Volume 4 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 4th. Session VERBATIM REPORT FRIDAY, MAY 2, 1975 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE M. JAMES RUSSELL Number 44

May Z, 1975 The House met at 11:00 A.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Tape 1994 (morning) PRESENTING PETITIONS: MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Honavista South. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition from Ill-1 569 residents on the Eastport Peninsula in my district of Honavista South, and also part of Bonavista North.

The petition is asking that the gravel roads on the Eastport Peninsula, the road leading from Eastport to Burnside and the road leading from Rastport to Salvage - these two gravel roads, each of them are approximately seven and a half to eight miles in length, eight miles I think to Salvage and seven miles to Burnside, these gravel roads, these two are the only gravel roads on the Eastport Peninsula. The petition is signed by all the residents, by the residents in all the connnunities.

For example, Eastport, the Town of Eastport, the community of Sandy Cove, the community of Salvage and the community of Happy Adventure. The 174 residents of Eastport, A2 in Sandy Cove, 146 residents of Salvage and 167 of Happy Adventure. A total of 569 petitioners. The fact that the road from Eastport to Burnside is not in my district but in my neighbouring district of Bonavista North, I would like to point out that the residents of St. Brendan's, the Island of St. Brendan's use that road extensively.

It is their link to the outside world because their ferry service lands there at Burnside, and they use the road to Eastport and on to the Trans-Canada ffighway. Mr. Speaker, I think it is noteworthy this morning to mention that this is the third major petition from Bonavista South for road work during the last two weeks. MR. NEARY: They need a new member down there. MR.

MJRGAN: I pointed out earlier that the fact that Bonavista South has 115 miles of rough gravel road, I am sure this will be an important factor in taking into consideration by the authorities and by the Minister of Transportation and Communications, that Bonavista 5820

Tape 1994 <morning) South needs maybe more funds than other districts to overcome this problem of transportation. The fact that the district has been so neglected over the years that we still have 115 miles of rough gravel road, I think, warrants the expenditure of a little extra funds each and every year, especially this year to get some of the reconstruction work carried out in preparation for paving. S~, Mr. Speaker, I support this petition in the hope that - the petition is asking for the road to be upgraded and paved. Of course this is impossible to be done in one year.

But, I support IB-2 the petition and in doing so I am hoping that there will be some funds available to carry out some reconstruction work on not only the road which is in my district and to Salvage but also the road leading to Burnside and serving the residents of St. Brendan's. I ioove Mr. Speaker, that this petition be tabled in the House of Assembly and be presented to the department to which it relates. 'ffl. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Bonavista North. '.'!R. THOMS: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of t.he House I wish to rise in support of the petition presented by the honourable Member for Bonavista South. I believe this petition is in conjunction with four petitions which I had presented to this House on Monday morning. I believe all these petitions were initiated by the Eastport Peninsula Development Association. Mr.

Speaker, the roads from Eastport to Burnside and from Eastport to Salvage are indeed as the memher mentioned very narrow and twisted and hilly roads and there are many very dangerous ,and when I say dangerous I really mean very dangerous curves on hills which could result in, if something is not done with them, could result in fatalities in either the near or far future.

Mr. ~peaker, I believe in this time and age in our Province that~ and especially when one considers that we are going to spend something like $1 billion and $66 million this year, I think the government - I am not saying this because it is a Conservative Government - no matter what government is in office they should be able to find the small amount of money that is needed to upgrade and pave this road within a two year period. The whole Eastport Peninsula is certainly 5821

May 2, 1975 Tape 1994 (morning) IB-3 a growing and thriving area. It has great potential in all aspects of our life, in farming, fishing, and especially in the tourist trade. I believe it is indeed very necessary for these two short pieces of road to be upgraded and paved as soon as possible. So, Mr. Speaker, I certainly give this petition my wholehearted support. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. E. ROBERTS (LE.ADER OF THE OPPOSITION): Mr.

Speaker, if I may say a word or two in support of the petition presented by the gentleman from Bonavista South, and supported by my friend and colleague from Bonavista North. I know the area well. It is one of the most attractive areas of this Provine, It is an area which has shown very great determination and desire to get ahead. !he Eastport Development Association or the Eastport Peninsula Connnittee for Progress, I think is its official name, is one of the best of the regional development associations in this Province.

They have helped literally to tum that Peninsula around and make it one of the most, potentially one of the most prosperous and pleasant places in the Province. I think anything we could do along those lines to help them, we should. It is little enough to ask. It is a relatively few miles of road. We add on to that, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the tourist industry is a very real industry in the Eastport Penin ula area. There are many parts of the Province which I guess have potential for the tourist industry, but none is greater than the potential which exists on the Eastport Peninsula.

The park borders the Peninsula. We are going to have a large golf course at Sandringham which is the first ccnmunity one comes to on the Peninsula after leaving the park to go down towards Eastport and on out to Salvage. The whole area is becoming one of the most favorite areas in Newfoundland. Many people in Gander have sunnner homes there. Many people in St. John's are acquiring summer homes or retirement homes fight from the area from Glovertown right out to Salvage and back down to Happy Adventure.

So,for all these reasons, Sir, I think the petition has great merit and I would very much hope that the government this year will be able to get the work done. We have heard a great deal about a five year plan. There is no evidence of one yet. So, we will 5822

May 2, 19 75 Tape 1994 (morning) IB-4 not wait for the five year plan. Let me express the hopes that it will be done this year as pa,;-t of a one year plan. AN HONOURABLE MEMIER: A part of the election year. MR. ROBERTS: An •lection plan. MR. SPEAKER: Are there any other petitions? The honourable Member for St. Jbhn's North. ~- CARTER: l-fr. Speaker. I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of so111e residents of M"ount Carson Place which is behind Topsail Road there by ASKA SALES. The pyayer of th~ petition is qul te short. We the undersigned resicJents of MoQJlt Carson Place, St.

John's North hereby request the DepaTtment of Highways to install ditches and upgrade and pave the road which is situated immediately in front of our property . Mr •. Speaker, this petition is occasioned by the fact that Mount C11rson Place is in a sort of no man's land between the City of St. John's and the. shall we say, the area that is under the control of the Province of Newfoundland. So often in North America the edges of the cities tend i:o he neglected until they are either incorporated into the c~ty which they border or become a IIIJJllicipal

May 2, 1975 Tape 1995 (Morning) PK - l area in their own right. and I believe this is probably the problem. I think that this matter could be settled other than by presenting a petition, but I take the position that if I am presented with a petition from my district I am obliged to present it to this House. And therefore I do so in complete confidence that this matter will be attended to in short order. So I beg that this petition be laid upon the table of the House and referred to the department to which it relates. MR, SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Bell Island. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, we have no hesitation at all on this side of the House, Sir, in supporting the petition so ably presented to the House by the Bon. Member for St. John's North on behalf of the residents of Mount Carson Place in the member's district of St. John's North. The member, Sir, in presenting the petition referred to this particular street as being no man's land. Well, Sir, I can think of no gentleman in the House more appropriate, more able to represent no man's land than the Hon, Member for St. John's North. AN BON. MEMBER: You will after the next election. MR.

NEARY: I hope, Sir, that - well after the next election it will not be no man's land. There will be somebody looking after it. The prayer of the petition, Sir, seems to be a very reasonable one. I do not think we should wait for a five year road paving prograDDDe or upgrading programme to have the ditches provided for these wonderful people who live out in that area.

And I trust, Sir, that the Minister of Highways will now stand in his place in his usual typical fashion and say he is very happy to receive this petition and then make a firm commitment, not platitudes, not be wishy-washy, say to the honourable member,his colleague, we are going to see that these ditches and the upgrading that is necessary there will be done this year. NOTICE OF MOTIONS MR, SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Justice. 5824

May 2, 1975 Tape 1995 (Morning) PK - 2 HON. T. A. HICKMAN (MINISTER OF JUSTICE): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The City Of St. John's Act." MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. HON. L. R. BAPJtY (MINISTER OF MINES AND ENERGY) : Mr. Speaker, I have a notice - AN HON. MEMBER: By leave. MR. BARRY: - by leave, if I might. MR.- SPEAKER: Agreed. J-1R. BARRY: You caught me napping. Mr.

Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I will ask leave to introduce a bill, "An Act To Impose Ta11:es On Income From Mining Operations Within The Province And On Income Obtained Or Derived From Persons Holding Rights To Mine." This is a legislative draughtman' s suggestion that it may be desirable to combine two of the bills that were presented, a notice of which was presented earlier. MR. ROBERTS: Is the minister asking for the original ones to be struck? MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be better to leave it as it is now rather than strike them at this time. AN HON.

MEMBER: Rather than have three separate bills? MR. BARRY: In case the draughtman changes his mind again. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SP.EAKER: The Hon. Member for Bonavista North. MR. P. S. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Would the minister inform this House if he or his department is considering giving an extension to the studded tires that people use? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Transportation and CoDD11unications. HON. J.

G, ROUSSEAU: (MINISTER OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS): I think it is a fait accompli now, unfortunately it is two days after the timetable but - 582~

May 2, 1975 Tape 1995 (Morning) PK - 3 MR. ROBERTS: Are you instructing the police not to prosecute? MR. ROUSSEAU: Well,they have been instructed. As a matter of, fact if I may suggest.the R.C.il.P. have been contacted, and they normally are, especially in Labrador and the other areas, and they have been requested which is not necessary, they have been requested to act with discretion. And where there is snow or a snowfall like this I have no doubt that discretion will be used.

And I just talked to the officials down in the department before I came up and we do not know of one person who has been prosecuted for the use of studded tires after the date. Now we are looking at this morning as - I was talking to one of the media and we are prepared to look at the balance between what it may do to the roads and the possibility of snow at this time of the _y year, maybe a week or two into May or so on and so forth, and we look at a balance of that for the future. But I think we can reply on the R.C.M.P. to use discretion now in respect to any - MR. ROBERTS: Inaudible. MR.

ROUSSEAU: - prosecutions done on that. So, you know, I have no doubt that they will use discretion on it. And in the meantime for future years since the date has already past April 30, we certainly will take a look at it. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Bell Island. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Premier would tell the House if he is now going to demand the resignation of the Minister of Justice because of the Premier's statements in Central Newfoundland that crime against people and property in that area is a big problem, and something needs to be done about it. MR. SPEAKER: MR. NEARY: question.

MR. SPEAKER: AN HON. MEMBER: Order, please! The question is out of order. The Hon. Premier I think wants to answer the The question is out of order. Inaudible. 5820

May 2, 1975 Tape 1995 (Morning) PK - 4 'MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier. HON. F. D. MOORES (PREMIER) : Mr. Speaker, only the Minister of Justice can answer that question. The question from the Member for Bell Island, the answer is I did not say that it was on the increase out there , I do not know if you said that or not. MR. NEARY: No I did not. MR . MOORES: It is a problem everywhere and that is why they have the police, and that is why the police are doing their jobs. Of course, you can say there is a problem.

But what he said the problem is being looked after and looked after to the best of people's ability. ~- NEARY: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier aware that his 'l•inister of Justice is taking an ostricb,head-in-the-sand attitude towards this whole matter. 11R. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. MOORES: Mr. Speaker, you know vandalism and delinquency is always going to be a problem. The Member for Bell Island is probably a good example of it. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Justice then care to indicate to the House in view of the Premier's statements in Central Newfoundland is repudiation of the minister.

Is the minister going to resign now as a result of this - non-confidence? MR. HICKMAN: Do you want me to do it right now or a little later on - MR. ROBERTS: Preferably now. AN HON. MEtIBER: Inaudible. MR . SPF.AKER: Order, please! MR. HICKMAN: Later on this morning would be better, I think. MR. ROBERTS: We have not got a House Leader now. ~- SPEAKER: That question is out of order. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier - MR, ROBERTS: So is the minister - ~tR. NEARY: - if the Premier could tell the House, Sir, now that Price Newfoundland Limited has definitely decided to truck its 5827

May 2, 1975 Tape 1995 (Morning) PK - 5 paper to Botwood,would the Premier care to tell the House whether the government will give a firm commitment, no strings attached, no holds barred, that the upkeep of the roads that will be used by these big trucks carrying the paper to Botwood will be financed either by Price - the upkeep will be financed either by Price Newfoundland Limited or by the provincial government and not be a burden to the residents of Botwood? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the Premier. MR. MOORES: Mr.

Speaker, naturally any highway improvements between Grand Falls and Botwood are not going to be the responsibility of the people of Botwood. The situation on it is that - I still by the way, and this is not just a personal opinion, I still feel very strongly that the railway, if it was at all possible, should be the method of transporting those materials. But if it is decided because of economics and because of absolute necessity that these trucks have to be used it will obviously require a by-pass road out of Grand Falls to take those heavy trucks off the town traffic and equally the same in Botwood.

This should not be the responsibility of either of those two communities. I do not ~hink it would be fair to ask them for it to be there responsibility. In the meantime the Minister of Foresty and Agriculture, the Minister of Transportation and Communications and the Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations are having .011going conferences both with Price Newfoundland Company and with the Town Councils of Grand Falls and Botwood. Equally we have been in touch with DREE to see what could be worked out on a tri-level government basis.

And until these negotiations are finalized there is no other further information we can give, Sir. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker - MR. ROBERTS: A supplement - MR. NEARY: Go ahead. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: If I night, Mr. Speaker, in view of the Premier's statement that he feels, and I think Ism quoting him accurately, Sir, - very strongly that these heavy paper rolls should be moved by rail and not by truck. MR. K>ORES: Inaudible. 5828

May 2, 1975 Tape 1995 (Morning) MR. ROBERTS: I appreciate that. Would the Premier give consideration to adopting a policy that would prevent Price from trucking it because these are provincial roads and nothing can go on a provincial road if it is banned by the minister or by this House. MR. SPFJu<ER: The Hon. the Premier. MR. MOORES: That is why we are in negotiations with Price right now, and the detail of what is being discussed at that time I think it is better to wait until they have been concluded, Mr. Speaker. MR.. SPEARER: The Hon. Member for Bell Island. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, just to get back to the Minister of PK - 6 Justice there for a moment, Sir, on vandalism. Has the minister instructed his officials to carry out an investigation yet into a stereo that was stolen out in front of this building the day before yesterday out of one of the policemen's cars who services this honourable House? AN HO~. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: Right under the minister's nose. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Hon. Minister of Justice. MR. HICKMAN: I want to keep this in proper perspective.

I have to apologize to the House because when I was doing duty out in front parading up and down watching these cars I did have to leave for about one minute, and it must have been during that minute that somebody took that stereo. And I am sure that the entire 225 nen in the Newfoundland Constabulary will have to be put to work on that item. MR. NEARY: Right under the minister's nose. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Bonavista North. AN HON. MEMBER: MR. HICKMAN: 5829 Inaudible. Inaudible.

May 2, 1975. Tape 1996 RH - 1 MR. P. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Could the minister inform this honourable House if his department will be replacing - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think Your Honour should discipline the House Leader, Sir, for this unwarranted and continuing interruption of the business of the House, Sir. Really! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! In the Chair's opinion there are a nwnber of members who need to be disciplined. MR. ROBERTS : Hear!

Hear! Name them. Give us all the same. MR. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Could the minister inform this honourable House if his department is planning on replacing a small bailey bridge between Pool's Island and Badger's Quay this coming season? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Transportation and Co111D1unications. MR. ROUSSEAU: I would have to take that under advisement. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Bonavista North. MR. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

Could the minister inform this House as to the location of the garden farming plots that his depart­ ment is setting up for the citizens of the city of St. John's? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. RON. R. COU.INS: Mr. Speaker, this great social programme of ours is just about to be tmveiled so that all the people will know what is happening. Maybe this afternoon, I am not sure of this afternoon but hopefully this afternoon I will be able to make a statement on it whereby we will be providing some plots to people living in the Avalon region.

What the sizes will be will be announced then. They will be larger than six by six. We are not, we could I suppose - I am 5830

May 2, 1975. Tape 1996 RH - 2 sure a lot of people in Newfoundland would be anxious and most encour­ aged if we did come up with some six by six plots. But there are other ways to bury this crowd over there and tre do not need to waste the taxpayers money for that. MR. NEARY: (First

part inaudible) - Gander the next time. MR. COLLINS: But we are going - We will see what happens in Gander. If the honourable member wants to come to Gander he can come out there. MR. NEARY: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: MR. COLLINS: I hear that Mr. Smallwood is coming back and I am sure that he would want to run in Gander because that is where things started for him. He has been - MR. BARRY: (First

part inaudible) They have sent him off to China for a couple of weeks. MR. COLLINS: At any rate, I will look after Gander. But the announcement will be made over the weekend for sure on the garden plots. MR. THOMS: Where? MR. COLLINS: Pardon? MR. THOMS: Where? MR. COLLINS: On the Avalon region and later on in the various urban areas of the Province. MR. THOMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the honourable member indicate to the House how many of these farming plots are to be available? MR. NEARY: Off the Avalon Peninsula. MR. THOMS: No, no. · }1R. NEARY: Off the Avalon Peninsula. MR. COLLINS: No, Mr.

Speaker, I cannot say offhand. MR. THOMS: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I can get any rise out of the minister. Could the minister inform this honourable House how much this total programme this year is going to cost the Government of Newfoundland? 5831

May 2, 1975. 't'ape 1996 RH - 3 MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the programme should not cost the tax- payers of the Province one cent because whatever funds we do expend in developing it we will get the funds back through rental of the plots. MR. NEARY: Through DREE. MR. THOMS: A supplementary. Could the minister inform this House what the rental of one of these plots will be, Mr, Speaker? MR. COLLINS: I am sorry? MR. NEARY: What is the rent? MR. THOMS: What is the rent for a plot? MR. COLLINS: I cannot say at this particular point, no. MR.

THOMS: You cannot say! Do not know very much about your depart- ment, do you? MR. COLLINS: I know more than the honourable member knows. MR. THOMS: Ten dollars a plot. MR, SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the acting present President of the Treasury Board, Sir, the Minister of Mines artd Energy can give us an update on the strike by the employees .of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation and will we be able to get a drop of stuff for the weekend? MR. EVANS: Can you believe it, Sir? They are getting as thirsty as we are. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Mines and Energy. MR.

BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I believe all the drug stores are open. So the honourable member can get to his aftershave quite easily this weekend like every other weekend, With respect to the strike of the liquor store employees there is nothing further to report. Nothing new has occurred to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, since yesterday. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Would the minister care to indicate whether his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations has entered the dispute to try to bring the 5832

May 2, 1975. Tape 1996 RH - 4 parties back to the bargaining table? MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, again we have an indication of how the honourable member believes the collective bargaining process - MR.NEARY: I do, very much. MR. BARRY: - should be carried on. MR. NEARY: But you have a stand-off position right now. MR. BARRY: }fr. Speaker, the honourable Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations - MR. NEARY: Is standing by, is he? MR. BARRY: - is standing by on constant alert twenty-four hours stand- by, Mr.

Speaker, to be at the call of either party in this dispute or any other dispute, provided - and standing by to be able to comply with any requests that fall within his authority. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything that I think the honourable member would be interested in. Mr. Speaker, ariother supplementary to the honourable minister. Would the honourable minister care to indicate whether negotiations are going on at the moment with any other groups? They have broken off now with the liQuor store employees?

Are negotiations going on with, for instance, with the civil service employees in the public s~rvice or any other groups? MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice and get the information for the honourable member. It is my understanding that there are. Now, whether they are active negotiations or details leading up to negotations, I would have to check with respect to each group to find out what the status is. I would not want to say it off the cuff. MR. NFARY: MR . ROBERTS: ?-1R. SPEAfCER: MR. ROBERTS: 5833 Mr. Speaker, - do you want the floor?

Okay, let me ask - The honourable the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, in the absense of the Minister of Manpower

May 2, 1975. Tape 1996 RH - 5 who is apparently standing somewhere, let me direct a questirn to the Presnier. Well, there is no ~.inister of Manpower in the House and the Premier either would know the answer or presumably could ,f-f,-pr!" ..,,.. f'I") f'l1p "'"'""'Q,.,,,. ,.,hn t.•nnlil. r,,-,.,ln t'hf> p,-,...,1 .... inrlfr,.t'P what action has been taken with respect to the application by the Newfoundland Teachers' Association for the appointment of a con­ ciliation board?

Now, that negotiations between the government school boards on one hand and the teachers on the other have broken down at the conciliation officer stage, what action has been taken with respect to that application? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Premier. PREMIER MOORES: I should take that as notice, Mr. Speaker. I '11111 not because I am pretty sure what will be done - and I cannot, this is not definitive - but I am fairly confident that the conciliat:ton board will be agreed to by the minister, as I understand it. "Leo" would you have any more on that or not? MR. BARRY: MR. NEARY: MR.

BARRY: nov - Not necessarily. It is not the proposal - It is not planned. - - - yes, Mr. Premier but it is being considered right ?REMIER MOORES: Yes, well, 1 will nave co give definitive position when the decision is made. MR. ROBERTS: A supplementary growing out of that. If the minister decides not to appoint a conciliation board,which is his right under the law, where then - MR. BARRY: There is no indication - MR. ROBERTS: No, I am not - there is no indication - there may be indications to the other way. Certainly the normal practice would be to appoint a board.

There are appointed what? - at least nine out of ten cases a board is appointed upon an application. If it is not done, what then is the position and I ask because any nmnber of parents 5834

May 2, 1975. Tape 1996 RR - 6 are worried about the potential of a possibility of a disruption of the teacher services. We are heading into the final exam period now, the final period of the school year. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Premier. PREMIER MOORES: It would be very wrong at this stage to forecast 'what the situation would be one way or the other, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very important that the conciliation board decision be made before we start making statements in this House that could be misconstrued,intentionally or otherwise,but that we get people unnecessarily upset one way or the other.

I would think certainly very soon that decision will be made. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member for Bonavista North. MR. THOMS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the honourable the Prenier. I wonder could the Premier announce to this House the road programme which he announced in Central Newfoundland a day or so ago. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Premier. PREMIER MOORES: Mr. Speaker, I did not know I announced any road programme in Central Newfoundland other than to say - AN HONOURABLE MEffl!ER: We got you!

PREMIER MOORES: - other than t~ say which we have said before that in the five year programme every main and trunk road ir the Province will be paved. MR. NEARY: That is our programme. What is yours? PREMIER MOORES: No, you cmne after that. You were a bit late. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! PREMIER MOORES: There is only one other point. The Member for Bell Island says that that is their programme. Well, the Opposition which they will be for the next five years really will not have much to do with their programme. Ours is that we will pave all the roads in the Province. MR. NEARY: Inaudible. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: Why did they not do it? Why did they not do it? 5835

May 2, 1975. Tape 1996 MR. THOMS: Mr. S~eaker, a supplementary. Do - _All HONOURABLE MEMllER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please: Order, please! MR. THOMS: Do 1 understand from the Premier that he did not make any announcement as far as construction and paving of roads in Central Newfoundland is concerned? RH - 7 PREMIER MOORES: 1 may have done it for the ones that were under tender or the ones that we hope to do, Mr.

Speake;. 1 certainly did not give a broad brush statement of all the roads that will be done this year, although I think if we had gotten to the estimates we were in a position to talk about that in some detail. MR. ROBERTS: It was your decision not to call this department's estimatf>s. PREMIER MOORES: No, it was the Opposition's decision - MR. THOMS: You could have told them. PREMIER MOORES: - the Opposition's decision to waste time so they did not get to it, Mr. Speaker. I -8ail let us get that in perspective.

But the fact is I am sure it will be in the not too distant future that people will be advised what roads can be expected over the next five years. 583 6

May 2, 1975 Tape No. 1997 NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Ment>er for Bell Island. ~-·--~EARY: Mr. Speaker, l!IUJ>plementary, would the honourable the Premier care to indicate to the House whether the government has adopted now a new policy for calling public tenders subject to approval by DREE and what happens if DREE do not approve these roads where tenders have been called? MR. MOORES: There is nothing new about that policy, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that DREE have not gotten the final approval for their highway programme which we have agreed between ourselves.

In order to delay time as the honourable member probably knows, he may not know, there is a very short construction season in Newfowtdland - .!!R.:..2!EARY: A very short time before the election too. ~ .:. SPE~ Order, please: MR. MOORES: The Memer for Bell Island has got a problem with elections. Mr. Speaker. He gets very worked UJ> when the subject comes UJ>• MR,._ NEARY: No I have not. The Premier has the problem, not me.

MR,._ MOORES: But the fact is, Sir, that the reason the tenders are being called early - now the election may not be until next year - but the reason the tenders are being called early is so that the people who are making the bids will be ready when the construction season is ready as opposed to other years calling tenders sometimes as late as June, July, by the time people get organized, the season is almost over and the projects for that year are not done. I think it is very important that tenders - MR. NEARY: Has DREE approved? MR._MQORES: No, I am being serious for a minute.

I think it is very important any year, in highways or any other construction projects that tenders be called as quickly as possible. Probably the Member for Bell Island knows that this year we even had tenders called before the estimates were approved .- .!!R-..:.. NEARY: That is contempt for the House. MR. MOORES: - quite a few, and the reason for that was to make sure that the work is done in the year that it is budgeted for and not the year after. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the Premier correctly in that DREE will be committed to this eXPenditure?

Has DREE approved of this method of calling public tenders before they put their signature on the agreement? 583'{

May 2, 1975 Tape No. 1997 NM - 2 MR, MOORES: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the DREE Committee, the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion have agreed but thev have to go through the formality, the red tape of Ottawa to get it actually cleared, but basically both parties have agreed. It is a matter of formalization by Treasury Board in Ottawa. MR, NEARY: The government have agreed. The Civil Servants have agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Justice.

Is the minister yet in a position to table the documents respecting the Government of Canada's participation in the water bombing incident he agreed to table in the House on Wednesday past? MR. HICKMAN: No. That is not so, I undertook, Mr.

Speaker, to consult with my colleague ··the, whomever my colleague might be, whomever the appropriate colleague is, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture or the Minister of Transportation and Communications, to ask them to check to see if it was appropriate and proper to table them and if they said yes I said I was sure that they would and I do not know if either of these honourable gentlemen are in a position to table anything today or not, MR. ROBERTS: That is not what the minister said. MR.. HICKMAN: Well, if it is not what I said it is what I should have said. SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible) MR.

SPEAKER: The honourable the Member for Hermitage. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker - MR. ROBERTS: If he would agree he would table - MR. SIMMONS: A question for the Acting Minister of Public Works, I wonder would he - MR. ROBERTS: There was a no agreement deal. MR. SIMMONS: I wonder would the Acting Minister of Public Works brief the House on what is happening now to the - SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible) MR. SPEAKER: Order, ' please! MR. SIMMONS: - on what is happening now to the proposals which were received a day or two ago for rental space? 583(j

May 2, 1975 Tape No. 1997 NM - 3 MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Public Works and Services. MR. ROUSSEAU: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be - AN HON. MEMBERl Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There seems to be a conversation going on between the honourable Minister of Mines and Energy snd the Leader of the Opposition, neither of which have the right to speak. MR. ROUSSEAU: Yes, Mr, Speaker, the proposals were received the day before yesterday at five o'clock.

The opening was attended by my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations and myself were there, the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing makes up a three man committee appointed by Cabinet, a sub­ committee to look at it.

The honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs wes not available so myself snd the Minister of Manpower, along with Jack Ralph, the Deputy Minister and Les Newhook, an Administrative Officer in the division, and as well four people that I have since, I said four companies originally but I think maybe two of them were from one company so three or four companies were represented at the opening and anybody else who wanted to come of course were welcome. The tenders were opened and they were countersigned by both the minister and myself in the presence of Mr. Ralph and Mr. Newhook and the people involved.

Yesterday morning we had a short meeting, the committee, myself and my two colleagues and just discussed the way we wanted to go with it and then we called up the officials, Mr. Ralph and Mr. Butler, the Assistant Deputy Minister and they are now doing an analysis of the proposals.

In other words we want to make sure that - there are a number of alternatives, you know,rental or buy it back in twenty years or build our own building or build on the Confederation lot~and they are going to look at each of these hopefully within four weeks , hopefully ~=d maybe sooner, they will have the analysis done, The same time the proposal of our own department we are expecting any day now from - we had to update some fi~ures from the Bureau of Management Consulting in Ottawa and of course we were not, the department was not involved in the five o'clock deadline, and when we ~et these figures of course we will have our own set of figures as to what it will cost us to build our o~m building here and that will then be brought to Cabinet and Cabinet will be guided I presume by whichever is best 5839

May 2, 1975 Tape No. 1997 NM - 4 is best to go and they will make the decision on the basis of the information that will be supplied by the department. So it is out of government's hands now and in departmental hands and the analysis is proceeding. So I would anticipate, I am saying four weeks 1 I do not know, but that is what they suggested to me, three to four weeks. MR. SIMMONS: Mr.

Speaker, first of all in relation to what the minister said last about the possibility of the government building its own facility, I would assume the minister means that it would prepare a set of sp•cifications and call a separate public tender, this is what the minister was saying, •re the figures now available to the public or is the minister prepared to table the proposal documents from the six firms which have submitted proposals? MR. ROUSSEAU: The figures are not - they are down in the department I guess. Yes, we are prepared to - MR. MOORES: No. MR. ROUSSEAU: One second now, we are prepared to - SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Inaudible. MR. ROUSSEAU: - not at this point in time. MR. NEARY: Almost got you that time. MR. ROUSSEAU: One second now, we are prepared - MR. MJORES: We are prepared to table the whole works. MR. ROUSSEAU: We are prep&11ed the table the whole works but not until the figures are diagnosed. The only thing we are concerned about,and I hope that honourable members understand,that there are a number of variables. You know somebody may quote a price for rent. Somebody may quote a price for by back in twenty Jears. Somebody may not do it.

So the figures may not be accurate and these figures stick in everybody's mind, that would be unfair. Until you know the situation and after the analysis is done on the floor of the House, most definitely every one of them will be there you know - MR. SIMMONS: Why do you not ~ake it public now? MR. ROUSSEAU: You know1I am not saying we are not going to make it public, 5840

May 2, 1975 Tape No. 1997 NM - 5 Undoubtedly they are floating around amongst people but until the analysis is done, and that is fair I think, and the people get a chance to look at them and compare and find out, then we will. But we have nothing to hide and I you know - MR. ROBERTS: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: A supplementary for the minister; is the minister in a position yet to indicate what route may be followed?

I am not suggesting that he can decide how or determine which proposal would be accepted but is he prepared or is he in a position to indicate what route might be followed in terms of the government putting out a contract to provide space, constructed office space or to have to deal with one of these six companies in terms of one of the alternate proposals they have submitted? MR. ROUSSEAU: I do not see why not because that is the whole exercise, you know, to look at the six proposals then and look at the cost factors in building or letting out a tender to build our own building and whatever.

You know,that is the whole concept of what we are trying to do. So,•o,I do not know because that would be predetermining what the analysis is going to tell us and we do not know at this point in time. We will go whichever way is in government's opiaion the best way to go. MR. SIMMONS: Two other supplementarj.es for the Minister, I understand the amount was 400,000 square feet, 400,000. MR. ROUSSEAU: 1980. MR. SIMMONS: 100,000 by the end of 1976, and 300,000 by the end of Yes.

Would the minister first of all indicate whether in government's view these amounts of space provided for in the proposals will be adequate to meet the space requirements and will it mean that government services presently located in other buildings will then be loaated in one of two structures, the one we find ourselves in, and the one which would be provided for in the prop•sal? That is my first question. Secondly, can the minister indicate, has he any idea at this point in time, when this office space will be available for occupancy? 5841

May 2, 1975 Tape No, 1997 NM - 6 MR. ROUSSEAU: Well the two questions, The first one is in the DIR.in yes; you know,on the figures we have from the Bureau of Management Consulting which is a federal consulting firm who did some work for us and on the basis of the information we have from our officials, yes we will need that much by the end of the decade. So in the main yes we may heed a little less or a little more but generally speaking the concensus is 400,000 feet, centralized. MR. SIM!llNS: Will it obviate the need to use other ~uildings such as the Viking Building and the - MR. ROUSSEAU: Oh yes. Yes.

MR, SIMMONS: Yes. MR, MOORES: The idea is to try to get them - MR. ROUSSEAU: Try to get them all under one roof as we said, that is the name of the game. And the second question, I am sorry. MR. SIMMONS': Well, Mr. Speaker, if I might repeat the second question, it relates to - MR. ROUSSEAU: The date, excuse me, the date. MR. SIMMONS: Yes. When,in broad terms? MR, BOUSSEAU: Right. The term is this that the proposals called for a building occupany by December 31 or January 31, 1977 or December 31, 1976, that was the date.

So the first 100,000 feet must be available by December 31, 1976, that is part of the proposal or tender call. The others must 5842

May 2, 1975 Tape no. 1998 Page 1 - mw be ready by December 31, 1979 or January 1, 1980 whiebever. So these dates are part of the specifications of the proposal call. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Min.ister of Transportation and Co11D11Unications on a different aspect of his responsibilities. Earlier in the week he told the House that by Friday he would be in a position to say whether further road paving would be done on the Western side of Fortune Bay, the area from which has emanated the first demand for the minister's resignation. Today is Friday.

Is the minister in a position to tell us what is to be done particularly in Wreck Cove and Boxey. MR. ROUSSEAU: I am sorry, I am still not. Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to get together with the officials. If the House closes today, I might get a half an hour.- MR. ROBERTS: Well, I do not know if the House is going to close today or not. The honourable gentleman will have to ask his colleague the House Leader who seems unable to figure out just how they will get it closed. I have a question for the House Leader, Sir. MR. HICKMAN: It is no trouble to get the Rouse closed. MR.

ROBERTS : Well fine, let us close her then. I IIIOVe we close. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROBER.TS: I have a question for the House Leader, Sir. Could the House Leader indicate whether the new Day Care Act will be brought before the House at this session?'· His colleague the Minister of Social Services is off to Ottawa or some such place. Could the minister indicate whether it will be brought before the House this session? MR. HICKMAN: I do not know. MR. ROBER.TS: The minister says he does not know, and I accept that. Would he indicate to find out and perhaps let us know?

There is considerable interest in it among a number of groups of people involved. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Bell Island. MR. NEARY: A question to the Premier. Would the Premier tell the House whether or not he has made a commitment to any of the Tory members of

May 2, 1975 Tape no. 1998 Page 2 - mw ~arliament to double or triple the salaries of backbenchers in this House or ainisters in this House in order to lure the Member of Parliament for St. John's West back to be a candidate in the next provincial election in Newfoundland? MR.. SPEAKER: Order, please! That question is out of order. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, would the Premier care, Sir, to tell the House due to his interest in cable television, if the Province will be making a submission, Sir, in September to the Canadian Television and Radio CoDDDisaion to set up cable television in St.

John I s and in Newfoundland? Will the Province be making a submission? MR. MOORES: I have no idea if we are going to make a submission to the group hearing it, Mr. Speaker, but we already have made representation to C.R.T.C. supporting the concept of cable television in the Province. And I might say at this t:lllle that at no time during that submission did we ever mention any one firm rather than any other, whether it would be Chain Rock or the others that are on the go.

We have not taken any sides but I think if it can be done and done reasonably and in the very near future, I think it would be a good thing for our people particularly if some of the stipulation& such as educational channels and this sort of thing are insisted upon by the C.R.T.C. I think basically it would be a good thing. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Hon. Premier. Would the Hon.

Premier care to tell the House if the administration is considering giving the jurisdiction and the responsibility and the legal right to municipalities in Newfoundland to operate the cable television set up in the Province as is done in some of the other'provinces? MR. MOORES: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly something I will take notice of. MR. SPEAKER: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Hermitage on a supplementary and then the time alloted for the question period will have been up. 5844

May 2, 1975 Tape no, 1998 Page 3 - lllil MR. SIMMONS: A supplementary to the Premier. Did I understand him to say that in the government's representations to the Radio and Television Commission that he did not make a reference to any particular application? MR. MOORES: That is right. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, in that event, I rise on a matter affecting the privileges of the House. The Premier has lied to the House. I have before me - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: I have before me, Mr. Speak.er - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: I intend to set forth - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMONS: I rise on a matter of personal privilege of the House, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair recognized the Hon. Member for Hermitage on a point of privilege but in making the point of privilege it is certainly unparliamentary to accuse the Hon. Premier or any other Minister of the Crown of lying. It is certainly unparliamentary, and I would ask him to withdraw it. MR. SIMMONS: It was not my intention. I think it was obvious I was looking for the right word, He said something which according to the record which I have in front of me is not correct. Call it what you will, Mr, Speaker.

I have before me a letter which the Premier wrote to Mr. Pierre Juneau, Chairman of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission. MR. MOORES: What date is it? MR. SIMMONS: I have difficulty determining the date because it is included in a press release from Newfoundland Information Services which reads as follows: The following letter was sent today. Yes, well a1>1>arently the date of the letter would be also November 8, 1974. The letter is addressed to Mr. Juneau, and I shall not read all of the letter 584:::i

May 2, 1975 Tape no. 1998 Page 4 - im, but part of the letter to Mr. Juneau, the third paragraph reada: At that time the only complete application before the co-ission was in the name of Arthur Harnett on behalf of a company to be incorporated - MR. MOORES: Read it all. MR. SIMMONS: In your reply of - well I do not propose to read all of it, no. MR. MOORES: (Inaudible). MR. SIMMONS: I think, Mr. Speaker. I have already established if we go back to the record of the House, Mr. Speaker. the connotation which took place a f-ew minutes ago, I ~sked the - MR. MOORES: I made no representations. MR.

SIMMONS: - I asked the Premier - MR. MOORES: (Inaudible) take an application (Inaudible). MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker - MR. SPEAKER.: Order , pleaae ! MR.. MOORES: (Inaudible). MR. SIMMONS: Kr. Speaker 1 I will lay out the case aa I see fit. If the Premier does not like it he can - SOME HOH. MEMBERS: (Inaudible) • MR. SPEAICER: Mil. S JKMONS : Order, please! Ho • Mr. Speaker • MR. HICKMAN: K~. Speaker, on a '!IOint of order• on a point of order. MR. SJKMONS : Mil. SPEAKER: MR. HICKMAN: MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: point of order. Mr • Speaker, I - Order, please! On a point of order.

I am standing on a matter of privilege now, Order, please! A point of privilege takes precedence over a Privilege of the Bouse, privilege of the House takes precedence over a point of order. 5P. 4··> ,1 b

May 2, 1975 Tape no. 1998 Page 5 MR. ROBERTS : The Premier makes one statement to the House and it is not a correct statement and that is a privilege of the House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Itlaudible) • AN HON. MEMBER: Give him a chance to establish it. MR. NEARY: Give the member a bhance to make his case. MR. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the essential point has been established. I asked the Premier a few minutes ago if he had made any reference I asked for a clarification before rising on the point of privilege.

My question of clarification was,in essence, did he say a minute before, did he indicate to the House that he had not made reference to any particular application? MR. MOORES: MR. SIMMONS : prepared - Applications. No, Mr. Speaker. If you check the records I am SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible). MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. SIMMONS: If there is some doubt, Mr, Speaker - we have obviously hit a touchy point - if there is some doubt, let us aecess the House and find out.

I said, and I am sure I said, because I chose my words well on that one, I said, did the Premier indicate whether he had made any reference to any particular application? His answer was no. And I say he did, I submit that he has misled the House. I have with me a document I am prepared to table which proves the Premier has misled the House on this particular matter. I suggest that he asked to apologize to the House for doing so. MR. SEEAKER: Order, please! The Chair is certainly willing to recess for a few minutes and listen to exactly what was said and indeed get a transcript of it.

On first hand it appears to the Chair that there might be a difference of opinion as to certain facts that were related. But fhe Chair will recess and hear the tapes to see exactly what was said. 584'{

May 2, 1975 Tape No. 1999 NM - 1 MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair has listened to the tapes. It is willing to hear the honourable Member for Hermitage very briefly state exactly what his point of privilege is and then probably take the matter under advisement and rule on it later. MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the exchange which took place between my colleague from Bell Island and the Premier. I think I heard the Premier indicate that he had not made any specific reference to any particular application in his communication to the Canadian Radio and Television Commission. I was not quite sure.

I thought I heard that 1 so I asked for clarification.,And the question I put to the Premier, I have not seen the transcripts~but in essence, as I recall,the question was, did I understand the Premier correctly in that he indicated he had made no reference to any particular application. His answer, as I recall it, was that he said he had not made any reference to a particular application. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not just a question of whether the Premier did or did not make reference.

If we put this in context, this statement that we have here was made at a time in November 1974 when there was a considerable public controversy over a particular application,and this letter was written within a day or so of that controversy. I think the record will show that. I submit that he did make representation, but that is not my point of privilege here now, as it affects the - MR. MOORES: (Inaudible) reference. MR. SIMMONS: Well, I submit he also made representation but that is not my point in this particular point of privilege right now.

My point here is that he has misled the House because I asked him if he had made any reference, his reply was he had not. I say he did make reference. I have a copy of the letter which he sent on November 8. I have quoted already from the appropriate part of it, and I quote as follows, third paragraph: "At that time, the only complete application before the Conmission was in the name of Arthur Harnett on behalf of a company 5848

May 2, 1975 Tape No. 1999 NM - 2 to be incorporated.'.' The rest is not pertinent although I am quite prepared to read it,of course. I am also prepared to table this item if that is what is required. The point of privilege affecting, or the point affecting the privilege of the House is that the Premier has misled the House. I feel he ought to be required to be directed by the Chair to withdraw and I make the following motion; that the Premier be directed to withdraw the offending words, to apologize to the House for his inadvertently incorrect statement. MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair is willing to hear the honourable the Premier and nobody else,and then take the matter under advisement. MR. MOORES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, The fact is that I was sure that the member had mentioned the word representation on behalf of a company, I thought was what his 1.nnuendo or what he was saying was. He says now it was reference. Well, Mr.

Speaker, when one is talking about cable television in the Province, which has been ongoing for some two years, the word reference, if that was the word used, I certainly do apologize because there was a reference to an application for cable television, •but only in this context, Mr. Speaker. The reference was made because at the time the CRTC had been on the go for over a year, asking for applications for cable television in this Province. I had heard back from Mr.

Juneau himself by telephone to the effect that he did not expect any applications for Newfoundland because it was a very difficult place and a very expensive place to have cable television. Now,they then went and made an announcement, in November of last year I think the date was, outlining that they would be receiving applications. In the letter that the honourable Member for Hermitage mentions, he is absolutely incorrect, Mr.

Speaker, in that I drew to the Commission's attention that there was an application on file, but I also said in that letter, which was conveniently forgotten in this case, my reference was to yes,there was an application on file, But what I said in that letter is my government making representation to the Commission for early introduction of cable television in 584Y

May 2, 1975 Tape No. 1999 NM - 3 Newfoundland is only concerned with one thing, that the people of this Province not be deprived of service which is accepted right across Canada. Now, as to who gets that cable television, we could not care less, Mr. Speaker, as far as this government is concerned. What we do care about is that we would like to see it here.

Now if it is making reference to an application that was on record, the member is quite right, and if that was the word used I certainly do apologize to the House, but if it was representation on behalf of that company I would certainly not withdraw, Sir, because at no time have we ever made representation to the C.R.T.C. asking them to give a licence to any particular company, nor would we. AN HON. MEMBER: To that point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! . Order, please!

The Chair has said that it would hear the honourable Premier and no other member and then take the matter under advisement. ORDERS OF THE DAY: On motion of the Honourable Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations• a bill, "An Act Respecting Labour Relations," read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow. On motion a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Direction Of Intergovernmental Affairs In The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. MR. HICKMAN: Orders 5 to 25. MR. SPEAKER: 5 to 25. MR.

ROBERTS: Your Honour, I would be quite willing if Your Honour wishes and I think it is procedurally in order to sort of give them en masse, Sir, with one ·exception, bill no. 20, order no. 11, I would like to say a few words on it, Sir, I was not in the House for the second reading debate, indeed I had understood it would not be coming up but it is there, that is fair enough. The others, as far as I know, I am quite willing for our side to give sort of an en masse third reading. The bills have been debated 5850

~---... ·----- ---· May 2, 1975 Tape No. 1999 NM - 4 by tb.e HOU$e at se.cond reading and eo-ittee stage, but l would like to have a word on bill ~- 20. MR •. SPEAKElt: It was the Chai.r's intention to call them i.ndividu;illy. I was just tryi.ng to get clarificatioa of no. 5 to .25. MR. ROBBR'l:S: Deal with ~ch one iildividu:ally, you know. Whatever Your Honour says. MR. SPEAKER: I wi.11 call each one iudividully. Some honourable me111bers 1Da:y want to say s01Dething. On lDOtie>n a bill, ~•An Act Further To Amend The Judicature Act," read a third t:ba.e, ordered pasi;ied and_ t;itle ~e as on the Order Paper. 585i

May 2, 1975 Tape 2000 (morning) IB-1 On motion a bill, "An Act Respecting Adult Corrections," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper, On motion a bill, "An Act To Amend The Medical Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Companies Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title. be as on the Order Paper. On mot:f.on a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Insurance Companies Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion a bill, "An Act Respecting Public Libraries And Boards To Operate Them," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Memerial University (Pensions) Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. On motion a bill, "An Act Futher To Amend The Education (Teacher Training) Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title be •son the Order Paper. On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Schools Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Hi.ghway Traffic Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. On motion a bill, "An Act To Amend The Department Of Public Works And Services Act, 1973," read a third time, ordered passed and title he as on the Order Paper. On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Welfare Of Children Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Agreement Ratified, Confirmed And Adopted By And Set Forth In The

Schedule To The Leitch Gold Mines Limited (Agreement) Act, 1964, And To Make Certain Statutory Provisions Relating To That Agreement," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. on motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Department Of Finance Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend "."he

Summary Jurisdiction

May 2, 1975 Tape 2000 (morning) IB-2 Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. On motion a bill, "An Act To Adopt An Anthem For The Province of Newfoundland," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Public Service (Pensions) Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Civil Service Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion a bill, "An Act Further To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. On motion a bill, "An Act To Amend Certain Statutes Of The Province," read a third time, ordered passed and title be as on the Order Paper. MR. SPEAKER : I said we were going to do bill no. 20, order 11. The honourable member - MR. ROBERTS: I am not sure if - we seldom have a third reading debate. I assume the Minister of Justice introduced the bill. Does the minister wish to say anything at this stage? MR. RICKMAN: No, no, no. I did not introduce the bill.

It was the Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Speaker. I would not anticipate - MR. ROBERTS: Is the Minister of Mines and Energy within range? MR. HICKMAN: He is within range but - MR. ROBERTS: Perhaps the gentleman from Trinity North would be kind enough to get him. Mr. Speaker, I had understood that the bill would not be called yesterday but it was called. I was not here yesterday afternoon in the Rouse so I did not hear the minister's explanation of the bill.

For the minister's benefit we are on bill no. 20 which is the act which will allow the assignment of certain rights in respect of the Upper Churchill to the Hydro Corporation Now, I do not know if there is anything the minister wishes to say by means of beginning a third reading debate. AN HONOURABLE ME}IBER: Is there debate on third reading? MR. ROBERTS: MR. SPEAKER: There certainly is a debate on third reading, Sir. Pebate is permissible. It is just that it is unusual. I do not think that we have had one recently. 585;5

May 2, 1975 Tape 2000 (morning) IB-3 _MR. ROBERTS: See I was told the bill would not come up yesterday. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: By whom? MR. ROBERTS: By the honourable the Minister of Justice. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: No, no. MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Sir. But I am not complaining. I mean, I have an opportunity to lebate it here now and what I will - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: O~der, please! MR. ROBERTS: But, does the minister - I did not hear the minister's introduction. I do not know whether it was a long introduction or a short one. I just want what the minister said. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. MR.

ROBERTS: If the honourable gentleman wishes - MR. BARRY: If the honourable member would yield. Mr.

Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday the purpose of this bill is to, in recognition of the fact that Newfoundland Hydro, the new corporation is assuming the portion of the debt relating to the Upper Churchill project that was made with the Bank of Nova Scotia at the time of the purchase from BRINCO, in recognition of the fact that Newfoundland Hydro is taking over this debt and also of course will have the Upper Churchill assets through CFl.Co contained in the new corporation, in recognition of this assumption of the debt. the purpose of this bill is to permit the royalties that will be generated and rentals by the Upper Churchill project to be paid to Newfoundland Hydro rather than going into tbe consolidated revenue fund as they are now required to do by the Financial Administration Act.

So, it is as far as I can see fairly straightforward. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that at the appropriate moment I shall move the six month hoist on this bill.

This might he an appropriate time to ask if we when the moment comes - I have not made the motion yet - if we could have a ruling on whether that hoist is debatable and I would say to Your Honour that if Your Honour wishes, if there is any question on the matter - I contend it is debatable - but if there is any question of it, I would ask Your Honour to allow debate to be - yes, it is with reference to the ruling made by the gentleman from 5854

'fay 2, 1975 Tape 2000 (1110ming) IB-4 Port au Port when he 'Ii/as in the Chair. I have done considerable research on the precedents. I think You.r Honour is aware of some of the precedents which I have found. If Your Honour wishes .to rule now that a s.:lx month hoist is a debatable motion, then well and ·good. But,. if not, perhaps Your Honour might wish to hear some debate, I am sorry, some argument to help Your Honour to come to a ruling on it. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition may continue to the point when he makes his motion for the six mon,th hoist. 585 ~

May 2, 1975 Tape 2001 (morning) IB-1 MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ( "Herb" in on my desk on the right hand side there is a letter from Stanley Knowles. Will you try to find it or aak Mra. Badcock for it.) Well, Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill has been outlined you know, succinctly and fully py the minister. I do think though there are one or two comments which are relevant and very relevant to the bill which may or may not have been made at second reading. But if they were made et second reeding they will be none the less useful for having been made here.

Now, Sir, as the minister indicated, the affect of this bill would be to allow the government to assign to the Hydro Corporation, the crown corporation which was set up by legislation we adopted earlier in this session, certain royalties and rentals set forth in what I shall call the lease. In the legislation it is defined, in the applicable legislation it is defined as the principle lease, but in any event the lease which has been entered into between the government of the Province on one hand and CFLCo on the other hand. That is the lease under which the development of the Upper Churchill River took place.

Now, Sir, the minister's explanation was accurate and it was full, but I submit, it was a little ingenuous. I think the matter should at least be revealed for what it is. At this stage, Sir, I am not necessarily objecting to what the bill will achieve. What I do want is to make sure that the people of this Province realize what is happening because I do not think they do realize. While the minister's explanation is accurate, it is certainly not complete. Now, Sir, the position is this. It was full insofar as it went but it was not complete. There is a difference between full and COIIIJllete.

A grass can be full, Mr. Speaker, but that does not - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Right. MR. ROBERTS: There is a very important difference between full and complete. Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland or the people of this Province got out of the Upper Churchill Development many things. They might not have gotten as much as some people would like, certainly not 585ti

f>fay 2, 1975 Tape 2001 (morning) IB-2 as much aa the wisdom of hindsight 1and how easy it is to be wise after the fact. But, Sir, we did get a certain number of benefits and these were specified - the ones I am speaking about here nOII' - in the lease. These were basically a royalty of fifty cents per horsepower year. In other words, for each horsepower generated for one year. I think a horsepower year was defined as 63,055 kilowatt hours. But, I am speaking from memory and the fact can be checked. The important one is, there was a horsepower royalty. It was fifty cents per hosse­ power per year. That is the royalty referred to in clause 1, of

part 2 of the lease, the one referred to in

section 2 (

a) of the act before us now or the bill before us now. That would amount in a normal year to about $4 million a year coming into the treasury of the Province. I am not sure just how many horse­ power there are or how the calculation has been worked out but it is of the order of $4 million a year which we, the government of Newfoundland, would be getting in perpetuity from the Upper Churchill Development. It has got no relationship to taxes or to profits or to anything else. It was a straight fifty cents per horsepower per year. It was a royalty, a royalty for the use of our river.

But, that was not the only price which was extracted by those who made the lease. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, the lease was governed by a statute, by statutory conditions which were passed about 1952 or 1953, long before anybody in this House was involved in public life. I think the principle act was passed about 1952 or 1953. I do not have the principle act here, Sir, but that act was the one that set forth the conditions of the lease insofar at least as they affect us here now. We got the fifty cents a horsepower. We also were - MR. NEARY: They called it Bunko. t-lR. ROBERTS: Yes.

The Tories called it Bunko at the time. (Yes, that is it. Thanks). It is a little time bomb for the Chair. The other price which RRINCO were required to pay - 6f course BRINCO in rlue course assigned their rights to CFLCo and who are now the corporation. In due course the government acquired Brtnco's shareholding in CFLCo and we now hold about two-thirds of the shares. The other price, Sir, was a 585"/

May 2, 1975 Tape 2001 (w,rning) IR-3 rental of eight per cent of the profits as defined. Now, the profits as defined, Sir, were a work of the accountant 1 s art. The definition would fill the better part of a page in the statuate books. It is a work of art. I have no doubt that many great minds tangled with it and many great minds helped to shape the definition of profits. It is there in the statutes for anybody who wishes to look it up. I do not pretend to be able to reproduce it accurately.

But, as I recall it, essentially it was eight per cent of the gross profits before taxes, before depreciation, but after interest had been paid. In other words, Sir, each year CFLCo,who because the entity under this lease,would tote up their income, their income mainly, almost entirely I would think from the sale of power. Once they had got their income they would write off their expenses and their expenses would include for these purpoaes only the interest they had paid on their borrowed money which would be several hundred million dollars I would think in a - well, no.

Well, more than that, probably $100 million a year going out from CFLCo in interest on their debt. They would also have the wages being paid to thiir employees, the men and the women working at CFLCo in Churchill or at Montreal, wherever they were. Then any other expenses. They had to buy a few pounds of baling twine or they had to put some gas in one of their cars, that would be considered. But, essentially those were the expenses. They did not include any payment to shareholders. They did not include the depreciation. Now, that is what I understand.

The minister is probably more familar with it than I IIDI, but I think that is the basic way in which the profits for these purposes was computed. _MR. BARRY: It was Finance's responsibility more than Mines and Energy. MR. ROBERTS: Well, I can appreciate that. I am subject to correction, but, it has been two or three years since I looked at it. I looked at it with some care at the time because we modelled the Shaheen clause on the Shaheen royalty on the present refinery on the BRINCO clause. The numbers are different.

They are five per cent instead of eight but we did model it on the same concept of income less expenses less interest without depreciation, without any payments to shareholders 585H

May 2, 1975 Tape 2001 (morning) IB-4 or management or, you know, anything else,management fees in the Shaheen case. Now, .Sir, that is a considerable sum of money, I do not know how much it is. I do not think the House has ever been given the information certainly in the last two or three years. Mr. Smallwood a number of times made public some estimates which had been provided to him by BRINCO and checked by the Finance Department.

I confess I do not recall what they were but they were many millions of dollars a year coming out of eight per cent of the gross profits of BRINCO and then add on the $4 million a year in round figures in horsepower royalty. That was what the Province was to get, Sir. In addition - this is sort of what we get as landlords, as the people who own the river, the people who leased the right to develop that river and the right to take the pDWer developed and to sell it to a customer - iD addition of course we were to get the tax revenue. BRINCO in those days,or CFLCo at that stage of course,was a private corporation.

The Government of Quebec owned one-third of the shares which they got by a form of subterfuge when they nationalized the Shawinigan Power - I think it was called -- Shawinigan Power Company Limited, whatever it was called,the Shawinigan Falls or the Shawinigan Power Company back in the early 1960's after the mattre chez nous election of 1962. So, BRINCO heing a private company, CFLCo being a private company, of course, they were liable to taxes. We were to get -the Government of Canada would collect the normal corporation tax.

They would rebate fifty per cent of that corporation tax to the Province of Newfoundland as they do with all corporation taxes generated by all utilities across Canada, the very few that are left now, the Calgary Power, the Newfoundland Light and Power. I think Nova Scotia Light and Power has been taken over. I think Prince Edward Island still has private power.

Rut, in those few provinces, Your Honour, where there is still a private utility, the practice, the law •nd this has been so for many years now, is that fifty per cent of the corp~ration tax which Ottawa callects, and Ottawa's corporation tax as Your Honour knows, is in round numbers, it. varies from province to province, fifty per cent of the income of that company, fifty per cent of fifty per cent would be sent forward to the Province. In other words, we would 5859

May 2, 1975 Tape 2002 (Morning) then get twenty-five per cent of CFLCo's taxable income, and we would get that on top of our fifty cent a horsepower year rental, and we would get as well eight per cent of the gross profit as I have explained it. That would be, if you wish, landlord take from the Upper Churchill project. Now, Sir, I have not belaboured the point but I have gone into it in some length, because I think it is an important point. We would have gotten all of that whether or not the government owned CFLCo.

The government's decision to take $160 millions of our money and to buy the shares, a two-third share interest held PK - 1 by BRINCO from BRINCO and to buy it for the people of Newfoundland, in the name of Crown, did not change that fact. It may have changed the tax fact, because of course BRINCO when all of the shares were held either by the Crown in right of Newfoundland or the Crown in right of Quebec, Quebec Hydro, BRINCO then became a Crown Corporation. It was not subject as of that point to any further income tax.

Crown Corporations do not pay income tax under the federal income tax law, and our income tax law is the same. So,you know, that money no longer would come to us by way of taxes from Ottawa~ but it would of course accrue to us in the form of increased profits and we would be entitled to two-thirds of those. Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should touch on one other thing because it is relevant.

Back in 1965 the Government of Canada agreed that instead of giving the Province, this Province or any other province, fifty per cent of the Corporation tax collected, they would give the Province of the order of ninety-four per cent of the Corporation tax collected from utilities, the remaining amount between the ninety-four point something and the one hundred per cent was the amount of the Corporation tax that went to the Old Age Security Fund, a portion of all Corporation taxes is designated fer that fund which is sort of a trust fund in the National Accounts of Canada - and I was going to say the, you know, one or two per cent that the Finance Department in Ottawa regarded as an assessed, as an administration charge for the work to which they had gone in collecting the money and, vou know, getting a cheque in from CFLCo 5860

May 2, 1975 Tape 2002 (Morning) PK - 2 or BRINCO, CFLCo I guess, and then sending the cheque on or a cheque on to the GoveTI!lllent of Newfoundland. The Government of Newfoundland under legislation which was supported unanimously in this House agreed to take that extra amouat which was, from memory, forty-seven point five per cent, but I am subject to be corrected,but whatever the extra amount was and turn it back to CFLCo. And that was done.

And we understood at the time, and I have not heard anything to the contrary since, I may add, that that was the extra amount of money which made the project commerically feasible and,I suppose, commerically attracted . In any event that was done. Now, Sir, when the government bought the two-third interest in CFLCo we lost the right to get taxes, There just were to be no taxes to be paid so obviously we we not get any. That cost us some money, because, Sir, Your Honour could say or one of the ministers could say look if there are no taxes that is all the more profits .

But, Sir, we are entitled to only two-thirds of the profits because we hold only two-thirds of the shares. Quebec Hydro holds almost precisely a third of the shares. Again the precise . figures I do not have, but they do not really 111&tter, they hold about one third of the shares which they have acquired by expropriation and by purchase. MR. BARRY: Not finalized yet, by the way, that Crown Corporation status. MR. ROBERTS: All right. Well then, you know, I will deal with it - I had not realized that, but I shall deal with that point. MR. BARRY: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Yes. MR.

BARRY: Crown Corporation that is okay. MR. ROBERTS: Well it is - MR. BARRY: ... two provinces, it is a sort of a - MR. ROBERTS: It is a very neat point. It has never risen before. MR. BARRY: But there does not appear to be any problem in getting - and it may be virtually settled by now. 5861

May 2, 1975 Tape 2002 (Morning) PK - 3 MR. ROBERTS: I thank the minister. And Hansard would not get it all. Let me just repeat it for Hansard. What he said is simply that the status of CFLCo as a Crown Corporation is still not settled. It looks like it is being resolved. Because, of course, the very neat point is that the Income Tax Act says a Crown Corporation is a corporation - ninety per cent of the shares of which are held by the Crown in the right of a province - or words to that - that is almost an exact quotation of the applicable

section of the act. Here we have a eorporation ninety per cent or more of the shares of which are held by the Crown in right of two province. Well it is a good point. I am not aware of any Crown Corporation that has ever been in that position before, normally they are owned either by Ottawa or by the government of just one province. But in any event it would be unthinkable of Ottawa not to regard it as a Crown Corporation. Actually it would be to our advantage if Ottawa did not regard it as a Crown Corporation - well, you know, we can have a long debate on the equalization formula - MR.

BARRY: First of all you have also got to keep in mind that there are indications that any benefits flowing from the change of statue will flow through to the Province completely. In other words - MR. ROBERTS : that - MR. BARRY: Well, you know, perhaps the minister could explain Quebec may be interested in - MR. ROBERTS: Quebec may waive their rights, but if so that is

an act of charity on the~r part or

an act of genereaity. And my usual response to acts of charity by governments is, you know, beware of Greeks bearing gifts, because what they lose on the zigs they will make up on the zags. But in any event the point that I am making with respect to this Bill, Sir, reAlly is not terrribly involved with the income tax thing. I merely wanted to put that on the record so that the House would be aware of the income tax complications. We do not get the tax any more, because there is no tax assuming it is a Crown Corporation. 5862

May 2, 1975 Tape 2002 (Morning) PK- 4 We do get two-thirds of the profits, and if the ':tax goes back in the Province we get two-thirds of what would have been paid in tax. We may get it all if Quebec:, if the other shareholders say we waive our right to it. That is what the minister is saying,that in effect Quebec hopefully will waive it. They will say,all right boys,we would not have gotten it any way, so we are not going to insist on it now. 'Well and good. Well and good.

But the point I am making, Sir, is with respect to the matters in this bill which were the other two sums of money which the Province of Newfoundland got each year from the Upper Churchill.

Now, Sir, I do not say the government have misrepresented the position on this, but I will say that when this bill came into the House was the first indication that any of us had, and the minister's explanation a moment or so ago confirmed it, that the government intended to use the money from the Upper Churchill, not the profits, not the profits earned by that company but the money from the Upper Churchill that accrued to the Province to pay off in part the loan which the government raised from the Bank of Nova Scotia as it happened, .although it will be put on a longer term basis I would hope than a bank note, to pay it off.

In other words, Sir, we are not going to pay for the Upper Churchill out of the profits which the Upper Churchill generl;ltes, and it is a profitable little operation. We are not going to pay for it out of those profits, we are willing to pay for only part of it out of those profits. The rest of it, Sir, is going to be paid for out of the money which we had otherwise for our own use. Now if that is so, Sir, and the minister's - I do not think there is anything in the budget. The minister is looking at the budget supplement, I do not think - }1:R.

BARRY: I am just looking at the number of dollars that are going in, of course the deficit MR. ROBERTS: MR. BARRY: 'MR. ROBERTS: The point, yes but the point - - you see the dollar is out of one pocket into another - Well the minister may say it is dollars out of one pocket and dollars out of another, in a sense it is - 5863

May 2, 1975 Tape (Morning) PK - 5 MR. ROBERTS: - it is all the government. MR. BARRY: tf it is not paid that way, it is paid anyway, you know. MR. ROBERTS: All right, but that is precisely the point which I am making. And I will not say there was misrepresentation, but I will say that there was misunderstanding on this side of the House and I venture to say throughout the entire Province. MR. BARRY: From what? ~.

ROBERTS: Newfoundland was entitled, Sir, to $4 millions plus eight per cent of the gross profits which will be another number of millions of dollars a year, a large number of millions, it might be $10 millions or $15 millions or $20 million, I do not know but eight perccent, one-twelfth of the gross profits of BRINCO, of CFLCo,I am sorry, in a year would be a substantial sum of money, a very substantial sum of money. We were entitled to that anyway, Sir. Now we are discovering that we are not, or I should say ~,e are entitled to it, we are entitled to it anyway.

Then, Sir, we were told, and the word was widespread throughout the Province 1 that we would pay for the purchase of the Upper Churchill's shares out of the profits which those shares would generate. We asked the Minister of Fisheries about this House on the debate on the Hydro Bill earlier in this session. He made quite a lengthly statement.

I have not read it through recently, I read it through at the time and I listened to him, but he at no point made it clear, as I recall it, that the profits-from the Upper Churchill were not going to be enough ~to retire this loan, not be enough to pay for it in the seventeen years which 'w"--r,j we were told. He 5864

May 2, 1975. Tape 2003 RH - l did not make it clear, Sir, and it is a very important point that we are going to have to give to the Upper Churchill to retire that loan, we are going to have to give several millions of dollars which other­ wise we had for our own from the public treasury. We were entitled to get it anyway. We would have got it no matter who owned it. If BRINCO had sold their shares to Mitsubishi in Japan we would still get the four millions a year horsepower rental and still get eight per cent of the gross profits. MR. NEARY: This is over and above what we will get - MR. ROBERTS: Right.

We would have got that anyway. That is our landlord's rent. That is what we got for renting the Upper Churchill. Now, apparently we are going to have to kick in our rental. MR. BARRY: There is nothing in this bill that says that this is - MR. ROBERTS: But the minister said so. I mean the minister's explanation - MR. BARRY: No, I did not say so. Ml.. ROBERTS : I am sorry, ~.r. Speaker. I heard the minister not fifteen minutes past say so. He said that the money was going to be assigned to the Hydro Corporation because the Hydro Corporation now owns the shares of CPI.Co.

The Hydro Corporation is going to have to pay off the debt. They have assumed the debt and that they are going to need this money to help them to pay off the debt. MR. BARRY: I did not say they were going to need this money in order to help them pay off the debt. MR. ROBERTS: I, with all the respect in the world, Sir, say that that was what the minister said. MR. BARRY: Well, you had better check - MR. ROBERTS : Well, either we can have the tapes. We can have another little adjournment and have the tapes or we can have the Hansard which will in due course appear. MR.

BARRY: (Inaudible.) aside from that (Inaudible). MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! 5865

May 2, 1975. Tape 2003 RH - 2 MR. ROBERTS: Well, the minister in due course will have the opportunity to speak and to say whatever he wishes.

The point I am making is that we have assumed, we the people, anybody the least bit interested in this matter all along has been under the understanding and I could go so far as to sayhave been lead to believe that the profits alone, that our two-thirds of t he profits alone together with the tax angle would be sufficient to retire the loan within, I think the Minister of Fisheries told us,seventeen years at the present interest rates, Now, Sir, it turns out that anparently that is not the case, Sir, I do not necessarily object to that but I think it should be recorded, I think it should be noted, I think it should be known that the cost of the Upper Churchill is not going to be paid for out of the profits which the Upper Churchill generates.

MR. BARRY: That is your opinion. MR. ROBERTS: Hold on now. Hold on now. The minister is caught on the horns of a dile11DI1a and he has got one horn going up in him now and he will get the other one in a second. It is not being paid for out of the profits but rather we are going to have to chuck in $8 million or $1C million or $12 million or $15 million a year, whatever the total is of the $4 million horsepower royalty rental together with the eight per cent of royalty of the gross profit, we are going to have to chuck that in to the pot to pay it off. In other words, that - now, that is one

interpretation. It is either that, Mr. Speaker, it is either that or the government are going to subsidize the Hydro Corporation by the same amount, Now, maybe the minister will get up and attempt to becloud the issue by saying this, by saying this, that we are not going to use that money to pay off the loan. The Hydro Corporation will generate the money to pay off the loan from profits from their shares, dividends on their shares and other sources. We are just going to put - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Bay D'Espoir. 5866

May 2, 1975. Tape 2003 RH - 3 MR. ROBERTS: Bay D'Espoir or anywhere else. We are just going to chuck the money into the Corporation to pay some other expenses. But either way - MR. NEARY: The backdoor way. MR. ROBER.IS: The gentleman from Bell Island says a backdoor method. Now, Mr. Speaker, the other

interpretation, the other reason behind - this bill has a reason behind it, Sir. It has an effect, of course, but it has a reason and the reason is either the one I have just suggested,that the government are going to have to chuck in another $8 million or $10 million or $12 million or $15 million, I know not how many millions a year out of the provincial treasury. In o.ther words, we would get and be able to use for roads or schools or hospitals or anything else, all the other purposes for which provincial money is spent, either that - MR. BARRY: I was just checking what we have been throwing in. MR.

ROBERTS: All right. The honourable gentleman can check - MR. BARRY: Over the years. MR. ROBERTS: We have been throwing in - sure. But I 8111 talking about how much more is going in. MR. BARRY: No, no. MR. ROBERTS: That money from - if it were not for this bill that money,and there is no doubt in my mind that the Governor in Council will exercise the power granted to him under this bill. This is not an empty power. It is not a standby power. I have not doubt, Sir, that the appropriate Order-in-Council will be issued just about the time that the ink of the Governor's signature is dry on this bill.

I have no doubt at all that that will happen. So we are being asked now to chuck in to pay for the Upper Churchill, the money which otherwise we would have gotten from the Upper Churchill. MR. BARRY: There is going to be less to pay next year in the way of subsidy which we have been doing all along. 5867

May 2, 1975. Tape 2003 RH - 4 MR. ROBERTS: The question of subsidy has nothing at all to do with this. If there are subsidies tl1ey have nothing to do with the Lower Churchill or the Upper Churchill. There are subsidies. They are the Industrial Incentives Act subsidy in the case of ERCO, a magnificent disaster and that is what it is,or the subsidy which was paid and which is not in this year's estimates.

It is not needed in this year's estimates apparently for excess generating capacity and the minister told us in the estimates of his department at Committee that we no longer had an excess generating capacity problem. That is not a new problem. It was well known. It was outlined in this House a number of times over the years. So, Sir, all I say is let it be recorded. This is what is happening, that we the Province buying the Upper Churchill shares apparently was not as good a deal as we had been lead to believe.

We had been lead to believe that it would generate sufficient revenue to pay for itself in seventeen years. I do not know if the Minister of Fisheries used precisely those words. I have not checked the Hansard on that point and it has been a month or two or three since I read it. But now it turns out that the profits are not going to be enough to pay over a seventeen year period. We are going to have to chuck in each year $4 million. The Premier shakes his head. Maybe the Premier can explain it.

I am merely going on the informatipn which is public, the information which his own colleague gave in the Commi.ttee, in the House, I am sorry, a few minutes past. Now, AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: - - crown corporation - - MR. ROBERTS: The minister has said the crown corporation is not settled as yet. The Premier may know more than the minister does. I went into some length on the question of the crown corporation, the tax status. I can also talk about the effect on equalization and so forth and so on. But indeed, changing it, changing it, Nr.

Speaker, and I do not know if the Premier realizes this point, changing it from a crown corporation, I am sorry, from a private company to a crown corporation so no taxes are paid does not in this case necessarily benefit us because we get all the tax that 5868

May 2, 1975. Tape 2003 RH - 5 would be paid by a private corporation and we have to be able to put 47.5 per cent back. That 47.5 per cent does not change. It still goes back to the corporation because it is built into the corporation's cash flows. That cannot be changed. So we are looking at the fifty per cent of the corporate tax - the Premier is with me I know - on the fifty per cent of the corporate tax which would have been rebated from Ottawa which we would have kept in our greedy little hands in the government of the Province. The Treasury, Mr.

Martin, the Controller would have gotten his hands on it and held on to that. If that is not paid to Ottawa and sent back to us, that fifty per cent of the tax paid which is about twenty-five per cent of the income, we only get two thirds of that because the only claim we then have on the revenues of the company - the minister may - but the only claim we have on the revenues of the company, of course, is our shareholders claim which is two-thirds of the net, you know, what is left after everything is paid out, if you wish, the profits available for distribution.

The minister did ~ay that Quebec may out of the generosity of their hearts agree to waive their claim to that to which my reply was well and good with my experience with dealing with any government including the Government of Quebec is that they drive a hard bargain and that beware of Greeks bearing gifts. If they are doing something for us here we are going to pay for it somewhere else.

Now, Sir, the point I am making and it is worth repeating is that apparently many millions of dollars a year are going,that would otherwise go to the Provincial Treasury and be available for all the purposes which the Provincial Treasury spends money on, that now that money is going to go, not to the Provincial Treasury, it will go directly, the landlord's rent will go directly to the Hydro Corporation who are not the landlord. The people of Newfoundland are the landlord. We may own the Hydro Corporation but we are the landlord and they will have it in their pocket and it will go to pay out the loan.

The minister can say that it will pay the subsidies. That is very fine, pay very fine but the subsidies we have known about all along, they are there under the Industrial Incentives Act and under the other applicable 5869

... May 2, 1975. Tape 2003 RR - 6 legislation. They are there. But nobody Yas told Ye would have to give up our income. I mean for the minister to attempt to put that up as an explanation, Mr. Speaker, is simply to say that ye are going to have to pay some money out on our debt, therefore, we will not collect any taxes due to us., we will just the taxes and send them, say to the taxpayers, send them directly off to the holders of our debt. 587U

May 2, 1975 Tape no. 2004 Page 1 - _, Sir,I will not say :the people of Newfoundland have been misled, But I will say, Sir, that they have misunderstood 1 that it has not been explained fully, it has not been uplained cmapletely,that the whole deal was not made clear until this bill sneaks in and it nearlJ sneaked through the House, Now, Sir, there may be another

interpretation. I am feeling charitable, Sir. Maybe the Province is not trying or the government are not trying an effective bunkum deal on the people of the Province, Maybe, Sir, maybe the profits from the Upper Churchill will be enough over seventeen years to retire the debt with interest, $160 million with interest. MR. BARRY: Why are you saying seventeen years? MR. ROBERTS: Well that is the figure the Minister of Fisheries gave us, I did not invent it.

He may have invented it, but I am quoting it, It means we paid at least seventeen times earnings for the company, a very generous price indeed, Now, Sir, it may be that the profits, our shareholders' profits will generate enough money to pay for our shares because that is what we are talking.

If that is so then the situation is even worse because what this bill will do will allow the minister and his colleagues to hock the revenue for years to come from the Upper Churchill,pledge it doubtless against the Lower Churchill or against some other development, Here we are now,we had a long debate in this House, We had some commitments from the Premier that legislation would be brought in, It has not surfaced yet, Hopefully, it will surface. MR. MOORES: It will. MR. ROBERTS: Well the Premier says it will. That is fine, I am merely saying that it has not.

But here the government are being allowed to sock out I do not know how many million dollars, $4 million a year, plus eight per cent of the gross profit which would be very substantial. It could be another $5 million or $10 million or $15 million a year. We are not talking, Sir, of a rent on Omega apartments or even Elizabeth Towers, $300 or $400 a month. We are talking here of $5 million or $10 •illion or $15 million a year MR. BARRY: No, $5 million a year. 5871

May 2, 1975 Tape no. 2004 Page 2 - mw MR. ROBERTS: - the gross profits, eight per cent of the gross profits of that company. MR. BARRY: In 1975, $3 million. MR. ROBERTS: 1975 it is still coming on stream. MR. BARRY: They reached maximum or rated capacity there at one stage. MR. ROBERTS: What are the gross profits going to be of CFLCo, gross profits as defined? MR. BARRY: This is a projection of, 1975. The amount of rental that we did recover in 1974 was $2,300,000 and the amount of royalty was $1,700,000 for a total of $4 million in 1974. The total rental and royalty in 1975 was estimated to be $5,300,000. MR.

ROBERTS: Well we should be getting more than that because we should be getting nearly $4 million on the horsepower royalty alone. It is fifty cents per horsepower per year. That is what the legislation says. And there are approximately 8 million horsepower being generated. So, Mr. Speaker, it is one or the other. Whatever the sum of money is it is many millions. It is millions that we would be entitled to that the Minister of Finance normally would count upon when he comes to tot up the revenue available to him to meet the demands for expenditure. It is one or the other. MR.

NEARY: Explain something to an ignoramus like myself. The interest on the loan is $5 million? MR. ROBERTS: Oh zosh, at least. MR. NEARY: Is it $5 million a year? The rate on the Upper Churchill is only going to be what? What is the total revenue? MR. ROBERTS: Well we do not know what the revenue - the shareholders' revenue will obviously be enough to pay off the $160 million capital plus interest. We do not know how long it is going to be. The Minister of Fisheries led us to believe that it would be seventeen years.

But it now turns out that we are going to have to chuck in another $5 million or $6 million or $8 million a year into the pot to sort of sweeten the deal. MR. BARRY: That is your story. I mean,that is your pitch.

-tfay 2, 1975 Tape no. 2004 Page 3 - - MR.. ROBER.TS : I do not pretend to be privy to the dealings of CFI.Co, Sir. I am not on their board. It is stuffed with some Tory hacks, and it also has got some able people on it. l!r. Gt,0011. does not report to me. He has a luxurious country house not far from my humble little home. But he does not report to ae. I run into him now and then around town, a pleasant enough chap. We have a pleasant chat. But I do not have any infoniation on what is going on in CFLCo and neither do the oeople of Newfoundland.

All we are doin~ is paying for it. $160 million on the credit and now another $4 million or $5 million or $6 million, we do not know how lll8ny millions chucked out,and if CFLCo makes $100 million or $200 million a year gross profit, and if we are entitled to eight per cent of it, no longer do we, the people of the Province, get it. It goes directly into the Crown Corporation and out it goes. There is no control over it. Never debated in this House where it is spent. It is like the Labrador Linerboard. We have not heard of Labrador Linerboard einee it was up.

There are no annual reports, no profit and lose statements• nothing except another $25 aillion lashed out. MR.NEARY: Mr. Ingram - MR. ROBERTS: The Minister of Fisheries' executive assistant has now been stowed away in a lovely little job as corporate secretary to Linerboard getting ready for hie 5873

May 2, 1975 Tape No. 2005 NM - 1 attempt,which will be futile,to get himself elected out on the West Coast. The people of Newfoundland are not being given any information and it is hundreds of millions of dollars of our money. MR. NEARY: Ingram turns up his nose everytime it comes up in the House. MR.

ROBERTS : And this very simple little act, Sir, very simple little bill, it has only got three clauses, it does not even have an explanatory note, it is that simple, will allow the government to remove from the control of this House, to remove from public view forever, eight or nine or ten or fifteen, whatever it is million dollars, four millions plus that we otherwise would have had, otherwise we would have owned, and otherwise - MR. NEARY: The school boards - MR. ROBERTS : It would be enough to pay the school boards.

It otherwise would have come to this House and the expenditure would have been debated in this House. It is just as bad as the earlier attempt by the government to set up a Crown Corporate monster that would be able to pledge our Province to hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and we do have that monster now although we do have assurances by the govenunent that they will bring in some limiting legislation. And what is the first bill we see?

Not to limit the government's power or the Corporation's power but instead to increase it, to sneak another $5 million or $6 million or $10 million or $20 million a year out of the Public Treasury into the Hydro Corporation. Andwhether it is going to pay off the Churchill shares or whether it is going to pay off any other debts of the Corporation or any other operating expenses. Maybe it is going to pay Mr. Groom's salary, how do I know how it is going to pay? We have not been given any information.

Nothing, not an annual report, not a select conmittee, not a jot, not a tittle, not an iota, a deliberate attempt by the government to hide the facts on this one, Mr. Speaker. Well, Sir, I have one further question. I merely want one of the legal members opposite, learned gen~leman opposite tell me whether it is possible for the corporation in turn to assign those profits further? Well the Premier says no, I was not aware he had been called to the Bar. MR. MOORES: Neither was I aware you had been practicing. 587 ii

May 2, 1975 Tape No. 2005 NM - 2 MR, ROBERTS: Well I am not practicing, that is why I am asking. MR. NEARY: Re has been called to the Bar. MR, SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. ROBERTS: Well the Premier, that is another story. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Attorney General if he would give us his advice on this. Can they be assigned further?

As I read it,and I do not pretend to be an expert on this, under this Act once they are assigned to the Hydro Corporation there is nothing to prevent them being assigned further The Hydro Corporation then own those rights and they can assign whatever they own in the absence of any prohibition. So next thing we know these could be in the hands of the bond holders somewhere, some Arab Sheik over in Libva or in Yemen, or maybe Mr. Lougheed the Premier of Alberta will end up having these assigned to him or maybe - SOME.HON. MEMBERS: Inaudible. MR. ROBERTS: Yes, any number of people could end up owning them. MR.

MOORES: Liechtenstein sort of thing. MR. ROBERTS: Yes, has the Premier set up Corporations in Liechtenstein? MR. EVANS: Clearwater. MR. ROBERTS: The Premier says things went there, prove it. I own nothing in Liechtenstein. Let the Premier - I would remind the Premier that he among who is without sin should be the first to cast the stone. AN HON. MEMBER: Hear! Hear! MR. ROBERTS: Now, Sir, this bill is a simple little one and the government have attempted to sneak it through. They should not be allowed to succeed.

Accordingly, Sir, I move this bill, that the motion which is - the motion before the Chair Your Honour, is of course the bill be now read a third time. I move, Sir, that the motion, the following motion,seconded by the p:entleman from Bell Island, that the word "now" be struck and the words "this day six months hence" be added so that the motion as amended would read, "that this bill be read a third time this day six months hence." And in so doing, Sir, I would ask Your Honour for a ruling that - 587S

May 2, 1975 Tape No. 2005 NM - 3 I know the amendment is in order, I submit that it is in order, I would be shocked if it was not in order- that it is debatable. And if Your Honour, if Your Honour wishes argument on the point, I am quite prepared to offer argument, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The amendment is in order. The Chair after some discussion and some research following the previous incident is willing to rule and indeed does rule that the motion, the amendment six months hoist is debatable.

The Chair would also like to say whether honourable members are aware or not, that once the debate on the six month hoist,the amendment,is over that is the end of it. There is no further debate and the motion for third reading is put forthwith. MR. ROBEi.TS: Your Honour that is true but the point is that it is debatable and any man in the House may speak in the normal way on that and when it is over the amendment is put and the amendment, if carried, ends the debate and if the amendment is not carried, the third reading motion is then put. That is the correct procedure. Do I understand it to be so? MR.

HICKMAN: Yes. MR. ROBEJ.TS: Well I was not aware the honourable gentleman from Burin was the Speaker of the House. MR. BARRY: Inaudible. MR. ROBEllS: It is a six month hoist. It has the effect of not being against the principle of the bill but it is saying that it should not - in effect it defeats the bill. If a six month hoist is adopted the bill falls. MR. BARRY: Well I can understand why. MR. ROBERTS : I mean I did not make the rule. It is a very old parliamentary device. You know if I had been here I would have voted against it on second reading. It is a way to express displeasure. Mr.

Knowles woved it in Ottawa the other night on the - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR, ROBERTS: Pay Raise Bill, but in any event, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking 587b

May 2, 1975 Tape No. 2005 NM - 4 to the amendmen.t, Let me say simply that I shall vote for it. It is one o'clock is it? MR. SPEAKER: It looks as if it is one o'cloc~ and I will leave the Chair now until three o'clock this afternoon. 587"{

May 2, 1975 Tape no, 2006 Page 1 - mw The House met at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair, MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Ron. Leader of the Opposition made an amendment before lunch which the Chair ruled in order, The Hon. Leader of the Opposition is not in his place so he does lose the right to speak to the 11111endment. Is the Hon. Member for Bell Island about to speak to the amendment? MR, NEARY: Mr. Speaker, my colleasue, the Leader of the Opposition is off to the West Coast on matters of urgent public importance, urgent political importance, Sir. MR. BARRY: After arranging this spurious item? Shame! MR.

NEARY: Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the Bon. Minister of Mines and Energy? He is so jittery and jumpy today, MR. THOMS: He is guilty, He is guilty that is why. MB., SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: The honourable minister has a guilt complex, Sir - MR. EVANS: (Inaudible). MR. NEARY: - a guilt complex~because my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition raised this morning, Sir, some very interesting questions concerning - MR. BARRY: MR. NEARY: Another petty political point.

Another petty political point? - the matter of the taxpayers of this Province having to fork over $8 million or $10 million or $12 million - MR, BARRY: MR. NEARY: We are going to have to leave you with egg on your face. You are going to ha~e to leave me with egg on my - no, Sir, I am only just parrotting what my colleague the Leader of the Opposition said this morning, Sir. MR. BARRY: Save yourself • 587~

May 2, 19-15 Tape no. 2006 Page 2 - mv MR. NEARY: No. I want the Minister of Mines, Sir - MR. BARRY: MR. NEARY: We are going to run into the complete detail. Well facts and figures. !m. Speaker, we are not prepared to accept the minister's word. We are not prepared to accept the minister's opliion. We are not prepared, Sir - MR. BARRY: Cold, hard facts. MR. NEARY: That is right, facts and figures.- MR. THOMS : Table the facts. MR. NEARY: - right from beginning to end, right from the time. the govennent forced this takeover - MR. BARRY: (Inaudible) • I sm going to force you - MR. SPF.AKER: Order, please! KR.

NEARY: - right from the time the government forced the takeover of the Churchill Falls Corporation , right up to the present moment. How much it is going to cost the people of this Province in principal to pay back the principal and the interest annually? We understand, Sir, that the interest figure is $20 million. Will the revenue from the Churchill Falls takeov;r be sufficient to amortize that loan to pay the interest and the principal on that loan? That is the key question, Sir, and that is the question that my colleague the Leader of the Opposition raised this morning.

Or, as I started to say a few moments ago,will it be necessary for the taxpayers of this Province to kick in another $8:.:million or $10 million or $12 million a year in order to pay off the interest and the loan as a result of the Churchill Falls takeover? Sir, if this take over was not forced on BRINCO there would have been additional revenue to the public treasury of anywhere, I would say, in the vicinity of $5 million to $7 million a year. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have the school boards publicly stating that they are almost bankrupt. Some of them are.on the br:lnk of bankruptcy.

They can no longer function in the manner that they would like to function, and they tell us that education is going to suffer in this Province. That $5 million Dr $6 million or • $7 million, 587~

May 2, 1975 Tape no. 2006 Page 3 - mw Sir, of revenue from the Upper Churchill that would have come to the Province from BRINCO and from the GoverDment of Canada in the way of rebate on our taxes,that $5 million or $6 IJillion or $7 million could have been used to help the school boards. MR. EVANS: What about the $165 million you - MR. NEARY: Instead, Mr.

Speaker, instead what we see under this little innocent bill, this little innocent piece of legislation that was slipped through the House yesterday afternoon at the last moment, and I must say I did not catch it, that little innocent bill, Sir, will now take that $5 million or $6 million or $7 million and assign it to the Newfoundland Power Corporation, this great corporate monster that has been established by the administration to provide big salaries for people like Mr. Groom and posh offices, wall to wall carpeting and a jet to fly the Premier over to Halifax on his way to Bermuda. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Hon. Member for Bell Island is &pealing to the amendment and the motion for the third reading. The honourable member or any honourable member when speaking should confine himself to the content of the bill. In other words,the Bon. Member for Bell Island was not being relevant to this content of the bill in question. MR.

NEARY: Kr, Speaker, the content of the bill in question is to assign this $5 million or $6 million or $7 million that should have gone into the public treasury, the content of the bill is to assign that to the Newfoundland and Labrador Power Corporation, and I am. clailldng, Sir, that that is morally wrong,that it should go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It should go into the public treas'!ll7 to be used, Sir, to maintain and expand the public services in this Province.

Now the minister m~y be able to counter some of the arguments of ay colleague, the Leader of the Opposition about the taxpayers having to cough up another $5 million or $6 million or $7 million to help pay off the principal and the interest on this loan. The minister may be able to counter that, Sir. He may be able to blind us as he said 58o0

Mav 2, 1975 Tape 2006 MW - 4 a few moments ago with facts and figures to counter that. But the minister cannot cotmter the fact that this amendment that the minister brought into the House yesterday, this little innocent amendment brought in bv the little innocent Minister of Mines and Energy, baby face, the Minister of Mines and Energy - Order, please! Order, please! MR.· NEARY: Sir, in my opinion, the minister does have a little baby face. MR. SPF.AKF.R: It might be in the opinion of the Hon. Meni>er for Bell Island, but still it does not make it procedurally right. MR. NEARY: - -- - -- MR.

IDRGAN: Well, Sir, this little innocent bill assigns - (Inaudible). The little idiot over there. ~...:..~P~ Order, please! MR._NEARY: - assigns revenue that should go in the public treasury to be used for the school boards, water and sewerage, paving roads, hospitals, widows, orphans and cripples. That money is now going to go to the Newfoundland and Labrador Power Corporation, a corporate monster, a monkey that is being inflicted upon the taxpayers' back by the Minister of Mines and Energy. There, Sir, is something that the minister cannot answer because that is a fact. That is what the bill says, Sir.

I did not realize it yesterday. The minister took about twenty-five or thirty seconds, I think it was to tell us, oh, this is really nothing. All it means is that instead of the money going into the public treasury it is now going to go straight over the Newfoundland and Labrador Power Corporation. Is that correct? M!_..!!~•- MEMBER: That is correct. MR. NEARY: That is right, Sir. It should be going into the public treasury and, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the strongest arguments that we have seen so far that •the government's timing in forcing a takeover of BRINCO was wron11:. Their timing was wrong.

They should have waited, Si:r. MR. BARRY: Wait - MR. NEARY: - ----- Wait, what now? MR. BARRY: - - - -- You are getting too far in. 5881

May 2, 1975 Tape no. 2006 Page 5 - m:w MR. NEARY: No, Mr, Speaker, I am not going to get too far in. Mr. Speaker, I still claim today even though, Sir, I IIJII. one of the strong advocates of Newfoundland oriing its natural resources, I am one of the more radical members of this House who believes in provincialization of not only the generation of power but the distribution of power.

I 11111 one of the few members of this House who believes in provincializing all conmunications in the Province, all our natural resources, telephones and what have you, I stand alone most of the tiae even though I do that, Sir, when it comes to taking radical measures to try and get a better deal for the people of this Province, the ordinary people of this Province, I stand alone most of the time, Sir, but, Mr.

Speaker, I )lave got sense enough, I have got that native Newfoundland shrewdness in me that I have got sense enough to know that it would have been better for the administration to wait until the Lower Cl:mrchill was developed. Give the shareholders of BRINCO an opportunity to get a couple of years dividends on their returns. Let them devel.op it and then move in and take her over lock, stock and barrel.

That would have made much 11111re sense, Sir, thaa what what we are up against now where the Province has to sink the traasury $1,600,000,000 in debt DOV directly and indirectly, we have to double the debt of this Pro1rince directly and indirectly in order to get the Lower Churchill developed. 5882

May 2, 1975 Tape 2007 (afternoon) The other way, Sir, the other route, the so called private enterprise system, BRINCO, the capitalists would have had to go on the back of IB-1 the note. They would have had to borrow the money. They would have had to provide the expertise. They would have had to finish the project. Within a matter, Sir, of four or five years Newfoundland would have had not only the Upper Churchill developed but we would have had the Lower Churchill developed. Now, Sir, it has heen - not only are we going to lose that revenue,going to pass it over to Mr.

Groom - AN HONOl'RABLE ME1"BER: WI! would have had 3,000 jobs. 'fR. NEARY: We would have had 3,000 jobs down there by now my colleague reminds me, That project would have been two-thirds complete and Newfoundland would have had a tremendous asset. Now, Sir, it has beeri set back at least ten years. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, it will never be developed by a Tory Administration, Sir. It will take a Liberal Government in this Province to get that project back on the rails and get it completed. They will drill a few holes down there and they will try to leave the impression they are doing something.

But, Sir, I submit that with the track record of this honourahle crowd, Sir, all you will see is the helicopters going in with a minister or two aboard with a fishing rod in his hand to sit down by the side of the lake to catch some salmon or trout. Well, Sir, it has happened. I saw the Premier myself using the government aircraft in Labrador to go off on a political jaunt. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice asked me and I told him. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please: Because the honourable Minister of Justice may have asked the honourable member speaking, it does not give the honourable member the right to reply and be irrelevant to the - 'MR. NF.ARY: You are absolutely right, Your Honour. I could not agree with Your Honour more. So, if the Minister of Justice would just stop baiting me f.or a moment - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Sit down and be quiet.

May 2, 1975 Tape 2007 (afternoon) IB-2 MR. NEARY: Now, Sir, I have to get back to my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, Sir. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Do not go back to that now. MR. NEARY: The Leader of the Opposition, Sir, asked a number of very interesting questions this morning concerning this whole deal. We will be anxiously aw1iting the remarks of the honourable Minister of Mines and Resources this afternoon or Energy to find out - AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Inaudible. fV MR. NEARY: The school boy debater.

We will be waiting, Sir, to find out if there is any truth st ell in any of the accusations, insinuations, questions, remarks, statements made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. It seems to me, Sir, that the Leader of the Opposition has touched a very sensitive spot. We will be anxious, we will be anxious to see, Sir, the political gymnastics of the honourable Minister of Mines as he tries to weasel his way around this situation, how he will twist and turn and try to squirm his way out of it. The minister cannot deny the fact, Mr.

Speaker, cannot deny the fact that this money which should be going into the