Volume 1 ' PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 1st Session VERBATIM REPORT Wednesday, June 7, 1972 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 24

June 7, 1972 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Tape 565 JM - 1 I would like to welcome Councillor Don Pomeroy of St. Anthony and indeed any other visitors who might be in the galleries today. I trust that your visit here is most enjoyable. HONOURABLE JOHN C. CROSBIE(MINISTER OF FINANCE): Hr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on behalf of the government with reference to Newfoundland Farm Products Limited.

With reference to the strike of employees at Newfoundland Fam Products Limited the rovernment is very disappointed th;:1.t the majoritv of the employees have rejected the latest )!Overnment offer towards achievinp, a collective bargainin~ agreement. I think it hns been reported in the press that the results of a secret ballot were forty-nine rejected, sixteen accepted, so we are informed.

The latest offer of the p,overnment made an attempt to reach settlement because of the effect of the strike unon certain broiler and hnr producers in the province,of a further two cents per hour, makinr- n minimum increase of twenty-two cents per hour and an increase of two further statutory holidays for the present year hrinring the number of statutory holidays to thirteen. It was rejected by the union 1 apparcntly because the union believes that further concessions can he forced from the government because of the plight of the broiler and hog producers.

The government wishes to make its position very clear to the employees involved in the strike of Newfoundland Farm Products Limited. The government has made its final offer and it is a very generous and reasonable offer. This is the final, final offer. the last offer. The government has decided to assist the farmers who are now sufferinp: as a result of the strike so that those farmers 1749

June 7, 1972 Tape 565 JM - 2 will not suffer financtal ruin as a result of the strike. The government has requested the broiler producers to cancel any further orders for replacement chicks until the strike situation is resolved.

The government is extrenely disanpointed to find that despite the tremendous improvement in wages and workinp. conditions at Newfot'ndland Farm Products Limited during the past eighteen months and despite its generous proposals to the workers involved 1 they have chosen to attempt to force further concessions from the people of Newfoundland, hopin~ to use the damage caused to farmers,as the innocent third parties,to bring about the results they desire.

The government will not bow to this pressure and wilJ do what it can to assist the farmers affected to withstand the financial consequences of this irresponsible action of the union involved. Copies here for anyone who wants them. }~_:.,,:~ARY_: Mr. Speaker, the honourable minister said that he was disappointed that the employees of ~e'W'foundland Fann Products had rejected the latest government offer. I night say, Mr.

Speaker, that I am disappointed in the last statement that the honourable minister made,as the chief spokesman for the government, that this was an irresponsible action on the part of the emplovees of N"ewfoundland Farm Products. Sir, I want to point out to this honourable House that this is iust a normal barp:aining: process, normal bargaining that tak~s place between an employer and the employees of any company, Mr. Speaker. I am rather disappointed that the Minister of Finance has again reverted to takinµ: the hard line with the employees of Newfoundland Fann ProOucts.

I prefer the position that the Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources took in this matter, not negotiate in public. I was pleased to hear the minister say that the farmers would he assisted for any losses that they might incur as a result of this 1750

June 7, 1972 Tnpc 565 strike but the minister - MR. SPEAKER: A noint of order, please. ! intendc.<l to mention this a few days apo but I would like to brinp it to all the honourable menbers attention now thnt Standin? Order 91 of Tieauchesne says that WhPn a minister makes a statement on government policy or ministerial adrninistrat:fon 1 either under routine proceedin?s, between two orders of the day or shortly before t.he adiournmcnt 1751 JH - 3

June 7, 1972 Tape 566 NB - l of the House, it is now firmly established that the Leader of the Opposition or the chiefs of recognized groups are entitled to ask explanations and make a few remarks, but no debate is then allowed under any Standing Order.

I realize the importance of this topic but I just hope that this does not become a habit of persons other than the Leader of the Opposition speaking on a ministerial statement. 'fR ROBERTS: A comment on that, Your Honour: It is true that Beauchesne, in the 1958 edition, makes reference to the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of a group in the House but I understand and perhaps Your Honour would ask the clerk to check, the practice in Ottawa, in recent years, has been that only one person for each group is the essential point but the leader, not being omniscient, often one of his colleagues will speak in reply to a ministerial statement.

That seems to be the practice. I think it is a good practice. I think it is an improved practice over the practice of former years in this House. But I wonder if Your Honour could check the point. The honourable gentleman from Bell Island is cor..menting for the Opposition. There will be no other comment from the Opposition and, of course, there will be no attempt to debate. So I wonder if perhaps Your Honour could ask the law clerk or the clerk of the House to check into that, That, as I understand it, is the practice that is developing in Ottawa in the last few years. ~fR CROSBIE: Mr.

Speaker, on this point that you bought to the attention of the House, I would like to say that the practice in this House which was unalterably observed last year and the last several years and very clearly laid down by the previous Speaker; that following a leader of the government or a government minister questions were allowed to be asked and that was it. Perhaps a few stray remarks. Certainly not a debate. The tendency has been in recent days in this House for far more than that to be said by opposition spokesmen on this point,and today the honourable 1752

June 7, 1972 Tape 566 NB - 2 gentleman opposite is not asking for ;:my clarification of the government statement, but rather he is debating the matter, I think that this should be more strictly observed. MR, SPEAKER: On this matter, and under these conditions I will allow the honourable member to continue. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. minister if he would clarify his statement regarding assistance to the fnrmers who will incur losses as a result of a prolonged strike. What kind of assistance is it that the hon. member referred to? I would also like to ask the hon. minister~ Mr.

Speaker, if he will take the necessary steps or the appropriate Steps to hold another round of negotiattons and perhaps invite the officials of the Department of Labour to come in because the hon. minister is inex­ perienced in employer - employee relationship,and ask the officials of the Department of Labour to help him, to help Treasury Board to try to bring about an agreement? In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, not only willit be the farmers and the emnloyees who will suffer, but the general public will suffer if this strike is prolonged for an indefinite period. MR.

CROSBIE: The hon. gentleman is not just asking questions. Now, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the questions he did ask. The nature of the assis­ tance that we are prepared to give the farmers we cnnnot state in any detail now except to say that it is the government's policy that we are going to see that the farmers directly affected who have broilers now on the way here and who have broilers that they have not been able to process through the abattoir in the normal course of event, we are going to see that as a result they are nnt financially ruined. The nature of 1753

June 7, 1972 Tape no. 567 Page l - MRW Mr. Crosbie. the assistance we will explain to the House in detail when this is all worked out. This is our policy and this is what we will do. This is what is being done. The statement I have made, lt. Speaker, it is a statement of policy on behalf of the government, which matters an<l not what minister announces this policy. The government have considered this very carefully. This is the government's statement of policy on this matter. Our position,we tried to make clear that we are not prepared to make any further concessions in this matter.

We have gone as far as the public chest can be expected to go. We are prepared to assist the innocent third parties who are being affected by this strike. Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as experience of myself goes in labour relation matters~that may be true. I can assure the House that the Collective Bargaining Branch of the Treasury Board is not inexperienced and has done a magnificient job in the last eighteen months of collective bargaining, This is the first time that there has been a strike • I think it indicates something about the reasonableness of the other side in this dispute. MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) MR.

CROSBIE: With the exception of the teachers. At that time that matter was dealt with firmly and we are taking the same position in this. HR. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, did I understand from the hon. minister-? HR. SPEAKER~ It is out of order,you have to wait for Questions. JlR, BARRY: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege, I would like to refer to an item contained in the paper, 11 The Daily News11 of today, Wednesday, June 7, 1972, where under headlines: 11May Impose Time Limit On Petitions, Questions. 11 The paper states: 11 A government backbencher 1754

June 7, 1972 Tape no. 567 Page 2 - NRW Mr. Barrv. dropped a hint Tuesday that anticipated changes in the rules of procedure may impose time limits on presenting petitions and the question period. " The

article goes on from there and it is a very brief

article but the number of errors contained in it, to say the least.are amazing 1Mr. Speaker. I wish to connent on a couple of them. First of all if there is an inference there thnt 1 was hinting as to what had taken place in a select con;uittee of this honourable House, then l would ask for an immediate retraction. I do not know if this is what the paper is imputing here. If it is, I would ask for a retraction. Secondly, I wish to point out an item where it states: (this statement is attributed to the hon. Leader of the Opposition ) 11 the '.1on.

Leader of the Opposition said that the government plan to establish a committee to review the rules of the House but to date committee members have not been appointed." As I understand it. there is a notice out on the notice board and there has been a committee appointed. MR. ROBERTS: I did not see it. A committee has been appointed; MR. BARRY: This r just want to clarify again. It is obviously another error in the article, Finally with respect to the entire proceedings, Mr. Speaker, the reference is to debate here in this honourable House on yesterday afternoon.

The paper quotes a statement made by myself: "Leo Barry, Chnirrnan of Committees 1 started to ask for the unanimous consent of the House. in presenting a pet.it inn when he noticed that 'time for presenting petitions had just about run out. 111 It is mentioned that the hon. 1755

June 7, 1972 Tape 568 PK~ I H'R .. B_:'i.JRY: The Leader of the Opposition was quick to po:i.nt out that the rules do not lay down a time limit for petitions to be presented in the Legislature and it later states that Hr. Barry acknowle<lied his error. I have to point out, Hr. Speaker. and if the verbatim transcript is checked, I am sure that this will confirm what I am about to say, at no time did I acknowledge my error and Mr. Speaker, at no time in my opinion did I make an error. Although, I, of course. hope I will be quick to withdraw or acknowledge any error which I may make in the future. However, Mr.

Speaker, I think this matter requires a little more explanation. My reference that the time for presenting petitions have just about run out, I was referring to the informal accommodation of the honourable House Leader and I got into this explanation, I had reached the stage where Thad pointed out that the honourable members on this side of the House are more cognizance of the need for expediting the business of this House to see that the business of the province is run in a planned,rational manner rather than on the haphazard,illogical and at sometimes stupid manner that - MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, if I may please? ;'1:ay I read the point of order? The honourable gentleman. Sir, stated the question of privilege, the rules are quite explicit on a matter of privilege, there must he a motion to deal with the matter. I had an occasion the other day, Your Honour. to check into it again in Beauchesne, when the gentleman from St. John's made a reference which he did withdra~-,1. Ve have a practice in the House, Your Honour. thattto state, ministers or memhers get up and if they feel that they have been misquoted they make a hrief explanation. Sir.

I submit it is a point of personal explanation - HON. ~.fE1'-IBER: -·-·---- That is privilege. 1756

June 7. 1972 MR_:_,__ROBERTS: But also I submit the honourable gcntl0TT;,:m is going too far beyond that, t::ir, unless he has a notion, lle is goin0 far beyond that. Sir. what he is doing is getting into a dc-hnte mrw r:mtl if he wishes to debate it,let us hnvc a motion uherc we can Poth debate. If he merely feels that he has bt;en misquoted, ns hnve I, hnt I did not intend to raise it.

But, Your Honour. my point of order is what is the honourable gentleman doin? 7 He seems to he m,'1king a de!rntinr speech. not raising a point of privilep;e 1 which must he either his priviler,e as a men.her or one of the privileges of the House. AN llOB_~MEMflER:_ Followed by a motion. I::T....:.,,_.R5)TIEf:t!:_S_:.. Followed by a motion. HR. BARRY:_ First of all, Hr. Speaker, I might sny there is no such thing as a point of personal explanation, there nay he at times traditional or customary leeway givc.n to honourable rnemhers to make explanations.

There is no such thing 1 procedurally, in the Standing Orders usa~es of this honourable House or any other honourable House, as a point of personal explanation, With respect to the matters of privilege there are two matters in what I have already referred to. Mr.

Speaker, anrl one refep'nce would be in Beauchesne on page 100~ where it states; "The Journals of The United Kinr:dom House of Commons give the followinr examples of speeches and vritings which have he held to constitute breaches of privileges.n I am merely hrin~inp this to the attention of this honourable House so that if the honourable House wishes to take action on it~ then it may do so.

The first item T referred to is imputations against rnemhers serving on private bill committees and again these first references are hy analogy,and I would suhmit the same thing applies to a member of a select committee, reflections upon the conduct to the Chairman of a Standing Committee. Finally, th:is is on the second point where 17:'J7

June 7, 1972 Tape 568 PK - 3 HR. BARRY: it is a matter of privilege, wilful misrepresentation of the proceedings of members is an offense of the same character as a libel. Now all I am stating is that I believe I was misrepresented in the proceedings as reported. HR. ROBERTS: Wilfully or unintentionally? ~ARRY: This is a question which only the paper can point out. MR. ROBERTS: Inaudible. !1R.

BARRY: If the honourable gentleman will permit me to finish, I wish to table the paper containing the offending material and I would ask the newspaper concerned to take note of the points which I have raised and to indicate whether there is error on their part or just whnt the intent was,if any, in stating: what was stated. I would also like to point out that of course,whether or not the committee as sittin~ decides 1758

June 7, 1972. Tape 569, Pnpe :1ph as to ·whether or not there will t'e 11 time 11.rr;it set on the prcscntJtion of pet:ttions is not for me. to s::1y nor for nnv hon. me-;>Jl;,2r of this honournble House. unti] the Select Cor::r:iittee br:inps this report before the Jlouse. ~rp. SPEAKFR '. During yesterday nfternoon's sittinr 1 n rllestion arose as ~-~-~-~--- to whether or not debate wa.s permitted on the nrPscntatton of n nctltion. 1 prr>l'l'.ised,at that time,thnt T would toke the 1'1:Jttcr ttnf'er arlvisnrent and rule on jt later. I propose to g:f.ve my rulinf' now.

The custom of presenting petitions to Parliament r,oes back to the enr1i0st davs of T'ar]inrnentary history. Sir T.Frskine Fav refers to this hut notes tliat as tfrw went on the numhcr had very much increc1sed nnd the husiness uas so much interrupted hy the debate t.:h::ich arose on recci.vinp: netitions that Stnnciinr, Orders dealinr with the matter were adontet1 in 18t,2 nnd 1853. tinder the Standinp: Orders of the Pow::e of Cof'1JTDns at nttmm. no det'ate is nerrnittcd on the presentation of petitions.

Standinp lirder 67(.3) reads and I ouote, 'On the presentation of petitions, no det'nte on or in relation tn the saMe shall Pe allowed,' Our Standing 0rder 97 re.ads and I 011otP. ''There shall J,e no debate on a netition unles.s the House has it under consideration.' 1 do not feel that this can be interpreted as allowinpa def>ate on the presentation of the petition. The ordinary nrocerlure tn presentinr petitions in this House is covered in Standinp- flrders 90. 91 and q2.

These indicate that a petition may be presented and that the person presentinp.- it nay !N.':h: a brief stntement not to exceed five l"linutcs on certain aspects of the petition set forth in Standing Order 92. The Standing Orders do not require a motion that the petition be received, nor is a motion reouired that it be referred to the departrnent to which it relntes, since this is covered by Standinr Order 95, in the case of petitions requestinp expenditure of public rrmey: which most. if not all, of the netitions presented in this House 1759

June 7, 1972, Tape 569, Pa_ge 2 -- apb· do involve. Standing Order 97 says there shall be no debate unless the House has the petition under consideration. This should be read with Standing Order 96 which provides for a procedure to be used only in cases of urpency. From the above it seems clear that debate ls not permitted on the presentation of a petition, and I so rule. I should note.however, that over the years the custom of certain members sometimes makinp brief comments on the petition has grown up in this House.

This is not sanctioned by any rule, but occurs only by leave of the House and mip-ht be said to exist as courtesies that Honourahle Members accord each other. I do not propose to interfere with the extension of such courtesies at this tirne, but should the natter of speaking on presentations of petitions appear top-et out of hand. I mav have to reassess my position. I would like to add that in future, persons presentinr­ petitions perhaps should not mal~e a motion that they be referred to the department to which they relate, but merely say, 'I now present the petition.' AN__HON •.

PE}fBER • No motion~ MA· .. .:SJ_E!\-15,EJ\: A motion is not required. OUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO QUESl'._IONS_:_ HON. R .L.Cl!EESD<AN (!'INISTER OF FISHERIES): ~r. Speaker, in answer to question (70) on the Order Paper of June 7 asked by the hori. member for Foi:;o, the answer to (1) is !,fiss Bernice Power; the answer to (2) is clerV typist II, $4,200; the answer to (3) no; the answer to

(4) Miss Power was employed on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission. HON. J.C. CROSBIE (HIN I STER OF FINA.~CE) : }fr. Speaker, this is in reply to an oral question of the hon. member for Labrador South. 1760

June 7. 1972. Tape 570 Page 1. MR.CROSBIE: Mr. Chairman, I have not been in touch with but my officials have been in touch with Mr. Harold Ford who is the personnel manager of Labrador Linerboard Limited. Hiring procedures are as follows: Under a Union agreement with the loggers;Local 2564:B:rotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the company is first of all requi.red to recall all loggers by seniority that worked there the previous year. Once this is done the company is required to recall loggers who had worked the previous year hut quit around October to go home for the winter.

The company is then free under the agreement to take men from anywhere but it is their policy to accept union members first. It is also their policy to hire unemployed persons in Labrador f1.rst, then the island part of the Province. Then only~ so that men from the island part of the Province will only be engaged after men in Labrador. In 1971, 97.8 per cent of the men hired were Newfoundlanders the same should be true in 1972.

Use is made of Canada Manpower and the unions and their hiring procedures: I also want to get the number of men now working there and the number they will be needing during the year - I do not have that yet. MR.SENIOR: Question No. 78 on the Order Paper June 7, the answer to this question is quite lengthy and contains a considerable amount of detail. MR.ROBERTS: Hr.

Speaker, I wonder if this could be tabled.The Government House Leader tells us we are running out of time - MR.SENIOR: My next sentence Mr~ Speaker, was that in view of ·the detail in this particular answer I would suggest that it be tabled rather than take up the time of this honourable House by giving it to the honourable members on the other side. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR.WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, before you get into the Orders of the Day l rise to ask the honourable Minister of Finance: I was under the impression that .the 300 loggers required at Goose Jlay were in addition to the ones that hac 1761

June 7. 1972. Tape 5 70 Page 2. been previously there. MR.CROSBIE: I do not have all the details I should have that tomorrow. MR.NEARY: Mr. Speaker, due to the unfortunate accident at the Phosphorus Plant at Long Harbour yesterday, sending five workers to hospital, the same day the Minister of Labour g,-r'e the plant a clean Bill of Health as far as working conditions and safety hazards are concerned, would the Minister wish to rephrase the ministerial statement made in this Honourable House yesterday?

Would the Minister indicate to the House whether further consideration would be given to the union's request for an industrial enquiry to investigate all aspects of this most serious problem in the Phosphorus Plant at Long Harbour? MR.MAYNARD: Mr. Speaker, first of all I did not at any time in my statement yesterday give the Plant at Long Harbour a clean Bill of Health.

I snid that progress was being made and I still say that progress is being made, a lot of the items that were outstanding back in February ate cleared up, I was not, I have no intention of rephrasing the statement of yesterday, as an ~nswer to the second part of the question. To give you some background I was not notified of the accident until a newsman called me in the early hours of the morning. This morning the people from the Workmen's Compensation Board safety division went to Long Harbour• They have made a preliminary inspection, 1762

June 7, 1972 'Thape 571 JX - 1 They are now making a detailed inspection of all the pumps and valves and whatever is surrounding tht> location nf the accident. The inspection is being made in coniunction with the cnmnany reoresentative and the union safety represent;itive. I w:J:11 hove in mv hands n detailed report of the exact nature and cause of tbe nccidcnt to1:1orrow morning. It appears at this time that there was no mechanical failure of any kind involved and this is substantiated by nll three people, the Workman's Compensation Board person, the company supervisor anrl the union representative.

However, they are doinr: a detailed inspection of the whole thin~ and I will consider what further action mav be taken and this would include any possible action as far as rm industrial enquiry commission is concerned 1 after I hnve received the full details from the inspection that is being carried out at this time. ~~l!i.0~5_: Mr. Spe:ikcr. I would like to direct a question to the f1inister of Finance.

Is the two cents per hour increase to the plant workers in the nbbatoir and also the two days holidayi:;. the two vearly holidays,are they in addition to the two cents and the two extra holidays that were offered bv the Treasury Bon.rd on Mny 1 ~ as was stated bv the Minister of Finance in the House on Mav l? Also is tM.s the final offer,as the minister stated? Is this the last offer? Will the minister not sit down again with them and at least hargain with them? ~.~-~~~S~IE: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the first part of the question.

I am referring to the offer that was made last week and which was voted on in the secret ballot yesterday. This is not the full offer but it is twenty-two cents an hour minimum for all of the employees down there and two additional statutory holidays making thirteen in the first year of the agreement. That is the offer I am referring to, that had been rejected by the employees yesterday. As far as offers are concerned this is the government's final offer in 1763

June 7, 1972 Tape 571 connection - :.~_I:!_0~. ME1'!.fiER: You said that before. ~~..f.ROSBIE: I said that before, Mr. Speaker. ~2._!!q__N. MEMBER: You said that he fore and backed down on it. JH - 2 MR. CROSBIE: Can I answer the question or do we have to have a debate? MR. SPEAKER: Order! ~~:...,_.f,_~OSB~I: I said that before, Mr. Speaker~ and because it was intimated to us that a face-savinp; further offer would be acceptable to the union;we made a face-saving further offer to the union which was then re_iected by the union.

We therefore state now our quite irrevocahle position that as far as the monetarv terms - HR. NEARY: (Inaudible). MR. SPEAKER: Order please! ~ll,:.., __ CRO~Bl,.~ Can I explain the government 1 s nolicy without interruption? That as far as the government 1 s monetary, the terms of this situation are concerned,we have made our final offer. Now if the union wants to come in to discuss anything or if they have any suggestions to make or any other points to make certainly we are ope.n to di::.cuss anythinp: thev want to discuss with them.

But the government has gone as far as it can RO, The government is goin~ to assist the farmers affected so that they are not ruined. the broiler producers involved are not ruined by this situation or innocent third parties. That is all I can say on the matter. HR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the honourable minister if the union has been in touch with anybody on Treasury Board within the last twenty-four hours? MR .. ~9SBIE: No, they have not. They mny but there may have been some speakinp;,but you know I do not know. MR. WOODWARD: Hr.

Speaker, in the House yesterday I ask the honourable Minister of Municipal Affnirs and Housing a question concerning the 1764

June 7, 1972 Tape 571 river bank erosion in Happy Valley and the water supply to the town. I am wondering if he do have an answer to that question. JM - 3 MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that I was investi~ating this. There are a lot of departments involved and _im1t as soon as we get the information together we will let the honourable member know. ~-~_NEA!_Y: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Could the minister inform the House when the vacancy on the Town Council in "Pouch Cove will be filled?

The vacancy occurred as a result of Gerald Sullivan resigning in March pnst. Could the honourable minister tell us when that by-election will be held? MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that thnt is a question thnt could go on the order paper. I rlo not have the details of it but I could take it and advise him. MR. HARVEY: ----- ___ ,,,, Mr. Speaker, could T direct a question as :1 follow-up to a question I ask the honourable Minister of Provincial and Labrador Affairs a couple of dnys aj:!:o, last week sometime T think? The question is what luck are you having, Mr.

Speaker, in tryin~ to get an icebreaker to the Labrador Coast? I understand there are people up there who still cannot p.:et out fishinr; and the CN boats are tryinp to hang their way throup:h up there with passengers and supplif>s and thinp,s. Have you done anythinp. about it, 1765

June 7 1972. Tape 572 Page l. done anything about my request for an icebreaker* you said you would, what is the story on it? HR.MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, an answer to the honourable member we have been trying, but the feeling is that now nature will look.after this matter and they are not too inclim,d to send an icebreaker in at this time. If there is anything further deve.lops I will be only too happy to let the honourable member know. HR.HARVEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question, you mean nature is going to take care of this ice situation. They are going to wait - did this come from the Minister of Transport?

MR.MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, this is what we are given to understand from the department, about the icebreakers. ;.•R.HARVEY: Nature will take care nf a lot of things. MR,F.ROWE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the honourable Minister of Education. On Monday I asked him if it were true that during a panel discussion on Memorial University approximately a week before the last provincial election that the minister assured that the students would not be required to borrow any more than $400 under the Canada Student Loan Plan in order to qualify for provincial assistance.

I was wondering if he has attempted to find the answer to that question? MR.CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that, and also onough information to handle any subsequent questions arising out of it is extremely complex because assistance to Memorial Students is given on the basis of a very very complex formula, At the moment I am having a - what I can only call a dossier prepared with all possible relevant information on that,which I will then table in this House. MR.F .ROWE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Did he or did he not make this statement to which I referred? MR*CARTER: A supplementary answer, Mr.

Speaker. I can only repeat that the whole question is extremely complex one~ I am taking it under notice, I will give all possible information to this Honourable House in a very few days. 1766

June 7, 1972. Tape 572 Page 2. MR.F.ROWEZ· Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question, was the honourable Minister at that meeting at the University at that time? MR.CARTER: I do not know how to define a supplementary to a supplementary answer Mr. Speaker, but in any event I was at that meeting. MR.F.ROWE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the honourable Minister remember being asked the question? MR.CARTER: Anoint of order Mr. Speaker, this has gone far enough - MR.ROBERTS: What is the point of order,Mr. Speaker, let the honourable gentleman rise and state his point.

Point of order paper, paper point of order is what I get. MR.CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I have a little girl at home with a doll that if you pull on a string, it is rather like a puppet, the same sort of stuff comes out of it. I would suggest that if the honourable Leader of the Opposition would remove his coat he might find a similar device. MR.ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to a point of order. Would the honourable gentleman - the honourable gentleman stood in this House, I have to call him an honourable gentleman, for that reason alone I do • It is hard to find any other reasons to call him an honourable gentleman.

Would he state his point of order that is all that I asked. He raised - now if the honourable gentleman does not wish to answer a question Your Honour that is his right, Indeed the answers he has given he would be wise not to attempt any further answers. But all I asked,would he state his point of order, Sir, instead I get this torrent Of personal abuse. MR.CARTER: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, quite clearly was that the whole thing was becoming quite tedious, I felt that I had given sufficient answer. I cannot see any further point in continuing. MR.ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, could we then have a ruling on the point of order as to whether or not the honourable gentleman is feeling that something is tedious constitutes a point of order* I would like a ruling from Your Honour 1767

June 7, 1972. Tape 572. Page 3. on that whether, when a minister says something is tedious does that therefore make it out of order, or does it merely make the minister out of order. HR.BARRY: Speaking to the point of order,Mr. Speaker, the honourable Minister also said that he felt that he had answered the question and it was not 1768

June 7, 1972 Tnpe 573 PK - l MR. ROBERTS: But that is not a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The present ruling is that the honourahle minister did answer the question. MR. F. B. ROWE: }fr. Speaker, may I now put a (Juestion to the tfinister of Finance? It is the same question.

Is it true that during a panel discussion at Memorial University approximately a week be.fore the last election that the Minister of Finance assured the students at the university that they would not be required to borrow any more than $400 under the Canada Student Loan in order to qualify for provincial assistance, if in fact, the Progressive Conservatives were elected? f:1R. CJ:lOSBIE_;_ Frankly, Mr. Speaker. 1 do not know whether it is correct or not. I certainly do not remember statinr, anything, as the honourable member suggest. On the other hand, I will not say categorically, 1 did not.

If the honourable memher wants to produce me some evidence that I said it. I would be prepared to consider that. MR. ROWE, F.B. Mr. Speaker. a supplementary question, can the minister remember referring to such rumors as rotten Liberal rumors being spread by the University Liberal Cluh in connection with this $l,00? MR. CROSBIE: There were rumors that the Liberal Club is spreading that the whole programme ts going to be wiped out. 1 certainly remember referring to that, there was not a word of truth in it and there is not a uord of truth in it. '{R. P. S. THOMS: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing - have the application by the residPnts of Benton for incorporation as of today been approved? ttR. COL_hINS: Mr. Speaker, that is a question which could quite easily go on the Order Paper. We have about thirty or thirty-five applications down there which have been reviewed and just as soon as a decision is taken the people in Benton will be advised. MR. GILLETT: Again I have to ask a question of the honourahle the Minister of Highways and perhaps 1 should rephrase the question in 1769

June 7, 1972 Tape 573 PK - 2 MR. GILLETT: this way that in view of the announcements made by at least by the candidate who was runnin~ for the Progressive Conservative election in 'rnillingate, that the honourable the Minister of Highways told him that the causeway to Twillingate would be completed this year. In view of that may I ask why it is taking almost a week for this decision to he made at this crucial time in the budget? CROSBIE: Inaudible. :"!R. Rt}BERT.§_: It was only started last year that is why. ~It· GILLETT_· It was only started last year. NR. CROSBIE· It should have started five years ago. HR.

ROBERTS: Right or 105 years ago. HR. EARLE: Inaudible. ··---- MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! M!.-~BERTS~ Is the minister going to answer it, Mr. Speaker? MR. GILLETT: I was wondering if it was torn down or not? MR. MAYNARD;__ As to why a decision has not been made is simply a matter of money. Whether there was a verbal promise made or not, I do not know. I cannot substantiate that but I promise the honourable gentleman that I will have a definite conclusive answer within a twenty-four hour period. Is that helpful? Thank you. I would like to thank the honourable gentleman. very much indeed. 1-1'.R. W. N.

ROWE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before the honourable member p,ets going. Let us be very clear. although there is no problem today because of the friendly atmosphere that we have developed on both sides of the House, let us be _very clear on what the Standing Orders say about private members' day or questions or motions on the Order Paper. Standing Order 16 (

a) says, nAll items standing on the orders of the day {except Government orders) shall be taken up according to the procedure assigned to each on the order Paper.]< 1770

June 7, 1972 Tape 573 PK - 3 MR. ROWE, W.N. Now, Hr. Speaker, what that means in effect, is that all government orders. all matters hroup.:ht into the House by the government or upon those matters the government has the undouhted right to call the order of their being brought before this House and 1771

June 7, 1972 Tape no. 574 Page 1 - MRW Mr. Rowe (W.N.). being debated in the House and, of course, the House Leader is the one who represents the government in that regard. All other matters. Sir, all other motions, all other orders, are not under the direction of the House Leader, the Government House Leader but they have, according to Standing Order 16, "The Speaker himself must call the orders in accordance with the orderin which they appear on the Order Paper. 11 Now, Mr.

Speaker, there is no problem todav been.use behind the Speaker's Chair the honourable gentleman and I and others agreed that this order would be called first. With the consent of the House, of course, it can be called first. But, Sir, there may come a time when everything is not friendly and when it may be a matter of some importance as to what order is called on the Order Paper. I would ask Your Honour to make a ruling on the point of order that I am now raising, either now or at some subsequent event or on some subsequent occasion, in anticipation of any problems arising on this particular matter. MR.

MARSHALL On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, before we proceed. The hon. member for ;Jhite Bay South has indicated that the spirit of friendliness pervades and hopefully it will pervade for a while as a result of the democractic government we now have. However) Mr. Speaker, the request that has been made by the hon. member for White Bay South I would submit, Your Honour, that you cannot rule upon it. There is no need for the hon. member for White Bay South or any one getting up and lecturing with respect to the rules of this House.

The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for White Bay South is asking Your Honour to rule on a hypothetical question that does not now exist and hopefully it will not exist. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may,to the point of order, I submit, Sir, 1772

June 7, 1972 Tape no. 574 Page 2 Mr. Roberts that it is not a hypothetical question. The fact remains that Your Honour called Orders of the Day. The hon. House Leader made a request which has the form by practice of a motion. He does not say that I move order so and so. He just says order so and so. That is understood to be a motion. My friend and colleague from White Bay South has raised the point that the honourable gentleman has no right to make that motion at this time. I submit, Sir, that that is not a hypothetical question. I submit that we are within our rights in asking Your Honour for a ruling.

As my colleague said, Your Honour may wish to consult upon the matter and ~ive us a ruling at a later moment. There is no problem there. I do think it is an important point. It is not a hypothetical question. Sir, with respect to the honourable gentleman's comments about lecturing, I have listened to more lectures from him Mr. Speaker in the last two or three weeks than I have from all the other honourable members of the House put together, including people like the hon. gentleman from St. John's Centre who sat here for a considerable while . . MR. MARSHALL: Let us get on Yith the business of the House. MR.

ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we are getting on with the business of the House. MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) MR. SPEAKER: Order! MR. ROBERTS: my point? MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, may I have the right to continue with Yes, continue. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the gentleman from St. John's Centre. Even the gentleman from St. John's Centre with all his presumptuousness and his nine years in the House, Sir, has not lectured as often as the House Leader. 1773

June 7, 1972 Mr. Roberts Tape no. 574 Page 3 I submit, Sir, that it is not a hypothetical question. I submit that my colleague has raised a point on which he is entitled to a ruling. I submit further that this point is well made. I would ask Your Honour for a ruling, either at this moment or later should Your Honour wish to consult with Your Honour's advisers. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker on the point of order, I did not make any such motion as a matter of right in any event and, therefore, it is hypothetical, Nobody is disagreeing in substance with what the hon. member for White Bay South says If, however, the hon. members of the opposition represented by the various members on the other side wish to continue on with this tenor and comments, they may do so. I just brought up the point that there was no such motion made in this House as a matter of right. There was no such motion made. Nobody is quibbling with the stand of the hon. member for White Bay South.

I think it is a very important principle, Your Honour~ that Your Honour not be called upon to make rulings with respect to hypothetical matters. I have no interest in - there is nothing to be gained from prolonging this discussion nor the type of dicussion that has gone on in this House before. All we want to do is to get on with the business of private members' day and of the government itself. MR. SPEAKER: I shall take the whole matter as notice • I will make the ruling later. HR. J. G. ROUSSEAU: Mr.

Speaker, based on the presumption that it is safe to bring my head above desk level, I am very pleased to place this resolution before this honourable House today. Sir, I believe that this matter is sufficiently urgent to warrant the immediate attention of this honourable House. I am certain, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is of sufficient urgency to the people who may be affected either directly or indirectly, by 1774

June 7, 1972 Tape no,574 Page 4 Mr. Rousseau any eventual change in status in the United States Air Force Installation at Goose Bay. 1 had intended to and I will do so now,to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the hon, House Leader and the hon. member for Bell Island for their graciousness in allowing my resolution to be placed on the Order Paper this afternoon, Their magnanimity does not leave me untouched I assure them. I feel confident, Mr. Speaker, that before this day is out, approval will be riven to this resolution. I hope,Sir, that the approval is unanimous.

Before proceeding with my opening remarks, 1 would like to make a suggestion. This resolution, Sir, is not prompted by any politically oriented motivations but rather, Sir, out of a deep sense of concern for those people ~ho may be affected by the change or any proposed change in the status of the installation at Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it abundantly clear that I have no intention of interfering with any ner,otiations being carried on by the United States Government and by the Government of Canada • I know, Sir, that there are many members of this honourable House concerned with the matter.

I know the hon. member for Labrador North who will in all probability be speaking on the resolution, will have some pertinent comments to place before this honourable House. 1 am sure that the hon.member for Labrador South will also have some comments to make. I know the matter is,of grave concern to the Minister of Labardor Affairs, the hon. member from St. John's Centre who has become quite a friend to the people of Labrador in the past four and a-half months. 1 am aware, Sir, that outside this House our federal member, Mr.

Ambrose Peddle, the member for Grand Falls 1 White Bay, Labrador, has also been actively concerned with the matter of a possible phase- 1775

June 7, 1972 .Tape no. 574 Page 5 Mr. Rousseau. down of operations at the United States Air Force Installation at Goose Bay. Mr. Peddle and his cohorts in Ottawa (I take this opportunity to welcome Hr. Lundrigan who is in the gallery today) have worked very hard in an effort to secure some information for the people of the area regarding the status of the Goose Bay United States Air Force Base.

Sir, to phase out or not to phase out, to close down or not to close down, to negotiate or not to negotiate seems to be the question that has been pervasive to the people of the eastern portion of Labrador especially but indeed to all this province for the past couple of years. In looking, Sir, at this resolution, we might recall during the past few years ru.~ours, counter rumours, gossips, speculation of all kinds with regard to the possible close down of the United States Air Force Installation at Goose Bay.

It would appear at times, Sir, that the people appear to be resigned to an eventual close dovn of the base. They are, Sir, in a state of constant flux surrounded by clouds of uncertainty causing deep mental anguish and anxiety. The question now appears to be Mr. Speaker not 11 ifH but "when the base will close down? 11 There are rumours rampant, small rumours which I am sure the hon. member from Labrador North, in his remarks, will allude to, the rumour that no liquor has been ordered after September and the rwr~ur that no flight~ 1776

June 7, 1972 Tape 575 no flights have been booked after such and such a period. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible NB - I MR. ROUSSEAU: And no investiment in the area and so on and so forth. These rumours certainly have had quite an effect on the people in the area. I believe all these factors are causing undue hardship to the people and I would like to have the matter clarified on their behalf. And I would like to have them be able to sleep nights and to be reassured as to the status andthe future of this installation.

Grant it, Sir, some sting has been removed in the event of possible phase-down,as a result of the recent Linerboard decision. We must remember that should the base close down and the Labrador Linerboard Limited become a success­ ful enterprise, then the area is still tied down to one industry. The hope would be, of course, that the continuation of the base and the augmentation of it by the Labrador Linerboard operation would produce a second industry in the area and thus give the people a much more securf' feeling in the future.

The possibility too, of course, of the operation in the Lower Churchill area may be considered in the future. Certainly any area that depends on one industry is an area which at any point in time can be grossly affected, its people and its economy.by the shut down, the close down, the phase down of this industry. But, we must remember that there are people involved in this operation.

The resolution here today is not an attempt to find out frnm the United States Government rxr from the Canadian Government whether this base is going to be continued for political reasons, but rather to find out so as to let the people know so that they can plan their future, so that in the eventuality of a phase-down the people concerned would be in a position to step in and to provide some alternative so that the people would not be caught in complete despair at that point in time. I notice, Sir• in the Verbatim Report, Vol.

I, Number 2, the hon. member for Labrador North directed a question to the Premier and 1777

June 7, 1972 Tape 575 NB - 2 he mentioned and I quote, "Because of the anxiety and demoralizing effect caused by the uncertainity of the future of Goose Air Base 11 , and I think he reflects accurately the feelings of the people in the area. I refer also, Mr. Speaker, to Vol. I, Number 6. Friday, April 28th, in this very effective Throne Speech delivered by the member for Labrador North when he talked about the Goose Bay Air Base and the possible repro­ cussions to the people of the area should a phase-down occur. I think he is concerned. I think all members of this hon. House should be con­ cerned.

We must show the people of this Province that we care. Laws of common decency prevail here. They should have some awareness of future prospects for the Base. Mr; Speaker, before moving to Labrador some ten years ago I was a resident of Corner Brook. Although I was not directly involved with the operation at Stephenville, I did have quite a bit to do with the Harmon complex there at the time, mostly through sports activities. I know it was quite a shock to the people of the Stephenville area when this base was phased out. The same thing happened at Pepperrell here in St. John's.

Argentia right now is leaning in that direction. So we have a possible situation previously. which is not unlike others that have occurred Now, in the last few days, Mr. Speaker, we have noted, and I have a few clippings here which I am sure everybody has looked at, that the Base has been given a temporary extension of one year through June 30th, 1973. It is beginning to sound a little familiar maybe, Mr. Speaker, with the annotmcements we heard on previous military installations in the Province. My hope_, Sir, and I hope this remark is taken in the way in which it is given.

It is not meant to be politically oriented, I hope, Sir, that there is not being given to the people of Labrador, Eastern Labrador, and to the people of this Province, a cause for optimism when really there is none. And, Sir, I hope that the announcement of this 1778

June 7, 1972 Tape 575 NB - 3 extension is not made on political grounds. Now, I am not for one minute suggesting that it is. But, I cannot help but confess that the thought has crossed my mind with an impending Federal election within the next year that the suspicion is there that possibly this may be a postponing of an eventual decision until after a Federal election. The thought has crossed my mind and I think I would be less than honest with this hon.

House if I did not mention it~ I hope this is not the case, It is merely a lingering thought and I would think that maybe many other people have had the same thought. I hope not, Mr. Speaker. Personally I cannot believe the government of this great nation of ours would resort to such a low tactic and I am sure that the government of the great nation to our south would not have .any complicity -in such a matter either. So I am sure that the postponement has been solely for negotiating purposes, This morning, Mr. Speaker, I held u very courteous and amicable meeting, very infornative 1 with Mr.

Richard Straus, the U.S. Consulate General, resident in St. John's. I notice Mr, Straus is in the House to­ day and I wish to thank him very much for his graciousness this morning. He was very informative and I assure him that I appreciate it very much. Mr. Straus was most courteous and most cooperative and was of emmense help, Mr. Speaker, in giving me some background information on the problem, Now, the original agreement was signed in 1952 and was to expire on December 5th, 1972.

It stated, and I quote, 11The United States of America may by notification in writing to the Government of Canada not less than six months prior to the expiration of the lease request an ex- tension of the term. 0 This request was made subsequent to the agreement and the extension, of course, has been granted through June 30th, 1973. This request for extension of the lease was made to enable both parties to continue negotiations. Negotiations, Sir, lam led to believe have been tough. I guess will always be difficult when two nations, two great nations, sit down and discuss dollars.

More so perhaps, Sir, in view of 1779

June 7, 1972 Tape 575 NB - l1 the existing monitary situation, in view of the tremendous expense that the United States is presently incurring in the Viet Nam War, and in light of the present Federal Government's cut back on Canadian armed forces expenditures. So it would be proper to say, Sir, that these negotiations have been hampered by budgetary considerations. Mr. Straus did assure me of his concern for the civilian employ­ ees at the Base and I believe, Sir, that he was very sincere in his concern. We discussed very courtesly the continued need for an operation such as Goose Bay within the total concept of 1780

June 7. 1972. Tape 576 PK - l MR. ROFSSEAU: existing U.S. military policy. The United States Airforce installation at Goose nay provides an integral function to the U.S. striking force 1 that of refueling D-52 longMrange bomhers. As long as this mission has not changed and there appears to be no existing reason why it should;then there cannot he any major change in the functions of the United States Airforce installation at Goose Ray in relation to its need insofar as total U.S. military policy is concerned. It does serve a need and in the foreseeable future, as I understand it, it will continue to serve a need.

And, of course, if it continues to serve a military need there will he a continued need for non-military personnel to augment the military personnel stationed at the Base. 1n talking with Mr. Straus this morninr: he broup.ht tt to my attention,a report by Mr. Melvin Lairrl. Secretary of Defence. in the /1.nnual Defence Department Report, National Securities Strategy of Realistic Deterrence,in discussinr, the topic;strategic number of nuclear forces for deterrent stated and T quote. Mr. Speaker. ,;No major chanF!e 1.n deployed U.S. stratep:ic retaliatory forces will he evident in the fiscal year 1973.

It starts on July 1, 1972. Although we are continuing to make qualitattve improvements in our forces, at the end of that fiscal year the Strategic Offensive Force Levels will continue to include 1:and here, !lr. Speaker. the report mentioned a number of military weapons which lnclude 455~D-52 bombers, the equivalent of twenty-six squadrons. So that in the foreseeable future this strike force will be continued. This strike force, of course, will need refueling. In the same report Hr. Laird also stated and I quote he proposes a so-called airborne warning and control system, which involves, Mr.

Speaker, airplanes which need refueling. Again the need for refueling indicates the need for tankers and, of course, the present refueling base for tankers in this

section of the world is the installation at 1781

June 7, 1972 Tape 576 PK - 2 MR. ROUSSEAU: Goose Bay, I then proceed to put Mr. Straus in a rather embarrassing position 1 I suppose, in asking him directly whether he was cautiously optimistic or optimistic with regard to the continued operation of the base at Goose Bay. Now I guess this was an unfair question but I must say the gentleman was very gracious and he suggested to me that he himself was opttmistic of the continuation of the United States Airforce installation at Goose Bay.

I do not think, Sir, it was motivated hy any political things he was trying to hide but I think he was trying to give me a sincere answer insofar as he was able to determine. I acknowledge the fact before this House, of course. that Mr. Laird may not be in possession of facts,of decisions that may have already been made, (or Tam sorry, Mr. Straus) But to the hest of his knowledge he assured me that he is optimistic as to the continuation of this installation at Goose Bay. MR·~- WINSOR: Mr. ~peaker, would the honourable member permit a question. HR. __ ROUSSEAU: Yes, certainly I will permit a question. MR.

HINSOR: With the honourable member's reference to the conversation between the American Consul General, Mr. Straus and himself, was this on a confidential basis? lt appears to me that some of the infonnation which now the gentleman has given the House seems to be of more of a confidential nature than for the public. MR. "ROUSSEAU: No. the information that I Yas given, as I understand it, Mr. Straus was quite open. AN HON. MEMBER: Was correct. JS that correct? MR. ROUSSEAU: Hr. Speaker, I asked the gentleman was it correct. MR. WOODWARD: It was quite correct. 1782

June 7, 1972 Tape 5 76 PK - 3 MR. ROUSSEAU: We had a little conversation on it 1.nd then we were on the record and I am not riving out any military information. The report that I quote from Mr. Laird is a public report, an annual report of the Department of Defence. MR. WI~ Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member just yield once more? 'My reason for asking I wou]d not want the honourable member to he accused outside of the House of giving some confidential information. So I am glad that it is not confidential information. MR. ROUSSEAU: All rir,ht. Thad my note book out and ~r.

Straus was very gracious I think, This is -why I suggested he was most cooper;u,ivc and most cordial and gave me answers to questions that I had asked. I was very pleased with this because,as I said before, I thank him very much for it. The figures are though not confidential because the quotes I made were figures that were in the public report for the Department of Defence of The United States of America. Now some figures also that I was given as of January 1, 1972 - and there has been no appreciable change since that time.

There are 737 non-United States civilians employed at the base in Goose Bay - 737 non-U.S, civilians employed at the base. Now these of course are not all Newfoundlanders, there is a mix, there are recruiting offices in Montreal and St. John's. These are Canadian, non-U.S., Canadian civilians, 737. This compared, Mr. Speaker, with 815 Canadian military personnel in our province and 135 Canadian civilians employed in military establishments in our province. The annual payroll, Mr. Speaker, for these 737 non-U.S. civilians i.s $7,462,648.00 and I would assume some change - $7,462,648.00.

The commissary purchases in the area and surrounding is approximately $600,000 per year. The supply of auto parts and other general merchandise is approximately $200,000 a year. Construction projects during the second half of the present riscal Year 1 that would he from December 31 through to date,is approximately $1 1 400,000 and the 1783

June 7. 1972 Tape 576 PK - 4 MR. ROUSSEAU: expenditure that has been approved is $2 million, so there is prese 1t projected expenditures to the end of this year whif'h should be in the vicinity of about $2 million, if the expenditure has been approved for this construction phase of the present fiscal year ending ~Tune 30 of this year. I was also informed that $2 million for the coming fiscal year 1 beginning July 1, through to June 30, 1973 has also heen approved for construction purposes~ Thus the economic benefits, Hr.

Speaker, directly, directly per year,$7,462,648 for salaries to non-U.S. civilians, $600,000 for commissary purchases and $200,000 for auto parts and other general merchandize and $2 million on the construction projectsJcomes to a total of $10,262,648. This, of course, Mr. Speaker. does not include the indirect spending ~y the U.S. personnel at the various husiness establishments in the area, I bring that point out, Mr. Speaker, to give some indication of what the area of Goose Bay/Happy Valley stands to lose in the event that this base is phased out.

Its economy presently is almost solely supported by the American installation. We hope, we hope the Linerhorad Mill will be a success. There is no guarantee that it will be. Should it be a success,then I think the henefits that accrue to the people of Labrador will he extremely useful

June 7, 1972, Tape 577, Page 1 -- apb in the coming yea,rs. The possibility again of the Lower Churchill is a moot question at this t:ime and certa1nlv is worthy of consideration. Whether or not it t-;:Ul vo ahead in the near or distant future is somethinp that remains to 1,e seen. The status for some of the civilian ernnloyees at the installation, the non-U.S. civilians, may change in some instances.

Here we are thinking about where individuals are now employed hy the United States Government.Contracts could in all -probability and may well he let to Canadian concerns, which would in turn employ the people who were previously employed di.rectly by the United States Government. Of course, this ouestion would be entirely at the discretion of the contractor. For example, the cafeteria and snow removal or services of this nature could be let out so that there is a possibility of a chan~e of status for some of the Canadian or non-U.S. civilians at the hnse.

One the basis of what I have come by informationwisc, H would appear logical to assume that the United States places some priority right now. at this point in time, one maintainin~ its installation at Goose Bay. For how lonp, Fr. Soeaker, nobody can accurately foretell and therein, ~r. Speaker, lies the problem. One could ~uess.>generally speaking, that ns lonr: as planes need fuel the United States will need a refueling station somewhere. Why not roose Bay?

I have been privileged to live on the West Coast of the province and further privilered to have lived in Labrador and presently to be living in Labrador.• which I think are two of the areas that are probably amongst the leaders if not the leaders in open-sky-flyin~ weather for military installations. I know Stephenville was amonrst the best and Labrador, Goose Bay is now presently amonpst the hest. It would seem then, that based on theBe small thinrs, that the United States f.overnment might he in a -position to say: ,·Look, here is a desirable location,why move?" They have the installation there. 1785

June 7, 1972, Tape 577, Page 2 -- apb They have the installation there, to relocate it of course is ~oing ta he a monumental exnenditure in dollars to them. at a tine when budgetary considerations have to be of prime concern. I say now, to these two governments, to sit down in the next year to nep,otinte with a feelinf! of compassion and sympathy, and I mean that sincerely, a feeling of compassion and sympathy for the people of Eastern Lnbrndor whose very futures are at stake in the decision that may be taken. Mr. Speaker, before I sit dow'11, I would like to just look at my resolution here. What the resolution in effect states is this,

whereas (1), that the economic and social welfare of the area involved is very important in the continued operation of the. installation at r.oose Bay. The Unites States status there has been determined only throu~h June 30,1973 and it is imperative for the stabHity of the Happy Valley - noose Bay Area that they have some indication of _;ust how lonp,: in the future this installation will remain operational on a full scale, Sir.

It is no good for somebody to come (and I am sure the hon. member for Labrador North agrees with me here) and say; ' Look, we are f:;Oing to continue the operation for one year or two years or three years. 1 We are talking here in terms of a lonr-tenn lease. ttwhereas there is no effective military presence of our Nation in this province;'{r quote it to you that the United States installation at Goose.

Bay employs more individuals civilian­ wise than do all civiliam employees employed by the Canadian Forces in this province)~'Be it resolved that this House in Legislative Session convened secure the economic and social future of residents of the Happy Valley - r,-eose Bay Area as qruickly as possible by negotiati.np: long term arrangements suitable to the Governments of Canada and Newfoundlnnd, of not less than twenty years duration. 0 Py personal feeling ·is - I hope that my hon. friend from Labrador North agrees,that anything shorter would be almost useless. 1786

June 7, 1972, Tape 577, Page 3 -- apb "In the event that a satisfactory conclusion cannot be reached between the Governroent of Canada and the Government of the United States, then that the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada ner,otiate with regards to hn.vin~ Canadian Armed Forces man the operation at Goose Bay, and that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the appropriate official or officials of the Government of Canada, forthwith.fl Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I move that this resolution be adopted. f'R. WOODWARD: ~1r.

Speaker, on the resolution so ahly put by the member for Labrador West, I appreciate his concern as I am sur~ the people in the Happy Valley - f'oose Bny Area of Labrador appreciate his concern as well. Had he not put this resolution before this House today, or a resolution of similar nature, l!r. Speaker, I would have hnd no choice but to have done it myself. It is not spilled milk.I suppose that he has had the advantage, havin~ been in the rovernment, but I sunport the resolution to a degree, Sir. and I would like to acknowledge the Consulate General of the United States who is present in the House today.

The United States Government Forces in (;oose Bay, as I a~ree ' as hon. member from Labrador West in his resolution stating, they have contributed materially and economically to the social welfare of the neople of the Province of Newfoundland, and I suppose it is more oronounccd in the Goose Bay - Happy Valley Area. As he goes on to state, Sir, the usage of military installations at Goose Bay have been detemined until the end of June ;73 which is correct. I attended a press conference with the hon.

Don .Tamieson, the 1-"inister of Transport from Ottawa, n few days ago and they were kind enough to call me in on the conference when they made the press release concerning the extension. At that time, Sir, there was no mention of, and I hope there is no mention of this being a political gimmick to extend, to deal with the welfare of the people in our area for a short period of tiree. I do not think thnt we can 1787

June 7, 1972, Tape 577, Page 4 -- aph- afford to let politics deter the livlihood of the seven hundred and thrity-scven people that are enployed at r.oose Air Base. 1788

June 7, 1972 Tape 578 J M- 1 Not only that~ Sir, the number of other people who are directly depending on the spin-off industry thnt have developed what I mean by spin-off industrv is in-service industry that have develoned as a result of the employment at Goose Air Base. I do not think that it is the wishes of our Federal Government in Ottawa to use this as a political football, at least I heard no mention of it and I hope that this is not the case.

As it goes on, Sir, "'to bring stability to the Happy Valley-Goose Bay Area, that its long term future be determined and secured as quickly as -.osrd.hk:/' '/his I support and I am sure that the residents of the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area support this as well. But as the resolution p;oes on.and I may read from here.

Sir• that 0 by this Honourable House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened that the Government of Canada be urged to secure the economic and social future of residents of the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area as quickly as possible by negotiating long term arrangements suitable to the Government of Canada and Newfoundland of not less than twenty years duration Yith the United Scates," I think, Sir, that I will move later on that an amendment be made to this, "the United States of America or by providing for the operation of this strategic military facility by Canadian Armed Forces.n I will move an amendment to the resolution, Mr.

Speaker, as I go on but first t would like to bring in a few details and submit to this House some of the changes that have taken place over the years at Goose Air Base, Labrador. I have had a lot of experience with it. I have lived in that particular area and at one point in time was employed for a short period of time with the United States Air Force at Goose Bay, going hack to 1957.

Since that time and since 1939 when Goose Bay was first $tarted by the Canadian Forces or by the RCAF as a. steppingstone or a jumping-off place for the ferry command nt that time, to make the stretch when we were ferryini:r aircraft, Hudson bombers 1789

June 7, 1972 Tape 578 JM - 2 and aircrafts of that nature over to Europe~ This is the prime reason for having Goose Bay there. As the years developed and the Second World War continued the Canadian Air Force did develop and alonp.- with the Canadian Army ~t that particular time, Sir, was in Goose Bay on trainin~ manoeuvres for troops going overseas and they did at that time develop a RCAF as it was known at that time which is now Canadian Armed Forces, a detachment at Goose Bay,and then the American Air Force moved in across the way from where the RCAF was and they developed accordingly.

So from 1941 and progressing along to 1945 and ROing into the tine that I moved into Goose Bay in 1957 there were a number of people and the Royal Canadian Air Force played a very important role as indeed they do now, Sir, in the operation of Goose Bay. There were a number of civilian employees, if I quote figures maybe they will not be quite accurate, Mr.

Speaker, but un until 1967 when the Canadian Armed Forces phased down .n.t Goose Bav nnci then their presence was replaced by the Ministery of Transport with a small segment of Canadian Armed Forces people controllinp. the runways nnd the tower and the other aids to navigation~ some of the aids to navi~ation at Goose Air Base, up until that time the Canadian Forces had some three hundred odd civilians employed on the base.

It was consequent to this that they themselves developed the housing area which we refer to, along with the Ministery of Transport, at that time the Departnent of Transport, a housing area to house some. over two thousand citizens. Those citizens were not local people from Newfoundland, Sir. They were dependents of the Canadian Armed Forces families. So in 1967 when the RCAF decided to phase back these facilities were passed over to the Ministery of Transport in Goose Bay, who had then assumed the role of administering the Canadian portion of the thin~ along with the Canadian Forces Base. 1790

June 7. 1972 Tape 578 JM - 3 As I understand. Sir, ' the Canadian colonel whom we have had over the years and his presence has been felt in Goose Bay,is the sovereign landlord of both the American and Canadian Base at Goose Bay. So they phased in 1967 for a short period of time and this year, Sir, there has been some rreat activities taking place as far as the Canadian Forces are concerned, along with the NORAD sector which has its headquarters in North Ray, Ontario.

I understand, for the Canadian sector, that they have moved back in and they have taken over the communications at the Pine Tree Site, what we cal] Melville Air Station,in Goose Bay. This, as I understanrl now,is fully Manned by the Canadian Armed Forces and since then they have hired up to sixty, seventy civilian personnel to work at thnt site. Along with the other things that have taken place, Sir, they hRve moved into the American sector of the base some 130 families. These 130 families are now livinr, in housinr that has been provided by our p,ood friends, the American Air Force, to our Canadian Forces.

So~ Hr.Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that I do not think t-1€ can merely look at the surface of this thinp:,look at it on a surface level. I think what we have to do is we have to access what hns been taking place and I suppose rlespite what we sav is happening the American Forces have been phasing down since 1967. I have rre.at knowledte of this because in my work I dealt with the Amertcan Air Force. I have worked with them and I am more than privileged to have worked with them. But there has been a pradua1 phase back in the total operations of Goose Bay since 1967. It has been well noticed.

It has been well pronounced throughout the communities of Goose Bay, Happy Valley. So what are we askinr: them to do? The question is this, are we asking them to remain on when there is no need or they feel there is no need? Maybe there is a need. So 1791

June 7, 1972 Tape 578 JM - 4 the question I am asking is this that now that they are phasing back we have a facility in Goose Bay possibly that is worth, and maybe the Consulate General here will correct me on this, but I venture to say it is worth t.1ell ug in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Sir - I understand during the early construction days in Goose Bay one particular contra£',tor alone 1792

June 7, 1972. Tape 579 Page l. did spend $107 million in contract work in Goose Bay or did get this much for the contract that was let by the United States Air Force. S0 1 we have a very valuable asset Sir, The aspect of the whole thing, as the honourable member for Labrador has said, if we are not going to maintain the present status that exist today, we question the fact if it is worth it ,, as a civilian community or the civilian population, is it worth it to have a caretaker staff at Goose ,A.ir Base.

I am sure that if we phase down to a caretake;, staff that a number of people will be forced to leave the community and will have to come outside. So, in this respect Sir, may I speak briefly on the town of Happy Valley and the origin of it. Happy Valley is the town that sprang up on the perimeter of Goose Air Base. I mentioned this in my maiden speech here in my Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.Sir. It sprang up on the perimeter of the A-tr Base about seven miles a-way. A number of people,at that particular time people were discouraged to go and live in the community of Happy Valley.

But as people moved in from the Island of Newfoundland and secured good jobs, saw a means of providing for their familiest not wanting to be separated from their families, Sir, they decided to move into the - it was not then a community - it was not even then a local improvement district, it was a squatters or settlers settling on the banks of the Hamilton River with no control by any type of government. Our own government at this time, Sir, being a national g·overnment, decided that we shall not have a settlement of Happy Valley.

But fortunately the provincial government said, 11yes, we would like tot Although it is a military reserve, most of the land as you can see here in this lease, Sir, most of the land in the Goose Bay- Happy Valley area? other than what has been passed back to the municipalities,~s military reserve. So, the provincial government saw fit to go to the, I think at that time the Department of National Defence? and ask for a small parcel 1793

June 7, 1972. Tape 579. Page 2. of land so that a number of people could settle on the banks of the Hamilton River. People first moved in there in 1941. As a result of that a number of people moved, built homes.Now the community of Happy Valley has a total population, although the census of Canada says different, it has a population of some 7,000 people, Seven thousand people, Sir, not only with jobs but with investment in homes in that community of Happy Valley. So, it is of grave concern to those people, ninety per cent of those people, Sir, are depending directly on employment from the Goose Air Base.

This is a very important question,Mr. Speaker. The fact is that they are there, they have seen fit to invest money into their home~ very few people have money, people that have been moving into the area are young people. Pe,,ple that have been ne~"1Y married have seen fit to bring their families in, as I said before, and settle on the banks of the river. So now we have a community of 7,000 people with no other means of support other than Goose Air Base. Today we have discovered, or a couple of days ago, going back to Monday the 5th., the lease has been extended for one year which is good ne~-:s.

We welcome this news. But my own personal feeling Mr. Speaker, is that the lease has been extended for this period of time merely to have to supply the United States Air Force with sufficient time to make arrangements to move out of the area. Now, after the - after attending the press conference, listening to the press conference and listening to the questions of the honourable Minister of Transport, Don Jamieson, that it was expressed at that time the USAF would like to remain , they expressed the desire to remain in Goose Bay as a tenant of the Canadian Forces.

The Canadian Forces,Sir, have over the last year made their presence more than felt in Goose Bay. I suppose with the sovereignty rights over 1794

June 7. 1972. Tape 579 Page 3. the Arctic and utilizing the great facil:tties tlrnt we have at Goose Bay for reconnaissance aircraft, maybe it is an idenl situation for our own C:madian Forces to utilize this particular base. But, Mr. Speaker, can the Canadian Forces totallv use this great facility that we have? These are the questions that I am asking. Will they merely take over jurisdiction of the facility and protect that facility without any other utilization of it.

I think we have a similar situation, I would not like to see this situation to develop in the Goose Bay - Happy Valley area, that we have at Argentia today. Other members of the House are more familiar with it than I am. We have a facility that is merely maintained by a housekeeping staff. If the province,in conjunct:i.on with the Government of Canada,had jurisdiction over a facility of this nature, the question is; could they make greater utilization of it?

I think, Sir, with the Labrador Linerboard and the number of industries or the number of~ the Labrador Linerboard in conjunction with the Hydro Development on the Lower ChurchilL maybe if we did controJ some of those facilities we could offer those facilities to attract those great industries to the Goose Bay - Happy Valley area. The Minister of Transport stated in his address or after his address, in the question period after the release, that the H.O.T. (Ministry Of Transport) that is responsible for providing aids and navigation to the airport would probably play a greater role.

I have no doubt that there is a potential for this Sir~ when we think in terms of the number of Trans Atlantic Flights that have made requests to use Goose Air Base. I am sure most of the members of this House heard going back a couple of days ago that the promoters of this supersonic jet, the "Concord" were asking for quarter rights or Canadian air space to use from Goose Bay to Montreal. So, before I put the amendment in, I ask myself the question and ask 1795

June 7, 1972. Tape 579. Page 4. this House if, in the event that we do extend this lease', or the Canadian Government and I hope in conjunction with the Newfoundland Government 1796

June 7, 1972 Mr. Woodward Tape no.580 Page 1 - MRW in their wisdom see fit to extend a lease to the United States Air Force. I do not think the people of the area would like any more than have the present status maintained, If it is maintained maybe for a period of twenty years, I am sure that our people would be very happy with it. In the event that it is going to be on a reduced basis, Hr. Speaker, there may be some other alternate means we can find.

Sir, I would like to move the amendment to the resolution, seconded by the House Leader, the hon. member for White nay, and the amendment is: to strike the words beginning withflthe United States of America" and ending •canadian Armed Forces" and replace them with the following words: 11 to ensure that the level of employment offered to the residents of Happy Valley- Goose Bay area does not fall below its present level, whether the facilities are operated by the United States of American or by an agency of the Government of Canada or by a commercial agency.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador develop the necessary plans to provide the additional employment which is needed to ensure the economic stability of the Happy Valley - Goose Bay area. 11 Speaking a few words on the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I have had visions of speaking in this House. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) MR. SPEAKER: I would just like to read the amendment to the House.

"Strike the words beginning with nthe United States of America 'land ending "Canadian Armed Forces 11 and replace them with the following words: "to ensure that the level of employment offered to residents of Happy Vallev, Goose Bay area 1 does not fall below its present level, whether the facilities are operated by the United States of America or by an agency of the Government of Canada or by a commercial agency. UE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador develop the necessary plans 1797

June 7, 1972 Tape no. 580 to provide the additional employment which is needed to ensure the economic stability of the Happy Valley- Goose Bay area,ll Page 2 MR, WOODWARD: Mr.

Speaker, going through the Harmon Corporation Act and seeing the lovely brochure that was presented by the Liberal Administration,on promoting the development of Harmon Field, after the phase out of the American Forces, I have often wondered possibly if (it may be a little premature now but at some later date and after we see how the negotiations are progressing, which we have a deadline date for June 30, 1973) the Government of Newfoundland, the present government would see fit to think in terms of maybe developing a similar corporation for the Goose Bay, Happy Valley area.

We had a sad experience, Sir, ( I am sure that the hon. Minister of Provincial and Labrador Affairs is quite familiar with this one) with the phased~ of the faciliti~s of the Department of National Defense at the Canadian side of the base in Goose Bay. Some of those facilities, Sir, after they had been abandoned for a couple of years literally went to pot and had to be destroyed. I think that if some attention had been paid to them, through a Crown corporation,that they would have been very useful to the Labrador Linerboard Limited today. I am sure the honourable minister is familiar with this.

So, Sir, the period of time between the phase out of an air base and the time when you decide or government decide when they are going to do something about it, is the time when all the great harm is done. We have been given sufficient notice, Sir. I do not know and I do not suppose any one does know what the results of this are going to be. Will there be a total phase out? I am lead to believe, Sir, and I will speak from my own personal experience, that the United States Air Force~ watching them over the period of the last four or five years - will merely become a tenant of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I do not know to what degree the Canadian Armed Forces will maintain the air base at Goose Bay. I do not think, Sir, that they will maintain that great air base to the degree that it is maintained by the present United States Air Force. 1798

June 7, 1972 Mr. Woodward. Tape no.580 Page 3 1 have had the pleasure of sitting down with the Wing Commander - I might add Mr. Speaker that we have a very good relationship~ We are very happy and live happy together with our American friends in Goose Bay, both the Tmm of Happy Valley and the Town of Goose Bay. They have been more than good to us, Sir. If they do go, we are going to miss them,as I am sure they are good to visitors coming in from the Province of Newfoundland. Every one seems to want to go over to the Officers I Club for a steak or to the N.c.o.

Club for a steak or to the N.C.O Club to get a cheap drink or to~ play the slot machines or something of that nature. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. WOODWARD: They are not allowed in the BX. In this case 1 Sir~ I do not think the Canadian Forces will. That air base going back (I can be corrected if I am wrong) to 1968, having the Wing Commander attend a Chamber of Commerce Meeting, did give us some statistics on what was taking place and some of the expenditures on the base.

The total operating costs of that air base, Sir, for that particular year as I recall was somewhere in the vicinity of $47 million which is a great bip, industry, Sir. Will our Canadian Forces maintain this particular facility or will they merely take over the facility , keep it under the jurisdiction and restrict it to commercial use, if I may use that word, Sir? Those are the things that our government or our Provincial Government are going to have to deal with. We have brought the question up on numerous occasions.

We have had on numerous occasions, as I stated before, requests from commercial air lines wanting to use Goose Air Base. They have been permitted to use it as a paper alternate and nothing else. In the event that they are overhead and develop trouble or they run short of fuel, they come in~ We do get the odd onet Sir. We have a lovely air field. We have a lot of good navigational aids. We have one thing I suppose that no other airport in Eastern Canada has and that is an all-year round, weather free airport. I do not think, if my memory serves me right, 1799

June 7, 1972 Mr. Woodward. Tape no.580 Page 4 that over the period of the last twelve to fifteen years has Goose Air Base been closed for any one particular day, not for a full day 1 not for a twenty-four hour period 1800

June 7, 1972, Tape 581, Page 1 -- npb because of bad weather. He are verv fortunate in that respect, Sir, and because of this there is a hip demand and a lot of our commerical people who are travellinr: the Atlnntic would like. to use this airport. I would like to say, Sir, that there h0vc been a great many changes.If I may refer to a few things that I have noticed on the cut hack of roose Bay, When I first went into tlic nirnort, there was the Fifty-fourth Rescue Souadron, there were two Finhter Squadrons, there was a Helicopter Squadron, there were a numher of B-52's and B-47 1 s that freouented the base.

Pri,or to that we had. I do not know how many, but we had a p:reat nu!llber of KC-97"s, the tanker refuelinp: aircraft. Today~ Sir, we see very little activity in and out of that airport, very little activitv indeed. We did have uo to thirteen KC-135's and today we nre merely sceinr seven of those KC-135 1 s. I think it is inevitable, 1>1r. Speaker, that despite tlw fact that we may try to keep somethinr, alive, with the chnn12e,I suppose, the great change that has been hrought about as in industrv by mechanization, the same thing has happened to the military airport.

When we think in termsof the number of men thnt were ePployed on the Dew Line, on the Mid-Canada Line, we find that those men have heen replaced by sophisticated electronic equipment, and there are very few people employed today, Sir, in that respect. So, with this changing aspect I wonder if ve can possibly hope to aintain that base as a conventional base at the present status that exists today. ~fr.

Speaker, althouth our people in the Towns of Happy Valley and Goose Bay have been depending on U.S.A.F for a number of years, we feel, Sir, and feel deep down that we cannot forever depend on a military economy, We would like to think in terms of a Harmon Corporation in the event that there are facilities provided. We would like to see our government, or think that our government is goinr: to play an active

part in developinp_ the natural resources of this 1801

June 7, 1972, Tape 581, Page 2 -- apb particular area. I do not oppose the resoluti0n, Mr. Speaker, I support it, but I surport it with the amendment. Thank you. !_:f::."-WELLS:, .Hr. Speaker, I think we in this House are treatly indebted this afternoon to the nover of the resolution, the member for Labrador WestJand also to the member for Labrador North for his speech on it and his very able explanation, both of their very able explanations of the situation at Goose Bay. I want to join with them too 7 hefore rr.aking my remarks, !-fr. Speaker, in welcominr the Consul Ceneral of the United States to this House.

The whole question T suppose. and I will not p-o in, I do not propose to have the temerity, Mr. Speaker> to try to deal with the practical problems in my rerr.arks, of the citizens of Goose Bay and Happy Valley. If that facility were to go, I think it is obvious that it would impose a very great hardship and our collengues have outlined to us the nature of the impact on the economy. In fact, the economy of Hnppy Vnlley is really built around that base. It is ohvious and clear that if that base is to go, that there would be a very, very grave detriment.

We have suffered that :ln other part!'> of Newfoundland and dependent on the size of the particular commun:lty in which a base was, there was a relationship between the economic harm done ,if you like} and the size of the community. In other words, when Pepperrell went from St. John's it was a bad blow, but in a town of this size,a city of this size, it was able to be absorbed, filthou~h the human cost was quite p,reat. There are still people in this city who worked at Pepperrell who have not yet found permanent employment and I suppose it has been over ten years since Pepperrell was phased out.

The effects in Stephenville were even rrreater an<l the effects in Argentia were greater~ Of course it is a matter of considerable concern to everyone in this House,I am sure, the 1802

June 7, 1972. Tape 581, Page 3 -~ aph possibility of the going of the very ma_ior base., wl1a.t has been the very major base at r-0ose Bay. It is obvious I think, )·!r. Speaker, that the crnr:mitf.'1ents of the United States insofar as defence is concerned, the defence of their own country and its verious military operations, the emphasis has ronc from this Northern Hemisphere to Southeast Asia. It worded me obit to hear my colleapue from Labrador North speaking about it in the sense that I believe, and correct me if I am wronr:, but I believe the hon. member feels that it is going one way or another.

I had hope that it might not be as bad ns that. We all l·now that the United states maier commitment is in Southeast Asia, but l had the feclinp:, perhaps arising from lack of clt>tailed J:nowledr-;e, that perh0ps the United States would want to keep nt least one base in this pnrt of the world - at least one maior base.

I hope that the hon. memher is wrong and that I am right, but I bow to the hon. member's knowledge of things in the aren. 0f course there is one other thing I think, one point which ouRht to be made, that the influence which the Province of Newfoundland can have on the Government of the United States in decisions of this sort is limited. The influence which Canada can have on the decisions made by tte United States r.overnroent in matters like this, is much greater than our influence or possible influence.

But even so, the Dominion of Canada also has a limi.t on the influence which it can have on the United States of America in r.iatters involving its own iurisdiction an<l what it does militarily or otherwise. I think, as I understand the puts of the resolution, Hr. Speaker. it is that we register our concern and register it not only with the United States Government,through the appropriate channels, but register it also with our own government.

Because what ever influence we might have with the rcovernment of the United States, which as I say is limited, extremely limited, we ought to and I hope we do have a considerable influence with the Governr:i.ent of our o\-m country. 1803

June 7, 1972, Tape 581, Page 4 -- apb I think the :f.dea of the resolution is good. I think the idea of influencing the United Stated of America insofar as we can is excellent. I think if they were to retain that base, not on a caretaker basis, !)Ot with two or three people,or one hundred people manning the installation which really would mean nothin~ to the economy, but as a going viable military concern, I think if they can be persuaded to do it, or if their lon~ term plan can be revealed to us, that they intend to do that, I think that would be the best possible outcome,..

But assuminr: our colleague from Labrador North is right and assuming that it is ahout to be phased out, that it is only a matter of a year or two years or something of that order, and assuming all the representations that we may make cannot alter that, cannot change that, then I think we have a very serious dutv in this House and in this province to brinp- our thoughts and our views to bear on our own government, on the government of our own country to keep this installation open as a military installation. We have all, Mr. Speaker, as cttizens of this 1804

June 7, 1972 NB - I Province heard from time to time people with some knowledge of military matters, some knowledge of defense commitments and some knowledge of defense spending, make reference to the fact that Newfoundland receives almost nothing from the Canadian defense dollar. Now I know that strategic positions change from time to time. We know that historically our position outside the mouth of the St. Lawrence River has been extremely important. Perhaps now that we are in the age of missiles, our position is not so strategicly important. I do not know. But the point is, Mr.

Speaker, that Canada despite the reduction and the stream­ lining of the Armed Forces by the Government of Canada in recent years, Canada still will continue to maintain military forces. I think we can take that as a stated position. There will be Canadian Armed Forces in the foreseeable future. That means there will be a military budget. There will be moneys spent every year. There will be planes, ships and the rest of the military paraphernalia. I think it disturbs all of us. It certainly disturbs me, Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House.

I am sure for my colleagues who have spoken and others who have not yet spoken that Newfoundland does not get a proportionate or adequate share of the spending of that defense dollar. I think we should be heard on this. I think we should make sure, along with the representatives of Newfoundland in Ottawa, that this is borne in very clearly upon the Federal Government that Newfoundland expects and demands a share of the Canadian defense dollar. Location aside, I think we have a right as citizens and taxpayers to see that that is. The reason I have mentioned this thing in principle, Mr.

Speaker, is that if our colleague from Labrador North is correct, and if it turns out unhappily and unfortunately that the American Base is phased out or the American presence is phased out, then I think that is where the main thrust of our argument and our pressure, and I use the word pressure unashamedly, should be on to make sure that the defense dollar or that a considerable share of the defense dollar of Canada is spent by use of that base. 1805

June 6, 1972 Tape 582 NB - 2 Now whatever the emphases is placed, in keeping our military spending in Canada, we know this much,that the air plane, the modern jet plane is going to be part of it in the foreseeable future~ Therefore an air base and in particular an air base,as my colleague or our colleague says, from Labrador North 1 that this is a good air base~ it has adequate equipment, it has adequate run~ways and other ground control devices, I understand from what he says that make it a viable thing. In other words it is not nn obsolescent or obsolete air port. Am I correct? It is far from it.

So here we have a worthwhile piece of military installation, Mr. Speaker, and I think that the greatest pressure from this House and from Newfoundland and from the community up there and from all of us completely united should be upon, if it is necessary, to use this installation as part of the Canadian defense installation in the over-all. I think that is where the main thrust of our argument should be. Our argument,obviously, Mr. Speaker, can be heard more forcefully and can be put more forcefully and has a right to receive greater credence in Ottawa than it does in Washington.

That is not to say that I do not agree that we should be heard in Washington to the extent that we can. So, where does that leave us, Mr. Speaker? I think the position is this. I believe, no doubt, that our two colleagues in a sense are in agreement in principle. I believe that our colleague from Labrador North probably has less faith in the future of this installation as a military installation than perhaps our colleague from Labrador West.

But, I think that the first thrust, and this is why my feeling is that the motion, the original motion, I have heard our colleague$ motion from Labrador North read but I have not seen it in print yet and perhaps I might not have grasped the full implications of it 1 I believe it is clear that the first motion, the motion itself, the resolution I should say, is that the pressure>for want of a better word,be placed on the American Government and/or on our own Government. I believe that the amendment would say something to the same 1806

June 7, 1972 Tape 582 NB - 3 effect if I am correct but that also the Province of Newfoundland should enter into the thing and if necessary put something there like the Harmon Corporation. Now that, Mr. Speaker, I think in a sense is not there,perhaps by my learned colleagues from White Bay, but is not there a legal expression to do with the drafting of, pleadings; 1 ')o not leap until you come to the style." I seem to recall that. Well,I think, I do not want to upset our colleague from Bell Island, I believe there is such a maximum in the matter of pleadings.

I think that the member for Labrador North in a sense, and I certainly agree with him in principle, but he may be in a sense leaping before he comes to the style. In the sense that if the thrust of our argument to Washington, if the thrust of our argument to Ottawa should absolutely fail, if the Federal Government and if the American Government say no1we just have no concern with this, we are going; if the Federal Government says noJwe do not want this as a military installation, we are just not concerned with it, then of course what the hon. member for Labrador North says or indicates is absolutely true.

We will be thrown back on our own resources. Then the Province of Newfoundland will have to take steps. It must take steps more particularly because that town, that beautiful area of this Province; I must say I have a very soft spot for Labrador from the visits I have made there, that part of the Province is going to be dependent entirely then 1 if all else fails~on action by the Province of Newfoundland, to keep it alive and to keep it viable. I for one,as strongly as I can say anything, would say that it must be kept alive and viable. I would and do, Mr.

Speaker, agree in the first instance with the resolution as put by the member from Labrador West1 that our thrust should be in the first instance towards Washington and toward our own Government to influence Washington, so that this can be maintained either as an American military base of significance or a Canadian military base of considerable significance and reflecting a goodly share to this Province of the defense dollar of Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1807

June 7, 1972 Tape 582 NB - 4 MR. t-L ROWE: Mr. Speaker, the amendment, the time to strike surely and with all respect to my hon. friend, learned friend, the time to strike is at the time disaster looms or even before the time disast~r looms and not at the time that dis.aster descends upon us. Now in saying that I would like to commend my hon. friend, the member for Labrador West, for bringing this resolution into the House.

I would like to commend my friend from Labrador North for making the amendment to the resolution brought into the House* The resolution is excellent as far as it goes 1 in our estimation an excellent resolution and a resolution which should be debated and upon which certain and sure action should be taken. Our submission, Sir, is that the resolution does not go quite far enough. Our submission, Mr.

Speaker, is that we should not put all our eggs in one basket or even in two baskets, but we should try to spread our very fragile merchandize around as broadly as possible so that if a shock does come the damage is as 18118

June 7, 1972 Tape 583 JM - l little as possible and the shock can be absorbed as well as possible. The options that are open to the Government of Newfoundland and tte r-.overnrnent of Canada are, I suppose, three-fold. One is to restrict our energies and our actions towards negotiating with the r,0vernment of the Itnited States to maintain that military presence there and to continue the employnent and the input of money into the economy of the area.

The other would be to negotiate with the Government of Canada for a Canadian military presence in the area either in coniunction with the American Forces or by ourselves. The thircl, Sir. would he a combination of the two I have already mentioned plus a third 1and that would be to start planning now for somethinr which may or may not occur. We do not, nobody on this side of the House least of all my honourable friend from Labrador North, nobody on this side of the House or on that side of the House hopes in any way that the Americans ever pull out of the Goose Bay Area.

They have been a source of employment, a source of a lot of things in the area and nobody wants that to happen. However, and I would not put so much stress on the honourable member's words as the honourable for St.

John 1 s South did, I do not think that he is certain in his mm mind, certain that the Americans are gain$! to pull out of that area but I think that as a realist:Jc man and as a member for that district, looking ahead to the future he has to be as pessimistic about it as he has shown today be.cause otherwise, Sir, it is whistling in the wind, it is whistling going passed the graveyard hoping ap.ainst hope that the possible is impossible in fact or that the probable is impossible and that the probable or the possible certainly will not happen. I think he is taking a realistic approach to it.

I think it is an approach which might be tinged with some pessimism but, Sir, a pessimistic approach at this stnge in the proceedinps of the province :1809

June 7, 1972 Tape 583 JM - 2 might be well-founded and well-based because the Government of Newfoundland in conjunction with the Government of Canada should be prepared well beforehand for an eventuality happening,namely the Americans pulling oyt of the Goose Bay Area,which we all hope will not 1n fact happen. We should be prepared for that, Sir. We should continue to negotiate with the Americans and the Government of Canada to keep them there as long as possible.

We should also. if we get some indication fror:i then that they are goinf! to phase out slowly or quickly, we should make sure that what happens is a Stephenville situation rather than an Argentia situation although there are special reasons in Argentia for that peculiar situation. I say that, Sir. because in Stephenville, as my honourable friend for Port au Port will state and confirm, in Stephenville we have one of the great success stories of Newfoundland where because o-f the facilities being ~ode available to the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada.

I believe we were able to attract a great deal of industry there, commercial enterprises and industrial enterprises, to more than take up the slack left by the abandonment of that are.a by the American Forces.

In Argentia we have a situation where for peculiar reasons, reasons peculiar to that area, we have not been able to do that,largely because, I believe I am bein~ correct when I sav that it is impossible for the Americans or for the government or for anybody else to give any commerical entrepreneur or industrialist a long•·terrn lease or a fee simple on the premises in the particular area,and it is gcing to be very difficult I think to attract an investment into such a situation.

So what we should do in hoping against hope is we should try to make certain that all eventualities are. covered and that is why1 that is the only reason why the honourable member for Labrador North extends the excellent, the good resolution of the honourable member 1810

June 7, 1972· To.ne 581 ,TM - 3 for Labrador West. His resolution cakes into account as many eventualities as may occur. Certainly we should continue on a broad front. We should continue to press the Government of Canada to ner:ot:i.nte hard with the Government of the United States.

We should continue to press our own i;overnrnent to ne,2:otiate with the Government in Canad;i to !)Ut their own military presence there and we should in this House continue to press our own government and the Government of Cnnada under OREE and other departments to come up with contingency plans to take care of a dinster situation if and when such a situation should occur. Sir. I submit further,before T sit down 1 that if the American Government and I helieve our friend, Mr.

Straus will bear this out. if the American Government decide in their own hc;;t interenr that they are no longer going to continue their operations in Goose Bav because there is a need, a ?reater priority. a greater need in other areas of the world well then, Sir, I would submit that without beine: unfair to them or unfriendly to them I would submit that our feehle pleas or even the plens of the Government of Canada will have very little effect on their ultimate decision.

Certainly they will have compassion and sympathy but, Sir, when it comes to a matter of dollars and cents 1when you have a con~ress in a cut-back mood, when vou have a president who does not wish to continue inflationary spirals and this sort of thing, when the economy of the United States is involved, when the military of the United States is involved 1 our efforts tn continue the American operations there on a socinl basis or an economic basis, which is in our own best interest, will ! think fall on if not deaf ears well then ears which do not hear those pleas too loudly.

Those are the reasons, Sir, and those are the only reasons why my honourable friend beside me and why I second his amendment. We want to continue on a broad front. We should continue along the lines submitted in the resolution, as sug~ested in the resolution,but we should also make 1811

June 7, 1972 Tape 583 contingency plans and we should also make plans which mny come into effect in the event that the A~ericans do not phase out of the base in Goose Bay and Happy Valley. A whole arc.a of planning should take place for that reg;on of our province and it should contain as rr~ny feasible economic, commercial activities as are humanly possible. This ~overnment.

Sir, has gone on record both in election canp,'ligns and subsequently for lon~-term planning, looking ahead, not being caught with their pants down~ not being cauiht in a situation where we have to solve a diaster and, of course, solving a diaster alwn.ys takes more money, there is always a sense of panic and there is always a sense that we have to bail out. What we should he doing is some long--terrn planning- in the area of Labrador North and other arens of course to take care of the eventuality which ~~y occur and to take care of a norm.~1 rrowth rate in population and labour force.

JM - 4 This is the only reason why my honourable friend has moved his amendment. We should make some long-tern planning. We should look ahead. He should anticipate diaster without necessarily desiring diaster 1obviously, but we should anticipate it and we should have several continr,ency plans ready, we should have several options at our disposal that can go into action well before the total impact of any economic diaster is felt. That is why, Sir, I support wholeheartedly the amendment as I do the resolution because the resolution I believe is now contained ns one of the items of the amendment.

We should continue with our negotiations with both levels of Government and with the Government of the United Stntes but we should also make our own plans. I support the anendment wholeheartedly. Sir. HR. P.ARSHALL: Hr. Speaker, first of all I would like to comolirnent the member for Labrador West for bringing forth a resolution of this nature 1 before this House,because this is a resolution directed to a 1812

June 7. 1972' Tape 583 specific action to ask the House to take a specific course of action as a part of the overall plan of the present government of this province. Now much has been said, the honourable member for Labrador North in his amendment1 which I am not in favour of 1813 JM - 5

June 7, 1972. Tape 584 Page 1. with respect to this particular resolution because of the-fact that in effect it deletes reference to the urgency and it is an urgency nf the Federal Government, the Government of Canada in negotiating with the United States of America and determining as a part of the long term plans, the overall plans of this entire area of determining the future of the military installation at Happy Valley. Planning we are doing. But Mr.

Speaker, with respect of this particular great imput into the economy of Happy Valley our hands are completely tied, Negotiations with respect to the continuation of this facility are entirely within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. We note from the statement made by the honourable Mr. Jamieson the ether day,on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, the Government of Canada, that the lease which was due to expire this December had now been extended until June during which time further negotiations will take place.

It was,I might say, a matter of some concern, a grave concern to this Government, I know as well for the honourable member for Labrador North. When 1972 rolled along, we found that the resolution of the continued presence of the United States, Happy Valley- Goose Bay Area had not been resolved. At that particular time, negotiations were hein~ carried on it is true. We made representations and we will continue to make representations to determine what is going to be the future of that base and to get that question resolved as quickly as possible. Because Mr.

Speaker, we cannot make long-term plans until we know the outcome. The amendment given by the honourable member for Labrador North, as good as it is 1 does not do the job which I suggest the honourable member for Labrador West intended. Because it deletes any reference to the military ba6e and it makes a statement that we take steps to insure that the level of employment offered to the residents of Happy Valley - Goose Bay Area does not fall below its present level. It is obviously what we are going to strive to do. I might 1814

June 7, 1972. Tape 584 Page 2. say we have striven to do it in the past few months, I would think with much more of a determination than the previous administration had done so. Then "be it further resolved that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador develop the necessary plans to provide additional employment which is necessary to insure the economic stability of the Happy Vallev - Goose Bay A:rea.1' That is of course admirable. That of course is necessary. That of course is what is being done by this present Govern- ment and it will continue to be done.

But one of the items that has to be setti!.ed, I think the honourable member for Labrador North will agree, that one of the items that has to be settled first is the fate of this major installation in the Happy Valley - Goose Bay Area. It is not enough Mr. Speaker, just to make general words, just to change the resolution to make it general. We want this ~pecifically directed to the authority concerned.

We want this specifically directed to the Government of Canada to indicate to the Government of Canada that not just the people in L¥brador North but that all Newfoundlanders are concerned, that only a year, a little bit more than thirteen months now remains~with the extension,within which to negotiate with the United States Government and determine what is going to happen. And after you determine what is going to happen,if there are any changes, how the economy of the area is going to adjust to these changes and so forth.

It is rather humourous in a way to hear the honourable member for White Bay South /'hurnourous 11 is not the word, really, bue'puzzling"I think would be a better description* to hear the honourable member for White Bay South say that 11 the time to strike is when disaster looms~ 1 Mr.Speaker, disaster loomed for this military facility some three years ago. It just has not been known in the past few months that this lease was going to expire. We have known this for quite a period of time. Questions were posed in ~his House of Assembly before, with respect to, last year 1815

June 7, 1972. Tape 584. Page 3. and the year before,with respect to the fate of the Goose Bay facility, what steps the Government were taking, the then government were taking with respect of same. We were told in general terms that measures were being taken, that it was being looked into, but they were obviously ineffective when we got to the stage of January of this year with the awesome prospect of this lease expiring at the end of December and all of the residents of the Goose Bay - Happy Valley Area not knowing the fate of this major employer. Not indeed, Mr.

Speaker, we can agree with the honourable member for White Bay South that we do not want all our eggs in one basket or even in two ar three. This Government,in conformity with its intention to draw up overall planst long range plans, not only for Labrador but for all over the Province, over four year basis,is going to strive to do it. I compliment the member for Labrador West because this is one of the first and most decisive moves that must be taken in the area of Labrador South, with respect to the long range planning. We have a right to know what the Government of Canada is doing on our behalf.

We have a right to know and the residents of the area have a right to know what the future of the Base is and this resolution will indicate to the people in the Federal Government or representatives in the Federal Government that this Province when it went into Confederatiofl in 1949 and 1816

June 7. 1972 Tape 585 PK - l MR. HARSHALL: gave over certain ri~hts to the federal government, and allocated certain rights to the federal governnent did not then embrace another kind of colonialism hut requires the federal governemnt to act and act directly and energetically on our behalf and this government and I am sure the honourable member for Labrador West and all members in this House will want nothing else.

For this reason, for reason of bringing to the attention this serious problem in Happy Valley,. by reason of the necessity of determininf! the outcome of this base. what the future of this base is and for the very reason,in makin~ the plans which the member for Labrador North so admirably desires and wishes,fot these reasons we have to vote I would say, µr, Speaker. for the specific resolution so admirably drafted by and presented by the member for Labrador WeAt. Thank you. t~'-!f:ARY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolutior so ably put by my honourable colleague from Labrador North. Rut, !-!r. Speaker.

I do T think agree with the original resolution in principle. T really helieve, Hr. Speaker, that when the honourable meMher for Labrador West said that he wrts not trying to play politics with the situation in Goose Bay, I believe that the honourable member was genuinely sincere, Sir. Maybe a little bit naive,hut 1 think he was sincere. In the debate this afternoon~which I followed very. very carefully, Twas rather pleased that politics did not enter into the debate until we heard from the honourable member for St. John's East. The honourable member could not resist, Mr.

Speaker, the temptation to make a partisan political speech on this serious situation thnt we have today in Goose Bay. Hr. Speaker. how can the honourable member who just spoke in this House, how can he justify voting against this amendment, when we have heard the new government talk so much about long-range planning? So the honourable the Premier the other day set up a committee, a planninr, committe of members of the inner cabinet,to recommend a long 1817

June 7, 1972 Tape 585 f'K - 2 MR. NEARY: range plan to the government, through the decade ahead,. I think he stated in his remarks • .So, Mr. Speaker. how can the member who just took his seat vote against this resolution, when all the honourable member for Labrador North is trying to accomplish is to get a fact-finding authority or a task force of some kind establishment, maybe along the same lines as the task force in the Argentia Area, to try to establish a lung­ range plan for the Goose Bay Area, Mr.

Speaker, as I say, I think the honourable member for Labrador West was sincere when he said that the did not want_ to bring politics into this. But it strikes me, Mr. Speaker, as being rather strange that the honourable member did not have the courtesy to approach the member for Labrador North, who was more familiar with the situation in Goose Bay than any other member of this House. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member did not approach the cabinet on this matter. AN HON. HEMBER: He did. 1818

June 7, 1972 Mr. Neary. Tape no. 58!.J Page 1 - MRW We hear the hon. member for St. John's South standing in his place in this honourable House and telling us that we are not getting our share of the defence dollar, which is probably true. If the honourable member had approached the cabinet, then I am sure that the hon. member for St.

John's South would have stood in his place in this honourable House and take a more positive approach and he would have outlined a plan whereby the government would approach Ottawa and persuade Ottawa that for strategic reasons, for defense purposes, that they should take over this installation at Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is that neither the Government of the United States nor the Government of Canada are patriotic enough just to go into Goose Bay to create employment. They have to be there for a specific reason. My honourable friend knows what that reason is.

I would have appreciated his remarks a little more, Mr. Speaker, if he had stated specifically what it is we were going to ask Ottawa to do, not just go up and say, (any province could probably make the same claim Mr. Speaker) nwhy are you not spending more of your defence dollar in Nova Scotia? Why are you not spending more of your defence dollar in Newfoundland?

Why are you not spending more of your defence dollar in British Columbia?" They would probably give the honourable member a good reason why they are not spending more of the defence dollar in any of these provinces or any of the ten provinces for that matter. We have to sell Ottawa on the idea of spending more of the defence dollar in the Goose Bay area. I do not know what the honourable member had in mind. Perhaps he could enlighten his colleagues. Then they could go off to Ottawa and make a good case. I hope they can. I have grave doubts,Mr. Speaker, whether they can or cannot.

I would say that the honourable member probably made these remarks with tongue in cheek. I will tell you another thing which surprises IT.e greatly ,Hr. Speaker. and I really have 1819

June 7, 1972 Mr. Neary Tape no. 586 Page 2 to bring this up and I had no intention of bringing partisan politics into this situation at Goose Bay - We went through this situation on Bell Is