in the name of the province. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the dilemma that most members of this House have at this particular time. We find the bill commendable, good in many, many respects.

A number of the principles, particularly as they relate to the hydro development, are principles we want dearly to support, but we cannot support them if in casting our vote we also lend any credibility to the deliberate attempt in this bill to muzzle the House, to rob the House of its rightful control in money matters. That is the dilemma, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and his colleagues can solve that dilemma for all of us by introducing amendments to which I have referred, and if not we shall introduce them and the Premier and his colleagues can then solve our dilemma by supporting our amendments 1 and if he does and if his colleagues support our amendments on the opposition side, we can then find ourselves able to support the bill; a bill which in many respects is a very good bill 1but which good is completely obviated, completely wiped out, by this monstrous provision, in

section 26 and the other related sections. I appeal, Mr. Speaker, to all members on both sides of the House to support our amendments if we have to put them on

section 26.

March 10, 1975 Tape No. 274 NM - 3 The Minister of Mines says it is nonsense, Well, I will leai;e him to clarify that when he gets up to speak. It is not nonsense, Mr. Speaker. It is a grave affront to the House when it is suggested that the House should have, I am sorry, the Cabinet should have unlimited borrowing power and there is no way we 898

March 10, 1975 Tape 275 IB-1 on this sicle of the House can . stand for that or can support it and we can only support the bi 11 if provisions are made to wipe out the offending sections. ~R. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the honourable members present for allowing me to rise a second time. Heing not in a very good condition to conduct a debate on Friday, I have hopefully recovered my senses enough to conduct it in a rational manner this morning. Although

section twenty-six seems to get on a lot of peoples' nerves, as I said in my opening remarks, the bill is essentially a reworking of the act which governs the Prn.1er Commission. and as such bringing all of the hydro-electric power of the province top;ether, I think,it is something that none of us can really argue with the principle of.

There are certain controversial sections of the bill to which I will address myself later, but I think it should be noted at this point that the federal government, even though they are providing considerable amounts of funds for this project, are getting away relatively easy when compared to projects in other parts of the nation, such as the Svncrude Development, the Prince Edward Island project and this kit'd of thing. One has to ask why. Is it because of bad blood between the federal and provincial governments?

Is it because of lack of powerful negotiations on the part of our people who are conducting for the province,or is it because our representatives in Ottawa, in particular Newfoundland's minister in the cabinet, has not clone his job? In all of this, the question that keeps coming back and coming back is where is Don? What is happening up there? Perhaps it is about time we had a new representative in the federal cabinet. I would like to address myself, Mr. Speaker, to the broad principle of this bill as it effects Labrador.

To us this bill and the whole concept which is embodied therein is more than just another act, more than just another corporation, more than just another industrial development. It is symbolic to us in Labrador. It comes at a time when we are questioning ourselves where we are going. We are questioning where we fit into the provincial scheme of things, and 899

March 10, 1975 Tape 275 IB-2 we are casting serious questions on the reasons for the state that we are in today. The bill, "An Act Respecting The Newfoundland And L-abrador Hydro-Electric Corpo ration " 1s to us a symbol of something that goes to the very roots of our society in Labrador. We have seen from the earliest days of colonization an extractive process whereby the resources of Labrador have been tapped for the benefit of those outside. We have received from those resources, I believe, the mere scraps from the table. Io the early days of the fishing industry, perhaps the world's greatest fishing effort was conducted on the Labrador Coast 9 00

1 '.arcl1 10, 1"75 .

Tape 27F PJl - l when thousarnls and thous:mds of fis!lin1' vessels, not _iust fron the Island of Newfoundlancl, but from the Haritimes and fron the t!ew Enrlanc1 States, went to fish in Lal,rnclor waters and the Fhole industrial, commercial enterprise connected with that fishery was not in the least concerned wit,·, the ])lir,ht o_f. the people on the Labrador Coast and any benefits ve cerivec1 fror;,. that fishery were incidental, the scraps from the table. '.le sm-11 folloi!in~ · that, the openin~ of the J argest open pit iron ore mine in the nation, nerhaps in ,forth America, if I am correct.

Hhat did we get out of it? A few paltrv dollars in royal ties, the hulk of which cane to benefit the people on the Islanct of newfoundland. '·'e are not compla:1 .ning that the money was spent on the Island of Newfoundland. rn,2t 1-,e are complaining about was that ue did not get our fair and equitable share. He clid not even get the jobs. lfanpower did not see fit to recruit on the Labrador Coast and we were told that we were unfit even for the menial labour jobs because, one reason was given, we could not even read the safety signs, adding insult to injury.

Pollowing that·, North .tunerica' s last remaining stand of black snruce forest 1,•as tapped. -\n industrial plant was supposed to have been built in Labrac1.or to utilize that forest. /It the eleventh hour we were told that the plant was r;oinr to be taken from Labrador and n;1t on the Island. He do not ber,rudge the people of Stephenville their plant. but we do feel insulted and injurecl to think that it was done for political reasons and that our raw material is being used without our getting the benefit of it. r:ven today, we have a rough time trying to get our people from the Coast jobs in the woods there.

Coincidentally with this, we see the Native Association, the Innuit Brotherhood beginning to wonder exactlv what claim they have to the land. '!ative land rights have surfaced in Western Canada ancl is coming eastward with the organization of Innuit Tapiritsad and the Native Association. Now we see that after Churchill Falls, the development of the Churchill Falls where again we did not get any of the benefit of the hydro -power - we got very, very little benefit of the jobs at Churchill- 901

March 7, 1975 . Tape 27f.. RII - 2 we see what is being called the Lower Churchill misnomer. It is the Gull Island project. When Mr. Smallwood decided to change the name of the falls without asking our permission, he did not change the name of the river. It is the Hamilton River and the Churchill Falls is on the Hamilton. There is no such thing as a Lower Churchill.

At any·rate, we have to ask ourselves now whether or not we are going to get any more benefit out of the Gull Island project than we have out of Churchill Falls, out of Labrador West iron ore mines• out of Labrador Linerboard' s Woods Operation or out of the fishery. If we are not, Sir, then we would be just as happy if it did not go ahead at all because it is certainly going · to have an effect on .the environment. It is certainly going to have an effect on our social life and on our culture and unless we get some material benefit, then it will all be to the cletriment of the people of Labrador.

This is why the Gull Island project and this act is symbolic to ou:i: whole problem. One section, twenty-four, has been said to have been put in there to interrupt or intercede or to stop the claims of native peoples to any land which they might think they own, in the words of a gentleman from Goose Bay. I have a different opinion on

section t wenty-four, but I would just like to address myself to this particular problem. One honourable gentleman opposite said that, I believe it was the honc . .:-able Minister of Justice, I stand to be corrected, said that with our entry into Confederation, the native peoples came in as ordinary citizens and therefore, they have no rights other than any other ordinary citizen. 902

March 10 ,!l 97 5 Tape 277 Well, of course, since we have a federal- provincial agreement and since they _are, after all, the original people that statement stands in . dispute. Whatever people think about

section twenty-four and its reasons for being .there, I would like to lay on the honourable members opposite an entirely new idea, new from their point of view 1I should think. Nobody should have any fear of the native land claims in Labrador. The native peopies in Labrador are not talking about blocks of real estate. The native peoples in Labrador are very likely not going to come along and say, "You cannot touch that piece of land because it belongs to us or you cannot cross that piece of land because it is ours." We are not talking about a real estate deal.

We are talking about our claims to the use of the land, our place in the whole environment. If honourable members want to know what it is that makes us in Labrador different, then this is what it is. The whole concept of man~ relationship to the land is an entirely different one than was imported from Europe where there were fences and titles and deeds and laws of trespass. When my European ancestors came to Labrador they came there of free choice and ~ntered into the same society with the native peoples whom they found there and came to learn the same laws respectin_g the use of the land as the natives had.

Sometimes I find it is a curse that I belong to a part of all three races. In this case I find it is a blessing because I can understand what the Native Association is talking about and I can understand the Innuit Tapiritsad when they say that we have claim to this land. We do have claim to this land. It is our land. That is not to say it is not anybody els~s land. We are not saying that because this is our land, nobody else can use it. Nobody can own land. The Indians' relationship with their environment, nobody can own land anymore than anybody can own air or water. It is there for everyone.

That is ~hy there was no conflict when the white man arrived. He was welcome to come in and use the land the same as the rest of the people there. Nobody could deny him the use of that land because 903

March 10,.1975 Tape 277 ;rn-2 it was not his, it was evecybody's,including those people who arrived. So, there should be no fear on the part of honourable members opposite that so.mebody is going to say, "You cannot use Winokapau and fill it up for your Gull Island development because it is our land." What they are saying is that because you are filling up Winokapau and you are denying the right of anybody to walk on the she-res of Winokapau that is going to be flooded, t he refore there has to be compensation for that land wh.ich is taken out of use .

There may be some argument as to how much it was used and by whom. That is a different story altogether. The fact remains that there is no need to put in any c l ause in this act which would deny the native 'J)eople or anyone else the right to make representation in any manne·r whatsoever regarding land claims. What we are saying is that this is our land. This is our land to be used the way that we have used it c'raditionally. If our society has been changed by the arrival of an alien culture and we no longer use that land that way, then there should be some fom of compensation . 904

'1arch 10, 1975 Tape 278 ('Torning) Pk - 1 You may .take a look at the communities of llavis Inlet and l'orthwest P.iver, · and say those bloody lazy indians,they do not deserve any }>etter any way. Look at it from inside of the communities' point of view. Those so- calle<i hloody lazy. Indians were taken out of that element, out of their environment 1place<i in communities by patronizini>; white men, and told, all r:i.r,ht here you are. Now you have to live like us. It was utter and tota·l cultural shock. You could not expect them to overnight simply fit into our scheme of things.

They are people of the land, and they have been denied the use of that land one way or another, rightly or wrongly. And now with the you'!\ger generations becoming more educated, more aware, more sensitive to their heritage and the loss of that heritage 1 they are demanding that the white society give thelll back that which it has taken from them, the use of their lang in dignity. I doubt that any p;roup of Indians, or Innuit, or white natives will ever throw a blockade across any development in Labrador, and say you cannot go in because it is our land.

But what they are asking, what we are asking, and I think ,iustifiably 1is that if this land is going to be used to create a better society then we want a part of that better society. I do not think anybody would agree that we should be denied that. There should he no fear on anyone's part about native land claims. It is difficult for anybody who has not grown up to this conceot of man's relationship to his environment to be able to accept that. fout it is there.

We have another element, We have those people who have come in from places outside of Lahrador and established their homes, and set their roots in Labrador, especially in the Goose Bay area 1 the area that is immediately adjacent to the Gull Island site. Th~¥ have a different conceot. They have gone and made their commitment to Labrador, and they are going to live their and raise their families there. And when they see all of the resources going out, and very little of it coming back then they take an entirely different attitude.

I think this is the group the honourable minister ran up against when he was in Happy 905

March 10, 1975 Tape 278 (Morning) Pk - 2 Valley. they too have a justifiable colllPlaint;. Perhaps they unfortunately directed their anger agains ·t the wro'.!}g minister 1 the very m1nister who at least: took the trouble tc, go a:nd see them. I think I can say that their anger would be more properly directed to those honourable ministers who do not bother to go up and see them. The honourable member ha~pened to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Mr. Speaker; having made that point I hope t will not dwell on the b.111 at this point any long~.

I simply wanted to make that point and get it out of the way1 and we will be dealing with the vari!,ous clauses as we come to them. I can only say at this point that I would like to see Section (24) eliminated for an e'.!}tirely different reason, because 1: think it was put in there. to act against any unions that might want to strike ., and interrupt the job. I do not think that is the way to deal with it.

I would like to see Section (26) if not eliminated then amended slightly to put the power back into the Legislature, and unless it is amended tb.en 1 as good as this bill is1 I am afraid I cannot go on record as supporting it as long as it places all of the power in the hands of the cabinet, and takes it at1ay from the Legislature. MR. NEARY: What about the second bill, we do not agree w!th the things that they should have in this bill. 906

March 10, 1975 Tape No. 279 NM - 1 MR.

MARTIN: Hell, I am glad the honourable Member from Bell Island brought that up, because while we have heard expressions that steps will be taken to put control back into the Legislature and to overcome the repugnant aspects of this section, I recall standing here all by myself one eve~ing, the wee hours of the morning I believe it was by that time, when we debated the Redistribution Sill and the honourable the Premier !!:ave us assurances that a recount of census would be taken in Labrador West and if necessary, the whole thing changed to give us better representation and to this date we have not seen any action on that and while one should be able to at least expect that the honourable the Premier would be as p,ood as his word, until we get some manifestation of good faith, then I am afraid I can only say at this point, reprettably) that I have no faith and I have no faith in any honourable minister opposite saying that steps will be taken through another bill to ch~nge this.

It has to be done in this section, otherwise I cannot support it. "ffi.. SPEAKER: If the honourable minister speaks now he closes the debate. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder before the minister closes the debate, would the minister agree for my colleague to speak in this debate should he arrive this afternoon or tomorrow morning, that is my colleague from Labrador North, Sir, he is - MR. BARRY: Mip;ht I sug gest that the committee (remainder inaudible). MR. NEARY: Okay, Sir, that is fine, because he has expressed the desire to speak in the debate. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Education. !-IF..

OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to speak long. It has been a fairly lengthy debate and a worthwhile one\and many matters have been considered and certainly I think it was an example of the kind of debate on a very important act 1which is to be welcomed. First a few words on some of the objections which members have referred to. I think the Premier in his address answered 90"7

March 10, 1975 Tape No. 279 NM - 2 most of these, answered all of them in outlining the government's intentions 1 and in closing the debate the Minister of Mines and Energy will no doubt repeat and explain in further detail,if indeed such is necessary. With respect to the criticisms of the bill, there is only one that I wish to deal with to any extent and that is the

section 28 which has caused some c_ontrovery and which I think results from some misunderstanding. Briefly 1 the other ones; it has been made clear by the Premier that it is not this govenunent's intention to have M.H.A. 's on this board of this corporation or indeed of any corporation. Indeed , it has been indicated that an amendment will be made to that effect. I can see absolutely no problem there, the record of this government in that area is excellent.

In three years of office, not one member of the Rouse of Assembly, one government member, opposition member, any member, in three years this administration has not appointed one member of the House of Assembly to the board of any Crown Corporation. When we came into office, I do not know, when we came into office, I know that there were at least three members of the House of Assembly, who were formerly government supporters, three Liberal members of the Rouse of Assembly, were members of the Power Commission Board. There were some members on other boards as well.

So if we examine the record of the administration, when we came into office, three on the Board of the Power Commission and some on some other boards as well. In the three years since this government has been in office, not one M.H.A. on any board. So I think there the record speaks totally for itself. Some reference was made to

section 24 and various possible

interpretations of that 908

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 280 Page l - mw

Section 24, It was never, and this has been stated by the Premier and others, it was never the intention of this government to put anything into that bill which could in any way be prejudicial to whatever rights a court might ietermine as adhering to the native people. It was never - I repeat it - it was never the government's intention in any way to incorporate in this bill anything, not only which could have any adverse affect on any rights they might have, but which could even be interpreted as such, which could be interpreted as such. Because it is possible, and some members have interpreted that

section 24 in that manner, then this government wish not only not to do anything which could be prejudicial to the rights, but do anything which could be possible of such an

interpretation. I think the position is quite clear there. With respect to the purchase of petroleum, I think that has been made abundantly clear, and if further coument is necessary there, certainly the Minister of Mines and Energy is the person to do it.

This is an extremely complex area and with the oil situation and supply and fluctuations of prices and the possibilities which occur at times, even though prices are high 1of a surplus and a much cheaper price within a certain time frame, then in order that the corporation have the authority to purchase these necessary products at the lowest possible price, it is necessary to do it that way. The objection which most comment has been upon is

section 28, and it has been stated that

section 28 should be repealed,because it would allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the cabinet, to authorize borrowing by the corporation. It has been suggested that this should be repealed. This government have stated, its leader, the Premier, has stated that in ~act what is the government's intention to do is to bring in another bill dealing specifically with the financing of this development, getting authority from the House to raise the money necessary, and giving the information that is required,that the House and the public would have a right to know, of giving it when that specific bill is brought in, in terms of 909

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 280 Page 2 - mw the amount of money, the terms or conditions and the state of development or progress of the entire development. I would certainly think that that assurance is unequivocal, clear, binding, and I can see no, reason, no logical reason, why any member of the legislature on any side of the House should doubt it. I can see political reasons, I can see perhaps personal reasons, but I can see no logical rational reason why the unequivocal assurance of the government expressed by the Premier and by others cannot be accepted. AN HON. ~ER: (Inaudible). MR.

OTTENHEIMER: On this whole matter, it is interesting to review briefly the history of the borrowing power, and the rights of the House. In 1966 the former administration brought in an amendment to the then Revenue And Audit Act, which denied to the Rouse the right of prior knowledge and prior approval for government borrowing. That act enabled the former administration to borrow on the authority of the cabinet, and only later on did it have to be approved by the House. After the money was bo=owed, after indeed it could have been spent, after all of this, then the House was asked to give approval.

So, it was the former administration through its amendment to the Revenue And Audit Act in 1966 denied this legislature the right of prior knowledge and prior approval, and in so doing denied one of the traditional rights of any parliament. ~ that of control of expenditure. That was done in 1966. That was done bv ~ the last Libewal Administration we had. That is what they did. In 1973, this government rectified that position.

This govenuaent passed a new Financial Administration Act which returned to the House of Assembly the right of prior knowledge and prior approval I and now the cabinet cannot go out and borrow huge sums without the prior consent of this legislature. So the actions 910

March 10, 1975 Tape 281 speak a great deal louder than the words. The records of the two administrations in terms of control by this House of the spending power and the borrowing power, the records· are clear. There is IB-1 the ~evenue. There was the act brought in by the former administration in 1966 to oust the jurisdiction of the House. _]IR. NEARY: Inaudible. MR •. OTTENHEIMER: I have no idea what would happen then. We know what the two administrations' records are.

The former administration, the Liberal administration, ousted the jurisdiction of the House to get all of this control in borrowing in the hands of the cabinet. This administration, soon after its election to office, returned. that authority to the House as far as the borrowing is concerned. Now, certainly, t'r. 'speaker, what this administration has denied to itself, to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, it is not going to allow one of its servants or creatures 1a crown corporation. Certainly this would not be our intention.

He have ourselves in the Finance Administration Act, this government on its own initiative, not on a Private Members Bill from the opposition, not as the result of a resolution by the opposition but on our own initiative,because we felt it was the right way. this government has made it law that borrowing must have the prior approval of the House of Assembly. Certainly when that is applicable to the government, it is going to be applicable for the kind of development we are envisioning costing around $1.6 billion.

Now, it has been said, "Well the way to assure this is by an amendment to the act." That is absurd, Hr. Speaker, totally absurd. Do honourable gentlemen really think that by changing a few words, a few phrases, in this section, a project as important, as essential, as costly, as complex, that that is the way this government wishes to get the approval of the legislature? Absolutely not. We wish to do it in a specific bill where all of the information available can be made known to members where the amount - AN HONOURABLF MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Of course. Where the amount and the conditions and 911

March 10, 1975 Tape 281 IB-2 the planning and progress up to date can be made known with a specific bill. So, if the legislature is asked specifically to approve or not to a certain course of action with financial and industrial and consequences of the broadest social and economic kind, it is by bringing in a specific bill on this specific and important project, not by amending a

section in a bill. So, Mr. Speaker, the reasons that the honourable gentlemen put forward are not convincing whatsoever and certainly a project of that nature deserves and should have the fullest kind of airing in the legislature and the way to do that is through a specific bill where apart from the first reading, there is the second reading debate on the principle;in the Committee of the Whole House where every item can be gone into. This is the way of doing it, where the legislature has the possibility of participation at all of the stages, all of the legislative stages.

That is why this government is committed to bringing in a specific bill and not the silly pussyfooting by changing a few words in a

section of the bill. Of course, the most important comment of all I think . is the fact that the actions speak louder than words. We see what they did in 1966 and we see what this administration did in 1973. Now, Mr. Speaker, just a few words with respect of the overall principle of the bill. It can be put many ways.

I regard it as to facilitate the development of our huge hydro potential in order that this province and its people can gain control of their own economic destiny,and there runs from that as well social destiny because I am not sure that anybody - as a matter of fact, I am quite sure they cannot - one cannot have cont~ol of onJs I social destiny unless there is control as well of one's economic destiny. With the development of the hydro potential and with 1hopefully 1 Ottawa's agreement to the controlled ownership, jurisdiction by the Province of the 912

Harch 10, 1975. Tape 282 RH - 1 unrenewable resources of the Continental Shelf, this Province will be a have Province. We will be able to contribute in terms of equalization to other provinces and not have to continue 1as we have for the past quarter centurY, as a recipient. ! "think, Mr. Speaker, this is not just a question of money going one way or money going the other. Think what effect this will have on the pride and confidence of Newfoundlanders.

I can think of very few things more to be desired in terms of the confi­ dence of our people _, their fa'.ith in themselves, and their Province and their future than t _his - when this likelihood will one day, hopefully, become a reality, when we can then contribute in terms of equalization to other Canadians and not in financial terms,and I am speaking only in financial terms, be merely recipients because in other than financial terms, I feel that we are very significant contributors, but speaking · only in the financial terms.

The effect that that would have is, I think;. almost impossible to gauge and is something to be desired. It is necessary, as well, to have developments like this, and I do not view this kind of a development as an end in itself, no. One can I suppose, project, you know, a huge coporate organization running efficiently generating great revenues and, you know, this can appeal to a corporate mentality, if you wish, or a managerial mentality. I regard it myself from a prospective as a means.

I regard it as a means to an end and the end would be the objective, if you wish, to strengthen and diversify our industrial complex and our economic base and to generate amounts of revenue for the social development of the Province, in terms of health, in terms of education, in terms of peoples' welfare, in the qualitative and social aspects. That has to be the overall objective and this, an important 1and, I believe, necessary means to achieve it. Mr. Speaker, with those few remarks, I am very pleased to join with other gentlemen on this side of the House in supporting the principle of the bill. MR.

SPEAKER (Dunphy): The minister now speaks, he will close the debate. HON. L. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was presented, I thought it was the usual, enlightened, exciting, awesome piece of legislation, Mr. 913

March 10, 1975. Tape 282 RH - 2 Speaker, that is customary in preceding from this government and particularly from the Department of Mines and Energy. Mr. Speaker, if you will pardon the expression, all hell broke lose the second day, I think it was, that we were into debate. I did not mind the first day, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition made some points and some of them were - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Valid. MR. BARRY: No, I will not say valid, Mr. Speaker. He raised some valid concerns, but few of the points that he made were valid in terms of any of the recommendations, and quite frankly, Mr.

Speaker, as I will point out in a moment, few of the concerns were of any substance. But, that was to be expected. He was speaking as Leader of the Opposition and while I am - from one side of his mouth he was complimenting government, indirectly, of course, never directly. He was saying that this was a bill that he could support in principle. All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, we found that the principle of this bill was not the type of corporation that the government was proposing to assist in the formulation of energy policy. It was not even, Mr.

Speaker, the energy policy of government, and I think that is a point that has been overlooked, that at the very beginning of this debate we threw open the floor to a full wide ranging energy debate, Mr. Speaker, even though, technically, I suppose, Your Honour could have pulled us to rein more often. It was indicated 914

'!arch HJ, ic:,:; Tape 283 (Morning) when I spoJ,-e, Mr. Speaker, confirmed when the Leader of the Opposition started speaking that this was the opportunity that the opposition had been requesting for some time to have a full wide.ranging debate on the energy rolicy of this government. PK - 1 Now, Mr. Speaker, what do we find after three or four days of debate in this House? Do we find that the opposition have laid our energy policy in shambles? Have the opposition corn to shreds, '.fr. Speaker, this p;overnment' s policy with respect to ener·gy develop­ ment? Has it made, Mr.

Speaker, one valid point in criticism of this r,overnment's energy policy? )1r. Speaker, I submit that if you go back over the Hansard, the debate on this bill, which, Mr. Speaker, the opposition confirmed and certified that they were prenared to use for an opportunity to have a full wide ranging energy debate 1 you will find, Mr. Speaker, that there is no criticism whatsoever of the government's energy policy. li!one. ~r. Speaker, you will find that the Leader of the Opposition in his usual mischievous way started off on the first day and he threw out four red herrings. He threw them out, Mr.

Speaker, on a string. I have to confess that he got a certain response in the House. I have to confess that on this occasion, Mr, Speaker, the Leader of the Onposition succeeded for a time, for a time, ~fr. Speaker, in creating misunderstanding amongst the members of the House, in creating misunderstanding? would submit 1in the minds of the pablic with respect to the matters that he raised 1 matters,Mr. Speaker, not relating to energy nolicy. Nor I wou~d submit,even relating to the bill before the House, ~Ir. Speaker. What were these four red herrings, 'fr. Sneaker?

Well,the Leader of the Oppositon started off by talking about, while he agreed with the principle with the bill, four flaws that he saw in the bill - four flaws, Mr. Speaker. The flawed Leader came up ,,,1th four flaws. What was the first flaw? The first so-called flaF, ~Ir. Speaker, was the

section -

Section ( 68) dealing with - 91ti

March 10, 1975 Tape 283 (Morning) PK - 2 Inaudible. AN HON. MEMBER: "l{R. BARRY: No. It was dealing with M.H.A.'s, Mr. Speaker. Section (68) which permits 1the way the Act now I'eads 1which would permit a member of the House of Assembly to take a position on the Board of the Corporation, and not have to forfeit his seat under the Legislative Disabilities Act. Now, Mr. Speaker, I knew th,is

section was in here. And I have to take responsibility, Mr. Speaker, for this

section appearing. And I have to take a certain amount of responsibility>! suppose 1for the possibility of it creating a misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker, amongst the members of the House, and amongst the general public. Mr. Speaker, I looked at this section, and I said, now we have been in power for three years. We have had the power, Mr. Speaker, government have had the power to appoint members of the House of Assembly to the Board of the Corporation. Government have never exercised its power. As a matter of fact, it have corrected mistakes of the past in removing previous M.H.A.'s from appointments. I knew, Mr.

Speaker, that this government had no intention of ever appointing members of the House in the normal course of events to the Board of the Corporation. But I said to myself, what about the possibility of some time in the future - what about the possibility of there being a real hot shot in the energy field, a real energy expert, 916

March 10, 1975 Tape No. 284 NM - 1 possibly one of the greatest experts on energy that the province, the country, maybe even Lhe world has ever seen, and he, Mr. Speaker, has the misfortune, good fortune, I will leave it up to honourable members, to stand for election, Mr. Speaker, and become elected to the House. I said to myself - 'ffi.. NEARY: Poor fellow. :1R. llARRY: "Now ,~hy should not government have the opportunity, have the option, "of getting this person involved in the corporation if that possibility arose," ,1r. Speaker. I said, "Well let us keep the option open and let us stick that

section in there. It is _nothing to be ashamed about. It is nothing done under the table." It is not changing the law, Mr. Speaker, and as a matter of fact none of the so called four flaws in any way changed the existing situation. That power, Mr. Speaker, if government wanted to exercise that power it would not have to bring in this bill in order to <lo it. It would not have to bring in this bill, Mr. Speaker, in order to do any of the things that the Leader of the Opposition is afraid we might de because each of those, Mr. Speaker, are provided for in the existing legislation, subject only to the

section 24, that the Leader of the Opposition used to mischieviously create concern in the minds of the native peoples that we were interferring with their rights, not the intent, Mr. Speaker, not the effect of this section, but that was the only new section. :1R. llEARY: Inaudible. :m.. SPEAKER: Order, please! :-1R. BARRY: All the other sections, Mr. Speaker, including the

section with respect to loans and guarantees, merely continue the forn, of existing legislation. They do not chanp;e the existing rights of government. They merely continue the existing legislation. ;oo when I came to this

section on M.H.A. 's I said, "Look, that is not a problem. It is not an issue as far as I am concerned. I am interested in getting a good Hydro Corporation

March 10, 1975 Tape No. 284 NM - 2 but why not keep the option open, if government has the opportunity of sometime in the future, of finding an expert on energy, on hydro electric energy particularly, in a member of the House who has been elected, then why have the government's hands tied from getting him fully involved. MR .. NEARY: Do you think George McLean would be foolish enough to - MR. SPEAKER (DUNPHY): Order, please! MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, could we control this Bell Island monster, the cookie monster? Is there any way of controlling it at all, Mr. Speaker? MR. MURPHY: Better get Judge Mifflin after him.

MR. THOMS: I ask thF Speaker if he would ask the honourable minister to withdraw that statement as he referred to the member for Bell Island as a monster. This, Mr. Speaker, is definitely unparliamentary. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order - MR. HICKMAN: To that point of order, I am not aware of anything in Beauchesne which says that to use the word monster is unparliamentary but if Your Honour wishes to adjourn for a couple of minutes to consult with the table - MR. MURPHY: We will get pictures of other monsters. MR. HICKMAN: I am sure that we can make parliamentary history. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, I would not want to be considered as insulting Dracula, so I withdraw that. Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the Leader of the Opposition has engaged in some one-upmanship, gamesmanship some fishing, some use of red herring to confuse issues, to draw the public's attention away from the fact, Mr. Speaker, that he had nothing to contribute to the development of the energy policy of this province, absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker. The honourable the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues could not find one criticism, Mr.

Speaker, of this province's energy policy nor could they find one constructive 918

March J.O, 1975 :rape No. 284 NM - 3 suggestion as to what this ~overnment should be doing in the field of energy policy . · We caught them, Mr. Speaker, with tneir trousers down. We offered them the opportunity for a wide ranging energy debate, a full wide ranging energy debate, Mr. Speaker, they did not have the ammunition to take us up on that offer . So obViously they got together in caucus when we gav e them this opportunity, they got together in caucus and they decided , Oops it is not going to look very good, Kr. Speaker, It is not going to look 919

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 285 Page 1 - mw very good if we go for a debate of three or four days, and we do not find any criticism of government on this bill. It is not going to look very good, Hr. Speaker, if we do not find anything new to suggest to government, anything constructive to suggest. What are we going to do? We have a •·problem. Then, Mr. Speaker, one of the honourable member's colleagues,ona of the Leader of the Opposition's colleagues, maybe even the Member for Bell Island, because he is well versed in this technique, Mr. Speaker, he said, well, why do we not try the old red herring gambit?

Let us try the old red herring gambit. let us get away from this energy debate business, this nonsense on debating energy~ We will be slaughtered, Mr. Speaker, if we try that ·. We do not know anything about energy. We do not have anything to say about energy. We do not know what type of corporation is good in terms of assisting government so let us not talk about it. Let us get away from that. Let us flake out a few red herrings. Now let us see is there anything in this bill that is provocative at all? Is there anything that we can warp ~r twist? Hr. Speaker, they found a number of things.

The first thing is the one I just mentioned,

section 6(8) with respect to M.H.A.'s. I have no apologies, Mr. Speaker, for this appearing in the bill. I submit, Hr. Speaker, that it is not bad legislation per se. I submit, Hr. Speaker, that the only reason there is concern raised, and I submit, concern raised from this side of the Rouse as well, with respect to th~s section, is because of the way we have seen it abused in the past, Hr. Speaker, by some honourable members opposite who formed part of the previous administration. That is the only reason, Mr. Speaker, why there is any concern raised with respect to that section. So, Mr.

Speaker, I might also mention, this was in the bill by the way, as were three of the other four things that were criticized, this was in a bill that was passed unanimously by this honourable House in ~une of last year, June, 1973. AN RON. MEMBER: 1974. HR. BARRY: I am sorry, June 1974. 920

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 285 Page 2 MR. BARRY: The Leader of the Opposition and all the members present in this honourable House voted unanimously for legislation to incorporate a Power Corporation, to do away with the Power Commission and to set up a Power corporation. Mr. Speaker, this

section with respect to M.H.A. 's,

section 6 (8), was contained in that legislation. The Leader of the Opposition says, I have the right to change my mind. I have the privilege. It is a lady's privilege to change her mind. I have the right to change my mind, Mr. Speaker. I have the right to say that I am wrong, Mr. Speaker. AN HON. MEMBER: He is a lady's man. MR. BARRY: Yes, he does, Mr. Speaker. Thank goodness, he has that right. He will need it a lot1 too. He has the right to say he is wrong. But the thing that gets me, Mr. Speaker, is that he starts then talking about this being a matter of principle.

It is a matter of principle that he cannot vote for this. How is it he could vote for it in June, 1974, and he cannot vote for it in March, 19751 We have seen principles changed, Mr. Speaker, from 1971 or pre 1972, when honourable members opposite were either in the previous administration or supporting it. We have seen how their principles have changed since. I thought, Mr. Speaker, that even though many of them have the faces of a robber's horse~ that they would be a little more aware, that you can have your principles, like a seesaw, Mr. Speaker, swinging from month to month.

How can any member of this honourable House maintain credibility by saying continuously, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, oh! I was wrong. Less than a year ago I was wrong again, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of principle. I want to change my mind, Mr. Speaker. Enough said, I will not go into that any longer. I can go into that all day, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid I would not be able to eat my lunch if I kept on much longer on that point. Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, that

section was in the Power Corporation bill, and when I had the Newfoundland Hydro Bill drafted, which I might point out was ready in the last session, ready, printed up, Mr. Speaker, 921

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 285 Page 3 during the last session, and which the intent was when this House adjourned prior to Christmas that we would come back and finish off the old session, pass the 922

Narch 10, 1975 Tape 286 IB-1 Newfoundland Hydro Bill. Now, after it was printed up, Mr. Speaker, last December and distributed, some of my colleagues came around and said, "Well, look we have had some second thoughts about this section (68), let us take it out. Let us not give any possibility of abuse twenty years in the future, thirty years in the future if we have a less enlightened government than the one we have now, Mr. Speaker." So, I said, Okay. I am not hung up on that. Let us take it out. We will take it out at committee stage. Then, Mr. Speaker, lo and behold!

The session terminated and the bill was1I guess 1just renumbered. It did not have to be reprinted, It was already printed up. It was renumbered and submitted to this session of the House. Mr. Speaker, this section, we will take it out. There is nobody hung up in this

section of the House on this section. There are even some concerns raised, Mr. Speaker, about it. I have agreed that it would be taken out, Mr. Speaker, because of concern raised hy my ·colleagues. It is unfortunate that we had the Leader of the Opposition and others go on a two day, three day r!l-Illpage on this section, attempting to detract from the main part of the bill, ~'r. Speaker, but we will take it out. We are not hung up. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have the next

section that the Leader of the Opposition referred to,

section twenty-four. The Leader of the Opposition - -this has to be one of his more mischievous moments, one of the most mischievous moments in this honourable House's history) I submit. I suppose to ·a certain extent I can understand it. While a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, the honourable the Leader of the Opposition admits tc not having practiced and we will not hold that against him. When he then sets himself out after hearing from three or four eminent lawyers who are present, Mr.

Speaker, as members of the House, after being told that it was not the intent, after being explained why this would not in any way interfer with native claims, the claims of native peoples, to any rights that they might have, Mr. Speaker, still we have him go on and on and on about the way 923

March 10, 1975 Tape 286 IB-2 this government is interfering with native rights. Now, Mr. Speaker, this government realizes that this is a very sensitive area. We saw that these mischievous statements by the Leader of the Opposition had the effect, I guess, which he intended. They created a genuine concern in the minds of the native peoples of our province that their position was being changed, being modified, before they had had an opportunity to research their rights because, Mr.

Speaker, this is what is happening now, This government has met with representatives of our native people and we have said, "We do not know what your rights are." They have indicated that they do not know what their rights are. They have certain ideas, but they indicated that they needed funds in order to research their claims. So, this government said, "Okay, let us get some funds." The federal government we knew had funds available. The Native Association said to us, "Okay, we need your support. We will not be able to get funds from the federal government without the support of the provincial government.

Will you support us?" This government without hesitation said, yes, we will. If we can have this research carried out by federal funds instead of provincial funds, this makes funds available within the province for other things, Mr. Speaker, other things, we submit, of benefit to the native people as well as to all the people of our province, So, we said, ·we will support you in your application for federal funds. Mr.

Speaker, we understand, we know that the funds have been available and we understand that the Native Association is now in the process of researching its rights to determine just exactly what its rights are, a process, 924

March 10 , 1975. Tape 287 RH - 1 Mr. Speaker, which we understand, could take up to three or four years because, Mr. Speaker., it is a very large subject, a very complicated subject. We have said, Mr.

Speaker, that when the Native Association or when the native peoples, they are doing it, and we have a number of native associations now, we have thelnnuitAssociation, as well as the Native Association, and while there is representation, I believe, by the Innuit Association on the Native Association, I also believe that there is some variance of policy at times and there may be some differ­ ences with respect to rights, I am not sure. But this is a complicated area and this government has said, when you have finished your research, come to us, make a proposal. Let us know what you believe your rights are.

Let us k-now what .you believe should be done, and this government will seriously consider, Mr. Speaker, any such proposal. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we do not want, in any way, to change their position before the native people are in a position to know just what their rights are and what they should do. We do not think it is fair to enact any legislation that would interfere with the eventual outcome of any claims that they make. Mr. Speaker, that was our intent when this legislation was drafted and it still is our intent. I submit there is nothing in

section twenty-four, Mr. Speaker, that would, in any way, interfere with the rights of the native peoples. But, Mr. Speaker, the damage has been done now. The damage has been done. There has been doubt raised by the Leader of the Opposition in his very clever attack on this

section twenty-four of the act. Mr. Speaker, just to avoid the problems that are going to arise because of the very sensitive nature of this area, Mr. Speaker, that everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, we are going to remove this section, not because we believe it, in any way, interferes with the rights of native people. Mr. Speaker, here is one member of the House who does not need the Leader of the Opposition to tell him about native rights or does not need the Leader of the Opposition to tell him about the constitutional position of the native people. 925

March 10, 1975. Tape 287 RH - 2 AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Smart lawyer • MR. BARRY: I had - smart lawyer, okay, thanks for the compliment, Mr. Speaker, but I did have the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of being the lawyer who first incorporated the Native Rights Association in the Province. I was the first lawyer, Mr. Speaker, to act for the Association. I incorporated them. I believe that they are entitled, ~..r. Speaker, to the opportunity of researching their rights and Mr. Speaker, I believe then they are entitled to put their position to government. This government does not intend to, in any way, Mr.

Speaker, interfere with their ability to so do. Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, it might be of interest to honourable members of this Rouse as to where the

section twenty-four came from. Now this was reconunended to me by officials who were assisting in drafting the Act as something that could be of benefit to the Corporation, }fr. Speaker, that could prevent a disgruntle citizen, Mr. Speaker, from inter­ fering with the supply of power, not the development of power sources, from interfering with the supply of power, as the

section reads, for example, from preventing a corporation from going across his land or going on to his land, to put up a transformer to make emergency repairs, for example, to a transfonuer, if you had half a city blacked out, Mr. Speaker, and you had a citizen attempt to block the Corporation 926

March 10, 1975 Tape 288 in carrying out necessary repairs. It would be clear, Mr. Speaker, from this

section that any person so doing would be holding himself liable in law, IB-1 Now, Mr. Speaker, the same thing will apply if this

section is removed. It just spells it out. It makes it more obvious, Mr. Speaker, but the _same law will apply as I understand it because this

section basically does not change the fact that the Crown Corporation that we are setting up here, the Hydro-Electric Corporation, will be an agent of the Crown as was the Power Commission, as was the Power Corporation, So_ will Newfoundland Hydro be an agent of the Crown. Mr. Speaker, the restrictions that are set out in this

section are the normal restrictions that apply with respect to actions against the Crown,as I understand it. You cannot go out and get an injunction against the Crown in the same way that you can with respect to an ordinary citizen. So, Mr. Speaker, while this

section would have made it more clear 1we submit, to the ordinary individual as to what his rights were or were not, there will be no great harm done in deleting it. There may be a lot of harm done in keeping it in because of the mischievous statements of the Leader of the Opposition. Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this was not a

section that we put in there without any research or without any thought or anything else. I might mention that the Acts of Ontario and Quebec have sections to the same effect, and the Act of Manitoba has wording exactly like the

section twenty­ four. I would like to bring to the attention of the House that even the Province of Quebec, Mr, Speaker, has a

section to the same effect in its Hydro Act. I will mention it. "No extraordinary recourse contemplated in articles (they mention articles of the Code of Civil Procedure, Mr. Speaker) shall be exercised and no injunction shall be granted against the commission or the commissioners." Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that this

section was part of Quebec law, the James Bay native people had no problem, f'r. Speaker, 927

March 10, 1975 Tape 288 in taking certain action with respect to the development of James Bay. Mr. Speaker, I submit that our native people would not have had their rights in any way impaired or hindered by

Section twenty-four. Mr. Speaker, as I say, because of the concern that has now been aroused in this highly sensitive area, Mr. Speaker, we will delete that sectionr when, Mr. Speaker, something not crucial to the bill, not a fundamental part of the bill, not a matter of principle as the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to say it is. Now, Mr. Speaker, what else do we have here1 What other great - oh yes, the Public Tender Act. He went back then. lie had gotten up as far as

section twenty-four but then the Leader of the Opposition went back to

section seventeen (d), Mr. Speaker, and said, Oh, this is a terrible afront, a te~rible skirting of the Public Tender Act. What nonsense!

Section seventeen (

d) IB-2 says, "The corporation may contract with any person for the purch<1,se of petroleum products, notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act." Another section, Mr. Speaker, by the way, I might mention that was voted for by the Leader of the Opposition in June of 1974, that is present in the existing act, that the Corporation would have the power to do if this act was never passed. Mr. Speaker, we are not changing any law here. That is the law today. Why was that

section put in last yea;s act? It was put in, Mr. Speaker, primarily because there was some problems because of the Golden Eagle Act. Some restrictions were being caused. In the very manner which the honourable members opposite are saying should be done, the Golden Eagle Act 1passed by the previous administration, supported by members opposite)restricted the ability of the Power Corporation to go out to public tender, restricted the ability of the corporation to get the best price for petroleum products. 928

}I.arch 10, 197 5. Tape 289 RH - 1 Mr. Speaker, this government put in that

section just to enable the Cor­ poration to get a more competitive price. Mr. Speaker, we are not changing it. If the honourable members opposite do not like it, they can vote against this bill. That is their right, but this government is not changing that section, Mr. Speaker. We see no reason to. The honourable the members opposite can howl about an affront to the Public Tenders Act all they want. We are not changing this section, Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out also that the policy of the Corporation that is being implemented and will be implemented will in no way, Mr.

Speaker, will in no way run contrary to the Public Tenders Act. The honourable the members opposite know that. The final so-called flaw that the Leader of the Opposition brought to the House's attention, Mr. Speaker, and that received the most coverage in the media and the most discussion, I suppose, in the course of debate on both sides of the House, and again, Mr. Speaker, that is something unrelated to energy policy are the sections dealing with loans and guarantees, Mr. Speaker. Again, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that this in no way changes the existing law, that these are the same sections, Mr.

Speaker, the same sections that the Leader of the Opposition and honourable members opposite and all the members of this House voted for in June of 1974. Now, when we are preparing a statute, Mr. Speaker, to review, reorganize the Power Corporation, to set up a Corooration, Mr. Speaker, that is going to be able to assist government in formulating energy policy, Mr. Speaker, we do not then take on a survey and a review of all legislation, all existing legislation of the Province. We do not survey every statute, }l.r. Speaker, or every

section of every act to determine whether there is legislation that should be changed. Neither,Mr. Speaker, do we, when we find a routine section, yes, a routine section, Mr. Speaker, that is in every Crown Corporation Act, Mr. Speak.er, that was passed by this House in June of 1974 in a power corporation act, Mr. Speaker, we do not then engage in a great review of the effects of the Financial Administration Act and the Loan and Guarantee Act and every other act, Mr. Speaker, that in any way relates to this 929

March 10, 1975. Tape 289 RH - 2 when we know it is in no way changing existing legislation, it is in no way changing existing law. Now, Mr. Speaker, there may be, there may be a need to take a review of the relation of the Financial Administration Act to Crown ~rporations, to Crown Corporations generally, Mr. Speaker. I am not saying there is not. There may be. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I am not prepared to admit that this is the place to have that review done and to have that legislation enacted as an amendment to the Newfoundland Hydro Bill, No way, Mr.

Speaker, it will never happen, it will not be done. These sections will not be changed, Mr. Speaker, as far as this government is concerned in any substantial way and unfortunately, if members of the opposite side find that they cannot support the bill, well that is unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, there were concerns raised, valid concerns, quite valid concerns, again, again, unfortunately, red herrings, Mr. Speaker. I do not know why, but the Leader of the Opposition threw out a few red herrings again and they were taken up and there were concerns raised on both sides of the House about the fact, Mr.

Speaker, that these sections - nothing new in the sections, already existing legislation - that in some way, Mr. Speaker, this was a blatant attempt by this government in this Act to take away the control of the House 930

narch 1n, 1975 Tape 290 (Morning) PK - 1 over financial expenditures, Mr. Speaker. Did you ever hear the like? I guess , "fr. Speaker, the reason why the Leader of the Opposition's ·red herring was taken up, and got some people running after them was because, "fr. Speaker, there was some concern. Well you knm~ we are entering into a large scale project here, $1. 6 billion, "'-1:r. Speaker. That is a lot of money. Now the House must be _kept informed, Mr. Speaker. The !louse must authorize such e_xpenditures, and must keep control, Mr.

Stieaker, to ensure that these do not escalate, so that they harm the credit of the province in large scale escalation, large scale overruns. Mr. Speaker, I can understand this concern. But I must also point out to this honourable House, Mr. Speaker, that this government at no time did anything to indicate that it is not prepared to come to this House with information to justify the expenditure of Such money. That at no time in the past, llr.

Speaker, in the way we have treated other development such as the refinery project - when the refinery agreements 1,•ere drawn up for the second refinery 7 this government did not have to come to the House, Mr. Speaker. But it did. It came to the House, Mr. Speaker, with the legislation. Mr. Speaker, again 1 you know,I find it difficult to understand how it is that these routine sections - AN HON . MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. BARRY: Yes, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, routine. Fven though we are talking about $1.~ billion for this particular Gull Island project.

I find it difficult to understand how so much uproar has been caused by the Leader of the Ooposition's remarks on these sections. But, Mr. Speaker, in order to advoid any possibility of doubt by anybody in this House 1 or anybody outside of this House, the Premier and this government confirms that it has been, is now, and always will be the intention of this goverrurent to bring before this House information with resnect to the development of the Gull Island project) and Mr. Speaker, 931

March 10, 1Q75 Tape 290 (!·1ornini1) Pk - 2 w:Ul be bringing before this House a bill requesting authorization of the funds needed for this pro1ect. Mr. Speaker, let me cast a word of warning here. Let no honourable memher, Mr. Speaker, become complacent that there are goin g to be no problems with respect to this honourable House, or even any honoura ble government, this honoura ble government, or any other honourable government keeping control, total control, absolute control over a project of this magnitude. Let nobody be lulled into thinkinr, that it is merely a matte'C of passing a bill, Mr.

Sneaker, and then the'Ce is control over the p'Coject. Because, Mr. Speaker, what ge a'Ce talking about is a ~'Coject whe'Ce there are no half measures. Building half a transmission line i s not going to be any big help. Keeping control of cost for half a dam, or hal f a dam and part of a transmission line, or a tunnel without the tranSlll.is s ion line, these are going to be of no great help in ensuring that the taxpayers dollars are not squandered, and ensuring that the cred i t of this iovernment is not impaired. Nor, Mr.

Speaker, need we assume at the present time that a completion guarantee uay not be neces sary from this honourable Rouse before that project gets started. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it may be, I do not know for ce'Ctai .n at this stage if it is, but it may be, Mr. Speaker, that before anybody lends funds for the 932

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 291 Page 1 - mw cnnstruction of the Gull Island project, and that is any private investor I am referring to, that it will require the commitment of this government to see the project through to completion. Such a commitment, Mr. Speaker, was required with respect to the Upper Churchill development, because you have what they call project financing, Mr. Speaker, because a large part of the security of any investor is based on the fact that this project will be completed, and will be a revenue producer, will be providing revenue to repay the dollars that are loaned. So, Mr.

Speker, it may be that this House is going to have to make a decision. It may be that this province is going to have to make a decision that we either commit ourselves to the completion of the project or we not start it. It may be as blunt as that, Mr. Speaker. Now at this stage it is still too early to say, but quite conceivably, Mr. Speaker, it may be that any bill authorizing the expenditure of $1.6 billion or whatever it is, may also have to be tied together with a completion guarantee to any private investors who are putting up dollars. You can see then, Mr.

Speaker, why it is not as simple as some honourable members might think to present legislation that is going to see this honourable House keep total control over what happens in the way of expenditures in the Gull Island project. Now, Mr. Speaker, a completion guarantee does not mean that you give up all control, that you just say from day one, okay, we are starting the project, and it is going to be completed regardless of what it costs. Thatis not what it says, Mr. Speaker.

In any project, presumably, there are stages as there will be in this one, when you can have certain dollars committed, and if something turns up, some gigantic reason for a fantastic increase in costs, you might just decide to write off your losses. The same thing would be possible here, Mr. Speaker, but the fact remains that any person in this province, when saying, let us commit $1.6 billion to the construction of the Gull Island project, must realize that you start the project when you commit - take an arbitrary point if you got $500 million in there, if you got $1 billion 933

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 291 Page 2 - mw in there, and there is some escalation. what do- you do? It is a problem, Mr. Speaker, that faces everybody on a smaller scale­ a man who is building his own house, a peEson who is building an office building, an apartment building. What it comes down to~Mr. Speaker, is cost control at every st.age of the project. What it com.es down to is keeping a continual flow of information, Mr.

Speaker~ during the course of the project to, as the coi.t accountants say, avoid surpriaes so that at all stages you are making a conscious, rational decision as to where you are going; so you do not have a situation such as developed with, as I understand, the linerboard mill at Stephenville, a project that wa,s s1Jpposed to cost - what was it supposed to cost originally, John, t:h.e linerboard mill when it started? MR. CROSBIE: It was $53 million. MR. BARRY: $53 million and it has almost quadrupled. 93

March 10, 1975. Tape 292 RH - 1 much of the increase being done without any knowledge of anybody out­ side, but the Province being tied in to see the thing through. MR. MURPHY: That was all right, sure. Nothing wrong with that, was it? MR. BARRY: And what has got to be done, Mr.

Speaker, and where I can understand some genuine concern, what has got to be done is insure that adequate information flows from the Corporation, from the builders of the project to government and to this House and to the people of the Province, to avoid surprises, so that at every stage people are in the position - government, the House, people of the Province - are in a position to know what is happening and to avoid problems where possible. I mentioned this, Mr.

Speaker, merely to lay to rest any complai­ sant belief that the mere bringing in of a bill requiring this government to authorize expenditures, that that is going to solve all the problems, that that is going to be the total answer. It is not that easy. Now, }fr. Speaker, as the Premier has already said, it is not government's intention to use any provisions of this hydro bill for the purposes of allowing borrowing towards the Lower Churchill project without full reference to the House of Assembly. _AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR.

BARRY: It is not going in this bill and if the honourable member does not like it, the honourable member can vote against the bill. That is the choice the honourable member has, but if it is up to this member1and I am speaking for government, it is not going in this bill. The reason that it is not going in this bill is because there is no need for it to go into t~is bill because this bill, in no way, changes - because we could forget about this bill. We could tear up this bill tomorrow, tear it up right now. We could withdraw this bill from this honourable House, Mr. Speaker.

This government could go out under existing legislation and borrow the money for the Gull Island project. We are not bringing in this bill to give us that power. That power is thFre now. That power is there now. Mr. Speaker, I never heard a murmur about, from the opposition, 935

Harch 10, 1975. Tape 292 RT! - 2 from this side or anybody else, about the need for amending suc h existing legislat ion. So why the concerti now when we merely confirm the existing situation, when we bring in the same sections as are in the bill that were voted upon by honourable members opposite i n June of 1974. Mr. Speaker, it being one o'clock, I ~djourn the debate. MR. SPEAKER: It now being one of the clock, I leave the Cha1-r until three of the clock this afternoon. 936

March 10, 1975 The House resumed at 3: 00 P. M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Tape No. 293 NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER: At one o'clock the honourable Minister of Mines and Energy adjourned the debate. The honourable Minister of Fisheries. MR. CROSBIE: It has been agreed by the Leader of the Opposition that I can give notice of a resolution in connection with this Select Connnittee on the fisheries, if you could just revert to notices for a minute. Ml.. SPEAKER: Is it arreed the honourable minister should have leave to go back to notices. Agreed. MR. CROSBIE: I give notice of the following resolution, Mr.

Speaker, that a Select Connnittee of this House, consisting of the Member of Placentia East as Chairman and the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for Harbour Grace, the Member for Trinity North, the Member for Port de Grave, the Member for Bay de Verde, the Member for Fogo, the Member for Bonavista North, and the Member for Labrador South, be appoin'ted to consider the present condition of the inshore fishery of the Island of Newfoundland and coastal Labrador, the problems facing inshore fishermen, fish plant operators, and all those involved in the said inshore fishery and all matters having an influence upon or pertaining to the said inshore fishery, with power to call for persons, papers and records and all other materials, to examine witnesses under oath and to hear evidence from all interested parties, and the said Select Committee to report back to this House with ~heir views or recommendations in connection therewith on or before the 30th day of April, 1975.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable Minister of Mines and Energy wish to continue? MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking before lunch I had gotten to the fourth so called flaw, described by the flawed Leader of the Opposition, that he raised with respect to the Newfoundland Hydro Bill and I pointed out that obviously it was for lack of anything 937

March 10, 1975 Tape No. 293 NM - 2 to say Yi.th resp e ct to energy policy that the Leader of the Opposition had gotten onto these four red herrinis and I had m.entioned, pointed out1 how the first three so called flaws are non-issues, non-issues 1n that they are buildin1s out of all proportion the fact tha t certain sections simi.Liar to existin g legislation were contained in the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Electric Corporation Act . I indicated that the

section with respect to M.H.J\ . 's, government has no real concern about . l t was put in otij?inally to keep government's option there in the event that there should be, in the history of our province, at some date 1 a so-called energy expert , become elected as an M.11.A. then why not have di scretion in government to have him appointed llecause of concern rais ed by my colleagues, because of the abuse the previous administration had put this

section to - MR. NEARY: Joey is gone , boy . Let him rest. MR. BARRY: Our 938

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 294 Page 1 - mw people on this side have decided that it is just as well to bring it out, to take the

section out, and Mr. Speaker, as I said this morning, we do not have any hard feelings about it. I do not think it is really fundamental to this bill. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition does, but it is another red herring, Mr. Speaker. ffi HON. MEMBER: Make him withdraw it. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: With respect to the second point made by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, the false issue again, the mischevious statement by the Leader of the Opposition, implying, not just implying, stating that government were interfering with the rights of our native peoples, again, Mr. Speaker, we have no intention to do this. The

section drafted does not do that. But to allay the sincere, genuine concern, Mr. Speaker, which the mischevious statements of the Leader of the Opposition have raised in the minds of our native people around the province we intend to withdraw that section, and I do not know what the moose from Bonavista North wants to make of that. AN HON. MEMBER: Moose. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: Is there something wrong? AN HON. MEMBER: l'.xactly. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would remind the Hon.

Minister of Mines and Energy that he should, when referring to another member, re~er to him by his rightful constituency or any other title. MR. BARRY: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I meant to refer to the honourable bull moose, because of the· - AN HON. MEMBER: It is better to be a bull moose than a - MR. BARRY: What are they? MR. SPEAKER Order, please! MR. BARRY: Are they stentorian tones? AN HON. MEMBER: Bull moose. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! 939

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 294 Page 2 - mw MR. BARRY: There is nothing personal intended, Mr. Speaker. I am referring to the magnitude of the room-filling quality of the honourable member's voice, especially when somebody else is trying to have a few words to say. Mr. Speaker, with respect to

section 17 (d), I pointed out again another red herring, another non-issue. The only reason this is put in is to do the very thing that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we are trying to get away from. This

section was put in to permit the Power Corporation to purchase petroleum products from anybody rather than being restricted under the terms of the Golden Eagle Act,

an act which was brought in by the previous administration, supported by the Leader of the Opposition and other members opposite. MR. ROBERTS: MR. BARRY: MR. ROBERTS: MR. BARRY: At the time, I was fighting it night and day. You did not change it when you were in government. No, I did not change it, no. The foarth flaw raised by the flawed leader, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to loans and guarantees. Again I pointed out that these sections, Mr. Speaker, do not change existing law. They are in the existing Sower Corporation Act.

If government wanted to use the power set out here to finance the Gull Island project, it could do it without passing this act, Mr. Speaker, because the legislation is there right now at the present time. This is another issue raised to divert attention, Mr. Speaker, from the very positive and constructive energy policy which this government have put forth before this House for debate. We invited the Hon. Leader of the Opposition to take the opportunity to have a full and wide-ranging energy debate, and Mr. Speaker, he blew it. He could not take us up on it because he did not have the ammunition. MR.

NEARY: Did you hear the latest Newfie joke? MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, the biggest Newfie joke of all is right across the House from us. 940

March 10, 1975 Tape no. 294 Page 3 - mw MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the controls on government spending, there were some valid concerns raised, not by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, 941

March 10, 1975 Tape ?.~5 (Afternoon) PK - 1 who in sneaking out of his mouth on one side said that he supnorts the urinciple of the bill, but then on the other side of his mouth says that he has certain fundamental reservations, certain matters of nrincinle that prevent him from voting for this bill. What nonsense, 'Ir. Sp ea leer. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition just got through last June voting for the exact, identical, similar sections in the Power Corporation Act but now he findi, he cannot vote for these. He has had a revelation, Mr , Speaker. He was struck down by a bolt of li~htening from above. Mr.

Speaker, there were some valid concerns raised 1as I have mentioned, and as I was getting into before we broke for lunch. As far as I can see the concern that this !louse should have, the concern that the people of the province should have with respect to the Gull Island project, or any project of similar magnitude 1 is a concern that they have the information, Mr. Speaker, at all relevant times to he able to evaluate what is happening, to be able to make a rational, conscious decision as to whether they can still support the particular project. Now, Hr.

Speaker, at this stage we have supplied 1I would submit 1 as much information art this project as honourable members of this House ever got on any project from the previous administration. I only mention this, Mr. Speaker, just to show the lack of credibility of honourable members opposite. We are not trying to use a standard set by the previous administration. I reject the standards laid down by the previous administration. Rut, Mr. Speaker, I do have to refer back when I keep seeing honourable members opposite raising points that they blithely ignored when they were in a position to do something about it.

But with respect to controls on government spending, Mr. Speaker, I tried to point out this morning that we should not be complacent. ~?e should not assume that just because this House passes a bill saying that it authorizes the expenditure of such and such 942

March 10, 1975 Tape 295 (Afternoon) PK - 2 an amount we should not assume this is p,oing to solve all our nroblems ,,r:1.th re,ipect to the Gull Island project, or any other nro.iect. You got to have proper cost controls, !fr. Speaker. You got to have a continual undating of information. You got to have the Periodic supnly of information to government, to the House, to the peonle of the province so that all concerned can see just what is hapnening, so that there will be no surprises, Hr.

Speaker) no linerhoard mill tYPe surprises ~mere the cost of projects all of a sudden have douhled, tripled, quadrupled. ~fl! .• NF.ARY: What about Spencer Lake type of surprises? ~m. BARRY: No S~encer Lake type of surprises 1 whatever they are eit!ter. No surprises period, !fr. Speaker. NR.. NF.ARY: No George McLean surnrises. I!R. BA..~RY: No surnrises period, Mr. Speaker. There shall be no s_urprises. '-'R.. NF.ARY : What about Trizec? HR. BARRY: No loot bags, ~fr. Speaker. A."I' HON. MF1·IDER: Inaudible. J1R. .BARRY: MR. NEARY: MR. 'BARRY: No first aid party type surprises.

What about the Silver Anniversary Celebrations? Mr. Sneaker, the honourable crowd opposite are fully familiar with the type of surprises I am talking about. 'fr. Speaker, I also mentioned that it may be, I do not know, hut it may very well belthatjust as was required on the Upper Churchill, that this government, this province may have to make a commitment, 11r. Speaker, a collllllitment to guarantee completion of the Lower Churchill nroject 1 if this gets underway. Then, Hr. Sneaker, you have nossihly some possible - AN !TON. '-IF~ER.: - - - -- }'R. BA.llR.Y: MR.

SPEAKER: 1'11' .• MR.RY: Inaudible. reconciliation necessary. Order, please! 1--'r. Speaker, do I have to go over and control that myself or will the honourable House - 943

March 10 , 1975 Taoe 295 (Afternoon) PK - 3 "tR. SPEAKER: Order, please! AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. 'fil . MURPHY: Use your black belt . HR. NEARY: !lave you got your belt ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please ! ~IR. BA~Y: Thank you , Mr. Speake r. No•. listen. ~r. Speaker, i t may be nec essar y for t his government , or this province to commit itself, to commit, guara ntee the completion of the Lower Churchill project, the Gull Island oro ject . And it may be that it ~'ill become necessary to recon cile any limit of borrowing t hat is set by thi s House with such a ~uaran tee of completion. Now persona lly 94 4

March 10, 1975. Tape 296 (Afternoon) RH - 1 I can see ways where this can be brought about. I am open to suggestion from, God help us, the honourable members opposite. I have not had any constructive suggestions yet, but I am open to suggestion from them or honourable members on this side of the House or the general public either 1 for that. Because, Mr. Speaker, I think a way that we can reconcile these, I do not think it is contradiction, but the principle on the one hand of having some control on the limit of spending 1and on the other hand, }Ir.

Speaker, having the collDDitment to the Province behind the Gull Island project to encourage investment by private investors. If somebody is putting up $100 million, Mr. Speaker, and part of his security is the revenue that the Gull Island project is p,oing to produce once it is built, then he will expect to be guaranteed that it is going to be built, not that it is going to be stopped three­ -quarters of the way or half-way or whatever. But I think a way you can get around this, Mr.

Speaker, is to provide with a guarantee of completion, if this is necessary, provide that information is periodically required to be submitted to the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, this government has co1I111itted itself to this principle. It has never given, I submit, anybody in this Province or in this House any indication to believe that our policy was other than the one I have just mentioned. For the life of me, I cannot understand, I cannot under­ stand, I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition would raise it 1 but for the life of me I cannot understand the reaction that he got when he raised it.

He got a few of us following the red herring this time, 1-!r. Speaker; but hopefully, the statement by the Leader of the Government and myself should have allayed that misapprehension. I hope that the honourable Hember for Labrador South who was not in the House, I do not think, or he may have been, when the Premier made the statement and who, I thinkJmay not have realized that this is the law right now. It is not something that we are changing. This is the law as it exists today with respect to loans and guarantees. There is no conflict with the Financial Administration Act.

There is nothing new, no new power being put in 945

March 10, 1975. Tape 296 RH - 2 government by this legislation, these sections twenty-six to whatever they are. I submit, it wotild be a shame if the honourable member opposite did not feel that he could support this, otherwise, I would submit, worthwhile bill just because of these sections, particularly when the Premier and our government has made the commitment that there will be legislation with respect to the Gull Island project itself and that the borrowing will not be done on the basis of the sections in this bill. These sections are not necessary. This bill is not necessary.

We could tear it up, withdraw it from the Order Paper and the power is there right now for government to borrow. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all members of this honourable House will see fit to support this bill with the two amendment as I have made, but with no amendments to the loan and guarantee

section because, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is energy policy, what we are talking about is setting up a Corporation that is going to be in a position to advise government on the development of .energy policy. Now, Mr. Speaker, if I could just briefly deal with some of the other specific matters raised by honourable members on the ~vdro Bill. The Leader of the Opposition got some headlines the first day by suggesting that we take over all power distribution systems in the Province. He did not explain why, Mr. Speaker. I would be interested in finding out why.

When this government decided it was necessary to take over Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation, it was done for a very specific reason, ~r. Speaker. You had a private corporation blocking a policy of government, preventing a policy of government from being carried into effect. Now, Mr. Speaker, if it were that any private distribution entity in the Province were blocking the government's policy, were preventing government policy from being carried into effect, then I would see some validity in the Leader of the Opposition's suggestion, 946

March 10, 1975 Tape 297 (afternoon) IB-1 but, Mr. Speaker, nationalization for the sake of nationalization, what is there in that? What it means is that the government would have to take on the additional borrowing that will be necessary) I understand it is in the area of $50 million or in excess of $50 million over the next few years, that Newfoundland Light and Power alone sees will be necessary to upgrade its system. Now, Mr.

Speaker, taking over this corporation or any other private distribution system will merely mean by this that this type of money will have to be raised from either the taxpayers of the province or the consumers of electricity in the province. There does not appear to be any conflict at the present time between government policy and having the distribution system run by private corporations. Until I see that there is a conflict, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I will not be able to accept that suggestion. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we have another suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that we restrict directors on the Board of Newfoundland Hydro to Canadian citizens resident in Newfoundland. Okay, on the face of it there does not appear to be any problem there, but, Mr. Speaker, I submit again it is an unnecessary tying of government's hands or the Power Corporation's hands by having any such clause in the act.

It may be, for example, that the province can save money, can get more favourable rates from the bond markets of the world if it has a member of one of the large bond houses, one of the large American bond houses, for example, on the board of directors such as, ~r. Speaker, BRINCO had on its board of directors and such as we today have with respect to Churchill Falls, Labrador Corporation. We have Mr. Tomlinson who is a representative of Morgan,Stanley, a person who has the confidence of American investors who have put up a lot of money for the Upper Churchill.

These investors like to have some independent individual on the board with no axe to grind, who can sort of keep an eye out for their interests. Now, if it is going to save us a few million dollars in interest rates or whatever to do this, I have no great hesitation, Mr. Speaker, in saying that I would be prepared 941

.. March 10, 1975 Tape 297 (afternoon) IB-2 to put on one non-Canadian on the board of directors. I do not think there is any danger of a coup, a take over, any danger of the policy of the board then being oriented towards a non-Canadian policy, Mr. Speaker. So, I am not prepared to recommend that this restrictive type of clause go into this legislation. Mr. Speaker, with respect to another suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition, which was that there be a duty imposed on the Corporation to protect the environment, Mr. Speaker, and that clause be written into the act. Mr.

Speaker, this Corporation just like every other corporation in the province will be subject to the laws provided by this legislature for the protection of our environment. It is the responsibility and duty of the Department of Provincial Affairs and Environment to enforce such legislation. Such legislation should be and will be of general application, Mr. Speaker. There is absolutely no need or reason to have such a specific clause in this bill because this Corporation will be just as aware, tlr.

Speaker, and I would hope even more aware of the necessity of avoiding any environmental disturbance as any other corporation would be. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have a couple of other points that have been raised, none of any great substance. I think some of these have been answered by the Minister of Fisheries, the Premier. Oh yes, here is one statement, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition 1 again in his clever, twisting way is trying to disseminate, I think, what they called in ''1984''.misinformation,was it? 948

March 10, 1975 Tape 298 (Afternoon) PK - 1 I think they even had a minister of misinformation in the government at that time. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. ---- ·- Well the Leader of the Opoosition would make a good minister of misinformation, Mr. Speaker, because he takes a set of facts, and he distorts, and he warps, and he twists, and he reads into it something very completely different than any reasonable interoretation of the facts ~,ould see there. He took, Mr.

Speaker, the fact that the Power r.orporation is projecting that there is need for additional generating facilities to meet our energy needs in the late seventies, and the eighties 1 he took this to mean that government had only recently, he said, discovered that there would be a power shortage. Now, Mr. Speaker, what nonsense! It does not say much, Mr. Speaker, for his opinion of onr Newfoundland people that he attempts to pull these red herrings, and these twisted, and warped

interpretations of the facts before their eyes for his own oolitical ends, Mr. Speaker. The Power Corporation and this government are doing what the previous administration should have been doing, ~r. Speaker. We are trying to look ahead. We are trying to meet the needs of our province with respect to energy 1 not just for the next one or two vears,where there will be a crisis situation development in three or four years, une,q,ected so that we have to deal with it in a hurry. '!r.

Speaker, 1,rhat «•e are doing here, we are trying to develop means of meetinp, the energy needs of our province for the next twenty years, orobably .. We are talking about meeting the energy needs of our province in the eighties and nineties, Mr. Speaker. So this statement that we have only recently discovered that there would be a power shortage is total rubbish! Nonsense! What has to he done, Mr.

Speaker, by the Power Corporation, bv anv other corporation in this day and age, in this day where circumstance~ change ~uite rapidly in many cases, and in a way often that is unexpected 1 but circ,umstances do change and therefore, Mr. Speaker,~ 949

"larch 10, 1975 Tape 298 (Afternoon) PK - 2 the oolicies of corporations must be flexible enough to adapt; and their estimates of what is necessary in order to keen up with future needs must be continuously revised. And this is done, Nr. Speaker, hy the Power Corporation, and will be done by Newfoundland Hydro, not just on a yearly bases, Mr. Speaker, hut even more frequently than that. AN HON . MEIIBER: MR. BARRY: -- -- -- MR. ROBERTS: AN l!ON. MEMBER: MR.~Y: AN HON. MEMBER: MR. BARRY: Inaudible. What is that? Labrador Linerboard turned down the proposal ..•• Inaudible. It was close 1 I understand. Inaudible.

Mr. Speaker, the honourable members have lots of experience in thatJcoming close in that wing. MR. NEARY: MR. BARRY: They will need it to buy off Bill Saunders, you know. Mr. Speaker, one of the points that I meant to mention with respect to this

section on the loan and guarantee that seems to be causing a lot of difficulty, I believe that there is ·a failure to consider that - the Financial Administration Act attempts to put a limit on the general borrowing power of government each year so that government cannot just borrow whatever it wants to, and develop whatever it wants to, and develop a completely new policy, and go off on a frolic of its own,say when this Rouse is not in session, or even when it is in session, and not without referring it to the legislature, committing this government, or committing the province to large sums of money. Mr.

Speaker, I submit 1 without pushing the point, I just raise, it for considerationl that there may be a difference between that, putting a limit on the general borrowing power of the province, and looking at a specific project, and looking at the fact that you need a certain number of funds in order to complete a specific project. In other words, it may be, Mr. Speaker, that this province may. have to guarantee completion of the Gull Island project. Now that to me does not mean that the House has given up control over expenditures to the 950

14arch 10, 1975 Tape 298 (Afternoon) PK - 3 Executive Committee or Execut i ve Gouncil of government. All that means , M.r. Speaker, is that the !louse is behind this project, is p.oing to do whatever has to be done to see it throu gh to completion. 1'1e already have had e:-.-pressions o_f support for the project with the information now availa ble fo r the amount 1 pres~bly that has not turned anybody off, $1. n billi on. 951

.l:>. March 10, 1975. Tape 299 RH - 1 We are not talking about the House, Mr. Speaker, giving up control of the purse to government. We are talking now about making sure that the House is informed at all stages as to what is happening with respect to the Gull Island project and this, Mr. Speaker, this government is co=itted to. It may not be possible, Mr. Speaker, to say that this government will periodically bring in bills authorizing another $200 million or another $300 million to be spent because, ~r.

Speaker, it may be,and most likely wtll be 1 that the financial package put together will see the Province having to commit itself over five or six years to drawing down $200 million or $300 million as the Premier has listed in his speech several days ago, But it may be that this commitment will be done in one year, in this coming year, that we have commit ourselves to the full amount of the project, the funds to be draim down over a number of years.

So, this is the difficulty in doing what the Leader of the Opposition just raised as a possibility, of periodically bringing in bills with specific amounts to be guaranteed. But, I think everybody in this honourable House, Mr. Speaker, agrees that there should be sufficient information forthcoming at all times to permit the people of the Province to know where the project stands. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition raised another matter that was raised by the Federal Government as well.

He talked about the difficulty the Province will have in getting this project off the ground without take or pay contracts, that we must have customers for the power, meaning large scale industrial customers. MR. ROBERTS: No, no, meaning sOl!le customers. MR. BARRY: Well, Mr. Speaker, some customers,and the information with respect to some customers are set out in the Teshmont Zinder Report which indicates, Mr.

Speaker, that if there was no new customer ever came into Newfoundland over the next fifteen years, that by the 1990's our present existing domestic and connnercial and industrial customers will be using the full amount of the Gull Island power. So that the problem is, Mr. Speaker, to take up the slack in the early years because it is a matter 952

'farch 11), 1975. Tape 299 "RH - 2 of getting a balance. You want to have as much powers left to meet your future needs as possible. At the same time, !lr . Speaker, you do not want to have a lot of power built into the system, a lot of capability built into the system ., but not able to be used because that means that you losing money. That means that the power you are taking out on the early years will cos t that. much more than it could if the extra power was being utilized at the same time.

That is why it is an a4vantage to us if we can, to sell surplus power in the early years to Quebec or whomever, Possibly we might attract customers on the Island and give chem some reduced rates in the early years, the same as, treat. it as surplus power, but by early years, I do not mean forty year contracts. I mean a five, six, seven year -ineentive to get them to locate, where they stare off in a surplus power position recogni .zing that they move then to new contracts representing fully tl,e true costs of supplying the power . These are just ideas.

These are ways tha·t we can bring down the costs to the consumer in the early years. But, getting back to the necessity of having long term contracts, Mr . Speak er, when we first went up to Ottawa and I have the brief here. that we presented to the federal minis te.r, Hr. MacDonald, this was

March 10, 1975 Tape No. 300 NM - 1 the same thing that was put to us, look you have got to show us where you can sell all this power. You have got to show us before we commit the federal government to supporting this project, we want to see take or pay contracts. Now we very forcefully put to the federal government, first of all that if they made that a commitment of their support for the project that that would be putting us behind the eight ball in terms of dealing with any potential customers because the customers would know they had us right where they wanted us.

They would know that we could not get federal assistance for the project unless we got their contracts,and therefore they could screw us down, they could beat us down to the lowest possible price. We pointed this out to the federal government. We also pointed out certain statistics with respect