VOL. 3 PRELH1INARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00p.m. - 6:00p.m. WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1981 NO. 39 .-

. May 13, 1981 Tape No . 1502 NN - 1 The House met at 3 : 00 P .M. Hr . Speaker in the Chair . MR . SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please ! ORAL QUESTIONS: MR . SPEAKER: The hon . member for Windsor- Buchans . MR . FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr . Speaker . My question is to the t~linister of the Environment (Mr . Andrews), Mr . Speaker, and it is re l a t ive to his annou ncement yesterday that he would approve the Cat Arm project ~rom the environmental standpoint .

And I would like to draw the minister's attention to the Environmental Assessment Act, clause 23, that says at any time during the environmental assessment of a proposed unde r taking,the minister ma y invite writ ten comme nts from intere sted persons concerni ng t he env i ronmental impact of an unde r taking , and I would ask the minister if, to this point in time, he has invited Hritten comments o r if he ir.tends to? MR . SPEAKER: The hon . Minister of the Environment . MR . ANDREWS: Mr. Speaker , the Environmental Act has been followed to the letter of the act and the lette .r of the la~1.

Paragraph 21 of the act , if the hon. member will r efer t o it , talks about an assessment committee . Thi s committee was appointed and I can give the hon . member the names of the committee if he desires .

Article 23, "At any time during the envi r onmental assessment of a proposed undertaking.the minister may invite written comment s from interested parties . " lve have done that . Not on l y has the min i ster done that - our department and the min ister before me- but Hydro also did wi th public meetings in the White Bay area . MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary , the hon . member for l'lindsor - Buchans . 4183 .....

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1502 NM - 2 MR. FLIGHT: I would ask the minister if he would be prepared, as an aside, to the table the copies of the letters and the names of the private individuals or the concerned people that the letters may have gone to. But further on down, Mr.

Speaker, in the act it says, "Where the minister receives indication of strong public interest" - now obviously there must be public interest in a $387 million project that has got great potential for environmental damage -it says that, "the minister may appoint an environmental assessment board for the purpose of conducting public hearings " "an assessment board for the purpose of conducting public hearings to the environmental assessment of the undertaking. And that no person on that board shall be employed in the Public Service of the Province, or the Public Service of Canada." Now, Mr.

Speaker, I contend that the only impact statements that have been made have been made by Newfoundland Hydro to the minister. That is the impact statement. The committee he refers to is a committee of civil servants. He is right. Under the act that is - but under this act, if the minister so deems it necessary, he can appoint an environmental assessment board, a board made up of people who are not part of the public civil service or federal civil service. I want to ask the minister if he has appointed that board for the purpose of holding public hearings or does he intend to appoint that board? MR.

SPEAKER (Simms) The hon. Minister of the Environment. MR. ANDREWS: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member for Windsor-Buchans (Mr. Fliqht) has not even read the statement yesterday. And I said,' In closing I would like to point out that Hydro has conducted a 4 1 a 4

May 13,1981 Tape No. 1503 AH-1 MR. ANDREWS: that Hydro has conducted a public information programme in the course of this environmental assessment involving interested representatives of several communities. At no time has either Hydro or my department received any communication from the public indicating serious concerns about the environmental impacts of the Cat Arm project." MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : A supplementary. The hon·. member for Windsor-Buchans . MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister is not going to answer that question.

This act has not been applied, there have been no letters gone out to the members of the general public concerned, there has been no Environmental Assessment Board set up and there have been no public hearings. In the spirit of the legislation, that is what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARSAHLL: MR. SPEAKER: the President of the Council. MR. Ml1.RSHALL: A point of order. A point of order. The hon . The hon. gentleman,you know, has been using the statutes to explain his question and that is fine,but now the hon. gentleman is taking the question that has been answered by the hon. minister and making - MR.

THOHS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. MARSHALL: It was not answered. Order, please~ -comments and speeches in his

interpretation on it. There is a procedure, Mr. Speaker, that takes place tomorrow afternoon and the hon. gentleman can avail himself of it if he wishes to, but in the meantime, Mr. Speaker, he is not allowed during Question Period to make any speeches. MR. MOORES: That is not a point of order. 4 1 B 5 f."

May l3, 1981 Tape No. 1503 AH-2 MR'. SPEAKER ( S inuns) : Well,to the point of order, the hon. member is on his second supplementary and really there should not be toomuch

preamble required anyway. I allowed him some

preamble and now perhaps he could ask his question. MR. MOORES: Hear, hear~ MR. FLIGHT : A supplementary, Mr.Speaker 1 yes . Well now, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the minister's attention in this supplementary, an impact study that was done on Cat Arm by the Department of the Environment for the Minister of the Environment in 1976,and I would quote, "Flooding of the Cat Arm empoundment will result in irreplaceable loss of wildlife habitat. The loss of the sheltered valley forest habitat will be critical for wintering of moose and other animals.

Winter habitat if any exists in these areas will also be eJiminated." Now in view of that kind of evidence that was presented to the minister in 1976, having that information available to him does the minister still not believe that it is worthwhile, it is worthwhile before we proceed with the Cat Arm to have Cat Arm subject to the legislation and that a board, an Environmental Assessment Board be set up so that at least the Cat Arm project will be done in the spirit of the legislation, Mr.

Speaker, and that concerned people will know that an independent board, not Newfoundland Hydro ·employees but an independent board ~.<Till look at all the environmental aspects and report on it to the minister? Now will the minister appoint that board? MR. MOORES: Yes or no. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of the Environment. MR. ANDREWS: Mr. Speaker, the decision has been made not to appoint the board- SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 4 1 8 6

~1.\Y 13 I 19 81 Tape No . 1503 AH-3 MR . SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please ~ HR . ANDRENS: - for the obvious reasons , the reasons that I said yesterday, that I find and our department finds that the Cat Arms project is environmentally sound. SOME HON. :.!EMBERS: Hear , hear ~ MR . ANDREWS: I would like to point out to the member a couple of things that have been said in various reports written about the environmental impact . The hon . member for ·Windsor-Buchans (tilr . Flig ht) mentioned the impact on 1o~ildlife. All the reports that I have been able to come by, including Hydro 's impact scate~ent indicate that 4 i a 1

May 13, 1981 Tape 1504 EC - l MR. ANDREWS: the Cat Arm project will flood approximately twenty-one square miles. That is a very small project compared to some of the other projects that we have had in Newfoundland and Labrador. Bay d'Espoir, for instance, is 259 square miles, so this is about one-tenth or one-eleventh of the size of the Bay d'Espoir project. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, the wildlife and fishing game that would be destroyed, the estimates range to a total of fifty-five moose in the whole area and approximately twenty salmon and two hundred trout. It is my opinion, Mr.

Speaker, that the minimal impact of this project does not warrant the cost and the expense and the delay that such extensive other studies would need and the time that it would take up. The material, the information that we have received to date is satisfactory to me. MR. FLIGHT: A supplementary, ~~r. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms]: A final supplementary, the hon. the member for Windsor - Buchans. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to tell the House why it is that he is not prepared to let the Cat Arm project, a major project, Mr.

Speaker, why it is he is not prepared to let that project have the benefit of his legislation, of the legislation brought in to protect the environment of ·this Province? Mr. Speaker, the Environmental Assessment Act, that was debated and became law in this House was for the very purpose we are talking about now. One cannot imagine - there will never be in this Province a project that would require that legislation. MR. HODDER: The last of its kind. MR. FLIGHT: The last of its kind - and why it is that the minister refuses to allow the Cat Arm project 4 1 B 8 L'

Hay 13, 1981 Tape 1504 EC - 2 HR. FLIGHT: to be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act in this Province? Now why? SOHE HON, HEHBERS: HR. SPEAKER (Simms): HR. AL\IDREWS : Hear, hear! The hon. the Hinister of Environment. This project has followed all the guidelines of the Environmental Assessment Act. It is possibly -more than possibly, most likel y t he most studied hydro project ever in Newfoundland. I do agree with the member that it is possibly the last large one we will ever undertake in this Province .

But also what should be remembered, the Department of Environment has told Hydro, and listed them in this one paper alone, of a dozen recommendations to Hydro and orders to Hydro on things that they must do in the process of fulfilling this contract. SOHE HON, MEHBERS: Hear, hear! HR. ANDREWS: We will appoint a full-time monitor. They have to have a continued liaison with the communities there and with this department. This thing will be monitored all the way along, Mr. Speaker. I am very confident that this is probably the best major construction project ever undertaken in this Province. SOHE HON. HEMBERS: HR .

FLIGHT: MR. SPEAKER: Hear, hear! A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. the member for Grand Bank (Hr. Thoms) wish to yield? MR. THOMS: I yield. 4 1 8 9

May 13, 1981 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): for Windsor · - Buchans. Tape No. 1505 SD - 1 A final supplementary, the hon. member MR. FLIGHT: Mr . Speaker, I want to ask the minister why this is. The Cat Arm project has been under consideration by Hydro for six or seven vears. I have a report here that was presented in 1976, the report took a year or two to do,so since 1976 Newfoundland Hydro have been preparing to develop the Cat Arm.

Now why did the minister not use his ministerial authority and say to Hydro- it is a crisis situation now-but why was Hydro not informed that that project would have to conform to all the aspects of the legislation,and the board could have been appointed and the board could have held their meetings? Why, Mr. Speaker, was Hydro allowed to go ahead with this project without submitting to the leqislation? They have been at it for five yea : ~ > , had all the time in the world, so why, Mr. Speaker? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. SPEAKER: SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER: MR. ANDREWS: Order, please! The hon.

Minister of Environment. Oh, oh. Order, please! Mr. Speaker, it is cretting kind of repetitious. There is a very simple answer, that the Environmental Protection Act was passed in 1980. MR. SPEAKER: MR. THOMS: The hon. member for Grand Bank. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) in his capacity with Consumer Affairs coming within his department. I was wondering if the minister is aware of what I consider to be despicable and cruel action which is carried on by some mortgage companies in the Province at this moment.

The minister knows that normally it has been the practice, as long as I have been practicing law in St. 4180

~lay 13, 1981 Tape No. 1505 so - 2 MR. THOHS: John's,that if a mortgagor is one payment, two payments, three payments behind in his mortgage payments,if he goes to his compan~ and brings his mortga qe up to date they will continue with the mortgage. But the practice is now developing that the mortgage companies are refusing to accept arrears payments such as this and are =orcing the consumer, the mortgag or, to pay the total mortga ge. And this all comes about, of course, because of the difference between the interest rates as they were when the mortgage was placed and the interest rates as they are today. ~1R .

SPEAKER (Simms !: The hon . Minister of Justice . HR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr.

Speaker, no, it was my understanding,as indeed the hon. gentleman indicated,that the usual practice was that if a person was in arrears a reasonable period of time, two or three months or ~o~hatever it happens to be,and presumably informs them and does not remain in that arrears without information as if, you know, showing any total indifference,that indeed mortga ge companies wou!d,in most circumstances, you kno~o~, go along with arrears for a reasonable period of time,whatever that happened to be,and I suppose a lot depends on the person's previous record of prompt payment and things like that .

I ~o~as not a~o~are , as the hon. gentleman alle ges,that it has become, let us say , a general practice now to, you kno~o~, immediately move - MR. NEARY: Shocking , shocking . MR . OTTENREIMER: - once arrears have been entered into . I ~fill certainly, you kno~o~, 4 1 91

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1506 EL - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: have that matter looked into,As the hon. gentleman says, with the "difference in interest rates, you know, one could see the temptation on the part of mortgage companies to act in such a way,but certainly it is necessary that the legitimate rights of mortgage hold­ ers be protected,and I think we are speaking here of people who are one or two or three months in arrears, not people who are in sort of total disregard of their financial res­ ponsibilities.

I will have the matter looked at and see how extensive it is and see, you know, what could be done from the point of view of consumer protection. To say off the top ofone's head, you know, what could be done would not be a sensible way of doing it,but I will certainly have it ex­ amined to see if there are certain measures which can be taken, legislative or otherwise. It will probably have to be legis­ lative. MR. THOMS: MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Grand Bank. MR. THOMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

A supplmentary, the hon. member for Is the minister saying that he will have his department investigate, go to the mortgage companies, determine whether or not their policy has changed in this re­ gard and if the policy - I have had complaints. Now, I am not prepared to name the particular mortgage company in the House of Assembly but I will be only too happy to give the minister the complaint privately.

So, is the minister pre­ pared to bring in legislation that would stop this practice and put a limit on this sort of thing, or make this a law that if a person would bring his mortgage up to date then foreclosure proceedings will not be available to the mortgagee? MR. SPEAKER: MR. OTTENHEIMER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. On the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, certainly I will undertake to have such an inquiry 4192 .·.

Nay 13, 1981 Tape No . 1506 EL - 2 1-\R. OTTENR:EIMER: or c heck made of various mortgage companies to ascertain what specifically their policy is and then to ascertain \vhethe.r there has been a change in that policy recently . Now, if as a result of that , the situation is as the hon . member has described it,then obviously we shal l endeavour to have a remedy . You kno w, what that remedy would be I think would depend to a certain extent upon the result of discussions with the mortgage companies .

Now, if we can get a voluntary or co­ operative agreement worked out which they will abide by, let us say in a sel f - dic i pli ned point of vie w, then that would be one so lut i on . If not, then obviously then only other solution would be legislation or regulation . And if that were required,then obviously we would have to do it . MR. NEARY: Mr . Speaker . MR . SPEAKER (Simms} : The hon . the member for LaPoile . MR . NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister res - po nsible for the. land fre.eze on the Avalon Penin s ul a , agr i- cultu.ral land .

Members wi l l recall that six or seven years ago the government imposed a land freeze on t he Avalon Pen ­ insula 1especial l y in the St . John ' s a r ea , where vacant land would have to be looked at very carefully to see if it was agricultural land before the 4193

May 13, 1981 Tape No. l5G7 DW - l MR. S. NEARY: land could be developed for housing or commercial development. Would the hon. gentle­ man tell the House if there is any budge on the part of the government on lifting the land freeze on any or all the region,especially around the greater St. John's area where the land freeze is now in force! ' Is the government going to budge on that? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern Development. MR. J. GOUDIE: Mr.

Speaker, no 1 there has been no decision made by government at this point in time to lift the land freeze or to make any sections of land within the agricultural zone exempt from the freeze. Now there has been one exception, we lifted a quarter of an acre of land in one particular area, I think somewhere near Torbay, a half year or so ago to allow a person to construct a home on a piece of land which was a quarter of an acre inside of the zone. That has been the only exemption so far.

We are carrying on, we are entering about the fourth year of a land classification and soil analysis programme which is associated with the agricultural zoning. That will be completed within two years at the maximum. At that time government, I would think, will be in a position to make a deci­ sion on which land would be lifted and which would remain within an agricultural zoned area. MR. S. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: for LaPoile. MR. S. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary, the hon. member Mr. Speaker, the hon.

House will recall that the government did not bring in compensation for those people whose land has been frozen, that they have been discriminated against, that the government would not agree to purchase the land. Is there any movement now towards govern- ment offering people whose land had been frozen the going price? 4194

~lay 13, 1981 Tape No . 1507 0\v - 2 ~IR . S . NEARY : First of all , are they moving towards purchasing the land,which they should have done in the first place? When you freeze land you remove people's rights.then the government should have bought the land . Is there any movement in that direction and ,if there is,will they be offered the going price, the price now that is being inflated through the oil boom syndrome that is in this area that they created? _tiR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. Minister of Rural , Agric~ll tural and Northern Development . MR. J. GOUDIE: ~tr .

Speaker, I think the hon . gentleman is alluding to what is commonly referred to as land banking . And at this point in time government has addressed itself to that process over the last number of months . But there has been no decision made at this point in time to purchase land at any particular value . We try and assist farmers presently in the industry or people who want to become involved in the agricultural industry ; if they want to go ahead and buy some agricultural land then there are grants , programmes and so on available to these 41 85

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1508 NM - 1 MR. GOUDIE: people to take advantage of getting involved in the agricultural industry. But there is no plan at this point in time to land bank. MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. A final supplementary, the hon. Mr. Speaker, my question really had to do with these people being discriminated against because the government has placed a freeze on their land. They do not want to develop it, they are not farmers,a lot of them,and they do not want to develop it as agricultural land. They cannot sell the land.

They do not have the same privilege that other people have to make a bundle at this particular point in time. The land is frozen. There is nothing they can do with it and the government is refusing to buy it. Now let me ask the hon. gentleman this· The hon. gentleman mentioned that there was only one exemption, ' one exemption in the Torbay area where a person wanted to develop a quarter of an acre to build a house· Is that what I understand from the hon. gentleman? Well now what is happening around the St. John's Airport and right here in the East End of St.

John's with all these speculators who are going out and paying $2 million and $3 million and $4 million for large slices of land; will they be able to develop it? The land around the airport was also frozen; some of it is now being developed . Howmany applications has the minister had in the last year or two for exemptions and who have they been granted to? And is the hon. gentleman prepared to table the number of times that he has exempted an individual or a company from the agricultural land freeze?

Because the rumours we hear, the reports we hear are that it is going on right, left and centre, that these speculators are at work and they are not paying $2 million and $3 million and $4 million for large pieces of land if 4136

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1508 MR. NEARY: they cannot develop it for housing or apartment buildings or use it for a commercial project. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The han. Minister of Rural, Agricultural and Northern DeJelopment. MR. GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I can do as minister responsible for agriculture to prevent people from speculating. I guess there is nothing that I can do for that matter 1 and I suppose in some ways if a land owner wants to accept money from some potential developer as some kind of a speculation bid on his land,I guess that is one way of making money. I do not know.

I have no plans at this point in time, and I do not think government has either, of lifting the land freeze to accommodate speculators who want to come in and talk about developing - housing developments, industrial development, or whatever. As I said, there has been only one since I have been responsible, approximately three years, for the Agricultural Division of the department. There has been one

section of land, approximately a quarter of an acre in size, lifted from the zoning area to allow this person to construct a home. There have been many requests, I would estimate a hundred or so, requests from individuals, from firms and so on, to lift a particular parcel of land from the freeze. None of them have been approved, not one. MR. SPEAKER: The han. member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Minister of Transportation a question, but in the continued absence of that 4197

May 13, 1981 Tape 1509 EC - 1 MR. CALLAN: minister, let me ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mrs. Newhook) if she could tell us if a decision has been made within her department yet of how many towns will receive water and sewer projects this,year and how many new ones there will be of that number, ongoing and new ones? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Affairs. MRS. NEWHOOK: that information as yet. The hon. the Minister of Municipal Mr.

Speaker, no, I cannot give Our capital works programme has been presented to Cabinet and when Cabinet makes the decision well, then it will be made public and I will advise the hon. member. HR. CALLAN: MR. SPEAKER: member for Bellevue. MR. CALLAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary, the hon. the Mr. Speaker, the minister made reference to the fact that when Cabinet makes its decision - a supplementary: Would the minister indicate what sort of guidelines will be used this year in ascertaining which towns, in a degree of priority, which towns will receive funding for water and sewer projects?

What are the guidelines that Cabinet uses? Is it, for example, the size of the community, the number of years that they have applied unsuccessfully? I am thinking, Mr. Speaker, in particular, of a town that water and sewer was approved in in 1975 and then lost it again that same year. So six years later, that town still has not been on the list of priorities and approvals. I am wondering what are the guidelines this year? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MRS. NEWHOOK: Mr. Speaker, our programme is broken down into four categories. One category is where 4198

Nay 13, 1981 Tape 1509 EC - 2 t·1RS • NEI-!HOOK : pre - design work has been done ; another category .is 1-1here we have already had phases of water and se~ter, so it would be extensions; another category, then, is new projects,and then we have a fourth category, 'flhich is provincial roads , and that is our roads progra .mme . Prior ity, of course , is always given to environme ntal problems and t-lhere there is pollution of .,.tater and good clean water is reall y needed , and where there is no water at all available . HR . CALLAN: A final supplementary , ~ir . Speaker . MR .

SPEAKER (Simms): A final supplementary , the hon . the member for Bellevue . :-lR. CALLAN: ~r. Speaker, a final supplementary to the minister . In using these guidelines then, I am thinking of the town of Norman 's Cove, 1o~here water and se•..ter \·tas approved i n 1975 and cancelled agai n after the election of that same year . In vie w of t he fact that that town is on the priority l i st , or was six yea rs ago - it is the second largest town 4199

May 13;1981 Tape No. 1510 AH-1 MR. CALLAN: in all of Trinity Bay, perhaps the largest in Newfoundland that does not have an adequate water and sewer system- 1 am wondering can the minister confirm then that under these guidelines, using these guidelines would not the municipality of Norman's Cove-Long Cove qualify? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MRS NEWHOOK: received are Mr. Speaker, all requests listed alphabetically under the various categories and then recommendations are made to Cabinet and then Cabinet makes the final decision as to which projects will go ahead.

And 1 like I say,they are not necessarily by population or the number of people in a particular town but according to need and environmental problems. MR. SPEAKER: Barbe. MR.BENNETT: The hon. member for St. Thank you, Mr. Speaker . My question is directed to the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Goudie). Mr. Minister 1 is funding available from your department for an impact study related to the pulling away of one of the major industries from Deer Lake, namely, Eastern Provincial Airways? Is funding available from your department for that? MR. SPEAKER: Rural Development. MR. GOUDIE: The hon. Minister of No, Mr.

Speaker. There was a request from, I think, three or four individuals in the community of Deer Lake.I believe a couple of months ago,or whenever this issue became public, there was a request for some funds to travel to Ottawa to fight their case and we at the department with the guidelines we have under which to operate could not provide that funding. As far as I am 420Q

May 13,1981 Tape No. 1510 AH-2 MR. GOUDIE: aware - I would have to double check to make sure- but as far as I am aware we have no programme in the department to allow that kind of a study to take place unless a development association in the area was addressing itself to that question and in that way there may be the possibility of providing some funds.But off the top of my head I would say no. MR.BENNETT: MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : member for St. Barbe . A supplementary. A supplementary. The hon. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I realize my lack of knowledge about your department, Mr.

Minister, but should the development association approach your department, then would there be monies available for such a study, that is an impact study? MR. SPEAKER: Development. MR. GOUDIE: The hon. Minister of Rural The only thing I can suggest, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time is that if a development association wanted to go ahead and make a proposal to my department we would certainly consider it. But I would not want to override the decision of the board which considers such submission by answering yes or no in the House of Assembly. We would certainly consider it and d8al with it at the board level.

MR. SPEAKER: has expired . The time for Oral Questions PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: St. John's West . MR.BARRETT: The hon. the member for Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to report on the Estimates Committee for the resource departments of government. This committee has met a total of 19.5 hours. 42J1

May 13, 1981, Tape 1511, Page 1 -- apb MR. BARRETT: examining the estimates of departments referred to it for review. These departments covered Head VI, Department of Development, Head VII, Department of Mines and Energy, Head VIII, Department of Fisheries, Head IX, Department of Forest Resources and Lands, and Head X, Departmemt of Rural Agricultural and Northern Development.

I should like to report to the House that all of these Heads have been passed without amendment, and I would like to in closing express my appreciation to the members of the Committee, the Vice-Chairman, the member for Burin - Placentia West(Mr. Hollett); the members; the member for Placentia (Mr. Patterson), the member for Baie Verte- White Bay (Mr. Rideout), the member for 'Fortune- Hermitage (Mr. Stewart), the member for Menihek(Mr. Walsh), the member for Torngat Mountains(Mr. Warren) the member for Fogo(Mr. Tulk), the member for Bellevue(Mr. Callan); and the Clerk of the Committee,Miss Elizabeth Murphy. MR.

DINN: MR. SPEAKER(Simms): Labour and Manpower. MR. DINN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister of Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Workers' COmpensation Board for the year 1980. MR. SPEAKER: Further reports? MR. NEARY: order. MR. SPEAKER: 0 0 0 hon. the member for LaPoile. Mr. Speaker, a point of A point of order by the MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, in today's Daily News there is a front page story with a headline 4202 •""""

May 13, 1981, tape 1511, Page 2 -- apb MR. NEARY: that says that the Speaker okayed police in the House. And then the item went on to describe the point of privilege that I raised and the ruling that Your Honour gave and portrayed the wrong information completely to the people of this Province who would read that item,. Mr. Speaker. What Your Honour said was that the police would, as in 1971, be allowed to occupy the public galleries of this House. Your Honour did not say that the police were allowed on the floor of the House.

As a matter of fact, Your Honour said that the police would not appear in the doorways of the House again, that they could occupy the public galleries. Anybody can occupy the public galleries. So the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that my

interpretation of your ruling was that the police were not allowed in the House. They could survey the House from the public galleries the same as anybody else, and the corridors from now on would be free. Now, that was my

interpretation of the ruling that Your Honour gave and I am pretty sure I am right, and I would like for that item to be corrected. MR. SPEAKER(Simms): Well, it is not a point of order, it is a point of information and the han. member has taken the opportunity to interpret a ruling which I gave yesterday which is easily accessible to all members of the House, all members of the media or anybody else just by checking Hansard, and the ruling is quite clear. MR. SPEAKER: the Opposition. MR. STIRLING: Orders of the Day. 4203 Presenting petitions. The han. the Leader of No, I thought we were on

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1512 ow - 1 MR. L. STIRLING : Before Orders of the Day, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members of the House would like to join me in extending sympathy to the family of Mr. Ted Vincent who was a member of the National Convention, an ardent Confederate representative of Bonavista North in that historic event. And I think that it is traditional that the House notes almost as colleagues the passing of those people who attended the National Convention. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hon. President of the Council. MR. W.

MARSHALL: We would certainly wish to be associated witl:J. those remarks of sympathy. r1r. Vincent is very well known, I think, to all members of the House and prior to his retirement, I believe, had been a member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Commission for a number of years. And to Mrs. Vincent and his daughters we certainly would like to be associated with these words of sympathy. MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. Those in favour, 'aye', contrary 'nay', carried.

This being Private ~!\ember's Day, according to Standing Order 53 I now call motion number four moved by the hon. member for Baie Verge - 1'7hi te Bay n1r. Rideout) . Last day the debate was on the amendment which had been moved by the hon. member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr.' Flight) and the debate was adjourned by the hon. member for Grand Bank (Mr. Thoms),who had approximately twenty minutes remaining. The hon. member for Grand Bank is not here. MR. L. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker. 4204 ,-.,!

May 13, 1981 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): MR. L. STIRLING: Tap'e No. 1512 DW - 2 The hon. Leader of the Opposition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I would like to discuss the amend­ ment introduced by the member for Windsor - Buchans (Mr. Flight) who sets out the - MR. SPEAKER: If I may. I do not wish to inter- rupt the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) as he proceeds. I would just to give

interpretation for the guidance of hon. members so that when it arises later on today everybody will be aware of it. My

interpretation of the Standing Orders is that the hon. member who moves this particular motion on a Private Member's Day has the right to close the debate on the motion at twenty minutes to six. Therefore the

interpretation in my mind at least would be that the amendment would have to be dealt with prior to twenty minutes to six.So that all mem­ bers will agree and understand, I just wanted to mention that. AN HON. MEMBER: (_Inaudible) anyway. MR. SPEAKER: Well, that is my

interpretation of what the Standing Order says. The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. L. STIRLING: Yes, I think you have been following that rule, Mr. Speaker, and we are all familiar with it that we talk on the amendment up until twenty minutes to six and then you interrupt us and we put all the votes at the same time, the amendment and main motion. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to set out the position of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Party on this question of offshore oil. And I will include in it a proposal to the Premier and the government as to how l'ie can get to the next step.

So I hope that the Premier will be able to remain in the House so that we can make some progress. 4205 .-.,!

t4ay 13, 1981 Tape No . 1512 01~ - 3 MR. L. STIRLING : First of all, Mr . Speaker, '"e have been challenged many times by the members on the government side to set out our position on the offshore . We have set that out many times in this House, Mr . Speaker, with many different speakers and it was never completely accepted . So therefore, Mr . Speaker, we decided to use the opportunity of the visit of the Prime ~inister in maybe the most dramatic fashion possible to let there he no doubt , no doubt in anyone's mind,either of the Prime Minister or of any person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

And as the member who introduced the original motion said it eventually got to be carried on national television across Canada . So as of this point I presume now that there is absolutely no doubt about what the position 4206 "' .

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1513 EL - 1 MR. STIRLING: is of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Party. And, Mr. Speaker, to be consistent to talk in terms of what is in the best interests of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, to be fair and not just to try to grab the headlines as has been done by the present administration, the position has always been consistent in this House of Assembly.

It was the position of the Smallwood administration, supported by the Opposition of the day; it was the position of the Moores administration, supported by the Opposition of the day; it was the position of the Peck­ ford government,supported by the Opposition of the day. There has been no change that the offshore resources are owned by the people of Ne'tlfoundland and Labrador, in our right as the Province ..;f Newfoundland and Labrador. There was no question, no doubt about it. Mr. Speaker, when we invited the Prime Minister to attend our dinner there was discussion, obviously,about a choice of subjects.

And we said, Mr. Speaker, that the most important question that could be re­ solved for the benefit of all of Newfoundland and Labrador is to answer the question. Can there still be a political settlement of the offshore gas and oil?' Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have made clear is that the position of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal Party is that we own the offshore and,as everybody saw• the po·si tion of the Prime Minister of Canada is that he does not believe that we own the offshore. So, Mr. Speaker, the question is, how do we resolve that question? And, Mr.

Speaker, if we have a choice 1 the choice is that we have a simple negotiated solution, very simple. If we had a choice. But, Mr. Speaker, what I am now suggesting to the members on the opposite side, and I am really a little bit disappointed with the Minister 4207

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1513 EL - 2 MR. STIRLING: of Mines and Energy (L. Barry) that he cannot hold back his political bias, that he should be as anxious as we are to arrive at a settlement of this issue in the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. BARRY: though. MR . t100RES: AN HON. MEMBER: MR. STIRLING: Not if you want to give it away, Living in the past. (Inaudible) on national TV.

Mr.Speaker, the Premier said, and I will give him credit for it, I will give him full credit I have criticized the attitude of the confusion and the con­ frontation in the past but I will give him credit-that when he heard the comments of the Prime Minister, in the,interview and again at the dinner, when he heard those comments, the Premier said, 'He seems to be coming part way. It seems to be a better attitude. I am willing to meet with him.' And I give the Premier full marks and full credit for that kind of statement, very unlike the Minister of Mines and Energy in his interjections here today.

So, we have made some progress, Mr. Speaker. Now, let us see where we are. Everybody in this House of Assembly believes that we own the offshore. The federal position is they do not believe we own the offshore, so what do we go from here? We have only two choices, Mr. Speaker- I guess three. We can bury our head in the sand and say, \ve 0wn it, we are not taking any action, nothing is going to happen. It is now time for somebody to give in.' 'lhat is one position, bury your head in the sand and hang tough. That is one expression. HR. STAGG: MR. STIRLING: MR. TULK: to be tough. (Inaudible) hang tough.

No, it is a very appropriate phrase. (Inaudible) to hang and it is going MR. STIRLING: It is an expression, Mr. Speaker, that every Newfoundlander could understand and I will try not 4208 I•

Ma~· 13, 1981 Tape No . 1513 EL - 3 NR . STIRLING : to be political because I am hon- estly going to make an appeal to the Premier in the context of his remarks after the Prime Ministe='s remark s . so , position number one is bury your head in the sand -and that is what we have been doing for some time, a year, two years and nothing has happened. Position number two is that we go to court . Now, Mr . Speaker, on th~s question of going to court, I take the word of the advisorsto the government . We have not been given the information, we have not had the benefit of all the legal documentation .

I believe the ~unister of Mines and Energy(L . Barry) has said in Comm­ itte and said here that we have spent up to $500,000 on a legal case and Mr . Martin , speaking on behalf of the govern­ ment, felt that ·.ve did not have a very good chance if •.ve went . to court , so I am taking their word for it. 4209

May l3, 1981 Tape 1514 EC - l MR. STIRLING: So where does that leave us, ~r. Speaker, in a sane, reasonable manner with the greatest asset next to the fishery, next to people, maybe the third greatest asset that we have, the offshore gas and oil? How do we handle it? Obviously, there has to be some kind of an agreement. Now, the problem that we have right now is that the Premier does not want to \vrite a letter to initiate it. Now, we have a difference of opinion on that.

I believe it is the job of the Premier to take the initiative to do whatever has to be done for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for whatever benefits to take whatever initiative is necessary - AN HON. MEMBER: Right. MR. STIRLING: - to make a's many trips, to be the first one if there is the slightest chance, to say, 'Okay, I am coming on a 'plane. I am prepared to take the initiative because it is my job to manage Nevrfoundland and Labrador. ' I accept that he does not operate that way.

Okay, now what we are proposing here is a means whereby we can save face for the Premier and save the pride of the Premier and the super-sensitive Mines and Energy Minister (Mr. Barry). We are going to get around that problem. And how do \ve get around the problem? He get around the problem by sitting down as a caucus and we work out an amendment that takes the problem out of the hands of the Premier and out of the hands of the Minister of .Mines and Energy and makes it a unanimous Resolution of this House. Now, just look at the wording.

There is no criticism of the government in the wording: "WHEREAS the position of the House of Assembly is that offshore mineral, oil and gas resources are owned by the Province;"- unanimous and we are in agreement- and

WHEREAS the wise and controlled development of offshore 4210 ·'

May 13, 1981 Tape 1514 EC - 2 MR. STIRLING: resources is important to the future of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador;"- we should have complete agreement on that - and

WHEREAS the Prime r-Iinister has expressed a willingness to discuss either a political settlement or a court settlement;" - no argument, the Premier agrees on that - "BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House reassert its position that we own the offshore resources," -essentially the same resolve that was in the main motion. Now, how do we get the next step going? Here is how we get the next step going: "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provincial government express its willingness - AN HON. MEMBER: Right. MR.

STIRLING: - to meet with the federal government" - notice the words "willingness to meet" "with the federal government to consider a co-operative and joint development of the offshore resources so that controlled development can take place," -Who for? - "for the benefit of our people," -When? - "while the question of ownership is being resolved." In other words, Mr.

Speaker, the exploration phase is going ahead now because of this kind of co-operative and joint agreement between the provincial government and federal government so that we could get the last number of years of development of exploration taking place. All of the exploration, Mr. Speaker, is going ahead not as a result of resolving the ownership, but it was a result of reasonable and reasoned people · coming together and working out a position that said, 'Okay, jointly we will allow for exploration.' And it has been agreed and understood. And now, Mr.

Speaker, we are coming to this moment of crisis, and it is obviously one in which there is a great deal at stake, Mr. Speaker, and that is the decision to develop. :~e had a visit from the people of the oil companies; we have heard stories of the government saying, 'Do not dare take us to court.' 4 2 11 -: ....

Jolay 13, 1981 Tape 1514 EC - 3 MR. STIRLING: Mr . Speaker, if vie had been given the facts and the background, we probably would have supported that kind of pos ition. But it is urgent. So, Hr. Speaker, what •.-te are proposing on this side is so that it does not have to embarrass the Premier or the Hinister of Ni nes and Energy (Mr. Barry) . Let us all be unanimous in voting for this Resolution, because then the House of Assembly takes the action. It is an easy getting together . It seems now that the only question is ho1.,r do we get the Prime Minister and the Premier together?

My belief is that it is our resource and that we have to take the initiative, we have to take the action, and this Resolution, not having a single word of criticism of the government makes it very eas y for everyone to support that Resolution . ltTe gave i ·t a great deal of thought in caucus . It 1"'as presented as representing the whole caucus, of an attempt to bring together the federal people and the provincial people to get to the next step . Now, what are the possibilities, ~lr . Speaker? Now, the Prime Minister has said 4 21 2

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1515 SD - 1 MR. STIRLING: that if we had agreement with them that until we become a have Province we would get 100 per cent of the benefits as though they were on shore. Now let us suppose he sai~: Youcan have that forever; that would be ownership. So the question that we have to negotiate, the question we have to discuss 1 is how long a period can we have those total benefits while we are resolving the question of ownership. Now, Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me that the Prime Minister has gone just about as far as anyone could go in coming to Newfoundland and saying yes,to use the words in the Evening Telegram, 'I plead for you to get together with us and resolve this question in a political manner'. And, Mr.Speaker, that very simply is our position. Our position is that we own the offshore but in order to develop it we have to get together with Ottawa, we have to work out an agreement. Now by the government's own figures, by their own estimates, if we take the next twenty years, and if we had world prices - by the way, Mr.

Speaker, that is something that is not generally understood. We talked about electricity here yesterday. This government appears to be on record as saying that they want the world price for oil and,if that means passing that along to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.we cannot live with it. But, Mr. Speaker, there are some inconsistencies there , so that our job in the Opposition rignt now is to try to find a way, on behalf of all of Newfoundland and Labrador,to bring this Province together with the federal government, our partners, to develop the offshore. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I do not see anything inconsistent, I do not see any problem in getting the agreement, I do not see any problem in having this a unanimous resolution of this House of Assembly and,therefore , I would urge the Premier to instruct his colleagues on that side of the House to support this resolution because it will get us away from this position that the government has dug 4 2 1 3

May 13, 1981 Tape tb. 1515 SD - 2 HR. STIRLDlG: itself into , a position in which there is not place for movement. And therefore, Mr. S.peaker, I present that cas~ and present it now while the Premier is here. To get the next step, we will support the government on the question o£ ownership, but on the question of gettinq together and resolving the next step of development, maybe it will be a twenty year plan.

The government's own figures sh01., that for seventeen of the next twenty years if \.,e get all of the ownership rights settled, if we own it, then if we jack the prices up to worla prices - that means Newfoundland and Labrador residents paying double the present prices - if we get that, we will still in seventeen out of those twenty years have to go to Ottawa and say we would like to have our share of equalization. Under the new constitution, Mr. Speaker, we will be going to Ottawa as a right saying we are getting our share of equalization.

Under the proposal of the Provinces, equalization was not a right but under the new constitution we will get it as a right. So, Mr. Speaker, if the government has select the twenty year programme - MR. BARRY: All they have to do is give one dollar a year and that would satisfy that right. MR. NEARY: No, that is not true. MR. STIRLING: Mr. Speaker, so if we sum up this whole position of where we are now - MR. NEARY: (Inaudible) narrow- minded. MR.

STIRLING: - we have a resolution which everybody should be able to agree to and that is that we own the offshore and we want the Province and the federal government to get to­ gether. ~1e should have the unanimous support of the House on this, Mr. Speaker, because for seventeen of the next twenty years, we are still- 4 2 1 4

1 May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1516 MR. STIRLING: not going to have enough money to be able to do without equalization payments. So we seem to be talking about the same period of time. If we are talking about the life of the well being twenty years, maybe. Maybe there is not that great a difference on Hibernia. There may not be that great a difference between the provincial position and the federal position from a practical point of view. So, our proposal, Mr. Speaker, is "Let us open discussions on what is going to happen for the next twenty years.

Let us work out an agreement that Ottawa will give us everything they said they will NM - 1 give us, which is 100 per cent,for the next twenty years." l1aybe it will be seventeen to twenty, that is part of negotiations, part of getting together. Let us talk in terms now of a twenty year development programme which is the life of Hibernia, and if they are going to give us that,then let us negotiate on that basis while we try to find a way to resolve the o1vnership. Because otherwise, Mr.

Speaker, the alternative , if this government continues to maintain its head in the sand approach,the alternative is that somebody takes us to court and,based on the advice that they have given out, through their advisor, we may lose everything. So you cannot negotiate, "Okay, we will take the twenty year deal'' when we have lost everything. I do not want to lose it to Ottawa and the federal civil servants. I can see the hardening of their position. And the position being taken by the Province at the present time, Mr.

Speaker, is allowing any of those people who are not friends of ours in Ottawa to be hardening their position. What we need to do is to take some action while we have a choice. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you saw 42 s

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1516 NM - 2 MR. STIRLING: a good example of action having to be taken where there is no choice. And that was on the Cat Arm development. We just ran out of time. Nothing is happening on the Lower Churchill. So, Mr.

Speaker, I do make this plea to the Premier,in the context of working together and what is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I do ask the Premier to allow his members to vote for this unanimous resolution because there is not one word of criticism of the government's position in it, and then the House of Assembly sets up the mechanism to get the Province and the federal government together. An excellent resolution, Mr. Speaker, and one done in the spirit of what is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Butt} : The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard another approach that the Liberal Party of Newfoundland is trying to take to get some of the credit that this government and this Party has been getting for the last ten years on standing up for the rights of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a chance to try to worm their way into the good graces of an issue that most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians agree is the right position that a Newfoundlander or Labradorian should take as it relates to the offshore case. I welcome the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Stirling), I welcome the Liberal Opposition to our side, to finally having seen the light on the issue of the offshore. They have hemmed and hammed. They have danced a jig many, many times over the last few years as to whether they would support or whether they would reject. 4 2 1 6 .~·

Nay 13, 1981 Tape No . 1516 NM - 3 PRE~IIER ?ECKFORD: It got so bad, ~lr. Speaker, it go so bad over there that one of their members on a matter of principle, not too long ago, had to cross the floor of this House and had to put this resolution on the Order Paper . SOMB HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PlU:MIER PECKFORD: Now, t<lr . Speaker, I heard from the Leader of the Opposition {Mr . Stirling) one of the most naive approaches to the development of this Province that I have ever heard .

If this attitude prevades the Liberal Opposition then the sell-outs of the past would only be minor in comparison to the sell - outs of the future. Because to enter into a position that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to put forward now, as being the party that ah1ays supported the O\~ership of the 4 2 1 i

May 13, 1981, Tape 1517, Page 1 -- apb PREMIER PECKFORD: offshore when the Leader immediately before the present Leader hemmed and hammed in this House over talking about something less than ownership, talking about the word 'jurisdiction', standing up here in the House and asking me questions, 'Does the Premier mean jurisdiction? Does the Premier mean ownership? What does the Premier mean?' when it was clear to all except members on the opposite side what was meant by it. Now, Mr.

Speaker, let me just indicate to the members of the Opposition and to the members of this House just very briefly the history of this particular issue, the history of it, because it bears repeating in a very quick way so that we get the context of what we are talking about here today, and the context of the resolution put forward by the member for Baie Verte - White Bay (Mr. Rideout) and the subsequent amendment put forward by the members of the Opposition 1 who are now trying to claim some credit from something that the government has been a part of for a long, long time.

Let us look at the history of it, let us go back to the early, middle and late sixties when Mr. Shaheen and Mr. Doyle and other people were alive and well in this Province and when the Premier of the day gave by comfort letter to these people certain parts of the offshore that were near the shore.

And then later the federal government, through its regulations literally gave away, because the regulations were loose in those days in the federal jurisdiction, a lot of the land that is now held by the companies; that was held at the time by the Eastcan group off the Labrador coast, that was held by Amoco off the South coast, and that was held by Shell , Texaco and Mobil and Imperial essentially, and BP, off 4 2 1 8

May 13, 1981, Tape 1517, Page 2 -- apb PREMIER PECKFORD: the Northeast coast. All that land was put out. In 1972 there was a drastic change in public policy in this Province as it related to the whole question of the offshore. The new government of the day, in 1972, reasserted a dormant idea which said that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, because of the Terms of Union with Canada, had claim to and ownership of the minerals on the Continental Shelf in the same way as if they were above the water.

And suddenly,this change being brought about by the new administration of 1972, work was started by the Minister of Mines and Energy at the time, who is now the Minister of Mines and Energy(Mr. Barry), and others to develop a legal position on this and to do additional work to form the foundation of what we have now evolved into here in 1980-81. 1972 to 1977, essentially, was the period in which this research was going on by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador when they were developing their case.

Simultaneously with this kind of evolution, this kind of research, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was talking to the Government of Canada over those numbers of years, over those five years, and all through that period of negotiation and of talk and of discussion, there was some chance that there would be a resolution of the issue in favour of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. And many, many different meetings were held and many discussions were held at the highest level, and within the bureaucratic level, to see that is could be.

However, as we moved toward 1975, 1976, 1977, it became clear that the federal Canadian Government was not willing to entertain the idea that the administration that came in in 1972 had put forward and they became 4 2 1 9

May 13, 1981, Tape 1517, Page 3 -- apb PREMIER PECKFORD: pretty hardened in their position that there was to be change in that position at all. But let us not forget there were five whole years, or four whole years for sure, in which there was a lot of talk. And even to the time when I became Minister of Mines and Energy in 1976, or whenever- I think it was '76 - there was still discussion going on with the Minister of Energy in Ottawa, then Mr.

Gillespie, and myself, and with the Prime Minister and with the Premier and at the bureaucratic level, and through all of that there was absolutely no change in the position of the federal government. If anything, it had hardened over that period of time.

We then proceeded through the process of establishing, in fact, jurisdiction by issuing oil and gas regulations under the Oil and Gas Act that had been passed earlier and these regulations were promulgated and from those regulations have flowed, essentially, the exploration programme of the companies, the relinquishment of acreage and all the rest of it, and what we see today. Now, after all of that was done, Mr.

Speaker, as most people know, it is recent history now, we continued to do that and both sides continued to ta~e their respective positions until the constitutional process of last year when after some persuasion by some of the other Premiers and myself the Prime Minister was persuaded that it should become part of the constitutional package so that,therefore, we sat down, and, Mr. Speaker, this is extremely significant, during all the constitutional discussions of last Summer 4220 w •

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1518 SD - l PREMIER PECKFORD: at the ministe~~al level when the offshore was one of the more prominent issues for that constitutional change, the federal government and the Prime Minister of Canada refused to even put a new position on the table as it related to offshore. It was one of the few issues of the twelve that the Canadian government refused to put any kind of position on the table, zero, none, over and over again would not respond, every single jurisdiction, every single province responded.

And there were meetings with the officials, back to the ministers and the ministers back to the officials 1 and each time it was vetoed by the federal government's representatives at those meetings 1 through that whole bit and piece 1 until we come to the time when the crunch came on the constitution and the Prime Minister decided to act unilaterally--forget about the offshore, forget about hydro transmission, forget about other things that other provinces had had at the table-and go with the very shortened package of a Charter of Rights, patriation and an amending formula which left us out in the cold. Now, Mr.

Speaker, in-between that time and before that constitutional conference -I am sort of ahead of my story chronologically- there was a change in Ottawa for a brief period of time at which time the Prime Minister of the day, Prime Minister Clark, prepared a letter and signed it acknowledging the ownership of the offshore for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The present Prime Minister of Canada has refused to accept this written documentation from the previous Prime Minister and exempted himself. He has totally and absolutely refused that.

Then the constitutional conference, then the rejection of the offshore by the Canadian government,and no new proposals on the table right through the bit and piece,and then we will get down to the 4 2 2 1

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1518 SD - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: unilateralism. At the same time - this was the very interesting part of it - as the Canadian government was saying absolutely no on this issue, putting no new proposals on the table, they were negotiating with. the Province of Nova Scotia seriously about doing some deal, Now they thought they had a deal with Nova Scotia when Mr. Reagan was the Premier of Nova Scotia and they had done . a memorandum of understanding on the Maritimes ~~t, but when they changed governments, when Hr. Reagan was defeated and Mr.

Buchannan became the Premier, the policy on offshore changed in Nova Soctia somewhere close to where our position was and Mr. Buchannan rejected the Maritimes Agreement. It really never got off the ground anyway, it was only a piece of paper that really never meant anything. But at the same time the Canadian government •.vas saying,' No, no, no~· No new position even; not only no, but no ne1~ position,they were negotiating with Nova Scotia for some kind of what the Prime Minister called ,when he was down here, a joint agr~t.

And we had meetings with Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia asked for meetings with us during that time, that constitutional conference in Ottawa. And we sat down with Nova Scotia, went through it with them, indicated that from our point of view and all of the talks we had with Mr. Lalonde lately and with his deputy minister and with his assistant deputy minister, there position had not changed. The Minister of Energy was at some of those meetings with me during that period. The long and the short of it was that Nova Scotia felt optimistic that they could do a joint kind of agreement.

And it was only last Fall that that whole situation broke down, that the Nova Scotia government, which did not have the legal foundation for a case that we had, were unable to reach an agreement with. the federal government for joint management and sharing of revenues 4222 I•

t-lay 13, 1981 Tape No. 1518 so - 3 PREr-IIER PECKFORD: on the offshore . And that is t,.lhere it remains essentially to this day, Mr.

Speaker , only with only one caveat ; the Prime Minister promised to all the Premiers at the constitutional con£erence,secretly and in public ,that after the constitutional package •.o~as over, not knowing that he was going to do it unilaterally at that time , but because all twelve might not be able to get done by that point in time, there would be a - what ever •//as done . not knowing ho1-1 it was going to be done, whatever was left ,,,ould become part of another constitutional con£erence immediately thereafter . That was a solemn promise given by the Prime Minister at that time .

And we intend to hold him to that kind of promise if in fact before that time some change in the federal position can be discerned so t hat "'e can sit down and do some serious negotiation. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know - MR . STIRLING: (Inaudible) in court . PREMIER PECKFORD: - the Leader of the Opposition (~ . Stirling ) and the Lioeral opposition , I do not know if they are totally familiar- the Leader of the Opposition seems to be coming famili ar with the fact of what we are talking about here. We are talking about a massive, massive development .

Now it is alright for the Prime Minister and , you know, as I said the day or so after the Prime Minister was down here, if the federal government has a new 422 3

May 13,1981 Tape No. 1519 AH-1 PREMIER PECKFORD: position, fine, let them put it on the table. We have been waiting for it since last June. We have put our positions on the table and we have been waiting for a position from the federal government since last June and we are - I am prepared to sit down at any time to do it. But let us not forget what is at stake here, Mr. Speaker, and we have got to be very careful how we approach this matter.

It is alright for the Prime Minister on the one hand to give and then on the other hand to take away and when he says or anybody says that suddenly we somehow can have revenues until we can become a'have ' Province and then we are treated differently than all other Canadians, I mean that kind of idea is revolting in itself,But as I said at the time in response to questions,I am willing to sit down regardless of those kind of particulars being completely unacceptable because they mean that somebody wants to make us permanently unequal to everybody else in Canada.

But the history is important to this because the opportunities abound, there is a multiplicity of opportunities for the federal government, if it wishes to resolve this offshore dispute, this jurisdictional problem,to sit down with the Government of Newfoundland and so to do. But up to this point in time, except for a television interview in this Province, a verbal television interview in this Province,with a speech which did not address itself to that very much 1 the Prime Minister and his government - and then, Mr.

Speaker, you have to add all the other facts that are going on in the country to that, laws have been passed, laws have been passed treating the offshore Newfoundland situation different than Alberta, the frontier situation, the role of Petro­ Canada. You cannot on the one hand come to Newfoundland and verbally say something and then allow your Minister of Energy 4224 ..

May 13,1981 ~ape No. 1519 AH-2 PREMIER PECKFORD: (Mr. Lalonde) in the House of Commons to do something that is totally the opposite of what you said verbally in Newfoundland. You cannot allow yourself to be going to Alberta and saying one thing and in Newfoundland be saying something else.

If the Canadian government is really serious,we will go around the world a million times to sit down to try to resolve this problem But we are not going to go down and resolve this problem and sit down under conditions which mean that from the first day we sit down at that meeting we have recognized the principle which means we are going to be unequal to other Canadians after 1995 or after the year 2000.

We are not going to sit down and be party to a meeting which means by sitting down we have already accepted certain principles which are as far as we are concerned rights that we understand that we have in Canada. But if there is to be a change then let us get on with the job. And now, Mr. Speaker, to the resolution on the offshore. Here is the resolution put forward by the member for Baie Verte-White Bay (Mr. Rideout).

WHEREAS the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a moral and legal claim ; AND

WHEREAS the federal government does not recognize our claim. And remember now, recognize our claim. And to this day,the Prime Minister statements withstanding, the Prime Minister's statments standing, they do not recognize our claim for ownership. It is a partial thing, it is a partial thing. It was done for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal party of Newfoundland to try to help you along and boost you along down here, to get you out of the doldrums, to get you up of your political knees and you grabbed it.

You allowed him to hoodwink you verbally, you allowed him to hoodwink you and you should not have allowed him to do it. At the same time then, he slapped half 4225

May 13,1981 Tape No. 1519 AH-3 PREMIER PECKFORD: you across the face aecause he gave all his attention to Mr. Eddie instead of giving it to Mr. Len. That is what he did to you. You allowed yourselves to get sucked in over there and thought that this was going to be some great political plum that you could thrust at this side of the House. How naive can you get? And now you are left prostrate on the floor with nothing only Ed Roberts, who is supposed to be the big hero now in the Liberal party of Newfoundland . I would not have put up with it, Mr. Speaker.

We were dying to fight for you opposition members over there when we saw the way that it was handled. And if the Leader of the Opposition is not careful,the handwriting will be on the wall. The Leader of the Opposition 1 I give him a warning, I will give him a little bit of sound advice; if he is not careful th.e handwriting is on the wall, somebody over there or somewhere does not like the Leader of the Opposition. SOME HON.MEMBERS: Oh, oh! PREMIER PECKFORD: So, Mr. Speaker, there is a basic principle here. Is there a recognition of our claim or is there not? That is the great question.

ANn WHKREA.S the J:>rovince needs revenues and jobs from offshore oil and gas to better our society; AND

WHEREAS the government of the Province - there is no negatives in this resolution either, AND

WHEREAS our regulations give twenty-five per cent of each dollar earned, shared with the federal qovernment and thirty-five per cent goes to the companies; AND lvHEREAS this percentage is reasonable and consistent with revenue sharing currently 4226

May 13, 1981, Tape 1520, Page 1 -- apb PREMIER PECKFORD: being enjoyed by the other producing provinces, then let it be resolved that this hon. House urge the federal government to reconsider it's position on offshore minerals and recognize the Province's legitimate right to ownership and control of them. And once that recognition of claim is acknowledged, then there is, I think, the basis for a very fruitful sharing of revenues, sharing of management responsibilities, sharing of environmental responsibilities, so that we can get on with the job of developing the offshore.

But there is a basic 1 fundamental principle that must be at the bottom and must be the foundation of that, that there is recognition of claim, not for a finite period, not until we have all our bills paid so that we can go back on welfare again, but for all times, that we are to be treated as Canadians for all times, that suddenly our forests here now,that are on land, there is not some time in 2020 when suddemly the forest, the trees are taken away from us again.

There is not anything in this Province now in law which says that the iron ore deposits in Labrador suddenly are to become federal responsibility when we become half have or all have, there is a recognition that that is in the provincial domain, which is not to say that there is not sharing of revenues with the federal government but is to say that the major management techniques to be used in the utilization and development of that resource lies with the provincial Legislature and the provincial government. That is what the ownership and the claim means. So, Mr.

Speaker, what the Liberal Opposition are trying to do, and will fail miserably in doing, is to try to go down a middle of the road and have their legs on both sides of the fence. 4227 • ......,! ''

May 13, 1981, Tape 1520, Page, 2 -- apb PREMIER PECKFORD: Yes, ownership but. Ownership, but. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) protests too much. I will say to the Liberal party, I will say to the Leader of the Opposition to be fair with the Prime Minister we are prepared as a government to sit down, if in actual fact the Prime Minister and the Canadian Federal Government, which it seems, have changed at least their attitude toward the offshore situation. And, Mr.

Speaker, during his speech the Leader of the Opposition - I should dispense with this, and I have dispensed with it a hundred times, over and over again, and other people on this side - talked about his trying to get across the idea - the Leader of the Opposition - that we are in favour of world price for oil and gas. Now, Mr.

Speaker, over and over again we have reiterated the 75 per cent of world price which would be a reasonable and fair price, and allowed for - do not forget that if you do not have a higher price for your oil and gas our oil and gas offshore will not be developed very quickly, that they must be able to get a fair price for it, otherwise, the companies will not be developed. Our position on pricing is clear, it is in writing, and we have said it over and over again and we stand by it because it means that we will be able to develop the resources here. We are willing to go to any place, Mr.

Speaker, to sit down as we did all last Summer, as we did from 1972 to 1975, and we will go it again now to try to get some kind of resolution on the offshore. But we are not going to do it when by so doing part of our rights that are God given are thereby automatically extinguished. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear~ 4228 _...,_,

May 13, 1981, Tape 1520, Page 3 -- apb MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER(Butt): The hon. the member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. HANCOCK: Now you are going to hear a speech. Now you are going to hear it, boy. You have set him up. You got him going. I can hear the adrenalin going over here. MR. BARRY: MR. NEARY: MR. HANCOCK: MR. NEARY: dinner? Why were you not there? I beg your pardon? Never mind the dinner. Why was I not at the MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: I do not think Cornish hen is worth $150.

If it. had been $20 for a bean supper I probably would have gone. But, Mr. Speaker, I must say we are very disappointed with the Premier's reaction and his attitude toward this matter, especially his reaction to the Leader of the Opposition(Mr. Stirling) . Now, let me reiterate what the Leader of the Opposition said that the Premier tried to distort. I think now, probably, before I say that, that we know now what the problem is with the Premier of this Province, it is vanity. It is v.anity, .l-1r. Speaker, that is stopping the offshore development, vanity and playing political games.

The Premier is noted for that, in the last couple of years, for playing political games. But let me reiterate what the Leader of the Opposition said, if I interpreted what he said correctly. I believe he said that if the Premier of this Province, if the Government of this Province is prepared to sit down and negotiate in good faith, common sense prevailing, if 4229

May 13, 1981, Tape 1520, Page 4 -- apb MR. NEARY: they would do that I believe the Leader of the Opposition(Mr. Stirling) said that if the Premier of this Province goes to Ottawa to do that, or the negotiations take place in Newfoundland, that we feel - not only do we feel but we state emphatically 4230 ' I

r<lay 13, 1981 Tape No. 1521 EL - 1 MR. NEARY: that the Pre~ier goes into these negotiations with us behind him as far as ownership is con­ cerned, right in the resolution itself. In other words, if negotiations take place,that we on this side of the House say,' Yes, Premier Peckford, go in, you have our blessing, negotiate in good faith, use a little common sense and we are right behind you as far as ownership is concerned.' I believe that is what the Leader of the Opposition is say- ing. SOME HON. l<iEMBERS : MR. NEARY: MR. STAGG: MR. NEARY: MR. STIRLING: Hear, hear!

We would say the same thing if the - (Inaudible) scared over there. No, it does not have us scared. Everybody should be scared. You are going to blow it if you are not careful. MR. HANCOCK: Production will start when Peck- ford goes. You can mark it in your yellow book. MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : Order, please! MR. HANCOCK: That is the word outside the overpass. That is the word outside of the overpass. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, if the government, if the Provincial Government takes the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada to have it settled that way, then we would be behind the government in stating that Newfoundland owns the offshore. If Mobil takes the Province to court, we contend that Newfoundland owns·the offshore. So there is no dispute in that, there is no disagreement over that fact. The Premier should forget playing politics and stop being paranoid about this matter. He should stop that and get down to brass tacks because what the Leader of the Opposition did today, I thought, was very courageous.

He laid out a case which would give the Premier an opportunity to sit down and 4231 -- .

May 13, 1981 MR. NEARY: AN HON. MEMBER: MR. HANCOCK: MR. NEARY: Tape NO. 1521 negotiate in good faith. He has not got sense enough. He was expectinga lot. EL - 2 Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Canada, if the Prime Minister of this country and if the Govern­ ment of Canada \~as unreasonable with the Premier of this Province or with the government, if they were unreasonable, let them come back to the House and then see where my friend, the Leader of the Opposition,stands if they were being un­ reasonable about this whole matter.

I believe the Leader of the Opposition would be the first to say, 'You did the right thing, break off the negotiations, come back to the House and report to us and then we will take it from there. We will steer our course from there.' But, as the situation stands, Mr. Speaker, is the Government of Canada being unreasonable? The Government of Canada are offering the Province more than they have in their own regulations. The Government of Canada is saying you can have one hundred per cent of forty-five per cent until you become a'have' province and then you share with the rest of Canada.

Andthere is not a living soul in New­ foundland today who disagrees with that policy. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: So, Mr. Speaker, the Premier should stop making these silly statements like,.This is another app­ roach so that the Opposition can get some of the credit for the government's hard 'work over the last ten years.' He made that statement there a few moments ago. He should stop mak­ ing statements like that. They are not getting us anywhere in this Province.And then he said, 'They are trying to worm their way into the issue.' we are trying to worm our way into the issue!

What does that gain the Province, Mr. Speaker, mak­ ing that kind of a statement? MR. WARREN: From the Premier, too. 4232

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1521 EL - 3 MR. NEARY: From the Premier .'OU would exr:;ect better. I mean, you know, you would expect a little class from the Premier of this Province, a little class. He says, 'The other side, ' he says, 'has finally seen the light.' And then he goes on to say, 'They danced a jig, they danced a jig for the last ten years.' That is what you call class on the part of the Premier of this Province. That is going to help our negotiations, Mr. Speaker. That sort of talk is going to help us to resolve the offshore problem! I sometimes wonder.

And then he went on to say,- oh, he went right back to the sixties, right pack to the sixties when he talked about Mr. Shaheen and other industrialists who came into this Province. He had to drag that into it again. I thought he left that to the President of the Council (W. Marshall), the member for St. John's East. I thought that was his role, to go back and drag all these names on the floor of this House, a gentleman who tells us that all we do in this House is smear people's character and so forth. The Premier just referred to Mr. Shaheen as if he were some kind of a criminal, that he had leprosy.

I thought that was the role for the President of the Council. But, Mr. Speaker, we could if we wanted to,but 4233 ·""'

May 13, 1981 Tape 1522 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: this is too serious a matter. We could drag up all kinds of names and trot them out on the floor of this House. The government have skeletons in their own closet. We mentioned one yesterday, Mr.Beaubella of J. Tyler Mining and Exploration. If we wanted to tree that out in this debate we could do it, but we are not going to, we are going to take the high ground in this - AN HON. MEMBER: Right on! AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) . MR. NEARY: Yes, we could trot it out. We could say to the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr. Barry), 'Is it true that Mr.

Beaubella flew in here the day before yesterday on a private jet that he had chartered and had a stand-by at Torbay airport so he could come up and consult with his lawyer, Mr. Dick Greene, who is very close to the administration - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. NEARY: - and then rush back to Torbay airport, get back aboard his private jet and take off before his creditors could get at him?' I mean, we could trot that out. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. NEARY: SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! But what good will that do? Hear, hear! MR. NEARY: Ah, Mr. Speaker, if they want to refer - they have their Mr. Doyles and their Mr.

Shaheens on that side of the· House. MR. WARREN: too. MR. NEARY: And they are sitting on that side, Yes, I guarantee you! So, Mr. Speaker, what we are primarily interested in is trying to get the parties back to the table. We are trying to entice the Premier of this Province to forget playing political games - AN HON. MEMBER: Right on! 4234

May 12, 1981 Tape 1522 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: - to stop being paranoid about this matter, and try to resolve the problem in the best interests of the people of this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder if the Premier wants this matter resolved at all. I believe, Mr. Speaker, I really firmly believe that the kind of game that the Premier of this Province is playing is that he wants to keep this issue going and use it as an issue in the next provincial general election. I believe that is why he wants to prolong it.

Nobody in this Province, nobody but nobody can see any sense in what he is doing now, continuously attacking this one and attacking that one, attacking the oil companies, attacking the Government of Canada. There is absolutely no sense to it. AN HON . MEMBER: MR. NEARY: AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible). MR. NEARY: He does not want (inaudible). He does not want anybody's support. He is disappointed now we got And he would be the most disappointed man in this world if the matter was resolved tomorrow. Well, Mr.

Speaker, what would happen if the Government of Canada and the Province entered into a joint agreement to develop this resource? The Government of Canada would pay for the surveillance. The Government of Canada would pay for the protection of the environment. This Province would be off the hook. The Government of Canada would police the offshore resources that would cost literally millions piled upon millions of dollars every year - AN HON. .MEMBER: Which we cannot do anyway. MR. NEARY; -which we cannot afford to do. That would be one advantage of having a joint agreement to develop this Province. AN HON .

MEMBER : Right. 4235

~lay 13, 1981 Tape 1522 EC - 3 MR. NEARY: And there are all kinds of other be nefits that would flow from a joint agreement. But, as I said, Mr . Speaker, I am becoming more convinced all the time that the Premier does not want an agreement. Whether it be a joint agreement, whether it be an agreement for the Province to proceed \>1ith the development of the resource, or whether it be an agreement for the Government of Canada to control the resource , I am convinced the Premier does not want to see this matter settled. He is gunning for a showdown . No doubt, Mr .

Speaker, he would have an election on the matter if he does not get his o~m way. Mr . Speaker, it \>1il1 backfire . The Premier of ~his Province , ~tr . Speaker, is espousing four causes and he is going to lose all four if he does not be careful. He will be the biggest loser in Newfoundland ' s history. The constitution, as ~e calls it - the constitution issue is gone. After the end of July the Premier of this Province along with seven other premiers in Canada will \>1ish that they had never heard of a constitution, or as he says, ' a constitution '. 4236 t-

May 13, 1981 MR. NEARY: year, will .. be a dead issue. MR. STIRLING: premiers, the agreement of all agreed. How come MR. NEARY: MR. STIRLING: MR. NEARY: was not in, that. MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : MR. NEARY: they the did Tape No. 1523 NM - 1 That issue, after July of this Whatever happens when the eight eiqht Premiers means that they not have - That is right. - the offshore into that? That is right. The offshore Order, please! And, Mr. Speaker, the transmitting of hydro electric power across Quebec with the Premier's attitude, and his approach towards that, he is going to lose that battle too.

You know what the hon. gentleman told us in the House the other day, Mr. Speaker, you know what he told us. Just listen to what he said. Just listen to the logic of it, Listen to the common sense of it and the poor old dolts and clowns and buffoons in this Province who write editorials are too stunned and too stupid to see it. AN HON. MEMBER: MR. NEARY: Right on. Right on buddy. Too stupid to see it. Listen, let us just listen.

The Premier of the Province is saying, "Why does not 0.uebec - why does not the Government of Canada force Quebec to give us the same right to transmit power through Quebec, a separate transmission line, or over the existing transmission line, the same as they do for pipelines to transport gas and oil?" AN HON. MEMBER: Eight minutes. MR. NEARY : Well, Mr. Speaker, let me explode that myth. First of all,there has never been a province in Canada object to a pipeline going across its boundaries. No 4237

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1523 MR. NEARY: Province has eyer objected. So the matter has never arisen of whether or not the Government of Canada should be called upon to enforce the constitutional rights of the Province as far as movement of goods and services is concerned. The matter has never come NM - 2 up. It has never been tested.

And if it was ever tested I am sure the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister of . this country would give the oil companies the same answer as they gave the Premier of this Province in connection with the transmitting of hydro electric power and that is, "Go and negotiate with the Province of Quebec, if they are unreasonable with you come back and see us and we will see what we can do." The matter of the pipeline has never arisen.

But this Premier takes the attitude -now let us just fol),ow it through and see l'lhat would happen if the Prime Minister of this Country fell in line with the Premier of Newfoundland. Let us say he did. "Let us sa~ nremier Peckford,you are right and we are going to force Quebec to give you a right-of-way across the Province of Quebec without their approval, we are going to force them to give you that right-of-way to transmit power. Now,what would that mean, Mr. Speaker, what l'lould it mean?

It would mean that this Province would then have to construct a transmission line 600 or 700 miles across the Province of Quebec. Now,is the Government of Canda going to come in and work out the nitty gritty, work out the details, and tell the Province of. Quebec where that transmission line is going to go? Is it going to go across private property in Quebec that has to be expropriated? Is it going to go through buildings? Is it going to go right through sky scrapers in Montreal? Is it? 4238 .. r:

~lay 13, 1981 A':ll H0::-1. :-IE:>IB!:R: ~IR . NEARY : Tape No . 1523 NM - 3 No. Well,where is it going to go? Who is going to decide ~there the transmission line is going to go? l'lho is going to work out the details? Is the Government of Canada going to send in the troops, the army, to guard that transmission line once it is constructed, a lot of it out in the l<~ilderness, in a P:::-ovi.nce that does not want it? Nhat 1.;ould happen then , Mr . Speaker? It would not last five minutes .

The obvious thing for the Premier to do, if he wants to win that case, and he is on a collision course now, is to go to the Prime Minister of Canda , call up the Governor of the State of Nel<l York, or the State of Maine, go up to Ottawa, see the Prime Minister and say, "Look, we have a contract . t~e have a contract to sell the surplus power. Now we went to Quebec, they would not negotiate with us, they were unreasonable with us, now l<~ill you - DR. COLLINS: Contract with whom? ~IR . NEARY: Pardon? DR. COLLINS: Contract with .,.1hom? MR .

NEARY: With New York State, that is what the Premier is telling us, or/and the Minister of Mines and Energy, contract with the State of Ne1., York or the State of Maine to sell the surplus power . AN HON. MENBER: ~lR. NEARY: At what price? At what price? 1 do not know. ....

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1524 ow - 1 MR. S. NEARY : That is u~ to them, I mean, I am not running the show. DR. COLLINS: (Inaudible) the established price (inaudible) . fvi..R. MOORES: Do not be so silly. Keep going 'Stevie'. MR. S. NEARY: Unless you know the - Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point that I make. You know that - SOME HON. ME~IDERS: Oh, oh! t<!R. S. NEA.~Y: Th~s is the same minister who told us a year ago that you buy something for one dollar and you sell for two dollars, 1 per cent, the same minister. SOME HON. MEt<IDERS: Oh, oh! MR. S.

NEARY: I would not want to have him out negotiating the transmission line across the Province of Que- bee. 'He neatly', so The Daily News fellow says- the poor, simple little clod- 'He neatly answered the Opposition'. He answered nothing. And since when did they start editorializing in the coverage of this House? I was tempted to call up the editor of The Daily News this morning,or the publisher and ask him if they havea new editor moved over on page sixteen of their newspaper. It is unheard of, Mr. Speaker. But in the meantime, I am not going to be distracted by the hon. gentleman.

And then there is the cod fish. They are going to lose the cod fish war. Those are three issues gone 1 and if we are not careful we will lose the battle of the offshore. And this Premier will go down in history as the biggest loser in this Province. It will not be him that will lose it, it will be the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. An1 so, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to try to get the thing back on the rails, to try to get them back on track, to trv to get the Premier to listen for a change, to try to get the Premier down off his high horse.

And if he thinks this speech that was made by Mr. Trudeau the other day when he was here for the fund raising banquet, if the Premier thinks 4240 •

May l3, 1981 Tape No. 1524 ow - 2 MR. S. NEARY: that is a victory for the Province, well, I am all for it, let him go on thinking that. I think all of us on this side of the House should get up and congratulate the Premier on his victory, if that is what he wants. If he wants to go on an ego trip, if it is vanity, let everybody get un and congratulate him and say, 'My God, what a fantastic victory. The Government of Canada are going to give you 100 per cent of 45 per cent until you become a 'have' orovince. And, Mr. Spea~er, with Hibernia, by the way - ~~R.

BARRETT : \'Thy leave it at becoming a 'have' r::>rovince? MR. S. NEARY: All right, the hon. gentleman raised the point that I was going to make as a matter of fact. I am allfor going beyond being a 'have' province, I am all for that, but how can you resolve it unless you sit down and negotiate it7 Maybe the Government of Canada can be persuaded to let it go beyond becoming a 'have' Province, maybe they can. But how do you find out? I'V!R. BARRETT: suaded. MR. S. NEARY: They should not have to be per- They should not have to be per- suaded, they do have some interest in this Canadian resource, you know. AN HON.

MEMBER: They say they own it. MR. S. NEARY: They say they own it - well, okay. Mr. Speaker, Hibernia alone is not going to solve Newfoundland's problems. We need two or three Hibernias. If anybody thinks in this House for one minute that Hibernia is going to solve the welfare problems, the unem­ ployment problems, the high cost of living in this Province, well, they had better wake up. It is not, Mr. Speaker 6 As a matter of fact, it is going to further aggravate the high cost of living. It is not going to solve the welfare problems, it is not going to solve the unemployment problems.

As a matter of fact,we are 4 2 4 1

t-lay 13, 1981 Tape No . 1524 ON - 3 ~IR . S . NEARY: told by the administration that 500 people \o~ill be employed in the offshore in production, 500 or 600 . That is the same number employed in the senior citizens homes in this Province . So, Mr. Speaker, we may need Canada after seventeen or eighteen or nineteen or twenty years, we may need Canada. And so , I .,.,ould suggest, l'lr . Speaker , that the Premier stop playing political games t-lith this important issue and that he stop being paranoid and get do\o/TI to brass tacks and go and negotiate . If he cannot get a satisfactory settlement, if Mr .

Trudeau is being unreasonable,report back to the House and then we will plan our strategy from ~~ere . SOHE HON. MEMBERS: Hear , hear ! ~R . SPEAKER (Butt) : Order, please! The hon. the ·member for Stephen- ville . SOME HON . MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR . F. STAGG: Mr. Spea ker, this is the first opportunity I have had to address myself to this particular issue in this session of the House . It is an issue that we on tnis side have been addressing ourselves to 4242

May 13, 1981- Tape No. 1525 EL - 1 MR. STAGG: throughout our tenure in government • . It is something that is of tremendous importance to us as a political party, and the decisiveness and the position that we own the offshore is not one that we have come to recently, it is something that we have been consistently espousing for some years and we will continue to espouse in the future.

A friend of mine recently, at a social function that I was attending at which there was an­ other member of the House of Assembly, indicated what the different philisophy between the Progressive Conservative Party in Newfoundland was and the Liberal Party and he said that the PC position is as follows: He says, 'We own it' - talking about the offshore - 'We own it'. To the federal govern­ ment, 'you want it, you cannot have it'. The Liberal position, on the other hand is, it is ours,_i.e. Newfoundland's,you want it, take it.

And that is the position, basically, that is outlined in this resolution, this proposed resolution. It starts off, it says,'WHEREAS the position of the House of Assembly is that offshore mineral oil and gas resources are owned by the Province'. Okay, well we are on all fours there. We own it. Then they go on to say, 'and

WHEREAS the Prime Minister has expressed a willingness to discuss either a political settlement or a court settlement.' Well, here we are, the position of the Liberal Party is that we own it. They cannot wait. There is only one paragraph in between which talks about wise and controlled development being necessary. And then they say, 'and

WHEREAS the Prime Minister has expressed a willingness to discuss either a political settlement or a court settlement.' Well, I suppose he would. Their position is that we own it. The Prime Minister's pos­ ition is that he owns it so we, of course, if the Prime 4243 ,-...,!

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1525 EL - 2 MR. STAGG: Minister feels that he owns it, we have to talk settlement with him. Well, I say hogwash to that and that is not our position, our position is tha~ we own this resource. And just because the Prime Minister says that he owns it, is not necessary for us to rush up there and effect a settlement with him. That is the position of the members opposite. It is ours, you want it, take it.

And that is the position and the history of the Liberal Party in this Province when there is any resource, any Newfoundland resource that anybody else wants, the Liberal Party will be in the forefront to give it away. And I am certainly glad 1 and I know that the people of Newfoundland are glad,that the hon. gentlemen opposite will never be in a position to bargain away that re- source . And I must say, I was pleased with The Evening Telegram's reporting on this issue. The Trudeau Visit. 'The Trudeau visit to Newfoundland recently, have you ever seen anything so despicable?

A man coming down here to 'shore up the lackluster Provincial Liberals'- that is how The_Evenincr Telegram editorial put it and I believe that it was correct-' to shore up the lackluster Provincial Liberals.' How did he get down here? How did the Prime Minister get down here? Did he come down here by Air Canada? I have asked that question privately. I asked it publicly. Now, how did the Prime Minister get here? Did he come here by Air Canada or did he come down here by government jet Star.

If he came down here,paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, I expect that the $150 per plate, well, a significant amount of that,will have to go for the Prime Minister's travel be­ cause that was an entirely and purely political visit. 4244

Hay 13, 1981 Tape No. 1525 EL - 3 MR. STAGG: He came in to wreck his vitriol on this Province and on our Premier.And the things that he said about our Premier 6 The man who would have the nerve to say- here is \<lha t he said - I have a transcript of his remarks here, I would not want to misquote him. He said, 'T.he truth is I would have liked to meet with your Premier but I did not have the time to go to Florida.' Now, that is the position of the Federal Prime Minister, Prime Minister Trud­ eau.

Now, this is the same man, ladies and gentlemen, who in December of this year, or early January , was caught in one of the - how could I say - one of these resorts in Austria where only the filthy rich go. There are the rich and then there arethe filthy rich. Well, he was where the filthy rich go. The only thing is that Mother Nature captured him while he was there and he was stuck there for several days and as a result,his foray into the third world, going down where all the people are starving and hung­ ry and they want re-allocation of the world's resources , his foray into the third world was stymied.

Well, this is the same man who , over there in the lap of luxury when asked, 'Are things going to get bad.?' , said '~qell 1 we have plenty of wine and cheese here and I will have a gay old time while I am here~ This is the same man who would have the audacity to come here and make a cheap crack and say, ' ~he truth is I would have liked to meet your Premier but I did not have time to go to Florida.' Ha, ha,ha, a standing ovation from the Lib­ eral hordes at Memorial University. That is what he said, that is lvhat the man said. MR. RIDEOUT: himself. MR.

STAGG: He just got back from down South, And he just got back - well, he travels. He is a globetrotter. He spent his first forty­ five years globetrotting the world through inherited money, 4245

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1525 EL - 4 MR. STAGG: none of it through the sweat of his brow. And that is the kind of person, 4 2 4 6

Hay 13, 1981 Tape No. 1526 HR. STAGG: that is the kind of person that hon. gentlemen opposite have thrown in their lot with, who say in the one breath, "It is ours. It is ours. If you want it take it. Take it." That is the Liberal philosophy, 'You take Churchill Falls, you take the fiserhies, you take it all and give us some crumbs from your table: That is the philosophy of the Liberals. Now,what is the position in NM - 1 the resolution as put forward by my hon. friend to my right­ only literally to my right, he is not to the right of me politically - the member for Baie Verte-White Bay (Mr.

Rideout), the hon. gentleman who has not gotten his just desserts in this House for the courageous stand that he took last year 1 the man who carne across the floor of this House on this very issue? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. STAGG: He carne across the floor of this House on this very issue and his position, his position on the issue has been vindicated and will continue to be vindicated. And hon. gentlemen opposite who are now trying to slither their way back, or slither their way into the affection of the Newfoundland public, they are not going to do it.

They are not going to do it because they are damned because of what they put to writing. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : Order, please! HR. STAGG: "Whereas the position of the House of Assembly is that offshore minerals, oil and gas resources are owned by the Province." And then it says, "Whereas the Prime Minister has expressed a willingness to discuss either a political settlement or a court settlement~" lvell, why would he not? On the one hand you say, "We own it." On the other hand you say, "Let us get together so I can give it to you." Well,what kind of a bunch are you anyway?

Well,that is typical. It is what I expect of the Liberal Party. 4247 ~.

Hay 13, 1981 Tap~ No. 1526 PK - 2 1-!R. RIDEOUT : Or go to court. MR. STAGG: Or go to court. Yes, go to court where we appoint all of the judges. Well, well, well . MR. STIRLING: You will have a long wait. MR. STAGG: Now, let me deal with some of the points in our resolution. So I am going to vote against this amendment. And I am sure that hon. gentlemen on this side are going to vote against this amendment. MR. STIRLING: Regardless of what the Premier does? MR. STAGG: We are going to vote against this amendment. It is not even very well-worded. I presume that the member for the Strait of Belle Isle (Mr.

Roberts) must have been busy that day because he did not have time to draft it. I wonder who the drafter of that resolution is, or that amendment is? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! AN HON. MEMBER: He is a draft dodger. MR. STAGG: A draft dodger. Yes,whoever it was was a draft dodger. Now,what is the position of the Canadian Government so far? What is their position so far other than the few offhand comments made by the Prime Minister whichhave never been put in writing?

The only writing that it has been put into is the transcript of his remarks that have been done by some people who wanted to find out exactly what he said. Has it been followed up by a letter to our Premier saying basically that you want to get together and you want to negotiate or you want to talk about a reasonable deal or let us put it all behind us? No. nothing like that. Instead they will forge ahead with the Canada Oil and Gas Act. Oh,a very nice sounding name, Canada Oil and Gas Act. Well , what does the Canada Oil and Gas Act have in it? It has it in some very insidious - 4248

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1526 PK - 3 AN HON. MEMBER: It rapes Newfoundland . MR. STAGG: - clauses. It has something in it called the Canada lands. Oh, the Canada lands , but what are the Canada lands? The~anada lands . by definition are all those lands which are off the Northwest Territories in the Yukon wh~ch are the so-called frontier lands - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. STAGG: - but,also,all of those lands that are off the Eastern shore of Canada. And who is off the Eastern shore of Canada? Who is it? Obviously it is Newfoundland, and obviously it is Hibernia. Well , the federal government is now passinq

an Act through their Parliament - MR. STIRLING: ME. STAGG: That is why we want you to do something. -and suggesting, not suggesting, they are putting into law that Canada lands will be - MR. DINN: Out. MR. STAGG: -by legislation,will be part of Canada. It is,in effect,a confiscation and an expropriation of a land that Newfoundland brought into Confederation in 1949. AN HON. Jv!EHBER: (Inaudible) they get away with it. MR. STAGG: Yes, if they get away with it. The only thing that will stop them,because they have the majority in the House of Commons and undoubtedly they are - MR.

BARRY: The Opposition will not stop them. MR. STAGG: They have the majority, and . I suppose 1 the weak-kneed NDP that they have up there, even if they did not have a majority, the NDP could be bought off with some mess of pottage or other. But let me briefly revier,v 4249

Hay 13, 1981 Tape No . 1526 PK - 4 MR . STAGG: what our legal case is. And there is a very good

article on that in The Otta~1a Law Review, and it says, 'For a brief time,£or one brief shiny moment ' - I will editorialize it as I go throu gh , but I will basically quote from it - 'For a brief time it appeared that the Province of Ne\offoundland along ,.,ith other Naritime provinces would have its way with offshore minerals when the short-liv ed federal administration of Joe Clark purported to give t hem \vay late in 1979, nott.-1i thstanding the apparent federal victory in the offshore mineral rights reference. ' MR. STIRLING: Table it. You have to table it, you are quoting from it . HR.

STAGG: ' Prime Minister Trudeau' - I will table it surely - 'Prime Minister Trudeau made no such promise . Nevertheless,the legal claim of the Province of Newfoundland is distinguishable from that of the other provinces . ' It is distinguishable from that of the other provinces . 'The legal ramifications have been elaborated elsewhere.' And they do not go 42 50 ,.

May l3, 1981 Tape 1527 EC - l MR. STAGG: into it in detail here and I do not have time to go into it either.

"Briefly, the first component of the Newfoundland claim asserts that the English common law recognized long ago the sovereign rights of the Crown extending to the Continental Shelf underlying the territorial sea and beyond; secondly, even if this right somehow did not accrue under the common law, it is argued that the Province acquired it through antecedent Dominion status and through recognition in ·public international law of the right of sovereignty over the resources of the adjacent shelf prior to Newfoundland joining Confederation in 1949." AN RON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! MR.

STAGG: The third term of union explicitly provided that Newfoundland was to become an equal partner in Confederation with the other provinces - MR. HODDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Baird): On a point of order, the hon. the member for Port au Port. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the member is quoting from a document and I understand once a member quotes from a document it must be tabled, so I would ask the Chair to - AN HON.MEMBER: MR. SPEAKER: member for Port au Port. MR. STAGG: want me to. MR. SPEAKER: volunteered to table it. MR. RIDEOUT: MR.

ST.Z\GG: He already said he would table it. I thank the hon. the I will table 400 of them if you Order, please! It was my understanding the member The member just woke up. He just woke up, yes. Well, he wants to interrupt my train of thought. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Stephenville. 4251

!'lay 13, 1981 Tape 1527 EC - 2 MR. STAGG: He is scurrying out of the House. "The third term of union explicitly provided that Newfoundland was to become an equal partner in Confederation with the other provinces. So whatever the property the Province so sovereign possessed at the time must have been retained." And so on, it goes on. And we have an excellent legal case. And I am sure if it ever does go to court, if we are ever forced into court, that we will win it. However, what do hon. gentlemen opposite want?

Hon. gentlemen opposite want at the first possible opportunity to sit down and so-called 'negotiate', but I do not call it 'negotiate', it is to give away this resource of ours. Well, our member, the member for Baie Verte - White Bay (Mr. Rideout) says that Newfoundland has a moral and legal claim to the resource. Well, I have dealt in general with the legal claim and others will deal with it in more detail. It has been dealt with in considerable detail both in this House and elsewhere. But what about our moral claim to it? That is, in effect,a political claim.

The legal claim is one thing, but what about our Eoral claim to it? There is no doubt that Newfoundland is in last place in this country with regard to the bringing of services to its people. 1i1Je are in last place, yet we are probably the most resource-rich Province in Canada. I doubt whether there is any other province in Canad~ that has a diversity of resources, the sea resources and the land resources and the mineral resources that Newfoundland has. The per capita resource ownership of Newfoundlanders is probably unexcelled anywhere in the world, and yet we are in last place. And why are we in last place?

We are in last place because the political power in this country is elsewhere. But morally, there is no doubt that we have a position that is unassailable. And the member for Baie Verte - l~hi te Bay makes that point. He says, 'Whereas the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a moral and legal claim to the minerals on the Continental Shelf'. Well, we cannot overlook the moral: It is immoral 4252 ..

May 13, 1981 Tape 1527 EC - 3 MR. STAGG: what the federal government is trying to do with Newfoundland. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. STAGG: He says, 'And'Whereas the federal government does not recognize our claim' - well, that is true, they do not recognize our claim. I have it here on very good authority that they do not recognize our claim. Here it is. "We have said essentially this,' says the Prime Minister, "You say you own it. I hear Len Stirling say, 'I believe we own the offshore' . I believe that you c.o not," said the Prime Minister.

There was a chap, called Hacky Bennett in British Columbia who thought that he owned it. MR. RID~OUT: Now, comparing our case with the B.C. case (inaudible). MR. STAGG: that Bennett did not. That is right. Mr. Pearson thought They went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that you did not own it - 'you' - and then tried to bring it around as if it applied to Newfoundland, and the case is very much different. Well, the Prime Minister, your federal leader says that we do not own it. Now, obviously, the federal government does not agree with our case.

They do not agree with our case because they are afraid. They are afraid of ·the economic power that Newfoundlanders will wield if and when this claim of ours is confirmed. I only have three minutes left and I have just started. "And 1\THEREAS the Hibernia oil and gas field can have significant negative impact on our society and our environment" - well, is that not true? Is it not true that the federal government would like to have rapid development of the offshore? It is well known that they would like to have rapid development- tanker the oil off, 4253 ......

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1528 SD - 1 IY!R. STAGG: get it up there as fast as you can and lower the balance of the payments for Canada. \'lhat about the gas? To the heavens with the gas, we \vill flare off all the gas. And what happens? You will have wet holes on the Grand Bank, You will have dry holes in Alberta, we will have wet holes in Newfoundland. And the result of it all will be a re~urn to our previous semi-colonial status which we are so-called enjoying fv!R.. NEARY: MR. STAGG: Nhat kind of hole (inaudible)? Some cuckoo _just stuck his head in the door and said something but I am not sure what that was, Mr.

Speaker. MR. STAGG: Negative impact, yes, yes. How is this resource best developed? This resource is best developed by Newfoundlanders. It is best developed by a government which Newfoundlanders can elect and defeat. The only government which Newfoundlanders can elect and defeat is this provincial government. AN HON. ~lEMBER: Hear, hear. MR. STAGG: If you are not doing it properly, if you are being profligate . - lU~ HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! MR. STAGG: - extravagant with your resources - it is a hard word not everybody knows it. I would probably have to spell it for you, I am havinq difficulty oronouncing it myself.

MR. TH0"1S: (Inaudible). MR. STAGG: Profligacy is something that the Liberals are quite familiar with. But if we are doing it wrong , then you can defeat us, then you can toss us out and put somebody else in, put the NDP in. By that time, of course, hon. gentlemen opposite will be receiving their pensions, some of them might get re-elected so they can get .....

Ylay 13, 1981 i-1R. STAGG: ~~R. RIDEOUT: Tape No. 1528 so - 2 their pensions. The Leader of the O?position wants (inaudible). MR. STAGG: That is the position that this side of the House has. The only way that the people of Newfoundland can control this resource and control the rate of development and control how it is going to be used,is if the Province controls it because, essentially, the Province, the provincial government is the only government that the people of Newfoundland can elect and defeat 7 He have absolutely, well, negligible control over the federal government.

Even if we had elected seven PCs here last February, 1980, it would have had negligible effect on the national scene. It would have made it close but that is all. But the NDP - MR. STIRLING: MR. STAGG: Seven P.C. 's would have made (inaudible). - with their soulmates the NDP the federal Liberals would have sneaked back into power. So I put it to you,and I think that is the basic position that we in the legislation must espouse. !1R. STIRLING: Will you suJ?:-;)Qrt our amendment now? MR.

STAGG: We must control it because only through us • we are the surrogates of the Newfoundland people in this House of Assembly, Onlv when the Province controls it,and through its representatives in the House of Assembly will this resource be properly controlled. The Opposition through their amendment are trying to do their usual routine by giving it away, say you own it on the one hand J somebody else wants it, well take it 1 because we do not have the expertise or the will to deal with it,as is put so well by the member for St. Barbe (Mr. Bennett) - MR. STIRLING: Like the Public Tendering Act (il'laudible) . MR.

STAGG: - who wonders whether we have the power and the will to look after it, and the member for St. Mary's -The Capes (Mr. Hancock) who espouses an industrial strategy which says we need more linerboards and 4255

May 13, 1981 Tape No. 1528 so - 3 MR. STAGG: more Corne By Chances in this Province. Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is a party of the past in this Province as is put forward, as is so well stated in this amendment of theirs. I am voting against it ·· and I am voting for the motion so ably put by a man who walked across the floor on the issue and I say he did the right thing. We are going to support him on this side. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. SPEAKER (Baird) The hon. member for St. Barbe. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear . MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I would wish that the total House of Assembly would stop politicking. I would wish most certainly that the Premier and those I have heard on the government side, I would wish, Mr. Speaker, they would stop politicking and playing with the lives of people, play- ing with the lives of Newfoundlanders. People of this Prov­ ince put their trust in you and they want sane, sensible leader­ ship in government - .WR. STIRLING: Make him table the reoort. MR. T. BENNETT: - and it will not be very long before they get it if this government continues the political abuse of the economy of this Province.

And I have no hesitat­ ion in suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that it is political abuse. It is political abuse in the grossest manner. MR. T. BENNETT: All the emphasis of survival and deliberation is placed on offshore oil when we have so many things that - if we could stop this political rhetoric about offshore oil and talk about something that our people can re­ late to and make a living from, earn their bread and butter from, issues that are not so political.

I certainly would like to s~e you, the Premier, and the government support the amendment and make it possible that it could be a unanimous vote in the House of Assembly. I have always thought, I 4256

May 13, 1981 Tape No, 1528 SD ~- 4 MR. T. BENNETT: have alw·ays learned, I howe alwa,ys been taught,Mr. Speaker, that you can an awful lot mora by co-operating, you can get an awful lot more 4 2 57

~1ay 13, 1981 Tape No. 1529 DW - 1 MR. T. BENNETT: by saying please and thank-you and being courteous. And when the Premier stands up in re­ sponse to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stirling) said, when the Premier stands up with his political rhetoric again,I can hardly believe my ears. I can hardly believe my ears when he is the Premier of this Province to lead this Province into prosperity into the future. People put their trust in the Premier l .ike they put their trust in the government, like they put their trust in the members on this side who were elected.

You were elected to do a job to .the best of your ability for the masses of this Province, for the people of this Province, for the people of Newfoundland and for the people of Canada. And in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is a very, very poor showing when you accuse, especially when you accuse the Opposition,of being interested in giving away. Now, Mr. Speaker - MR. S. NEARY: We are not the government, we are not going to give it away. MR. T. BENNETT: We are not the government, we are not able to g ive it away. But we have had, Mr.

Speaker, such a stagnant economy since the Tories took power,that it might be just as well that we give it away because it is no good to anybody anyway. The dog in the manger attitude and approach will do nobody any good. It will certainly be no good to the people who are coming into the later years of their lives.

And I cannot see where we are going to have any revenue from offshore oil,as long as this government is in power, to help with the provincial debt, to help with the unemployment situation, to help with the welfare situation and to help with the education that we need for our young people corning on stream . when they have to go out and face 4258 .. r;

Hay 13, 1981 Tape No. 1529 DW - 2 MR. T. BENNETT: that difficult world. We are supressing them, we are depressing them, we are keeping them dmvn and we are doing it for political expediency. And I am appalled that this Premier and this government should take the attitude they do, a continual confrontation with Ottawa, a continual confrontation.

Andnobody but nobody could make me believe that Ottawa or even Britain or even any other country - that it is the desire of any country,especially a country which we are part of 1 you could never make me believe that Ottawa or any other country wants to perpetually keep Newfoundland poor. Success is in your own hands,your own destiny is in your hands, and unless you awaken and face reality, bite the bullet and get with it1 we are going to have more poverty, more unemployment.

And it is going to appear to be more of a giveaway because we are going to have less entreoreneurs come in to de•relop the Province, the resources of the Province that can be developed with the jurisidiction of this government. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that unless this government gets with it and develops some of the resource that is presently under their jurisdiction,they need not worry about offshore oil resource development because they will not be around to see it developed, they '.Vill have to be voted out of power so that somebody can most certainly get on with the job.

The hon. gentleman for Stephen- ville (Mr. Stagg) said the Liberals would say they would take it. He tried to explain the difference between Tory times and Liberal times. Well,now, Mr. Speaker, a lot of us remem- ber Tory times. Those of us who did not live durinq the Tory times most certainly have read a lot and heard a lot about Tory times. O'!R. E. HISCO