Volume 4 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 4th . Session VERBATIM REPORT MONDAY, MARCH 3, 1975 SPl:AKEH: THE HONOUAAB~E M. JAMES RUSSELL Number 4

March 3, 1975 The House met at 11:00 A.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Tape 81 STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Premier. PK - l HON. F. D. MOORES (PREMIER): Mr. Speaker, as it was mentioned here on Friday past I have since telegramed the Premier of Quebec, the Prime Minister, the Chairman of the Canadian Labour Congress, as well as the Chairman of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into union freedom in Quebec regarding the matter of the workers being laid off in Mount Wright. The context, I will read the one to the Hon.

Justice Robert Cliche who is the Chairman of the Inquiry in Quebt c. The others are the same, with the same intonations, so I will not read them all. I will just read the one. In excess of fifty Canadians whose place of domicile was Newfoundland, were, within the past few days laid off their jobs at Quebec Cartier mining operation, Mount Wright in the Province of Quebec and forced to return home.

We understand this intolera1le situation arose out of the demands and actions of Montreal Local 144, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Pipefitting and Plumbing Trades, who refused to allow these men to work on the site because they are Newfoundlanders. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador strongly protests this totally unCanadiari action which constitutes discrimination of the worst kind and severely restricts the priniciples of Confederation within our nation, as well as an unpardonable restriction of the freedom of Canadian employees.

I urgently ask that your coDDDission inquire into this regrettable matter. The Hon. Edward Maynard, Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations .for Newfoundland wi.11 be pleased to furnish any additional information you or your commission may require. 249

March 3 , 1975 Tape 81 PK - 2 When I receive any replies to that 1Mr. Speaker 1I will be advising the House. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Bell Island, MR. S.A. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, for starters I would like to ask the Premier if he can confirm or deny a statement made in Clarenville over the weekend by the Member for Trinity North, that there will be a provincial general election in this province before school closes? AN HON. MEMBER: We all hope so anyway. We certainly hope so. MR. P. S. TRO~S: MR.

MOORES: That statement I am sure is true but I do not know which year the member said, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: Well, the Premier better consult with his snecial assistant, Sir. I wonder if the Premier would tell us, Sir, whether or not the government are now quibbling over carrying out their promise to build a fish plant in Rurgeo until the trawlermen strike is over, as reported over the weekend? l,\R . SPEAKER: Order, please'. This question is out of order. It is very argumentative. MR. MOORES: It is very argumentative. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, you know, what question is not argumentative?

Sir, I wonder if the Hon. the Premier would care to comment, I could not get a statement out of his Minister of Health - comment of reports - very alarming reports of silicosis amongst the residents of Buchans, and the miners in Buchans, and reported deaths, five deaths at St. Lawrence since Septemb~r - one reported of a heart condition and the other four of lung cancer. Would the Premier care to comment on this situation? 250

Monday, March 3, 1975. Tape 82 (Morning) RH - 1 MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Health . HON. DR. A.T. ROWE: I was asked a question on Friday, two days ago, regarding the silicosis and research is being done, a statement has been prepared. As I said on Friday, I would have a statement for the House and as soon as the research is done and we have the details, I will present them to the House in answers to the questions. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the honourable the Premier or the Minister of Industrial Development could inform the House if the government has undertaken any special work projects such as the construction of a fish plant at Burgeo to take care of the record unemployment we have in this Province at the present time? AN ·HONOURABLE MEMBER: No. MR. NEARY: No • No answer. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: Well, I will repeat the question, Sir.

I asked the honourable the Premier if he would inform the House if his government are going to implement any special make work programmes, intensive labour projects, such as building a fish plant at Burgeo? The Government promised a couple of years ago to take care of the record unemplo-yment we have in this Province at the present time. PREMIER MOORES: Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything possible, as will be done to correct the unemployment situation which not just pertains to this Province.,but all over North America.

As a matter of fact, some of the programmes and projects going ahead this year will help very much, but under no circ1.1111stances would I like that to be misconstrued, that a fish plant for Burgeo would be a make work project. It would be something that would be beneficial for the cononunity. It would be something that, hopefully will be only built if needed. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Only built if needed. PREMIER MOORES: That is right. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Premier's answer, a supplementary question, Sir.

Would the Premier now inform the House if the government thinks that the new fish plant at Burgeo is needed at the moment or is not needed? 251

Monday, March 3, 1!175. Tape 82 RH - 2 MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Industrial Development. HON. C. W. DOODY: Mr. Speaker, this government is on record as committing ourselves to establishing a fish plant in Burgeo with the co-operation of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Some time ago we had I preliminary estimates drawn up and plans were prepared. The cost escalated alarmingly. We had to go back to the drawing board and came up with a second set of plans. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion at that time agreed in principle to increase its share of the total cost.

The Province of Newfoundland agreed to do the same thing. However, there has been nothing done on that since. Ottawa is very reluctant to get involved in building riew fish plants while the fishing industry is in the position it is in today, namely, the trawlermen's strike. It would look rather ridiculous to start building a fish plant while there are no trawlers fishing. The principle of the thing remains the same.

A fish plant will be built in Burgeo if it is at all economically feasible to do so and as the situation changes radically during the next few months, I see no reason why a fish plant should not be built at Burgeo. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: Can I assume from the minister's answer then that the government have taken a decision to postpone building of the plant until the trawlermen strike has ended? MR. DOODY: I will try it again, Sir.

The government of Newfoundland's commitment .to the people of Burgeo was that a fish plant would be built there with the co-operation of the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion. To date, no formal offer from that department has been received by the proposed builders, managers and operators of the plant. When that proposal or that offer comes in from DREE, then we will proceed with the next step which is the commitment to get on with the construction. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, just to clarify that point, it is fair then to assume that this is not a method of applying economic pressure on the trawlermen. This is just a genuine attempt on the government to try to get some financing from DREE. 252

March 3, 1975 . Tape 82 RH - 3 MR. DOODY: If we could get a commitment from DREE, a foI'lllal offer, a cash on the barrelhead basis, we would go there today despite t he fact that it is freezing rain down there, to try to get the thing started. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Pub lic Works and Services, Sir : Would the fflinister care to confirm or deny, Sir, public reports that the minister is bringing pressure to bear on his officials to cut off advertising for Newfoundland's only owned Newfou11dland major nevspaper, "The Daily News"? MR. SPEAKER: That question 25 3 ~-

March 3, 1975 Tape No. 83 NM - 1 certainly is not one that requires an urgent answer. It could be well placed on the Order Paper. DR. FARRELL: Your Honour, if it is all right. MR. SPEAKER: If the honourable minister wishes to answer the question, he may. DR. FARRELL: I certainly do1Your Honour. It is the way it was couched I do not like. MR. NEARY: Inaudible. DR. FARRELL: Oh yes, sure, the Member for Bell Island - I certainly did, Sir. I had discussions with Mr. Callahan who rang me up on this matter.

I will give you the reasons afterwards but during the course of the conversation I had quite a personal discussion on my own opinion, Sir, of what I thought of the people he was running. The quotes, I have not had a chance to read the "News" this morning in detail, I believe are essentially correct. I certainly did state these facts that I felt that he was running a partisan political organ and in the process of that, as the Minister of Public Works, I have the responsibility of spending the funds of that department where I feel like it.

During the course of that conversation or as remarks passed, as I say I do not deny one of them, they were my own. They represented my - AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. DR . FARRELL: What did you say, Sir? AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. DR. FARRELL: I will go ahead, Sir, on that. I will ignore that one, In my personal opinion that was my feeling I expressed them openly to Mr. Callahan. In the process of that he mentioned tultters which were not reported 1 as the fact that he was not running for any political seat, not this time but probably the next time and so on and so forth.

We can go into all kinds of details on that, But I have no intention of personally, and this was not the reason, but my feeling was and we were not completely unsympathetic, backing a paper which in my opinion was worse than "The Newfoundland Bulletin."

March 3, 1975 Tape No. 83 NM - 2 The main reason, Sir, as far as I am concerned and I have some figures which we are backing up that the amount of advertising in "The Daily News" had been reduced and it was not because of any political policy on this government's side. The previous conversatio~ as I repeat 1was personal. Because of some economic facts, because the government is attempting to reduce expenditures in certain areas and one of them is in the advertising area and I will quote figuresl if you like l that the cost per column in !'The Daily News" is $2. 24 and the cost in "The Evening Telegram" is $3.64.

The circulation of "The Daily News" approximately, I am not quite certain of this, Sir, Canadian Advertising Rates and Data gave it at seventy-four (hundred). It might be eight (thousand) or much more right now. I do not think it is too much more.

Whereas "The Evening Telegram" is approximately 30,500. We get four times the coverage in it and this gives less than double the cost. I would say "The Daily News" in my opinion again, and I am expressing a personal opinion, gives a rehash of "The Evening Telegram" news the next day and that is my statement on it, Sir. Are there any questions? MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister, Sir: would the minister care to indicate to the House whether or not the government are looking at other publications and newspapers and broadcast media or has "The Daily News" been singled out for special treatment in this matter? MR. ROBERTS: - "The Newfoundland Express" which has a wider circulation. DR. FARRELL: "The Newfoundland Express"? At the moment, Sir, we are looking at all areas. We advertise right through the province in weeklies which we initiated and we are looking at these areas as well, Sir. MR.

NEARY: Supplementary to the minister: would the minister care to indicate to the House whether or not it is proper and ethical for a minister to express a personal opinion? Or when he speaks is he speaking on behalf of the administration? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! This question is out of order. MR. MURPHY: His tongue was cut off when he joined the government, like yours. 255

March 3, 1975 Tape no. 84 Page 1 - mw MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the Minister of Social Services is so lippy, can he tell us, Sir, whether the fuss that he has caused in the department, amongst the social workers and welfare officers, has been straightened out, or are they still completely demoralized? MR. CROSBIE: To a point of order. This question is out of order, It is argumentive, and it expresses opinion, and it is out of order for a dozen different reasons. MR. SPEAKF..R.: The Chair was about to rule the question out of order when the Hon. House Leader rose there. MR.

NEARY: Would the Minister of Social Services care to inform the House, Sir, whether or not he held any meetings over the weekend with his social workers? If so, could he tell us the results of these meetings? HON. A. J. MURPHY (Minister of Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I can go to some great length on the Department of Social Services, the backgro=d, the demoralizing effect the member for Bell Island had on it, the state of chaos that existed when we took it over. It is not my wish to do that.

I will just simply say, Sir, that over the past year and one-half, we have been looking at many facets of the Department of Welfare, as it was called, now Social Services. We have been trying to emphasize, Sir, the social aspect of the department. Towards that end, we have approached various areas of government to have the name changed to a social worker, instead of a welfare officer. We have submitted many more figures to the departments of government that deal with this type of thing.

On Thursday, we released a statement to all social workers right across the province of Newfotllldland, submitting recommendations that we had received so far, as far as our department was concerned. Someone, who apparently does not realize he is a civil servant, who had taken certain obligations on, went to the trouble, Sir, on Sunday of communicating, as far as we can understand, with every office in the 250

March 3, 1975 Tape no. 84 Page 2 - mw province by telephone. I am sure, Sir, that a release that left my office on Thursday afternoon did not get into the B?nne Bay area by nine o'clock on Friday morning. I think we can pretty well say that. I know we have done a lot of things, Sir, but we have not speeded up communications as much as that. This individual, very mischievously, projected to all the welfare officers that we had arrived at certain conclusions with reference to our department. These are suggestions, Sir, that had been submitted and received back.

We do not negotiate wages nor anything else with Treasury Board. There is someone else who does that, Sir. As far as we are concerned, all this fuss was created by one individual. I do not know if he is a friend of the member for Bell Island or not, but at least he is doing almost as good a job as the member is trying to do. Basically, Sir, that is the story. I did not meet rlth anybody at any time. We submitted these things, and the idea was that senior officials in my department would meet in all areas of the province rlth our social workers to answer any questions that they might want to put forward.

As it happened, there was a meeting at Harvey Road, I believe, on Friday afternoon, after the closing of business, and I think this is where all the trouble started. But, basically, Sir, there is no problem as far as I aa concerned. We have the department just about on an even keel now after three years of hard work. Some people feel that they have to come out in public, and make statements,which is entirely a breach of confidence of their work. Because, as I said earlier, this was a confidential release to all social workers. If the Hon. Member for Bell Island wants to continue on, it is quite fair.

That is the position, Sir, aa far as I am concerned and that is that no salaries have been entered into. We have upgraded, I would say, over fifty per cent, three or four grades. Nobody, but nobody will lose anything. Everyone has gotten upgraded, at least, one grade in our department. As I say, it is someone, who very mischievously, took it upon himself to get on the phone and phone every office in the province about 257

March 3, 1975 Tape no. 84 Page 3 this and who he 'is, we have an idea, but it is not proven yet. When it is, he will not be a social worker, he will be an exsocial worker, as far as I am concerned. _!1R. NEARY: (Inaudible). MR. MURPHY: No, I will not even get that. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Rehabiliation and Recreation - I think that it is under his jurisdiction that Mr. Nutbeem comes - would the minister care to indicate - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. NEARY: No2 Well, who2 AN HON. MEMBER: Minister of Tourism. MR. NEARY: The Minister of Tourism, my old sparring partner.

Would the minister care to indicate to the House whether Mr. Nutbeem has clued up his work yet2 HON. T. V HICKEY (Minister of Tourism): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can indicate that Mr. Nutbeem has concluded his work, at least, from the point of view of the payroll being concerned. He has not concluded his work. I suppose if you want to look at it from another point of view, there are certain things to be done which he will do. I understand Mr. Nutbeem is out of the province at the moment. So far as the payroll is concerned, he has concluded, and has done a fantastic job, I might say, at that.

We are very grateful to him. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear! Hear! 258

March 3, 1975 Tape 85 IB-1 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: has Mr. Nutbeem then been placed on the government's redundancy list? Is this what has happened to him or is he retired on full salary or what? MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I could ignore that kind of a question, but I relish the opportunity to get a few barbs into my honourable friend from across the way. If the honourable gentleman wants to phrase questions that way, we can be here until next December. We sure have lots of ammunition to come up with to answer that kind of a question. Mr. Nutbeem is not on the redundancy list. Mr.

Nutbeem was hired to do a specific job as I have said, and it is public record, Mr. Speaker, and it will be public record for all time the kind of job he has done. He was not a full-time civil servant as such. He was hired to do a specific job which he has done and which he has done very, very well. MR. NEARY: Has he been removed from the payroll, from the monkey on the taxpayers' back? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. HICKEY: I will try it again, Mr. Speaker. Some people have some kind of a mental block. I do not know, maybe they have nothing between the ears. I have already stated, Mr.

Nutbeem insofar as payroll purposes is concerned,is not on the government payroll. I have said that there is certain winding up to be done. There are certain things to be done to finish that project, and it will be done, and I have every assurance from Mr. Nutbeem that it will be done and done on time. He has decided that so far as the work which he should be paid for, that that is finished. He has been very, very honourable about the whole thing and very conscientious about the whole thing. The gentleman could, for the benefit of the honourable member for Bell Island, still be on the payroll.

I wish everybody else - I hope that everyone who does anything for the government gives as much of themselves as Mr. Nutbeem has, and we will be in pretty good shape. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, would the minister care to indicate to the 259

March 3, 1975 Tape 85 House when Mr. Nutbeem's services were terminated as far as the payroll is concerned? IB-2 MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, I can take that under advisement and get the details. Mr. Nutbeem's services were not dispensed with. He, himself, decided when he was leaving. No, as I said before, the gentleman could be still receiving pay from the government, but he, of his own volition, decided - MR. NEARY: Yes, I know, but is he or is he not being paid? MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, for the third time - now, the only thing I can do is get a paint brush and draw some diagrams.

I have said twice, Your Honour, that Mr. Nutbeem is not at this moment on the government payroll. I have said it twice. This is three times. MR. NEARY: Yes, but then the minister contradicted himself. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. HICKEY: I did not contradict myself at all. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Would the minister care to indicate whether Mr. Nutbeem still has his back up staff, these political appointments that were made1 and an office? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: - where the office is? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This whole matter has become a debate between the two honourable members, and the question by the honourable member for Bell Island is out of order. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, Sir, if the Minister of Rehabilitation and Recreation could inform the House if his government, his department, has received a request from the Chairman of the Summer Games Committee in Newfoundland, in St. John's, for financial help to carry out the summer games project in this province? MR. T. DOYl,R (MINISTER OF REHABILITATION AND RECREATI ON ): Mr.

Speaker, there has been no specific request received from the Chairman of the Summer Games Committee as such. There was a request received in January of last year from the City of St. John's which 260

March 3, 1975 Tape 85 IB-3 was answered at that time. MR. NEARY: Well, a supplementary, Sir. Would the minister care to indicate to the House what was in that request? assistance? If so, has the request been granted? AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: No, I want to know now, Mr. Speaker. MR. CROSBIE: Inaudible. Was it for financial MR. NEARY: The minister I am talking to1 not the ignoramus from St. John~s West. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. DOYLE: I will take notice of that question, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SIMMONS: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works on the issue that we were talking about earlier 1 Mr. Speaker, a couple of questions. First of all, would the minister indicate the source of his figures, the circulation figures which he quoted there a moment ago as being circulation figures for the "News'and the "Telegram"? What is the source? HON. DR. T.G. FARRELL:(MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS): I beg your pardon! Would you speak a little - MR. EVANS: Speak up! Speak up! 261

March 3, 1975. Tape 86 RH - 1 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I understand now why he sits there as the Minister of Health. MR. S~R: Order, please! Order, please! MR . SIMMO S: Mr. Speaker, - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SIMMONS: No, Sir, I have no doubts about your capacity at all. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The honourable Member for Hermitage is out of order. He is continuing to make a speech. If he wishes to ask his question, he should get on with it. MR. SU IONS: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to, but I am having difficulty with the Minister of Social Services there. If you keep him in order, I could continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMO S: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. I am wondering what the source of his figures are, the circulation figures which he quoted a moment ago in answering a question, circulation figures for "The Daily News" and "The Telegram". They are not accurate, but I would like to know what the source is so we can direct him to the right source perhaps? DR. FARRELL: Yes, Your Honour, the Canadian Advertising Rates and Data were the latest figures I had on it. They may have been updated since that, I do not know. Those are the ones I quoted.

MR.SIMMONS: Well, they are both out by close to one hundred per cent, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary question for the minister: I gather from his announcement this morning, his answer to the question, is that a decision has been made with respect to "The Daily News". Would he indicate if other decisions have been made affecting other papers to cut back advertising? If so, would he name the papers involved? DR. FARRELL: There are no further decisions at this time and the honourable member will know in dur course, Sir. 262

March 3, 1975. Tape 86 RH - 2 MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: I gather that a decision to cut back advertising has been made in respect to one paper only, "The Daily News". Is that correct? Would the minister confirm it? DR. FARRELL: I beg your pardon? MR. SIMMONS: Would the minister confirm or deny that what he is saying in effect is that - DR. FARRELL: MR. SIMMONS: DR. FARRELL : Yes. - a decision has been made in respect to one paper only? Generally, this decision was going to be made about others, Sir, but at the moment, yes, this is the one. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary for the minister: I listened with care to his answers to my colleague's question, but I was not certain and I would like him to clarify for me whether the reason the decision was made with respect to "The Daily News" was hecause of its partisan, its alleged partisanship politically or for economic reasons because he did state both reasons - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The honourable Member for Hermitage is proceeding to make a speech 0 In as such his question is out of order. MR. SIMMONS: A supplementary for the minister. I would like to ask the minister, Mr.

Speaker, whether the reason for the decision affecting advertising cutbacks in "The Daily News" was for reasons of partisanship on part of the paper or for economic reasons? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! That is essentially the same question with some of the words changed 1 and still out of order. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the ~finis ter of Manpower, Sir. Would the minister care to indicate to the House whether or not the trawlermen and the fish merchants, and the Canadian Labour Congress are back at the bargaining table today? I understand there was a recess of three days.

Will they be negotiating today or when will negotiations resume again? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations. 26..,

March 3, 1975. Tape 86 RH - 3 MR. MAYNARD: No, Mr. Speaker, the parties are not back at the bargaining table today. They have agreed to meet during this week. A specific time has not been set as yet. When they do meet, I am sure that everyone will be advised. However, there are no details to release on the terms of the meeting. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Bell Island. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, another question for the Minister of Manpower!

Sir. on Friday, I think it was, the House will remember1 I put a question to the honourable the Premier about Bowaters shutdown in Corner Brook because of softening marketing conditions and the Premier said the minister would reply to my question when he came back to the House. Would the minister care to indicate if there have been any discussions with Bowaters? How many shutdowns do they anticipate this year? Will there be any layoffs as a result of these shutdowns? Will there be continuing discussions with the government? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable }linister of Manpower and Industrial Relations. MR .

MAYNARD: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity since returning from the trawlermen's negotiations to assess the situation or get any more information on it other than that which has already been given. I will, however, try to get the information for the honourable gentleman. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Bonavista North. ------ MR. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries.

In view of the fact that the minister stated in this House on Friday that he had some anonymous correspondence stating that some of the claims made by the fishermen on the Northeast Coast were inaccurate) could the minister table this correspondence? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Fisheries. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I answered a question here on Friday and I thought it was quite clear as a reference. As Hansard would indicate the honourable gentleman, among others, has been twisting that statement ever since it was made.

The position is\and I will repeat it, that we know from correspondence with the department, signed and unsigned, and from the 264

March 3, 1975. Tape 86 RH - 4 conclusions and opinions of our fisheries inspectors and from people who have had to do with the progranune that there are a large nwnber of claims being made under the special Fisheries Gear Replacement Programme due to the losses, due to ice last year, that are in fact false. However, it is impossible for us to investigate every claim.

We, therefore, have to proceed on the basis that if people make and sign affidavits, their claims are recognized, But we do know that there are quite a few false and fraudulent claims being made hy people who apparently do not mind swearing a false oath. This is a minority, of course, of the people who are claiming. As a result of that kind of thing, the amount of money being spent on that programme has gone from an estimate of $3.5 million to $4 million to $6 million, to $6.5 million. I do not intend to table in the House any correspondence on the matter. That is not necessary.

If we get sufficient evidence against any particular person to prosecute him, then they will certainly be prosecuted. I have said further that the thousands and the •ajority of honest,hard working fishermen in the Province are disgusted with the fact that this programme is being abused and that by its very nature, it cannot be administered so as to cut out any possible abuses.

It would, therefore, be very unlikely that a one hundred per cent gear replacement programme would be instituted again because that leads, or almost makes an invitation to the dishonest minority, however many there are, to abuse the programme. Now, that is the position on the programme. There have been some 4,500 claims dealt with, accepted, and some 225 not accepted because they were out of time and they were not down to the Labrador fishing or had no other ironclad reason for their claim to be accepted. So, I can only repeat what I said last Friday. I do not intend to table any correspondence.

If the honourable gentleman goes around his district - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please'. 26tj

M.'lrch 3, l<l7.5 . Tnp<' S(, Rll - '., MR. CROSBIE: - He will have many fishermen who will report to him the same thing. MR. NEARY: }IR. SPEAKER: Inaudible. Order, please! I recognize the honourable Member for Bonavista North. MR. NEARY: - deceiving the House. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, the honourable gentleman just said I was deceiving the House. Now is that to be allowed to stand on the record or not. It is unparliamentary, quite obvious. MR. NEARY: I withdraw, Sir. MR.

SPEAKER: I recognize the honourable Member for Bonavista North. This will be the last question for the question period today. MR. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the honourable minister. If some of these reports were false, and apparently the minister has stated he has proof of that, is there any possibility that some of these fishermen will be charged with false reporting or is the minister's office taking action in this regard right now? MR. CROSBIE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, when we get any evidence or proof against some individual fisherman that - MR.

THOMS: Yes, but you have got it now,you say, you have got it. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. CROSBIE: Am I to be allowed to answer the question the honourable gentleman asked? As we get evidence against any particular claimant who appears to have made a false claim, that is being referred to the Department of Justice. There are cases where we have checked and the people involved have withdrawn their claims once they were questioned about them. So wherever we get any evidence that can be usedlthat is being checked. I will say this, ~Ir.

Speaker, the true fishermen of this Province 1who fish and who makes that his livelihood 1is well aware of the abuses this programme 26ti

March 3, 1975 . Tape 86 RH - r has lead co and he is disgusted with it and he sees too many people who are not real fishermen gettins benefits from it unjustifiably and they are disgusted that this is the case . I agree with them that this should not be the case . In any other programmes that we have , hopefull y, the registration programme will be in .full effect and we wi ll know 1-mat gear every fisherman has got, the registered fisherman has got, and we Yill have a uay of checking in these matters in the future. ORDERS OF TIIE DAY :

March 3, 1975 Tape 87 PK - 1 MR. SPEAKER: Order 3, I think, the Hydro Bill. The debate was adjourned on the last day by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. HON. E •. ROBF.RTS (LEADER OF THF. OPPOSITION): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I spoke in this debate on Friday,opening my few remarks on, let us call it the Hydro Bill, the bill now before the House. I made a few points, perhaps for the benefit of - for greater certainty I might go back over them briefly to refresh memories of honourable gentlemen who perhaps have indulged too freely and maybe not too wisely over the weekend.

I had referred to several of the principles embodied in this bill. Principles which I find offensive, the principles which my colleagues find offensive and nrinci'(lles which, I think, any fair-minded and objective person would find offensive. I said, and I repeat now that the Minister of Mines and F.nergy will hear these suggestions in the constructive spirit in which I am advancing them, and that he will either withdraw the bill, possibly that is unlikely, but he will not withdraw it for redrafting, and indeed no case has been made for the urgency of th:i.s bill.

But if it is not to be withdrawn th~.n at least it be amended substantially in commitCee. I think amendments along the lines that I suggest are in order at connnittee stage, and that would remove some of the offensive features. Now I had referred to three points, Mr. Speaker, one was growing out of Section (6) of the bill. That is the

section which governs the directors or governs the appointment of the directors of the bill. It gives the powers of appointment. It sets down their tenure of office and so forth. This

section is offensive in principle in a number of ways. AN HON. }!EMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: I may well have voted for it last year, Mr. Speaker, and to err is human, and to forgive is divine. The Hon. Minister of Mines and Energy seems to think, if a person makes a mistake once that should commit him for life. He will find out, Mr. Speaker, that his constituents feel that they were tricked by the Minister of 268

March 3, 1Q7S Tape 37 PK - 2 Mines and Fnergy into voting for him once, hut they will not a second time. MR. BARRY: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROBERTS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is based on the fact that this

section is offensive in principle. The minister can either defend it 1or withdraw it and amend it. Ile can do one or the other. If he wishes to defend it, Mr. SPeaker, that is his right, and he will have ample opportunity in closing this debate and all of his colleagues are willing to,I am sure 1 come to his defence and to stand for the principle embodied in this section, which is simply that any number of members of the House of Assembly up to ten can be appointed to this commission. They can he paid any amount of money, out of public funds, that the corporation recommends.

In other words, Sir, we could have ten M.H.A.'s anpointed each of whomtith the approval of the Lieutenant­ Governor-in-Council, i.e., the Cabinet, each of whom can be paid the sum of $100,000 a year, which of course comes out of the corporation. Then they hold office as men of principle and standing. They are given the right to hold office as long as the cabinet wishes. We have seen exactly what sort of thing that can hanpen here. The Minister without Portfolio 1 as he then was 1 ran into a conflict with the Premier and found himself unemployed, in a ministerial sense.

The former Minister of Education, the gentleman for St. John's North, the gentleman for Grand Falls, the former Minister of Community and Social Development, we have seen exactly, and I am only talking about this administration. I can go back. I can refer to the case of the former gentleman for Labrador West, Mr. Burgess, the revolutionary. Nr. Burgess served on the old Power Commission under somewhat similar terms, had a difference of opinion with the then Premier, Hr. Smallwood. The result of it was that Mr. Burr,ess ceased to serve on the Power Commission.

He 2;ot the same sort of flick that the ~:inister without Portfolio, the gentleman 269

March 3, 1975 Tape 87 PK - 3 for St. John's East got, for lesser reasons. Mr. Speaker, the fact that we have had these incidents in the nast only reinforces the need to prevent them recurring again. This

section will not only enable the incidents to happen again, unfortunate and lamentable as they may be• If anything it will encourage 1by giving the government a far wider power. Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister may in his pious way tell us if - oh well it will not be used or no reasonable man would use i.t. Mr. Speaker, if they do not intend to use the power, if they do not see any need for it,then why put it in the bill? Why have it in the law? Why not remove it? Why not amend that

section i.n committee, to say that "~'o members of the House of Assembly shall serve? ~'Ill. RARRY: It will be. 'f'<R. RORERTS: The minister tells us, "It will be." If it is like the other commitments the minister makes, I would rather see it in writing. The minister says, "It will not be used.'' Well then, amend it at committee stage. Say that, "No members of the House of Assembly shall serve on the Board of Direcbors or if any are to serve, let it be one or two." Say that, "No members of the House of Assemblv shall be paid for this." We are paid as members of the House of Assembly.

We are naid as ministers of the Crown. The Legislative Disahilities Act in this province historically has been 1'I ],ad ioke, It is becoming a worse joke now. If 1 were to count un, Your Honour, the number of members of this House who are paid out of public funds other than as members of the House, it is well over a majority. It is a very serious matter. We used to hear a lot about it from a so-called gentleman of nrinciple before they came into office. Let us too hear about tenure of office. The Minister of Justice, the Nemher for Burin, used to be very eloquent on this.

His master, the "inister of Fisheries, the House Leader, used to be even more eloquent about the need for security of tenure. I can recall as M:!.nister of Welfare sponsoring quite a minor !'iece of legislation to 2·;0

March 3, 1975 Tape 87 PK - 4 change one of the acts administered by that minister, by the holder of that portfolio, and it had something to do with an appeal board. There was in it a provision that honourable gentlemen found offensive. They were quite eloquent in their denunication of that. We changed it. The

section said "That several members of the appeal board, (the Social Assistance Appeal Board, I think it was called) will hc!ild office during pleasure and not at tenure." Not during their behaviour 1but at cabinet pleasure, at ministerial pleasure, at government pleasure, at political pleasure. The gentleman for Burin and the gentleman for St. John's West,who used in those days to be white knights mounted on their charger 1 denounced it.

Now here we have a corporation coming in which will have power to spend a couple of billions of dollars of our money, Newfoundland's citizens' money - and what is going to happen here? Ah, the men or women who will hold office in this corporation, are they going to have security of tenure? No, Sir. They should. I say to the minister that I hope he will have one of his colleague's amend this bill in committee. I hope that when he speaks to close this second reading in debate, he will assure us that this

section will be amended, It is offensive. I am surprised at the minister who parades before us his principles and his purity. I am surprised at him sponsoring a piece of legislation like this. Let him add another principle to it, Sir. One that, I think, is important. Let him require that the directors of this corporation which is going to be a very important body in Newfoundland. Let him require that they be Canadian citizens resident in Newfoundland. It is not a new princinle.

I had a look on the weel-:cnd at the James Bay legislation, the Quebec ~overnment's legislation under which they have launched their power project in Jame~ Bay. There is a requirement in that. "No person may act as a director", Section (12) of the James Bay Act. "No person may act as a director of their corooration. If he is not a Canadian citizen domiciled in the Province of Quebec." I am not a narro1, 27i

"arch 3, 1::175 Taoe 87 PK - 5 chauvinis tic nationalist. nu t more and more in Canada. people are today becoming concerned 1 and they should he concerned about the fact that control much of our econom.ic life. It is moving out .of Canadian hands . The Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario, t he Tory Government up there had sponsored legislation to require all companies incorporated in Ontar io to have a majority of their directors Canadian. Here we are settinr, up a great, huge corporation with nublic money - this is not some outfit, l!r .

Speaker, comin!l in to •!ewfoundland to sell soclts or to buy and sell che eses. This is a cornoration bejnp set ur as an inst rument of oublic policy in a very ma1or area. So 1 would suY,gest to the minister that a

section along those lines mi.Rht l,e entirely appropriate . lt Pil l cet:tainly add to :It . I cannot think of any reason why there would be any need to apooint as a director anv person other than a Canadian citizen domiciled in this Province of Nel-rfoundland and Labrador. I cannot think of anv reason at all . ·~. J'IARRY: ~ - ltC)BF.RTS: '-fD BARRY: 21t:. One. 1.'hat? Inaudible .

March 3, 1975 Tape no. 88 Page 1 - mw MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, they did not require one on the Board of the Power Commission. If that were to be the case, then I would suggest the government would then come before the House with an amendment,and say that the bondholders have asked for this assurance. I am not even sure that I vote for it then, because the next step now, si~ce after all the government are going to guarantee this, is maybe the bondholders will put a man in the cabinet, maybe that is the next step. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that bondholders are adequately protected.

This is not a commercial operation. CFLCo when that request was made, and I assume it was made, although I do not know that, was a commercial corporation, so-called private industry. This is the government, this is the crown, this is the public. I do not think we would be justified in having a corporation guaranteed by the Government of Newfoundland, backed every penny of it, backed by our taxes and our revenues, having on it some gentleman from Wall Street, or some gentleman from Bay Street in Toronto, or St. James Street in Montreal, simply because they put a little money into it.

Their security is the normal mortgage, the assignment of the power sales contracts and, of course, the guarantee of the Minister of Finance of this province. Even if, Mr. Speaker, they were to ask that, maybe we should not grant it. In any event, they have not asked to my knowledge unless the minister is prepared to indicate that they have, and I do not think he could. Let us amend this section,or else we could end up with this important corporation, Mr. Speaker,if this

section is not amended, we could h~ve ten men appointed, not one of them living in Newfoundland, not one of them a citizen of Canada, There is no requirement, and the minister may say, "Oh! ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, the courts or the lawyers looking at this look only at the words of the law. They do not look at what the minister says in the Rouse. We are not under the American legal system where legislative testimony is considered admissible and relevant 273

March 3, 1975 Tape no. 88 Page 2 - mw to the question of determining the constitutionality of statutes. The minister used to practice law and, presumably, in due course, he again will seek his living at the bar of this province. He would have to agree with me that the courts will look only at the words of this statute. The words of this statute, Sir, would allow the government to appoint, at their pleasure, holding office during their pleasure, the Premier's pleasure - we have seen what happened. "The Daily News" dared to cross the Premier, and what happened? Their advertising has been cut off.

Now how many more are we going to have? Maybe next, "The Green Bay News," who will write an editorial critical - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition is not being relevant to the principle of this bill. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I accept Your Honour's ruling, of course, but I am being relevant to the principle embodied in this section, holding office at pleasure. They can appoint - I have nothing against Swaziland, I have never been there, in fact, or Bechuanaland. The Minister o~ Social Services once went to Bechuanaland. He made the mistake of coming ~ack.

It was good for Bechuanaland, but not good for us. We ~oulL have the citizens of"Bechuanaland, Mr. Speaker, on this corporation, Cue citizens of Becnuanaland, fine gentlemen, I have no doubt. MR. MURPHY: -~ZR. 3-0BERTS: Gentlemen, all. Yes, gentlemen, all. The minister should have iearneci :hat fr0111 them. It wcul.d have improved him, Mr. Speaker. Order,please! :-1R. MURPH.Y: Inaudible - with all his education. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would Your Honour try to enforce order against the honourable gentleman? MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible). MR. SP~: Order, please!

The honourable member who is speaking does have the rign~ to be heard in silence, and I remind him again that he should be _ore ·.::-.:::.avant to the ·.,111 that we are discussing at the present time. - - """

March 3, 1975 Tape no. 88 Page 3 - mw MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about Bechuanaland, which I suggest is relevant, because a citizen of Bechuanaland could be appointed under this section, and I submit, if it is not relevant to make an example with respect to an important power contained in the bill - this is a bill to set up a corporation, that is the purpose of it. I am talking about the corporation that is proposed to be set up. I have nothing against Bechuanaland. I su?pose I could say that some of my best friends are Bechuanalanders. That is more than I can say for the Minister of Social Services.

I do not think we should have in the government the power to appoint the citizens of Bechuanaland, or Swaziland, or anywhere except Canada, to be on the board of directors. If they need some technical help, and there are some gentlemen in Bechuanaland who is an expert in probably the problems of ice control in Labrador, then the corporation would have the power to hire him, to get his expertise, to put him to work, but not a director, Mr. Speaker. I hope on that section, the minister will listen and heed and pay some attention and respond to some positive and constructive criticism.

That was one of the ones I mentioned, Sir. Then I came to

section 17 which embodies another important principle the government have chosen to put in this bill, and that important principle is that this corporation does not have to call tenders for its purchases. There was some reference made to the Golden Eagle Act, which is

an act passed in this House about fifteen years ago, I guess, that gave certain 1in effecttve 1 right of first refusal to Golden Eagle when it came to selling oil to the government. Now it may well be that the government do not want to have Golden Eagle with that right any more. Well, I can understand that. But

section 17 (1) (

d) does not refer to the Golden Eagle Act. If that is what they are after, let them put in those words. I do not know the name of the act. It was the Golden Eagle Agreement With Government Act or something, but it can be found in the statutes as a legal way to describe that piece of 27~

1'1arch 3, 1975 Tape no. 88 Page 4 - mw legislation. Let them put it in there. There is no requirement that they call tenders. There is no requirement at all. We have already seen what the so-called Public Tender Act is wonth. Garbage trucks have been driven through it, large wedges put in it, so let the minister amend that

section too. Then, Mr. Speaker, I also referred to

section 24, and there was some foofaraw from one or two of the learned gentlemen opposite, who unfortunately are not with us today. I guess they are downtown making money instead of attending the call of Your Honour to participate in the work of the House. Mr. Speaker,

section 24 of this bill is, and I repeat this, I was right before, and I have checked it, I repeat it again, can be designed only to cut off the rights of Indian and Eskimo people. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look at this carefully. The

section says that no action or proceeding by way of injunction, mandamus, prohibition or other restraining process or proceeding of any nature which has or may have the effect of terminating, suspending, curtailing, limiting or hindering the supply of power to any person, shall be brought or may be maintained against the corporation in any court. Now what that

section says in nonlegal language, Your Honour, is that you cannot stop the corporation doing anything. You can sue them after it is done, but you cannot stop them doing it.

Section 41 provides that you can sue the corporation, and it sets forth the procedure to be followed. Mr. Speaker, it is like saying that you can try to get the horse back after it has been stolen, but you cannot lock the barn door first. Now there may well be - I do not know much about the detailed day to day work of power law, the sorts of problems that power utilities run into. I have never been in the business of being downtown at the bar, and renting myself to the power utilities, as a number of other lawyers do in the normal course of their professional work.

There may well be some justified reason, some justified cases, where we should prohibit action, there may well be. If there are, then 27G

March 3, 1975 Tape no. 88 Page 5 - mw let the minister explain what they are, and draft a provision, or have one drafted that would do it, and we are well and good, but not so here, Mr. Speaker. This one, whatever, it may meet a need, but the words of that section, Mr. Speaker, go far beyond any need that I can see, or that any lawyer downtown has been able to tell me about. It may be a classic case of using a hammer to kill a fly. The

section goes far beyond any conceivable,justifiable point of policy in banning actions of this kind. I find it very offensive, and I think that any honourable member,who is the least bit concerned with ensuring that justice and equity are served, and ensuring that the native people, indigenous people, particularly of Labrador, ensuring that their rights are protected, I think, will find it equally offensive. It. is no good for the minister to say, oh, well, we have no intention of using it that way. The courts, Sir, will not look at intentions, the courts will look at the words of the statutes.

The words of the statute bar any action; damages afterwards, but no action before. Mr. Speaker, I earnestly draw this to the attention of the government. I repeat, they may very well have some reason why they should, in some instances, bar actions by way of restraining orders. We are talking of the orders here, Your Honour, which are generally restraining orders, the so-called prerogative writs of the courts. They are a different matter than seeking damages after some act has been performed or omitted. That can be done. 21·1

March 3, 1975 Tape 89 IB-1 The effect of this,Your Honour, is that this corporation can go across your property, can go run their power lines through your property without bothering to expropriate it. They have expropriation powers. They are in the bill, but there is nothing in here.

Supposing Your Honour - I assume Your Honour has a home in Lewisporte, Your Honour's home to which Your Honour will be returning in due course when the electorate have spoken - Your Honour is sitting at home some night and the bulldozers come roaring through, and they have tattooed on their front, the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro­ Electric Corporation in big letters on the bulldozer blade, and Your Honour sees them just as they come towards him. Your Honour cannot rush out to the Supreme Court and get an injunction to stop them. No, you cannot.

The most that you can do is get an injunction for damages afterwards, or not an injunction, an action for damages afterwards. I would ljke the minister to tell us exactly why he is asking the House, daring to ask the House, to enact this offensive piece of interference with the rights of our people. Let us look at what happened in Quebec. Let us look at the James Bay Act to see how another govemment of a province with a large power development on their hands, went ahead. The James Bay Act has in it a positive statement which I would commend to our govemment.

Here is a chance for them once again to prove whether they really give a hoot about native rights. They have talked a lot about it. We have had delegations come in. We have had pretty little speeches made about their dedication to native rights. The James Bay Act has in it a positive assertion. It is

section forty-three for those of you who wish to read along. "This Act shall in no way affect rights of Indian communities living in the territory." Territory is defined in the act. Now, why cannot we have that here? These power lines are going to come across Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It is the intention. It is the plan. There may or may not be native rights. I have no idea, Sir. I do not think at this stage anybody knows for certain whether there are native rights or not, 21G

March 3, 1975 Tape 89 Let us look elsewhere across Canada. The Government of Canada have set up a royal commission under the chairmanship of IB-2 Mr. Justice Burger of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, a former leader of the NDP appointed to the Supreme Court by Mr. John Turner, the Liberal Minister of Justice at Ottawa, Mr.

Burger's job is to have hearings, to determine the effect of a proposal to build a pipe line from the Arctic down across Alberta and Saskatchewan into Southern Canada, into the Uni-ted States, to determine the effect of that proposal on the rights of the Indians and the other people living in the territories affected by it. That is what one government are doing.

The Government of Quebec were forced by action in the courts, by injunctions and by mandamus and by the sorts of actions prohibited here, that this government wants to end, were forced to make a settlement with their native peoples - $150 million,. as I recall it and some other concessions in territorial rights and territorial privileges. This government, Sir, are determined to prevent that. That is why that

section is there. If the minister says it is not, Sir, I reject his statement, I say to him, the only way he can prove that this government are concerned at all about whatever rights our native peoples may possess, is if they do two things. Number one, would they made positive declaration and affirmation, not create rights, but affirm whatever rights may exist? The legislature of Quebec did it, and the legislature of Quebec, Mr.

Speaker, has no more and no less legislative jurisdiction than does this House or this legislature, this House and the Lieutenant-Governor together, the legislature of Newfoundland, If they can do it in Quebec - they are operating under exactly the same constitution as we are - we can do it here. Secondly, let the minister, if he can make a case - maybe he can - that there is a need for this sort of prohibition, that Your Honour will not be allowed to seek an injunction to stop the bulldozer coming through Your Honour's home in Lewisporte when the Hydro Corporation decide to put the lines through it. If there

March 3, 1975 Tape 89 IB-3 is a case in support of that power - I will grant the minister the benefit of the doubt. He has not made the case, but let us assume he can, then let him put in a further

section saying quite clearly that nothing in this

section shall affect the rights of the native peoples of Labrador. We are taking away their rights, Mr. Speak.er. That is what this does. I do not know whether they have any legal claims or not. I know that the Government of Canada with the blessing, I understand, of the government of this province, have given them a sum of money to enable them to begin the work of determining just what the legal claims may be. I am not aware of any treaties. I do not think any treaties were ever signed between the Indian and Eskimo people in Labrador and the crown. It is not like the tradition across large parts of Canada.

I do not know the law, and I do not know whether anybody in Newfoundland today does know the law. Steps are being taken to find it out. That is fair. That is fine. This

section will remove one of the great weapons to enforce the law. The minister has made no case for it, At the very least he must stand indicted for contemptuousness, stand indicted for holding this House in contempt. He has asked for a grant of power. He has asked to have a right taken away, and he has made no case in support of it. I say again that it does not matter what the intention of the government might be, the courts acting under this power will not look to intentions. They will not look for one moment at whatever words any of us may say in the House, Sir.

All the court looks to is the law, the words of the statute, the words enacted by this legislature. Those words, Mr. Speaker, are crystal clear. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: What about the Canadian Constitution? MR. ROBERTS: Well, the Canadian Constitution supersedes it, but I would think this is probably constitutional - the legislature has the power. Even the Bill of Rights, the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights is generally regarded to be a - it is only another statute. 2GO

March 3, 1975 Tape 89 IB-4 It can be overridden by any proper statute. I am afraid this is a constitutional thing. I would not challenge it on those grounds, Mr. Speaker. Maybe a challenge could be made, but I do not think it should come to that. I think the ministry, if they have a reason for putting this sectjon in - there must be a reason - if the] have a justifiable reason, should state it, stand by the judgement of the House. If that reason is not to end any efforts by the Indian and Eskimo people,- I would not call that a justifiable reason. It may be the reason, but if so, I reject it now.

If that is not their reason, if there is some other reason, a justifiable one, an acceptable one, then let them put in a statement saying that nothing in this

section affects the rights such as they may be, of our Indian and Eskimo peoples. There is beginning to be a very militant movement coming in Labrador with all of the people there involved. This will add fuel to it. I do not have to tell any honourable gentlemen of the feelings of people of Labrador. They are making them quite clear. I think we are going to see a separatist party there in the next election, an avowedly separatist party. I regret that my friend from Labrador South is not in the House this morning. I think he has been fighting this. I think he has lost that fight now.

This sort of thing will only add fuel to it, add fuel to the feeling in Labrador that their resources are being stripped from them, taken away from them. Now they are even denied the recourse to go to the courts to get an injunction. They can seek damages, but, Sir, that is like locking the barn door after the horse has gone out. They cannot seek the injunction before. I say that the people in Quebec who got $150 million might never have gotten it, might not have gotten one cent, if they did not have the power, the right. It is not a new right. It is the right that the citizen has at common law.

It is a right that grew up out of the crown, out of the hundreds of years of the crown and the courts fighting, and the courts granting subjects the right to appeal to the courts, to apply for action. It is a right which exists 2ul

March 3, 1975 Tape 89 IB-5 That is why they are taking it away. If there were nc words, if the statute said nothing, the right would still be there. But, no, they are not creating a right, they are positively denying one. I think that is wrong, Mr. Speaker. I think it is as wrong as wrong can be. I think it is wrong in law. I think it is wrong in policy. I think it is as wrong as anything could be with relation to the Labrador portion of this province. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Immoral and unethical. MR. ROBEIITS: Well, it is certainly immoral and I think it is unethical as well. I hope the government will take heed.

If they need that section, if there is a need - maybe some learned gentleman who has made a few thousand dollars acting for the power companies and thus knows their point of view, maybe some learned gentleman will get up and say there is a need for it. Well, maybe there is. I do not know that. It has not been my lot to go around acting for the power companies, the utility companies. Maybe it will in due course, but it is not now and never has been. My concern is with the public policy of this province. This legislation is offensive in principle for that reason and I think it should be changed.

Merely pouring scorn on me may help their spleen a little, Mr. Speaker, but it will not meet the needs. I think there is a genuine case here. I think there is, on the debating point, a genuine point of policy and an important one. I would hope the Premier and his colleagues will consider it and not be too proud or to stubborn to do the right and proper thing. Mr. Speaker, with a fourth point that I did not get the opportunity to - well, before I go on. Mr. Speaker, the holidaying Minister of Fisheries with his suntan gained at the arrogant expense of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador interrupts me. 282

March 3, 1975 Tape No. 90 NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour is quick to call me to order and I appreciate that. I wish Your Honour would be equally quick, Sir, to call the honourable gentlemen opposite to order when they interject and distract and take me away from a carefully reasoned line of argument. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I remind the honourable Leader of the Opposition that the Chair was about to do that. When a member is speaking he does have the right to be heard in silence. MR. NEARY: Hear! Hear! MR. ROBERTS : I thank Your Honour. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, another

section which I think in principle should be jn this act, again one which the Government of Quebec have done. It shows the absence of this section, and this is hardly a new statute, the copy which I have is 1971, fourteenth of July, Bastille Day actually, 1971, nearly four years ago. A positive injunction laid upon the corporation, exactly analogous, a power corporation designed, aimed and intended to develop a great power project in Northern Quebec, the James Bay Project, setting up a corporation called The Corporation.

Section 5 of that act, Mr. Speaker, "The Corporation must see to the protection of the natural environment and prevent pollution in the territory." I.et us have that here. A positive requirement laid upon the corporation to take whatever steps are necessary, Something that you could go into eourt and get enforced. Again the ministry here may say that they intend to do the right and proper thing. They have had a study made, a nice little study by Thurlow Associates. They have made it public but then restricted circulation so that very few people could see it. AN HON. MEMBER: Has it been tabled . MR.

ROBERTS: It has not been tabled here. Anybody can step over to the Gosling Library and have your library card in hand and eventually - The Thurlow Study on the Environment has not been studied. Perhaps it could be tabled so we could have a copy for the records.

March 3, 1975 Tape No. 90 NM - 2 But in any event a study has been made, They have shown that degree of concern but I would like to see a positive burden laid upon the corporation to protect the environment and to prevent pollution. I think that is a reasonable request and I would like to see that right created in law so that any citizen or anybody standing before the courts in this matter could go before the courts and could take the appropriate steps to have it enforced. Now, Mr. Speaker, a couple of the minor points.

Another point, a very minor one, I am sorry a very major one, a very major one, is that this bill, sections 26 through about 40 makes a mockery, an absolute sham, a mockery, a farce, of any pretension which this government or any other administration had, to allow the House of Assembly to control the use of this province's credit. Now we used to hear a great deal about it.

Indeed the government of which I was a supporter and later a member, in the period 1I believe 1when the present Minister of Finance was Minister of Finance and the Minister of Fisheries was in that Cabinet, the Minister of Justice was in that Cabinet, brought in legislation which allowed the government, the Cabinet of the province, without prior approval of the House, to borrow money. I must check that. The Minister of Finance I think was Minister of Finance at the time. Maybe he sponsored the legislation. He might not have understood it but maybe he sponsored it. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we heard a great deal about that. Honourable gentlemen opposite who were then on this side said it was wrong. They did not say it was wrong at that point. They voted for 1t1as far as I know. A~ain I have not checked the point. It is irrelevant. The fact is, the relevant fact, is that when they came into office eventually they purported to change that. We had a bill trotted through here a year or so ago by the pious gentleman for St. John's East who told us it would be the greatest thing ne~t only to The Public Tenders Act. Well 1I had some doubts about the efficacy of the bill and I had 2o4

March 3, 1975 Tape No. 90 NM - 3 even more doubts, Mr. Speaker, about the policy and the intention of the administration. My doubts have been confirmed and justified now when you look at this bill. There are no controls here except the Lieutenant-Governor in Council which is the Cabinet. The House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, if this bill is passed in this form, can kiss good-hy to any authority to control expenditures on this project. True 1 we can always flick out the government, Your Honour. That can always be done.

Although with up to ten M.H.A.'s bein~ on the board of the corporation it is another $10,000 or $20,000 a year 1 and with fifteen or twenty or twenty-five in the Cabinet, another half dozen drawing down one thing or another, possibly Your Honour might concede it is unlikely that there might be a revolt in the House. Mr. Speaker, even that is only after the horse is gone out the barn door. I invite Your Honour to look at

section after section. The same theme runs throughout it, subject to the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Again 1Your Honour 1 that has nothing to do with His Honour the Lieutenant-Goveruor. That has everything to do with the Cabinet. That is the Cabinet. His Honour signs his name but under our system of government in Canada His Honour has no choice except to sign his name. "Subject only to Cabinet approval the·corporation may borrow money, issue bonds, execute and deliver mortgages, assignments, conveyances, charges or any other encumbrances entered into, execute and deliver any trust deed.

The Minister of Finance may unconditionally guarantee both as to principle interest, including interest on overdue interest, premium if any, and sinking fund payments if any, authorized under

section 26." That is the one I just read. So we have subject only to Cabinet approval, a corporation who can go out and borrow $1 billion or $1.5 billion or $10 billion if some Arab sheik succumbs to the Premier's wiles and lends us $10 billion Euro-dollars, subject only to the prior approval of the Lieutenant- 28tJ

March 3, 1975 Tape No, 90 NM - 4 Governor-in-Cabinet and we have seen what happens when the Premier's colleagues do not agree with him. They get the flick, They get the royal order of the boot.

So 1subject only to the prior approval of that independent Cabinet, not only can the corporation borrow it and can issue bonds and execute and deliver mortgages and anything else they want, but the Minister of Finance can guarantee it, I sleep easier, Sir, knowing the present Minister of Finance is our Minister of Finance because he has shown himself to be a man of principle and rightous wrath and indignation and strong in his job. But supposing, Sir, he was not the Minister of Finance, supposing for example the Mjnister of Mines and Energy got it and had a different view of the problem 1in good faith.

We could end up guaranteeing $1.5 billion and we are not talking here of some proposal to build a house downtown1 Your Honour, we are talking of $1.5 billion, $1,600,000,000, doubling the debt of this province with one stroke of the pen and the first this House of Assembly would know of it was when Newfoundland Information Services grind it out on their bologna spreader. Mr. Speaker, you know a very, very serious - It is enough you know in itself, it is enough to make us vote against that bill and this from the government that used to talk- AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking! Shocking! MR .

ROBERTS: Used to talk about their dedication to the control of the House, letting the House control affairs. Mr. Speaker, it runs throughout this section. It· is a needless power. There can be no conceivable case in which the corporation is going to need to borrow any large amount of money. Give them the authority to borrow $1 million or $2 million or $3 million on the approval of the Cabinet if that is what they need, a little pocket money, a little travelling money, a little walking around money. That is fine. A lot of money\ but I could see a case for $1 million or $2 million or $3 million or $4 million.

March 3 , 1975 Tape No. 90 NM - 5 The Minister of Fisheries left the Cabinet over a proposal to give Mr. John Shaheen $5 milli on and here now he is a member of the government that comes before the House asking for authority t o borrow money without limit. There is no limit on it, authority for the Cabine t to borrow. The House is never mentioned. We might never hear of it . Give them a couple of million if that is what they need, authority t o do i t . But there can be no other circumstances, Mr. Speaker , in which this House cannot be called together and asked to consider a bill.

Let us suppose the Premier goes off to Bahrein and he and the Sheik or Bahrein or Abu Dhabi or Quatar or some other place that has got all the money and we are allegedly going now, and the Sheik bas a vision and the vision involves giving us a couple of hundred million dollars on a loan, wel l and good. Apparently we are goinA to need that sort of money and that is where we are goin g to have to get it . ,. :.-.

"March 3, 1975 Tape 91 PK - 1 Why cannot the Premier hop on his private jet airplane owned by the corporation and flick hack to Newfoundland, drop in for a few days, have the Rouse of Assembly meet. Tell the Sheik, "Look I have this House of Assembly back there. I am not an independent monarch as ~our Eminence is or Your Majesty or whatever you call Sheik's these days." AN HON. MEMBER: ~- ROBERTS: It mav be a bit of a nuisance. It may be a bit of a nuisance. Sure the whole democratic process could equally be regarded in that light 1 as a bit of a nuisance.

But there can be no conceivable reason for this nrovision in here. I say the words "Governor-in-Council" should be struck and renlaced with the words "House of Assembly". Give them authority. Let the Governor-in-Council take authority and I will vote for this, to borrow a couple of million dollars at any given time. So if the corporation needs something quickly, they can get a little pocket money. The way they are going to be spending money a couple of millions is nocket money.

There can be no possible reason except a deliberate twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight says that "Notwithstsnding the Financial Administration Act or any other Act or law when a f!:Uarantee is given pursuant to

Section 27",which is the one that gives the Minister of Finance the power to say "Newfoundland guarantees anything the Governor-in-Council approves." Let us suppose it goes up to $6 billions. Well 1we will guarantee it. It goes on and on. For the minister I would invite his attention to (2~) through (35). Thirty-four, Your Honour, gives the government power to make loans, not even the corporation now. Not only can the corporation borrow anything they want, with the only check on them, the cabinet. They eould literally go and borrow $1 hillion tomorrow, with only the cabinet approval.

I must say it makes the Wedgewood Park DevelopmEnt look like peanut stuff. That is one thing. The second thing is the Minister of Finance can guarantee that. He just signs his name, in heautiful copperplate writing. We are on the hook then. We are on the hook.

March 3, 1975 Tape 91 PK - 2 Thirdly, according to Section (34), the government can then lend them the money in the bargain. All without any reference to the House of Assembly. True, we will be told about it at some point, about a year and a-half after that the financial renort will be laid before the House.

We will then see that on one wild weekend in Abu-Kuwait or somewhere in the Middle East the Premier accompanied by his cronies, the junior Member for Harbour Main, the Minister of Industrial Development, and the Minister of Public Works and Services, the trio, the Trinity, and I suppose they would bring the Hin:'-ster of Finance along for purposes of signing things - that on one wild and wooly weekend - AN HON. MEMBER; MR. ROBERTS; Do not forget fatso ••.•• sort of the Arabian knights, the Arabian knight to end all the Arabian knights, we would end up $1 billion have bein~ borrowed.

We have guaranteed it, and we are going to pay it off. It sounds like a fantasy, does it not, Mr. Speaker? But under this Act, Sir, it is fantasy that could happen. All that is necessary is for the government to amend the Act, say the House of Assembly. So at least if they are going off on a wild Arabian night or a wild Arabian week, they will go with the prior blessing of the peoples' Rouse. It is not unreasonable. The government are not going to lose a vote of confidence in the House of Assembly over this sort of thing.

They come in and say, "We are going to borrow our programme for this year for the Chruchill project is a couple hundred milJion dollars or $400 million or $500 million whatever it is, and we will put through a bill, "An Act To Authorize The Hydro Corporation To Borrow $500 million." If they can make a case for that I am sure the Honse will do it, will go along with it, will approve it, will vote for it. But these gentlemen, Sir, in this piece of hypocritical legislation, of all the great - you know, they used to talk about Mr.

Smallwood as if he allegedly were stealing money, as if he were participating in unwise projects. This, Mr. Speaker, this takes all the cakes. We can double the budget of the province in one fell swoop. Your Honour thinks I am being a little extreme. I had some figures run up here on the 289

March 3, 1975 Tape 91 PK - 3 debt that this lovely little bill could allow us to get into, that these gentlemen could see the province stuck with. They can double the province's debt overnight, Mr, Speaker, double it without any reference to the House of Assembly or without any reference to anybody except themselves. The last two or three years have shown us exactly what that is worth. Even the poor man's friend, the protecter of the right, the Minister without Portfolio as he then was, is gone. Who have we left to protect us, Mr. Speaker? Who have the public left to protect them now? MR. DAWE: We have Ank.

AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR . ROBERTS: Yes, yes, we do have the Minister of Social Services to stand up for us. I shall sleep easier knowing that, Sir, but I suggest the House of Assembly should be allowed to stand up for it too. The minister in introducing the bill made no reference to this, he likes it to sneak through. Maybe he hopes that since it was a technical bill nobody would bother reading it. It is such a minor piece of legislation that nobody would read it carefully. Let them come in and say, this is a great principle. A very great orinciple.

Let them come before this House and say that the House of Assembly - if the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries are going to discuss cabinet secrets, I do not want to hear them 1but they do speak in low whispers, Sir, maybe they could be either more quie~ or leave the Chamber for a little bit, whichever they wish. Maybe they are getting ready for an Arabian night. The Minister of Fisheries would not be involved in that sort of venture. They would not take him along. They would not have him. AN HON . MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: But, Mr. Speaker - I am being deadly serious.

Theqe sections, this principle vitiates this entire bill. It shows clearly that this government have no intention at all of allowing the House of Assembly any right to participate. Every man over there who votes 2~0

11arch 3, 1975 Tare 91 PK - 4 for this bill will do so in that knowledge. There can be no exnlanation. There can he no reasonable reason given in support of this. There may be a million nrecedents, but Adolrh Hitler had precedents for the way he acted too, Sir, and I suppose President Richard Nixon had precedents for the way he acted too, and Mussolini had precedents but that does not justify this sort of legislation. There may be precedents. But if those precedents are there then they are wrong and let us not perpetuate that wrong. AN HON. ~BER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: There we hear it now.

Fe will now stand up and say that "Mussolini made the trains run on time, therefore Mussolini was a good man" . AN HON. MEMBER: MR. ROBERTS: AN HON. l'fE',!BER: MR. ROBERTS: HR. SPEAKER: ---- ----- MR. ROBERTS: -- -- --- Inaudible. There may have been precedents. Inaudible. Mr. Speaker, there may have been nrecedents. Order, please! But I say, I say that this is a ~reat wrong. The bill went through last year, the minister refers to it. It went through in the dying moments of the session, without any real debate. It was jammed through, rushed through. AN J!~N. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR._ --~O_B_ERTS: I may, Hr.

Speaker, I may have been voted out of the House then. The minister voted me out of the House 1 too. Mr. Speaker, whether or not there are 40,000 Acts with that sort of principle in it, whether that be so or not does not take away from the princinle.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Energy and any other honourable gentlemen over there i,ho has the wit to get into this debate to address themselves to that principle - why should the Governor-in-Council, the cabinet 1have the power without any reference to the House of Assembly to borrow any amount of money1 Wear~ tal king about $1,600,000,000, that is, the wor king estimate. It will be $2 billion or $2.5 billion before they are done. The government have that power to borrow it, to guarantee it and then to 291

March 3, 1975 Tape 91 PK - 5 pay it out of the .:consolidated revenue fund of this province. Thirty­ four gives that power. The gover11I11ent can just pay it out themselves, if nobody else will pay it to them, if they have to. Why llhould the government have that power? Why should not the House of Assembly have it? There can be no conceivable reason. I can see a

section saying, as much as $5 million. That is a lot of money. The Minister of Fisheries used to be tender over that. He left the cabinet over that principle. I was not in that cabinet. I supported that administration. But he left the cabinet over giving $5 million to Mr. John Shaheen's company, the so-called.bridge financing. Here now the Minister of Fisheries is supporting a principle of borrowing any amount of money on the credit of this province, guaranteed by the Ninister of Finance to this province without any reference to the House of Assembly. None at all. Now there is no way that can be justified, Mr.

Speaker. Let them come before the House and amend it quite simply by saying, I do not know the legal words. They have got draftsmen who do these things, and they are better than I will ever be at drafting. Let them say something like "The House of Assembly 1 nothing shall be borrowed or the credit of this orovince shall not be pledged in any way unless the House of Assembly first approves " . And then, Sir, "Notwithstanding that

section as much as $5 millions can be borrowed and guaranteed by the province if it is necessary in an emergency situation." But the principle is clear. This bill, Mr. Speaker, says that "The only check is with the Governor-in-Council;'and that is the cabinet • That is not enough, Sir. I find it very enlightening that this administration which just a year ago or two used to talk of, "We will have the House of Assembly control it". There was

an Act, it was passed on the adviee of the then financial adviser to the Premier, but that does not matter whose advise it was. The then government, the then Premier took that advise, brought the bill before the House, had it enacted - I am not sure whether it was with the advice or not of 1or whether it was the support of the then Opposition•

March 3, 1975. Tape 92 RH - 1 The bill became law and was acted upon. Honourable gentlemen opposite either then or subsequently denounced it. How eloquent they used to be denouncing why the government could go out and borrow $1 million or $2 million or SS million or $20 million and the House never got to approve it until afterwards. They were not going to permit that, no siree, not them. They were above that. Now they come in to cheat a project that is going to be a minimum of $2 billion before this power comes on stream.

It has grown in one year from $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion and it is going up day by day, a minimum of $2 billion, $2,000 million, infinitely more than all of our debt now, Sir, can become the direct debt of this Province with the approval of nobody except the Lieutenant-Governor-in­ Council which is the Cabinet, which boils down to the Premier and his cronies. We saw that again. We saw that again, Mr. Speaker, just a week ago when the gentleman from St. John's East dared to cross the Premier and his cronies, who had made a little deal. The deal was made. It has been called off now, but the deal was made.

It was made and confirmed, Now, Mr. Speaker, - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: The honourable Minister of Fisheries says it is not relevant. I say it is relevant. I say it is relevant to know what sort of government - we are dealing with, what sort of government asked this grant of power, $2 billion. If the Minister of Fisheries had not abandoned what principles he had he would be standing saying these things too. NR. NEARY: He has nowhere to go now or he would be over here. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: God forbid! MR. ROBERTS: Now, Mr.

Speaker, one other point in the bill that I would suggest should be looked at, section (46) gives the corporation, mind you, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the giants of the Cabinet, the senior Member from Harbour ~ain, the Minister of Social Services, the Minister of Forestry and the other giants of the Cabinet, they would be our check, they would be our protection. A very interesting

March 3, 1975. Tape 92 RH - 2 regulation power. I am not sure I know what it means. I am not sure that the words say what it means, but section (46) is worth a gander by Your Honour. The corporation may make regulations, a fairly usual power to put in

an act. I suppose if there are 1,000 pieces of legislation in this Province today, 920 of them have a regulation's power in the back of it. It enables them to prescribe the design, construction, installatio~ protection, use, maintenance, repair, extension, alteration, connection and disconnection of all works or matters used or to be used in the development, generation, transformation, tramsmission, distribution, delivery or use of power in the Province.

I asked a couple of gentlemen who work elsewhere to have a look at this and they asked me why the government wanted power to prescribe the size of toasters in Newfoundland and whether light bulbs could be sixty or one hundred watts. That is not what that

section is intended to do, but again that is the sort of power that could be done. Regulations could be drawn saying that nobody shall use a General Electric toaster in this Province. I think that is a ridiculous - I am being - It is a - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: It does not say anything here about safety. It could well be that among the ten independent fellows to be appointed will be some people who say, "Let us ban General Electric." If it is for safety, say for safety. Restrict the power. My point is simply- of course I am using a ridiculous example.

It is the only way to get through to the minister. The grant of power is too wide. Restrict it, restrict it to what is truly necessary. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Yes, perfectly good reason. Right, perfectly good reason. From now on the people in Hermitage can only use twenty watt light bulbs instead of forty. We will have a regulation to do it. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to - it is perfectly in order that the government of this Province should take responsibility for insuring that utilities and so forth act properly and that we are not allowed to wire

?-'.arch 3, 1975. Tape 92 R" - 3 houses with substandard wires. That is straightforvard , but I do not think it should be the job of the llydro Corporation . It should be the job of a proper body set up for that purpose . It has been done de facto by the present Newfoundland and Labrador Power Corporation to sor.ie extent, but if I build a house in St. John's today, it is not a gentleman from the Paver Corporation who comes to inspect whet her or not I have use d proper and adequate wiring . AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible . MR. ROBERTS: Ah! Fair enou gh, but one fifth of our people live in St.

John's and what about in Corner llrook? The Power Corporation, Mr . Reid and his people, do not inspect any of the areas where they do not provide the retail distributio n of power . Now, if we

March 3, 1975 Tape 93 are going to have a safety board. If we are going to have a safety board, then let us have one. I would be all for it. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: They do have the inspectors, for example, around Conception Bay. IB-1 MR. ROBERTS: Well, I have seen some of the work too. The fact remains - I give way to the minister on his detailed knowledge. I do not pretend to know the details of the current activities of the corporation. Why should I? I am not the Minister of Mines and Energy. I am not full-time at mines and energy matters. He is. So, I bow to him on that matter.

The fact remains, if we are going to have a safety board, let us have a safety board or a safety agency, A corporation whose job it is to develop power and supply power and distribute power should not be in this business. All I am saying, but I say it again, is that the grant of power is too wide. These are only examples of the power that this corporation would have if this bill is accepted without amendment. Mr. Speaker, I have talked about the bill and I repeat that I find the bill offensive. I am quite in agreement with the idea of having an agency to develop power.

I think it is the public's function to develop that power. Indeed, as I said on Friday, I think that the public should take over responsibility, not only for generating all the power in the province, but for distributing it. I would feel far happier if that were the principle of this bill, but I guess the Tory Government will not do that. The bill, itself, Sir, is offensive. It gives infinitely more power to the government and to the corporation than it should ever have. It is wrong. It is as wrong as wrong can be. It gives them too much power.

It extinquishes any rights that our Indian citizens may have by way of injunction. It means they can only sue after the power lines have come across Labrador and destroyed their hunting gronnd~ if that is what they do. They can sue then 1but not before, After the bulldozer has roamed through Your Honour's house in Lewisporte, then Your Honour can have the satisfaction of serving out a writ and having an action heard against the corporation, but 290

March 3, 1975 Tape 93 IB-2 Your Honour's house is gone. The bulldozer has come through and the power lines go through it or Your Honour's cottage is flooded by a dam. No, Sir, that is too much power for the government to have. It is also wrong, Mr. Speaker, in that it makes a mockery of any control of the House of Assembly over expenditures. There is no reason that can be advanced with any justification, to justify and to support the principle requested or the power requested in sections twenty-six through thrity-five, whatever they are, of this bill.

There is no reason in this world why this corporation's programme cannot be laid before the House each year, perhaps, as part of the supply bill. There could be a

section put in that could be debated. That the Hydro Corporation will be borrowing $300 million dollars this year 1 that could be then debated. Mr. Speaker, not according to this bill. If this bill is passed unchanged, that will be the last thing this House by law has to do with $1.6 billion or, I say, $2 billion in expenditures. I will say this, the present administration have one year left in office at most. If they do not change this bill, it may become law tmaltered. I mean, they have that power Your Honour. They can force it through.

If they do not change this bill, if it becomes law tmaltered, then the next government of this province will change it in that respect. We will put back to the House of Assembly the power of prior approval, of prior debate. Let the ministry come before this House - I do not know if we can make it retroactive, but we could say that any money that is borrowed now - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: We could have an investigation. MR. ROBERTS: Well, Fabian O'Dea is available,I understand 1for royal collllllissions. He has done one hatchet job. Maybe he will be willing to do another.

I know a few people who will serve on the royal commission. I would advise the Minister of Industrial Development to move his files now according to precedence. Mr. Speaker, there is no conceivable justification for these clauses in that bill. I hope the minister, when he speaks to close the debate, will tell us that the government are going to bring in

March 3, 1975 Tape 93 IB-3 amendments. I do not think it would be a massive job of drafting, amendments to the sections I have pointed out, making sure that public tenders are called. If the government want to get away from the Golden Eagle bill, more power to them. I did not pass it. I was eighteen or seventeen years old when it started, and I really

March 3, 1975 Tape No. 94 NH - 1 had nothing to do with it. No, I was not at law school. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: I see now, there is another Arabian knight. Mr. Speaker, let them amend that

section 6 and make it clear that members cannot serve 1 1f that is their principle 1 or if we want one or two 1 fine 1but they serve without renumeration. Let us not have another six or eight or ten members on the government payroll getting their $10,000 or $15,000 or S20,000 a year by pleasure of the Premier and the Cabinet. MR. NEARY: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Let them amend - Oh he is going to he financial controller. Let them amend that

section 24 to make it clear that whatever rights the Indian and Eskimo peoples or other peoples have, those rights stay there, Theyare not taken away and that they can enforce them by any means of law now open to them, including mandamus writs and the writs of injunction and prohibition, prerogative writs. Let it make it clear that all public tenders are going to be called for all of the work involved. Let us not have the great sweetheart deal of all time. Wedgewood Park was only peanuts. That was only a mere $9 million.

This one is $1.6 billion at present and going up every day and just think of the lovely little deals we could get going. We would need a dozen Royal Commissions just to look into that,and if necessary we will have them. A.~ HON. MEMBER: We are goinp: to have two extra judp:es. MR. ROBERTS: Yes, we are going to have - There will be a lawyer unemployed who will not be Chief Justice. He will be available as council to a royal commission. Mr. Speaker, let them narrow down the - The Premier thinks I am referring to one of his colleagues. I did not mention that but I find it interesting that the Premier does. AN HON.

MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: MR. ROBERTS: Let them put in, Mr. Speaker, let them put in some sections laying upon the corporation the duty to protect our 299

March 3, 1975 Tape No. 94 NM - 2 environment. I think these are all reasonable points, Sir, and if I am a little perhaps strong in my language it is because I think they are important. I hope the minister will respond positively and respond with some constructive responses. His action today seems to be, "Oh well 1you voted for it." Maybe I did. I am quite prepared to say in this House now1 as I have said before, Mr. Speaker, I have in my life done many things wrong. I have done nothing illegal that I know of, nothing unlawful but I - AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR.

ROBERTS: Yes, sit across the House from the gentleman from Burgeo, that justifies my public career. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to say as any honourable gentleman opposite may have said and could say and you know of all the childish, schoolboy debating tricks to say, "Oh well, you voted for it once." Sure, and I will comb the honourable gentleman's public career, short and unillustrious as it may be and I can find any number of things he advocated in his time that he may not wish quite so to have trotted out. I am not ashamed of anything I have done.

I am quite willing to say that I may have made many mistakes but that is no excuse for making another one. MR. NEARY: What was the other bill he is talking about? MR. ROBERTS: Which other bill? MR. NEARY: The bill he is saying here that you voted for. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please'. MR. ROBERTS: Oh it was one of the 120 major acts last year. They have changed the name from commission to corporation. It was a great reform, a great reform. They had a meeting in Northeast Crouse, a public meeting, and unanimously subscribed a petition to the Minister of Mines and Energy to thank him for that.

They said it made everything fine. Now they are wondering about their centennial phones and their centennial lights and their 300

March 3, 1975 Tape No. 94 NM - 3 centennial road, AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR . ROBERTS: Yes, he had a hot time in (',oose Bay. Now that I have spoken a little bit about the bill I would like to go on , if I might 1 to talk for a few minutes about the Gull Island Project. I do so realizing I am 1I suppose 1somewhat out of order. I can attempt to relate it to the bill. I mean the bill deals with a Labrador Hydro Corporation but I would like 1if I could 1 to have an understanding that it is in order to do so, If it is not then you know1that is fine, The rules are the rules. AN HON.

MEMBER: We already had that understanding. MR. ROBERTS: The minister does not run the House. His Honour does. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The honourable Leader of the Opposition is correct. I think the reference to the Gull Island Project is out of order with regard to the principle of this bill, However, if by consent of the House I am willing to hear him if he wants to consent to continue. Does the honourable member have consent to - MR.

ROBERTS: Well the Minister of Mines and Energy disagrees with Your Honour's ruling but I mean Your Honour has been quite - I would like to talk about it at least for a few minutes but I apparently need leave to do it. AN HON , MEMBER: Okay. MR. ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? Agreed. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. I would hope equally 1 of course,that all my colleagues and all honourable gentlemen opposite have exactly the same, You know the bill is important .

There are some offensive things in it that should be talked about 1and 1like any bill before this House 1 when it is here it is important. But I think the real importance of this measure is that it opens up the question to have a look at the Churchill Project. Now, Mr. Speaker, 3Ul

March 3, 1975 Tape no. 95 Page 1 - MW it is difficult>really 1to debate the Churchill project because, of course, the government have made so little information available. I was very disappointed in the minister's opening speech. I had hoped that he would make a major statement of exactly where the project stands, and what is happening, and what is about to happen, and what is involved, and so forth. It may be that the Premier,or the Junior Member for Harbour Main,or the Minister of Finance, or his assistant, or the Minister of Justice, or some other honourable gentleman will make some major statement on it.

I hope so. I regret that it was not done first, because it means that I have no opportunity to reply to it. A number of my colleagues have some thoughts and, you know, will be able to answer any points that need answering, or to discuss any matters that need discussion. I think some things are obvious. Now this is the first time, Your Honour, that we have had the opportunity in any sense to talk about the Churchill project in this House of Assembly. There may have been some technical legislation enacted last year with very little, very little debate.

Most of the debate took the form of long-winded statements by the Premier during the period when the administration were attempting to purchase, first of all, the shares of BRINCO and then latterly the Labrador assets of BRINCO. Of course, like many of the Premier's statements, we take them with several: grains of salt. I remember, I will never forget that day the Premier announced the second refinery and, of course, he said then, it would begin in June, 1973, and, of course, that was two years ago, and we are no closer now than we were then.

The Premier, I know, will forgive me when I say that we do take some of his statements with a grain or two of salt. As a matter of fact, we take about as much salt as comes out of Siberia in a year, and that is a lot. Mr. Speaker, I think some things are obvious though. There are some things which do not need much discussion, because everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador will agree on them. The first is quite simply that this island, and Labrador as well, need more power. There is no doubt that we are going to run out of power very shortly. 302

March 3, 1975 Tape no. 95 Page 2 - mw The administration have reacted to this. It took them two or three years to find it out. They have reacted to it by quite an expensive programme of about $80 million in round figures, $75 million, or $80 million, a lot of money. The present Power Commission are going to put the final units into the Bay D'Espoir area. They are going to develop some more capacity, and there is going to be another thermo plant or two, a gasoline, or oil driven generating plants. That is fine. That is a positive re~ponse to a situation. Presumably that power is bridging power.

I think it is equally obvious that we have in Labrador a great power potential. I do not think most people in this island yet, and in this province, have realized just how much power there is, even on the Lower Churchill. I understand it is twice as much as we are using in the whole province today, the whole of the province, and I am not counting Labrador Weet. I am not counting the consumption, particularly in that pelletizing plant in Labrador City. But leaving aside that - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. ROBERTS: - there is not very much there.

The 1,800 megawatts are roughly twice the power we are using today. Well, I am going only on the figures that are public. Perhaps the minister could tell me how much power we are using today in Newfoundland and Labrador? MR. BARRY: Well, you are not that far out. There are 750 megawatts installed capacity by the Power Corporation. Then we have Bowaters - inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Right. So the fact remains - I thank the minister - the fact remains that we are talking of a staggering amount of power, a very large amount.

The figures I had here are from the Teshmont Study which shows that the peak demand in megawatts in 1973, which I agree is a year and a half ago now, was 767 at peak. information from the Power Commission is 1973 again. few statistics available publicly. MR. BARRY: (Inaudible). The latest There are a very 30J

March 3, 1975 Tape no. 95 Page 3 MR. ROBERTS : Well, I would be grateful if the minister would - I will give him an eight cents stamp each mon~h, if he would add me on to his mailing list, because we do not get them. One of the frustrating things about not being in the ministry is that you do not get a lot of the information which properly and naturally comes to the minister. Some of it can only go to a minister. A great deal of it could usefully be made public. In any event, it is a staggering amount of power. I think that that is something we must bear in mind, Sir.

We must bear that in mind because I think that that is one of the essential facts. Equally, let me say without any reservation, as I have all along, that - I had a difference of opinion with one of my opponents, who does not sit in the House of Assembly, a gentleman with whom I had a tussel last fall in another arena - let me say without any hesitation that the Liberal Party, this party, is quite in agreement with the principle, we support it, we like it, that power should be developed publicly. Indeed, it waa a Liberal principle. The only exception llfaS made with respect to Labrador.

The reason • for that was that the power being developed in Labrador West and the- Churchill Falls and initially the Twin, could not have been used at that time in this province. I will deal with that a little later. 304

March 3, 1975 Tape 96 IB-1 But I think it is worth noting and worth remembering that it was the Liberal Administration with Mr. Smallwood as Premier which first enunciated and established the principle that power would be public. I said on Friday, and I repeat a·gain, that I would like to see that extended to its logical limit. This administration have gone part way, by purchasing some of the power rights in Labrador or all of the power rights in Labrador.

I would like to see them go the step further now and let us acquire for the public all generating capacity and all distribution systems and capacity in this province. Let us do what Nova Scotia has done, what Quebec has done, what Ontario did seventy years ago when Sir Adam Beck formed Ontario Hydro. I think we should. Rules and general principles, Sir - let me add to that, that based on what Mr. MacDonald, the Minister of Energy at Ottawa and Mr.

Jamieson, the Minister of DREE said publicly 1 and on what I have heard privately, it is obvious that the best source of power for this island at this time and for Labrador at this time is the Lower Churchill project. The best way to develop that power is to bring it to this island by a submarine tunnel. All of that, Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree on in this House. Indeed I do not know anybody in this province who really disagrees with any of those points or principles or facts or statements.

Ottawa have told us they are willing to put up on a loan basis - long term, low interest but still a loan - $343 million which they estimate to be half the cost of bringing the power from Gull Island to the island and to developing the inter-tie link between Gull Island and the Upper Churchill project. They are willing to put up their cash. I have said that I do not think it is enough, nor do I. Now, Sir, from those facts, certain questions arise and certain decisions must follow.

Despite all that has been said publicly by the Premier and by his colleagues in the Cabinet they have not dealt with any of these facts. We are witnessing one of the great snow jobs of recent years in Canada. They are not telling us the full story. They are not giving us their plans 30::..

March 3, 1975 Tape 96 IB-2 or their proposals at all. Instead we see before us a bill that merely would give them the power to borrow any amount of money. They are not telling us. I hope in this debate that either the Premier or the junior member for Harbour Main in his capacity as Minister of Industrial Development 1or the Minister of Mines and Energy or some other spokesman for the ministr~ or all of them,will get into the debate and will give us this information.

By us I do not just mean we, Her Majesty's Humble and Loyal Opposition.I mean the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because I have gone through every utterance recorded of the Premier - he may have made some I that I did not have recorded - and I have gone through the statements by other honourable gentlemen and they have not given the people of Newfoundland any information. There has been a lot of .flimflamery, the sort of thing Mr. McLean concocts with the public relations staff. Fine. Well and good. Let us have an election on it tomorrow if the Premier would like. I would like one.

Since we are not going to have one tomorrow 1despite the gentleman from Trinity North, let us debate it here and let us get this information. We do not know very much, Sir. As a matter of fact, we the people know next to nothing. Looking at the public record, looking at what has been said, let me just list one or two of the things we do not know. For example, Sir, the government have not told us how we are going to pay for the $160 million we laid out to buy the Upper Churchill project. They just have not told us, nowhere. If they have, not only has it escaped me but everybody I have talked to.

I have cast my net widely. We know it cost $160 million to buy it. I said I thought it was too much and I do. I think the government were had. Leave that aside, we have paid $160 million to buy certain assets of BRINCO. Those assets broadly fell into two headings. Two-thirds of the share interest in the Upper Churchill - I think it was fifty-six 300

March 3, 1975. Tape 97 RH - 1 per cent, was it? We had nine before. So we now have sixty-five or sixty-five point something per cent of the share capital of the CFLCo Limited, Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation Limited, the Upper Churchill project. The Govenunent of Quebec have the remaining one third which they got through the rather backdoor 'filay of expropriating Shawinigan power back in the early sixties. Also, the 160 covers the purchase price of whatever rights BRINCO has to the Lower Churchill. I do not know what rights they had.

I have seen lawyers argue that they had very large rights and I have seen other lawyers argue that they had very small rights, but they had some rights under legislation past by this House twenty years ago. The principle act, I think, was 1953. I was twelve or thirteen at the time and really was not deeply involved in drafting that legislation or in considering it, but BRINCO did have some rights. I do not know what the y are. I mean I never checked it out in detail.

I have· talked to lawyers, who go all over the ball park on it, but they had some rights and so the government, whether they want to say th, ,y purchased their rights or whether they want to say BRINCO agreed to give up such claims they had. The fact remains BRINCO have now signed pieces of paper wLich say they have no rights left to hydro power anywhere in this Province. They have some mineral rights elsewhere. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Oh, yes! I mean the act has conditions and everything. It was not - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: They had to do some work - MR.

ROBERTS: They did not have the right to develop the power and just leave it at that. They had the right to develop the power under certain conditions. I understand 1 in fact the best opinion I can get 1 is that they probably had a right of first refusal and that if anybody wanted to develop - and the govenunent recognized that because the Minister of Finance, as he then was, told it before he was deteethed and taken out of finance, as he told us in one of his budgets, they were negotiating with Churchill.

All right, they have bought them out 1and well and good, but they have not told us how much we are going to get each year from our two-third share

March 3, 1975. Tape 97 RH - 2 interest. Now, that is not only interesting, but it is important because we went and borrowed that money, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance got in touch with the Bank of Nova Scotia or the Premier or somebody did and the Bank of Nova Scotia said, "All right, we will give you what amounts to a consumer credit account. We will give you $160 million. We will lend it to you. You pay us interest. You pay us back, well and good." Now, we have to pay that back.

We can pay it back in two ways, either by putting on the debt of the Province, either directly or through building it into the cost of the Lower Churchill, or we can pay it back by taking such income as we may get from the Upper Churchill project, CFLCo and using it to pay off the debt at the bank and the interest. The government have indicated that it is going to be the latter case, that they are going to take our income and pay it off, well and good. I am all for that.

We have spent money to purchase an asset and out of that $160 millions, I understand between $150 and $155 millions can properly be attributed to the Upper Churchill project, the equity interest in that and the remaining $5 or $10 million is the value as agreed of the rights, whatever they are to the Lower Churchill and the studies that have been made and the engineering data and what have you. That is what I am told by people who were involved in the transaction. If I am wrong, perhaps the minister could correct me. I was not privy to the transaction.

What I want to know is how much we are going to get from the Upper Churchill, Mr. Speaker, how much each year. We now own two-thirds of the cost. I was going to say two-thirds of the shares. The project has a large debt but the debt will be serviced. I am not the least bit worried about that. The project, indeed, as I understand it, is a profitable one. It was financed on the basis that the debt would be serviced. I have no doubt 1 as well, there is a handsome equity return. BRINCO were not down there for their health. BRINCO planned to make a very significant equity return. 308

March 3, 1975. Tape 97 RH - 3 I am all for H. That is the law. That is the i.,ay things wor k, hut now that we have bought it and I am all for - let me finish this sentence , Your Honour, and we will call it one o'clock. We were five minutes late start.ing because the government were not here on time, Sir . Let BRINCO, not.1 that we own it and t. am quite happy of chat , quite pleased with that , let us be told how much we are ioing to get, how much are we going to get each year on our dividend?

If it is in order , You~ Honour, let us call it one and I will - Are we going to do chis, the master is gone - the assistant is here . Are we going to he back on this bill at three o'clock? AN HONOURABLE MfilffiER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Oh! I know that. I know that, but take a gues s. We will not hold you to it . AN HONOURABLE HEHBER: Inaudible . MR. ROBERTS: All right. Well, then let us hope that the minist er is not overruled as he so often is . We will carry on with the bill at three o'clock . I think Your Uonour just leaves the Chair. We do not need a Beauchesne . MR.

SPEAKER: It now being one o ' clock, I do now leave the Chai r uncil three o'clock this afternoon. 309

March 3, 1975 (Afternoon) The House resumed at 3:00 P.M. Mr . Speaker in the Chair. Tape No. 98 NM - 1 MR, SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition adjourned the debate at one. MR . ROBERTS : Mr. Speaker, there was a lottery to my right, Sir, I do not know what bill of sale the Minister of Energy is trying to sell my colleagues but I would warn them to be careful and I would warn him not to take any cheques. MR. NEARY: This is it now. This is perfectly legitimate. MR, SPEAKER: It may be legitimate but it is not televant. MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest that anything that my colleague, the gentleman from Bell Island, and the Minister of Energy are together in has to be both legitimate and relevant. Mr. Speaker, before we rose for lunchers I had made a few preliminary remarks on the question of the financing of the Upper Churchill which is a term that most of us use to describe the government's purchase of the share interest in the Churchill Falls - Labrador Corporation, The Upper Churchill itself is financed, When the project was completed it was completed well ahead of schedule.

I understand it was completed within cost estimates which makes it significantly different from the Health Sciences Centre that my friend, the Minister of Health, is building that has royally escalated in cost since he became minister.

But the significant thing and the thing I want to get at is the way in· -which the government's investment, the people's investmens is to be recovered, What I am saying essentially is that I do not know1 and the gentlemen on this side do not know and the gentlemen on the other side 1for all I know1may not know, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador certainly do not know, anything about the financial arrangements, anything about our investment in this enterprise, in these shares. The most recent annual report of BRINCO was for the year ended 1973 and it dealt with the purchase of the - it was dated 310

March 3, 1975 Tape No. 98 NM - 2 May 17, 1974 - it dealt with the purchase by the govermnent of CFLCo shares and the water rights in the Lower Churchill River. But itiof courseidid not answer the infotlll&tion and as far as I can find out BRINCO have never said publicly what they were going to make on the Upper Churchill Development and that is the real question, What are we going to make? What is the company going to malte? What is going to be their rate of profit?

That is-1I think 1an infinitely predictable matter because, as we all know, the power from that project has been pre-sold for a period of forty years and the costs of the project are very largely fixed. I suppose there ~t be ninety-nine per cent fixed costs. The greater co.st is simply the cost o.f servicing the mo.ney and ret>aying the debt. Well that is all in place now. The money has all been borrowed. I have no idea whether the interest rates are fixed for the term of the debt or not, but the money has been borrowed. It has all been invested. It has all been spent.

The :Project has been built and the only variable costs now are the costs of the wages of the men who work in the plant a.iid whateve •r supplies may be consumed, That is a very small part of the annual cost. 311

March 3, 1975 Tape 99 (Afternoon) IB-1 The government should be able to tell us now exactly how much CFLCo is going to get each year, what are its net earnings going to be. There are no taxes. It is a crown corporation. So, there will be no taxes payable. Therefore, how much are we going to get? The figure we get obviously is two-thirds of the net income of that company. It is not a new request I make, Sir.

When the bill to authorize the government to purchase those shares came before the House in our last session, in J=e or JulY, whenever the bill came in, we asked the then Minister of Finance - he has now been made Minister of Fisheries - we asked him for some answers and we got none. We got contemptuous arrogance or arrogant contempt but no information, no answers. Indeed, he did not even say what the interest rate is beyond saying it is one per cent over the London Interbank rate. If Your Honour is to reread the Hansard of that debate, you will find it amazing that a man could say so much and reveal so little.

So, I repeat again. All we ask at this stage - I do not care who says it. The Minister of Fisheries might have the information locked in his fertile mind. The Premier might have it written out for him. The Minister of Mines and Energy might know the answer. Anybody over there who has the information, I think the people of Newfoundland - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Snow's too, The junior member for Harbour Main, he dealt with I think the people of Newfoundland are entitled to know how much we are going to get, how much our income is going to be.

We are entitled to know because it is our investment. The $160 million which we gave to BRINCO as the purchase price of those shares, those water rights, did not come out of the pockets of the Minister of Finance or the minister of this or the minister of that. It came out of the pockets of all the people of Newfoundland and in fact is on our debt. Fair enough. I suspect we will get more than enough money to amortise it. I suspect it is a very good investment, but I would like 312

March 3, 1975 Tape 99 (Afternoon) IB-2 to know. So, I ask the minister or whoever is to speak for the ministry on this matter, if they would - the interest alone, I have no idea what the London Interbank rate is right now but I would imagine it is of the order of twelve or thirteen per cent. The interest rate of one per cent over that, if it is twelve per cent at prime and thirteen per cent, that is of the order of $21 million a year on interest alone on that debt. If we are then going to service it, reduce the principle, say over ten years, that is an extra $16 million a year on a straight line reducing balance.

So, we would need at the start of the order of $40 million dollars per year 1probably declining to next to nothing at the end of ten years, if we are to retire that debt. Maybe CFLCo will generate