VOL. 3 THIRD SESSION OF THE THIRTY-NINTH GF.NEFAL li.SSE~'3LY OF NF.WFOUNDLA._r ·m PP..F.LIMIN.II .P.Y UNEDITED TPJl._NSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THF PERIOD: 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 D.rn. FRIDAY, r1! .Y 18, 19 84 NO. 41

X Hay 18, 1984 The House met at 10:00 a.m. Hr. Speaker in the Chair . MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : ":'ape uo. 1776 Order,please! HR. MARSHALL: STATEMENTS BY lUNISTERS Mr. Speaker. !1J - 1 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: 1-lr. Speaker, I have what the government considers to be an important and serious statement concerning the present status of the Upper Churchill negotiations with the Province of Quebec.

Determination of the Up~er Churchill question by negotation·always has been and remains the preferred means of resolution of that issue by this government, and let there be no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker. Since the mid-1970s Newfoundland has attempted to accomplish a negotiated settlement. All these attempts failed because, tllhile Quebec was \~Tilling to discuss other hydrodevelopments in Labrador,it resolutely refused to address itself to the Upper Churchill contract and the inequities flo\.ring from it.

Nevertheless Ne\'lfoundland continued to indicate its desire to sit down with representatives of Quebec and to seek an amiable resolution. Faced with the a~parent firm position of Quebec's refusal to address the Upper Churchill contract, this Province was left with no alternative but to explore other means of mitigating the effect of that contract upon Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Th~ recall and reversion cases represented our main attempts to achieve this.

Regardless of our being forced to the court route, \-Te never abandoned our attempt to get Quebec to discuss a revision of the Upper Churchill contract. consequently we were very pleased last Summer to note in orivate communications ~ur.int:t various intergovernmental meetings that 0uebec 446ti

May 18, 1984 Tape 1777 PK - 1 MR. MARSHALL: appeared more amendable to discussing the issues 1 including Upper Churchill. We tended to attribute this to the uncertainities which 9uebec may have then felt regarding the outcomes of the revision case and our opposition before the National Energy Board to their power export. Whatever the reasons, Mr. Speaker, for Quebec's apparant changed attitude,we were encouraged and decided to explore this new atmosphere in order to determine the extent of that change and to assess whether in fact the basis for realistic negotiations might exist.

It was for these purposes that Cabinet authorized me to seek a meeting with t~e hon. Yves Duhaime, Quebec's Minister of Energy. That meeting was held in Montreal on August 16, 1983. The first objective of that meeting,Mr. Speaker, was to determine if Quebec was really prepared to discuss the Upper Churchill contract where it had not been prepared to do so in the past. It was made clear to Mr.

Duhaime that we were interested in mil rate increases to provide a fairer return to Newfoundland from rentals and royalties, to ensure a fair return to shareholders of CFLCo, and to ensure the long-term fiscal stability of that corporation. We also expressed interest in dicussing access to power from the Churchill River, reduction of the sixty-five year term and other items pertaining to the Upper Churchill. We secured agreement that Churchill Falls contract elements would be dealt with first and received assurances that Quebec intended to deal with them in a meaningful manner.

It was understood we ~ould not be placed in the position of finding ourselves addressing token changes. Regret£ully,as can be seen later in this statement 1 after seven months we found ourselves in fact receiving a Quebec proposal 446/

l-tay 18 , 1984 Tape 1777 PK - 2 MR. HARSHALL: which any fair and objective apprasial could only describe as amounting to no more than a token gesture. At the same time that we were receiving these assurances from Quebec, Mr. Speaker, we realized if there was to be a way out of this impasse Quebec woulq need assurances from us that there would be an appreciation of the contribution Quel:;lec has always maintained i.t has made to the project. Therefore it ~s agreed that negotiations would proceed with the aim of striking an agreement that would represent a recognition of the significant contribution and risk which were brought to bear on the Churchill Falls u46d

May 18, 1984, Tape 1778, Page 1 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: development by Quebec, and,just as importantly, the necessity of a fair return to Newfoundland as owner of the resource. Therefore, any final arrangements would acknowledge the recognition by the parties, both that a legitimate contract existed and that experience during the first decade of that contract dictated a rearrangement of the terms to achieve an equitable distribution of fairness and equity to both contributing parties. From that statement of intent, Mr.

Speaker, I think anyone would conclude that both parties had really come a long _way and that indeed we were justified in concluding that an atmosphere had developed which would nurture and foster the chance of positive resolution of this issue. Similarly, from the concessions that we made, -which I made candidly, frankly and openly with Mr. Duhaime as to the basis in which we would go on, they were entitled to have assumed that Newfoundland would do exactly the same.

So these were the factors which caused us, on September 7, 1983, to state publicly, and I quote the words that were used in the statement by me: "A basis may indeed exist for conducting talks, and we have therefore decided to follow this route." Privately, Mr. Speaker, we were very pleased and encouraged. This was the first time Quebec had agreed to address the Upper Churchill contract and we were sure they would do so in a meaningful way ~ and those were the words that were used throughout this meeting, 'A meaningful addressing of the issues'.

Before then Quebec was not inclined to deal with the agreement directly, that is the Upper Churchill Agreement, but as part of a 4469

May 18, 1983, Tape 1778, Page 2 -- apb MR . MAR SHALL : package deal. Operating in that way, at one time when we discussed the development of other rivers with them and came to the Upper Churchill, they refused to talk about it. This was in the days when the hon. the Premier was Minister of Mines and Energy and had discussions in Quebec. Now, however, they agreed to discuss the Upper Churchill first, on its own merits.

As a result, we would not be forced into the positio .n of having to entertain trade­ offs of benefits from future developments of our resources as a conditioq Of obtaining a measure of justice and equity from our Upper Churchill resource. After the Upper Churchill issue was resolved, we indicated we would entertain general discussion relating to Gull Island and the joint rivers. However, the aim here would be to arrive at a declaration of co-operation on these future projects. We felt there was no point in dealing 4470

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1779 SD - 1 MR. MARSHALL: with these areas in more than a general manner lest we find ourselves once again in the position of having to .trade off future benefit which a packaged deal would entail. We must maintain the position in this Province, Mr. Speaker, that development of these other resources can never take place on the basis of Quebec being the sole broker of power as has occurred in the Upper Churchill instance. Mr. Duhaime appeared to fully appreciate the position and indicated negotiations could in fact proceed upon that basis.

We were greatly encouraged by this and thought for the first time there might be a means to resolve this issue through our preferred route of amiable, negotiated agreement with Quebec. Considering the previous history of our attempts 1 some of which I have just recounted ,it appeared that our encouagement was justified. Let us now look, Mr, Speaker, at what has transpired to date in these negotiations. This will show how far apart the parties remain after S€ven months. It should also show how far is Quebec from its agreement to address the Upper Churchill contract in a meaningful manner.

Before doing this, however;, it might be advisable to review briefly the Churchill Falls agr;eement so that we might see more clearly the problem with wbich this· Province is confronted. Let us · take a look at the agreement and put it in context, Mr. Speaker. This problem commenced in 1961 when the Newfoundland government leased for ninety.,.nine years · to Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation 1 then owned by BRINCO 1 the right to transmit and export all power generated from the Upper Churchill.

The price payable to the Province was stated to be a fixed yearly rental of 8 per cent of net profits ·· of CFLCo before taxes 1 and a fixed 4471

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1779 SD - 2 MR. MARSHALL: royalty of fifty cents per horse- power year generated and sent out of Churchill Falls. There were no re-opener clauses. It is 4472

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1780 NM - 1 MR. MARSHALL: important to note that the royalty amounts to $3 million annually, Mr. Speaker, and the rental varies between $2 million and $3 million annually,for a total return to Newfoundland of between $5 million and $6 million annually. And I would ask for those figures to be borne in mind, that Newfoundland's total return from the Upper Churchill today is between $5 million and $6 million annually. On May 12, 1969, again referring to the agreement, there was the second agreement.

CFLCo entered into a power contract with Hydro-Quebec for the term of sixty-five years commencing on September 1, 1976. That contract gives Hydro--Quebec the right to take virtually all of the output of the Churchill Falls ~lant which haQ a rated capacity of 5,225 megawatts. They were to take all that 5,225 megawatts with the exception of 225 megawatts that replaced the output of the plant at Twin Falls, and a further 300 megawatts that CFLCo could recaputure aS needed, so really all that we had was an additional 300 megawatts of power recaptured from that 5,225.

It is interesting to note that the price payable by Hydro-Quebec commenced at 3 mils per kilowatt hour in 1976 and declined instead of increased over the term to 2 mils per kilowatt hours in the last twenty-five years of that term. So,in other words, the situation is going to get worse, the $5 million to $6 million is going to decrease in our situation if the present situation continues. Let us look at the benefits to Quebec and Newfoundland as a result of these contracts, Mr. Speaker. The net result is that partly as a result of changed conditions Hydro=Quebec derives 4473

May 1 8, 1984 Tape 1780 NM ..., 2 MR. MARSHALL: an enormous,accelerating benefit as a res.ult of its energy purchases of power generated in this Province. On the other hand. 1the Province's return under the lease remains virtually fixed at between $5 million and $6 million, depending upon profits of a corporation whose returns are fixed and declining as a result of being tied to the power contract. So our annual benefit is $5 million to $6 million, but the benefit to Quebec was independently measured by the Economic Council of Canada as being in the order of $548 million annually in 1979. Mak.ing reasonable adjustments for 4474

May 18,1984 Tape No. 1781 ah-1 MR.MARSHALL: inflation,we would see this figure at approximately $790 million for 1983 and rising. This contrasts between $5 million and $6 million for Newfoundland and declining. So that is the situtation with which we are faced in this Province today. Now , Mr.Speaker, let us look at Quebec's offer. What did Quebec offer us with respect to the revenue and the access to power and the ~ and CFLCo's stability and other matters?

After seven months of frustrating attempts to get Quebec negotiators to put something on the table,on March 23,1983 we finally received a written proposal from Hydro-Quebec. 'Ibis offered to index the fixed royalty to inflation before 1976,to maintain the real royalty value of fifty c;ents per ho:tt .sepower year. There was to be no change in the rentals payable under the statutory lease. The net impact of this offer would increase Newfoundland's revenue from the CFLCo lease by less than $2.5 million in 1984.

In other words,we were invited to content ourselves w·ith a mere total of $8 million while Hydro Quebec's benefit was escalating in the vicinity of $800 million. This obviously ignored the element of windfall profits which had accrued because of world conditions and which Quebec obviously wished to keep for itself. It is difficult to rationalize, Mr.Speaker, this offer with the assurance received from Mr. Duhaime in August of 1983 that Quebec intended to address a meaningful change in the contract. It is difficult to even style this offer as a token gesture. Now let us look at access to power.

On the matter of access to power,Quebec concluded experience had shown 4475

May 18,1 984 Tape No . 1781 ah -2 MR . MAR SHALL : the power and energy capabilities of the plant to be greater than that shown in the power contract. In othe _r words, they concluded with experience that there was more there than the 5,225 megawatts and because of this, only because of the increase, it was prepared to consider granting us additional access to power. This amounted to a mere 500 megawatts at a 68 per cent load factor,or 380 megawatts at a 90 per cent load factor leveL Access to the full block of power requested had to be used in Newfoundland and could 4478

May 18, 1984 Tape 1782 EC - 1 MR. MARSHALL: not be resold to Quebec or other provinces. In view of the fact that Quebec knew when we launched the recall case in 1976 that we were then seeking 800 megawatts of power additional to the 300 reserved under the contract 1and in view of the fact that Quebec must have known this offer would not enable us to realistically plan an interconnect with the Island of Newfoundland, it is difficult to see how this could be termed meaningful. Now, we look at the term. No proposal, Mr. Speaker, was received with respect to the term. Initially the contract's term was forty years.

In 1969, at Quebec's insistence, the term was extended for a further twenty-five years before the final contract was signed. Since the additional twenty-five years was not part of the original deal ,and because we felt inade­ quate consideration was given for the extension, we sought a reduction in the sixty-five year term. We understood that Quebec was prepared to address this and we were given this indication by Mr. Duhaime at the meeting, yet in the negotiations it turned a blind eye to this concern. There was no prposal with respect to terms.

Let us look at it now from the generalities propose~ on CFLCo's stability. We were in this particular case perhaps not so far apart, but,as you will see later on in the statement, this is not as significant as it might otherwise be. The effect of the present arrange­ ments will result in greater financial strain being placed on CFLCo as the term of the contract proceeds. There is not even enough money reserved under the power contract, Mr. Speaker, to maintain the solvency of CFLCo itself. 4477

Hay 18, 1984 Tape 17 82 EC - 2 MR . MAR SHALL : The contract did not even provide enough moneys to the corporation to maintain the long- tenn fiscal .stability of the company and to pr_ovide a reasonable return to shareholders. Of course, Quebec has a much more direct interest in this problem. In addressing the financial integrity of CFLCo, Quebec proposed in general terms that revenues be adjusted at five to ten year intervals to maintain the company's financial stability, cover extraordinary capital exPen­ diture and maintain dividend levels. Now, this is the coup de gr~ce, Mr.

Speaker, the final one, the invitation to the second Upper Churchill. It was in its proposal for future development of Labrador hydroelectric resources that a real insight was Obtained into Quebecis determination to continue to require future development of hydro resources on the same basis as applied to the Upper Churchill development. 4478

!>1ay 18, 19 84 Tape No. 17 83 MJ - 1 MR. ~.ARSHA_LL: As indicated 1the basis of our objection to a package deal was we did not wish future benefits to have to be traded off against readjustment of the Upper Churchill deal. ~s is why we wished the 1969 contract to be dealt with firstly. However,we were certainly not so dogmatic as to state '"e ,.,ere disinterested in Quebec's ideas for development of Gull Island and Muskrat Falls and the five rivers. Indeed we were interested in receiving its views as to how it thought these developments might proceed. Hydro-Quebec, ~1r.

Sneaker, pronn~en that Newfoundland grant to Quebec, ~nd I quote from the offer, "an option (right of first refusal) to purchase the energy in excess of the needs of Newfoundland produced by power plants constructed by Newfoundland on the Churchill water-shed." This is not significantly different than the existing arrangements on the Upper r.hurchill. Quebec apparently wishes the right to be the broker of pmY'er exported from Labrador. We are to be continued to be denied the right to transmit and freely sell power generated from the Lower Churchill without first offering it to Quebec.

A similar proposal was · advanced with respect to the joint rivers 1 sweetened somewhat,of course 1 in Quebec's favour to give to Quebec the right to elect to use the headwaters for a period of fifty years. Now to summarize the position, Mr. Speaker, or Quebec~ After seven rnont~s of somewhat frustrating negotiations,on March 2< last we finally received a written proposal from Quebec.

This would see Newfoundland receive less than $2.5 million extra in 1984, an indefinite and insufficient access to power of between 500 to 380 additional megawatts which would not perroit us to even plan an interconnect, no proposal on term and a suggestion that the Lower Churchill and joint rivers be developed 4479

Hay 18 , 1 9 84 Tape No . 1783 f'!J - 2 MR . MARSHALL: upon essentially the same basis as the Upper Churchill. Quebec, Mr. Speaker, may feel this to be a meaningful response to the issues;however 1 it is very difficult for us to see how anyone could maintain this to be the meaningful response to those issues which was contemplated in my meeting with Mr. Duhaime on Au.gust 16, 1983. It was then apparent to us, Mr. Speaker, that the gap between what Quebec would be prepared to offer and what we considered to be reasonable and legitimate was so great 448 0

May 18, 1984, Tape 1784, Page 1 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: that it would be difficult to bridge unless some new factor was injected to encourage Quebec to deal with the matter more reasonably . . We had hoped this might have been a positive decision on the Water Rights Reversion Act. That was why we indicated we were calling for the Supreme Court decision at the time . To have agreed to a third postponement would have given the erroneous impression that talks were going better than they obviously were.

We had already agreed to two postponements of that decision which we had hoped would afford a major step toward achieving justice and equity from these resources. These postponements, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the ultimate outcome, effectively show our determination to do everything possible to achieve a negotiated settlement. On the other hand, it is noted that Quebec at the same time resolutely refused to defer its application to the National Energy Board for export of power to New York. Now, Mr. Speaker, in order to understand the gap to which I refer,it is necessary to know Newfoundland's position.

The government has decided in a forthcoming 1candid way to tell the people of Newfoundland what it feels its position should be in relation to this contract in order that there can be an appreciation and an assessment as to the reasonableness of our position and, also, so that people can see how great the gulf or the gap is between what we perceive to be a reasonable position for settlement and what we were ultimately offered. At the outset we must reiterate that this government feels strongly that Quebec should never have been permitted, Mr.

Speaker, to exact more than wheeling costs as the price of transmitting power through its territory. This Province should have ...... ___. 4481

May 18, 1984, Tape 1784, Page 2 -- apb t-1R . MARSHALL : enjoyed the same rights as other provinces to market their resources through other parts of Canad .a and over provincial borders. We felt equally strongly, and we feel now, that a power contract such as the one executed on May 12, 1969, should never have been allowed to have been based on the premise that Quebec was the sole broker bf our power. Neither should the federal government 44B2

May 18, 1984 Tape 1785 PK - l MR. MARSHALL: of that day, 1969, have pennitted this to occur, Mr. Speaker, nor 1clearly 1should the provincial government then in power in this Province have accepted such a state of affairs. Nevertheless,considering and weighing all of these things 1 and it has been subject to debate back and forth across this House and in this Province from time to time 1the government has to say that we have to recognize that the power contract does in fact exist. It is a reality. And we approach.:d these negotiations on the basis that we have to deal with the situation as it exists.

That is why we agreed negotiations would proceed on the basis of the contribution and risk undertaken by Quebec preparatory to the contract and the project coming on stream. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we expected in return recognition that Newfoundland was entitled to a fair return from its resource. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: If Newfoundland has to accept the reality of that contract 1 Quebec should accept the other reality of drastically changed circumstances which probably , Mr. Speaker, were best described by Philip Smith and his book on BRINCO where he stated,and I quote Mr.

Smith when he said, 'by 1974 the combination of the energy crisis and galloping inflation had changed the world to an extent that could not have been imagined during the Churchill Falls negotiations.' Now,then,in that context, Mr. Speaker, let us look at Newfoundland's proposal on revenue. Weighing these considerations 1we felt 1 accepting the realities of the contract and the dramatic and unexpected windfall 4483

May 18 t 1984 Tape 1785 Pl< - 2 MR. MARSHALL: profits that a split of 60 per cent and 40 per cent of benefits in favour of the resource owner, that is Newfoundland,would not be an unfair expect<!.ti,on. Notwithstanding this 1however, Mr. Speaker, we were prepared to entertain a 50/50 split of .benefits. This would amply recognize the contract and give more than a fair return upon it. On the other h<!.nd,it did not seem unfair to us to expect approximately $400 million annually from a contract which now nets approximately $800 million. As one can see 1 the gap between $8 million and $40.0 million is light years apart. And I should inject 1 it is not in the statement, Mr. 4484

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1786 SD - 1 MR. MARSHALL: Speaker, that I note the comment made by Mr. Barbeau of Hydro­ Quebec today to the effect that when Premier Peckford and the government of t~is Province talk about $800 million being derived from that contract that we are incorrect, that the profits of all of Hydro-Quebec did not equal $800 million, what he failed to address, Mr. Speaker, is that if the profits of Hydro-Quebec do not equal $800 million it is because the people of Quebec enjoy the lowest electricity rates in North America. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR.

MARSHALL: They are paying the lowest electricity rates in North America compliments, to a large extent, of this particular contract. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, you will see the profits of Hydro-Quebec increase enormously over the next few years. You just watch their balance sheets when they get thes ·e exports of power that we have been fighting against, exporting to New York and the New England States. So it is not, Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Barbeau refers to,the profits of Hydro-Quebec, it is the benefit that has come from that contract. And that b~nefit, Mr.

Speaker, has been independently assessed by the Economic Council of Canada and amounts today to $800 million 1 and that is undeniable. And any other test you use will get you in the vicinity of $800 million. Compare, for instance, Quebec's average price that it gets from its exports of power and trans ·late that into the whole machine and you will come up with the s-ame. So there is $800 million worth of benefits, w·e have proposed a 50/50 split, and what could be more reasonable than that from this Province? Now on recall, let us deal with recall. Wi ·th regard to power access 1 we were prepared to accept 4485

May 18, 198 4 Tap e No. 1 786 SD .,.. 2 '-.MR, MARSHALL: tile ri:9'ht to recall , over a period of time, some 2, 40.0 me .gawatts·. This amounts · to approximately one~half of the rated capacity now flowing Westward to Quebec. Furthermore 1 we were prepa:t'ed to see this entitlement phased in over a period of time. It was envisaged access· would be at pri .ces no less favourable · than those paid by Hydi?o-Quebec. There rs a vast diffe .l'ence, Mr.

Speaker, between that e~ectation of ours and the fixed 380. megawatts to sao . megawatts of a(lditional powel:Z of;feJJed as the only· extra ent:i:tlement for thi:s Province until the year 20 .41. On term 1 we felt~ ~, Spe~ke~ ~ it not unreasonable to expect the te:on of that contract to be reduced by twenty-five years so that it would eJWire on September 1, 2Q16 instead of 20.41, 44B6

May 18, 1984 Tape 1787 NM - 1 MR. MARSHALL: After all,this was the original term which Quebec was contented with and upon which financing was arranged. The extra twenty-five years,at reduced mil rates,was added when Quebec had to guarantee extra funding for the project in 1969 and gave other assurances. Hydro­ Quebec exacted that from this Province in consideration of these extra commitments. We have heard it said they were dumbfounded 1actually, Mr. Speaker, that 'drey were absolutely nonplussed and dumbfounded when Newfoundland capitulated to these demands.

We cannot verify this to be true; however 1it is evident the extra considerations were incommensurate with the benefit received of a twenty-five year extension at reduced mil rates. The forty year term was sufficient, Mr. Speaker, to support the contract at its inception. tn view of the unanticipated benefits it should be sufficient for the present contract. The fact that Quebec declined even to address this shows the depth of divergence on this point. Now,let us look at CFLCo briefly.

On the question of CFLCo's financial integrity we felt there should be a rate adjustment to allow a return of 15 per cent to shareholders and to finance extraordinary capital expenditures needed before the end of the forty year term. Here the gap , I have to say, Mr. Speaker, was not as significant. Nevertheless,it must be remembered also there was no real concession in this case since we are addressing provision of financial stability of CFLCo which ought to have been addressed in the first place. They were only agreeing not to permit CFLCo to go bankrupt which is in Quebec's own self interest.

Now the final observation I want to make with respect to our position is with respect to this ludicrous ~ffer to enter into another Upper Churchill situation 4487

May 18, 1984 Tape 1787 NM - 2 MR. MARSHALL: on the Lower Churchill. On the question of further hydroelectric development, we saw what can only ·be styled, Mr. Speaker, as a cynical gesture. To suggest that the Lower Churchill and joint rivers to be developed on essentially the same basis as the Upper Churchill could only be interpreted by us as a message that Quebec is unable to concede there should be any substantive change in our relationships with respect to development of our resources in ~abrader. It signals unwillingness to 4488

May 18,1984 Tape No. 1788 ah-1 MR.MARSHALL: accord us the same rights as Canadian citizens to transmit power and freely market our resources. Faced with this position, Mr.Speaker, how could we feel the issues were being treated in a meaningful way by those on the other side of the table? Now, Mr.Speaker, that is the Newfoundland position. Quebec's position is set out. Let me now make a few comments with respect to the course of the negotiations themselves. We were disappointed with the pace of negotiations and the difficulty of getting Quebec to place written proposals on the table.

On six separate occasions , Mr.Speaker, Quebec cancelled scheduled meetings, once when our negotiating team was within hours of their scheduled airline departure. On September 30 very shortly after formal negotiations commenced, we were riqht in there and presented our written proposal ,which I have outlined the terms of,Quebec procrastinated throughout.

To our extreme irritation, on January 12 ., almost five months after the meeting with the Quebec minister when the basis of negotiations were set and notwithstanding pressures from us to have Quebec present a written proposal, Quebec then to focus on a letter of intent. insisted on January 12 Although we viewed it unnecessary,a letter of intent It was not until March 23 ,at was in fact signed. Newfoundland's insistence and persistence 1 that Quebec finally tabled a formal proposal the terms of which are outlined above. From our proposal Quebec could have determined Newfoundland's position.

Certainly there can be no doubt , Mr. Speaker, of the basic Newfoundland suggestion of a 50/50 split. This was 4489

May 1 8, 1984 Tape No. 1788 ah-2 MR. MARSHALL: reiterated by the Premier on CTV's Question Period on Sunday last where the Premier indicated this expectation could be impiemented on a graduated basis,and it was reiterated again here in Newfoundland by myself on Monday. It is noted Mr. Duhaime is reported to have indicated he did not take our expectation seriously. Indeed 1 Quebec's attitude to the pace of these negotiations, its reluctance to table any formal proposal and the proposal itself causes to wonder if it took the negotiations seriously in the first place.

In fact it now appears to us that Quebec used the process to give the impression that substantive negotiations were ongoing during . the period of our intervention to its application to export power. , It was only after the National Energy Board ruled,you will note, Mr. Speaker, in its favour that Quebec finally brought forth what can only be regarded as a less than token proposal. 4490

May 18, 1984 Tape 178 9 EC - l MR. MAR SHALL : Mr. Speaker, the above consti- tutes the summation of what has transpired in our negotiations to date with Quebec. We would ge .t about $8 millions of dollars and Quebec would take about $800 millions of dollars. That constitutes Quebec's concept of a meaningful proposal. For the next fifty­ seven years, Quebec would receive one hundred times as much as Newfoundland from the Upper Churchill. We are to content ourselves with l per cent of the benefit which the Economic Council of Canada determined to be flowing from the Upper Churchill. Now, Mr.

Speaker, it must surely s.train the bounds of credibility to style such an offer as meaningful. Before now, Mr. Speaker, we had .refrained from commenting on the negotiations lest such comments adversely affect the prospect of success. We comment now, and I want to make it pla ·in, for several reasons: First and foremost, in the circumstances, the public of Newfoundland have the right to know; secondly, while the Quebec Government has been making general statements relating to the negotiations, it has given the impression in these statements, particularly one made by Mr.

Duhaime before the Quebec National Assembly or a committee thereof, of which statement I have a copy, that it made a proposal which is substantially reason­ able and acceptable, which obviously is not so, Mr. Speaker; and, thirdly, the other reason is, knowing there is such a gap between the parties in which a meaning result would seem improbable, it is not in the best interests to let the impression lie that a settle­ ment is attainable through negotiations 4491

May lB, 1984 Tape 1789 EC - 2 MR. MARSHALL: without some impetus being injected into the process. that might cause Quebec to take a more reasonable approach. We had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that this impetus might have been pro­ vided by a favourable reversion decision. Since this is not attainable, it is our opinion action by the federal government affords the only speedy and secure means to provide a way out of this impasse, Mr. Speaker, and we ask ·this, not as beggars on horseback, but we ask this as a matter of right flowing from our Canadian citizenship. SOME HON. ME$ERS : Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, ih conclusion, may I say, as I indicated at the beginning of this statement - and let this be known - that this gov'ernment prefers to attain resolution of these and all ot~er issues through negotiation. 4492

Hay 18, 1984 Tape No. 1790 MJ - 1 MR. MARSHALL: We are prepared to continue negotiations if they can be conducted meaningfully. It is obvious 1 though 1without some change of attitude by Quebec a fair and just settlement is improbable. This being the case,we call upon the federal government to utilize the jurisdiction it sought to assert in tne reversion case to assure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians receive a measure of justice and equity as Canadian citizens. The Premier has already written the Prime Minister to this effect. We await his reply with interest.

Settlement can best be attained only if the federal government is prepared to act fairly and impartially in this matter. Injecting itself on the side of Quebec, as it did in the reversion case, is not acting equitably and justly. As long as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are denied a fair share of the $2 million daily which flows Westward from our own great hydro resource 1there is a total failure of Confederation in this Province. The people of our Province are entitled, ~r.

Speaker, to receive the same determined efforts from their federal government as they received from their provincial representatives to see this gross inequity rectified. the statement. SOME HON. ME~1BERS : HR. ~1ARSHALL : ~~d that, Mr. Speaker, constitutes Hear, hear! I can only add, Mr.

Speaker, to the statement that we have put the facts freely and plainly before the people of Newfoundland,and ~ hop~ the people of Canada, and I hope that the people of Newfoundland 1 and most importantly the people of Canada, particular those in central Canada where we operate in this Province continually on the anvil that we only have seven seats in the Canadian federation, that! sincerely hope that they will read that statement, they 4493

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1790 ~~ - 2 MR. MARSHALL: will assess it and that they will see that we have been fair and reasonable , we have attempted to be forthcoming and candid 1 to give plainly to the people of this Province what our position is, what we feel is a reasonable one . We feel it will test the standards of : ~ 4494

May 18, 1984, Tape 1791, Page 1 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: reasonableness, and we invite other Canadians outside this Province, the federal government particularly, and particularly those in Central Canada,to address that statement, to assess its reasonableness and to see that the people of Newfoundland at last attain justice and equity from this Upper Churchill that they are entitled not, ~s I say, as beggars on horseback to Ottawa, but that we are entitled to as Canadian citizens. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER(Russell): I would just like to take a moment to welcome some visitors to our galleries.

First of all, I would like to welcome twenty-six Grade XI students from Robert's Arm, I would like to welcome five special education students from Cape Broyle with their teache~ Marie Cahill, and I would like to welcome twenty students from the Assumption School at Avalon with their Principal, Sister Genevieve, and teachers Mrs. Juliann Lewis and Mrs. Ellen Doyle. --i-- SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Leader of the Opposition. , ' MR.

NEARY: Let me say at the outset ~ that the han. gentleman who just delivered that sixteen page statement, plus some ad libs in between, did send the statement to our office fifteen minutes before the House met today, but he addressed it to my colleague, the member for Mount Scio(Mr. Barry), and so the statement did not reach me before I came to the House of Assembly. My colleague is on his way to Baie Verte,so I did not see the statement until a few seconds before the han. gentleman stood in his place to read it.

I just mention that at the outset because I have no intention of getting into any great detail in connection with the 4495

... May 17, 1984, Tape 1791, Page 2 -- apb MR. NEARY: statement because it is of such a technical nature. There are a lot of partisan political statements in there, there is a lot of game playing and a lot of rhetoric in it, and there are a lot of hypocritical remarks in there, and there are a lot of statements in there that will only add fuel to the controversy; they do not mean any­ thing but that the hen. gentlen)an has to get his licks in. The hen. gentleman, I noticed, steered away from .laying blame in this particular statement, although the hen. gentleman has laid blame before 1 and continues to do so, even though he knows the difference, that if you are going to blame another 4496

May 18, 1984 Tape 1792 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: administration for this agreement,then you also have to blame the Opposition of the day because the Oppositi?n in the House at that particular time did not object , did not raise this matter of the contract between CFLCo and Quebec Hydro. Mr. Speaker, it is the Opposition who are the watchdogs of the House, of the people of this Province. And there are two sitting on that side of the House who were in Opposition at that time, The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) and the Minister of Social Services (Mr.

Hickey).were in this House, sat on this side of the House and did not lift a finger. You know 1hindsight is a wonderful thing, Mr. Speaker. These two gentlemen sit on that side of the House now - MR. NARREN: MR. NEARY: And they are still here. they are still here, and when they were over here they did not raise their voices in objection to this deal. Because the deal was not negotiated by the governmen~as the hon. gentleman is aware. It was not negotiated by the government. It is an unfair deal. We would like to see it remedied, see it rectified.

We still do not know if Quebec is being reasonable or unreasonable, because all the hon. gentleman did a few moments ago was to give us his version of the proposal and his version of the negotiation. And we are well aware of the hon. gentleman's narrow-minded version of everything that goes on in this Province,Mr. Speaker. MR. WARREN: Like he did on the offshore. MR. NEARY : Like he did on the offshore. We are well aware of the hon. gentleman's buttoned-down, narrow- minded version· At the end there the hen. gentlerran said, 'We 1-,ave outlb1t:ri the facts to the House and to the Newfoundland people! • Well, Mr.

Sp:aker, .i.J. 4497

May 18 , 1984 Tape 1792 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: order for us to assess the fact ·s we must have Quebec's proposal. MR. WARREN: That is right. MR. NEAR¥: Is the hon. gentleman prepared to lay that proposal on the table of this House? MR. WARREN: No. He is too chicken. MR. NEARY: ~d if he is, then is he prepared to lay Newfoundland's counterproposal on the table of this House? Then, Mr. Speaker, once we get the proposal. from Quebec laid on the table of the House and the Newfoundland Gove .rnment' s - MR. KlRGAN: MR. WARREN: MR. NEARY: He just toid ycu the Province's portion. N:>, he did not.

NO, we only h~ard the han. gentleman • s version and we a:re not prepared to ~ it. MR. WARREN: That is right. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, you cannot acsept the hon. gentleman's version of anything that goes on in this Province. MR. WARREN: blindfold the people. MR. NEARY: That is right. He is trying to Now 1 .Mr. Speaker 1 it may well be that Quebec is being unreasonable. MR. WARREN: He is trying- to blindfold the people. 4498

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1793 SD - 1 MR. NEARY: That could be. And if they are - I would say that is very ·unfortunate and regrettable indeed because there is not a Canadian or a Newfoundlander or a Labradorian who does not agree that Newfoundland should be getting a fair share from the Upper Churchill Falls contract. But, Mr. Speaker, you cannot do what the hon. gentleman and the administration is doing. If you are going to go down and borrow ·money from the bank 1 you cannot insult the bank manager before you go down and then expect him to be reasonable and conduct negotiations with you in good faith.

So my firs ·t point is ·to ask the hon. gentleman to put the facts on the table -of the H:ouse 1 not have somebody down i·n the Premier •·s · office write a partisan political s-tatement. . Let us do it in a cool, calm,. collected wa,y, i'n a cool atmosphere, put the :!;acts on the table and l,e .t us take the Quebec proposal, we in the Opposition , I mean, and the Newfoundland government 1's counterproposal and we will tak .e. it down and we will study it and we will :researcfi.. :i:t and then we will be able to say · whether or not we agliee with hon. gentlemen there opposite that ~ MR.

MORGAN: Are you supporting us or not? 'MR:, NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I am supporti·ng a better deal for Newfoundland - MR. MORGAN: Y:ou would never say it •. MR. ·NEARY: .,. on that Upper Chu:t7chill Falls : contract. It is a one-sided agreement and, Mr. Speaker, we should do everything we can to recti ·fy it. Now the hon. gentleman did not tell us . what happens in the event that negotiations break down with the Province of Quebec.

Obviously they have because the hon. gentleman made all kinds of stateltl!'mt about cynical gestures on the part of Quebec. 'Unless •we get the benefits of t.h.is resource which flows Westard from our own grea. t hydro resource 1 ' he said, 'there is · a total 4499

May 18, 19.84 Tape No. 1793 SD - 2 MR. NEAR,Y: failure of Confederation .t NO\.,, Mr. Speake:~:, we have the Premier go:i:ng across Canada asking the people of Canada for sympathy and under ·stand:i:ng and support 0 n these matters, and \.,e nave non. gentlemen like t~e Government House Leader (~ . Marshalll and the M:i:n±ster o.f Frnance CD:t> . Collins ·>. making anti: .Canadian stateme .nts, separatist statements. The hon. Minister of Finance made a statement the other day that Newfoundlanders ar·e oecomin<JJ strange ·rs rn tf'l.ei:t> own home·. And the non. gentleman :i:s talR±ng about the total failure of Confederation . 4500

May 18, 1984 Tape 1794 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: Now, Mr. Speaker, 1•rhy be hypocritical, why not call the Premier home. He is out trying to get support and sympathy and understanding from the Canadian people. And I have no doubt at all, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that in this particular matter you do not have to ask the Canadian people for sympathy and understanding because the sympathy and understanding is already there. There is not a fair-minded Canadian today who does not agree that we should have a better deal on the Upper Churchill. MR. DINN: Is Trudeau a fair-minded Canadian? MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, that is the kind of political game-playing you get from hon. gentlemen. This is a very serious matter, it ;has to be handled in a genuine statesmanlike way, not playing political games. The hon. gentleman did not tell us what happens in the event that negotiations peter out with Quebec;and obviously they are going to. I would not hold out much hope now that these negotiations are going to succeed. DR. COLLINS: down. (Inaudible) came MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman when he was speaking, did I? I ask for the same right. Mr.

Speaker, I was in Halifax a couple of weeks aqo and I met with my - MR. HARSHALL: He is labouring. MR. NEARY: I am not labouring. The hon. gentleman was labouring when he was down at ·the 4501

May 18 , 198 4 Tape 1794 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: bottom of the barre~l trying to think up some nasty remarks and trying to fool the New£oundland . p·eople again. Mr. Speaker, I was in Halifax a couple of weeks ago and I met with my colleagues, the Liberal leaders and Leaders Qf the Opposition in Atlantic Canada,. One thing that we talked about was low-cost energy for the Atlantic Provinces. And my colleagues and I agree that we should take a look again at the Aliglo-Saxon route. Mr.

Speaker, if these negotiation~ fail with the Province of Quebec, and I believe they will now, I do not think they are going to succeed after the attitude and tone of the bon. gentleman today - M:R. TOBIN: Go away, boy~ MR. ~Y: Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the han. gentleman. The Atlantic Provinces need iow·cost electricity and if it is ·.technically feasible, if the technology is available to use the Anglo-Saxon route 1tben I think we should take a good hard look at it. It will also give us access for markets in the New England States. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that is what we should be doing, We should be negotiating by all means, that is what we advocate on this side of the House, 4502

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1795 MJ - 1 MR. NEARY: by negotiations you do not make a statement on CTV,as the han. gentleman referred to 1 and say all Newfoundland will accept is a 50/50 split. I doubt very much if they did make that known to the Province of Quebec. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning I am not going to go into any detail on this statement at the moment. I have to take the statement and have our researchers and our technical people take a look at it.

I would like to have Quebec's proposal and the Province's counterproposal so we can see if the han. gentleman's version of the negotiations and Quebec's position is correct and he is not just merely playina games. MR. TOBIN: Do you support our stand? MR. NEARY: M_~. SPEAKER (Russell) : MR. NEARY: Hr. Sneaker, I•T<'" no not kn~"''·r th .at. Order, please! Order, please! We will be dealing with the han. gentleman's wind and fury in the next statement, the gigantic bluff of the hon. gentleman will be dealt with next. But, Hr.

Speaker, I appeal to hon. gentlemen there opposite again to lay the facts on the table of the House. We are pleased to have this little bit of information but we do not know whether most of it is correct or not. Mr. Speaker, we have learned to become very suspicious of anything that hon. gentlemen sa y. Now we are also aware that Quebec may be unreasonable, we are not ruling that possibility out either, but give us the facts and then we will make up our own minds and decide and determine the direction that ,.,e think the administration should be taking. But I believe, Mr.

S~eaker, that the Anglo-Saxon route should be given a very high priority and the han. gentleman dia not address himself to that question 4503

Hay 18, 198 4 Tape No. 1795 MJ - 2 MR. NEARY: at ai.l.

I am sure that our sister Atlantic Provinces would welcome a thorough study of the Anglo-Saxon route because they need the electricty in Atlantic Canada and it would give us access to new markets in the three }!ari time Provinces and in the New England States. : We discussed that a couple of weeks ago and I believe the premiers of Atlantic canada should now get together again and t.ake a look at this option to see if it is feasible, if the technology has now be~n developed to use the Anglo­ Saxon route so we can develon the r.ower Churchill and these five rivers without being beholden to Quebec or anyboC'y else, Mr.

Speaker. so,if and when we get the 45 0 l.

~ May 18, 1984, Tape 1796, Page 1 -- apb MR. NEARY: facts we will take a look at them. I hope the House is open long enough s~ that we can state our

interpretation and our version of the proposal and the counterproposal. And if the House is not open, we may have to call a news conference in order to do it, Mr. Speaker.~ MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SP EAKER(Ru ssell) : The han. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: I want to give a statement this morning on the salmon situation _and inshore fishery. As most Newfoundlanders are aware,of course, the federal government has brought in a plan, a measure with respect to the commercial salmon fishery which will indeed have a serious negative impact on the income of our full-time fishermen around the Province.

The most serious of these, of course, is a three week delay in the opening of the season. Today, being May 18, is the normal date on which the fishermen would be placing their nets in the water and commencing the salmon fishery. Because of the new regulations with regard to the season, the date has now been set back to June 11, and fishermen have to await that date. By that time most of the salmon will have passed our waters and there will actually be no salmon fishery this year. In many areas all of the salmon will have passed by the waters of Newfoundland and there will be no salmon to catch.

This will mean that the commercial inshore fishermen will have their incomes reduced as much as 80 per cent. We have done an assessment on this and in some areas of the Province the fishermen's total income from the fishing industry will be reduced by 80 per cent this year as a result of these 4505

May 18, 1984, Tape 1796, Page 2 -- apb MR • .MORGAN: measures. In f'act, because of the imposition of this later date there will, in essence, be no salmon fishery whatsoever. Now, this new policy and management plan favour heavily the interests of the sports salmon fishery in New Brunswick and elsewhere throughout Atlantic Canada. It was adopted over adamant objections of this government and th,e Fisllermen's Union.

Unfortunately, the aspirations of Newfoundlanders to earn a living did not have as much impact on the federal government as the aspirations of the sports and recreation salmon fishing interests in the Atlantic region. Since the federal government announced this plan, Mr. Speaker, I have communicated on a number of occasions to the federal Minister of Fisheries(Mr. De Bane). not only the provincial government's objections to the plan, but also the objections and the frustrations of the fishermen.

In view of the fact that the fishermen were recently out back in the amount of salmon gear they could use; for example, just last year they could fish with 300 fathoms of gear, this year it is down to 100 fathoms of gear 1 there have already been 4506

May 18, 1984 Tape 1797 EC - 1 MR. MORGAN: severe cutbacks in the catching and harvesting efforts in the salmon fishery. Now, Mr. Speaker, although I fully understand the frustrations of the fisheroen on this issue, as I said yesterday and said earlier in the House of Ass~mbly, we cannot as a government condone fishermen defying the law, breaking the law and defying the regulations, but we fully understand the frustrations they are encountering this day and in fact in recent weeks. It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, as well, that just a few weeks ago, the Fishermen's Union and myself reached an agreement.

We held meetings, Father Desmond McGrath, Earle McCurdy and fishermen with them and myself sat down and reached an agreement and we worked out a joint proposal between the Newfoundland Government and the union. And we then put forward that proposal in a joint way to the federal government through the federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane). Unfortunately, to date, there has been no positive response from the federal minister to that joint proposal put forward by the union and the Newfoundland Government. Earlier this week, the Fishermen's Union met in Ottawa with Mr. De Bane. As a result of that meeting, Mr.

De Bane did send down his Deputy Minister, Mr. Art May 1 and his Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Scott Parsons. They came to Newfoundland and held meetings with the Fishermen's Union and held meetings with my Deputy Minister and officials from my department. They went back to Ottawa yesterday morning to report back to the federal minister with the strong suggestion from these officials that a 4507

May 18, 1984 Tape 1797 EC - 2 MR. MORGA N: meeting take place as quickly as possible between the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa (Mr. De Bane) and myself and, if at all possible, at the same time, to be joined at that meeting by the Fishermen's Union. I am hoping this meeting will take place this weekend. I am presently awaiting confirma­ tion from Mr. De Bane's office that he will indeed meet with us this weekend. I am going to Twillingate tonight. Tomorrow I can go on from there to Ottawa over the weekend and meet with Mr.

De Bane, or he will come here or elsewhere in Atlantic Canada, and I am hoping that he will agree to have the Fishermen's Union at that meeting. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is still no word from Ottawa on that meeting. In the meantime, the days pass, the fishermen are losing income, so we have to pursue every possible angle on what to do as a Province 1if we can do anything at all here to help with the problems of the inshore fishermen. So we pursued the possibility of being able to issue licences. MR. WARREN: Sit down, boy! Sit down! MR. MORGAN: Mr.

Speaker, the han. gentleman from Labrador may make his little political comments across the House, but his fishermen in Labrador are calling me practically every day on this issue so, Mr. Speaker, it is important to the fishermen. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deliver this statement without being interrupted by stupid comments from the Opposition. The fact is that we did investi­ gate. We were determined 1if we 4508

May 18,1984 Tape No. 1798 ah-1 MR. MORGAN: could do it 1 to issue licenses to our fishermen in this Province to resolve the real problem of fishermen losing 80 per cent of their income from the inshore fishery in many areas of our Province. So we pursued it vigorously and ,after pursuing it and getting all information on the issue and investigating all potential options,I requested legal advice on the possibility of the Newfoundland government being able to issue its own salmon licenses to our fishermen in an effort to resolve this problem.

And I have now received legal opinion and have been advised by the provincial Department of Justice on this matter, advised in writing on the issue. The opinion is that, first of all, the decision of the Newfoundland Cmurt of Appeal on the offshore reference case granted to Newfoundland the jurisdiction over the seabed and subsoil in the territorial sea to the extension of three miles offshore and consequently this ruling is presently the law. That was a ruling of the court and that ruling is presently law,based on the decision of the court, that we do · have jurisdiction over t~at three mile territorial zone.

So on the basis of that decision,the legal advice I have received is that indeed it is arguable that this Province would be able to issue licenses to fishermen who are engaged in a fixed gear fishery. And because the salmon fishery is indeed a fixed gear fishery this would include the right to license salmon fishermen. In other words,the legal opinion says indeed it is quite arguable that we would have the right right now to issue licenses based on the Newfoundland Court of Appeal decision 4509

May 18,1984 Tape No. 1798 ah"'2 MR.MORGAN: giving us the jurisdiction three miles from the coastline to the territorial sea. Now1 however, as I mentioned yesterday \to the media, there are legal complications.

We may have the right to issue licenses but the further legal opinion I have received from the Department of Justice is that with respect to the salmon fishery or fixed gear licensing, with regard- to the regulations governing the licenses under the licensing 1 the right to control seasons for management and conservation purposes - and that is a very key statement- the right to control seasons for management and - SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, can the members of the Opposition restrain themselves over there?

It is an important item to the Labrador fishermen and to the fishermen out around the Trinity Bay area and these areas. So, Mr.Speaker, the right to control the seasons for management and conservation purposes is exclusively under federal authority. And, I say again, we have the authority to issue licenses, something '~ thought we could until right now we did have the right to do. We have the opinion now and legally it says we have the right to issue licenses to fishermen but that is not the issue. The 4510

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1799 SD - 1 MR. MORGAN: issue today,and the problem we are encountering on this issue of the salmon fishery is indeed the seasons. So ~e could issue licences to the fishermen. We are not questioning who is holding licences today; the dispute is not about who holds a licence or does not hold a licence, the dis.pute concerns the matter in which the seasons have been set forth and the delay in the opening of the salmon season. So in this case, Mr.

Spea~er, issuing licences t.omorrow or today or next week would not resolve the problem of the salmon fishermen because, as I said earlier, the legal opinion says that the seasons are controlled exclusively by Ottawa, so we would not be able to overcome their problem. Now ·, Mr. Speaker, may · I say that in the meantime we are watching very· closely Bill No. 48 in the Quebec National Assemblyibecause that bl'll is · now in the final stage of approval and they are using the same laws that we looked at and got our legal opinion on in the last few days. .

They feel as· a government they h.ave a ri:ght to i:ssue fishing l±cences the same as we do now here, and they are proceeding to issue these li.cences under the leg±slation now before the National Assembly, issue licences within a three mile limit. And we will be watching very closely the developments as it pertains to that licence and what the federal government will do 1 whether they will challenge that legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada or not. Now, Mr.

Speaker, in closing my statement may r say the only means of resolving these kinds of thorny issues affecting the incomes of our commercial fishermen is through . dialogue and discuss ·ion. That is the only issue. But 1unfortunately, the federal Minister of Fisheries (}1r. De Bane) is being inflexibility on this· issue. He is not l±stening t.o the fi:sh .ermen. 4511

May 18 1 19 .84 Tape No. 1799 SD - 2 MR. MORGAN: He is not listening to the Fishermen's· Union , He is not listening to the Newfoundland government. MR. WARREN: Fair enough. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman from Labrador would go down and de~l with his problems on the Labrador Coas ·t and the fishermen down there , he would be far better off than making these stupid little comments. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! MR. MORGAN: Mr.

Speaker, the fact is that this is a very important issue· There are fishenren today, who,as of right now ·, have . a blackmai .l~ like tactic hanging over their heads and that is the fact that they · have been told you either sell your licence between now and June 10 - that is the deadline ·~ :you may come in and sell your li .cence to us, the federal gove't'nment 1 or you accept these measures we put forward and los·e mos ·t of your income frO!'\\ the salmon fishery. That, Mr-. Speaker, ts · almost like a blackmail tactic and it is placing the fishermen in a very unfortunate position.

The federal government has set a deadline of June 10 for fishermen to accept its proposal of compensation and buy back their licence for $2 ,. o·O.o a licence for a full..-.time fi.sl:'terman or,if not, carry on and accept the measures now ·put forward. So I am hoping that dialogue wi :ll oe the means · of resolying it/ that common sense wi ·ll prevail and that Mr. De Bane will get oack to next hour or .so , 4512

'i May 18, 1984 Tape 1800 PK - 1 MR. MORGAN: me within the next hour or so and say, yes, we will meet somewhere in Atlantic Canada. I will go anywher~ this weekend to meet with him, bring ~long the Fishermen's Union, bring along a number of salmon fishermen, and let us sit down and discuss it in a reasonable way, let us make changes. As a result of that meeting I am hoping there will be one thing further, that he would open the season immediately for full-time commerical fishermen and the part­ timers out completely. There is no need for them to be involved in the salmon fishery.

That will be for conservation purposes and open the salmon fishery immediately and give the fishermen of our Province their right to earn a living from that species of fish in our waters. ~ SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : MR. NEARY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker. The hon. Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the background of how this delay in the opening of the commerical salmon fishery developed. The hon. gentleman was in Japan with the federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane). MR. CALLAN: In a ricksha. MR.

NEARY: I do not know if they were in a richsha, being hauled around in a ricksha or not, but they were in Japan, they were travelling together and the minister agreed in the beginning, so he told us, and it is in Hansard - MR. WARREN: It is right here. MR. NEARY: - we have it here in Hansard that the han. gentleman agreed to a 10 per cent cut in the commerical salmon fishery this year. The han. gentleman agreed to that. And that would mean a two week delay in 4513

May 18, 1984 Tape 1800 PK - 2 MR. NEARY: the opening of 'the salmon fishery. MR. MORGAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! The han. Minister of Fisheries, on a point of order. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the han. gentleman if he is going to refer to what I said in Hansard to refer to it accurately. I said I agreed to a 10 per cent reduction on the salmon fishing effort . I never said I agreed to a two week delay.

I agreed with a 10 per cent reduction in fishing efforts and we told him how we would like to see it done: Take out the 840 part-time licences in the salmon fishery in our Province. Take the part-timers out. Same politicians today have not got the courage to say get rid of part-time fishermen in our fishing industry, they do not have the courage to say take out the part-time. So, Mr. Speaker, the first part of the statement is accurate, I did say I agreed to a 10 per cent reduction in the salmon fishery for conservation purposes, but I never did say I agreed to a two week delay in the opening of the season. ~ MR.

SPEAKER: To that point of order, what is alleged to have been said, certainly from the Chair's viewpoint must ,be deemed a difference of op inion between two han. members. ~ MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I have Hansard here, April 9, 1984, quoting directly what the han. gentleman had said. 'We were of the understanding he was going 4514

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 18 01 HJ - 1 MR. NEARY: to delay the opening in Newfoundland by no more than two weeks and then they announced three weeks.' Mr. Speaker, that is what the hon. gentleman is implying that he agreed to a two week delay. Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the delay in the opening of the commercial salmon fishery is devasting to the incomes of inshore fishermen in this Province,especially on the Southwest Coast, all over Newfoundland, but especially on the Southwest Coast, in my own district of LaPoile.

So I am very sympathetic towards this matter and I believe that I was the first one to Telex the minister protesting and objecting to ~he delay that the hon. gentleman had agreed to. I was against any delay in the beginriing at all, Mr. Speaker. MR. MORGN~: Table the Telex. MR. NEARY: Yes, I have the Telexes in the House, I have them here in my file a.nd I will table them. It was a month before the minister raised the matter. Now, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been badly bungled by the hon. gentleman and it underscores the very specific nature, the trademark if you like, of this administration there opposite, Mr.

Speaker, bluster and wind and inaction. MR. MORGAN: What are you blaming us for? It is a Liberal party policy. ?-:lR. NEARY: ?-1r. Speaker, the only thing that was accomplished by the hon. gentlenan's statements of the last few days is that the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, raised fishermen's expectations as high as they c0uld go and then dashed them today, brutally and cruellv, dashed them to the ground. That is what the hon. gentleman did today, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman was bluffing all along, Mr. Speaker. Now he is saying the reason we cannot issue licences is we cannot 4515

~ May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1801 MJ- 2 MR. NEARY: control the season. MR. MORGAN: We can issue licences I said. ~Te can. .t-1R. NEARY: No, but he does not want to do it now because he cannot control the seasons. Perhaps when His Holiness arrives in Newfoundland he should talk to him about controlling the seasons. All it is, Mr. Speaker, all it was all along was a gigantic bluff, bluster, wind and no action which is the trademark of this administration. ~x. Speaker, here we are today,it is the opening of the salmon season,and the han. gentleman is now calling for dialogue and discussion and negotiation after the fact.

The hon. gentleman now has got a foxhole dug deep enough for himself that he will never get out of again, ~1r. Speaker. li-1hat the han. gentleman should do after this blunder, alpng with all the other ones that he has had, he should, Mr. ~peaker, go out and resign for failing to help the fishermen of this Province and go and peddle his record, Voices in the Wind. He might be better at that than he is as a l~inister of Fisheries. ~ ORAL QUESTIONS MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, we all heard the good news last night and this morning from Western Canada, where the Premier, ~qho is on an ill-fated speaking tour 4516

X May 18, 1984 Tape 1802 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: across Canada, Mr. Speaker, made a most intelligent statement, by the way, one that I agree with him 100 per cent, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh~ MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with gentlemen they are so testy over there this morning? The Premier suggested, Mr. Speaker, that if he does not get an agreement before the end of the current year on the offshore, if he cannot settle the offshore dispute that he may very well resign. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a brilliant idea, one which I support 100 per cent and I would like to ask the hon.

Government House Leader if he has asked the Premier to submit that proposal to the administration in writing? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. President of Council. MR. MARSHALL: 'Tow, how silly can you get! That is the extent of nis type of question. The hon. gentleman sits in this House as Leader of the Opposition~ He hears an important statement on the negotiations, he hears an equally important statement affecting the fishermen of this Province, and he gets up and he asks a question like that.

I can tell the hon. gentleman that as far as the Premier of this Province is concerned, as far as this Province is concerned, it would be a very sorry day indeed if the Premier,out of frustration in attempting to get rights for young people and the people of this Newfoundland in Confederation,ever decided that the game was over, that there was no way in which we could achieve it and had to give it up~ then,Mr. Speaker, what would happen is the hon. gentlemen there opposite would get in power and they could run this Province as they would like to, as a municipality of Ottawa, administering things from Ottawa.

I would imagine that the Premier probably was expressing a little bit of frustration, Mr. Speaker, yesterday when he taJked ahout that 1 because when I was speaking with him yesterday he was telling me 4517

May 18, 1984 Tape 1802 l\lM - 2 MR. MARSHALL : on the one hand he was receiving a great reaction from all parts of Canada, he has spoken to groups of Canadians from all areas of life, he has talked on the open-line programmes, to service clubs, to business groups and he is receiving,throughout Canada, an 4518

Hay 18, 1984, Tape 1803, Page 1 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: extremely positive reaction. They were saying on the open line in Vancouver the other day, 'More power to you. Keep going. You have a just cause.

Newfoundland has a right in Confederation, you assert it, etc.' So I would assume - I do not know whether he was or not - the Premier was a little bit discouraged yesterday when he hears on the one hand he is getting that reaction up in Vancouver and, on the other hand, the Board of Trade is down giving standing ovations to the gentleman who, in Timmins, Ontario, a few days before said he was going to take the rights to the offshore away from Newfoundland. Make no wonder that certain people in Central and Upper Canada think they can stamp on us.

People who indicate that they want to be stamped on get trampled upon. Make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that certain individuals, not all, but certain individuals in Newfoundland perpetrate the 'Newfie joke' as those gentlemen down there did. Make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that some think we are simpletons. I make no "·7onder, Mr. Speaker!

And, as I say, the hon. the Premier was probably exuding the same degree of disgust and frustration that all of this administration feels, that now, when we are trying to make an inroad in the rest of Canada, there are certain groups here who, for their own political or selfish economic advantage, are prepared to get at the under­ belly of the young people in this Province.

So I can say to the han. gentleman,I saw a report on what the Premier stated, I would assume that was the reason why he said it, but I can tell the han. gentleman this for sure, it will be a sorry day in Newfoundland if the only person who has led 4519

May 18, 1984 , Tape 1803, Page 2 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: this Province decides that the time has come not when we are going to become a have province and we have an equal chance .in Confederation, but he decides that it is impossible to attain it because of the way in which we are operating in it. Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason why he would come to that conclusion would be because in our midst, with the Mayor of the City of St. John's, the former head of the Board of Trade, the hon.gentlemen there opposite, the greedy little grubby not all of them - manufacturers agents in St.

John's, some of them wanting to get contracts, and through them, Mr. Speaker, outside people get the impression that the Province of Newfoundland is made up of Uncle Toms and see in Confederation and only in Con .federation that ail we have the right to do within our union is to get welfare payments for the rest of our time, to be like Uncle Toms. So, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is if because of the attacks at the underbelly of this Province by the hon. gentlemen there opposite 4520

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1804 SD - 1 MR. MARSHALL: and their disgusting ilk that this occurs, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a sad day for Newfoundland, However, I have to advise to the complete discouragement of the hon. gentleman 1 who will probably dissolve into the tears that the member for Mount Scio (}1r. Barry). accused the M:i:nister of Fish.eries (Mr. Morgan) of dissolving into 1 that the Premier has absolutely no intention of resigning. SOME lfON. MEMBERS 1 Hear, hear. MR.

MARSHALL: He intends to continue to fight for the rights of the people of Newfoundland 1and everybody on trus side of the House and the great majority of Newfoundlanders are foursquare behind him. SOME HON. · MEMB 'ERS: Hear, hear. MR. NEARY: Mr._ Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russeli l The han. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, there was a tiwe in this Province when the right to w.ork was a right, the right, to own your own home was a right, but since the Tories took over especially the present admini-stration 1 these are more privileges than th .ey are righ.t.s, Now, Mr.

Speaker 1 the psychology of Newfoundland is _iOU are lucky to have a job. And hOn. gentlemen over there mak.~ng announcements, passing out goodies as· if they · were coming out of their own pockets. Everything they do is political. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me a_sk the hon. gentleman · MR. · MARSRALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEA!(ER: . Order r please! ·· A point of order, the hon. Pr:esident of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: We have heard the type of the hon. gentleman's speech, Mr. Speaker, but he is supposed to ask questions. I am afraid if the han. 4521

May 18, 1984 Ta pe No. 180.4 MR. MARSHALL: gentleman gets to make a speech what we are going to do is end up thinking that Mr. Levesque is going to think that he should come down and address the Board of Trade to see if he can get a standing ovation as well. MR. NEARY: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. SD - 2 MR, SPEAKER CRussel "ll: To that point of order. the hon. Leader of the Opposition. 'MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker 1 r· would submit that th .e hon. gentleman when he was g:tving me an answe~ 1t1ade s·ome pretty · provocative statements. The hon. gentleman was not responding to my· ques ·tion •.

The han. gentleman made a political response to my ques ·tion and J:te attacked everybody in sight in keeping with . the trademark, the tradition, of the administration there opposite. And I oelieve, Mr , Speaker, because the han.. gentleman wandez>ed s·o far afield, that I' should be allowed a sh .ort prea;ml:)le to my supplementary questions to the hon. gentleman. · MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the han. Leader of the · Oppos·ition CMr, NearyT was · ±ndeed proceeding to make a speech that perhaps could be consijered as his

preamble to his question. Now he can ask his ques ·tion. MR. · NEARY: Th .e ho .n, Leader of the Oppos ±t.i:on. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fa .ct that the Newfoundland economy has been ruined and wrecked we have havoc in the f.tshery ·; the pulp and paper industry, 4522

May 18,1984 Tape 1805 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: the mining industry and so forth, would the hon. gentleman tell the House if the Premier indicated to him - the hon. gentleman said a few moments ago that they talked on the phone - did the Premier indicate that it was out of frustration that he was considering resigning? Or was it because, as the member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr.

Roberts) said the other day in the House, his personal popularity in the latest polls has gone down drastically, and that the open line programmes in Newfoundland are devastating and he is depressed and upset not frustrated, depressed and upset over his own personal image, and that is why he is considering resigning? When the hon. gentleman is answering the question, would he also indicate to me, because of this good news that is coming from Western Canada, if he could persuade the Premier not to wait until Christmas, because he has done enough damage now to the Province, and we have got to try and salvage, Mr.

Speaker, what we have left - SOME HON . MEMBERS : Who is we? MR. NEARY: - so would the hon. gentleman indicate if he could persuade the Premier to turn in his badge to get out now, to ge t so mebody else take over or to have a provincial general election and clear the air once and for all? MR. SPEAKER(Russell): The hon.'President of the Council. MR. SIMMS: You want an expensive, unnecessary election. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, can you believe it! You ask the question, Does it live? We know it crawls. But Mr. Speaker, honest to heavens - SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! 4523

May 18, 1984 Tape 1805 PK - 2 MR. MARSHALL: I mean, you come into this Question Period expecting a question on an important statement that have been made. MR. NEARY: he is going to resign. MR. MARSHALL: That is a pretty important statement, I can tell the han. gentleman that the han. Premier has absolutely no intention of resigning. SOME HON . MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. MARSHALL: He is going to continue a valiant fight on behalf of the people of this Province and he is going to continue to enjoy the same popularity that he has in the past which you can see exhibited over here. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

MARSHALL: Now, Mr. Speaker, as to his question with respect to tne Premier's popularity, let me just say what a great scam that is. There is a great contest among the han. gentlemen there opposite, the ~ats leaving the burning ship trying to get into the Senate. The han. gentleman now, I am sad to say, is losing out. He referred to the Senate the other day as the house of retirement, the old folks horne, so he knows he is not going to get there. So what happened was his opponent for the job, the member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr.

Roberts), got up and talked about the poll and said that the Premier's popularity is declining. La and behold, what else is he putting in? You will not believe this, and he must have swallowed hard considering the leadership conventions of the past, but he said, do you realize that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) would beat the Premier · in an election called tomorrow? So that is the scam, Mr. Speaker. 4524

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1806 NM - 1 MR. MA RSHALL: The grubb y l ittle people there opposite are trying to get into the Senate. What the member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr. Roberts) is trying to do is to tell the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) that he has a chance as leader, stay there, so that he will not crawl and creep to Ottawa asking for a position in the Senate himself. He will be content where he is,in Opposition.

In the meantime,the member for the Strait of Belle Isle, whom we never see in the House at all, you know 1 ambles up to Ottawa and goes into Sleepy Hollow to which place he so richly belongs. Now is the hon. gentleman going to get sensible and ask some reasonable questions? You know,I try to be a nice fellow here in the House. I do not like answering questions in this way to the han. gentleman, but, Mr. Speaker, he provokes me. As I said when I started, Mr. Speaker, he can rise too~ Look, he can stand, he bestrides this Province, and they all do on the other side 1 like creatures, Mr.

Speaker, creepy, crawly creatures, on their knees to 0ttawa, on their~ees to Quebec, They even defend Quebec's offer of $2.5 million. I have no doubt that Premier Levesque will be asked down to the Liberal ~rovincial leadership Convention, and he will get a standing ovation as ·a result of his magnanimity to the Province of Newfoundland, which was exhibited today. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEARER (Russell) : MR. NEARY: Hear, hear! The hon. Leader of the Opposition . Mr.

Speaker, could the hon. gentleman indicate to the House from his discussions with the Premier by long distance telephone following the Edmonton game last evening, or this morning, if the Premier indicated that he was 4525

May 18 , 1984 Tape No. 1806 NM - 2 MR . NEARY: seriously thia~ing, of resigning . This is a pretty serious matter~ the most important item in the last twenty­ four hours in the news is the resignation of the Premier, that is a pretty, pretty significant item. If the Premier is thinking about resigning 1 he must be awfully frustrated and depressed because he cannot get any of his economic policies to work, Mr. Speaker. 4526

May- 18, 1984 Tape 1807 EC - 1 HR. NEARY: But did he indicate that it is because of his sense of tragic doom that he is thinking about resigning? The people of Newfoundland and Labrador can no longer believe his lies or his chest thumping - SOME HON. HEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: - that, Hr. Speaker, they consider the Premier's action just silly and childish and kindergarten tactics· Did he indicate that is why he is thinking about leaving politics and doing something else that he is more qualified to do? ~ MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The han. the President of the Council. ~-MARSHALL: Hr.

Speaker, I am not going to 1 respond to the hon. gentleman but, with respect to his reference to the Premier and his lies, all I can say is that he is a living example of when rats get cornered they go for the jugular.~ MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: Hr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Development (Mr. Windsor), perhaps I can put a question to the Government House Leader, the Minister responsible for Energy (Mr. Marshall).

On April 9, just over a month ago, the Minister of Development told the Government Services Committee that Alcan Aluminum officials were showing renewed interest in development of an aluminum smelter in the Province. Of course, ARCO Aluminum Limited, which previously expressed an interest, was taken over by Alcan. And the minister, before the Committee on the estimates of his department, Mr. Speaker, said the proposed aluminum smelter for the Province has 4527

May 18, 1984 Tape 1807 EC - 2 MR. CALLAN: greater possibilities now than when a feasibility study was undertaken over a year ago. And he said this is because of factors such as ·increased aluminum prices. And the Development Minister (Mr. Windsor) Eai.d the prospects are brighter now than they were a year ago. 4528

"! May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1808 MJ - ~ HR. CALLAN: Could the Minister of Energy (Nr. Marshall) tell us what is the status of an aluminum smelter for this Province? What are the prospects now? ~ MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The han. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have received a sensible question from the Opposition and I thank the hon. gentleman for voicing it and raising the tone ·of Question Period. He asked really a very timely question. There is no doubt about it,the Minister of Development (Mr.

Windsor) and the government have been pursuing very, very actively the establishment of an aluminum smelter. We feel that this aluminum smelter would give a great initiativ~ and impetus to development within this Province. It is true.that the prices of aluminum have increased and that makes it still more promising and we are still pursuing it and we will pursue it actively. Butthe other element of it is it is not just the prices that pertain, it is also the cost involved of operating a plant, As the hon. gentleman will appreciate the main element in the operation of an aluminum plant is electrical powe~.

I mean,electricity is used probably in the aluminum industry more than in any other industry itself. So in that sense this question is extremely timely because 1 you know 1 this particular plant- and it relates to the statement I made this morning - this particular plant in some respects depends upon us being able to obtain a reasonable source, in contemporary times, of om·rer, to be able to provide any developer who intends to come in. This is one of the essential ingredients.

A timely question it is today because I say to you that if we had access to power from the Upper Churchill at the same prices as Hydro-Quebec, the hon. gentleman and other members of the House will appreciate the fact that ~.,e would very likely be able 4529

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1808 MJ - 2 MR. MARSHALL: to get that aluminum smelter there. Now as contrasted with that,here we are exercising everything we could possibly do to see that an aluminum smelter will b.e established in this Province under the present conditions and the Minister of Development (Mr. Windsor) is working actively on it as he indicated in the Committee. On the other side of the coin,it is rather a bitter oill to see the same Quebec that offered us $2.5 million and a mere 380 to 500 megawatts of power, being able to establish ·an aluminum concern on the North Shore of Quebec within the vicinity of Labrador by 4530

May 18,1984 Tape No. 1809 ah-1 MR.MARSHALL: offering it power which I understand to be in effect a giveaway by present day standards. I think it is somewhere between four to six mils. So that is the situation we are in so it is a very timely question the hon. gentleman asked in the development of Newfoundland as well as we are. And I am sure he will appreciate the 'reason why this administration,and hopefully all Newfoundlanders feel so very, very strongly that it is absolutely essential that we get a measure of justice and equity from our resources.

Now we have this Upper Churchill flowing Westward at $2 million a day that has the capacity to serve many aluminum smelters,and here we have the supreme unfairness of our power being used to put a smelter in Quebec at a low price~ ~ MR.NEARY: A point of order. MR.SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. MR.NEARY: I am sorry to have to draw this to Your Honour's attention 1 but the rules are being broken, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. gentleman day in and day out in this House, taking the House on his back. He thinks he can do what he likes.

The Question Period is only half an hour, r1r. Speaker. The han. gentleman is making a long-winded political statement in reply to a very simple question that was put to the hon. gentleman to which he could give a brief answer. MR.MARSHALL: To that point of order, ..._ __ Mr.Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The han. President of the Council to that point of order. 4531

May 18,1984 Tape No. 1809 ah-2 MR.MARSHALL: I have come to the end of my response. I would fancy the hon. gentleman who asked the very intelligent question , ~s contrasted to what his leader did during the Question Period, had thought I was going too long,he would have risen on a point of order. He was interested in the response. I am through with my answer and I look forward to other questions from the hon. gentleman.

MR.SPEAKER (Russell): To that point of order: It is correct that the Question Period is only thirty minutes and the objective , I suppose, is to ask as many questions and receive as many answers as possible. However,sometimes perhaps the nature of the question might determine the extent of the answer. But indeed questions and answers should be as brief as possible. Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: The hon. member for A supplementary, Mr.Speaker. It was on April 9 this year, of course, that the minister said that plans for the aluminum smelter looked good.

Of course,on May 12 the same minister, the Minister of Development (Mr. Windsor) said that the court decision on the Upper Churchill could have a negative impact on Newfoundland's ability to attract builders for the aluminum smelter. But let me refer to page 150 of this government's Five Year Plan, Managi ng all our Resources, and , of course, we are into the fourth year now. Page 150 states that the second major energy objective of this government, is to develop all or part of the 2300 megawatt capacity of the Lower Churchill.

And it says there one of the things that that was contingent on was it could be aided by the attraction of a heavy 4532

May 18,1984 Tape No . 1809 ah -3 MR .CA .LLAN: industrial user of energy to Labrador, of course, obviously referring to an aluminum smelter. Let me ask the minister then, since it appears,and I think the minister admitted it in his sixteen page statement this mornin g, that this Province has lost the fight 4533

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1810 SD - 1 MR. CALLAN: on the Upper Churchill, and we going to just sit idly by and wait and wait and procrastinate and wait for years? Let me ask the minister what plans does government have for the Lower Churchill, the 2,300 megawatts there? MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. President of the Council. ~MR. MARSHALL: The question, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman realizes since he quoted the minister that heavy industrial user of electricity would very much assist the development of the Lower Churchill in this Province,· but the fact of th .e matter is, Mr.

Speaker, the capacity of the Lower Churchlll is s·uch that even with a large, intensive energy utilizing industry being established there is still going to be a surplus of power. We cannot, in the short term, use all of the power from Gull Island and Muskrat Falls. Therefore .. you come back to the same problem that in the short period of time we would have to be able to either sell that power to Quebec or wheel it through Quebec. And I say sell it to Quebec not from the point of view of it being its· only broker but Quebec being one of the customers.

In othe:r: words, sell it to the customer from whom we can get the highest amount. So it is a l:"andora '·s box we are :i:n 1 that in order to develop that Lower Churchill certainly a heavy user of electricity would be a great aid, But there is going to be a surplus and we come back to the same problem that we got ou:r: answer on today. I hope not a final answer, I hope there is going to be impetus · put i·n by the federal government or other concerns and we will get our way out of that Pandora •·s box. MR. CALLAN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: A final s·upplementary '· the han. member for Bellevue. 4534

May 18, 1984 Tap e N o. 1810 SD - 2 MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) in responding to the sixteen page Ministerial Statement earlier this morning - MR. DINN: MR. CALLAN: He made a. complete fool of himself. Well 1 that is a matter of opinion. - talked about the Anglo-Saxon route. And, of course, the minister,who was in the Moores' government, the Moores' Cabinet, at the time knows · about the $100 million that has been spend on both s·ides· of the Straits, you know, with the hope of transmitting power down through Newfoundland and the Anglo-Saxon route.

Let me ask the Min±ster of Energy (Mr •. Marshall}. what is the status of that? Is this · administl:'ation actively pursuing potential customers in the F.astern United s·tates, in Atlantic Canada? What are the poss -ibilities of the Angl o-Saxon r-oute and, of cours :e 1 the aluminum smelter at tne same time? -J­ Pues±dent of the MR. SPEA:KER (~u ·sselll : Th.e hon. Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr, Speak.el:' ~ th .e Anglo.,.saxon route is s-omething that is being considered at all ti'mes and assessed.

The han. gentleman will remember - mayb-e he would not,but the two former Smallwood ministers on the other s·ide of the Hous-e will remember .,. th .at there was initially a study into 4535

May 18, 1984, Tape 1811, Page 1 -- apb MR. MARSHALL: initially a study into the Anglo-Saxon route by Preece, Cardeau and Ryder, and it indicated, Mr. Speaker, that it was uneconomic at the time. Or maybe it was, I do not know, maybe they just found it more convenient to give it away as they did by passing it over the border. But in any event it looked like it was uneconomic. Over the period of years now technology has increased and it is becoming more technologically feasible but it is stiLl very questionable whether it is economically feasible. That is the situation.

Now, the han. gentleman is asking questions himself. He should not rely on the Leader of the Opposition(Mr. Neary) as his basis because he is asking . qood questions himself. I mean, he has to remember that alternative is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and he knows the answer, the Leader of the Opposition did anyway, and it was untimely to bring it up this morning. But the fact of the matter is ano~her solution the Leaqer of the Opposition had for a transmission line was to put people one side of the Strait digging a hole underneath with shovels, and on the other side. MR.

DINN: And if they missed you would have two tunnels. MR. MARSHALL: And if they missed you would have two tunnels, so you would have two for the price of one. I would suggest that what the member for Bellevue(Mr. Callan) should do, he is asking very credible questions, is please do not refer for his authority to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition .~ 4536

} May 18, 1984, Tape 1811, Page 2 -- apb MR. NEARY: MR . SPEAKER (Russell): the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. The han. the Leader of I wonder if the hon. gentleman could tell us if the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) is coming back into the House? MR. WARREN: He is out in the common room. MR. NEARY: He is out in the common room. Because it looks to me like the fishermen and the plant workers in this Province are in for some pretty rough and rocky times in the weeks and days and months ahead. Yesterday negotiations were broken off with the Fishermen's Union between the independent processors. Mr.

Speaker, we are told that the independent processors will not be p ur c h a~ fish under eighteen inches this year. Now, that is devastating to the income of fishermen. That will cost the inshore fishermen. In addition to all the other losses that they are having,on the caplin and the squid and the herring, because of lack of supply and lack of markets, and because of the escalation of the cost of operating gear and operating their boats and the cost of fuel and so forth, this is going to be devastating. 4537

'f May 18, 1984 Tape 1812 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) obviously does not think it is important enough to stay in his seat. Oh, he is corning in now. Since the minister is supposed to be looking after these matters, will the hon. gentleman tell us what can be done, if anything can be done, to offset this recent setba ~ by the independent processors who are going to refuse to ~gy fish under eighteen inches in length?

This will mean a loss of 25 per cent of their income in addition to what they are now losing because there is no market for squid, caplin and herring, while the cost of ope~ating their gear and equipment and boats is escalating, skyrocketing. Is there anything the hon. gentleman can do, or is he just going to continue to grandstand like he always does?~ MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, he was asking the question in a sincere way but then he ends up in that stupid political manner again.

The fact is there are so many problems today in the fishing industry as I have said for the last two or three years, that we must have more co-operation among all parties, so let the Opposition be more co-operative on the fishing industry because it is so important to so many Newfoundlanders. Now the issue that was raised in the media this morning by Mr. Cashin, and now by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary). The so-called independent companies are really all the companies which are not part of FPI, that is what it means. It is not the independent association, as such, of the small producers.

It is the independent linking in that one category all those companies who are not part of, net connected with Fishery Products International. Some of these companies have been saying the last few days that they just cannot see how they can buy any 4538

May 18, 1984 Tape 1812 NM - 2 MR. MORGAI.'II : codfish this year below ei ghteen inches - last year it was below sixteen - because all of that fi sh has got to go into cod blocks, and right now we have the worst situation we have had in the marketplace in recent history with regard to inventories of cod blocks left unsold. I recall saying as long as a month or two months aqo that there would be a serious problem unless someone in Ottawa, throu gh the Fish Prices Support Board, dealt wit .h it . I recall making that statement to the press media, especia .lly in interviews with the electronic media, saying it then.

And I called upon the minister and the officials in Ottawa two months ago to deal with the problem I saw looming, the problem of cod block inventories left unsold and prices being depressed for cod blocks. 4539

-·· May 18, 1984 Tape 1813 EC - 1 MR. MORGAN: Now it is proven that I was right when I was saying what was going to happen. Here we are now, at the commencement of the inshore fishin~ season and the prices are down below a dollar. There were reports to me a few days ago of cod block selling as low as ninety-two cents U.S. per pound, versus $1.18 per pound this time last year. MR. NEARY: How much? MR. MORGAN: year. MR. NEARY: MR. MORGAN: ninety-two cents a pound. They were $1.18 this time last aow much are they now, $1 .10? Below that, they sold as low as MR. NEARY: That would be U.S.? MR.

MORGAN: U.S. 1 and you add the exchange on. In addition, there are about" 25 million pounds of cod block in inventory, in storage in the u.s. - not all from Canada, a lot of it is corning in from Denmark and other places, but it is in inventory, not sold-and that is going to have a disastrous effect on markets for the fish products to be produced by these new companies this year around the Province. I guess it is fair to say there is hardly a day that a serious problem in the fishing industry does not come up. This one is not new.

I told the federal minister and the federal government as long as two months ago, at least two months ago, and they are just sitting there and nothing is happening. Now, as I said a few days ago, I am not afraid to attack Mr. De Bane; the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) is because he was told a few days ago, 'You call a minister in the federal Cabinet a liar 4540

May 18, 1984 Tape 1813 EC - 2 MR. MORGAN : once more and you do not get your appointment to the Senate.' SOME BON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. MORGA.f'l: He was told that. MR. NEARY : By whom? MR. MORGAN: Because when he phoned Ottawa, he called Mr. De Bane a liar. I am told by good reliable sources in Ottawa that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) was toLd, 'Do not you dare call a minister in Ottawa again a liar! '"" MR. NEARY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell): Order, please! Order, please! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order. tom. NEARY : Mr .

Speaker, I did say that the federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane) lied. I stick by it. I reiterate what I said. In that particular matter, the hon. gent .leman lied in what he said about the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan). Nobody to this day , Mr. Speaker, either in official quarters in Newfoundland, in Ottawa, in the United States, Canada or Russia has spoken to me about it. The hon. gentleman is now lying, Mr . Speaker. I do not know if he is doing it deliberately or not. 4541

"{ May 18, 1984 MR. NEARY: MR. MORGA..~: MR. NEARY: Tape No. 1814 MJ - l Well,maybe that is unparliamentary, I am only saying what I hear. What he hears? Maybe I should withdraw that, Mr. Speaker, because that is unparliamentary. But the han. gentleman is stating an untruth, it is incorrect, it is false, it is a figment of his imagination, he is suffering from hallucinations 1and, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the han. gentleman not be permitted to continue making untrue, false statements in this hon. House. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : To that point of order.

As to what was said or not sa~d 1I can only assume it is a difference of opinion between two hon. members. The time for the Question Period has now expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY DR. COLLINS: Motion 4. MR. SPEAKER: ~1otion 4, the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. The debate last day was adjourned by the han. the member for St. John's Centre. DR. MCNICHOLAS: to say on this. ~~. Speaker, I have got very little I accept the report of the Newfoundland Electoral Boundaries Commission in its totality. If I did not accept that I think we would be here indefinitely in a partisan free-for-all.

I rnust,however 1 say that there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason or indeed logic in some of the recommendations of that Commission and I think that was emphasized yesterday by speakers on both this side of the House and the other. I realize the Commissionwas tied 1 4542

May 18, 1984 Tape No. l8l4 t-1..J - 2 DR . MCNICHOLAS: if you like, to a certain extent in that they had to divide up Ne•11foundland and Labrador into fifty -two portions, or perhaps it would be better to say into forty-eight portions in Newfoundland because there are uot enough people in Newfoundland to come up to the average required.So they were restricted .

The only one thing I would suggest in the future is that they not be restricted so much and that they would take into consideration natural boundaries, whether they are rivers or main streets or townships,and not chop up districts in a rather hapha~ard way as we heard yesterday has happened in Mount Pearl and Conception Ba y South . 4543

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1815 PK - 1 DR. MCNICHOLAS: I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, about the extension to St. John's Centre. I have realized for some time, as we all have, that the popu lation of downtown St. John's has decreased, so I am very pleased indeed to see that my district has been extended right up to Prince Philip Drive. I am well aware they are mostly my friends there, they are all Tories, but we might be able to flush out the odd Liberal if we beat around the bus ·hes there.

But I would like to tell all of my friends there, the few Liberals and the few NDPs and all the Tories, that after the next election I will be very pleased and honoured to represent all of them again. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! DR. MCNICHOLAS: I am S'Orry for one thing, Mr. Speaker; r am very sorry to lose one small part of my district. The original ad that I read in The Daily News way back in October 19, 19 '83, on the Electoral Boundaries Delimitation Act indicating the proposed boundaries of St. John's Centre, the lower end of St.

John~s Centre was left as it was in the last election and in the election 'Defore, and that included the Basilica and Presentation Convent and Mercy Convent and the surrounding streets there including Mullock Street, and I am very sorry· to see this · area removed from the district. There were no representations · made at the hearings to take that out of my district and I' am very sorry that the commiss ·ioners, i'n their wisdom, in their final report did take it out. If r had had any idea that they would have done S'O I would have Ji.ad gone to the hearings and made very strong representations.

But I accepted the original proposal i'n the:i:r ad. If I had made representations what I would have done, wb~ch would be far more logical to my 4544

May 18, 1984 Tape 1815 PK - 2 DR . MCNICHOLAS: mind 1is that the district would have continued up Monkstown Road to Circular Road and Empire Avenue, and we would have a straigh~ line rather than just a little pimple sticking out from St. John's Centre into St. John 's East. However , I do accept the Commission's recommendation in that regard . I am very sorry about it because these people there, the nuns and many of the clergymen , they were all friends of mine. The n~s were friends, they were patients, and they taught my children since their infant days and I am very sorry to lose them.

I can assure them that even though they will be no longer in my district,! will be mo re than pleased to look after and represe nt them in any way I can . Now, Mr . Speake .r, there is one obvious mistake in the Western boundary of my district and I can show it to anybody because I brought alo ng the map here . 4545

May 18, 1984, Tape 1816, Page 1 -- apb DR. MCNICHOLAS: On one part of the Western boundary it says here, 'Thence running along said centre line of Cookstown Road, Newtown Road, and Linscott Street to its intersection with the centre line of Merrymeeting Road.' As far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, that is an impossible situation, or maybe you could call it an impassable situation.

Because if you want to go,as far as I can read here on the map, from Cookstown Road to Linscott Street via Newtown road, you have to get a helicopter, get it at the end of Cookstown Road and helicopter into Linscott Street or into Newtown Road, touch down on Newtown Road and then get the helicopter back to Linscott Street. There is not direct connection between these streets, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that that is a mistake that needs to be rectified, because the direct line from Cookstown Road to Linscott Street is via Pennywell Road and not Newtown Road.

I know that Newtown Road is a border in my district on that Western boundary, but further North. So one thing that concerns me is that it looks as if that

section of Pennywell Road will not have representation in this House of Assembly unless there is an am~ndrnent brough .t in to rectify that mistake. I am sorry the han. the President of the Council(Mr. Marshall) is not here, because I think he would be more than willing to second a motion, Mr. Speaker, that the proposed boundary joining Cookstown Road to Linscott Street be as follows: Cookstown Road, Pennywell Road, Linscott Street. Now, instead of making that motion I think I will defer it and I will bring it up in Committee stage, and maybe,in the meantime, this matter will be looked into so that the residents on that portion of Pennywell Road will have representation in 4546

May 18, 1984, Tape 1816, Page 2 -- apb DR. MCNICHOLAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker ~ MR. NEARY: this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER (Aylward) : The hen. the Leader of the Opp:lsition. _ \ MR. NEARY: I have no intention of delaying ~ the passage cf this bill. MR. CARTER: Shut up ana sit down. You are out of order . MR. NEARY: Go back to the savory patch, boy. It is too wet out today to get on your knee~, so instead of getting on your knees .in the savory patch, you get on your knees in the caucus and crawl around over there. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to delay the passage of this bill.

There are a couple of things I would like to say about it, however, First of all, I want to commend the members of the Boundary Commission under Judge Rupert Bartlett. I think they did a very commendable job under the circumstances. I know each individual personally and I think under the circumstances they did very well, and I will explain what I mean by 'under the circumstances' shortly. MR. SIMMS: Considering the legislation. MR. NEARY: Well, considering the terms of reference they were given. They were given terms of reference by the administration there opposite that tied their hands behind their backs. MR.

SIMMS: Not by this administration. MR. NEARY: By this administration, yes. MR. SIMMS: The legislation dates back to 1975. MR. NEARY: Was that a Tory administration or was it a communist administration? That legislation could have been amended. 4547

May 18, 1984 MR. NEARY: Tape No. 1817 Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that as good as the members SD - 1 of the commission were ,and I appeared before the commission and I made representation, they were handcuffed, their hands were tied behind their backs. They . could not, for instance, consider reducing the number of members of this Hous ·e, the number of districts in this Province. And that is someth ing, Mr. Speaker, that wi ~ll be considered by a successive administration. In my opinion there are ten members too many in this House. MR.SIMMS: That is the same thing 'Garfield' said yesterday. MR.

NEARY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we discussed it in caucus so why should he not say it? We are of the same mind, our hearts beat as one. I would suggest that if Frank Moores left a legacy to the "Tory Party it was the fact that he created ten districts in Tory St. John's. One street in St. John~s has more power and more authority than the whole of Labrador, the whole of the Great Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker. Now I am not saying that St. John •·s· should be denied anythi :ng . It is the seat of government and they are going to get everythrng th .ey are entitled to anyway.

They are going to get their due, they are going to get their ri:gh.ts. The newspapers are here, the public service is here, . they are going to get everything they · are entitled to and I am not trying to take anything away from them. But~ Mr , Speaker, it is unfair to the rest of Newfoundland. You have two New£oundlands. You have St. John •· s· and you have the other Newfoundland. With such a heavy concentration of members in St. John ''·S and so many of them in the Cabinet, 4548

May 18, 1984 Tape No. 1817 SD - 2 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, five out of the ten members in St. John's and surroundinq areas are in the Cabinet,six by the way,if you include the member for Mount Pearl (Mr. Windsor). MR. SIMMS: That is not St. John ''s. MR. NEARY: It . is St. John •· s. It is in the metropolitan area- Six out of the ten are in the Cabinet. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, why the decis-ions ·:,·made in Cabinet are oriented towards St. John's, whv the West Coast cannot get consideration for a convention centre because they wanted to give it to th .eir Tory buddies i:n St . .John's. Mr.

Speaker, why is it that the narrow 1buttoned-down minds of the Minister of Finance {Dr. Collinsland his minion Government House Leader CMr. Marshallf,always think about . St. John '·s and never think about the rest of the Province? DR. COLLINS: A good example was when we brought in the retail sales tax for Labrador West. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, we saw· what they did with the synchrolift and the effect that is having on Marystown 1and how they want to k.eep the Russian here, to keep Russians inside our 200 mile management zone.

They want to estaBlish gas storage tanks in Lewisporte to accommodate the Russians so they can change their crews here.We are trying to get the Russians out and han. gentlemen are trying to keep them here. MR. SIMMS: Say that often enough . and you will beli 'eve it. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker'· it is true. The hon. gentleman should go and try to do something for the Mary March museum that the people are calling me about down there and the other problems. DR.COLLINS: Do you not want Russian aircraft using Gander? MR. SPEAKER: Mr.Speaker, there they are. Everything 4549

May 18, 1984, Tape 1818, Page 1 -- MJ MR. NEARY: is little political games with them. They want to make a little announcement about a kilometer of road or the Mary March Museum, so call a press conference, play politics as if they were taking it out of their own pocket, as if they were digging down in their own pockets. That is the trouble with this crowd. They are grandstanding and playing little political games all the time with people. They are making people feel like they are getting this as a privilege when it is their right, Mr. Speaker. I was down last night in St.

Lawrence where I spoke to a high school graduation which over 400 people attended and they gave me a standing ovation. And do you know what the people right from Marystown down to Burin and Lawn told me? They told me the member for Grand Bank (Mr. Matthews) issued a press release the other day announcing a couple of kilometers of road - as if it was corning out of his own pocket - and the people down there calculated at that rate their road would be finished by the year 2000. We were laughing and joking about it.

The people are entitled to that as a right, not as a privilege from a Tory regime or a Tory administration. They think because they can pass out little goodies and little bits and pieces of money here and there that it is going to save their necks. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not going to save their necks. So what we are saying is that there are ten members too many in this House and we can see the result of it every day. For instance, take the member for St. John's North(Mr. Carter). What a useless hulk in this hon. House. You have ten useless sticks of furniture over there.

They are just like the wooded indians you used to see outside the stores down on Water Street advertising cigars. They have wooden heads, they are wooden indians, useless hulks. They are monkeys on the taxpayers back. MR. ANDREWS: change! Will you make some sense for a 4550

May 18, 1984, Tape 1818, Page 2 -- mj MR. NEARY: The han. gentleman should talk to the people down in Burgee - Bay d'Espoir. They have been crying out looking for him now for the last year or two, the silent member they are calling him. Mr. Speaker, there are ten members too many in this House. We could save the taxpayers a million dollars a year by reducing the number of members in this House. Many of the St. John's members are practicing law downtown and there income from the House of AssembLy merely pays their income tax. MR. TOBIN: Wait now. You have more members practicing law downtown than we on this side.

There are more members over there practicing law downtown than there are over here. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, apart from the member for Mount scio(Mr. Barry) there is not one member pn this side of the House who represents a St. John's district. MR. DINN: It would be a sacrilege for St. John's to elect a Liberal. MR. TOBIN: practicing. MR. NEARY: the member for Mount Scio. We have no-one over here ..... _! That is what I sais, apart from ' Up to the time the han. gentleman shafted the crowd over there because he could not stomach them any longer and then carne over here, Mr.

Speaker, up to that time no member on this side of the House represented a St. John's riding. When the electoral boundaries recommendations are adopted by this House, my 4551

May 18, 1984 Tape 1819 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: han. friend will not be representing a St. John's riding, he will be representing a rural riding, Bell Island-Mount Scio. So, Mr. Speaker, that is our first point; too many members, too much authorit y in St. John's. We can see it in the policies that are evolving every day in the Ministerial Statements that are announced in this House, completely neglecting rural Newfoundland. There are two Newfoundlands, there is one inside the Donovans Overpass and the one outside.

And everytime I go to Western Newfoundland, I was out there last week again, everytime I go out there the people feel alienated. MR. SIMMS: Another standing ovation. MR. NEARY: Yes 1 I did 1by the way. And that is an absolute fact, I did, at a high school graduation again in Port aux Basques. Mr. Speaker, they feei alienated on the West Coast, in the Western part of this Province, they feel that all the administration's effort is concentrated in St. John's and on the Avalon Peninsula, and they say you can see that in the construction that is going ahead, pretty well all of it taking place on the East Coast.

They feel left out, they have no input, their members are weak, they are like jellyfish, Mr. Speaker, and they are frustrated. The people on the West Coast, the Western part of this Province are angry about the way they are being treated,and you will find the same thing in Central Newfoundland, on the Northeast Coast, White Bay, Mr. Speaker, you will find it in Placentia Bay, any area outside the Donovans Overpass. They have tunnel vision. They cannot see beyond Donovans Overpass. My hon. colleague from Bellevue (Mr. Callan) knows that.

And when they do go outside the Overpass,they want the people to kiss the hem of their garment when they flick out a little good, a couple of kilometers of roa d, or a few dollars for a musuem. 4552

May 18, 1984 Tape 1819 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: And, Mr. Speaker, I saw something that happened the other day that the han. gentleman, by the way, is going to be taken to task about, $100,000 worth of support for the Rising Tide Theatre. Nobody is denying the fact that the Rising Tide Theatre is entitled to $100,000 worth of support. I am all for it, I know personally the people involved and they are doing a wonderful job for the arts in this Province, But why was the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council by- passed? Why was it not funnelled through them?

The han. gentleman passed out a few goodies to try to bring a little benefit and a little prestige to himself. MR. Sir1MS: The hon. member obviousl y knows nothing about what he is talking about. It will not cost us $100,000 and it has nothing to do with the Arts Council. MR. NEARY: $100,000 worth of support. It does have something to do with the Arts Council. The han. gentleman ignored the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council, and they resent it. They were not consulted. Thev resent it very much.

The han. gentleman was trying to no doubt to work up a little support for the leadersh~ down the road somewhere when the Premier resigns as he told us from Edmonton that he is going to do. It is a very dangerous practice the han. qentleman is becoming embroiled in, passing out little goodies and deciding who will be assisted. Why not let the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council do it as they were set up to do. DR. COLLINS: They have an office in St. John's. MR. NEARY: Well, we set them up and now you are going to shoot them down, to ignore them. 4553

May 18, 1984 Tap e 1819 NM - 3 DR. COLLINS: So you feel that grant should have gone to the office in St. John's? MR. NEARY: We1l,that is where it is going the Rising Tide Theatre. DR. C.OLLINS: No , Rising Tide is province-wide now. MR. NEARY: Well, it is not provice-wide or it would have gone through the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts council. They are province-wide. The han. gentleman made a mistake by ignoring them .• Now, Mr. Speaker, we understand that the member for Conception Bay South (Mr. Butt,, and the member for Mount Pearl (Mr. Windsor) are uptight over the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. 4554

May 18,1984 Tape No. 1820 ah-1 MR.NEARY: They are scared,and rightly so. They are scared that they are losing some of their power base and rightly so, but that is no reason to delay the passage of this bill. I know hon. gentleman there opposite would like for us to move a six month hoist to delay the passing of this bill for six months. That has been suggested outside the House in the corridors. But, Mr.Speaker, we are prepared to accept the recommendations. Last t±me the report that was brought in was jerrymandered by a Tory administration.

The late Judge Higgins made recommendations and they were jerrymandered out of existence. You could not recognize the report, the recommendations when they were brought into the House. And now the Bartlett Commission have tried to rectify some of the damage that was done at that time. But, Mr.Speaker, the trouble is that under the terms of reference they were not allowed to change the number of districts, they had to just move boundaries and change populations here and there. And that is why the han. gentleman has that pimple that he was talking about earlier this morning. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that is not good enough and the day will come when it will be looked at, the number of seats, the number of members in this House. If we are going to talk about restraint,well,then let us be men enough to face up to it. MR.WARREN: There may be an amendment. MR.NEARY: My hon. colleague probably has an amendment ready to reduce the number of seats in this House by ten. Now, Mr. Speaker, that would be 4555

May 18,1984 Tape No. 1820 ah-2 MR.NEARY: very worthwhile,would save the taxpayers $1 million, keep the hospital beds open, put students to work, help out the Mary March Museum, look after the sick and the disabled, the crippled and the poor and the Native people. MR.CALLAN: It would put a couple of miles of pavement down in Southwest Arm. MR. NEARY: million would do that. MR.CALLAN: MR.NEARY: No, I do not think $1 Oh, yes. It would. But anyway if we are going to show the people of this Province that we mean what we say, cut the number of seats in St. John's Jn half, because that is the legacy that Mr. Moores left the Tory party in this Province. He put ten seats in Tory St.