VOL. 2 NO. 61 PRELIMINARY UNED ITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1980

November 19,1980 Tape No. 2232 AH-1 The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, p1ease With respect to the amendment proposed yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and on which I reserved my ruling,I would like to quote the following authorities and direct members' attention to them. I might say to hon. members at the outset that this matter is one of those questions of degree which always presents a difficult problem to the Chair. First of all I quote Standing Order 36 which states, 'A Motion may be amended: (

a) by leaving out certain words; (b)by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (

c) by inserting or adding other words. This amendment falls into category (b).

Secondly, Beauchesne, 5th Edition, Page 153, Paragraph 425 says, "The object of an amendment may be to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability, or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question which must, however, be relevant to the subject of the question." It appears to me the purpose in this amendment coincides with this reference in 3eauchesne 'That the object is to effect such an alteration in the Motion that it could obtain the support of those who could or would not support it in its original formV So it appears to me that it is within the general principle and purpose of amendments as referred to specifically by Beauchesne in Paragraph 425.

And finally,I quote Erskine

November 19,1980 Tape No. 2232 AH-2 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) Mays Parliamentary Practice, 19th Edition, Page 387, and I quote, "The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability, or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question. The latter purpose may be effected by moving to omit all or most of the words of the question after the first word and to substitute in their place other words of a different import.

In that case the debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the purpose both of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the House as alternative propositions. Thus,having considered the matter thoroughly, I rule the amendment proposed yesterday by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to the motion then before the House,is in order. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear

November 19, 1980 Tape 2233 EC - 1 STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS MR. SPEAKER (Sirnrns): The hon. the Premier. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: I would like to make a formal statement, Mr. Speaker, in response to the recent report of the Economic Council of Canada. The report of the Economic Council of Canada entitled, "Newfoundland, from Dependency to Self- Reliance' is now under intensive study by officials of my government and will be the subject of discussion in Cabinet and caucus, after which time a formal and detailed reaction will be given.

I would sincerely like to be positive in my initial reaction to the study as one can sense in it a general concern for this Province, its people and our economic situation. However, while most of the Economic Council's recommendations appear well meaning (and some acceptable), the document as a whole appears fatally flawed, both technically and intellectually. It appears to be imbued with the same approach to social and economic development in this Province which has been characteristic of the past and which led, for instance, to programs like resettlement.

In one sense, however, the report serves the people of the Province well in that it defines the scope of our economic disparity, something which all of us through our own personal lives are very much aware of, but which un- fortunately do not appear real enough to our fellow Canadians to galvanize them into the action needed to solve those problems. This report, in that respect, will certainly help in making our case to the Canadian people.

November 19, 1980 Tape 2233 EC - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Having said that, however, I would like to take great issue with the approach which the Economic Council has used in searching for solutions to our problems.

Throughout the document there are concepts of pseudo-centralization; user pay on the Gulf 'agglomeration economics', (under which we are told 'not to force the creation of jobs in outports' if within 'commuting distance of urban centres'); a crc-urbanization bias; an emphasis on offshore trawlers instead of the inshore fishery; severe limited entry proposals for fishermen; proposals for drastic changes in unemployment insurance benefits; and even a proposal for an 'early retirement program' for 'working age people born before 1925 who have been long-term residents of Newfoundland and who have limited education'.

All of these are ideas which run counter to what I believe to be the real desires of the people of this Province. The Economic Council would

November 19, 1980 Tape No.2234 SD -1 PREMIER PECKFORD: have us believe that because of natural, and thus inevitable, economic forces which are at work, these are like policies must necessarily be adopted.This is just not so, we are, if we wish, masters of our own fates. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. S. NEARY: That is the first statement you made I agree with. PREMIER PECKFORD: 'Whilst still the light holds out to burn/The vilest sinner may return.' SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, heart PREMIER PECKFORD: The Council has conveniently avoided addressing itself directly to three great issues fac- ing this Province today and upon whose resolution our economic well-being will, in part, depend.

The Council states that "it is not indifferent to conflicts of interest between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia over offshore fishing rights, between Newfound- land and Quebec over access to Labrador power and the price of its hydro electricity or between Newfoundland and Canada over ownership of its offshore resources." Having said this, and having commented upon the nature and magnitude of the economic losses which urifavourable policies in these areas bring, and having in particular demonstrated quite clearly the unreasonablness of federal offshore revenue proposals, it goes on to avoid recommendations in these areas as 'matters of political juris- diction or points of law.

These are clearly beyond our field of competence." While the Council feels that these three crucial matters are beyond "their field of compet- ence,'

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2234 SD - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: it has not refrained from making recommendations which are based on its perception of our world and which would have the most fundamental impact on all aspects of social and economic life in this Province.

Presumably such matters are within what the Council feels is its field of competence." It is not surprising then that the Council states "the objective should not be to cut off the transfers to Newfoundland but to re-organize them." The debate which must inevitably arise out of this document should relate to such concepts as 'agglomeration conomies which are so central to the Economic Council's report - concepts which are opposed to the lifestyle which we in Newfoundland have and wish to maintain. We are thus restricting ourselves in this instance to this general reaction.

We must state, however, that there is no necessity for us to become urbanized as with Southern Ontario; there is no need to implement a very, very restricted limited entry scheme in the fishery; growth in our Province need not come by re-arranging UIC payments (thus implementing a scheme which one of the participants in the study called 'fiercely regressive') or by giving up our rights under the Terms of Union to a subsidy on the Gulf.

Economic growth in our Province can rest on our fair share of profits generated at the Upper Churchill and from our offshore oil and gas and through the jobs which will come from the proper management and development of our Northern cod and other fish species. MR. S. NEARY: Do not get political now PREMIER PECKFORD: We now have two broad discussion documents before us - the Province's own Five Year Plan and the Economic Council's Report. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh 533

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2234 SD - 3 PREMIER PECKFORD: We also have important documents relating to constitutional change and will eventually have a report from the Royal Commission on the 534

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2235 EL - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: inshore fishery, particularly as it relates to licencing policies. These documents could form the basis of widespread debate in the Province and my govern- ment stands ready to assist any group or individual who wishes to debate these matters and make recommendations on them. We should all remember that this Province has in its natural re- sources a source of wealth which can either be the basis of a better and brighter future for our people or put in motion events by others which may destroy this society. It is up to us to ensure that this does not happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear: MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the Leader of the Opp- osition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Canada joins the long list of enemies of the Premier. He has now got another enemy to ficiht. A;2T. :IEMBER: Enemies of Newfoundland. MR. STIRLING: And it should be remem- bered that the Premier was a member of the Cabinet and this previous administration;it is one more stamp, they did not like anything that was done by the previous administration that they were members of. It is one more nail in the coffin of Mr.

Moores, one more thing that he did which has to be rejected outright without debate. The Premier did not appoint the Economic Council of Canada; that was done by another Premier while he was in the Cabinet. And presumably the same minister who made a comment a minute ago agreed that it was not a bad idea when they asked the Economic Council of Canada to undertake the study. Now, Mr. Speaker, I may say that many of the comments of my colleagues in caucus were very much

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2235 EL - 2 MR. STIRLING: the same as the Premier's comments made a few minutes ago except that they said, 'Let us not rip this apart today. Let us take a look at it. Let us study it in depth.Just because as a Newfoundlander we feel that there are some things that they are questioning that we want to re- ject, let us take a look at it. Let us have a fresh look.

Let us look at it from the point of view of people who were invited in by this Province' - they were invited by this Cab- inet and they were saying, 'Look,come in and take a close look at Newfoundland, use your expertise, and give us an outside view.'The purpose of the study was not to give us a Newfound- land view, it was to give u; an outside view. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think we see another step in the long list of if it does not agree with the Premier's total concept, if he did not think of it first, if it is a view that conflicts in any wav,then throw it out, it is all garbage. Now, Mr.

Speaker, what we have to 5flS

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2236 DW - 1 MR. L. STIRLING: do in this House is that we have to take a look at views that do not necessarily agree with our views. And I would like to say and again repeat that the immediate reaction of some of my colleagues was very similiar to the Premier's, but they had the maturity and they had the foresight to say that we should take a look at this outside view and that we should look at it from an objective perspective of somebody looking at Newfoundland,and not reject it outright but to debate it.

And I am glad that the Premier has men- tioned his own Five Year Plan and I hope then at least that the Five Year Plan can be brought into this House and that we can be given the opportunity to have sane, sensible, sound debate . I hope that other studies will not get just thrown in the garbage because on first glance the Premier does not happen to like it in its entirety.I think that this is indicative of one of the reasons why we have an absolute breakdown with everybody with whom we used to have a relationship.

We now are not talking to Ottawa, we are not talking to Nova Scotia, we are not talking to Quebec, we are not talking to any federal former Prime Ministers, we are not talking to anybody who does not agree absolutely and totally with the Premier and his comments. I think, Mr. Speaker, that while we agree with some of the immediate, they are the -- immediate reactions of a Newfoundlander or a Labradorian and we should take a reasoned, sensible look at this before rejecting the whole concept. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, heart MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Any further statements? The hon. Minister of Justice.

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2236 DW - 2 MR. G. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I have another nail in the coffin that the hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to. Hon. members may recall that during the consideration of estimates in one of the comxnitteeshon. members asked for a review of the new Family Court and the statistics and general report on its progress. I mentioned at the time that an overall periodic review had not been completed at that time but as soon as it was I would pass it on,and I do that now. As hon. members might recall, the Unified Family Court began operation in St. John's on June 18th., 1979.

That is a significant date in terms of the Unified Family Court and in other matters as well. It is a three year pilot project which serves the city of St. John's and the surrounding area within a forty kilometer radius of thecity.inc1uding Bell Island. The court is a division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and has comprehensive juris- diction over family matters such as divorce, custody, access, maintenance, adoption, child protection and sections of the Criminal Code relating to inter-spousal and intra-familial disputes. A single judge presides over these matters Mr. Justice Fagan.

And revised divorce rules, new rules,of course, and centralization of court files have also been part of the organization of the judicial system relating to family law matters. I should say I do not have copies of this made now but it is not a controversial matter and I will have them available, certainly in a very short period after and will distribute them to hon. members.

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2237 NM - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: Services attached to the court include the maintenance enforcement

section and the social service section. As a matter of fact,in a sense the court is at an intersection of the administration of Justice and Social Services; it has functions relating to both. The maintenance enforcement service looks after the receipt and disbursement of maintenance payments as well as the automatic enforcements of maintenance orders in the event of default, and that particular procedure is going very well.

During the past year the Department of Social Services has arranged with the court to undertake enforcement of maintenance orders for deserted and separated spouses who receive social assistance, and that also is working very well. In the first year of operation the court has collected about $160,000 on account of maintenance. The projected collection figure to June 15, 1981 is $320,000, and it is anticipated that by June 15, 1982 when the pilot project ends, the collection figure may reach $700,000 annually.

So there used to be cuite a serious problem in terms of maintenance due to be paid and not being paid has not totally been solved1 but is largely alleviated by the system whereby these payments are now made to the court. The Social Services

section of the court provides a number of services, family and marital counselling, conciliation, investigation and referral to outside agencies. The intake service is the main point of entry into the court system and during the first year of operation 1,390 clients were seen by a counsellor who channels clients through the courts. The counselling service provides counselling to families or individuals who have financial, marital

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2237 NM - 2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: or child related problems. In the first year of operation,182 clients were seen for counselling. The conciliation service is intended to aid clients in bringing about settlement of specific issues such as custody, access, maintenance, and property. To date, 69 clients have been offered conciliation services through the Social Service arm of the family court.

The investigative service which can be used in matters of custody, access,and wardship nrovides the judge with investigative reports and recommendations regarding the living arrangements that will serve the best interests of children concerned. There have been 15 court ordered investigations in the past year. The Crisis Counselling Service is a demonstration project within the court which is funded by Health and Welfare Canada. This service, which began in March 1980, provides counselling to family members who are involved in a severe crisis, usually in some aspect of family violence.

To date 206 clients have been seen for counselling in this area. The Family Crisis Counsellor project is placing great emphasis on the mobilization of community resources toward creation of new services to victims of intra-family violence. The counsellor is assisting in the development of proposals for a transition house for victims of violence and is investigating the possibility of the establishment of an after hours crisis line. Also in the planning stages are the creation of a

November 19,1980 Tape No. 2238 AH-1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: Citizens Committee on Family Violence and a Psychiatric Family Clinic. The tjnified Family Court project is being continually evaluated by a research team from Memorial University which reports to a Committee which is responsible to the Minister of Justice. It is our hope that this project will prove to be very worthwhile for the citizens of the Province which it is designed to serve and that it will help to provide humane and constructive solutions to very difficult family problems.

I might just add that within the past approximately three weeks I have on two occasions had an opportunity to visit the Family Court and there is no doubt in my mind that those involved in it are doing a very worthwhile service.And in the area as well of young offenders, juvenile offenders, they have developed a mediator system where volunteers from the community work with young people who have been in conflict with the law and it would appear that certainly the Family Court integrated approach to problems of family and young offenders is a progressive and a very worthwhile step forward.

And certainly in the best of my knowledge and in my judgement,during its first approximately year and a half of operation the Family Court seems to be serving the people in the area very well indeed. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, I have to take the minister's word for it that that was a report of something that we would support. It sounded good but since we did not have a copy of it-I would like to get the minister's attention if I can. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the minister, and the House Leader and the Premier to get together to tighten up this procedure a little bit. If a Ministerial Statement is important enough to make and yet is not so urgent that it 5C1

November 19,1980 Tape No. 2238 AH-2 MR. STIRLING: has to be dashed into the House, the very least that could be done is that time could be taken to give us a copy in advance so that we can make a reasonable response.

I think what the minister had to say was a very good report on something that we would like to support,but I am sure that the minister realizes that he mumbled out something that none of us could follow and I really do believe that on a question of procedure that if something is important enough to be brought in it should be important enough to give us an advance copy so that we can make some kind of reasonable comment on it.

And I would like to support him in this,what sounds like a positive report. we would like to see more things done in the way of proper counselling and assistance and the development of the Crisis Center. But it does require that we get at least the courtesy of having the information far enough in advance. And I would hope that the senior people over there would at least say, 'Look, if we cannot get it ready in time to give the Opposition an advance copy of it two minutes before we speak,then we should save it for the next day, Mr. Speaker. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Could I just comment on the hon.

Leader's comments,which I think the rules permit? MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Certainly whenever there is anything of any controversial nature I have always made copies available

November 19, 1980 Tape No.2239 EL - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: to the opposite side and in cases of this nature it certainly is not required by the laws, nor do I regard it as any dis- cxurtesy. To take the hon. the Leader of the Opposition's remarks to their ultimate conclusion, before any hon. member made a speech he would have to distribute copies of it, SOME I-ION. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER (Simrrts) : Order,please Any further state- ments? ORAL QUESTIONS MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposi- tion. MR.

STIRLING: I read this morning, Mr.Speaker, an ad that I thought was our ad; it says, 'Do not talk about the constitution, talk about bread and butter issues.' Then I saw that it was signed by the Premier; Mr. Speaker, the question I have for the Premier is, is this advertising campaign and mailout and bringing in all of the news media, is that being paid for by the PC Party or is it being paid for by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr.

Speaker, it is impossible today for it to be an ad to which the Liberal Party of Newfoundland can align itself because yesterday in an amendment to the constitution they have rejected offshore, rejected fisheries - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD: - rejected hydro-transmission, so the party opposite is no longer interested in bread and butter issues, they are only interested in other theoretical things 533

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2239 EL - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: and have no interest in the tot- ality of approach as it relates to the constitution - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: PREMIER PECKFORD: - they have now sold out Newfoundland again. The lower will be the same as the upper, and the fish will be ignored, and hydro-transmission will be ignored. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: PREMIER PECKFORD: The great Liberal policies of the past have continued to this day even under this new leader. MR. MARSHALL: Hear, hear: PREMIER PECKFORD: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, and to get to the substance of the hon.

Leader of the Opposition's re- marks, I hope, andquestion, yes, this ad campaign is being paid for by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. STIRLING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Sims) : A supp'ementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR.

STIRLING: Would the Premier advise, since it is a political campaign as evidenced by his opening remarks and his misinterpretation of the amendment yesterday,and also an indication of how honourable and great and wonderful and unanimous we are going to be in this House because we happened to bring in an amendment that specifically picks up the two issues that - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: I am afraid that we are becining to drift into a fair bit of debate. AN HON. MEMBER: I You did not rule the Premier out of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: We are begining to drift into a fair area of debate.

I believe the question per- haps was provocotive and maybe that is why there was some

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2239 EL - 3 MR. SPEAKER (Sirnms) debate earlier. I would ask the hon. member please to ask the question that he has to ask and not to enter into the area of debate. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, as always I have great confidence in your ability to control both sides of the House, and no doubt will intercede if the answer gets out of hand as well. Dealing specifically with the question,

November 19, 1980 Tape 2240 EC - 1 MR. STIRLING: a supnlenentarv question, can the Premier advise this House whether or not a Budget has been set up? What is the total amount of the Budget to be spent on an advertising campaign which is essentially an anti-Canadian campaign? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, you know, that is a very offensive question, especially in its latter part. Just let me say that all the advertising that we are doing is being done in-house,and we have not hired any firm or anything to do it, in order to keep costs down.

The brochure that has been put out to all the households has been done in-house so that we do not waste any money; so have all the ads and so have the radio ads as well. The largest sum of money spent to date was on postage for the brochure, which was somewhere around $9,000 just for the postage for 155,000 households. We are budgeting about $20,000 in total for the ad campaign. I regret tnat the Leader of the Opposition sees fit to continue to try to put appellations upon me and other members of this administration as being anti-Canadian. I regret that he takes that approach. MR. STIRLING: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, I can only go by the tone of the advertising campaign. If a business were to put out the same kind of material as was put out in the booklet, it would be charged with misleading advertising. I presume that the Premier would not submit it to the Better Business Bureau for approval. The supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is, Is this the top priority in spending by the Province? Instead of spending money, say, on roads or unemployment, is this the top

November 19, 1980 Tape 2240 EC - 2 MR. STIRLING: priority, the top $20,000 must be spent on this advertising campaign? Is this the number one campaign, number one priority of the Province? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend, as long as I am a member of this House, to get involved in personal attack and I will resist every opportunity and every attack that is put on me by the Leader of the Opposition or anybody there to become involved in personalities.

I respect the Leader of the Opposition as a leader of a political party in this House and in this Province. I will continue to debate the issues but I shall never, as long as I am here, impugn motives or otherwise personally attack any hon. member on the opposite side of this House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! PREMIER PECKFORD: And I ask him to - MR. STIRLING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! A point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Nothing in any of the questions that I asked indicated anything in the way of a personal attack and if the Premier would care to check with Hansard,he has gotten away from what was the question. The question is, Is this the top priority of this government to spend the first

November 19, 1980 Tape No.2241 SD - 1 MR. L. STIRLING: $20,000 that it has on an advertising campaign. I have never attacked anyone personally since I have been involved in politics for ten years and - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. L. STIRLING: - I am suggesting that there was nothing in that question that was a personal attack. PREMIER PECKFORD: To that point of order - it is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Sims) : Order, please! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAEER: I would rule that in this particular case there is no point of order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. L.

Stirling) has taken an opportunity, as well as the Premier, to clarify their positions and would rule that it is a difference of opinion between two hon. gentlemen. The hon. the Premier. PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I do not know how far through the Five Year Plan he is yet - - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh PREMIER PECKFORD: - but if he would turn to the Fiscal Review and Outlook of

Chapter III on page 29 and move through thathe will find that the current account revenues and the way we spend our money and our expenditure targets is clearly outlined on those pages, showing a budget rising from $1.2 billion in 1980-81 to $1.8 billion by 1984-85. And then if he wants to go to the back of the Five Year Plan, Appendix A, he will find the development targets of where we are going to be spending our money. The $20,000 that I have referred to is hopefully not the first $20,000 that we spent this year. One would like to think that since the Budget was brought down in March that there has been a lot of money spent,say half a billion dollars or more

November 19, 1980 Tape NO. 2241 SD - 2 PREMIER PECEFORD: on very valuable projects around this Province. So I would commend the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Stirling) attention to this Five Year Plan and to

Chapter III, which clearly outlines that of the $1.5 billion that we will spend thiq year a very miniscule part will go towards trying to ensure that we are treated equally in this Confederation. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER (Simrns): The hon. member for Eagle River. MR. E. HISCOCK: A supplementary question to the Leader of the Opposition, it can be addressed to the Minister of Public Works and Services (Mr. H.

Young) or to the Premier, and that basically relates to the type of government that we have in our Province, whether it is a democratic, monarchy government or are we going towards a presidential system. And the question I have to ask is that pictures that are now being put up in various government departments by the photographer here in Newfoundland, which is the most expensive photographer in Newfoundland, Rostotski, large pictures of the Premiere is this coming out of taxpayers' money or is it coming out of the PC Party fund? MR. S. NEARY: President Peckford. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, the only response I can give to that is that in our White Paper that we produced, Towards the Twenty-FirstCenturyTogether, I would commend the hon. gentleman's mind to that because we say on page 3 of that at the outset it is important, and I quote from the White Paper, to indicate the fundamental principles upon which the constitutional position of the Government of Newfoundland is based, 'The government believes the following to be of fundamental importance, parliamentary democracy, balanced federalism, equality of opportunity for provinces and people and consensus.

Under Parliamentary Democracy,

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2242 DW - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: 'The Government of Newfoundland, reflecting the view of the people of the Province, believes that the constitutional monarchy should continue as the basis of sovereignty and parliamentary democracy with the federal and provincial governments.' So that therefore, we have gone on record in our white paper as fully supporting parliamentary democracy and the role of the monarchy in ongoing political frameworks in this country. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. E. HISCOCK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER (Simms): A point of order, the hon. member for Eagle River. MR. E. HISCOCK: I ended up asking a question whether they were being paid by the PC Party or the Newfound- land Government; it was not answered. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please It is not a point of order. A minister has the right to refuse to answer a question or answer it in whichever way he is pleased to. But in no way is it a point of order. The hon. Minister of Public Works. Do you want to address the question to the Minister of Public Works? MR. E. HISCOCK: I already did to the Premier or Minister of Public Works. MR. H.

YOUNG: As the hon. member has asked me about the Premier's picture that is in my office - MR. E. HISCOCK: Not only in your office. MR. H. YOUNG: - well, all over the Province. Well, the one that is in my office was framed by the people in my department, like I did some framing for the hon. member the other day.

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2242 DW - 2 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear: MR. E. HISCOCK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): A point of order, the hon. member for Eagle River. MR. E. HISCOCK: Mr. Speaker, the pictures that were framed the other day were of the Queen Elizabeth visit when she came here during 1978 that I made as an official pre- sentation to the Community Council down in Marys Harbour on their fiftieth anniversary. MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate that information but it is not a point order. The hon. member for LaPoile. MR. S. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, Sir. We heard just a few moments ago the government make all kinds of commitments in spending money - yes, in committing themselves to spend money, but they are not so quick in paying their bills. The number of complaints that have been reaching my desk recently, Mr. Speaker, indicate that some of the governments bills, invoices that have been sent to the government, especially by small businesses and small contractors,are outstanding for as long as four months, certainly over three months.

The complaints are increasing and I would like to ask the minister what the problem is. Is it a procedural problem? Does it take a long time to process the invoices or is the government strapped for money? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Finance. DR. J. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to respond to that unless one gets some specifics and if the hon. member has particular problems with a particular invoice I will be only too pleased to have that investigated and then I can give a definitive answer. But in a general way, I might 1331

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2242 DW - 3 DR. J. COLLINS: state this that sometimes government ends up with bills to pay and these bills can come in a number of ways; bills can be sent,say.to a vocational school for books or whateverand that vocational school will then have to process the invoice, that invoice will then have to go to a department - in that particular probably the Department of Education; the Department of Education will have to carry out a certain number of proce- dures there, it is then sent to the Department of Finance and that voucher then is processed in the Department of Finance.

Now we would have no control over certain aspects of that. We would have no control over how the vocational school would handle that. The Department of Education, of course, would take over control when it reaches them and when Finance gets into the act,we have control there. In other instances, a bill will come in to a department; there is some doubt or diffi- culty about the bill, there has to be a certain amount of investigation carried out before that department can validate the bill and then the department will send that to Finance where it is processed.

So there are a number of instances where difficulties can arise and, as I said at the beginning, it is difficult for me to answer specifically unless I know the circumstances involved. MR. S. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): A supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. S. NEARY: I am not going to give the hon. gentleman specific instances. Anybody who comes to me I refer him to the hon. gentleman's department.

It would not be fair for me to give names of businessesbut I have getting phone calls and representation from small companies and businesses that are on the brink of bankruptcy. -J.

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2242 DW - 4 MR. S. NEARY: They are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy with that bills that are overdue, that have been due for the last three or four months. And in some cases when they do approach the department they get emergency payments which bail them temporarily. But the minister knows that this is the general policy of his department and what is he doing about it to save some of these companies the embarrassment of having to be forced to go to the bank for loans or even to think about declaring bankruptcy because they cannot meet their bills?

I am talking about commitments directly from gcvernment departments, not from the vocational schools or the other institutions although tht is a problem too. MR. SPEAKER (Sims): The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. J. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said already that if the hon. member has some difficulties,if he directs them to the depart- ment we will take care of them. He does not have to give me the names himself, he can just say to the people who contact him, 'You have a problem, phone the Depart- ment of Finance'. And I can give the hon. member an assurance that we will

November 19, 1980, Tape 2243, Page 1 -- apb DR. COLLINS: take it from there and give it immediate attention. Now, I can, though, give the assurance to the hon. member along this line, that any vouchers, any validated vouchers that come to the Department of Finance for payment, and I make that point, any validated vouchers that come to the department for payment, it is seldom that we take more than two weeks to get the payment out. MR. NEAR?: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER(Simms): A final supplementary. The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I would say it is a very poor way to do business, to have to send people down begging and pleading to the officials in the department, and sometimes appeal to the minister and his deputy, to get thir bills paid after three or four months. I think that is a pretty sloppy way to do business. But I want to ask the hon. gentleman, in my final supplementary, if the government pays interest on outstanding debts?

Do they pay - a bill that is overdue, say, by a couple or three, or four months, will the recipient be paid interest on the money that is owed him by the government for the length of time that they keep the money in their possession? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, there are interest payments on the bills that are outstanding. This has applied in the past. It is now very seldom necessary. Because as I indicated to the hon. member, that once the invoices are validated they are processed within a very short period of time. MR. NEARY: Yes.

But how long does it take to validate then? That is the problem.

November 19, 1980, Tape 2243, Page 2 -- apb DR. COLLINS: The validation - MR. NEARY: It could take four months. DR. COLLINS: - will depend on the circumstances. MR. NEARY: I see. DR. COLLINS: If a bill comes in and there are inaccuracies in it, often that bill has to go back to the firm sending in the bill - MR. NEARY: I see. The stall. DR. COLLINS: - and that can take as much time as that firms take to - MR. NEARY: The stall. DR. COLLINS: - correct the inaccuracies. MR. NEARY: And they do not pay them within two weeks, by the way. MR. SPEAKER(Simms): The hon. the member for Windsor-Buchans. MR.

FLIGHT: Could the minister explain to the House, Mr. Speaker, why it is that after a voucher has gone up from one of the departments, Recreation, Forestry, any department, for payment; having validated the claim, having the invoice validated and requesting payment from Finance, that it is still taken as high as three months for Finance to issue that cheque? And If the minister wants me to document cases of that having happened, I can document it. W1-iy is it it takes Finance three months to pay the bills after they have been validated? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr.

Speaker, as soon as the hon. member gives me details on which I can make an investigation - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. FLIGHT: Look into - check with the

November 19, 1980, Tape 2243, Page 3 -- apb MR. FLIGHT: Minister of Recreation. DR. COLLINS: I cannot make an investigation on vague allusions, or vague suggestions. I would not even know how to investigate something like that. I need a name, a number, I need something. I cannot investigate something that is so vague and so obscure that I would not even know where to start. So as soon as the hon. member gives me something - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER(Simms): Order, please: DR. COLLINS: - to even begin, -he does not have to give me very much -give me even just a hint and I will do my very best.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for St. Barbe. MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Social Services (Mr. Hickey). Mr. Speaker, I understand it has been about five years since the Newfoundland Status of Women has been aspiring to have assistance from the minister's department in an effort to establish a transition home for battered wives. I am wondering if the minister at this time could tell the House of Assembly, this hon. House, that funds will be made available in the very near future. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, we have got a request from the Status of Women's Council with regard to this issue and I think the best I can say is that I have no money in my budget. MR. STIRLING: Why did you not take the $20,000 that has been wasted on the ad campaign. MR. HICKEY: Can you just allow me the courtesy of allowing me to finish - MR. STIRLING: (Inaudible)

November 19, 1980, Tape 2243, Page 4 -- apb MR. SPEAKER(Simms): Order, please: MR. HICKEY: I know the hon. gentleman is not used to the decorum of the House, he is not here that long. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HICKEY: But, you know, if I will - MR. BRETT: He is only a new leader. MR. MICKEY: Mr. Speaker, before the interruption I was about to enlarge a little bit upon my answer. The Status of Women's Council, or a spokesman for that group, just a few days ago indicated publicly that they had received encouragement from my department, that I had no money in my budget, that I was pursuing the matter with my colleagues in

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2244 NM - 1 MR. HICKEY: Education, Health and Justice, and that I would get back to them as soon as I had the results of those discussions and a decision by Treasury Board. I think I can say that it is the government's wish to take some positive action on this very critical area.

We acknowledge the need and we also acknowledge the continued efforts of the Status of Women's Council over the years to bring about this Crisis Centre, or transition house, and I think it is sufficient for me to say now that government is determined to do something,but how much money we can gather together at this point in time and when it will be available I am unable to say; but the minute I get the information I will pass it on to the appropriate organization. MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Sirnms): A supplementary, the hon. member for St. Barbe. MR. BENNETT: I am sorry, Mr.

Speaker, either I am a little bit hard of hearing or the hon. gentleman is not speaking very clearly. I find it very difficult - AN HON. MEMBER: He is not very clear, boy. MR. BENNETT: - to hear way over on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. But my information tells me that this has been an ongoing plea by the Status of Women for at least five years to have assistance. And I also understand, Mr.

Speaker, that a house is available to the Newfoundland Status of Women and if they do not get the co-operation, not only verbally but financially, they are going to lose the opportunity1 as well as a lot of courage they have, in aspiring to help your department, Sir, in providing a home for battered women. If the minister does not have at this time, Mr. Speaker, these funds available, at what time might the Status of Women Group expect to have funding made available? 53S

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2244 NM 2 MR. SPEAKER (Sims) : The hon. Minister of Social Services. MR. HICKEY: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously because of the very points my hon. friend is making, the fact that there is a piece of property available, and the fact that there is some urgency to the situation right now that prompts me to discuss with my colleagues the prospect of a co-operative effort among four departments as opposed to one. I acknowledge that the Department of Social Services has direct responsibility for this area.

I acknowledge also the necessity and the support that such a programme would be to my department. But I have to again repeat what I have said before, I do not have sufficient funds in my budget to cover this project and therefore I am unable to respond in a definitive way at this time. We are having some discussion and I will not know for a week or so just what the result of those discussions will be. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: My question is to the Minister of Transportation, and it is concerning the Straits Road on the Labrador Coast, as well as all roads within my district.

For the past two weeks we have had severe heavy rain and as a result there have been major washouts in all of these smaller communities, particularly in the Straits areaBecause of lack of maintenance by the department we have had eighteen washouts from Pinware to Red Bay. We have had bridges washed out and we have also had people leave their cars and trucks and had to take boats from one community to the other where it was under water.

The question I would like to ask the minister, could he report what proaress has been made and will there be any extra funds given for road maintenance, to upgrade these roads to at least a minimum standard?

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2244 NM - 3 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications. MR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. gentleman any detailed report as to how many feet or miles of road have been repaired in the last week or so since we had the washouts. All I know is that we have been working diligently on that

section of road to try to make it passable. What has happened in the last two or three weeks you would never conjure up in your wildest dreams. Who would have ever thought that you would have a flood in Labrador in November? So needless to say this caught us quite unawares, a lot of our machinery was in getting ready for the Winter maintenance, but I have no doubt at all that the road will be made passable and if the present weather conditions - there is an old cliche which says it is a bad wind that does not blow somebody good and I suppose the only good thing that came out of this was that maybe Mr.

Rompkey, our federal member in Ottawa, this might help impress upon him the need for him to get off his prosterior and see if he cannot get some money out of his colleagues in Ottawa so that we can put a proper road in Southern Labrador - because what is there, particularly from Pinware to Red Bay - SOME HON MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. BRETT: - was put there by the maintenance crowd a nuTther of years ago when they were given something like $5,000 or $6,000 a mile- SOME HON. MEMBEkS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please MR. BRETT: - $5,000 or $6,000 a mile to build a road, and that is all there is there now

November 19. 1980 Tape N0.2245 EL-i MR. BRETT: really, so it is hardly fit to be called a road. And the hon. member is aware of the fact that if we are to start on that project, if we were to start on that project and to put a fair share of the pro- vincial government's total yearly programme into it, it would still take us seven or eight, maybe nine or ten years to finish. So even though we acknowledge the fact that, you know, it is a provincial responsibility, but on the other hand the Federal Government must also recognize that we - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) MR.

BRETT: - it would take years and years for us to complete that road and the people in Southern Labrador cannot wait that long. Therefore, it is imperative that we get some money to start on that next year so that we can give them a decent road. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. HISCOCK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER(Simms) : A supplementary, the hon. the member for Eagle River. MR. HISCOCK: I am surprised that the Minister of Transportation(C.Brett) does not follow the advice of his Premier and try to raise the decorum of this House instead of going on personal attacks.

The question will also go towards the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mrs H. Newhook) because roads within these communities are also damaged. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) - they were supposed to be signed in October and the DREE Agreement came down, if I am correct, it was a fifty-fifty relationship, that the Province would pay fifty per cent of the road on the Straits I

November 19, 1980 MR. MARSHALL MR. SPEAKER(Sirnins) President of the Council. Tape No. 2245 EL - 2 area as well as - • point of order, Mr. Speaker. • point of order, the hon. the MR. MARSHALL: This is the Question Period, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman is making a speech conveying information, albeit it incorrect information, but it is in- formation. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Disinformation. MR. MARSHALL: And this is the Question Period in which he is supposed to address questions. MR. SPEAKER: Do you wish to speak to the point of order? MR. HISCOCK: No, I do not. MR. SPEAKER: Well, the point of order is a leg- itimate one. The rules are very clear. The hon. member, I am sure, is aware that the

preamble should be brief. I would ask him to put his supplementary question because there are only a couple of minutes left. MR. HISCOCK: A question to the Minister of Trans- portation (C.Brett) . The Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Rompkey, has turned down a request by DREE and has made another request to the Federal Government asking for more money to be allocated for the roads than there was on the agreement that was supposed to be signed in October. Does the Minister of Transportation support Mr. Rompkey going back to Ottawa and asking for more money for the Straits road? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR.

SPEAKER: The hon.the Minister of Transportation. MR. BRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I got the gist of that. I believe the hon. member said do I

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2245 EL - 3 MR. BRETT: support Mr. Rompkey going back to the Federal Government and asking for more money for Southern Labrador roads. .x(. i-IISCOCK: That is it. MR. BRETT: Well, obviously the answer is yes. MR. HISCOCK: You got it. MR. NEARY: A supplementary,Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): A supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Is it true that the hon. gentleman's officials are meeting with the federal officials on the 25th of this month to discuss transportation priorities in the Province and funding for these priorities?

Is that not true?And if so would the hon. gentleman raise the matter then of the road to Red Bay at that meeting,if the hon. gentleman feels that it should warrant priority? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transport- ation. MR. BRETT: If next Tuesday is the 25th, and I do not have my glasses ,but if - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. BRETT: - next Tuesday is the 25th, and if it is not foggy and raining and if the flights can get into St. John's,and if they do not cancel out again for about the 500th time, then there is a possibility that the - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR.

BRETT: - officials from Ottawa may be here on the 25th to discuss transportation with my officials. 1R. S. NEARY: And fun±iig. MR. BRETT: And funding, exactly. MR. NEARY: Rignt.

November 10, 1980 Tape No. 2245 EL - 4 MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER(Simins) : The hon. member for Torngat Mountains MR. WARREN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had a supp- lementary to the Minister of Transportation (C.Brett). The minister does look like Santa Claus but he sure does not act like one. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I consider that to be unparliamentary. I ask the hon. member to withdraw. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. WARREN: I will withdraw my remarks, - MR. SPEAKER: I understand - Order, please- I understand the hon. member has withdrawn. MR.

WARREN: I wonder if the Minister of Trans- portation could advise the House what his department has done within the past twelve hours to make sure that roads on the Avalon Peninsula will be plowed immediately? MR. HANCOCK: What about the rest of Newfoundland? Do you want to repeat the question? MR. WARREN: Yes, I wonder what the minister has done within the past twelve hours since we had this raging snowstorm on the Avalon Peninsula and the Burin Peninsula, what his department has done to make sure that the plowsd his employees are ready to accomodate this snowstorm that we have had?

I understand there is all kinds of havoc all over this Province. 4

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2245 EL - 5 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. the Minister of Trans- portation. MR._BRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is - I - that is a stupid question, Mr. Speaker, because - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. BRETT: - no, actually it is because the hon. member is aware of the fact that every Fall we get our equipment off the roads as quickly as we can to get them ready for Winter maintenance. We have arranged it now so that we have shifts coming on at five o'clock in the morning and that has been going on for the last two weeks so that we can - MR. WARREN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Torngat Mountains. MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the word 'stupid' when referring to another member is un- parliamentary?

November 19, 1980 Tape 2246 EC - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Well, there are certain references to unparliamentary language in Beauchesne's parliamentary reference book. I do not have an opportunity to go through it all and remember every word, but perhaps to rid ourselves of that concern, maybe I would ask the hon. the Minister to with- draw the word 'stupid if that is what he used, and that will settle the situation, and then he can continue his answer. The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Communications. MR. BRETT: Okay, Mr.

Speaker, I will withdraw that remark and just say that it is a lack of knowledge on the part of the hon. member. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. BRETT: But the obvious answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is that we are doing everything that we possibly can to make sure that the roads are cleared so that people can get over them. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. SPEAKER: Order, please The time for Oral Questions has expired. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker,

Section 18 of the Statutes and Subordinate Legislation Act requires that subordinate legislation be tabled from time to time. The time has come and I would like to table it. MR. SPEAKER: Any further reports? The hon. the Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

Section 28 of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table a Special Warrant. There are several copies here. MR. SPEAKER: Any further reports?

November 19, 1980 Tape 2246 EC - 2 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. the Minister of Justice. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, you will recall yesterday the hon. the member for Carbonear (Mr. Moores) asked a question and I took it as notice and will give the answer now. It is quite complex because it deals with electricity rates and the method in which they are awarded and that.

But if I were to rephrase the question which was asked in an unparliamentary manner, rephrase it in a parliamentary manner, it would be, I suppose, to ask a minister to comment upon or explain apparent overcharges by Newfoundland Light and Power to its customers. I think that would probably be the parliamentary way of putting it. Now, in the late Summer of 1979, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro applied to the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities for an increase in rates that it charges customers, and its customers include Newfoundland Light and Power.

During the course of the hearings, Hydro asked for and received an interim rate increase on October 18, 1979. At the conclusion of the hearing a further increase was granted to Hydro to become effective April 1, 1980. Now, while this issue was being heard by Hydro, Newfoundland Light and Power applied to the board for permission to increase their rates immediately Hydro was granted an increase so that they could recover the increased charges, because Newfoundland Light and Power buys its electricity from Hydro.

Interim authority was granted by the board to Newfoundland Light and Power, and orders issued so that Newfoundland Light and Power's increased rates could become effective the same date that the increases became effective for Hydro. As I say,it is fairly complex, but what that boils down to is, Hydro applied for an increase; Newfoundland Light and

November 19, 1980 Tape 2246 EC - 3 MR. OTTENHEIMER: Power, which buys its electricity from Hydro, made an application to have an increase effective as soon as Hydro's increase was effective to cover their own charges. Now, in early August, 1980, Newfoundland Light and Power applied to the Board of Public Utilities for an increase in rates to be charged to their customers, and a hearing into the matter followed in September and October. That is apart from Hydro's, the increase consequent upon Hydro's increase, but a separate increase because of their own increased costs for other factors.

During the course of hearing, evidence was adduced showing that from the period October to March, 1980, Newfoundland Light and Power earned insufficient revenue to offset the increased expenses by Hydro. Evidence was also shown that Newfoundland Light and Power would have earned more additional revenue than they-were charged extra expense by Hydro as a result of their interim increase of April 1st if the rates were unchanged until the end of the year.

In other words, the increase applied to Newfoundland Light and Power's rates charged to their customers on April 1st was in excess of that required to recover the extra expense charged by Hydro if they were allowed to charge for a full year. I will endeavour to repeat that. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. OTTENHEIMER: Right. For a certain period of time, -..

L) November 19,1980 Tape No. 2247 AH-1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: Newfoundland Light and Power's increases were insufficient to meet the increased costs to them accruing from Hydro's increase. But if one went throught a whole year there would have been more than was necessary to meet Hydro's increase so Newfoundland Light and Power came to the board requesting a rate increase before the end of a full year so that the amount of additional earnings over the amount of expense charged by Hydro became hypothetical.

They came looking for an increase not just related to Hydro but related to their own increased costs for labour, for capital, whatever. Now a control of Public Utilities that was - MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please MR. OTTENHEIMER: Yes. MR. SPEAKER: I do not wish to interrupt the hon.minister,but the Standing Orders are quite clear and you have about fifteen seconds if you would like to conclude because the routine business must end by four o'clock on Private Member's Iay. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I think the answer has been so clear to now that I - MR.

STIRLING: I would suggest that you pass out your written copy and then my colleague, when he gets a chance to see it - MR. OTTENHEIMER: Well, it will be in Hansard tomorrow anyway. MR. STIRLING: Okay, well I - MR. OTTENHEIMER: Actually - MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave to - MR. OTTENHEIMER: I can give it to you in ten seconds without going through it all. MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreed? MR. STIRLING: I think it is sufficient if you

November 19,1980 Tape No. 2247 AH-2 MR. STIRLING: just give us a copy of your written answer and we will look at it. We do not need any additional explanation. MR. OTTENHEIMER: If I do not have leave to answer the question1 I will not answer it any further. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! I take it there is no leave. MR. OTTENHEIMER: No. MR. SPEAKER: tJnder the Standing Orders then1 Standing Order 53, we will not be able to move into petitions today. We will move right into the regular Orders of the iay,,which is a private member's motion. The hon. member for Baie Verte- White Bay. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the motion that stands on the Order Paper in my name today has been one that has been very close to me for the last number of years. In fact members of this House will realizeif they look back at previous Order Papers, that this is the second session that I have had this same motion on the Order Paper. MR. STIRLING: We cannot seem to pass this one. MR. RIDEOtJT: That is right.

The last session the motion was a bit too far down on the Order Paper and even with the new rules coverning the procedure of activity here on Private Member's Cay we were not able to get down to the motion so it died on the Order Paper at the end of the session. I thought that I may not be able to introduce it today because of a previous commitment,but fortunately Mother Nature was at our side and I am here and I am very happy to be able to present this motion to the House. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Hear, hear C- Cl

November 19,1980 Tape No. 2247 AH-3 MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the motion is not very complicated. The motion says that;

WHEREAS the economic well-being of many people of our Province is dependent on the utilization of non-renewable resources; AND

WHEREAS companies and corporations can and do reap possible benefits from the exploitation of those resources; AND

WHEREAS when those resources have been exhausted, such companies and corporations can and do pull out of this Province leaving behind economically depressed areas;

NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House cause to be established a Select Committee on Resource Management and that this Committee be empowered to advise the House on the advisability and feasibility of:

(1) The Province becoming a partner in the development of all non-renewable resources;

(2) The establishment of a Non-renewable Resource Fund to be funded by the industrial exploiter. One of the chief purposes of such a fund would be to provide financial relief to areas where non-renewable resources have been exhausted and to help in attracting alternate industry. Now there are a few other

BE IT RESOLVED but it relates to the power of the Committee. Mr. Speaker, I think really that our past experience has shown us in this Province that we have been too lenient to say the least on companies and corporations that have been exploiting non-renewable resources in this Province. We have not in many cases,particularly as it relates to the mining industry, we KIN- 4

November 19, 1980, Tape 2248, Page 1 -- apb MR. RIDEOUT: have not been getting a fair return on those non-renewable resources. And the government, this government, through the Mineral Impost Bill, I believe it was, a couple of years ago, made some efforts to rectify that situation and I believe that the time has now come for us to move.again,further in that particular direction. The principle of this motion, really, Mr. Speaker, is embodied, I believe, in, 'NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED", number one and two, and that is asking that the possibility be explored that the feasibility be investigated of this Province becoming a partner of some sort in the development of non-renewable resources in the Province. Of course, if you stop for a minute and consider our offshore petroleum regulations, that is exactly what is proposed, and that is exactly, under the offshore petroleuni regulations, what can happen.

Over a period of time this Province can become a full-fledged partner to the degree, I believe, of 40 per cent equity participation in the development of any oil field that might be out there. And what I am suggesting is that something along those lines, something along this principle be worked out for other sectors of the economy that are based on the exploitation of non-renewable resources, and I think, of course, specifically as it relates to my district, of the mining industry and, of course, there are others. The other principle that is embodied in this particular resolution, Mr.

Speaker, is that some sort of non-renewable resource fund be established. We have seen in this Province example after example where companies and corporations have exploited for year, and years on end the resources of the Province. And we have seen example after example where, having exploited and

November 19, 1980, Tape 2248, Page 2 -- apb MR. RIDEOUT: reaped the benefits from those resources, having made, in many cases I am sure, hundred of millions of dollars of profits, the resource suddenly gone or the grade so low it was no longer feasible to work the resource, we have seen case after case, Mr. Speaker, in this Province where companies have, having exploited the resource, having made hundreds of millions of dollars of profits, have just left the town, left the community and left the people of that particular area high and dry.

And the principle that I see in this particular resolution and the non-renewable resource fund, would be to make an effort to try to ensure that that particular kind of exploitation, and that particular way of leaving communities high and dry when the resource is no longer feasible to exploit, that that will never happen again in this Province of ours. I do not intend to get into a raking down of companies or corporations that have operated in this Province over the last number of years. Of course they have done great things, many beneficial things in the particular communities in which they have operated.

They have contributed to some degree to the economy of the Province. Not as much as I think they should have, in most cases, but they did contribute to some degree to the economy of the Province, and they did, no doubt, contribute to a large degree to the stability and economy of the particular areas of the Province where they have been operating. They build the infrastructure and they have helped out the town councils, giving them grants in lieu of taxation and all that kind of thing. Many of them have been very good corporate citizens and have been supportive, Mr.

Speaker, of the towns where they have been operating. So it is not my intention to get into a situation of raking down all those companies or corporations that have operated in this Province. But I do believe that once it was gone, once the resource was no

November 19, 1980, Tape 2248, Page 3 -- apb MR. RIDEOUT: longer feasible to exploit for one reason or another, then many of those companies did not exercise, in my opinion, the degree of corporate responsibility that they should have. In this Province you have to look no further than Bell Island, for example, St. Lawrence, Tilt Cove, communities around Springdale like Gull Pond and other areas where there was mining activity over the past number of years, - J.J

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2249 NM - 1 MR. RIDEOUT: Buchans, which hopefully has some new lease on life, but which has been in a very precarious position over the last four or five year period.

You know, you get communities like Bell Island, I suppose,where there was a great deal of mining activity, intensive mining activity for probably forty or fifty years, hundreds of people employed, the company was certainly making profits - I have never been able to read anything that they were not making profits. rut the real question is,what is left to the people of those communities when those companies decide that the time has come to pack it in and leave Newfoundland and Labrador altogether, in most cases? Most of them are certainly corporate entities that are from outside this Province.

What is left to the people of those areas, Mr. Speaker, to draw on in that particular time of need? What is left to the people of those areas to promote themselves, to promote their advantages, to promote their assets, to promote the infrastructure that may have been left behind in that particular part of the Province as a result of the activity that was there?

What is left by the people who reap the greatest benefits, the money benefits, the profits from that particular area to those people to help them in the transition period, from then a very prosperous area to an area that suddenly looks like it might turn into a ghost town? I think that is the real question that we have to address and that is the real question hopefully that this resolution and a committee would address. We have to face those problems 'et in this particular Province. We have to face them in Buchans. We have to face them in Baie Verte. We have to face them in Labrador West.

We have to face them in Daniels Harbour. We have to face them in any particular part of the Province where the economy is built on a non-renewable resource. And I believe, Sir, that it is time that we develop a very comprehensive and detailed policy to deal with the kind of situation that a rr)v, ---I,.'

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2249 NM - 2 MR. RIDEOUT: lot of areas of this Province are going to face a few years down the road. All those companies and corporations, Mr. Speaker, are in our Province and exploiting the resources to make a profit and I have no quarrel with that, that is fair game, that is how our free enterprise system is supposed to operate. But I ask is it unrealistic to compel those companies and corporations to set aside some of those profits, specifically earmarked, Mr. Speaker, to help areas to readjust when they are gone? Is it unrealistic that we compel those people to do that?

I would venture to say that ASARCO, for example, in the Buchans situation, have probably made hundreds of millions of dollars of profit in the many years that they have operated down there. I have never seen their balance sheets but I have not heard too many complaints about them having a lot of lean years, unprofitable years. And should not some percentage of that profit be set aside to help the people of the Buchans area after they have gone? It could be used to promote the area in some way or other, to attract other industry, to study other alternatives.

What I am saying is a little kitty, drawn from the resources of that area left aside for the people who have to hang around and want to hang around because it is their home,after the major industry is gone, and that, Mr. Speaker, this concept that I am proposing, it does not have to be an onerous burden on the company, I am not suggesting that they break their backs financially, I am not suggesting that at all; I believe a contribution schedule, based on yearly profits could be worked out.

You take the example of Advocate Mines,for example, which over the last two or three years have had very lean years and have not made any profits; as a matter of fact have lost - last year I believe it was $9 million or $10 million. Well,you obviously have that kind of situation

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2249 NM - 3 MR. RIDEOUT: worked into your schedule. But in the good years they contribute something to the fund to be left behind when they are gone. The point is there would be a fund, and I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that properly managed, properly invested, properly looked after, properly controlled, a fund of several millions of dollars,eventually, could be

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2250 SD - 1 MR. T. RIDEOUT: established to assist affected areas of this Province once the non-renewable resources have been exploited. I have already hinted that we on the Baie Verte Peninsula, in my own district, will have to face this reality sooner or later just as other areas have faced it before and, of course, there are still other areas of the Province that will have to face it in addition to us. The best advice, the best expert advice we have is that Advocate Mines is good for another fourteen years.

It has already operated for about twenty or so but it is good for abcut another fourteen years 'if, Of course, there are a lot of ifs in that. The asbestos market those days, Mr. Speaker, is precarious to say the least, There are an awful lot of European countries insisting on very stringent environmental conditions, placing very stringent environmental regulations on the importation of asbestos. It has now got to be wrapped up in plastic,and all that kind of thing, and marked 'hazardous to health' before it can get into most European ports.

So there are a lot of 'ifs' as to 'ihether or not the asbestos industry is going to remain profitable. As a matter of facts the parent company to Advocate Mines Limited, Johns Mandsville, the great Canadian Johns Iandsvil1e eorporation, has been experiencing lay-offs and downtime in their Quebec mining operations but we have been fortunate in Baie Verte in that - - Advocate Mines has a contract with Internet of Europe to take everything they can produce and they must take it under the terms of the contracts So we are fortunate.

But if we were, right now, depending on the world market conditions and world market situations we could very easily be facing a downswing in that particular industry right now. So the point of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that it could be five years time, ten years time but sometime within the next ten or fifteen years, we are going to have to face the reality that a major industry on the Baie q

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2250 SD - 2 MR. T. RIDEOUT: Verte Peninsula, employing about 600 or 700 people, is not going to be there anymore. And the same thing goes, of course, with the Consolidated Rambler operations also at Baie Verte. You ask the Directors and President of that compnay how long they have left to operate and they will never tell you any more than eighteen months. You can ask them that every year or year and a half and they will tell you eighteen months.

The local wisdom is that it may be closer to five or ten years but, again, there are a lot of ifs, you know, what happens to the price of copper if the price of copper goes down? If they run into bad grade, then they could be in serious trouble. So again the point is that there are two mining operations in that area employing directly close to 1,000 people that could leave a very big hole in the economy of that part of our Province were they to close down. And what I am proposing here, Mr.

Speaker, is that for those kinds of situations in Baie Verte and in other parts of the Province - Buchans, Labrador City and so on - that the great corporations that are in there, in there for the sole purpose, of course, of making profit, that we as a people attach a little bit more of that profit than we are doing now when times are good and set it aside in a special fund, a special account, to enable those areas to better be able to to cope with the lean years that are going to come, inevitably going to come, when those operations have to face the final day of judrnnent,as they will.

Because as we know in a non- renewable resource situation,that the first day you open it and the first day you start producing from it it is one day closer to the death, it eventually has to spin out, none of it goes on forever. I think,also,equity participation of some sort by the government of this Province, so that we can have some say in what those great corporations and those giant

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2250 SD - 3 MR. T. RIDEOUT: corporations do,would be an excellent idea and one that we should look at. We are doing it in our offshore petroleum regulations and I think we ought to be able to extend that principle to other areas of resource ownership within the Province itself, n the ground not under the sea, as it is in the offshore case. So there are two principles involved here, Mr. Speaker, that I would hope that members on all sides of this House could support. I think it would be beneficial for all of us to hear what

November 19, 1980 Tape 2251 EC - 1 MR. RIDEOUT: the expert opinion is in this matter. It is an idea, it is a dream that I have had for some time and finally there is an opportunity to get it before the House.

But I believe it would be beneficial to us all to be able to go out and listen to what the mining companies have to say, listen to what the local town councils have to say in the Baie Verte and the Buchans areas and in Labrador City and so on, listen to what the unions have to say and see if this thought, this concept, makes any sense, see if it is workable, and if it is workable then to bring back some recommendations to this House that can be acted on. I believe the principle is one that we all could support and, Mr.

Speaker, it is in that spirit that for the last couple of sessions I have been attempting to put this motion before the House. Thank you. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. SPEAKER (Butt): The hon. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say from the start, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side intend to support this motion. This Resolution, Mr. Speaker, is a great Liberal concept SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. FLIGHT: - a great Liberal Resolution. You should have been there, Mr.

Speaker, in our caucus and seen how proud the hon. member was when he had the assurance and the total co-operation of our caucus that his resolution that this resolution gould get priority in the Private Members' Resolutions. He was so convincing,Mr. Speaker, he was very, very convincing in defending his resolution that the only way that the great principles that he talks about would get exposed to the floor of this House was by a Private Members bill from the Opposition, from the Liberal Party, the Liberal

November 19, 1980 Tape 2251 EC - 2 MR. FLIGHT: Opposition. Because, of course, he was totally convinced that the principles encompassed in this bill were foreign to any beliefs of anyone on the other side. The Tories do not believe, Mr. Speaker - and the hon. member knew, probably still knows, that the Tories do not believe in the kind of principles and concepts encompassed in this particular resolution. And as a result, Mr. Speaker, this side of the House will support, as the member knows it will support, this Resolution. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. FLIGHT: I understand, Mr. Speaker, how the member feels.

If anyone in this hon. House should understand how he feels, I understand, having come from Buchans that he referred to so often, a town that went for fifty years, made untold millions of dollars profit. They are on the way out now, Mr. Speaker. There is indeed some hope. Developments in the mining industry in Buchans indicates that there may indeed be a few years left in that mine - there may be twenty. But for all intents and purposes, compared to the kind of operation we were used to for fifty years, the mining industry in Buchans may well be on its last legs.

The company took millions and millions and millions of dollars and left nothing by way of the kind of fund that the hon. member is talking about. Except for the severance pay, I suppose, that came as a result of a union effort, resolved in negotiation, none of the employees would have anything by way of anything that ASARCO left. Now it is Abitibi Price. So I understand, Mr. Speaker, how the member feels, and I support the principle in the Resolution. As he said, there aregoing to be a lot of Buchans, Baie Verte, Flat Bay, Labrador City - Wabush, all the mines in the Province. And, Mr.

Speaker, maybe the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Power) should have paid attention to this Resolution, because although our forestry is a renewable resource in most peopl&s minds, 532

November 19, 1980 Tape 2251 EC - 3 MR. FLIGHT: forestry is not considered a non- renewable resource, but because of things that are happening in forestry, Mr. Speaker, because of the mismanagement that our forestry has been subjected to these past fifty years, total complete mismanagement, because of the waste we have allowed in the exploitation of our forestry, because of the damage that the spruce budworm has done, it is frightening to see directors of Abitibi Price on a programme with the Minister of Forestry (Mr.

Power) saying that unless certain things are done and done quickly, the forest industry in Newfoundland may not be able to sustain the pulp and paper operation indefinitely. I think they put ten years on the life - on the possibility that ten years from now unless certain things are not done,those mills might close. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, the forest industry is a non-renewable resource.

And I would remind this House that the whole of Central Newfoundland and a lot of the West Coast depends totally on the forest industry - the towns of Badger, Grand Falls, Bishop's Falls,Millertown, Deer Lake to a great extent, Corner Brook to a great extent. So, Mr. Speaker, from the member's point of view, he says that the company should be asked to set aside some of their profits. Well, they do not like to hear it, Mr. Speaker, they do not like the profits they are making today to be called windfall profits, but the paper companies

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2252 DW - 1 MR. G. FLIGHT: in this Province are making the biggest windfall profits. They never dreamed they could make so much money. MR. T. HICKEY: How did the paper companies get it? MR. C. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member - where is he member for? MR. G. WARREN: St. John's East Extern. AN HON. MEMBER: Minister of Social Services. MR. G. FLIGHT: Minister of Social Services. He went the circle, he went the full route and he is back to Social Services. I would dvise him to keep quiet. MR. WARREN: Heave him in the doghouse. Mr.

Speaker, paper companies today are making - if the member who presented this reso- lution is concerned about where the funds will come proTp. those paper companies-and I am going to dwell on it for a second-are making windfall profits as a result of the difference in the Canadian dollar. Most of the paper is sold in the States - sixteen or seventeen cents difference - AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty cents. MR. G. FLIGHT: Twenty cents.Well,whatever the difference is.

In normal times when there was parity in this country, when the American dollar was par with the Canadian dollar, the paper companies were making a very nice comfortable profit then. There were no problems with their profit then. Now, Mr. Speaker, they are making untold millions in a windfall situation and we do not know how long this is going to continue. If ever there was a time that a company was in a position to put some funds into anon-dis- turbance fund or a non-renewable resource fund now is the time. And, Mr.Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member something.

I am sure that none of these companies are going to want to share their profits. None of those companies are going to want to share their profits. They have shown no desire up to this point in time and will show no desire in the future to set aside any monies that we could use after _.1_ •)

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2252 OW - 2 MR. G. FLIGHT: they are gone. And this party, Mr. Speaker, this Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition and the federal government gave the govern- ment of this Province a tool a few days ago, a tool that they could use to make sure that there is a fund after Price is gone, after Bowater is gone, after Abitibi- Price, the mining companies are gone, and that tool is indirect taxation on resources. That is the tool, Mr. Speaker. MR. HOLLETT: It was the federa1Le 1 J 5 did it. MR. G. FLIGHT: It was the federal Liberal Party that suggested that indirect taxation. Mr.

Speaker, if they are not prepared to put some money aside for the fund that the hon. member talked about, the indirect taxation would do it. But I have a concern and I am sure the hon. member has a concern.

He could see it as the tool, he could say, 'Look, let us apply an indirect taxation situation on Abitibi-Price or on the Buchans mines or on any other mining company and let us - we know that one day the ore will he gone, now let us ear- mark those dollars that we will collect as a result of the indirect taxation being imposed, let us earmark it to take care of the infrastructure he talks about, to make sure that after that mine closes up that the people can develop ways of making a living, maintaining a viable community and a viable economy. Let us do that. But I am sure that he has a great concern, Mr. Speaker.

He knows he is sitting with a Tory government that up to this point in time have had no desire to use their revenues, any kind of revenues to im- prove the way of life of the people of Buchans or Baie Verte or anywhere else. They would want to see that money 535

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2252 DW - 3 MR. G. FLIGHT: go into - their policy, Mr. Speaker, is to see that money go into the general account, pay off the deficit, balance the budget. And that is what he might - he may not want to see the indirect taxation applied for that purpose because he knows very well that this government, the architect of what we are hearing in the past six or seven months, the hen. House Leader. (Mr. Marshall), the hon. Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr.

Ottenheimer) manipu- lating the Premier who, left on his own, would probably want to do exactly what the member is talking about. But being in the hands of the people, particularly those in the front bench, his ministers, in the clutches of the right-wing Tories who have never shown a desire and never will show a desire to share the revenue of this Province with the people who need it most, Mr. Speaker. They want to balance their Budget. 'I do not care if ASARCO closes up and 3,000 people have to re-locate, it is more important that we balance the Budget.

I do not care about providing an infrastructure wherever the source of funds comes from, let us balance the Budget, pay off the deficit!' But, Mr. Speaker, this Opposition put in the hands of that member for Baie Verte - White Bay (Mr. Rideout) a means of providing the funds to take care of the kind of thing that he is talking about,

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2253 NM - 1 MR. FLIGHT: an indirect taxation on their exports. But make sure, Mr. Speaker, make sure in the case of Buchans, or in the case of Baie Verte, or Labrador City, or the paper companies, because of the danger they are in, that the money collected, as a result of the imposition of that direct taxation, is earmarked to take care of the Buchans' of this Province when they close. MR. TULK: Something to use for a ring roads. MR. FLIGHT: But I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Baie Verte - White Bay (Mr.

Rideout) would have no confidence in this government being prepared to accept that concept. AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the Liberal concept? MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the best - you see this is a great Liberal concept, a great Liberal philosophy we have here. Let us do the first clause: "NOW THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House cause to be established a Select Committee on Resource Management and this Select Committee be empowered to advise the House on the advisability and feasibility of: 1. The Province becoming a partner in the development of all non-renewable resources." Mr. Speaker, that is the Liberal con- cept regarding the great offshore, the great offshore. DR. COLLINS: Alberta's concept. Alberta does (inaudible) MR. FLIGHT: The resolution presented: 'The Province becoming a partner in the development of all our non- renewable resources.' Now, Mr.

Speaker, having established a long time ago that the Liberal Party is clearly on record as being in favour of ownership, the first resolution passed in this House of Assembly relating to ownership was moved by a mem- ber on this side of the House. So there is no question of the 5 ..)

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2253 NM - 2 MR. FLIGHT: ownership concept - Right? But I know, the member knows, and every Newfoundlander in this Province knows, that if ever that offshore is going to be developed it will have to be developed jointly. As the member says in his clause, 'The Province becoming a partner in the development of all non-renewable resources'. It will have to be done jointly. It will have to be done as a result of a negotiated agreement with Ottawa. Every Newfoundlander in this Province knows that, every one. Now, Mr.

Speaker, they also know something else, because they have been brainwashed by being told that Hibernia can be producing in 1985, and with the level of unemployment we have in this Province, with the need for dollars we have in this Province, they are wondering if this government is going to move in a way that will make it possible to develop the offshore, to develop Hibernia by 1985. And they also know that in order to do that it will take the next five years to get the infrastructure needed in place.

The oil companies or nobody else will move to put in the infrastructure that will be necessary to put Hibernia into production, until the agreement is there - Right? So, Mr. Speaker - MR. HICKEY: So we should sell it. MR. FLIGHT: No, the question, Mr. Speaker, now is, the question - MR. WARREN: Change your doghouse. MR. FLIGHT: The question now, Mr. Speaker - the Newfoundland people know that. They know it will be the result of an agreement. The position, Mr. Speaker, on this side - MR. TtJLK: I am looking at kitchen cabinets. MR.

FLIGHT: The cornerstone of any agreement, obviously, would be that all revenues accrued in Newfoundland, all 53S

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2253 NM - 3 MR. FLIGHT: revenues from the offshore accrued to Newfoundland, all benefits from the offshore accrued to Newfoundland, that we have the control over the rate of development. That would be the cornerstone of any agreement - right? If the hon.

House Leader has got to wait - he has indicated he is not prepared to test our case in the courts and we accept that if that is his choice - if he has got to wait until the ownership issue is settled then he should get up and tell the people when he would see Hibernia coming under development, producing, making dollars for the Newfoundland people, if he is not going to be prepared to negotiate a settlement, not joint to be prepared for joint development, when he sees a situation in this province that will permit the oil companies to start putting in the infrastructure that will make it possible to actually get into development.

Because, Mr. Speaker, we are being blindfolded here, you know. We hear about DAC, we hear about these various companies, the companies, Mr. Speaker, that made the millions, the same names. Are the names familiar? MR. WARREN: No, no. MR. FLIGHT: The names that are emerging now as companies to make the millions off the offshore are they not the same names, Mr. Speaker, that made the millions off the fisheries in the 1920's and the 1930's and the 1940's? MR. WARREN: Right on! SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. FLIGHT: Are they not the same dollars that were made off the backs of Newfoundlanders, Mr. Speaker - MR.

WHITE: Right on! MR. FLIGHT: - in the fishery when Newfoundlanders were starving to death? The only ones that were not starving to death were the merchants in this Province and people living in St. John's. Are not now the same names, are not the same monies

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2253 RA - 4 MR. FLIGHT: being put together into the DAC's and the various other organizations that are getting together to make the fortunes off the offshore? MR. TULK: And the Premier loves history. MR. FLIGHT: So, Mr. Speaker, remember DAC establishing in Mortier Bay, the DAC group and all the rest, have nothing to .-e

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2254 EL - 1 MR. FLIGHT: do with the development of Hibernia they are talking about building subrnersibles that can be used in the North Sea. There is no indication that any of the activity up to this point in this Province is a concrete indication that the Hibernia is going to be developed. Maybe the things they will do in Mortier Bay will be done for the North Sea or Venezuela or the offshore of the United States. Now, Mr. Speaker, if anyone in this hon. House believes that the people of Newfoundland really care about ownership they got another thing coming. The people - apart , Mr.

Speaker, maybe apart from the principles of the various companies that I just referred to, they may be concerned because they know what is in it for them. They knew what was in it for them under the fisheries, under the seal fishery and under every other thing that happened in this Province when they were being protected by a right wing Tory government. So, Mr. Speaker, if anyone thinks ownership of the Province - let me ask this question, Mr.

Speaker, do you think there is a Newfoundlander in this Prov- ince -they know now that when Hibernia comes into production, at the given estimates of reserves there, at the given rate of production per year, it will last for twenty years and Hibernia will be gone, the one we know now - noJ, is there a Newfoundlander alive that would care whether we own that piece of real estate, two hundred miles out in the North Atlantic under about four or five thousand feet of water. Is there a NewfQund lander, with that oil gone who would care whether we own it? I

November 19. 1980 Tape No. 2254 EL-2 MR. WARREN: Yes, thirty-four of them. MR. FLIGHT: No, they do not care. There is a possibility, Mr. Speaker, - MR. WARREN: Thirty-four of them. MR. FLIGHT: There is a possibility, Mr. Speaker, that this government may be reading things wrong. There may be a possibility that the young man in Windsor today who has not worked for two years, who is twenty-one years old and who sees no hope of the Hibernia or anything else being developed because of the confrontation situation this government wants. They are more concerned about, Mr. Speaker, what are you doing?

When are you going to develop? When are the jobs going to flow? They are more concerned that the dollars come into this Province. They are more con- cerned that the dollars used, made off our offshore, will provide jobs in Windsor or Buchans or the West Coast, some- thing the other side of this city. So, Mr. Speaker, this government, and their chief spokesmen, the ministers and the Premier, riding high, believes he has got an issue that is dear to the hearts of all the people in this Province. He has got an issue that is dear to the hearts of the people of this Province, Mr.

Speaker, but they are wondering about the way it is being managed right now. They are wondering how many young men, Mr. Speaker, twentyone years old in this Province today that want a job, will be in this Province ten years from now. How many? Is that important to this administration, Mr. Speaker? ev

November 19. 1980 MR. LUSH: SOME HON. MEMBERS MR. DINN: land. Tape No.2254 EL-3 Not at all, no. No, no. The future leaders of Newfound- Is it important, Mr. Speaker, to this administration - MR. PATTERSON: They will all move to Toronto and work in the assembly lines up there. MR. FLIGHT: Is it important, Mr. Speaker, - MR. LUSH: Hibernia will never stop them - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) out on the West Coast (Inaudible) out there. MR. SPEAKER(Butt): Order, please MR. LUSH: - Hibernia will never stop them PREMIER PECKFORD: Burn your boats. AN HON. MEMBER: They are all gone now, boy,so (Inaudible) MR.

FLIGHT: It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we develop the offshore. If my son, Mr. Speaker, who may be ten years old cannot take advantage of offshore then what is in it for me? We have now problems in this Province, Mr. Speaker. Where is this rag that we read tody? Look, bread and butter issues, Mr. Speaker. It says, 'Do not talk about the constitution, talk about bread and butter issues Well, I will tell you what the bread and butter issues are that were left out of this. MR. MARSHALL? It is The Daily News you are re- ferring to as a rag SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh: 53

November 19. 1980 Tape No. 2254 EL 4 MR. FLIGHT: This junk. Look, I will tell you the bread and butter issues, Mr. Speaker. The bread and butter issue, Mr. Speaker, is a five year plan that accepts as a fact of life fourteen per cent unemployment in this Province, a five year plan that accepts as a fact of life a fourteen per cent unemployment insurance. AN HON. MEMBER. A good plan. MR. FLIGHT: A bread and butter issue, Mr Speaker, is the state, the deplorable state that the trunk roads in this Province are in. It is the fact that the town councils in this Province cannot maintain the basic services.

That is a bread and butter issue that concern a lot of them, Mr. Speaker. MR. LUSH: And a lot of (Inaudible) MR. FLIGHT: The spiraling costs of electric rates in this Province, Mr. Speaker, making it impossible for people on fixed incomes to survive in decency. That is a bread and butter issue they should have printed here, Mr. Speaker. They should have told us why here, Mr. Speaker, since LCDC have recommended the development of Muskrat Falls back in July, why they are not interested in creating those five thousand jobs, I,

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2255 SD - 1 MR. G. FLIGHT: and securing a standard, stable supply of electricity for this Province. That is the kind of bread and butter issues, Mr. Speaker - AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. G. FLIGHT: - bread and butter issues, Mr. Speaker, where half the people living in this Province are living in next to poverty-line housing. Every member knows how many people have come to him to have the housing upgraded - no, not important. All that is important, Mr.

Speaker, is that we get on the radio day after day, we push this stuff out, a smoke screen for the real problems of this Province - MR. T. LUSH: A red herring. MR. G. FLIGHT: - a red herring, a smoke screen covering up this government's inability to address itself to the real problems - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. G. FLIGHT: - covering up its unconcern, its inability - MR. T. LUSH: Diversionary tactics. MR. G. FLIGHT: - to worry about the problems that are facing the people of this Province, the real problems that are facing them, Mr. Speaker. MR. T. LUSH: Diversionary tactics. MR. G.

FLIGHT: Can anybody in this House, Mr. Speaker, in the ministry MR. G. WARREN: They have no intestinal fortitude. MR. T. LUSH: Any what? MR. G. FLIGHT: - tell me the last time the Premier of this Province addressed himself to the 45,000 jobs that he was going to create a year and a half ago? MR. T. LUSH: He has forgotten about that now. MR. G. FLIGHT: Is there anybody in this House, Mr. Speaker, who can stand up and remind me or remind this House the last time the Premier made a comment about the state of our essential services in this Province? Is anybody - re..

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2255 - SD - 2 MR. G. WARREN: He has got television (inaudible) MR. SPEAKER: (Baird) Order, please: MR. G. FLIGHT: - able to remind me, in this House, the last time the Premier commented on the level of unemployment in this Province - the 14 per cent unemployment in this Province? MR. G. WARREN: He will do it tomorrow. MR. G. FLIGHT: The only thing, Mr. Speaker - MR. T. LUSH: (Inaudible) MR. SPEAKER (Baird): Order! MR. G. FLIGHT: - that this Premier has commented on publicly and it is getting to a point, Mr.

Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland, you know, they are starting to wonder about this man, they are starting to wonder about the Premier of this Province. You know, Mr. Speaker, it is a silly - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: MR. G. FLIGHT: - childish way - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! AN HON. MEMBER: By leave. MR. SPEAKER: Am I to understand we are discussing a Private Member's motion? MR. G. FLIGHT: Is Mr. Speaker asking me? If so, I think the member is starting to stray. MR. G. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I am starting to stray or not.

The motion - I do not know if His Honour has totally familiarized himself with the motion, but we are talking about non-renewable resources, Mr. Speaker, and it is the subject of the motion. But, Mr. Speaker, I have to wind up, my time is over, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave. MR. G. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this Province has done nothing for fourteen months, I think it is - fourteen or fifteen months - except to attempt to brainwash the people and draw on what has got to be considered their patriotism, on their desires to control their own destiny, 48

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2255 SD - 3 MR. G. FLIGHT: using the issues, the Constitution, the politics of fear, the possibility that somehow or other the Constitution will not work in the better interest of Newfoundland, avoiding like the plague, Mr. Speaker, the real problems of this Province, the problems that the hon. member talks about in his resolution, avoiding like the plague the fact that we have four or five industries about to shut-down, avoiding like the plague, Mr. Speaker - abdicating the responsibilities for the forestry by shuffling it off to a Royal Commission. That Premier, Mr.

Speaker_that Minister of Forestry approved a full spray programme, took the chance on poisoning half the people in Newfoundland by their own admission. MR. SPEAKER (Baird): Order, please! The hon. member's time is up. MR. G. FLIGHT: So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we are going to- with leave - MR. LUSH: Whole-heartedly. MR. G. FLIGHT: - whole-heartedly support the resolution. I want to commend the member for bringing it forward and I want to encourage him to continue bringing forward great Liberal concepts in the sense that this particular resolution is. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Conception Bay South. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. J. BUTT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on record as supporting this motion brought in by my hon. friend from Baie Verte - White Bay. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. J. BUTT: And I must say it is very difficult to address myself to the motion without -

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2255 SD - 4 AN HON. MEMBER: And you a Liberal. MR. G. WARREN: And you a LiberE1. MR. J. BUTT: - first of all addressing myself to a few remarks made by my hon. friend from Windsor - Bucharis (Mr. G. Flight). AN HON. MEMBER: A good man. MR. J. BUTT: Now, I thought I would approach this today in a very impartial way being an impartial fellow - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. J.

BUTT: - but I think it is worthy to note that when my hon. friend was looking across the floor and saw the kind of policies and the philosophy of this government, it was certainly compatible with what he was thinking himself - AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. AN HON. MEMBER: Right on, boy. MR. J. BUTT: - and finally he did take the plunge and come across.

November 19, 1980 Tape 2256 EC - 1 MR. BUTT: Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a progressive motion put forward by my hon. friend and it shows that he has some foresight. It is something that could, if it were brought in thirty or forty years ago, certainly help a place like Bell Island or Buchans and they would not be in the situation that they are in today. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. BUTT: It is the kind of fund that the hon. member mentions that would be set up, would be of great benefit to a town that had its non-renewable energy resources exploited.

I think the key to this is the long-range planning, and we are looking at non-renewable energy resources, so that somewhere at some given time down the road, whether it is an ore deposit or an oil reservoir, it would be pumped out or the ore mined and we are left with basically nothing. Also, the idea is compatible with this governments philosophy and policy.

Just let me say that in exploiting an unrenewable resource such as offshore oil, the benefits accrued from that would not only be used to upgrade our public service, but also to further develop our renewable resources such as our fishery and our forestry and so on so it could provide the necessary employment and monies for future generations. The idea of a committee system for the House, I think, is a good one.

I think it is a good way of government,one that I certainly believe in; Select Committees of the House, getting elected members involved and going out and gathering information in various parts of the Province, reporting back to the House. Certainly, I do not know at this particular point in time what kind of terms of reference this committee would have, but no doubt, besides funding, it would probably look at the aspects of other industries that could be brought in after an oil well or a mine is exploited to its fullest. The kind of funding that would be set up is

November 19, 1980 Tape 2256 EC - 2 MR. BUTT: certainly a complex thing and it could possibly be done, as one member pointed out, by indirect taxation or by some other monetary means. If we go back and take a look at Bell Island,what happened over there when the mine closed down, it was a sad state of affairs. Newfoundlanders had to move to various parts of this country to seek other forms of employment. There were no other alternatives.

The kind of a fund that my hon. friend mentions in his motion would certainly provide an alternative for people like our friends on Bell Island who had to move to Ontario and other parts of Canada to reap a living. I certainly believe that this Select Committee made up of members of this House can do nothing but good. It is a great, progressive idea. I have to compliment the member on being a gentleman who is certainly not near-sighted,

November 19, 1980, Tape 2257, Page 1 -- apb MR. BUTT: he is looking at long-term effects down the road. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. BUTT: If we look at offshore oil, which basically is what my friend from Windsor-Buchans (Mr. Flight) talked about for his twenty minutes and really did not address himself to the Select Committee on Natural Resources, if we look at offshore oil, well, the benefits from offshore oil can certainly be of great benefit in utilizing our renewable resource to the fullest. AN HON. MEMBER: Taking it step by step. MR. BUTT: Yes, step by step. Of course. MR. WARREN: Right on. MR.

BUTT: Right. We on this side, I am sure, will support this resolution, and I certainly hope that in th not too distant future this House will appoint a select committee to address itself to this resolution brought in by my hon. friend from Bale Verte - White Bay (Mr. Rideout). SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER(Baird): The hon. the member for LaPoile. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to apologize to my colleague for not being here during his remarks.

I am sure that his pearls of wisdom that flowed out on the floor of this House were persuasive and were in his usual good fashion. And I want to congratulate the member for Conception Bay South (Mr. Butt) , by the way. I came in on the tail end of the hon. gentleman's remarks in support of this resolution and I want to congratulate the hon. gentleman for subscribing to such a wonderful Liberal principle. Because, Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague '-a-

November 19, 1980, Tape 2257, Page 2 -- apb MR. NEAR'!: pointed out to the hon. House that this resolution was introduced on opening day, at the opening of this session of the House by a then Liberal, by a gentleman who sat on this side of the House and who has since gone astray and is now sitting in the government backbenches, which I am sure must be a disappointment to the hon. gentleman. I would assume that he would have thought that by now he would be one of the people who make the decisions on policies in this Province. But the hon. gentleman was a Liberal at that time, Mr. Speaker.

And all hon. members know how resolutions, Private Members' Resolutions are introduced in this hon. House. Private Members' Resolutions are usually brought before the caucus and the caucus will decide whether or not it is a good idea, whether or not is is practical, whether or not it is feasible, and whether or not, above all, Mr. Speaker, that it fits in with the philosophy of the party. And in this particularinstance I remember the mad dash in our caucus, everybody wanted to get their resolution first on the Order Paper for opening day. I do not think that is any secret, Mr.

Speaker, there is always a mad dash, and I am sure that you have the same in the other caucus, one-upman- ship. I believe the hon. the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Andrews) got his resolution on and got it debated early, the whole idea being recognition of the hon. gentleman.

So everybody wants to get his resolution on the Order Paper first, and so my hon. friend, he did not get his on first because we did not feel, during the discussions in our caucus, that this was the number one priority in the Province, but we felt it was a matter of urgent importance and did rate fairly high priority so we allowed the hon. member to go second or third, I think it was, on opening day.

November 19, 1980, Tape 2257, Page 3 -- apb MR. NEARY: And so we have the resolution in front of us, a Liberal resolution; a good resolution, a resolution that I personally take great pride in supporting, not because I supported it in caucus, not because I encouraged the hon. gentleman - I believe the hon. gentleman had this same resolution on the Order Paper once before, this is the second time. It is not an original idea, Mr. Speaker.

I may point out to the hon. gentleman it is not an original idea, it is something that came up many times in this House, something that came up not only on Private Members' Day but came up in other debates in this House. It was raised many times back in the mid '60s and in

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2258 DW - 1 the early '70's. It was raised by members on that side of the House who were then the government, who are now on this side of the House. And how do I know, Mr. Speaker, How do I know that? Because I was one of the members who raised this matter. Now,the hon. gentlemen may say, 'Well, why was something not done about it?' Well, I could ask the same question of hon. members now.

They have been over there since 1972, January 18th., 1972 - it was a black day for Newfoundland, that was when the government changed - that was eight years ago and the government has not seen fit to do anything about this matter that is referred to in this resolution yet. Eight years have gone by. I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that we will not see another eight years go by before something is done about this matter.

The reason I raised it when I was sitting on the govern- ment side of the House supporting the government,and as a minister in the government, was because of the way that Bell Island had been torn up, holes left in the ground, piles of rock left on the surface over there. MR. CARTER: Where is the (inaudible) MR. S. NEARY: I answered that one time for the gentleman who ran against me when I asked him where the trip to the world's fair was. Mr.

Speaker, I do not know if anybody has had occasion to visit Bell Island either when the mine was working or since the mine closed but if they did they would not be impressed. As a matter of fact, they would be very unimpressed. And they would be pretty sore and pretty mad about the holes that had been left in the ground over on Bell Island and the pile of rock that was picked out of the iron ore that has been left behind. MR. CARTER: Those were Liberal times. (-C' _j._ '-.,'

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2258 DW - 2 MR. S. NEARY: Well, I do not care what times they were. This company that came in here and picked the pockets of the people of Bell Island for so long - MR. CARTER: Well,who let them get away with it?- MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, you know, the irony of all this is - I heard the hon. gentleman referring to Bell Island a few moments ago - when I was the member for Bell Island I could not turn on my radio or television or pick up a newspaper without hearing somebody in the Tory Party or in the Opposition,who happened to be Tory at that time, wanting to know what we were going to do about the depressed situation on Bell Island. They would not leave me alone five minutes; night and day they were on to me.

And they have been over there eight years and I have not once in eight years heard one single member on that side of the House refer to the economic condition of Bell Island, the economic plight of the people of Bell Island. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear MR. S. NEARY: And when they were over here and I was over there, they were at me all the time, continu- ously, and putting up there little pipsgueaks over on Bell Island to try to sabotage me. And I was elected four times over there and represented Bell Island fourteen years in this House.

Unfortunately,and I am sad to say,since I left the district it has been grossly neglected. All they have tried to do over there is build on the foundation that I created for them. And I had to laugh - I was over this Summer and the member for Harbour Main - Bell Island (Mr. Doyle) trying to suck his way in with the people of Bell Island, paved the road down to a gun installation and they paved the airstrip over there, an airstrip that I was partly responsible for building7 this is what they did, and they have extended the water and sewerage projects that I started 51,2155

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2258 DW - 3 MR. S. NEARY: All they have been doing is expanding on projects that I started. But just imagine the number priority on Bell Island is paving, paving a road down to a gun installation that was there in the Second World War something that I had restored into a historic site, by the way. I have no objection to paving the road. I am glad to see it paved, but, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, there are more priorities on Bell Island.

If the hon. gentleman would only use his noodle, there are more priorities on Bell Island than paving the landing strip or paving a road down to the site of the two old cannons that have been left there from the Second World War. MR. N. DOYLE: Trying to promote Tourism. MR. S. NEARY: Trying to promote Tourismthe hon. gentleman says. The hon. gentleman, if he wants to use his initiative and his imagination and if he does not have any of his own if he would

November 19, 1980 Tape 2259 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: come and see me,I would be glad to give him a few ideas as to how to try to rehabilitate the people of Bell Island and provide jobs for all those residents who are unemployed and who want to work, my fellow Bell Islanders. We have not heard too much lately about the storage of oil in the Bell Island mine. That seems to have faded into the woodwork. So I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to support this resolution and I am glad to see it on the Order Paper. There is not much, I suppose, you can do about the Bell Island situation now.

The holes in the ground are still there, they are a safety hazard. Many a child and many a resident of Bell Island have lost their lives in these holes that have been left behind, dams on the surface over there, polluted. Many a child has fallen in, people walking home after dark in unlit areas where there are dams created by DOSCO when they were mining over there. They are a safety hazard and they are an eyesore and a nuisance to the community. And the same thing, Mr. Speaker, will happen in Buchans, in Baie Verte, down where ERCO is mining in Long Harbour.

The same thing will happen in all these quarries that we see in various parts of Newfoundland where the government is passing out permits right, left and center, in some cases to their friends and buddies, to quarry rock and stone without any regard for the look it is taking away from the countryside. It is an outrage, Mr. Speaker. I think that if I had my way, all these rock quarries would be put so far away from the Trans-Canada Highway or a road or a by-road that you would not be able to see them.

Why can we not force these contractors to go back off the Trans-Canada Highway, go back off a by-road or an access road? Why can we not, Mr. Speaker? Why should we always - I know Your Honour cannot answer me, but if

November 19, 1980 Tape 2259 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: Your Honour could, I am sure he would. There are some of these quarries not too far from Your Honour's district. MR. CARTER: We are wasting the time of the House. MR. NEARY: Yes, we are wasting the time of the House, Sir. MR. CARTER: There is one going on outside now. MR. NEARY: It is raining out today and the snow is on the ground. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. NEARY: It is impossible to grow a little savory these days. The hon. gentleman - his attendance will be perfect, Mr.Speaker, 100 per cent attendance.

The savory is now hung on the shelf, put on the cardboard, hanging in the supermarkets and the hon. gentleman is back in the House where he can occupy himself with his favourite sport and that is needling me. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh MR. NEARY: I am happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend and myself work excellently, perfectly, as a team on the Public Accounts Committee. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, heart MR. NEARY: So I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should be thankful for small blessings in this world. But anyway, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is a very serious matter indeed about these - especially about these rock quarries. I suppose the previous government, if we want to be fair about it, passed out permits. This hon. crowd are passing out permits - the hon. crowd - AN HON. MEMBER: Except one. MR. NEARY: Pardon? 57

November 19, 1980 Tape 2259 MB - 3 MR. POWER: The same with the next administration too. MR. NEARY: - passing out permits to their friends and their buddies to quarry rock and stone. And you know, Mr. Speaker, as I drive around this Province I never cease to be amazed at the desecration of the country- side. The tourists coming in here must say that we are awfully stunned, that we run a sloppy operation in this Province when we are passing out permits JL

November 19, 1980 Tape No. 2260 lB-i MR. NEARY: right, left and center to contractors to go and quarry stone wherever the site is that they pick, not the site the government picks or the Department of Mines and Energy. They go and pick it out themselves. I have had occasion when contractors have come up to me moaning and weeping because they could not get a permit to quarry in this particular area. They have even gone near communities in my own district, right in there, practically in the heart of a community to quarry rock so they can become millionaires,and a lot of them are millionaires. It is not right, Mr.

Speaker, and I do not know if anything,ever,will be done about it. My hon. friend mentioned here in his resolution that the Province should become a partner in the development of all non-renewable resources. I did not hear the hon. gentleman's speech but I presume he explained how the government could become a partner. It is a very complex and difficult thingI would say. But I certainly agree with funding. I certainly agr