VOL. 3 NO. 89 PREL IMINAR ' UNED ITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1981

Movarber 25, 1981 Tape No. 3721 EL - 1 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please I would like to welcome to the speaker's Gallery today, seated in the Speaker's Gallery, I should say, are a delegation from the Conception Bay South Town Council, the newly elected mayor, Aubrey Dawe, accompanied by the Town Manager, Mr. Fred Sauires,and the Town Clerk, Maureen Harvey. Welcome. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of De- velopment. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear,hear MR. WINDSOR: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to update the House on the situation regarding Advocate Mines in Baie Verte. As hon. members knowi the operation is scheduled to close down on December 31st, of this year. Since the decision to close the operation was made by the Board of Directors on September 9th, government has been pursuing a number of alternatives which might allow the mine to continue past the announced closedown date. Several meetings have been held with the company and others in an attempt to find a solution to the problem which would allow Advocate Mines to continue uninterrupted.

In a recent press conference I announced that we had come to the conclusion that the mine managers, Johns-Manville, were determined to see the ooeration close. Therefore, although we would be continuing our efforts to persuade the company to continue the operation, we would be placing greater emphasis on our efforts to attract a new operator. Hon. members will also be aware that government commissioned the firm of Watts, Griffis and McOuat to advise us on the current world market conditions

Noverr.ber 25, 1981 Tape No. 3721 EL - 2 MR. WINDSOR: for asbestos iire and VOCãZ5S relative positions. The study confirmed that although the present world market is depressed, it is expected that a • genecal improvement will occur and that the Advocate Mine should be competitive under normal conditions. • Yesterday, in Toronto as well, my Deputy Minister attended a meeting of the creditors of Advocate which was convened by the interim receivers, Peat Marwick Limited.

At that meeting the creditors of Ad- vocate agreed to the proposal put forward by the receivers, Peat Marwick, which provides for a holding position to be maintained until the end of this year. tJnder this arrange- ment the mine, will be allowed to continue to operate without fear of closure due to the actions of the creditors. At the end of the year the company will be in the best position to satisfy the claims of the unsecured creditors. I have previously advised this House that four companies have expressed an interest in assessing the potential for their involvement at Baie Verte.

Discussions with the principals and officials of these com- pailies is continuing and we are encouraged by the level of interest shown to date. Indeed, on F±iday past my officials and I met in Toronto with Transpacific Asbestos Inc. to discuss their expressed interest in the Advocate operation. I am very pleased to advise hon. members that we were informed by Transpacific of a proposal which they were proposing to submit to the receivers and which I am informed has now been submitted.

While I am not at liberty to disclose the details of the proposal at this point in time, I will say that it is designed to transfer ownership of Advocate to Transpacific Asbestos Inc. and to q7R

0 November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3721 EL - 3 . WINDSCP: avoid the scheduled year-end closedown of the operation at Eaie Verte and to satisfy, if pssibie, all secured and unsecured trade creditors. R9 7

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3722 NM - 1 SOME HON. MEERS: Hear, heart MR. INtSOR: The ccmpany has Leen working, Mr. Spanker, for several weeks in acquiring and analyzing the information required to develop the proposal. At the meeting held in Toronto last Friday, we had the opportunity to learn a great deal about the company and the proposal they have presented. Transpacific Asbestos is a Canadian company which presently has a producing asbestos operation in Australia. The operation is similar in size to Baie Verte and has given the company ten very valuable years of experience in the asbestos industry. Mr.

Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear that this proposal is a conditional one and it will depend, for its success, upon a number of factors which include co-operation from the maor shareholders of Advocate as well as support of both the federal and provincial governments. Discussions have been ongoing with the federal government and we have reason to believe that funding could be made available in this instance as it has been made in the past in other parts of Canada when major industries have experienced financial difficulties. Nevertheless, Mr.

Speaker, I emphasize again that this proposal is far from finalized at this point in time and it will require a great deal of analyzing by all parties involved before we will know whether it is acceptable or not. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our discussions with the other companies that have expressed an interest and I am hopeful that additional proposals will be put forward in the near future. Hon. members may rest assured that we will continue our efforts to find a solution to the problems at Baie Verte with the continued advice and support of my colleague, the member RR2

November 25, 1981 Tape :;o. 3722 - 2 '1P. WISOR: for Bale Verte - White Bay (Mr. Ridout), and the representatives of the local community and the union who have shown a great deal of responsibility and support for our efforts during the past several weeks. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. member for Windsor- Buchans has about two minutes. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, speaking for this side I want to assure the minister that we are pleased.

We are pleased with anything positive, any positive news we hear coming as a result of the negotiations ongoing to keep the asbestos mines in Baie Verte operating. We are pleased for the people of Baie Verte. We regret, Mr. Speaker, as do the people of Baie Verte, that this crisis that we are facing in Advocate was not identified and was not recognized by the Government of Newfoundland, who had a responsibility to recognize and identify. There is evidence now, Mr.

Speaker, that because of financial commitments to this Province by Advocate mines there were indeed ample warnings, ample reasons for the Government of Newfoundland, for the Department of Mines and Energy, to have recognized what was happening in Baie Verte and to have moved before we got into a crisis situation. But having got into a crisis situation, Mr. Speaker, more will be said,I would think, befcre the Advocate situation is finished, about the financial aspect that this Province was aware of and did nothing about, Mr. Speaker.

November 25,1981 Tape No. 3723 ah-1 MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, there is really nccninq in th. Ettevenb. We have known and the people of Baie Verte have kncwn for two or three months there have been negotiations oncoing. The only thing new - here is the identification of a company, Transpacific, a conpany. SOME HON.MEERS: Oh, oh: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please: MR. FLIGHT: And what is interesting, Mr. Speaker - SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please: MR._FLIGHT: What is interesting, Mr.

Speaker, is the minister wants to assure this House that he can vouch for nothing, that it may depend on financial. commitments from this Province or from Ottawa, that there is nothing with regards to the proposal. Mr. Speaker, obviously the people of Baie Verte know and the member must know that it is the kind of proposals that Transpacific wanc are the terms of conditions under which they want to operate that mine will decide whether or not they move in and continue to operata the mine. So we will be looking forward, Mr.

Speaker, with bated breadth, as do the people at Advocate,for when the Minister of Mines (Mr.Windsor) stands up in this House and tells us that a deal has been consummated with a company who will indeed operate Advocate mines. A very interesting observation that the minister made was that the agreement reached yesterday with the unsecured creditors would guarantee the unsecured creditors, and Advocate guarantees the unsecured creditors - MR.SPEAKER: Order, please: MR. FLIGHT: - of meeting their commitments. I do not know how the minister could do that, Mr.Speaker. MR.SPEAKER: Order, please:

November 25,1981 Tape No. 3723 ah-2 MR .FLIGHT: I am not sure how the minister could do that. MR. SPEAKER (Sirrms): Order? The hon. member's time has expired. S SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.SPEAKER: Order, please! Any further statements? Before proceeding to Cal Questions I would like to point out that seated in the gallery this afternoon and visiting with us today is a delegation from Airport Heights and we welcome them today to this sitting. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear! ORAL QUESTIONS MR.SPEAKER. The hon. member for Grand Bank. MR.THOMS: I will yield to the hon. member for Fogo.

MR.SPEA}EP: The hon. member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Forests, Resources and Lands (Mr.Power) It refers to last years spray programme and the spill near Gander Lake. The minister made a statement on June 26th in which he said that there was an area near spray block 211,namely Sunday Lake, which was the area where the spray had been actually jettisoned. Now we have heard reports from the federal Department of the Environment that say that there is no trace - no trace of the spill could be located. I want to ask the minister, Mr.

Speaker, if he was indeed, on a matter of such grave importance to the House,misrepresenting the facts when he not only said the area had been located but that the morning after cLeanup was already was in progress? MR. SPEAXER: The hon. Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. 3 1

NovemO(-r 25,19d1 gae No. ?R. POWER: Mr. Speaker, with regard to our spray programme oi last year, which was generally opposet by members opposite and which tney continue to find ecery possible excuse to prevent good forest management in 4 this Province7 with regard to our spray programme last year, and with the loss of spray on that given oay because of an emergency on board the aircraft,lct me assure this hon. House and the Province that everything that was needed to be done was done. Every contingency was taken care of. The plane pilot did exactly what he was suppose to do when in case of emergency q R 3')

November 25, 1981 Tare 3724 TC - 1 MR. POWER: he has to dump a load of chenical. He went to an area which was a cut over area, an area that was away from populated areas, an area that was away from any large bodies of water. Mr. Speaker, that day we had Canadian Environmental officials, we had provincial Environmental officials, we had all persons visit that given area. We could not find any significant traces of large amounts of chemical in any one area. There were many hundreds of samoles taken, Mr. Speaker, from vegetation, soil samples and water samples in the area.

There was no significant amount of chemicals found in any of the area, which goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that because we had a good plan in place, because we had taken account if emergencies were to happen, that no significant environmental damage was done by that chemical spill nor could it have been done, Mr. Speaker. And it just goes to show that last year when we undertook to have a very serious management decision in this Province to protect the livelihood of 20,000 people that we had in place along with that decision, Mr.

Speaker, an environmental plan, a contingency plan, which took care of all of the possible things that might have happened. I can just say, Mr. Speaker, that we are luc1cy that we had such a successful spray programme. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. Tt.JLK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Sims) : A supplementary, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the minister was and is, Did he misrepresent the facts when he said - in view of those two conflicting reports, did he misrepresent the facts when he said on the 26th that the spill had been located and that the clean up had already begun? Now, if he did not, Mr. Speaker, would he tell 9

November 25, 1981 Taoe 3724 EC - 2 R. TtJLK: the House which report he considers ta be wrong? Is it the federal Department of Environment or his own statement in this House on the 26th, the morning after? MR. SPEAKER (Sixrsns): The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, again, the members opposite continue to want to oppose the spray programme, which was a sound management decision on behalf of the people of this Province - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR.

POWER: - a sound management decision which protected the livelihood of 20,000 people, Mr.Speaker - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. POWER: - and it seems that members opposite are more concerned about the possibility of whether you found a certain number of spray samples, whether you found a certain number in the samples that we did, Mr. Speaker.

I can guarantee this House and guarantee the people of this Province that there was no significant environmental damage done because of the emergency -onbeard the aircraft, that the environment was protected, that the people of Newfoundland were protected and,because of a sound management decision by this government, we have protected the livelihood of 20,000 people. MR. TULK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Fogo. MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, again, the question to the minister is which area?

Is it the area that he said on June 26th, or is it true that the federal Department of Environment is right, that indeed the area has not been

S November 25, 1981 Tape 3724 EC - 3 R. TULK: located and that no sopi of matacil have been found anywhere? Now, would the minister answer the question instead of going off on a tangent about us being opposed to this, that and the other thing? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hears MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, the area was identified, the area was inspected by the federal Department of the Environment, by the provincial Department of Environment, there was no significant environmental damage caused by that pray.spill, which was what we guaranteed the people of the Province on the morning after the spray spill.

There was no significant damage, It was done according to the contingency plans that were in place in case there were emergencies and we have worked very qS

Nov. 25, 1981 Tape No. 3725 LW - 1 MR. C. POWER: closely with the federal Derartment of the Environment, the provincial Department of the Environment and,in fact, the main problem we had with our spray programme last year was because the operators of the aircraft found it to be more difficult to work in Newfoundland because we had so many rules and regulations laid down. MR. L. THOMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. member for Grar.d Bank. MR. B. TtJLK: Mr. Speaker. MR. L. THOMS: I will yield, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Grand Bank (Mr. Thorns) yields to the hon. member for Fogo (Mr.

Tulk). MR. 3. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the question is to the minister, the question is is the report of the federal Department of the Environment wrong when they say that there is no evidence of a spill in the area that he says, or is his report of June 26th. right when he says that he did find that area in there, Sunday Lake? Now which report is right? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Forest Resources and Lands. MR. C. POWER: Mr. Speaker, again members of the Opposition are having significant difficulty in examining reports which are done by different agencies, whether provincially or federally.

What we did provin- cially was to isolate the area of the spray spill exactly as given to us by the pilots and by persons who were in the area. What the federal Depaitment of the Environment did was inspect the area for significant environmental damage. They did sampling,as did our provincial Depart- ment of the Environment. And the federal Department of

Nov. 25, 1981 Tape No. 3725 OW - 2 MR. C. POWER: Environment jd c"r vrincia1 deparzment,found no significant dara;e. MR. L. THOMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. member for Grand Cank - MR. G. FLIGHT; A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. L. THOMS: You have a supplementary? Go ahead. MR. SPEAKER; - yields for the hon. member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. Flight) to ask a supplementary. MR. G. FLIGHT; I thank the hon. member for Grand Bank (Mr. Thorns). I would want to ask the minister, Mr.

Speaker - it is obvious now that the area that the spill took place in was not identified the day the minister came in the House and indicated where it was. It is obvious it was not identified. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FLIGHT: Now I want to ask the minister this; when was the area in which the spill took place identified?

Would the minister indicate to the House when his department was successful in identifying the area and started the clean-up of the spilled matacil in the jettisoned area, not-the drippings all the way from here to the airport or from here to Vancouver maybe, the actual dumping of the load itself? When did the minister's department identify the area where that dumping took place and started clean-up operations? MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister. MR. C. POWER: Mr. Speaker, the area was identified by the pilot immediately after the disaster or emergency took place. MR. L. THOMS: Mr. Speaker. qP7

a Nov. 25, 1981 Tape No. 3725 DW - 3 MR. SPEAKER. irrJnsj : he hon. n.ember for G::anci Bank. MR.L. THOMS: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan). Mr. Soeaker, I understand that - SOME HON. MEMBERS; Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. L. THOMS: If the minister sitting along- side the Minister of Fisheries could just keep quiet for a moment,I would like to direct a question to him. I understand that now, Mr.

Speaker, apart from the proposals already submitted to government by the Lake Group and Fishery Products,that another new proposal was submitted by the Lake Group as of yesterday. Now one of the problems with the delay of a decision is this: that if a decision with respect to the Lake Group proposals is not made soon,.then there is going to be a dissipation of the work force in Grand Bank. They are going to be going to other parts of the Province obtaining jobs or other parts of the country obtaining jobs.

My question to the minister is this: would the minister advise this House and the people of Grand Bank when a decision from government can be expected1 and would the minister be able to give some details of the proposals,and whether or not the latest proposals submitted yesterday includes the re-opening of any or all of the fish plants on the South Coast of this Province?

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3726 SD - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker,to answer the first part of the question in connection with the proposal and proosa1s, I thank the hon. gentleman for asking the question because I vant to clarify any confusion with regard to proposals and counter- proposals.

As indicated some time ago by the Premier, that when the first proposal of merger was rejected with regard to the financing requested of government, there were two proposals then before us, one from the Lakes alone and one in a general way, a very general way from the company Fishery Products.

As a result of yesterday , the Lake proposal is off the table now and a new proposal to replace that, so we still have two proposals: One in a general way from Fishery Products which is being pursued at the official level with the company and this new proposal came in yesterday to both levels of government which is requesting assistance of both levels of government. That is all I can say at this time. I think any details of the proposal or request for assistance should come, and rightly so if they feel they want to do so,from the company concerned.

The proposal now as I say, it takes off the earlier proposal from the Lake company, this new proposal involving both levels of government. It is being submitted, as I understand, to at least two ministers in Ottawa and, of course, my colleague,the Minister of Development (Mr. Windsor),and myself have proposals here in Newfoundland. And in relation to the second part of the question, maybe an important part, as it pertains to the problems in Grand Bank in the hon. gentleman's district, this government will pursue vigorously that proposal in giving it consideration.

And it is the aim of my colleague and myself, the two ministers in fact, the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) to have that proposal to all of the total Cabinet by next Thursday's meeting. That is our objective. In other words, we will pursue it vigorously to get a decision made from this level of government and we are hoping that the federal level will take

November 25, 1981 Taoe No. 3726 SD - 2 MR. MORGAN: the same kind of attitude and consideration and deal with it from their level as well in that way. MR. TiOMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simma) : Suplementary, the hon. member for Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: To ease the uncertainty that is existing in the district of Grand Bank now where you had some 730 employad at that plant on August 27th, we now have 730 unemployed, that is directly; then, of course, there is the spin off effect of that.

But to ease the uncertainty in the minds of the people of Grand Bank, could the minister indicate whether or not this latt proposal includes the re-opening of the Grand sank plantor any of the other plants for that matter? Does it include the re-opening of the Grand Bank plant? Would the minister give the people of Grand Bank some easing of the uncertainty in this regard? q n n 11 also

Nover'ber 25, 1951 Tape No. 3727 MR. SPEAKER (Si:c,: The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MCRGAN: Mr. Speaker, as I earlier in- dicated, it wculd be just unfair to make available details of the agreement -or the proposal rather put forward to government. And it would be also unfair to build up any expectations or hopes in any way in the minds of the workers and people in Grand Bank. And all I can say is the proposal will be dealt with in a very careful way and in a very fast way by the government, along the lines where I indicated that a decision could be made as early as next Thursday, Thursday of next week.

But in regards to the detail and what the proposal encompasses, that this cannot be disclosed at this time, and there are very obviously reasons '.thy; it is before two levels of government. - - - MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. member for Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: I would say it is probably more unfair to keep the people of Grand Bank in the suspense in which they are being kept right now, Mr. Minister.

But a week or ten days ago the Concerned Citizens Committee of Grand Bank requested a meeting with the minister and with the Premier of this Province and at that time the Premier indicated that he would be meeting with them almost immediately. Now to date no such meeting has been arranged with the Concerned Citizens Committee.

Would the minister advise this House on what date and at what locale that meeting will take place, bearing in mind and remembering that the committee would like this meeting to take place prior to any decision beincr made on a proposal that will be made by Lakes, or Fishery Products, or who have you? SRL1

cr 25, 1 93 Taoe . 3727 MM - 2 MR. SPE:ARER (Sirnms) : The hon. Minister of Fisheries. MS. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, the request for a ein', I aonot sure of oe nner it was reauested, hut I know last evening I talked to members of the Grand Bank Town Council, and in fact the Mayor of the town as well, and I have indicated to the Mayor, Mr. Snook, yesterday evening that we would be keeping him informed as the mayor and the council of Grand Bank.

I earlier talked to the committee, the Concerned Citizens Committee of Grand Bank, which is one committee for the Grand Bank town itself, and also the committee for the whole peninsula, both committees. We informed then we would be willing to meet and discuss with them any time. Now I do not know if that request is still standing with them, if they will want to meet with us, If it is.I can be in contact with the committee this afternoon and we can arrange a meeting with the senior officials ofmy department and myself to sit down with them.

But again we would not be able to disclose any detail, but we would be willing to discuss the situation with them any time at ally if at all possible this week. MR. STIRLING: A supplementary. MR._SPEARER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition, a supplerrentary. i'IR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on this matter. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) thought that he could go on radio and television and say that this new thing had come in. Now I understand from the few details that he has given that he is not prepared to tell my colleagues whether or not he is going to let the people in Grand Bank know 9A7

ova -hcr 25, 1951 Tape No. 3727 NM - 3 MR. STIRLING: if this proposal involves opening Grand Bank or not. It is cruel not to let the peol know whether the proposal even 4 4 9R2

November 25, 1981, Tape 3728, Page 1 -- apb considers it, because if it does not consider it, then they have a statement to make. :he aacond thing, Mr. Speaker, is that presumably any money-and the question is if there is any money that is going to have to be put up by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, does not the minister intend to be coming to thiS House of Asserthly for authorization?

And I would ask the minister if he would now tell the House of Assembly how much, in what range is the nunther of dollars that he is talking about which this House of Assembly is going to have to vote to support that latest proposal? MR. SPEKER(Siirixns) The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling), when he speaks on the issue of Fisheries usually hurts one of his own colleagues, or confuses the situation to the point that it does hurt one of his own colleagues.

The hon. gentleman surely must understand that the Lake Group of companies is a private sector company. The decision they make with regard to what plants they operate and what trawlers they sail etc., is strictly a corporate decision of a company not involved with the Newfoundland Government. These are not our decisions to make. They are our decisions to make if they request assistance from us, financial assistance in particular. I am saying now, and this is all I am going to say today, it is a fact that this new proposal is asking for assistance, is requesting assistance from both levels of government.

This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that this company has found itself in some financial difficulty, this year, the year '81, the Lake Group of companies which owns a number

November 25, 1981, Tape 3728, Page 2 -- apb jiR. iRGAN; of pltnt. arrund Province, including Grand Iank, that the company proposal nov: put forward, as I say, will be dealt with by both levels of government. It is the first time they have asked two levels of government, the first time they have involved the federal level of government, in seeking some answers and solutions to the problems in the fishing industry in Newfoundland.

Finally, the people involved in that company undeLstand as well that we have not got all the answers and all the solutions to the problems in the fishing industry, and to the problem this one company has in particular. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER(Simms): The hon. the member for laPoile. MR. NEARY Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. Mr.

Speaker, yesterday we tried to pry some informadon out of the minister in connection with cutbacks in programmes in the Department of Educaticn, what programmes had to be cut in order for the minister to cough up her share of the deficit in current sccount this year. Now, the minister stonewalled on that and told us there were going to be no cutbacks. Now, will the minister tell us what sources of new revenue the Department of Education is going to implement to try to recover the share, the Department of Education's share of the deficit in current account? What new revenues does the minister have planned?

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3729 EL - 1 LiE. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. the Minister of Education. MS. VERGE: Mr. soea:er, I am crabeful for another opportunity to reiterate that this year in our Province we are spending a record amount of money on ed- ucation, that is at every level. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, heart MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, this present fiscal year there are no new sources of revenue, and the only sources of revenue are those indicated in the Budget Speech which was brought down last Spring.

However, when we look forward to next year wherL we know that the demand for spending at the post-secondary level will be even greater, because the interest in our student population for advance education is greatur than ever with the bene- fit of improved high school programmes, we are saddened with the realization that the federal government is re- ducing the level of funding specifically for post-secondary education. So that revenue source thext year is going to be less,and less the year after. MR. NEARY: A sup1ementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. member for LPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Education is either unaware of what is going on in the minister's department or is attempting to mislead this House. MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hen, the President of the Council. q AL1 P

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3729 EL - 2 MR. NEARY; Mr. Speaker, if it is unparl- imentary I withdraw it and save the hon. gentleman the trouble. MR._MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are not allowed to accuse anyone of intentionally mis- leading this House which - MR. STIRLING: Even if it is true. MR. SPEAKER (Sims): Order, p1ease I would like to heor the point of order. MR. MAPSHALL: - within the context of what the hon. member said, he was obviously doing. So he has to with- draw. MR. NEARY: I withdraw. MR. MARSHALL: And apologize. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for LaPoile withdraws. MR.

NEARY: time on the nasty - MR. SPEAKER: ber for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: (Mr. Marshall) I am not going to waste any A supplementary, the hon. mem- - member for St. John's East Is the hon. Minister of Education aware that within recent days the Department of Education announced a one hundred per cent increase in the cost to students writing the Grade XI public examinations? The rate last year was one dollar per subject with a maximum of six dollars. Now it has been put up to to two dollars 4 with no maximum. Is the hon. minister aware of that new form of child abuse in this Province? A L 7

-I November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3729 EL - 3 SOME HON MEMBERS: Oh, ohL SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear: MR. EPEAEER (Sims) : The hon. the Minister of Educaiion. MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that question really deserves an anser,but because I am extra considerate I will say that rates for public exams were sot in the Budget last year to reflect a variety of circumstances including inflation,and in my judgement they are within reason. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. NEARY: • final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. • final supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, how low can an ad- ministration sinkwhen they start to get - when the Minister of Educatidn (Ms.Verge) - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. NEARY: - tries to get - MR. SPEAXER: Order, please: The hon. member has a supplementary. MR. NEARY: - the department's share of the deficit mismanagement out of the hides of the school children. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: MR. NEARY: - by increasing the -

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3730 SD - 1 Mh. 3rder, please The don, member should ask his supplementary. MR. NEARY: Alright, Mr. Spuaker. I would like to ask the minister how much revenue. how much the minister • expects to contribute to the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) for his mismanagament, 2or government mismanagement, how much revenue will they get as a result of this child abuse of increasing the dollar up to two dollars with no maximum? How many students will have to pay that and how much revenue does the minister expect to get out of the children of this Province? MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Minister of Education. MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for LaFoile 5 (Mr. Neary) whole line of questioning is based on errors and falsehoods. What I think is important for all hon. members to appreciate is that in a time when the federal government is exercising fiscal restraint for whatever reason, which is imposing a difficult burden on our Province which has responsibility for delivering educational programmes, we, nevertheless, are going the extra mile and making an unprecedented financial commitment to education , recognizing that our young people are our most valuable resource.

The latest available Statistics Canada data indicates that our Province among the ten in Canada :s spending more on education as a percentage of earned income of our residents than any other province. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for St. Barbe. MR. BENNETT: I yield, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: He yields. Supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the hon. minister another question. 9R°

Noveioer 25, 1981 Tape No. 3730 SD - 2 SOME iON. MIMBERS: Oh, oi. MR. SPEAKER (Simins): Order, piease MR. NEARY: Hcw much revenue does the Minister of Education (Ms. Verge) expect to get from the children of this Province as a result of doubling the fee for writing their Grade XI Public Examination? Now give is a straight answer. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: Order, piease The hon. Minister of Education. MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, we now have more children finishing high school then we ever did before. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MS. VERGE: The drop-out rate is lessening, the retention rate is improving.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MS. VERGE: And we are pleased, Mr. Speaker, at the realization that more than ever students, certainly as a percentage of the secondary school population are completing their Grade XI and writing public exams. And the whole matter of administration of public exams is very well handled and we look forward to good results in June. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. NEARY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for St. Barbe. MR. 13ENNETT: I yield, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: He yields. Supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR.

NEARY: Would the Minister of Education tell the House how many students will be writing the public examinations next year? Approximately how many students will be writing the Grade XI public examinations and how many of these students will be charged a 100 per cent incroase,from one dollar to two dollars without any maximum, to help make up for government pn

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3730 SD - 3 MR. NEARY: mismanagement and waste and extravagance as announced by the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) last week? MR. SPEAKER (Sirrims) : The hon. Minister of Education. R

November 25, 1981 Tape 3731 EC - 1 ME VERGE: Mr. Speaker, it is expected that most students who are in Grade XI in this school year will be writing public exams in June. There are apProximately 146,200 student.s in kindergarten through Grade XI in our Province in approximately 650 schools, and the administrative arrangements, including the fees for public exams for next June,was arranged and decided last year when the budget was compiled. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. LUSH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for Terra Nova.

MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member yield? MR. LUSH: I yield, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. the Minister of Education confirm for the House now - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEARER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. NEARY: Would the hon. the Minister of Education confirm for the House that the fee for Grade XI students writing the public examination this year has gone from one dollar to two dollars - one dollar last year with a maximum of six dol1ars up to two dollars this year with no maximum?

Would the hon. gentleman confirm or deny that fact? MR. SPEAKER: Hon. gentleman! The hon. the Minister of Education. MS VERGE: I am, as you would appreciate, not an hon. gentleman. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

November 25, 1981 Tape 3731 EC - 2 K: (3i;ms) : I would not ba able to say that it is unparliamentary, though. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear 1. MS VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the fees for public exams for June and July of 1982 were decided in the Winter and Spring of 1981 in consultation with school boards and it is the judgement of the officials and myself as Minister of Education that those fees are reasonable. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARV: Mr. Speaker, I have to come back again.

Would the hon. the minister confirm or deny whether or not there has been a 100 per cent increase in fees to school children in this Province? - I do not think an adiniristration could stoop any lower than to try to get some of their deficit from the school children of this Province - confirm or deny that the fee has gone from one dollar, last year one dollar, maximum of six dollars per student,up to two dollars, which is 100 per cent increase with no maximum? Would the hon. the minister confirm or deny that? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please I would have to rule the question out of order.

Beaucheune, paragraph 357, subsection 171 (

d) says, "A question must not repeat in substance a question already answered, or to which an answer has been refused." I Therefore, it is the same question. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order? MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure. MR. SPEAKER; Is it a point of order?

9 November 25, 1i Tape 3731 EC - 3 MR. NHARY: well, on Your Honour's rulinc. S?KT (5.$) : The hon. the member for LaPojie. MR. NEARY: Is Your Honour saying that the minister has refused to answer the question? I have asked the question three times ir. three different ways and I have riot gotten the answer, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARSHALL: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. 3PFAME}1: To the point of order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is out of order to ask the Speaker a question with respect to the proceedings of the House.

The hon. member, as usual,is abusing the privileges of this House. Your Honour made a ruling and he i3 the same as any other member. When Your Honour makes a ruling he accepts it without question. p P P I.

Nov. 25, 1981 Tane No. 3732 DW - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Sirmns): With respect to the point of order, there is no point Cf order. Standing Orders 31 (

f) is quite clear, "The Speaker's rulings related to oral questions are not debatable or subject to appeal". MR. S. NEARY: A supolementary question, Mr. Speaker. MR._SPEAKER: A supplementary question, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. S. NEARY: Would the hon. minister indi- cate to the House whether or not the increase is 100 per cent, 150 per cent or 200 per cent? Because, Mr. Speaker, there is no maximum. So a student doing seven subjects - MR.W. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please A point of order, the hon. President of the Council. MR. W. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, Your Honour, has already made a ruling on that point. The hon. member is again - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. W. MARSHALL: - repeating in substance a question he already asked. He is flagrantly violating Your Honour's ruling, trying to avoid Your Honour's ruling,and the obvious remedy for the hon. member is to be asked to take his seat and recognize another member. And if he will not do that there is another obvious remedy as well. MP. L. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. -

Nov. 25, 1981 Tape No. 3732 DW - 2 MR. L. STIRLING: Yes, 4r. Speaker, ;;e no;; coo this goerrrnent refusing to give answers, and the Presi- dent of the Council (Mr. Marshall) intentionally rising on • a point of order that he knows is no point of order, knows that the Speaker has complete control and is just wasting the Queot:ion Period, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! I would agree that there is a legitimate point of order. I have already read the appro- priate reference and I think it is clear enough for anybody to understand.

And I repeat it once more, if it means I , have to, in order to get members to understand it. The traditional restrictions on questions are those listed in Seauchesne's Fourth Edition at citations seventeen and ceven which are as follows: Paragraph 357, 7 (d); 'In putting a question a member must confine himself to narrow limits and the purpose of the question is to obtain infor- mation, not.to supply it in the House. A question,oral or written,must not repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused.

I think it is clear the hon. member is repeating in substance the same question and has already given indication that he has asked the question three or four times. So I think that is fairly clear. So that is the ruling. MR. S. NEARY: It is a completely different question, Mr. Speaker. I did not get a chance - MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member has a completely different question then - he may ask it. S MR.S._NEARY. I did not get a chance to ask my question because 'Mr. Nasty' from St. John's East (Mr. Marshall) rose to his feet as usual to try to protect the - A P

Now. 25, 1981 Tape No. 3732 D - 3 M. S?EAER (Sirnm): The hon. neither may sa a lot of time if he asked his aestior becaisa ha about t;antv-f1:a seconds now to cret it out. e SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. S. NEARY Okay, then. I will ask the minister if tne minister could indicate in what part of the bud'7et this announced increase to the children of this Pro- vince to pay this additional fee, to pay 100 per cent or 150 per cent in fees, what part of the budget? Could the hon. minister tell us where we can find that in the budget? MR. SPEARER: The hon. Minister of Education. MS. VERGE: Mr.

Speaker, if the hon. member fo L3Poile (Mr. Neary) had as his colleague did, the member for Grand Bank (Mr. Thoms),attended the Estimates committee hearings on the Department of Education - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear:

November 25, 1981, Tape 3733, Page 1 -- apb so::: HON. 1EMBERS: Oh, oh! Mx. SEAKERSimms): Order, please! Order, please! The time for Oral Questions as expired. While I am standing,I would lice to reccgnize, seated in the gallery today, representatives from two native groups from around the Province representing the Labrador Inuit Association of Labrador, and representatives of the Indian Federation of Newfoundland. On behalf of all hon. members we welcome you here today. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of approximately 709 residents of Airport Heights, or 83.4 per cent of the voters who live in the Airport Heights area. There are about 850 voters in the vicinity of Airport Heights, Mr. Speaker, and out of that 850 only twelve voted in the most recent St. John's City election. Now, give or take two or three people who might have signed the petition after it was put in my hands, Mr. Speaker, there were 709 people signed the petition, or 83.4 per cent. The people who signed this petition are deadly opposed, are against, Mr.

Speaker, becoming - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. NEARY: - a part of the City of St. John's, and they beseech the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mrs. Newhook) and this House to reverse or quash a decision that was made by Cabinet, in secret, on the eighth floor of Confederation Building, to reverse this decision.

November 25, 1981, Tape 3733, Page 2 -- apb MR. NEARY: But icc i iirst of all, in presenting the petition, Mr. Speaker, point out that the two MHAs for the Airport Heights area were asked to ptesent this petition in this Hon. House. The member for a Mount Scio(Mr. Barry) did have the courtesy to reply to the Committee, but the member for St. John's East Extern 4 (Mr. Hickey) showed callous disregard for the efforts of the Committee and the wishes of the people in his district by his lack of response. You see, Mr. Speaker, Portugal Cove Road divides the two districts, St. John's East Extern and Mount Scio.

On September 4, 1981, the MHA for St. John's East called Carl Sterrett on VOCM's Open Line to say that the Committee never involved him in the problems of Airport Heights. It is totally inconceivable, Mr. Speaker, that the member for St. John's East could utter such a statement when he did not even bother to reply to phone calls. MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER(Simms) : Order, please! A point of order has been raised by the hon. the President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: The hon. gentleman is making references to myself which are entirely and absolutely incorrect.

SOME HON, MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: East Extern? MR. MARSHALL: You said East. * MR. SPEAKER: It is not a point of order, The hon. member has taken the opportunity to clarify statements that had been attributed to him. The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: The member for St. John's East Extern did not have the

Novetwer 5,J38i Ia No. 3734 MR. NEARY: decency or the courtesy to reply to phone calls or to letters from the committee. V Now, Mr. Speaker, anybody who has followed toe St. John a houndarv controversy over the last several years realizes that partisan politics was the only consideration taken into account when the areas on the perimeter of St. John's were being carved up. The recommendations of the Powell Commission were completely ignored and decisions that make no sense to ariyone,except the Premier and his colleagues in Cabinet,wero made.

For instance, Mr.Speaker, they agreed to leave out Mount Pearl and the other areas, and Wedgew000 Park.and put in a corridor of land that roes up bouncied on one side by St. John'th Airbort and bounded on the other side by the Kenmount Road and dead- ends practically at Windsor Lake. There is no room for development, there is no pay tax base in the area, Mr. Speaker,and therefore the people will get no services. V Mr. Speaker, residents of Airport Heights have been the victims of unfair and unjust treatment by this government.

They have been under the iron heel of this Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mrs Newbook) now long enough lnd if democracy, Mr. Speaker, means anything in this Province,then the Premier shot:ld have the courage to reverse a decision that he made sometime ago to include- Airport Heights in the eity of St. John's.

And if the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mrs Newhook) thinks for one moment that these people in the gallery and their neighbours are going to give up their struggle, are going to stop their fight for what they consider to be just and knuckle under the iron heel of this government, Mr.Speaker, then they are not in touct with reality or they do not understand what a couple of thousand Newfoundlanders are capable of achieving when they unite for a common purpose. qrn

November z5,1981 Tape No. 3734 ah-2 MR.NEARY: Sc, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to supoort the prayer of this petition. I regret that the member For Mount Scio (Mr.Barry) did not see fit to bring the petition into this House on behalf 4 of his constituents. I sipport the prayer of the petition and I aek that it be placed on the table of the House,Mr. 4 Speaker, and referred to the department to which it relates. HR.SPEAMER (Simms): Any further petitions? The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR.STIRLING: I will yield to the minister if she is going to comment on the petition.

MR.PEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Nunicipal Affairs. MRS NEWHOOK: Mr. Speaker, the decision on the St. John's urban regional boundaries was made by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council and I so accept the petition and bring it to the attention of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. - MR.SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition to the petition. q R

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3735 NM I MR. sTInLING: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the petition because it orings out a couple of points. Surprise! Surprise! MR. MOORES: There is a comment we need. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, we never need to worry about gettino television in this House of Assembly, If we could only get all the residents of the Province to be sitting in the galleries the way that the people are today to see the way that certain ministers in the government conduct the people's business- SOME HC'N. MEIVERS: Hear, bear! MR.

STIRLING: - they would understand the lack of respect that this government has for people. MR. FLIGHT: The Minister of Fisheries - MR. SFEAXTR (Simms) : Order, please! Order, please! I have to drawn to the attention of visitors in the gallery that they are not permitted to participate in the activities of the House. I bring that to their attention. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

One of the rules that we follow in this House of Assembly is we are not a1lowd to do some of the thin;s that you are tempted to do or that your frustrations would cause you to do, and one of the other things is that we cannot say some things about our colleagues in the House that you can say outside. So, Mr. Speaker, in the decorum of the House I am restrained about some of the things that I can say about the attitude of this government, which is one of complete lack of respect for people's rights, complete lack of respect and a government that manipulates.

Otherwise how could you have the situation in which the people of East Meadows can have their petition heard, the people in Newtown can, the people in Wedgewood - Park can, and then the people in Airport Heights cannot

Noveiiber 25, 1331 Tape No. 3735 - 2 MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, I have had some neetings over the years with the people of Airport i-bights and they have had a consistent coim'unity feelina - MR. NEARY: That is right. MP. STIRLING: - a feeling that they lived where they decided to live because they want to be a community, and they do not want to be part of a large metropolitan area that they cannot influence. And they are prepared to pay their share of taxes, Mr. Speaker, but they are not prepared to go into a situation in which they are being treated like some kind of subordinate.

One of the things that this government has said is that they cannot have the normal water and sewer services for a five t6 ten year period. Now if this government will stand up now and make a commitment to the people of Airport Heights, that they will be entitled to the same water and sewer services as the people in the city, and they will have to pay their fair share of taxes as the people do in the city, then I am sure that you would then have people who would take a second look at it.

What they are very concerned about is the dictatorial attitude of this government, an attitude that does not care about people, an attitude of a government that is as two-faced as one day standing in here saying, "We cannot trust the native people. We cannot trust them to bargain. We cannot give them their rights under the Constitution." MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please Order, please That is a different matter. The hon. member should confine his remarks to the prayer of the petition. MR. STIRLING: In dealing with the attitude, Mr.

Speaker, that caused the petition to be taken up in the first place is that they would like to get out from under the dictatorial decisions made by this governments I was just using to illustrate that they can be two-faced, they can change their positions, they can do an about-face• If they 9A

ovsmber 2E, 1991 Tape No. 373 - 1 keep up anough-pressure they will be able to accomplish what the women of this Province dia when they forced this government to give them back their ri.qhts,because they had the muscle to do it. AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear ER. STIRLING: And they are not the only ones around. This municipality-because they are a municipality, they are a community-have the right to have their members in this House of Assembly present their views, present their petitions whether they agree with them or not. People have the right to be heard in this Province. And on this side, MY.

Speaker, on this aide of the House it does not make any difference whether we agree with them, whether we check out,as a member did.check to find out what the political persuaoion was as a people and if they were good Conser- vatives he would have supported it,but because somebody was suspicious of somebody's politics, he would not bring in the petition.

Well, as long as we are in this House of Assembly,for the short time that we are on this side and then for as long as we are on that side, we will always protect the rights of people and make sure that they have a right to be heard regardless of whether you agree with them or not. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear: ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yesterday there was an agreement I think between both sides of the House and, as I understand it afterwards between the two House Leaders. the Opposition House Leader (Mr.

Hcdder) came over to talk to us yesterday, and there was an agreement that we would

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3736 EL - 2 PREMIER PCKECRD: delay the vote on the motion that was put yesterIay by me as it related to Motion 2 on tne Order Paper, that we would do a vote on it today and then move on to the next order of business on the Order Paper. So I 'just point that out to hon. members and I take it that we are now ready to vote on the motion dealing with

section 34 of the new accord, and the in- clusion of sections 34 (1) and 34 (2) in the accord now before tile House of Commons. So with the agreement that we had yesterday, I would ask all hon. members to support this resolution. MR._WARREN. Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKEP(SI1S) : The hon. member for Tc'rngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, As a re- presentative of roughly 80 per cent of the native pop- ulation in this Province,unless the Premier of this Province takes out the word'existing. I will not give unanimous con- rent. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. WARREN: I will not give unanimous consent MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please The procedure in this particular matter is not to allow for debate. The procedure is that there has - SOME lION. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, p1ease SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please If hon. members will allow me to continue, I may be able to tell them what I am trying to say.

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3736 FL - MR. qPFAY.FR (Sirnms) The nrocedura is that the Chair simply ask,at this rarticular stint in ti.e whethar or not there is unanimcus agreement to proceed with the request A as put forth by the hon. the Premier which is to put Motion number 2 now without debate. So I simply ask, is there 1. unanimous agreement to proceed? AN HON. MEMBER: No. MR. SPEAKER: No? I hear a no. There is no unanimous consent. MR. FLIGHT: Clarify it, Mr. Speaker. There is no clarification or anything elae. We now proceed therefore - PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, let it be noted for the record that there was an agreement-terday with the Opposition and with the Opposition House Leader (Mr. Nodder). SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please There is no point of order. MR. STIRLING: The Premier just spoke on it. MR. SPEAKER: I just said it was not a point of order. MR. STIRLING: Mr.Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, what my colleague, the hon. member for Torngat Mountains (Mr.

Warren) has said is that he is prepared to grant leave if we are prepared to discuss the resolution which he brought into this House two 1 days ago,and which we could not get unanimous consent for. And if you are serious about it,then we will bring in that resolution and have the debate.

November 25, 1981 Tape NO. 3736 EL - 4 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, p1ease The hon. the Leader of the Opp- osition already should understand that that is not a point of order because the matter has now been dealt with. The rocedure,and the resoonsibility of the Speaker is when a request is made for unanimous consent to put a motion that would not normally be allowed,such as today on Private Mem- bers Oay, is that the Speaker simply rises and asks if there is unanimous consent to proceed. If there is not unanimous consent,wall then we move on to the next order of business.

I made the request 1 I asked if there was unanimous consent. I heard a no, so I did not obviously have to proceed. So I now proceed to the next order of business which normally would be called on Private Members Day, Wednesday, which is the following motion. MR. STIRLING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: The reason that I raised the point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the Speaker did allow the Premier to make a comment after we - MR. SPEAKER Order, please For the purpose of clarification only,and that is the way I will consider

November 25, 1921 Taoe No. 3737 SD - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Sirnrns): the comments by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling), did not allow the Premier to say anything. I did not recognize the Premier. The Premier simply stood and made a comment and I stood up and ruled it out of order, There yes not roint of order. MR. NEARY: A point of information, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of information? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, perhaps. The hon. member for LaPoile. MR.

NEARY: When Your Honour called the resolution that was put on the Order Paper today as a result of the resolution being introduced into the House yesterday, this side agreed that Your Honour can call the resolution. We have agreed Your Honour can call it and we will debate it. It is the other side who are saying, no. So if there is any confusion there, Mr. Speaker - PREMIER PECKFORD: To that point of information. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of information, the hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: If the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) is allowed to stand up on a point of information,so are members on this side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please PREMIER PECKFORD: Now there was an agreement yesterday to put this to a vote. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please I will repeat myself one final time. I have made the request. Is there unanimous consent to deal with this motion now today - Motion 2? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR SPEAKER: I hear there is no. qAp

November 25 1981 Tape No. 3737 SD - 2 MR. MARREN: To bete it, yes. MR. SPEAKER (Sioms) No. M ustsdina is t'at the reuest - YR.ARR.: Mr. Speaker. I MR. SPEAKER. Order, çlease The hon. member should take his 1- seat when the Speaker is standing. My understanding is that the request is to put Motion No. 2 today without debate. That is the request. I asked if there was unanimous consent, there is not unanimous consent. That should be clear for anybody to understand.

So we now move to Motion No. 3, It being Wednesday, Private Members' Day and I therefore call Motion No. 3 moved by the hon. the member for Harbour Main - Bell Island (Mr. Doyle) MR. WARREN: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, piease The hon. member cannot rise when the Speaker is standing. You can raise a point of privilege when I am finished. I will read the Motion then the hon. member may raise his point of privilece SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: Order, p1ease Motion No. 3, moved by the hon. member for Harbour Main - Bell Island:

WHEREAS our present sources of electricity will not be sufficient to meet our power demands by 1984-85; 4 AND

WHEREAS a Province with such great hydro potential ought not to be dependent on foreign oil supplies for any of its electricity needs; AND

WHEREAS this Province has been frustrated in its efforts to develop its vast hydro resources for the economic and social benefits of its people; AND

WHEREAS development of Gull Island power can give new economic life to the depressed Happy Valley - Goose Bay area;

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3737 SD - 3 AND WHEREASt is the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure Newfoundland's rights to transmit its hydropower to neighbouring provinces in the same way other pronces are permittod to transmit their oil and gas; AND

WHEREAS alternative routes for the transmission and sale of our surplus power will prove more expensive; THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge the Government of Canada to uphold this Province's right to fair and equal treatment in the transmission of its energy resources. The hon, member for Harbour Main-Bell Island. SOME HON. MMOtRS: -. Hear, hear MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please The hon. member for Torngat Mountains on a point of privilege. MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speakers As a member in this hon.

House, I would like to rise on a point of privilege that as a representative of 80 per cent of the aboriginal people in this Province , I do have a right in this House to get up and say that I do object against this move. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR.SPEAKER: Order, please The hon. members are not helping the situation. Until we hear the rrnber say what he has to say, I will then determine whether there is a point of privilege. The hon. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: And, Mr. Speaker, yesterday we gave consent to debate the motion yesterday and we would likewise give consent today to debate the motion.

MR. NEARY: Right. MR. WARREN: However, Mr. Speaker, we will not give consent if the Premier is not willing to take out the word 'existing'. And all he is doing in that, Mr. Speaker, is taking away the rights of the native people. R7fl

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3737 SI) - 4 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please PRE:•I:R PEcKFORD: To the point of orivileqe, Mr. Soeakar. MR. SPEAKER: To the point of privilege, the hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yesterday here in this House- to that point of prii1ege to which the member for Torngat Mountains (Mr. Warren) was allowed to have his say- 'esterday it was agreed by everybody,and as the Speaker has articulated,that this motion would be put today without debate so that all the legislators - SOME HON. MEMBERS: No No: PREMIER PECKFORD: - let me finish, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please: PREMIER PECKFORD: - so that all the legislators in this House - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: PREMIER PECKFORD: - could agree to the native rights being included in the Constitution. And, Mr. Speaker, just by way of some clarification for the member for Torngat Mountains, his House Leader (Mr. Hodder) came over to meet with the House Leader (Mr. Marshall) on the government side yesterday to insist that there be no debate today and we agreed - him representing all the Opposition members. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please: I believe I have heard enough to determine that I can make a ruling on what I have heard right now. 4 Obviously all members, from previous practices, will be clearly aware that this does not constitute a point of privilege but the q71

November 25, 1981 Tape 3738 EC - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Sirms) : hon. the member for T'rat Mountains (Mr. Warren) has taken the opportunity to make a statement of his position, and that is not the purpose of a point of privilege. Therefore, I would have to rule, as is the SPeaker's responsibility, there is no prima facie case. The hon. the member for Earbour Main - Bell Island AN HON. MEMBI R: Why did you allow the Prenier to speak on it? MR. SPEAKER: Becaus& the hon. member spoke on tt. I allowed one on each side. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR.

STIRLING: On a point of privilege, Mr.Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege? MR. STIRLING: Yes, a separate point of privilege brought up by the Premier making comments and accusations about a member of the House who is not here to defend himself. And since we have to give notice of a point of privilege, I give notice now that my colleague will be bringing up this matter when he does return, because what the Premier said is not true. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! All that is necessary is a notice and that is what I have accepted.

The hon. the member for Harbour Main - Bell Island, Motion Number Three. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The motion that we have on the floor today, Mr. Speaker, is in my opinion, and I would imagine in the opinion of all members on this side of the House, a very important motion. I would like to read it to the House, Mr. Speaker, to make it absolutely clear

November 25, joi iape 3736 - 2 'TR. DOYLE: as to what we are dealina with.

WHEREAS our present sources of electricity will not be sufficient to meet our power demands by 1984 - 1985; AND

WHEREAS a Province with such great hydro potential ought not to be dependent on foreign oil supplies for any of its electricity needs; AND

WHEREAS this Province has been frustrated in its efforts to develop its vast hydro resources for the economic and social benefits of its people; AND

WHEREAS development of Gull Island Power can give new economic life to the depressed Happy Valley - Goose Bay area; AND

WHEREAS it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure Newfoundland's rights to transmit its hydra power through neighbouring provinces in the same way other provinces are permitted to transmit their oil and gas; AND

WHEREAS alternative routes for the transmission and sale of our surplus power will prov to be more expensive; THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge the Government of Canada to uphold this Province's right to fair and equal treatment in the transmission of its energy resources." This is a very, very important motion, Mr. Speaker. And, as the hon. the member for St. John's West, Mr. Crosbie, in the federal House recently stated in speaking to a motion, a similar motion that was put in the House of Commons just recently, we here in the Province of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, are rapidly being faced with what is becoming a national tragedy. Now, as everyone is aware, Mr.

Speaker, the Upper Churchill now produces 5,600 megawatts of electricity. Now this translates into approximately 35 billion kilowatt hours per year, which, as everybody knows, is purchased by Quebec Hydro. q7

November 25, 1981 Tape 3738 EC - 3 MR. DOY: This rower is C' entiv so1 to the Province of Quebec for three-tenths of one per cent-or one cent, I should say, per kilowatt hour. Now, if you talk in terms of oil - and I think it is interesting to talk in terms of oil in this day and age, Mr. Speaker - that would translate into approximately $1.80 a barrel for oil. When that contract was entered into some time ago, it was and it still remains a sixty-five year deal and it gets progressively better - MR. MORGAN: Gets progressively worse. MR. DOYLE - no, gets progressively better for the Province of Quebec. MR.

MORGAN: Oh, yes, right. MR. DOYLE: So after forty years that power will sell for 2 mils per kilowatt hour. And it is very interesting again to note that that will translate into $1.50 a barrel for oil by the year 2016. By the year 2016, Mr. Speaker, Quebec will be paying the equivalent of $1.50 a barrel for oil to the Province of Newfoundland. In other words, Quebec will be buying hydro-electric energy at a price of 2 mils per kilowatt hour. q 7

Noveauser 25, 1981, Taa 3739, I -- apb MP. DOYLE: In soite of that trenendous deal that they have, in spite of the fact thai Quebec continues to make millions and literally billions of dollars off the backs of our Newfoundland people, we still remain frustrated, Mr. Speaker, in our efforts to develop the vast hydro resources that we do have, because Quebec wants a similar deal to the one that has already been drafted on the Upper Churchill. Now, it might be interesting to speak about the profit for a moment or two, Mr. Speaker.

The profit each year to Quebec for 35 billion kilowatt hours of electricity is $525 million per year - $525 million. Now, you might say, Mr. Speaker, that that is a very good basis, I suppose, on which to draft a new deal on the Lower Churchill. In view of the fact that Quebec has gotten such a fantastic deal, has gotten such a great deal out of the Upper Churchill, you might say that might be a very -good basis upon which to draft an agreement, now, on the Lower Churchill, an agreement that would probably reflect a little bit better the situation as it exists today with respect to oil and hydro electric power.

Now, when you consider that our present source of electricity will be depleted, I suppose, sometime in the '80's, then you have to consider Quebec's position on this matter to be a national tragedy in terms of where we sit here in Newfoundland. We are, Mr. Speaker, presently using very, very expensive imported oil in this Province to produce electricity, and that from day to day makes water power even more attractive in our Province. If we could develop the Lower Churchill we would be developing approximately 1700 megawatts of power for the Province of Newfoundland.

November 25, 1981, Tape 3739, Page 2 -- apb MR. ROYLE: Unfortunately, and this is quite unfortunate, we are not a heavily industrialized Province and as a result we cannot use 1700 megawatts of 4 power, hr. Speaker. So, therefore, we have to go to different markets outside of Newfoundland, outside of Canada, to the United States, possibly, to sell this sorplus power. But, but, this is where the Province of Quebec comes in, Mr. Speaker, and they have said: 'You are not going to sell that power unless, first of all, you sell it, again, to the Province of Quebec.

In other words, we are not allowed to transmit our electricity over territory within Canada ijnless it is sold first to the Province of Quebec. So in the middle of all this, Mr. Speaker, we have turned our attantion to the federal government. We have turned our attention to the federal government and we asked the federal government, if at all possible, to try and afford Newfoundlnd fair and equal treatment in the transmission of our energy.

But, again, the federal government has indicated that this is something that should be solved by the Province of Newfoundland and by the Province of Quebec sitting down together and making a decision between themselves. Now, that seems to be a position, Mr. Speaker, taken out of sheer politics, taken out of sheer politics. After all, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has exercised its power to allow oil and gas to come from Manitoba, to come from Saskatchewan, to come from Alberta, to come from Ontario into Quebec. No province, no province, Mr.

Speaker, can stop them from doing that, that is a constitutional right. No province can stop them from doing it. However, for some strange reason, some strange reason, I guess known only to the federal government, they have not taken a similar stand cU17R

November 25, 1981, Tape 3739, Page 3 -- apb of hydro electric power across other territories so Nawfoundland is left to wait again. Nevfoundland is left to wait for the courts of Newfoundland,and the Supreme Court of Canada, to

November 25,1981 Tape No. 3740 ah-1 MR. DOYLE: make our decisions for us and to tell Quebec that what they are doing is morally and is legally wrong in every sonole we. And that wait , Mr. Speaker, that wait continues to be very, very expensive for the Prcvince of Newfoundland. Since all these negotiations have taken place.a number of * things have happened over the years, but I think the most significant thing that we should remember is that to develop the Lower Churchill power now would cost the government of Newfoundland $4.3 billion.

On top of all that 1a third oil-fired unit had to be built at Holyrood and I think that was done at a cost of approximately $75 million. And what did we get out of it? One hundred and fifty megawatts of power; $75 million for 150 megawatts of mower. It had to be produced by oil and it had to be oroduced by very expensive oil. Then there is the Hinds Lake project which cost $80 million to the government of Newfoundland, and we produced out of that 75 megawatts of power; $80 million to produce 75 megawatts of power. And that translates into 25 mils per kilowatt-hour.

Next comes the Upper Salmon and that cost us $155 million.And what did we get out of that? We pot 84 megawatts of power. One hundred and fifty five million dollars for 84 megawatts of power. Now the cost of all this to our Crown corporation is 40 mils per kilowatt-hour and that, Mr. Speaker, is twenty times what Quebec is paying for power from the Province of Newfoundland, twenty times what they are paying for Churchill Falls power. Cat Arm, Mr.

Speaker - $300 million for Cat Arm, for 127 megawatts of power, 60 mils a kilowatt-hours 60 mils per kilowatt-hour and that is twenty times what the province of Quebec is paying the Province of Newfoundland for Upper Churchill power. Now the total cost of all these developments to date, Mr. Speaker, is approximately $610 million, $610 million of an unnecessary expenditurel suppose.

November 25,1981 Tape No. 3740 ah-2 . Bc:::: figures on (inaudibja OYLE: On what? MR. BENNETT: (Inaudible). MR. DOYLE: Six hundred and ten million dollars , Mr. Speaker, of an unnecessary expenditure if we had been able to go ahead with the Gull Island power project. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the people in Newfoundland are again being held up to ranson by a greedy and unfair province,I suppose, the greedy and unfair province of Quebec.

And those are the cold, hard facts, Mr.Speaker, and I know that all hon. members - it will be unanimous, I believe I know all hon. members are going to support me on this resolution because it has for its basis at least the fact that Newfoundland is not getting fair treatment from Quebec. It has as-its basis fair and equal and equitable treatment for the province of Newfoundland1 so I do not imagine you have any other choice but to support this motion. As as natter of fact it is interesting also to point Out in speaktnq about the inaquities in this power contract that last week Mr.

Muironey pointed out in the province of Quebec to Quebecers the one-sidedness of this deal and he called upon Quebec then to more or less reopen negotiations to have the power contract renegotiated to more adequately reflect the situation as it is today in the Province of Newfoundland. But I do not think we need to hold our breath , Mr.Speaker, waiting for the province of Quebec to come to our aid in that way, It is a very sad state of affairs, Your Honour, when yo.i consider that the renewable resources which offer the highest potential for the Province of Newfoundland qR7c)

November 25,1981 Tape No. 3740 ah-3 MR. DOYLE: and which can overcome the great disparities between Newfoundland and the rest of Canada, we are just not allowed to take adnae of it. I think it was all said, Mr. Speaker, in this little booklet that was a submission to the Senate Cormittee on National Finance by the hon.Dr, John F. Collins. It RP

November 25, 191 Tame No. 3741 NiY1 - 1 M. i;i: I weud like to read just a wee paragraph from that. It pretty well sums up the situation that we are in with rosoect to Gull Island power. "The Economic Council of Canada," on page sixteen, "The Economic Council of Canada in its recently released report on the Newfoundland economy measures the value of Churchill Falls power transferred to Quebec at approximately $800 million, as determined by Hydro Quebec's average selling price for electricity of 23 mils in 1980.

Now this sum is $700 million more than is actually received and implies the transfer of economic rent from Newfoundland to Quebec of approximately $1200 per Newfoundlander, $1200 per Newfoundander. "A more equitable allocation of the benefits of this vast resource to this Province could obviously do much toward relieving the economic and fiscal disparities which exist between this Province and the rest of Canada. 'There are two other hydro electric sites on the Lower Churchill river which are under- developed, one is the Gull Island 1700 megawatts, the other at Muskrat Falls 600 megawatts.

The Lower Churchill Development Coporation, a joint federal/provincial organization, has thoroughly investigated both projects and concluded that Gull Island can be produced at significantly lower unit cost than power from Muskrat Falls, but that there must be a market for surplus Gull power. Newfoundland has a customer for Gull power but feasibility of export sales depends upon an export route and access to the Quebec system. The Province has therefore proposed that the National Energy Board Act be amended to enable the board to regulate inter-provincial and international transmission of electric power.

The Province firmly believes that federal constitutional jurisdiction exists SA1 9

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 271 NM - 2 MR. DOYLE: and is seeking a firm commitment from the federal government to take expeditious legislative action.' So, Mr. Speaker, .'hat I have been trying to say in the last ten or fifteen inutes has been said by Dr. Collins in this submission to the Senate of Canada in approximately two paragraphs. The development at Gull Island, Mr. Speaker, is clearly in the national interest and it should be started as soon as possible. I guess it would be wishful thinking,I suppose,to venture a thought on what such a development could do for the Happy Valley - Goose Hay area.

Gull Island energy would replace 19 million barrels' of imported oil annually, 19 million barrels of imported oil. And it would created an awful lot of employment for this Province. So, Mr. Speaker, I would call upon all hon. members to support this resolution because as I said before, it has for its basis fair and equal and equitable treatment for the Province of Newfoundland. Now there have been, many, many grandiose schemes over the last few years to try and retrieve some of this revenue that Newfoundland is losing annually.

There have been many, many grandiose schemes by many, many people to try and retrieve some of that revenue, but I think the one of more recent date is last November when the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Rompkey, and the Leader of the Opposition made a joint press release stating that Newfoundland had the power to impose a tax on power coming from Newfoundland into Quebec. AN HON. MEER: 1 was going to use that. You do not use that.

November 25, 1981 Tape Yo. 3741 NM - 3 MR. D0YL: .. Oh Well anvwavI cannot resist it. Newfoundland had the power to ihpose the tax upon CFLC0. who would in turn imPose it on Quebec to retrieve some of this lost revenue. But of course we see in the Constitution itself that that approach cannot be used. On the

section Taxation of Resources, it says, "In each Province the Legislature may make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of sites and facilities in the Province for the generation of electrical energy and the production therefrom, whether or not such production is exportad in whole or in part from the Province: But such laws may not authorize or provide for taxation that differentiates between production exported to another part of Canada, and production not exported from the Province." In other words,any tax that is levied upon Churchill Falls power on the Province of Quebec would in turn have to be levied on our own consumers here in this Province.

So that effectively puts that one to bed. On top of all that, the contract is so written that government is not permitted any way to apply any royalties or taxes or levies on that contract. So this shows,

, 2731 T' 3742 MR. 7. LE: Mr. Seker, that Mr. Rompkey really did not know what he was talking about there. And the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) did not krow either and is similarly ignorant in this regard. So, Mr. Speaker, I would call upon all members of the Legislature to support this resolu- tion because, as I said before, it has for its basis fair and equitable treatment for the Province of Newfoundland with respect to Gull Island power. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Baird): The hon. member for Windsor- Buchans. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. G.

FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have just heard twenty minutes of criticism of the Government of Quebec. The member's debate was not relevant to the reso- lution as he has presented it It is very easy, Mr. Speaker, for us to support any criticism of Quebec but the member, in standing up for this past twenty minutes,spoke to a reso- lution calling on the federal government's assistance to develop our power and spent twenty minutes criticizing the Province of Quebec.

Now, I would ask the member: would he have criticized the Premier of Quebec a year acio when his leader, the Premier of Newfoundland, was in Ottawa telling the people of Canada, 'That I would prefer ID Levesque's version of Canada than that of Trudeau's?" SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FLIGHT: Was that a way to get the co-operation of Quebec in developing Labrador power, Mr. Speaker? The Premier should have been listening to the speech. The member has not blamed Ottawa for Newfound-

25, 1931 Tape No. 3742 DW - 2 MR. G. FLIGHT: land's inabilit'x to develco the Lower Churchill, the oeher, Hr. Speaker, has bla7a5 Cuebec,rirht zhere the blame should lie. Now, Mr. Speaker, things have a way of turning around. A year ago the Premier of Newfound- land was telling the people of all Canada that notwithstanding the kind of treatment that Newfoundland has received from Levesque or the Government of Quebec with regards to our hydro resources , notwithstanding that he prefers - MR. MOORES: Levesque's. MR. G. FLIGHT: - Levesque's version of Canada as opposed to the Prime Minister's. Now, Mr.

Speaker, let us look at the possibility of co-operation from the Premier of Quebec. Who was the only premier, Mr. Speaker, who refused to signed the accord? Who walked out, Mr. Speaker? Who accused the Premier of Newfoundland of putting a knife in his back, Mr. Speaker? Was that Mr. Levesque? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. G. FLIGHT: Would the Premier of Newfound- land expect now, Mr. Speaker, to have Mr. Levesque say, 'Yes, now we will re-negotiate the Upper Churchill contract Now, Mr. Speaker, those remarks had to be said.

We know what has happened We know what this Province's and this administrations ability to negotiate is. We know the position the Premier took on the offshore, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. G. FLIGHT: We know, Mr. Speaker, - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER (Baird) Order, please a

Nov. 25, 19e1 Tape No. 3742 DW - 3 MR. G.FLIGHT: We know, Mr. Speaker, that for two ears he hoodwinked the reorle of this Province. Ne know, Mr. Speaker, for two years that he told the people of this Province and the federal government and 7uebec and whoever else wanted to listenthat there would be no solution to the offshore until we had the ownership. The ownership of that offshore had to be vested in New- foundland. That was the condition, no other condition, no :iegot.ated settlement, no joint agreements, nothing! That is the only way it can be. 'It can be no other way, Ladies and Gentlemen of Newfoundland!

It can be no other way We went through the spectacle, Mr. Speaker, in this House of Assembly of watching an hon. member stand up in his place and say, 'I will cross the House, Mr. Speaker, on the principle that I will not accept any solution to our offshore that does not include ownership. Nothing less than ownership!' And the man in an hour of great principal walked across. I wonder how he feels now, Mr. Speaker, or how do the rest of the members feel when the Premier stands up and says, 'We are now going to Ottawa to - 'otiate an agreement based on the offer and the theory made by Mr. Trudeau a year ago'?

After two years of watchino this Province go down the drain, after two years of bigotted political rhetoric designed for nothing else only to - MR. MOORES: Deceive the people. a MR. G. FLIGHT: - deceive the people to get what political mileage might have been it, we have watched the Premier saying, 'Now we will negotiate! Now we will negotiate

S *, 'a November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3743 EL-1 .MR. FLIGHT: revenue sharing, joint manage- rent. ::o--, ::r. soorkor, let us make that relative, let us make the Premier's position on the offshore relati-:e to the Premier's position on Churchill Falls power. As a member, you know, Mr. Speaker, as a member of government, he has access to Newfoundland Hydro. He can call - I mean, I call Newfoundland Hydro if I want information. The member can certainly call Newfoundland Hydro. He does not know what he is talking about. Cat Arm, Mr. Speaker - he says that we were running out of power in 1984.

Cat Arm will take us to 1988. That is four years, Mr. Speaker, four years before Newfoundland runs out of power based on local development. MR. MORGAN: Cat Arm is not enough. MR. FLIGHT: Cat Arm will take us to 1988. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) has proven so often he knows nothing about fisheries, he should not get into an energy debate because he will prove he knows a lot less, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, - MR. MORGAN: (Inaudible) MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestr\' (Mr. Power) - (Inaudible) over your head. MR. LUSH: At least he has a head. MR.

SPEAKER (BAIRD) : Order, p1ease I think there is a little un- necessary noise. It is very difficult for everybody to hear. MR. MOORES: Hear, hear! a

November 25, 1981 Tape NO. 3743 EL - 2 U In A MR. TULK: The minister is unnecessary. MR. SPEAKER (Baird) : Order olease MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, it is a documented act.Newfoundland Hydro will confirm it. the former Minister of Mines and Energy, if he were still the Minister of Mines and Energy would confirm it, the real Minister of Mines and Energy would confirm it, that hydro developments, Upper Salmon and Cat Arm will take us to 1988. Now, Mr. Speaker, the resolution says 1984. Could the member not have called Newfoundland Hydro?

A four year mistake does not bother him because a lot of the other figures that he quoted, Mr. Speaker, are just as far off as the four years. So, Mr. Speaker, it is 1988 we are talking about. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) or what? MR. LUSH: No, that is only you. MR.FLIGHT: Let me ask the member what he wants from Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you are his (inaudible) MR. FLIGHT: He ignores deliberately - MR. PATTERSGN: (Inaudible) electricity across Quebec. MR. FLIGHT: He deliberately ignores, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Prime Minister of this country - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR.

PAKER: Order, please MR. FLIGHT: He deliberately ignores the fact Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister of Canada, about six or seven months agoindicated that he would bring legislation before the House of Commons and change the regu1aions of the

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3743 EL - 3 MR. FLIGHT: National Energy Board that would declare a designated corridor through Quebec. Now, Mr. Speaker, that commit- rnent is made in the same 5ense that the Prime Minister made a commitment that he would treat our offshore resource the same as on land. Now, the commitment will be taken up one of these days. But, you know, Mr. Speaker, the last thing that that Premier, that Minister of Mines and Energy or the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, who knows anything about this wants is legislation declaring a designated corridor through Quebec.

It is the biggest bluff ever perpetrated on the people of Newfoundland because the minister knows, the Premier knows and anyone who knows anything about electricity knows that there will never be a designated corridor through Quebec. The last thing the Government of Newfoundland wants, Mr. Speaker, the last thing they want is a designated corridor. What they are trying to do-and this is where their ability to negotiate comes into question, Mr. Speaker- what they are hoping - why do you not come out and tell the people the truth?

What they are hoping, that by having that legilation on the books this will • force Quebec's hand and possibly negotiate our using the present Quebec hydro lines to wheel the power out. Now that is where it is, Mr. Speaker, that is where it is. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. • members opposite are trying to indicate somehow or other that the federal government should force Quebec to use the Quebec hydro lines to wheel our power out, 0

'ber 2, 1091 Tae M0 - 4 MR. FLIGHT: when, Mr. Speaker, everyone in Newfoundland who knows anvthinv about mines and enercv knows t:at of the 2,200 megawatts that are available to us in Lower Churchill, 800 are required, 800 megawattr' are required to justify a transmisoion lime into this Province. So what do we have? We have 1,500 megawatts of surplus power to export. Now, would the hon. member for Harbour Main- Bell Island (Mr. Doyle) agree that eccnonically a power line, a designated corridor to wheel 1,500megawatts of power out of Quebec, would never be justified by that salel Never, ever be justified? ArdMr.

Speaker, remember the patriotic bunch on the other se,you see, what they are telling the people,alsois there will be no more long- term contracts, no-more long-term contracts. So what they are telling us is that PASNY in New York state or somebody is going to buy - we iill only have 1,500 megawatts from the Lower Churchill to ship out. 4 qpqn

November 25, 1981, Tape 3744, Page 1 -- apb LR. iLIGHT; ;:nat they are telling us is that they wculd expect, after we have built a designated corridor, a consumer, the State of New York, to buy 1500 megawatts and give us recall rights, that the Minister of Developmer1t(Mr. Windsor) could go out and identify an aluminum smelter for Goose Bay or elsewhere, and we could pull off that designated corridor the 5400 regawatts that are required to run that plant.

Now, does any member here believe that we could ever get a contract with the State of New York or anyone else to sell them 1500 megawatts of power under :hose conditions? AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) is 540, not 5400. AN HON. MEMBER: He does not know the difference. MR. FLIGHT: 540. Well, I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I stand corrected. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us cut away the bluff here, the nonsense and the bluff. The only way that ever a kilowatt of power will flow from the Lower Churchill across Quebec will be through the present Quebec hydro lines.

The only way that ever the production of Gull Island will flow across Quebec to a market in the tinited States or elsewhere will be by the present hydro lines owned by Quebec Hydro. Whether you like it or whether you lump it, the facts are the facts, it will never go out over a designated corridor. This crowd do not wan.t a designated corridor, they know a designated corridor is not feasible.

And the only way it will go out, if we cannot convince Quebec to agree to a deal, to a negotiated agreement whereby we can ship the surplus power from Gull Island out over the present Quebec hydro lines - we will never ship a kilowatt of power out of Quebec. Now, q R° I

November 25, 1981, Tape 3744, Page 2 -- apb NA. iLi: that is a cf 1if. And the Manister of Rural, Agricultural and NorcNern Developnent(Mr. Goudie), who has a very great stake in what happens with the Lower Churchill, knows that is a fact. He knows that is a fact, Mr. Speaker. MR. L. BARRY: That is right, give it all away. MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the figures. The member for Harbour Main - Bell Island(Mr. Doyle), Mr. Speaker started throwing around figures here, and in his resolution he says: 'AND

WHEREAS development of Gull Island power can give economic life to the depressed Happy Valley - Goose Bay area". How much economic life, Mr. Speaker? What could Happy Valley - Goose Bay expect to get from the development of Gull Island? I will tell you what it would expect to get, it would stand to get $24C million pumped into their economy over the construction life of that project - $240 million, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the member for Naskaupi(Mr. Goudie) this: In 1975 the estimated cost of developing Gull Island was $2.7 billion - $2.7 billion.

In 1982 dollars, the cost to develop Gull Island will be in excess of $6 billion. In six years the cost of Gull Island - MR. DOYLE: (Inaudible). MR. FLIGHT: The member should check his figures. Those are 1980 dollars he is talking about. Those are the dollars that were recommended when Muskrat was recommended for development. That was the figure, $4.2 billion, in June of 1980. The member should wake up. This is November 1981. For sure the project will not start until June of 1982, which is two years,and the cost S

Noverrther 25, 1981, Tape 3744, Page 3 -- apb MR. FLIGHT: of Gull Island - the procrastination of this Gotorn:.ant, s;o:r, their inability to develop the Gull Island has ssen the cost the carital cost of that project go from S2.4 billioc to in excess of $6 billion in six years. Now, does anyone care in this House, Mr. Speaker, to guess, if we get the sane kind of procrastination for the next six years, what the capital cost of Gull Island will be? MR. DINN: (Inaudible) up and give it away. MR. STIRLING: (Inaudible) give it away, I will guarantee you that. MR. FLIGHT: They have not given it away, Mr. Speaker.

The only monument in Newfoundland to the ability of this administration to develop hydro power is the two holes on either side of the Strait, Mr. Speaker, That is their monument to their ability to develop the Lower Churchill. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. FLIGHT: Now, Mr. Speaker, the members talk so big. You talk about propaganda and you talk about. trying to blindfold the devil in the dark; it is true, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec S

November 25, 1981 Tape 3745 EC - 1 FL:GWT: buys Uppor Churchill oor for 2.5 rlls. Uow, Would the hon. the member for Harbour Main - Bell Island (Mr. Doyle) want to tell me what it would cost If we suddenly owned - if the Water Reversion Act were declared, if it were proclaimed and we owned the whole 5,200 megawatts of power - what it would cost to deliver one kilowatt hour of that power to Newfoundland? Would the hon. member tell me that? I mean, he is very knowing. SOMEHON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. FLIGHT: 2.5 mils? That is the message that he would like to get out.

The message he would want to get across to the people of Newfoundland is that Churchill Falls power is cheap power, 2.5 mils. Well, I will tell you what it is. Churchill Falls power delivered to Newfoundland today is more expensive than anything being generated on this Island. It would cost the average consumer in this Province 55 mils. Why did the mertther not in his debate - why was he not fair-minded? Why does he not tell the people of Newfoundland what it will cost them for energy developed from the Upper Churchill to Newfoundland?

Why does he not tell them that the energy we are producing in this Province today at a blended rate - the cheapest, Bay d'Espoir, the most expensive, Holyrood - only costs this Province to generate, 30 mils? Why does he not tell them that? - that the kinds of rates they have seen , the increases they have seen in their power bills these past five years is based on 30 mil power?

And then why does he not tell them what is going to happen to them when we bring the Upper Churchill power into this Province, what is going to happen to their domestic hydro bills, when we know to deliver now, in 1980-we have a full year's inflation to take care of and a full year's difference in the interest rates to take care of -and in 1980 the cost to deliver

Novenber 25, 1981 Tape 3745 EC - 2 MR. FLIGHT: Churchill Falls power o chi Province was 55 mils? Why did not the member in his speech, if he wants the facts to come out, tell the people of this Province what delivering Churchill Falls power to Newfoundland will cost? Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to the size of an increase that Newfoundland Hydro will be going to PUB for when we have delivered the Churchill Falls power to Newfoundland? Maybe the Minister of Fisheries (Mr.

Morgan) might want to hazard a guess as to the percentage rate of increase that Hydro will be wanting after they have delivered Upper Churchill power at 55 mils cost to the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, we are all looking forward to the Water Reversion Act being proclaimed, and then, Mr. Speaker, we can use it. We will then own 5,200 megawatts of power. And, Mr. Speaker, we can use a maximum into the mid-1990s of 800 megawatts. Will the member for Stephenville (Mr. Stagg) when he rises in the debate now, Mr.

Speaker, tell the people of this House of Assembly, tell the people of this Province, when we proclaim the Water Reversion Act what we will be doing with the surplus 4,400 qnegawatts of power that we will then own in Churchill Falls? Will the member tell what we will be doing with it, how we will get rid of that power? What is he proposing? With the Water Reversion Act proclaimed, we own the power site, we own 5,200 megawatts of power. We need and can utilize 800 megawatts.

Going into the 1990s what will we - be doing with the in excess of 4,200 megawatts of power that will be left in the power plant at Churchill Falls? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. FLIGHT: What will we be doing with it, Mr. Speaker? In the negotiations that are going on,

November 25, 1981 Tape 375 - ML. •111 t' relationship between Quabac and ::a;iourdlard ho conducive to having - Mr. Levesque agree,'Weil, since you own it you can now - continue to ship it out aier our lines' Mill that ba conducive? Mr. Speaker, the best advice that this government can get on the Lower Churchill is to stop hoodwinking the peole start telling the truth about the power in Lower Churchill; tell the people that because of the way that the government of this Province have handled the Labrador power, the capital cost has gone from $2.7 billion to in excess of $6 billion; start telling the people of Newfoundland that this Province is in the

November 25, 191 Taoe No. 3746 SD - 1 MR. FLIGHT: same position today with regard = to tha L:..er Churchill as we found ourselves in with regard to the Upper Churchill; start telling the people of this Province that the Lower Churchill will flow to the sea forever unless = this government can find the ability to negotiate with the Province of Quebec. Why do we not start telling the people that so we will all understand the Labrador power situation? So, Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the support or the n-support of the resolution, I have to this point in my life, as most members in this House to this point in life,supported anything that was in the better interest of this Province. We have had difficulty, Mr. Speaker, and, you know, the proof is in the pudding, we have had difficulty with the political hypocrisy that this government was using with regard to the offshore. We have had a great deal of difficulty - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER (Baird) : Is the hon. member winding up? Elia time is just about up. MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

We have had a great deal of difficulty in accepting the political tripe and nonsense that the Province has been subjected to by this administration for the past ten yearson Churchill Falls. The truth is starting to come out, Mr. Speaker. And I will tell you another truth, you - will hear less and less in the next couple of months, in the next year, about the Lower Churchill. This administratioi will not want to talk about the Lower Churchill. Remember I said that, Mr. Speaker. Less and less we will hear about the Lower Churchill. Mr.

Speaker, as I said, the monument to the ability of this Provinca to develop Labrador power, is the two holes blasted in the Strait, the in excess of $2 million they gave to BRINCO, they spent on BRINCO for nothing, their inability, Mr. Speaker, to negotiate with the federal government, their inability, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the Quebec 9RR7

a November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3746 SD - 2 MA. iiLii: vernmant.And, Mr. 3aaLor, if we have to wait for the Lower Churchill to be developed and Lewfoundland to benefit from the power in the Lower Churchill the people of this Province will have to wait-and ten years is proof -the people of this Province will have to wait until this government is changed. They have taken these past ten years to prove they are incapable of dealing with the power on the Gull Island Muskrat sites, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in supporting the resolution. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR.

SPEAKER (Baird) : The hon. member for Stephenville. MR. STAGG: Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard again, reconfirmed for us here in 1981 the position of the Liberal Party in this Province that has been the philosophy, that has been extant within the Liberal Party since 1965 and, indeedprior to 1965. It is the hon. membeoppositeledby the member for Windsor - Euchans (Mr. Flight) who, in private life-and if you meet him behind the curtain and you meet him outside the hon. member is a very knowledgeable and a sensible human being.

But you stand him up here in the House of Assembly and he parrots the kind of Liberal diatribe and the defeatist attitude that has norvaded the Liberal Party in this Province since 1965. Prior to 1965 the then Premier was a visionary and to some extent he did a number of good things, but he started his decline in 1965. Now hon. members opposite have been on his coattails ever since. Now,unfortunately,his coattails have been disappearing downhill and hon. members opposite are • following him. And the member for Windsor - Buchans epitomizes that defeatist attitude. He said, We cannot do it . you - cannot do it.

Those are the same people, Mr. Speaker -and I am sure the Premier when he deals with the offshore negotiations, and when that matter is finally resolved in our favour, when we get the kind of deal on the offshore that we know we deserve and that is constitutionally ours, legally ours, when that

November 25, 1981 Taoe No. 3746 RA - 3 MR. STAGG: finally culminates y able to point to many examples of speecnes,rhetoric by hon. members opposite particularly the member for Windsor- Buchans(Mr. Flight) who stands smirking in the corridor now as I castigate him, we will he able to throw these words back at them, how they predicted defeat, Hon. - members opposite are the great defeatist, they are defeatist, not only are they defeated politically, Mr. Speaker, but they are defeated, they are defeated and de- featist. They said it could not be done. MR. FLIGHT: We have ten years proof. MR. STAGG: The hon. gentlemen opposite are living examples of the philosphy, q A q Cl

Nov. 2, 19 1 Tape No. 3747 DW - 1 MR. F. STAGG: it cannot be done so why not be suppine? Why not be the lardogs of Ottawa? Why not give in to Rene Levesque? Rene Levesque - MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) the last ten year. MR. F. STAGG: The hon. member for Dunn - Placentia West (Mr. Hollett) hands me a document. It says, Angry Levesque Drops Hydro Sabotage Hint'. In other words, if we are successful in getting the federal govern- ment to do what they should do and that is nake a power corridor through Quebec, either a new corridor or access to the existing lines , if we are successful in doing that, then Mr.

Levesque says that they will sabotage it. Mel]., there is a place for saboteurs, there is a place for anar- chists and terronis. There is a place them. The place for them is in jail. The place for them is behind bars. The place for them is not in this great country of Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have to deal with in this Province is we have to be able to look for our legal rights within this country.

And there were those hon. gentlemen opposite who said that the Premier was the most un-Canadian of Canadians last year - remember? - when he was speaking out and giving this Province's position on the constitution, as he has done on the Upper Churchill Con- tract and he has done on our position on the Lower Churchill prospects and as he has done on the offshore. Hon. gentle- rnent opposite have been falling all over themselves in the hope, in the hope, their vain hope that he will fail. Hon. - gentlemen opposite want us to fail. They want the govern- ment to fail as far as the offshore is concerned.

They want failure. They have a vested interest in failure SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh qqpn

Nov. 25, 151 Tape No. 3747 OW - 2 NH. F. STAGG: They have a vested interest in failure Only by the failures of this governent can that arcup, can the Liberal Party ever hope to slither back into Dower. It is only by the failure of this government. I oust tell hon. gentlemen that there have been no failures to date. The greatest success story politically in this country in the past two years - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER(Baird) : Order, please: Evidently some members enjoy the little bit of extra noise in the House, but it is very difficult when you are in the Chair to hear what is going on. MR. F.

STAGG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The greatest success story in Canada in the past two years has been the constitutional agreement. And who brought it about? Who was the architect of that agreement? Who was it? It was our Premier. It was our Premier dealing with several other premiers. It was our man. But hon. gentlemen opposite, like MacLean's Magazine and like some others who would deny that this Province or anyone representing this Province could have anything to contribute to Confederation, hon . gentlemen would decry and say, 'Foul, failure'. That is what the hon. gentlemen would like to see.

So they would prefer that Newfoundland had failed on the constitution. They would prefer that Newfoundland fails on the offshore. They do not want con- trol or ownership of the offshore. All hon. gentlemen want is power. They want the perks of power. They want to be ministers. They want to be Speaker, Mr. Speaker. They want these things that they will never get, Mr. Speaker The Liberal Party may be re-elected in this Province at some time but it will not be re-elected as long as they have the - qqni

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3747 - 5 N. LLAN: We do not have a auorun. Mr. Speaker, a cuoruT. call. MR. SPERR (Bairái Order, piease We have a quorum call. p q

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3743 EL - 1 PtAKER daird) : I would ask the Clerk to cc the House. a a auorur.. The hon. member for Steph- enville. MR. STAGG: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on many occasions when you are making debating points, hen, gen- tlemen will attempt to interrupt your train of thought. Now, this is Private MembersDay. We are having a debate here on the Lower Churchill and the future of the Lower Churchill as it pertains to Newfoundland. There are, I believe, eighteen members of the Opposition.

Their ranks, as I say, keep declining - you never know from one month to the other how many of them there are over there. They keep resiging and whatever. I think there are eicthteen of them now. There is one in the House at the present time, Mr. Speaker. There is one in the House at the present time. There are approximately twenty members on this side of the House. So that is some indication of what the Opposition feels about a matter which is of vital importance to this Province, and it,is with despair, with a certain amount of despair that I look opposite.

If I were only interested in the political ramifications of this, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it would be duly noted that the Opposition have no interest, have no interest in winning the battle of Churchill Falls. As a matter of fact, the Opp- osition have a vested interest, in their minds at least, a vested interest in losing. They want to lose. The Opposition wants to lose the battle for Churchill Falls. They lest the first battle with Churchill Falls. OUr government is now attempting to regroup and recoup the losses, the $500, $600, $700 million a year that is a direct result of an qqn2

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 3' - 2 "crded, a trait- - J3cui; at 15 so that scmecr.o could have a crand imperial concect as it was. r . Ch'rch- - ill called it a grand imperial concepa and that is all that was needed. Because hon. gentlemen opposite -are able to - be led around by the nose by anyoneand they have been led around by the nose by half a dozen in the past ten years. They have been led into Opposition and that is where they are going to stay. The Opposition wants us to fail on this. They want us to fail on fisheries, 1r. Speaker. They want us to fail on fisheries.

They do not want this government or the people of Newfoundland to have any jurisdiction or control or say in the fisheries, no, because as soon as that happens, or relatively soon after that happens and the people of this Province have a say in the fisheries,because only through election to this House -the only way that people in this Province can con- trol their natural resources is by electing members of the Provincial Government, that is the government that the people of this Province can throw in and throw out, elect and defeat.

We have infinitesimal control over the House of Commons, seven members out of a 284 seat House. That is why the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) and the Premier and all of us on this side have stood up for years,and we will continue to stand upfor control and jurisdiction, or some say in control and jurisdiction, over the fisheries. And that is why we on this side want to win that battle.

-- - . TG(; It is a ouestion of ohilosoohy, ir. Speaker, the philosophy of this group of people, - hich c by the tag of 77 r o;rosa Coser -ative Party. - Sane of us are to the left of centre, some of us are to the riqht of centre, some of us are in ohe centre, a qqi

November 25.1981 Tape No. 3749 ah-1 MR. STAGS: but we have one co::..::: tra throughout, that we will not emulate, we will not approxilate, we will not be in any way similar to the hon. gentlemen opposite who are still taking their cues and casting the kudos, kudos. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh. oh MR. STAGG: - at the former Premier, Premier Smallwood. MR. CALLAN: - an opportunist. Opportunist7 The hon. gentleman calls me an opportunist, MR. CALLAN: And reformed Liberal. MR. TULK: You sound like a (inaudible) MR. STAGG: Well,I did try to get rid of Mr. Smaliwood in 1969,1 must admit,when I supported Mr.

Crosbie,as did the Premier support Mr. Crosbie in 1969, as did a whole lot of people support Mr. Crosbie in 1969. Now, speaking of Mr. Crosbie: On October 30th, 1981he made a speech in the House of Commons that was circulated to some members on our side. I do not know if the hon. members opposite got it or not. He probably did not send it to thembecause they would not be interested in hearing what Newfoundland's position was. But for anybody who is interested in this particular situation, anybody who is interested in it1I refer them to October 30,1981, Common's Debates,page 12371 where the hon.

John Crosbie deals with, in detail the situation with regard to Upper Churchill and Lower Churchill and the necessity of having wheelino rights through Labrador. MR.FLIGHT: He was the right one to deal with it. MR. STAGG: Yes, and he would have dealt with it too. He would have dealt with it too. MR. FLIGHT: He was the right one to deal with it. q q p

November 25,1981 Tace No. 3749 ah-2 Mr. Spoakar, 1 am an ocote of the Anglo-Saxon route, the so-called Anglo-Saxon route which is rather - it is an ethn±: way of speakinq about it, but I am a believer that if we did get a firm sale for the electricity in New York or wherever. and we were able to come down the West coastof Newfoundland and go across the Cabot Strait,or go from Cape St. George- MR. FLIGHT: With 1000 megavatts of power. MR. DINN: Five thousand two hundred. AN HON. MEMBER: One thousand five hundred. MR. STAGG: -to go across the Cabot Strait or across from Cape St.

George to Prince Edward Island or however it has to go - I do not think that route has been oro'117 explored. MR. PATTERSON: Maybe we could send it over by EPA. MR. FLIGHT: (inaudible) waste on 1500 megawatts. AN HON. MEMBER: Or Air Canada. MR. STAGG: I am not sure that that cannot be done. I would be a firm believer in it, that we would always have it passing through friendly territory. At least our own territory is friendly territory. But I would also say this, Mr. Speaker, it is inevitable that that power in Labrador will be developed.

But I will also say this, I think it is also most important that that power be developed for the people of Labrador. Now I am a person who lives on the Island and I have a vested interest in an industrial center on the West Coast, the Stephenville area, a great industrial center but I believe that Labrador power must first be developed for Labrador. And who is to say that the powerwhen it is developedthat we could not have the iron ore of Labrador snielted in Labrador? Who is to say that cannot happen? It is inevitable. There is an inevitability about that as well, that the power and the qn7

ovemoer 5, i9dl Eape No. 3749 IL-3 MR. STAGG: iron ore will ao tocether. There is an eviahiiitv hn- -. - The Lower Churchill was discussed in this House in 1972, in the 7 :11 of 1972,wher. CFLC0 was owned by BRINCO - MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible). MR. STAGG: That is right, it was owned by BRINCO.

And hon. gentlemen opposite, neither one of them are in their places today, but there were two leading lights in thatOpposition, the then Leader of the Opposition and a man who later became Leader of the Opposition briefly. and their philosophy was, Let us get the Lower Churchill started, we need the jobs, we have tremendous unemployment in this Province, we need the jobs. That is what their - philosophy was and that is what they have stated in this House in debate. MR. CALLAN: What is your philosophy,drive them all to Alberta? MR.

STAGG: The philosophy of this government is that we cannot trade off short-term jobs for the long-term benefit of this Province. And John Crosbie,who was Minister of Finance at the time said the Churchill River will flow into the Atlantic forever before we make a deal that approximates the Upper Churchill deal. MR. FLIGHT: That is what Newfoundland is doing. MR. STAGG: Yes, it is still flowing into the Atlantic and I say more power to us for having done that. More is power for ourselves, maybe during our lifetimes, but that river and that

November 25, 1981 Tape No. 375Q EC - 1 MR._STAGG: peninsula will be cenerating water for a long time, Mr. Speaker. It will be generating water for 4 a long time. And we are mere pin pricks in history. SOME HON. MEMBERS; Oh, ohi 4R. STAGG: That is right. We occupy a very small part of history. This group here will be - we will have our ten or fifteen years in power, then the people who follow us will have their ten or fifteen years. And I want it to be said we will be replaced by people of a similar persuasion, the faces will change, the party will remain the same.

I want it to be said about my legacy that when the time comes for - MR. NEARY; What legacy? MR. STAGG: The legacy of me as a politician, the legacy of this group here as political leaders in this Province, that we did not give it away and we will hold on to it. We will hold on to it because it is something that is vital to our future. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. SPEAKER(imxns) : Order, please MR. STAGG: I cornend the member for Naskaupi (Mr. Goudie)and the member for NonihekCMr.

Walsh) - the two members for the Labrador Coast I cannot commend them, but I do commend my two colleagues for their unceasing and untiring - efforts as far as the Churchill project is concerned, and the member for Nenihek in his efforts to make sure that the Lower Churchill when developed is to have economic significance f or his area. I certainly commend him in that and, as a member of the House of Assembly from the Island part of the Province, I want to go on the record as saying that. Mr. Speaker, we are going through an exercise here today that has been gone through many times be- fore.

I guess in every session of the House we deal with the Churchill Falls situation, and what it serves q

November 25, 1931 T 37512 70 - 2 MR._STAGG: to do each time is it serves to point coo oven thougN :lN., ovan thounh there may be very great similarities between us on some vetters, there is a very distinct difference between the government, the Progressive Conservative Party in this Province and the Liberal Party in this Province. Because the Liberal Party is a group of defeatists and they are the party that would not be able - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Sirnms) : Order, please! MR. STAGG: - that would not be able to look after this responsibility if it were ever handed to them.

I commend the member for Harbour Main - Bell Island (Mr. Doyle) for bringing in this Lesolution. It is a good resolution. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. STAGG: His speech was full of detail and the arguments were irrefutable. The member for Windsor Buchans (Mr. Flight) dealt with it in the way that the Liberals traditionally deal with it, did not deal with the subject but lamely said at the end that he supports it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I support it and I support it for the reasons given by myself and by. the member for Harbour Main - Bell Island. SOMg HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR.

SPEAKER (Butt) : The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. - MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to this debate on this resolution and say that - we are, of course, going to support the resolution for: - 'BE IT RESOLVED that this House urge the Government of Canada to uphold this Province's right to fair and equal treatment in the transmission of its energy resources.' - q q i n

;ovenber 25, 1931 MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, the first time that that resolution was passed it was passed at a national convention of the Liberal Party of Canada, in vhch this Provirca tooh that r.esoluticn or a 100y similar resolution and oresented the case to all of the people in Canada as represented by the Liberals t