VOL. 2 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 p .m. - 6 :00 p.m. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1980 NO. 23

April 16,1980 Tape No. 798 AH-1 The House met at 3p.m. Hr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): Order please! STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS ~. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier . SOME HON. MEHBERS : Hear, hear! PREMIER PECKFORD : Mr. Speaker, I want today to issue a statement on a number of pieces of correspondence which I think are significant in the history of the Province generally and more particularly in the history of the Province as it relates to our development of our natural resources. I would like to table copies of a letter which I have today sent to Premier Levesque and Prime Minister Trudeau.

Bot~ letters represent, I believe, a significant development in the process of correcting the situation at the Upper Churchill Falls and of ensuring the proper development of the Lower Churchill River. Hon. members will appreciate that the development of the Province's tremendous hydro resources in Labrador presents a major development opportunity and that it is absolutely vital for the government to proceed in a rational and carefully thought out manner.

I would like,then,to outline the events whic~ have brought us to this point and to read into the record the letters which are being communicated to respective individuals that I have just mentioned. Mr. Speaker, the inequities inherent in the power contract between CFLCo and Hydro Quebec were recognized by the government of this Province in the early 1970s.

Faced with what looked then like Quebec's unshakeable control of the Upper Churchill,government's thinking tendec to be focused not on the Upper Churchill contract but upon the future development of Lower Churchill Basin, and particularly on the development of Gull Island. Indeed, in the period leading up to and during 1975 our strategy was orientated to obtaining the co-operation of Hydro '1 ': .:. ;

April 16,1980 Tape No. 798 AH-2 PRE!1TER PECKFORD: Quebec to ensure (~) that a surplus energy contract could be negotiated,~nr (

b) that an operating agreement between Gull Island and Churchill Falls could be arranged. ~ L ) ,, .. '-

;,pril 16, 1980 Tape 799 EC - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: As all members of this hon. House know, this strategy was not successful due to the unreasonable position taken in those negotiations by Hydro Quebec. Consequently, on January 6, 1976, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro requested Hydro Quebec to supply Newfoundland with ener~J from the Upper Churchill. The 800 megawatts requested at that time exceeded the recall provisions in the power contract between CFLCo and Hydro Quebec. On January 30, 1976, this request was rejected by Hydro Quebec.

A series of meetings to resolve the matter on the political level were held in 1976. These talks ended in a stalemate and on May 18, 1976, Premier Frank Moores wrote Premier Bourassa of Quebec stating that Quebec had until May 31, 1976 to give a favourable response to a request for 800 megawatts from the Upper Churchill by 1982 and that in absence of such agreement, appropriate court action would be taken. Pr~~ier Moores continued to hope that the matter could be settled in a friendly way, amicably, outside the courts, but all this Province's initiatives failed to solicit any substantive response from Quebec.

In August, 1976, the Province of Newfoundland initiated action in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland against CFLCo and Hydro Quebec with regard to recall of power from ~~e Upper Churchill project. On November 15, 1976, Premier Rene Levesque gained power and in February of 1977, Premier Levesque and Premier Moores agreed to have their representatives meet to see if there was any basis for further discussion.

During 1977, extensive attempts were made to resolve this matter through a joint Quebec- Newfoundland committee of which I was a co-chairman as Minister of Energy then for the Province and Mr. Joron, who was then the Energy Minister in Quebec and who was the other co-chairman. Little progress was made, and at a meeting on October 20, 1977, Quebec officials even denied that discussion of the Churchill power contract was included in their mandate. '1 ~ "'\ .:... J

April 16, 1980 Tape 799 EC - 2 ?:U:~UE R PEC-a"ORD : Cbvi ousl y, th.is whole ?rocess was very frus-:rating to t.~is ?rovince . In the Spring of l9i8, meeting s were held in St. Jo hn's between Premier Levesque and Premier Moores , but unfortunately these discussions were frustrated by Quebec's unwillingness to reopen the Upper Churchill contrac~. During all of t.~is time and du ring ") - '::) 1 '- ..:

April 16, 1980 Tape No. BOO SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: the remainder of 1978 and 1979 1 the Province's recall court case proceeded,during which time the Quebec side played the role of obstructing and delaying the work of the court by a number of technical manoeuvres so that the matter has not yet been resolved even at the Trial Division level after some three and one half years.

Up to the point when I became Premier of this Province, Quebec had, number one, imposed an inequitable contract on CFLCo, the Province's lessee,in the first place; two, refused to modify this contract through political negotiations(including the granting of the recall of power to the Province's electrical needsJ;three, obstructed and frustrated a court case which seeked to confirm the legal right of the Province to recall Upper Churchill power. It was, Mr. Speaker, in this light that when I became Premier in 1979 that I ordered a full review of the entire Labrador hydro situation.

It was my government's belief that we should once more ask the Government of Quebec to recognize the legitimacy of reopening the Upper Churchill contract through political negotiations. As hon. members will see from the attached correspondence between myself and Premier Levesque, Quebec is once again playing a delaying game.

It is in the light of this that I have today written both Premier Levesque of Quebec and Prime Minister Trudeau. aon. members will see that the purpose of these letters is,on the one hand,to terminate our negotiations with the Government of Quebec and,as a necessary consequence of that termination 1to seek the assistance of the Government of Canada in correcting the situation which exists at both the Upper Churchill and the Lower Churchill. Mr.

Speaker, the House and the people of the Province are assured that all possible effort was made to negotiate a settlement to these very important questions and it 2 .. ) ?.

J>.Pril 16, 1980 Tape No . 600 SD- 2 P!UJd..!ER PECKFORD; '""'s with the greatest of reluttance that we heve terminated the negotiating phase and are moving in a ~~dament.al way, hopefully in concert with the Government. cf Canada, to oorrect the current situation t.l}rough the legal process. The transmis sio n of electrica.i. power across t.~ e Province of Quebec can no longer be allowed t.o be restricted by the Government of Quebec in direct com:.ravention of the spirit and letter of t.he Canadian Constitution . AN HON. MEMBE.R : Hear, hear. PREMIER PE~ORD: The present government in ottawa has indicated that it is committed to ensuring that provinces are not permitted to ~ . 31

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 801 EL - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: unwarrently disrupt the work of the Canadian Constitution and the Canadian economy. Based upon this avowed stand,and on the fact there has been no reluctance to use the same federal power to ensure the free flow of Alberta oil and gas to consumers in Ontario and Quebec, I fully expect that the Federal Govern­ ment will recognize its clear duty in this matter and will take the necessary legislative steps to ensure that the current situation in Labrador is corrected. I want, Mr.

Speaker, before sitting down, to read into the record, because I think it is important so to do, to go through the attached correspondence between the two letters that I mentioned in my speech. Mr.

Speaker, after the government led by the former premier, Premier Moores, and after I became the premier of the Province in March of last year and subsequently reinstated or whatever through a provincial election in June 1 my first opportunity to meet the premier of Quebec was at a Premiers' Conference in Pointe au pic, Quel::ec,and at that conference I requested that the Premier of Quebec meet with me to discuss the whole question of Labrador power. This Mr.

Premier Levesque agreed to do and we met privately in the dining room that the premiers use to get together away from officials and away from everybody else and away from the press. And we met in that room on a particular day after our meeting with all the other premiers. And I said to Premier Levesque, at that time,'Sir, I was involved in the negotations dealing with this whole matter of Labrador power when I was Minister of Energy in Newfoundland; as you know, I was in on negotations with you. I met you in Quebec City on one occasion and I met with you in St.

John's, Newfoundland on another oc-:::asion during those negotiations between Mr. Joron and I!'.yself 1 and when I got involved with the Premier of Newfoundland and with your­ self.' 2 .. ~ !. -' .

n._ Apr il 16 , 1980 Tap e No. 801 EL - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD» · And we had agreed to establish, it was agreed early on to establish a committee and it would be co-chaired by the respective Ministers of Energy of the provinces. And we had begun our negotiations, as a matter of fact, here in Newfoundland, significantly enough at the Garrison Room in Hotel Newfoundland,and we met then in Que.bec City and the officials of Newfoundl~d Hydro and Quebec Hydro 1 of the Energy Depar"bllent of Quebec ~d the Ellers¥ Departlnent of Newfoundland on a number of occasions. And we had gone through the whole business of looking: at Labrador power, ... . 3 ~

.!l.pril 16th., 1980 Tape No. 802 DW - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: both from the point of view a global approach that Mr. Levesque talks about all the time, and then specifically on the Upper Churchill. And it was clear from the start in all the negotiations back at that time - this is even precluding the Crosbie, Cournoyer, Moores, Bourassa days when it was alive and well at that time. But we had said to Premier Levesque and to Mr.

Joron and all of the other people in the Quebec government at that time, 'Fine,we are willing to take a global approach as long as,before anything is totally and absolutely finalize~ we can raise the Upper Churchill problem • No problem,we will raise it! I So we went through the whole process, we talked about the five rivers, we talked about the Lower Churchill, Gull Island, Muskrat, we talked about the Pinware, we talked about the Eagle, we talked about every- thing there was to talk about.

We had all our technicians come up with figures as good as could be come up with at that time given everything - the number of megawatts, the kind of costs that would be involved and so on and the techinical problems. And the final meeting in Quebec City and I was there came down to both groups saying, 'Look, we cannot go any farther on this until we have some committment from the political leaders to move it further.

We know precisely as precisely as is possible what Gull Island will cost what Muskrat will cost and so on.' So at that point in time - I can remember it clearly because the meeting was supposed to last four or five hours and only last forty-five minutes- that I then raised representing the Government of Newfound- land and as a Mines and Energy Minister the question of the Upper Churchill. It came as a great surprise to people on the other side who were negotiating and I said. 'Well. it is r.o surprise .ile had "one into this the same way we started these discussions'. But we were willincr , as the "' ~ :lC:

April 16th. , 1980 Tape No . 802 0~1 - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Government of Newfounelan~ to put one side, for th~e sake of g etting co-operation going on the Opper Churchill and deal with what Quebec wanted to deal with as long as they were willing somewhere in that process to consider the Upper Churchill and the unnatural and unreasonable situation tl'l"at ex~sts over the long-term. So the meeting terminated quickly.

We reported to our respective Premiers of the day and a meeting was set up between the Premier of Quebec and the Premi er o f Newfoundland an c it was held here in ~ewfoundland rrom about 12:45 to 6:45 - I might be out a couple of minutes on each side. I remember it well. l remember it very well. too well for my ow:~. !.i.k ing . I:l. any case, the outcome of that meeting was no agreement and a ?ress conference was held in the Cabinet room that some peop le in the press g allery mi gh t remember ~ "J

April 15, 1980 Tape No. 803 NM - 1 P~~IER PECKFORD: and then I talked to Premier Levesque in Pointe au Pic, and he said, "Yes, no problem, I want to talk about it,Premier Peckford," or whatever he called me at the time. "I want to talk about it in this dining room in Pointe au Pic, we want to talk about it:." And I said, "Now remember, we are talking about the Upper Churchill too. If you want to talk about global approach 1we have no argument in talking about global approaches because global to me means including the Upper Churchill and all that that means into the whole package, " and he talked about packages.

"So," I said, "fine." "september 17, 1979, Hon. Rene Levesque, Premier of Quebec. Subject - Labrador power discussions. Pursuant to our conversation at the recent Premiers' Conference, I am writing to ascertain whether the Province of Quebec is willing to enter into discussions concerning a number of Labrador hydro-electric power issues which currently exist between our two provinces. We are hopeful that such discussion will lead to a satisfactory conclusion. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador wishes that initially these discussions focus on two specific issues.'' Now, Mr.

Speaker, this was only taken after the Cournoyer - Crosbie episode, after our long negotiations with myself and Joron, with Levesque and Moores that we specified it in this way. Hithertofore we tried the global approach with Quebec coming first on its conditions and us coming second,whi _ch never materialized. So that now we decided that it was high time for the third round of liscussions to center around us coming first in our conditions and they coming second in their conditions which would materialize if they would agree to our first ones.

"The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador wishes that initially these discussions focus on specific issues; one, an alteration in the price paid by Hydro Quebec to CFLCo for electric power received from the Churchill Falls plant;and two, Newfoundland's entitlement to recall electric power from the 2 '.J Q ..J ·-·

L April 16, 1980 Tape No. 803 NM - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: Churchill Falls plant when the government of this Province determines such power is needed for use within the Province within Newfoundland and Labrador. 1'Upon the completion of these discussions in a manner satisfactory to both governments 1we look forward to further discussions on subjects of mutual concern and interest. we are writing you,therefore 1to request your agreement to the first two items for discussion so that our respective ministers may commence formal discussions within the next month." Signed "Yours truly." On the 15th. of November, Premier Levesque responded.

"In your letter of the 17th. of September you were suggesting the holding of a ministerial meeting with Quebec on overall energy questions which concern our two government. I thank you for your suggestion and can assure you that we also want to maintain a positive dialogue capable of promoting the interests of both our peoples. Even if our appreciation of certain matters differ noticeably it will be to our advantage to consider the broad development prospects which face both our governments.

I am convinced that a more strict collaboration between us would have a major impact on the development of our two economices. Thus to me it appears important that a global review" -now this struck me, Mr. Speaker, rather strange, because I had been through that global process myself once, and other people before me had been through it previous to that, Mr. Crosbie and Mr.

Cournoyer and so on 1 "'Ehis step could be taken,if convenient to you,at the time of a metting at the ministerial level or, if you prefer, at the Deputy Minister level, I can assure you the Quebec representatives will approach the matter in a co-operative fashion and so on. "Please accept,Mr. Premier 1my most kind regards." We considered that response in light of the Government of Newfoundland's negotiations with Quebec hithertofore by me and Mr. Joron, by Mr. Moores, Mr. Levesque, by Mr. Crosbie, Mr. Cournoyer, by Mr. Moores and Mr. Bourassa. So we went back clearly 2 .. 3 9

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 803 Nl-1- 3 E'lm'IIER PECl<FORO : on the 23rd . of November saying, "I refer t.0 your telex of November lSt:.h . replying to my let<.er of september 17th . ~rom your general response,! cake ic that you are re jectin g the specific conditions precedent "Nhich I consider essential if talks becween our two governments on Lab ra dor hydro matters are to be resumed. For the record howev er ,! would :ormally rescate the quescions set ouc in my letter of September 17th. a.nd ask that you give a written,direct answecr to them. 11 2 ' ~~ r:

April 16,1980 Tape No. 804 AH-1 PRDIIER PECKFORD: And then we have what followed, "I thank you for your letter of the 23rd of November last and the question of the hydro electric resources which confront our governments. In this spirit I would like to propose to you that, in order to prepare with the best chance of success, the meetings at the ministerial level that you suggested" - and on it goes I went to Quebec and met with Mr. Levesque in Montreal, I do not know how many weeks ago now, and reiterated our position and asked him for a reply,which he gave a couple of weeks ago, which he made public, I think.

And it is the same kind of reply as we have been getting for a number of years. There is a new copy of Mr. Levesque's telex asking for a group of technical representatives to get together, go through the global approach- all of which is done, all of which has been completed. It was completed when I was Minister of Energy. And so , Mr. Speaker, it is only after having reviewed all the deliberations, discussions and negotiations between the province of Quebec and the Province of Newfoundland, between Premier Bourassa and Premier Moores, between Mr. Cournoyer and Mr. Crosbie, between Premier Moores and Mr.

Levesque, between myself and Mr. Joron , between myself and Mr. Levesque, between Mr. Barry and !1r. Levesque, between Mr. Barry and ''lr. Brube, that we have come to the conclus!.on,and after the meeting I had in Montreal with him, which he respon~ed to then in a telex which is attached as well, that we have reluctantly decided, ~~sed on that kind of evidence, that there lS no ?Oint in further discussions with the province of Quebec, given the conditions under wkich they want to discuss them.

It is just an ongoing saga of delaying any substantial meaningful talks about the Upper Churchill and only in trying to get some kind of package which excludes it after they have gotten an agreement with us on the Lower Churchill or some other thing. So I 1~nt to read into the record my letter to Mr. Levesque,first,of April 16,1980. "I am in receipt of your letter of March 17th in response to my letter of November 23rd with regard to the Upper Churchill contract. It is with great disap?ointment that I note that you have once again failed to address directly the points set out in my letter.

A similarly vague response was given in your letter of NGvember 15, 1979 to the same specific points cont<>ined in my letter of September 17, 1979. ,..., - l '- ""

April 16, 1980 Tape 805 EC - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: 11 These specific points were embodied in my letter of September 17th 1 the main thrust of which I now quote: "The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador wishes that initially these discussions focus on two specific issues, one, the alteration in price, two, the entitlement to recall. Upon the completion of these discussions in a manner satisfactory to both governments, we look forward to further discussions on subjects of mutual concern and interest.

We are writing to you, therefore, to request your agreement on the first two items for discussion so that our respective ministers may commence formal discussions within the next month." "I regret, therefore, that I must forsake the path of negotiation and begin to invoke the legal and political processes under the Constitution of this country which provides the protection we need to ensure the unfettered passage of our hydro­ electricity across your province's territory.

This is regrettable because ~~e people of this Province have much in common economically, politically and culturally with the Quebec people." MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : Order, please! If I might call order, I do not wish to interrupt the han. the Premier, but Standing Orders 53(4) state clearly that on Wednesdays the Question Period must begin by 3:30 P.M. unless there is any agreement or leave. MR. E. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, we are certainly prepared to give leave to carry on and we would assume that in turn then, my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, will be able to respond in u~e normal way when the Premier finishes.'!he statement is so obviously of such great importance that we should carry on. MR. SPEAKER: If I may,also without having ~o interrupt hon. members again at 4:00 P.M., the other part of the Standing Order also states that at 4:00 P.M. all other routine business must end. So will there be leave? 1·!R. E.

ROBERTS : I ask for leave, Your Honour, that at the end of the Premier's statement ~~d ~~e normal response, we will have half an hour on Question Period and then go into Private Members Day,if cr.at is in order~ MR. SPEAKER: .Is that agreed? 2 . k "l

Ap:-il 16, 1990 Tape eos EC - 2 SOHE HON. ME~BERS: Agreed. MR. S?l::A.'-ER (Si:nms): The hon. the P:-eQier. P~UER PEC<FORD: Thank you, M:-. Spea~er, and I eh~~ t..'le Opposition. We, for our part, will be equally co -operative in t.."lis ~r.atter. ~This is :-egrettable because the people of t..'lis Province have much in common economically, politically and c•.llturally w.i,th the Quebec people.

" It is in this light that I have ~itten the attached letter to the Prime Minister of Canada and it is in this light that I would expect a positive response from him . ''I can only repeat rJrf Ieqret that your 9overnme:1t has chosen to once a9aln demonstrate its WJ.Willingness to recognize the legitimate interests of the people oi titis Province.~ .o\nd then, the letter to the Prime ~ste.r, the Right Honourable Pierre Tru.deau: "Dea .r Xr. ?rime Minister: I enclose here with copies of correspondence l:let:'.reen this ?rovince and the Province of Quebec on the question of the :-eopening of t.'le Uppe r 0\urc."'ill power ccncract and Labrador power matters generally.

You are no aoubt personally aware of t."'e long-stand ing na cure of this problem and of the resul~~~ gross inequities pl aced upon this Province. 2 1.~ ~

~.pril 16, 1980 Tape No. 806 SD - l PREMIER PECKFORD: "This Province today finds itself 1n the same position as it did in the mid-l960s when,contrary to what I believe to be a most basic tenet of the Canadian Constitution, our constitutional right to transmit hydro power freely across Canadian territory was frustrated. As a result of this interference with the freedom of interprovincial trade, the people of this Province were denied the benefits of one of their greatest natural resources - the Upper Churchill Falls.

"The loss of these benefits has been a matter of great anguish and sorrow to the people of this Province, for with them went one of their truly great opportunities to raise their economic condition to anywhere close to the national average. Their dismay in this respect has increased all the more as rising energy costs have seen the value of this project gro~;and as they have seen their own household electricity bills rise dramatically.

We have,then,a fundamental problem, one for which the Government of Canada has a particular responsibility. ''Under our Constitution 1 the Government of Canada has the right, and,I submit, the duty, to ensure that goods 1 including,obviously 1 electricity generated by hydro power pass freely from one province across the territory of any other. This principle is obvious in the Federal Government's role in ensuring the free flow of Alberta's oil to consumers in Ontario and Quebec.

"In light of this, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador find it difficult to accept that such a principle does not protect their interests. This Province has, I assure you, exhausted all reasonable use of the negotiating route with the Province of Quebec. In view of this, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador must now formally ask the Government of Canada to exercise it jurisdiction over the interprovincial transmission of electricity generated by hydro power. 11 We ask that your government take steps to permit our Province to move electrical energy across Quebec 2' !d.~

!l.pril 16, 1980 Tape No. 806 SD - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD : in the same way federal jurisdiction has been exercised to permit the free movement of oil and gas across provinces,including Quebec. "Mr. Prime Minister, 'l ''• c: '- .

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 807 EL - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: "the ~o<ernment of Newfoundland and Labrador awaits your reply in this matter with great interest. A positive response will demonstrate in a very dramatic way that the legislative authority which now resides with your government can be used, not only for the equalization and redistribution of wealth to federal financial aid programs,but also in a more creative way; one which truly reflects the equity implicit in any federation." Mr.

Speaker, I speak on behalf of Cabinet and every single member on this side of the House as a result of extensive meetings starting early this morning, that we are, as a person, as a man and as a woman on this side of the House, totally commited to the action that we arenow involved in. SOME HON. MEMBERS : PREMIER PECKFORD: SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear. We have deliberately­ Oh, oh! PREMIER PECKFORD: We have deliberately tried, Mr.

Speaker, and I want to put this in the record, to be as 'unprovocative, if that is a word, as reasonable in our phraseology, word for word that is put in all the documentation that is here, starting from last Sept-­ ember when the first letter was written, starting, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, which must go in the record ,from my own personal point of view, starting with my meeting with Mr. Levesque in Pointe au Pic. It was done in a reasonable fashion right from the start, because I knew, as one individual, the history of it from the time that I had been in- volved dealing with Mr. Levesque, and Mr.

Joron, Mr. Brube and some of the other people, Mr. Moran, Mr. Pariaeau and so on. That I went into the negotations openmindedly and with a true spirit of trting to reach some kind of co-operative way of dealing with what is a very difficult z·!.t~

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 807 EL - 2 PREMIER PECKFORD: problem, not only for ourselves but for the Government of Quebec,and I appreciate that just as much as others will.

But, after going through what we have gone through in the last number of months, I see it as no other alternative but to clearly ask, in concrete terms, the Government of Canada for their assistance in what we now consider to be a matter of very,very great national import­ ance for all of Canada and for that part of Canada which resides here in this part of the Eastern part of North America which depends so heavily on doing much better than we have been able to do this far on water power in Quebec. And I ask for the support of all mel!'bers of this hon.

House and for all citizens of Newfoundland in this effort to :t·easonal:ly, sensibly talk to and negotiate and discuss with the Government of canada some better arrangement on the full development of all our power and water power in Labrador, for the benefit of all Canadians and hopefully make us also better off than we are at the present mement. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear: '1· I 7 i. J

April 16, 1980 MR. SPEAKER (Simms) SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. D. JAMIESON: Ta pe 808 EC - 1 The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker, you and hon. members will understand, of course, that having been provided with this information only this afternoon - and I do not fault anyone for that - there is not the opportunity to reply in detail, that is clear and unmistakable.

It is doubly important, I think, for me to emphasize, as I am sure the hon. the Premier will recognize and because his language itself, as he said, was cautious and careful, that any off-the-cuff response from me at this time would be highly dangerous to the Newfoundland cause. Having said that, however, let me in general say 1 because I am sure that is as far as anyone could expect me ~ go at this time, we are supportive of this initiative and will accede to the Premier. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. D.

JAMIESON: It is interesting to hear the Premier give vent to his thoroughly justified frustrations and interesting also to realize that he is the third in line who has had the same kinds of frustrations. I think perhaps it may put matters in a little better perspective when we realize that in fact geography has played against us in this massive natural resource, probably not only for the last thirty-one years, but for all of the time since the first explorers discovered the Churchill Falls was there.

I may say by way of a parenthetical statement that I sat in the old House of Assembly as a reporter in the days of the National Convention and heard people talking about how the Churchill - Hamilton, as it then was - River was going to make all of the difference to us. And I continue to believe with members opposite that it is an inequitable situation; however, one has to put it in the perspective of time and that is simply what I am doing at the moment. It is probably historic and to some degree coincidental that it was only yesterday that Mr.

Levesque announced that he was going to hold a referendum on sovereignty-association on the 20th of May, and without dragging in what might be classed an extraneous 2 " 4 9

April 16, 1980 Tape 808 EC - 2 MR. D. Jh~IESON: issue, it seems to me, given the record which our Premier has placed before us today 1that it surely is classic evidence 2,. ~ !'i . '

"~ April 16th., 1980 Tape No. 809 DW - l MR. D. JAMIESON: of the unadulterated phoniness of his position in declaring that a ~eparate or a sovereign Quebec would he able to he co­ operative with the rest of Canada. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. D.

JAMIESON: There are, of course, not only highly legalistic but highly technical questions involved in the issue and in the statements and,clearly,they are not the kinds of things which, first of all, can be properly dealt with in a Question Period nor, in the sense of our strategy and the like should perhaps be appropriately dealt with in public. some can clearly and undoubtedly we will get to some of those.

But let me say in the spirit of co-operation.in which I began 1 that it might be useful at some stage in t~e comparatively near future,even if it is in an in camera session,to have a discussion on this matter in some way which will give to those of us who are on this side some indication of the technicalities and some of the legalities in the manner in which it is proposes. Because, I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier 1 having written now to the Prime Minister, has a concept, in the technical and and the legal sense both 1 as to how this route might be followed effectively.

But having said that,I do not propose again today to press the matter but merely to say that I think it is on the record clearly that we have made every conceivable kind of effort, that it has been a suc­ cession of governments of all parties in this Province which have tried to maximixe the benefits from Churchill Falls 1 and certainly the present day government canna~ be faulted for the route it has followed.

And consequently for those reasons I merely want to conclude toda~ not because there is not an enormous amount .more that I could say on this issue, but I have come to,over a long career 1 understand the 2'50

April 16th., 1980 Tape No. 809 DW - 2 HR. D. JAMIESON: importance of looking at indiv- idual words and individual lines and of being absolutely certain where legal actions and the like are concerned that you do not indeed 1 in a sense, sound off without making sure that you are not jeopardizing the very cause ~hat you wish to advance. I hope that there will be an opportunity in this House or elsewhere in order to deal with it in a more thorough and in full fashion so that when we are asked,not merely to support 1 but when we are asked to defend that we will be in a positioncto do so.

One final point which I think is germaine in these circumstances and that is the referendum while the Premier and myself 1 and I doubt very much if there is any exception among members of this House 1 have indicated our support for the federalist cause, if you wish, in the coming referendum I believe that it is unquestionably going to be the case that issues of this kind will be used, conceivably by both sides,and certainly if we do not make our case right you can be darn sure the other side will start to make it.

So there is a real need for us to concert our efforts and I undertake on behalf of my colleagues to do that not only 1 although this is primarily the case,in the interest of Newfoundland,but in the interest of maintain- ing the kind of Canada that we joined just about thirty-one years ago this week. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear: 2·;: .)

April 16th., 1980 MR. SPEAKER (Simms): !1R. 0. JAMIESON: Tape No. 909 ow - 3 ORAL QUESTIONS The hon. Leader o f t~e Opposi t ion. Yes, Mr. speaker. It is just a very quick one and,as I have mentioned earlier,I will not be complex in relation to this project. It may be to either the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr .

Barry) or the Premier , whoever wishes: With regard to the letter to the Prime Minister and the invoking of - I have forgotten what the exact clause is - is there in fact a technical feasibilit y of running a transmission line in precisely or closely the same way as there is to run a gas line or a fuel line? In other word~are the two similar and 1 setting aside the consti­ tutionality and the legality 1 is the technicality there to do that? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier. ? . c '1 <.

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 810 SD - 1 PREMIER PECKFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will just answer that by way of asking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. D. Jamieson) and the members of the House if they would excuse me because we cid not allow the audio part for the press to do the thing with the press now- MR. S. NEARY: That is your fault, not our fault. PREMIER PECKFORD: - while we still have time. That technical question can be answered by the Minister of ~~nes and Energy (Mr. L.

Barry) 1 no question.Just let me say that our understanding that a lot of it, just a technically existing line could handle a lot of the power that we are talking about and just have a wheeling charge.

Obviously, the technical things - you could not put it in the letter, that has to come later- but when one gets really down to it, there are a lot of things like, for example, putting a lot of additional power now on the existing line through Quebec wi~, the wheeling charge,meaning, we do not want anything for nothing and we would put our power from the Lower Churchill through some existing line there now and just pay the going wheeling charge rather than have our brothers act as brokers for our resources which is, in fact, the case and has been the case since the Upper Churchill project began,not - and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition - through any problem.

The only problem,as I said to Mr. Smallwood when he was a member for Twillingate here in the House one night when I was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing at the time, I think, that nobody quarrels in any case with the power contract at the time. What everybody quarrels with was that it was signed for such a long time without any reopeners or escalation .. MR. S. NEARY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms): A supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. S • NEARY : Mr.

Speaker, having been in the House when the agreement with CFLCo was debated and passed in this House, to my recollection the Province, Newfoundland, owns 100 per cent of the power of the Upper Churchill. We have recall rights for 300,000 horsepower 2 ~? .J...,;

-"'-· April 16, 1980 Tape No. 810 SD - 2 MR. S. NEARY+. and we can recall 100 per cent. of the power providing that we give a year's notice - twelve months' notice - and that we have use for the power, basically that. MR. L. BAP.RY: What do you call a year's notice? MR. S. NEARY: A year's notice. we have to give twelve months• notice, The 300,000 horsepower we can recall right away. MR. L. BARRY: (Inaudible) power. MR. S. NEARY: Right. MR. L. BARRY: (Inaudible) express amount. MR. S. NEARY: Now, Mr.

Speaker, what I want to ask is why it was necessary for Newfoundland to go in a roundabout way,through the courts,to take Quebec to court to prove something that is the law of this Province, passed in the Legislature? Why could we not have given Quebec Hydro notice and then taken the power back after the twelve months were up? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The hen. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. L. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, when we speak about recall under the Upper Churchill contract, there are two things: We are clearly entitled to recall 300 megawatts 1and there is no dispute about that, and in fact, something over 100 megawatts is presently being utilized within Labrador. MR. S. NEARY: MR. E. ROBERTS : Hydro Quebec contract . MR. L. BARRY: Right. 300 megawatts is in the CFLCo - That is expressly spelled out in the contract and that is being recalled as it is feasible to utilize it within Labrador. MR. E. ROBERTS : That is not the issue. MR. L.

BARRY : The thing is,though,that you c~~ not justify the building of a transmission line for the purpose of recallinq 2 - :ll!

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 810 so - 3 MR. L. BARRY : the additional, say, approximately 200 megawatts to bring it to where the market is at the present time, which happens to be on the Island part of the Province. However, there is another entitlement to recall under the lease which is given to CFLCo where there is the provision that,as it is economical and feasible to do so, the energy is to be utilized within Newfoundland and Labrador. MR. S. NEARY: Well, why do we not do it? MR. L. BARRY: Now, the problem is tbat when the deal was struck between CFLCo and Hydro Quebec 1 that was not included in the contract. MR.

S. NEARY: That is tough. MR. L. BARRRY: That is exactly what we say - that is tough. And we say we are entitled to recall all of the energy of the Upper Churchill as it is feasible to utilize it within the Province and that is what the court case was about because the request sent to CFLCo requested 800 megawatts. In other words, apart from the 200 that is expressly in the contract between CFLCo and Quebec,an additional amount 1 and CFLCo said, "We would like to do that but we are concerned that it will be a breach of our 2 ~ss ·' · ..

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 811 NM - 1 HR. BARRY: contract with Hydro Quebec"and therefore it is in the courts. Unfortunately it has been in the courts for three and a half years because Quebec has taken a procedural delaying approach to the court case. Now we have a task force which will be bringing in a report within the next several weeks. As to other legal mechanisms which might be possible to recall power from the Upper Churchill without waiting for the finalization of that case~ MR. ROBERTS: We pull the plug. MR. BARRY: And I am waiting for the task force report before making further decisions on this point.

Just one other point, again which relates to bo~~ questions, with respect to the utilization of the Quebec transmission system, I have got a seventy or eighty page

article which is in the process of being published in the next month or so, identifying the constitutional issues there 1and it is my argument that without taking over the entire Quebec public utility system or the entire Newfoundland system, federal jurisdiction can be exercised because of the interprovincial intertie insofar as that is necessary to permit the free movement of electricity in that interprovincial undertaking. So that the federal jurisdiction could be utilized to force Hydro Quebec to permit the wheeling, that is the term, the wheeling of power over their lines in return for a reasonable fee.

And that is the method which I would suggest we should see the federal government take in this matter. MR. ROBERTS: Where is it being published? In a law journal or something? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): A supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. JAMIESON: A supplementary to the han. Minister of Mines and Energy. This is precisely the noint I have been getting at 1 incidentally, in one way or another. I have been trying to get an answer on it for several months, per se, basically a that when people talk of an analogy with pipelines pipeline simply defines a right of way and a piece of 2 C, l'"' ·.) [}

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 811 NM - 2 MR. JAMIESON : pipe is built; in the great majority of cases that is the situation. I gather what is being said now is that the government maintains or contends, or the thrust of the letter here is that in fact the same kind of federal power exists with regard to hardware already in place and with regard to the sharing of,let us say 1hydro lines or transmission lines or things of that kind as opposed to just simply getting what used to be called in the old days a corridor through Quebec. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, I think we can see the analogy being even closer if we realize that once the pipeline has been constructed between provinces,then there is such a thing as a common carrier provision where other feeder lines are entitled to feed into that. Federal jurisdiction can be exercised to permit the feeding in of other lines, or of other oil into that pipeline.

Well,I think it is very close where you have an existing electrical transmission system in place, All we are saying is that the federal government should take action to see that energy from one province, which is needed in the Maritime Provinces, for example,that it is not right under the Canadian Constitution that a province could block the u~ilization of existing mechanisms when there is an interprovincial link, and right now energy could be going from Labrador to the Maritime Provinces if we had the federal government exercising the jurisdiction it clearly has under the fOnstitution to ensure the free movement of electricity to any parts of Canada.

MR. NEARY: A supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. member for LaPoile. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the hon. gentleman, or he was not clear in his answer to my question I put originally and maybe it is because I am not a lawyer I do not understand it. Eut my understanding is that Newfoundland owns 100 per cent of the power of the Upper Churchill. We own it 2 C.7 J '

April 16,1980 Tape No. 812 AH-1 MR. NEARY: by

an act of this House. Now if CFLCo omitted to put in their lease to Quebec Hydro a clause saying that we have recall rights,I would say that is tough. But is the problem now that the Newfoundland people own Churchill Falls and CFLCo,and CFLCo is saying to the Newfoundland government that if you instruct us to recall the power that we are likely to be sued by Quebec Hydro? Is that what the hon. gentleman is saying? He is nodding yes.

Well then 1 was it not a colossal blunder and a disaster for the Newfoundland government to take over CFLCo in the first place and kick out Brinco because Brinco would have had to bear the brunt of any lawsuit and not the Newfoundland government and the Newfoundland people? Was that net a colossal blunder? If we own the power why can we not just give notice and then take it back? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): MR. BARRY: The han. Minister of Mines and Energy.

If Brinco was there,the same risk to the credit of the Province would exist.If we do not move in a careful, well calculated fashion, in a reasonable fashion 1which is why I have set up this task force and which is why I will be awaiting their recommendations before taking further action, because the government of the Province is 1 to a certain extent 1on the back of the note, to put it in colloquial language , with respect to the financing arrangements for the Upper ehurchill.

There are certain ancillary agreements which the government of the day entered into committing itself not to modify the terms •and conditions of its lease. Okay? Now my argument would be the same as the hon. member for LaPoile's (Mr. Neary) that is taking back the energy as it is feasible to use it within this Province, that would not be a modification of the rights of the contract.

And although at times we tend to slip into that type of language when we say we are trying to get a better deal on the Upper Churchill, what we are talking about is clarifying and making real the rights which should exist on any reasonable

interpretation of the lease. In other words,that this very general clause - .., : c, !) L., I "-"' -~

April 16,1980 Tape No. 812 AH-2 MR. NEARY: The onus is not on us. We should take back the power and let them take us to court. MR. BARRY: You are reading my mail. I have made this statement in the House before , 11r. Speaker. MR. NEARY: is only common sense. MR. BARRY: No 7 I am not reading your mail. That But we have to do it in a fashion which does not give the impression to the bond markets of the world that we are modifying rights under the contract.

If we did not have ownership of CFLCo we would not yet be to the stage of ascertaining from head to head, nose to nose, negotiations with the province of Quebec that there was no possibility of getting an acceptable arrangement.Because you cannot, Mr. Speaker, have negotiations proceed through a third party,private enterprise intermediary,which is the position we were forced into while Brinex was in the picture. MR. NEARY: You give them the ultimatum. This is all. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, I want to ask a different question of the minister and it is hard to phrase it without almost a

preamble. But what I really want to do is see if we understand because it seems to me that there are two separate concepts being thrown back and forth here 1and on an issue this important I think it is important that it be set strai0ht. It is one thing,if I understand him, to talk of recall of power, where we are talking of a fairly small quantity, at least in comparison with the production of Upper Churchill or the potential in the Labrador rivers, Upper Churchill, Lower Churchill, etc., etc.

It is one thing to talk of recall 1 which is what we are talking of under that lease provision where it is economically feasible and viable for us to do so. We might we able to use, I do not know, 1000 megawatts in this Province. That is our entire consumption today of that order, 1000,1100 or 1200. The Upper Churchill is producing, if I remember correctly 15255 megawatts and 2 ~ L, !"!

April 16,1980 Tape ~lo . 812 !>.H-3 :-L~. ROBERTS : then added to that Lower Churchil~ anodner 1800 potencial 7 million megawatts and there is no way we could ever use that powe .r in this Province if I understand the situ .ation. MR . BARRY: ~I.R. ROBERTS: Ne are asking for BOO megawatts. We are asking for 800 only and che court tight is over 800 only, the action, CFLCo versus Hydro Quebec to which the minister referred, I think , is looking for 800. --~hat I am trying to get at is the question of what ·,;e are after now? Are •,;e after 2 . B 'l

April 16, 1980 Tape 813 EC - 1 MR. E. ROBERTS: from the Parliament of Canada, to be more precise, because the hon. gentleman, I know, will agree with me that legislative jurisdiction is not with the government, it is with a Parliament, the Parliament at Ottawa .- the power to wheel across the Quebec hydro lines 7,000 megawatts of power, all of which we will own, or are we looking simply for 1,800 megawatts, i.e. over and above the present Upper Churchill production? MR. L. BARRY: That is Lower Churchill power. MR. E. ROBERTS : Yes, Lower Churchill. MR. L.

BARRY: Again, that issue does not have to be addressed yet, but I will answer it. MR. E. ROBERTS : No, I mean, it is really something we ought to debate preferably in Committee where we can go back and forth at each other, Mr. Speaker, but, you know, I want to see if we understand it correctly. The recall is not in itself the problem which has given rise to the Premier's statement on behalf of the government today. That action is going ahead; I have my own views as to the advisability of it, not as to its merits but as to the advisability of it, and I think probably the han. gentleman from LaPoile (Mr.

Neary) and I are on the same wavelength on that. I mean, we ought to have done it the other way around: We ought to have acted and then let them sue us, but that is another story, that is a matter of tactics, perhaps. But what I am trying to get at is what are we after now?

We have a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to exercise or have Parliament exercise some jurisdiction which , it is arguable - and I think I am on the same side on this one - it is arguable is vested in the Parliament of Canada, but the hon. minister will concede there is an argument on that; it is one of these issues that will probably end up again in the Supreme Courts for a decision at some point, in all likelihood. MR. L. BARRY: (Inaudible) • MR. E. ROBERTS : Well, I happen to agree with him, but he ha s practiced before the cour ts in this Province an d in Otta wa and 2 ~ " ~ t:l!

April 16, 1980 Tape 813 EC - 2 MR. E • ROBERTS : he, I know, will agree that slim arguments sometimes can become strong judgements. I think it is a slim argument. Not everybody would agree with what he says and what I say on that. But what are we trying to get?

Are we trying to get all of the Upper Churchill power so we can claim it and to say to Quebec or anybody else - Quebec or the Maritimes - 'If you want it, buster, you pay our price for it and that is a fair, economic rental,' or are we simply trying at this stage to make it possible to get Lower Churchill power moved across Quebec so that we can at least get the economic rental from the Lower Churchill? Because, if I do understand correctly, we are now as much stymied on the Lower Churchill as was the case in the early 1960s with respect to the Upper Churchill. MR.

SPEAKER (Simms) : The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. L. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, the immediate direction of this statement by the Premier and the first immediate impact would be to permit- if the Province so decides, as we will once we have this LCDC report, which again, is a matter of weeks away - will permit the Province of Newfoundland to develop power on the Lower Churchill and to be able to export any surplus power - MR. E • ROBERTS : It is still (inaudible). MR. L. BARRY : - as owners and sell it wherever it wants - MR. E. ROBERTS : Wherever we wish. MR. L.

BARRY: - whether it be New York, the Maritime Provinces, Ontario, wherever, and not be forced to sell to Quebec. MR. E. ROBERTS : We could sell to Quebec, but at our price. MR. L. BARRY: Ultimately, then, the same principle could apply to power from the Upper Churchill once we have established our rights with respect to that power. But that, as the hon. member has said, is a separate question and this particular position that we are putting to L~e federal government is not hinged upon any resolution of the Upper Churchill contract,o~ any immediate resolution. But ultimately, 2 ·~ 8? ~ ;..

April 16, 1980 Tape 813 EC - 3 MR. L. BARRY: obviously, if we establish that we are entitled to recall, we could recall the 5,255 megawatts and we could sell it then if we so decided later on, wherever we wanted withQUt being forced to sell it at an unduly unreasonable, too low price to the Province of Quebec. MR. E. RCBERTS : Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) A final supplementary 1 the hen. the member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR. E. RCBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I do realize there are other members who want to get in and we have limited time.

I just want to be sure then; the thrust of the government's request or the Premier's request on behalf of the government is not as it would appear to be from reading the latter, simply Upper Churchill - or primarily, I should say, Upper Churchill. It is in fact in the first instance the Lower Churchill with which we are now concerned. We are trying to break out of the box of getting the Lower Churchill developed, given that we will probably have to sell some of that power outside this Province for a period of time at least in order to make the Lower Churchill economically a feasible project.

Is that the situation? MR. SPEAKER: The hen. the Minister of Mines and Energ y. MR. L. BAR.''!.Y: Mr. Speaker, it is both, I thought I had pointed out. It is both. The most irnnediate one would have to do with the export of power from the Lower Churchill, but it is just as im portant with respect to the Upper Churchill. MR. E • ROBERTS : In principle they are the same. MR. L. BARRY : And we have premised all our negotiations with the Province of Quebec on resolution of the Upper d1urchill situation and we have asked for recognition of what our rights 2 ~,., .... ; tJ j

-~ April 16, 1980 Tape No. 814 EL - 1 1-IR.. L. BARRY : are, and there is no dispute between, I think, ourselves on that, that we are entitled to recall the full power, the full energy available - MR. ROBERTS : The lease overrides any contract (inaudible) • MR. L. BARRY: - from the Upper Churchill. And negotia- tions with respect to the Lower have broken down because of the refusal of the province of Quebec to accept our rights with respect to the Upper Olurchill, to a great part, as -..ell as other matters they raise of course with respect to the Lower. MR. E.

ROBERTS; But our request to the Prime Minister is, in the first instance, conditioned upon the Lower Olurchill or dealing with the Lower Churchill, our request of the Prime Minister as in the Premier's letter to Mr. Trudeau. MR. L. BARRY: It is irre~evant now that it is a pre- condition of negotiation with Quebec that we settle the Upper Churchill. We are now taking the approach, okay, now, our first·order of business is to meet our immediate energy needs. If we have to do that by development of the Lower Churchill, we want to be in a position to export any surplus energy.

We will continue with our fight for our right with respect to the Upper and the same situation will accrue there then. When we establish our entitlement to energy from the Upper, then we will be able to utilize the same principle. MR. G. FLIGHT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: (Simms) A supplementary, the hon. the merr.ber for Windsor-Buchans. MR. G. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister is that it seems to me that the whole Question Period has been devoted to clarifying our position in gaining access to the market for the Upper Churchill and Lower Churchill power across Quebec.

But the minister talked about- to be hypothetical for a second, assuming ,that we had an agree- ment from Hydro Quebec to use their lines for the 2 At:: j j !.; -i

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 814 EL -2 MR. G.

FLIGHT: transportation of any surplus power developed on the Lower Churchill or Gull Island, and we had the permission to use that line presently in place'-the question is a very technical one 1 I realize-:- but is the minister saying that the present physical facility that is in place , that is now transporting the production of Upper Churchill to the market, that facility is capable of transporting, mechanically, technically capable of transporting all the surplus of any power that would be developed on the rest of the rivers- the Lower Churchill, the Muskrat - that facility is capable of doing that? MR.

SPEAKER (Simms) : The hen. the Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. L. BARRY: Yes, The experts tell us, the expert advice that we have gotten, 'and I think that that has been confirmed by the Province of Quebec, their experts, t..at the existing transmission facilities between the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec could take any surplus that would be available from either Gull Island or Muskrat )we will say Gull Island. You are not going to have two of them going at the same time.

If the Gull Island project went ahead, the surplus, we could anticipate, could be handled by the existing lines that are in place. MR. S. NEARY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : A supplementary, the hon. the Member for LaPoile. MR. s. NEARY : Mr.Speaker, this gets more revealing all the tizne. In 1972 the position of the, or 1971,.-1972 when the Tories took over in this Province, the position was that the development of the Lower Churchill was in place and that,if a satisfactory agreement could be reached, the surplus power would be exported.

Here we are now, we have been delayed by seven years, as far as I can see , because the z ·~s

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 814 EL - 3 MR. S. NEARY: Minister has just announced a change in policy of the administration. MR. BARRY: What is that? MR. NEARY: What is that? We have been told for seven years that not one kilowatt of power from the Lower Churchill would leave this Province, it would be all used in Newfoundland. How many times, Mr. Speaker, - MR. BARRY: Surplus power. MR. S • NEARY : No, no. Surplus was not mentioned. How many times, Mr.

Speaker, did I sit here and see the trained seals pound their desk every time somebody said on that side of the House, ':lot a kilo- watt of power will be exported.' Now they are changing their policy. Seven years, seven years have been lost to ~~is Province. MR. W. MARSHALL: A point of Order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: (Simms) A point of Order, the hon. the President of the Council. MR. W. MARSHALL: The han. gentleman is making a speech, not asking questions. MR. SPEAKER: (Simms) With respect to the Point of Order, I would direct the hon. member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary) to ask his ques~ion. Time is moving on.

M_~. s. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I just want, for ~y own satisfaction, to get the situation straight. Forget the m~~o-jumbo. The position now, as outlined by the minister, is that they are asking ~~e Government of Canada now to allow electricity to go through ~~e Province of Quebec the same as a natural gas ~peline, and I agree with ~~at principle. As a matter of fact, I have stated it in this House time and time again, ~~at that is the route the Province should have taken.

Now, is the main thrust of ~~e representation now made to the Government of Canada mainly ~o deal with the development of the Lower Churchill, and all the 2 r. R"' 1~_;!")

... April 16, 1980 Tape No. 815 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: other stuff that is thrown in there is just a camouflage to cover up for the delays and the seven years that has been lost in the development of the Lower Churchill? MR. SPEAKER (Simms): The han. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, point one is that there has been no change in policy. The reports, the initial feasibility studies on the Gull Island project have been tabled in this House and included in those report tabled in the House was a provision for the export of surplus, and I underline surplus,power - MR. NEARY: I will get the Hansard. MR.

BARRY: - until it was needed in this Province. But, Mr. Speaker, why the hen. member might be confused is that he has had so much experience in supporting and proping up administrations that entered into sixty year contracts that the notion of a temporary export of surplus energy is beyond his comprehension. MR. NEARY: Sit down! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. BARRY: He cannot understand it. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: Sit down boy and do not be making a fool of yourself. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the han. member for the Strait of Belle Isle. MR.

ROBERTS: You know 1 what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,and sauce for the han. minister is as out of order here on Question Period as it may be in order during debate. I would like nothing better than debate the matter. The han. gentleman looks innocent. I know he may be dubious but not innocent, Sir. You know,surely it is out of order for hL~ to debate in this way at this time. I would like nothing better than to have a debate on this. I think it would be a marvellous subject for debate and a very fruitful one, but 2: 57

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 815 NM - 2 MR. ROBERTS: it is not the place or the time to do it, Sir. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, I was unbearably provoked and I accept the comments made. MR. JAMIESON: Provocative, unbearably provocative. MR. SPEAKER: The han. Minister of Mines and Energy. MR. BARRY: Mr. Speaker, we have - MR. ROBERTS: This is just unbearable 1this is. MR.

BARRY: We have from the very commencement of discussion by this administration, by the PC Administration since 1972, stated clearly that in order to save dollars for the Newfoundland consumer and keep the cost of Lower Churchill energy delivered to the Island and parts of Labrador where it can be utilized, to keep that price down as low as possible it will be necessary and desirable to sell the surplus, which cannot be immediately used once the generating site is in place, to sell the surplus energy to subsidize the cost to our consumer.

But that selling of surplus energy, or that exporting of surplus energy would be temporary, would only be - it would be what is called interruptable. ~the technical phraseology, Mr. Speaker, it would be interruptable energy that could be interrupted from export markets and brought back to the Province as soon as provincial demand required. And, Mr.

Speaker, this is why I say, this is the point-I can understand that the hon. member opposite has difficulty in grapling with because he did support, and this is not debate, this is a statement of fact, he did support the administration which entered into a sixty year contract with no escalating clause. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER (Simms) : order, please! The time for Oral Questions has expired. This being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, and in line with the agreement reached earlier - 2 ; G 8

April 16, 1980 M:R . NEA.'tt : HR . SPE:A:<ER (Simms): AN EON. I£.'1BER: MR . SPEAKER: Tape No. 815 (Inaudible l . Order, please ! Order! Orde r! order , please! In order with the NM - 3 agreement reached earlier by hon. members ,we will now debate motion numbe r four. The hon . metnbe .r for LaPoile. SOl~E !:iON . ~~1BERS: Hear, hear! MR. NEARY : Mr. Speaker, after the heavy stuff dlat we just had on our plate I really do not know where to begin.

And then wi~~ the three week interruption that we have had when the government saw fit tO adjourn the House so they could all go to warmer climes, I do not remember •<iher e we le-ft off but I believe we were dealing with a resolution brought in by the member for Burgeo - Say d' Espoir (Mr . .r\ndre•<is) J.n connection with supponing the government on their stand on the Nonhern cod stock. Well now , Mr. Speaker, I believe the spokesman on our side of the House indicated chat we were going co support this resolution .

As a matter of fact,if the government continues to bring in motherhood resolutions and motherhood legislatior, then '"e •oiill continue co suppon it. ll ~'\e gover:unent brings in a resolution saying that Newfoundland owns t.he stars and the moon a:td the sun,we will support: it. The only dJ.ificulty I ha•1e with ::!Us parc1cular resolucion, ~!r. Speaker, even chough :am going to support it, I would like to know wha ·c i c is I am supporting. Because ic seems co me Chat che gove:nment' s posicion originally was chat Newfoundland owns the Norchern cod stock, that 2 1 59

April 16th., 1980 Tape No. 816 DW - 1 MR. S. NEARY: we have exclusive rights to the Northern cod stocks and nobody else on the face of this earth was entitled to one cod tongue from the Northern cod stock. Newfoundland ow~ed it exclusively, that was the government's position. But after listening to the member for Burgee - Bay d' Espoir (Mr. Andrews) 1 he seems to have watered it down considerably.

He says that even though the resolution leaves the impression that he is supporting exclusive rights ~o the Northern·cod stock,in his intro­ duction of the resolution when he watered it down, he said that all the Newfoundland Government was asking for was input, input with the Government of Canada on the quotas and on the control and management of the Northern cod stock. So I really do not know what it is I am support±ng but I am going to support it anyway because it sounds pretty good.

It sounds like good stuff, it is probably as good a resolution as the hen. gentleman could have brought in for his first try in this House. It is unfortunate that the hon. gentleman did not consult with the Premier and with some of the ministers to find out what the official position of the government really was. So I presume now after listening to the hon. gentleman introducing this resolution that I am supporting is a watered down version of the ultimatum issued by the Premier of this Province that Newfoundland owned the Northern cod stock.

It is a watered down version and so I can only carry on my few remarks on that basis. But before I do, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if anybody in this House, I wonder if the Premier and I wonder if the member himself who put this resolution on the Order Paper,took the time and the tr~uble to find out from the federal Department of Fisheries just what it is we are talking about here in the number of metric tons of fish that is caught every year from the ~orthern cod stock? 2: 7 n

April 16th., 1980 Tape No. 816 DW - 2 MR. S. NEARY : I wonder if• the han. gentleman really took the trouble to find out what it is we are talking about. Just in case the han. gentleman did not 1 and I can only assume that he did not because he did not mention it when he introduced the resolution 1 but. perhaps, Mr. Speaker, some other members may be interested in knowing what we are talking about as far as the Northern cod stock is concerned.

Well, back in 1977 the total at that time -by the way, there was a different arrangement for allocating quotas than there is at the present time - but back in 1977 the total allow- able catch was 160,000 metric tons. Canada's allocation of that 160,000 tons was 50,000 inshore metric tons and 20,000 offshore metric tons And the foreign allowable tons of metric catch was 90,000. In other words, the foreigners were allowed to catch the'bulk of fish that originated from the Northern cod stocks MR. ANDREWS: 90,000 metric tons. Offshore? MR. S.

NEARY: Offshore, yes, offshore because they do not carry on in inshore fishery. In 1978 the total allowable catch was 135,000 metric tons; 80,000 inshore, Canadian; 17,000 offshore, Canadian and the foreign catch was reduced to 38,000 metric tons. It is going down. Now we will just see what the Premier is concerned about here.

Now in 1979 according to the statistics supplied to me two or three weeks by the federal Department of Fisheries 1 ~he total allowable catch was 170,000 metric tons,of which 100,000 tons was allowed to the inshore fishermen,which is exclusively Canadian, exclusively Newfoundland; 100,000 tons out of 170,000; 45,000 Canadian offshore. And the foreign catch was further reduced down to 25,000 metric tons. Startling figures, Mr. Speaker. In 1980 the total allowable catch was 180,000 metric tons of which Canada was allowed inshore 1 110,000 metric tons; offshore, 45,000 metric tons 1 2 1 7 1

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 817 SD - l MR. S • NEARY : and foreign allowable catch of the Northern cod stock - 25,000 metric tons. Well, let us see what they actually caught in these years that I just mentioned 1 and I will go back to 1978. In 1978 1 Newfoundland caught 1out of a total allowable catch inshore of 81,000 metric tons, Newfoundland caught 18,652 metric tons and the Maritimes - the Atlantic Provinces - caught 2,314 metric tons and the foreigners caught 22,976 metric tons. In 1979 1 Newfoundland caught inshore 42,788 metric tons, the other provinces 9,252, and the foreigners caught 23,126 metric tons.

And in 1980, up to the time I got these figures, Newfoundland had caught 14,153 metric tons offshore and there is no figure inshore to date. And the foreigners have caught, up to three weeks ago, that was what was reported, 4,025 metric tons. Now then, Mr.

Speaker, having flung these figures at members of the House - I know figures can dazzle you sometimes, confuse you- but the obvious impression that one would get from these figures is that the real culprit in the destruction, if that is the right word to use, the real culprits is not other parts of canada, is not the foreigners, the real culprits in exposing the Northern cod stock to extinction is the Newfoundland fishermen. AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) MR. S • NEARY: Well, the figures indicate that.

The majority of the fish that originates from the Northern cod stock is caught by Newfoundland boats, inshore and offshore. MR. H. ANDREWS : It should be all of it. MR. S • NEARY : "It should be all of it," the hon. gentleman says, "It should be all of it." Well, I do not want to get into the question of whether or not we should kick the other provinces of Canada out and not allow them to catch fish from the Northern cod stock. If we did that, Mr. Speaker, what would hap~~~ to the inshore fishermen in my district who fish over off Sydney Bight? 2'7?

ll.pril 16, 1980 Tape No. 817 SD - 2 MR. S. NEJI.RY : What would happen to them? Would Nova Scotia kick them out? I am sure that the fishermen in my district and we have the best inshore fishery in the whole Province, it is a year round fishery, it peaks in the Wintertime and we have the best inshore fishery in the whole of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the only year-round inshore fishery, MR. H. li.NDREWS: All along the South coast. MR. s. NEARY: No, not all along the South coast: mainly on the Southwest corner.

What would happen to the fishermen in the LaPoile distric:t,and some in the hon. gentleman's own district, who go across the Gulf and fish on grounds that could be considered to be under the jurisdiction of Nova Scotia: if we took the dogmatic attitude and made a unilateral decision that no more Canadian d~aggers or no more Canadian boats can fish in Newfoundland waters~ What would happen to our fishermen? What would happen to them? Can the hon. gentleman tell me? MR. J. MORGJI.N : Only where there is historical precedents. MR. H. JI.NDREWS: Traditional historic right. MR. S. NEARY : Mr.

Speaker, I am sure that the fishermen in the hon. gentleman's own district, I know in my district, would be very uneasy, very uneasy indeed, if Newfoundland were placed in a position where they could kick out the fishing boats from the other Atlantic Provinces. They in turn would kick us out. We have fishermen from Southern Labrador, do we not, fishing in waters that could be considered to be around Quebec; What about these fishermen? AN HON. MEMBER: we have some in the gallery today. 2 j 7 3

April 16,1980 Tape No. 818 AH-l MR. NIDL~Y: We have some in the gallery today, ~~- Speaker. How would they feel if each province was allowed to manage the fishery and each one became selfish and greedy and said,'Well,this is it, boy, Your boats cannot come in here.' What would ~,e fishermen in Southern Labrador do? AN HON.MEMBER: There would be a fish war overnight. MR. NEARY: There would be a fish war overnight,my hon. friend says. So, ~- Speaker, although I am supporting this resolution, as I say I still do not know what I am supporting.

Newfoundland now has aGcess to and indeed is catching the bulk of the fish of the Northern cod stock. AN HON.MEMBER: One hundred per cent. MR. NEARY: The han. gentleman says 100 per cent. Does he mean that we should unilaterally kick out Nova Scotia,and then have Nova Scotia retaliate; kick out Quebec,and have Quebec retaliate against the fishermen of Southern Labrador. Maybe , Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman did not make himself clear, but I cannot help but raise these questions because I think this could be a very, very serious situation.

We could have a cod war develop if we follow expounded by the hon. gentleman. the policy, the philosophy Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think, sir, that in the last year or so in this Province we have had a government and a Premier who feels that everything has bo be done in a dramatic fashion, that it is necessary ~o come out every time you want to get a headline, whether it is he~e in Newfoundland or across Canada 1you have to come out fighing, you have to come out with the boxing gloves en and you have to take on the whole world. That is the only way you can get a headline. Well, maybe it is in this Province.

I know in this House you almost have to get out and stand on your head in the middle of the floor before you can get recognized by the news media. But the hon. the Premier has the technique for doing it. He has the technique. He comes in this afternoon, again in a very dramatic fashion,and camouflage.' an issue, tries to get his administration and the government off the hook for seven years of waste 1 2:71.

April 16,1980 Tape No. 818 AH-2 MR.. NEARY: seven years lost in the development of the hydro potential of this Province, And he is doing the same thing with the fishery in tilting at windmills, chasing after rainbows as far as the Northern cod stock is concerned. our job in this Province should be to develop the fishery, to lay out a plan for the fishery that would give Newfoundland access to the Northern cod stock and we would not have to worry about outsiders coming in here and stealing our fish. The fact of the matter is that we do not have a plan for the development of the fishery.

The government have been so preoccupied with oil, all they can think about is oil, oil and gas, leaving the impression that everybody is going to wake up some morning with a Cadillac in his backyard, that everybody is going to be a millionaire and instead of 30,000 Newfoundlanders in Florida,as we have at the present time,the whole population will be able to move down to Florida and live. That is the impression the government is leaving. In the meantime the fishery is being neglected.

The fishery on the Southwest coast is one of the most neglected parts of the Province, and I am talking mainly about the Southwest corner and along the Southwest coast. Everybody seems to concentrate their energy and their efforts on the Northeast coast and they forget that we have a Southwest coast in this Province. There has never, never been any attention paid to the Southwest coast as far as the fishery is concerned. It has been grossly neglected. There should be a master plan developed.

There should be a development corporation set up along the Southwest coast to develop the fishery and other industries ori the Southwest part of this Province. It is grossly neglected.And they have their problems, they have many problems, the fishermen and the fish plant operators on the Southwest coast have just as many problems as they do on the Northeast coast or the Southeast coast. And it is about time, Mr. Speaker, that the government stopped-dragging 2 ~ 7 s

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 819 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: in red herrings and phoney issues. It is time they stopped it, and told the fishermen and the people of this Province what plans they have for the development of the fisheries, well they are talking about 100 ?er cent ownership of this, and 100 per cent ownership of that, and they cannot even run the Fisheries Loan Board. The fishermen are out there right now starving for assistance so they can get gear and get engines and get boats this year to get at the fishery 1 And the Fishery Loan Board is in a complete shambles. They do not know where they stand.

That is the sort of thing that this government should be dealing with, not tilting at windmills. Eut as long as they keep bringing in these phoney issues, these motherhood issues, well,I am going to support them. I am not going to give the member for St. John's East, the President of the Council (Mr. Marshall) an opportunity to get up and say, "Well, there they are. They are unpatriotic. They are less than Newfoundlanders. They are not in my social circle so they do not exist as far as I am concerned." I am not going to give them that opportunity.

I will support everything they bring along, but I say bring along something half decent. Bring along something that makes a little common sense. Bring along a plan of development for the fishery, and not leave the operators and the fish plant workers out there not knowing from day to day if the fishery is going to collapse this year. We are told, Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a disaster in the fishery in this Province this year. We are told that fishermen are going to be asked to take less for their fish than they did last year 1 there is going to be labour trouble and strife in the fishery this year.

Not a word about it in this House so far. The markets are glutted,we are told 1in the United States. We are told, Mr. Speaker, that this year, even though every Newfoundlander now, every fisherman is geared up for the squid fishery, we are told that there is going to be slump in the markets as far as squid is concerned this year, that the Japs are not going to buy the squid or pay the price that they paid last year. 2 A 7 s

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 819 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: These are the kind of issues we should be dealing with, Mr. Speaker, in this House instead of having the red herrings and the phoney issues dragged in on the floor of this House. But anyway my time is up. I wish I had more time, Mr. Speaker, because there is so much you can say about the fishery and how it is neglected and how the government has put all its eggs in one basket and all they can think about is oil. But I will have another opportunity to talk about the fishery in this session of the House. I am going to support the resolution, Mr.

Speaker, but I still do not know what it is I am supporting. MR. SPEAKER (Butt) : MR. STEWART: Th~ han. member for Fortune-Hermitage. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege for me to rise today and support the motion moved by my colleague from Burgee-Bay d'Espoir (Mr. Andrews). Being from a fishing community, and now representing a district that is totally upon the fishing industry for survival, a part, Mr. Speaker, of this great ?rovince that has one of the lowest rates of unemployment, I, therefor£, have strong feelings on the fishery.

I know it is very important that we, as Newfoundlanders, have exclusive rights to fish the Northern cod. The fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador are the backbone of our economy and society 1 and will remain the major component of any permanent solution to our economic problems. The 500 or more communities along the Northern coast of Newfoundland and Labrador need and must be given first consideration when it comes to catching and processing the great abundance of cod that we expect by 1985.

For the second consecutive year, seafish landings total over one billion pounds, up 18 per cent from the 1978 catch, the biggest fishing year, Mr. Speaker, in all our long history. The fish stocks are rebuilding and recovering from the tremendous overfishing that took place off our shores during the latter part of the 1960's, rutd now, once again, the pressure is being applied for us to give up or really trade off some of the great fishing potential that belongs to this Province. The 2 1 7 7

April 16 , 1980 Tape No . 819 GH-3 !'IR. STE1oi?...~T: communities along ~he Northeasc coast of Labrador have sufferec drastically from the overfishing of ehe Northern cod , which can cause, Mr. Speaker, high unemployment, unde .rutilized plant capaciey, young people moving away to find ~~~~. and with very few spin -off industries . These factors, Mr. Speaker, have all led to fisherme .n being looked down upon or considered second class citizens . 2; 7 g

April 16, 1980 Tape 820 EC - l MR. D. STEWART: The time is now and we must stand and be counted, and,as a government, lead the way for the betterment of the fishery. The effect on fishing of the development of our non-renewable resources, especially offshore oil and gas, is very hard to judge at this particular time, but it must be viewed primarily as a short-term tool to give us the financial flexibility to provide the source of investment to really expand the fishery. I would strongly recommend, Mr.

Speaker, that this House of Assembly should be placed in committee as a whole and travel to Aberdeen, Scotland,to have a first-hand look at ~~e impact of oil and gas, not only on the fishing industry, but the full impact on life itself. Several committees could be formed to deal with such things as local fishery, housing, social problems, new businesses, etc. Many young people coming onstream who would normally get involved in the fishery are now looking for, and many are finding,employment with offshore oil. My question is, then, Mr.

Speaker, what •.o~ill happen if young people refuse to become involved with the fishery due to more money being made in offshore oil and gas? Then, Mr. Speaker, each committee could prepare a report and present it to the House of Assembly. We are the people who will be making major decisions over the next number of years on controlling offshore oil and gas, and therefore, a first-hand look into how another country similar to ours reacted and adjusted to this boom would be of tremendous benefit, I am sure, to everyone in this hon. House. I do know, however, Mr.

Speaker, that proposals for offshore oil and gas development must be carefully analysed and severely tested to ensure ~~at the marine environment and our fisheries are being adequately protected. The only way that we can be sure, Mr. Speaker, is that we must own the mineral resources on our Continental Shelf and we will control their development for the best benefit of our people. We cannot afford to allow our people trained to be fishermen to be swallo~~d up by the oil and gas industry. 2 79

April 16, 1980 Tape 820 EC - 2 MR. D. STEWART: The provincial Department of Fisheries, as part of its overall fisheries development policy, is committed to the expansion of secondary processing of fish in the Province. This includes the smoking, breading, marinating 1 bottling 1 cooking and canning of fish harvested by our fishermen. The department is attempting to develop the secondary industry through the introduction of new equipment and machinery.

During the past two years, in excess of $500,000 worth of equipment has been provided to various companies for their introduction into the fish processing operations. The provincial government is presently in the process of conducting an in-depth study into a number of inshore ports in the Province that have been identified as major outlets for the inshore fishery. This study is looking at the present and future needs of ports and recommendations will be made to government on what facilities they will require to meet the needs of our inshore fishermen.

These things cannot come about unless we increase the fish landings throughout our Province, and the Northern cod stocks will play a major

part in the great development of our fishery. Groundfish landings, Mr. Speaker, are projected to increase from 275,000 metric tons in 1979 to 550,000 metric tons by 1985, which means that the provincial production of frozen groundfish products could more than double over the next decade. It is anticipated that the value of Newfoundland fish exports will also increase from ~250 million to $400 million over the 1977 - 1982 period and up to $600 million by 1985. Mr.

Speaker, the Northern cod was raped and plundered for years by foreigners and it is now that the cod stock is returning and it is of the utmost importance that we have ~~e proper manage­ ment. The federal Department of Fisheries, the provincial Department of Fisheries, the processors and fishermen all have to co-ordinate the fishery and work together. Mr. Speaker, fish automatically means fishermen, and the fishermen not only on the Northeast Coast of Labrador, but all communities throughout the Province, need better services such as 2 1 8 0

April 16, 1980 Tape S20 EC - 3 MR. D. STEWARI': schools, hospitals, better road.s, television service, water and sewerage, if we intend to keep fishe~n in their bo<~ots. In :tny district of FortliJle - Hermitage, wb;ich is on the south Coast of NeWfoundland, I need a fish. plant in tile lower part of r:Irj district, and I hope tllat tile Minister of Fisheries (Mr, J. Morgan) and government will strongly support a proposal new before 2'51

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 821 EL - 1 MR. D. STEWART: the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation for funding. This area of my distrct is without any local based industry and I am sure that with a small plant operation at Little Bay East, the area from St. Bernard's to English Harbour East will start and continue to prosper for years to come. A great example, Mr. Speaker, of how plants increase growth is Harbour Breton,where in 1976 we had thirty-nine fishermen and twenty-two boats. By 1978, there were sixty­ three fishermen and thirty-three boats.

The Northeast cod, the North­ east Coast and the Labrador areas will also grow and to ensure its growth, the complete control and decisions governing that stock of the Northeast coast must belong to this Province. Historic rights, also, Mr. Speaker, give us control to the Northern cod. Can you imagine the Nova Scotians allowing Newfoundland boats to fish their traditionally scallop grounds? we must realize that the scallop grounds do historically andtratition - ally belong to Nova Scotia.

Nova Scotia, in turn, must realize that the North- .ern cod stocks do historically and traditionally belong to Newfoundland • The fishing grounds off Nova Scotia, which have been referred to, that have traditionally been fished by Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, are not a question here at this time because the fishermen on the South coast and fishermen stock. from Nova Scotia have fished side by side for years after these The fisheries is the largest employer in Newfoundland and•in order to keep it the biggest employer we must eliminate any further development of freezer trawlers and leave the fish stock for our inshore fleet.

The Federal Government freezer trawler policy , if implemented, would seriously undermine the economic benefits flowing to our fishing communities and,therefore,we must urge the Federal 218~

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 821 EL - 2 \ MR. D. STEWART: Government of Canada to accept the position of this Province in regard to management jurisdiction. I would just like to refer to the Speech from the Throne in July, 12th, 1979, which really cannot come about unless we obtain control of the Northern:·cod. The basic objective of the primary landing a~d distribution port is to provide stable year- round employment in small and medium-sized fishplan1S that are now operating on a seasonable basis, by providing a continous supply of fish from offShore landing, particularly during the Winter months.

The primary port will contribute towards the revitalization of Newfound- land fishery and the industrial base of rural Newfoundland. The establish- ment of a marine industrial park in the primary port will not only foster the creation of a secondary processing capability to produce final consumer products but will increase the growth of industries, which are allied to the fishery. How can this come about? Again, Mr. Speaker, only if Newfoundland has complete control over the Northern cod stock. I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by reading a part of the statement made by the Premier on December 4, 1979.

"I would say that we are not being greedy, we are merely trying to protect the livlihood of many small communities which have always depended on these Northeast cod stocks and who, alone of all Canadians, have trad- itionally harvested them. We must defend our rights just as I am sure the government of any province would defend the mainstay of its economy and society. If I were to do anything less, I would be betraying the people who elected me, elected my government 1 and adopting a position wnich I personally could not live with. We must all understand, Mr. Speaker, how vital this issue is to us.

We must all see the Northeast cod, not as some remote resource, but what it really is, the basis of our livlihood 2 ) 8'

April 16, 1980 MR. D. SIBBWART: SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER (SIMMS) MR. D. JAMIESON: Tape No. 821 RA - 3 and economic future. Hear, hear! The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, I think it waa the member for La Poile 1~.

Neary) who said he was voting for this resolution although he was not quite sure what it meant and df course I am supportive of it as well and I want to explain that unlike him I do know why I am voting for it and that is that I have great respect for the llew member for Burgeo - Bay d' Espoir (H .Andrews) and I think it is a tradition,incidently,in the case of most Parliament'~ at least when the first motion of a new member is put down,not to mince words too much about whether it is exactly correct or whether it is not, And I think that I understand, despite ehe fact that I disagree with a lot of the wording and in the sense that I think it could have been phrased differently, I think the intent is perfectly clear and I have no difficulty whatever in so far as that intent is concerned.· 2 1 81!

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 822 GH-1 MR. JAMIESON: Just to illustrate, and I am sure my han. friend will take it in the spirit in which it is given, his first

preamble where he talks about the Northern cod stocks have historically been fished exclusively by fishermen from the Northeast and Labrador coasts. Well, I suggest to him that•exclusive'is pretty much of a stretching of it, unless you want to take the Northeast coast right around into parts of Placentia Bay where I come from and where there have been people for a very long time who used to prosecute the Labrador fishery in the days when, in fact, it was one of the major fisheries of this Province.

Similarly, I can recall many, many years ago, back in the days of salt cod, when it was the principal product of Newfoundland, when I was involved with the then original Crosbie company, that, in fact, there were many, many people from other parts than the Northeast coast and Labrador who fished in what used to be then known as the Northern or the Labrador fishery, So that to say that it is exclusively a matter for the Northeast coast and for Labrador fishermen, I think is to draw a long bow, to say the least.

What we are really talking about here, of course, is a cod stock or an area of the Province which is vital to all fishermen, incidentally, whether they happen to come from the South coast or not.

The reality is, of course, that the majority of the fish are caught by fishermen from the Northeast coast, and I asked somebody in the House the other day for a definition of Northeast coast and I think there were two or three different ideas that came out as to just where the Northeast coast actually started, in terms of whether it was on the Burin Peninsula, at the corner of the Avalon Peninsula or Cape Race or wherever. MR. MORGAN: Cape Race, I would say. MR. JAMIESON: Cape Race. Yes, well, you can scarcely call that the Northeast coast. I am not arguing with you, but that is the whole East coast.

Then you will find a lot of people in St. Mary's Bay in the constituency of my friend from St. Mary's-T~e Capes (Mr. Hancock), who would argue that they, too, indeed, were participants in this particular fishery. I think that the fundamental point with regard to the resolution, that it is important to put forward here, is that, in fact, what we are saying, really, is that historically, historically, and that 2 1 8 s

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 822 GH-2 MR. JAMIESON: goes back hundreds of years, that it has been, in fact, the right, if you wish, or the paramount right of Newfound­ land fishermen - let us forget where they happen to live at this particular moment in time and so on - to actually prosecute that particular fishery and to have the maximum benefits from that particular fishery.

Now, one of the things that worries me when we get to the next stage, I am not exactly sure where or how this resolution indicates the exclusive right of Newfoundland and Labradorians to fish Northern cod 1 and that shared resource management jurisdiction with the Federal Government, there once again I suggest that the wording is not consistent either with some of the passages with the Speech from the Throne, to which I believe my han. friend, the Fisheries critic for our side, referred to when this debate opened two or three weeks ago, that there is a clear inconsistency there.

But even more important, I think, is the fact that various spokesmen for the government, including, I think, the Premier himself, talked not so much again about divided jurisdiction and the like but talked about - and I think these are the operative words and my friend who has had a good deal of experience in covering the fishery in one way or another will probably know what I am talking about - that worthwhile and effective consultation is probably a better way of doing it than trying to identify in any precise way what is the jurisdiction of one particular level of government and what is the jurisdiction of another.

Indeed, if you wanted to carry the jurisdictional argument to its extreme, you would probably wind up in a situation in which municipalities - my friend from Lapoile-Port aux Basques, the council could argue that part of the fisheries jurisdiction, using it in the legal world, belongs with them because it happens to be some kind of a shore facility in that particular community. MR. NEARY: MR. JAMIESON : MR. HOLLETT: MR. JAMIESON: They should have them. I agree. Input (inaudible). Input, Mv dear friend has provided me with the word that was escaping me for the last five minutes. 2~86

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 822 GH-3 MR. JAMIESON: Input, meaningful input is what is necessary, not a bunch of people sitting down and haggling one way or the other as to just who is going to get what piece of the action or what piece of the pie. Now, I remember when 2i87

April 16th., 1980 Tape No. 823 DW - 1 MR. D. JAMIESON: this first issue arose or when this issue first arose over Northern cod stocks and the question of jurisdiction and the like 1 and what really happened at that stage in the game, as most members of this House will recall 1 is that when the various provinces sat down among themselves, the four Eastern provinces and Newfoundland,and tried to figure out what they were going to give or 'what they were going to get or what they were going to take,wben that happened the result was a Donnybrook among provincial officials and provincial ministers.

And, of course, it was a situation 1had it been sustained 1which would have resulted in a far worse situation fb•~ Newfoundland than the one, in fact, that was upheld and eventually decided upon by the then and now Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Romeo LeBlanc 1 because in fact what he did was to say that the traditional and the historical rights should prevail. My memory may be a little fuzzy on the actual percentages,but I recall that we got something of the order of 80 per cent or over 80 per cent

whereas when you sat down individually with the three or four other provinces each of them was looking for its own chunk and the end result was that we would have wound up with perhaps something less than 50 per cent. Am I not correct 1 I ask my friend for Burin - Placentia West (Mr. Hollett)? MR. D. HOLLETT: MR. D. JAMIESON: Forty-five per cent. Forty-five per cent was all that the Maritime Provinces were prepared to give to us.

Now the danger and the problem in this - I emphasize once again that the word 'input' and the word 'consultation; I think that these are extremely, vitally important and I have to sa~ with the greatest of respect to the interregnum that went on for eight or nine months while the P.C. 's were in Ottaw~ I have to say that even 2 1 8 8

April 16th., 1980 Tape No. 823 DW - 2 MR. D. JAMIESON: Conservatives conceded that Mr. LeBlanc was in fact a very co-operative and a very under­ standing Minister of Fisheries. And I think,incidentally 1 that he will be again and I think he understands very fundamentally what is involved here. But let us just imagine what happens if the three or four other provinces in Eastern Canada,not only just pass resolutions of this kind,because what we are doing here is trying to assert a principle and I think that principle 1 as the Premier said at the time,does make a distinction.

I have no problem in my own mind in this regard between the Northern cod stocks 1 as we call them 1 and certain other stocks that have been fished in different ways. I think there is an historical difference there. But if Nova Scotia,as it is unquestionably going to do, and if to some degree New Brunswick,although ! think the hon. mem~er for Burgee·- Bay d' Espoir (Mr.

Andrews) knows Nova Scotia is probably the biggest of those three 1 but then we have Quebec looming on the horizon with regard to its particular riqhts: If each of one of them asserts the same kind of demand for 'jurisdiction' then the situation becomes a really almost impossible one to resolve. And I challenge anybod~ really, to figure out a means through which-you would have to get Solomon to come and try to sort out the variety of claims that would be made in that kind of a situation.

Now none of this, I emphasize once again, is in any sense designed to denigrate from the general theme of the reso­ lution, the idea that - well, in fact, I said it when the Premier made his statement on Northern cod stocks last year, that this was the way I believed we oaght to go.And I do not change that now because there happens to be a different Minister of Fisheries, which unfortunately is what is happening in some cases on the other side, that suddenly things that looked great a year ago are not looking as good now as they did then, from seven or eight months ago. 2 1 8 9

April 16th., 1980 Tape No. 823 ow - J MR. D. JAMIESON: But I do say this 1 that the point ma4e by the member for LaPoile (Mr. Neary~ and I am sure it will be made by others,is extremely important. You kn.ow, every action breeds a reaction,they say,and,in the case of ~hese kinds of assertions,unless they are dealt with and handled in the proper kind of fashion 1 you will find fisherme~ from the Southwest coast of this Province having real trouble when they go o v er on Sydney Bight or in some of the areas where they are doing a lot of fishing at the present time, MR. ROLLETT: Scattery. MR. D.

JAMIESON: indications · AN HON. MEMBER: ~R. D . .JAMIESON: Scattery My friend has got some other and sundry other areas where - (Inaudible) I know I represented that area , the biggest, single fishing constituency from one en d to the other in the whole of North America and maybe the 2i 9n

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 824 SD - l MR. D. JAMIESON: biggest one in the world. And one of the things that in terms of the new fishery policy that I see emerging 1and I hope it will emerge 1is that, of course, we will break the curse of immobility which has been a real problem for Newfoundland fishermen for so long 1 that if the fish did not eat the rocks, as the old expression used to have it, then they were not in a position to go after them.

Therefore, it seems to me that we have to ensure and make sure that we do not hamstring our Newfoundland fishermen.- When they get into these investments of $500,000 and $600,000 boats and the like,whether they are on the Northeast coast or on the South coast, we do not want to have a situation in which in asserting our own claim and our own historical rights, we do not want to have a situation where Nova Scotia says, "Come off it now, these fish are ours and you are not going to come into our particular bailiwick or our particular area." And I think the question we have to ask ourselves, the bottom line if you want to put it that way, is are we going to be content if we get exclusivity or close to ~xclusivity and this makes no modification at all, it simply talks about exclusivity.

If we are going to get exclusivity are we going to be content with every other province in the country that has a fishing interest on the East coast, getting the same kind of thing on historical grounds that they happen to think are theirs? I do not know if my hon. friend from Burgee - Bay d'Espoir (Mr. H. Andrews) ever covered the negotiations with regard to George's Bank but if he did,he knows what the problem can be. Now, that happens to be between the United States and basically Nova Scotia on the one hand.

And can I say hera, by the way, because somebody made a criticism of me, not a heavy one 1but somebody said at one stage in the game that we had not even been invited in on the George's Bank negotiations. Now, I hope whoever said that will look at the reccrd,and I want to get this on the record,that, in fact, that was done in consultation with Newfoundland and it was concluded that it was wiser for Newfoundland to stay out of that particular kind of negotiation relating to 2 1 91

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 824 SD - 2 MR. D. JAMIESON: George's Bank where our interests, I think everyone will agree, were minimal in those terms because it would undermine our position in relation to the kind of thing we are discussing in this resolution this afternoon. Newfoundland could have been involved, it had all of the information that it needed to have or wanted to have,but it is certainly an untruth to say that Newfoundland was not consulted or that it was refused some kind of opportunity to participate. But, Mr.

Speaker, I think the thing we have to realize here is, first of all, as I believe the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. J. Morgan) has said, and certainly others have said, that while the fishery is moving in a satisfactory direction as things stand at the present time, it is by no means, to use the Minister of Finance's (Dr. J. Collins) expression with regard to offshore oil and gas, it is by no means a panacea.

And one of the worries that I have is that this government is not paying enough attention to the fishery in terms of the day to day problems that it faces and is, unfortunately, and I can understand like, for instance,the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. J. Dinn), if he can quote 30,000 jobs in the fishery that is great, and I would not blame him one bit and I would take, probably, as much credit as you could for it.

But he knows as well as I do that, of course, it is a misnomer, it is a misrepresenting figure in the sense that if you look at the statistics provided, I believe, by the fish trades the other day 1 and if you look at the statistics provided by the union directly to me the other day, the number of bona fide fishermen, the number of people whom it can be said are really making a living, a full scale satisfactory living out of the fishery, is - AN HON. MEMBER: 12,000. MR. D. JAMIESON: I was going to say 10,000 , or 12,000 at the very outside.

And of that number, by the way, a great many of them are not living in the lap of luxury, at least not in any area of this Province that I have represented at any time. So that 2! 9 2 ~------- ~ ~- ~~~---.---.---------------------------------------------

Apr il 16, 1980 Tape No. 824 SD- 3 MR. D. JAMIESON: I think the caution that we have to utter here is that we do not see the bailing out of Newfoundland economically being done on the baeks of the fishe~n. Now, because it is so important, however, I also think it is important that we e.~ure that those - what we call here Northern cod stoek - that they are in fact maintained to the 11\ilximum extent possible for our Newfoundland fishe~n. But 1you know,when you start using' the word 'exclusive' you run into the same kinds of problems that we have seen earlier today with req.ud to Labrador hydro and so on.

You get into very confining legalized kind of language and you suddenly discover that there are things you want to do but you can not do them because, in fact, you have not defined or given yourself, if you like, a basket clause - if my hon. friend from Stephenville (Mr. F, Stagg), is that a phrase in law? I think it is but some fashion throuqh "hich you can say, :!res, you ean employ a different technique or a different approacn if you want to.

Now, just one last wora on this who .le question of the fishery and the 11\iltter of what is called here • shared :Jur.isdiction' and the like and that is that I alii concerned increasingly by this problem that I see emerging of the 2 1 iJ I ,.J .J

April 16, 1980 Tape 825 EC - 1 MR. D. JAMIESON: conflict - if you want to call it that - between offshore oil and gas development and fishery development. MR. S. NEARY: Right on. MR. D. JAMIESON: And if hon. members in this House are not aware of it, hon. members opposite in particular, I have no doubt the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. J. Morgan) is aware of it, because you cannot meet with a fishermen, I suspect, today who does not tell you that he is very, very concerned about the ability of these two developments to live side by side together.

And in that context, without going into it in detail-because I believe my colleague from LaPoile (Mr. S. Neary) touched on it earlier - to say this, that when we are talking again about jurisdiction, what we have to realize is we are not just discussing anymore, in the kind of complex world in which we are living, management of a fish stock, we are not discussing anymore just the simple allocation of a quota or who gets a licence. You know, it was not without reason that the government in Ottawa changed the hame to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans because, of course, there are environmental considerations.

I shudder to think, as the member for LaPoile said in a statement somewhere the other day, what would happen if we had a spill on the Grand Banks, and it is not by any means beyond the bounds of possibility.

And you know, I am afraid, I am genuinely concerned that we are tending to slough this sort of thing off, to say, 'Well, you know, we will get to that at some point in the future.' I have not seen placed before this House any kind of comprehensive plan, and furthermore, I would say this, that if there were such a plan, there is not enough money in this Province that is likely to flow from the oil on the Grand Banks to sustain the jurisdictional responsibilities that would flow if Newfoundland had to carry the can for the total amount. It would be just out of the 2 1 9 4

April 16, 1980 Tape 825 EC - 2 MR. D. JAMIESON: question for this Province or any one province to do so.

And for all of these reasons, it is one thing to say jurisdiction, it is one thing to talk about being masters in our own house - it sounds a bit like Quebec - it is one thing to say that 1 but those responsibilities carry a price tag with them, and I wonder if there had been an oil rig overturned, let us say, off our shores, as tragically happened in the North Sea, and if we had a major disaster with regard to the fishery or something of that nature, where would this small Province with its limited resources get the capability to indeed even just carry out the emergency measures that would be necessary in those kinds of circumstances?

So I end as I began by saying - the member for LaPoile (Mr. S. Neary) was not in the House, but he said he was voting for it but he did not understand; I see what he means. I said I was voting for it because I understand it is the first motion that this new member has put down on the board and rather than try to play with the individual words in it, I think the principle is clear and unmistakable. It is one that we supported last year when the issue came up initially, it is one that we are happy to support on this occasion as well. SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. SPEAKER (Baird) : MR. L. WOODROW: Hear, hear!

The hon. the member for Bay of Islands. I would like to have a few words on the motion also. There have been, of course, a good many speakers on it and no doubt there is bound to be repetition. I would like, however, Mr. Speaker, first of all to congratulate the hon. the member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir (Mr. H. Andrews) for bringing in the motion and I would like to say to him and to all others in this hon. House that in 1956 - January 3rd to the 5th- I attended a conference here in the city of St.John's on South Coast matters.

And one of the things that came up was the fisheries on the South Coast and the hydro in Bay d'Espoir. As a result of it, we got the great fish plant 2 1 9 5

April 16, 1980 Tape 825 EC - 3 f-IR . L. WOO DROl-l: in Harbour Breton, which has changed the :ace of that community, and also the face of the other surrounding commun~ties since that time. In fact, the people living in the nearby communitie s like Sagona Island, 219 8

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 826 IB-1 MR. WOODROW: Miller's Passage, Little Bay West and Jersey Harbour all moved to Harbour Breton and made one great community. And the hydro was brought to Bay d' Espoir as well. Unfortunately it only made employment at that particular time. But it certainly has done a lot of good for the South Coast. In fact 1 I happened to spend down there in another capacity, I spent eight years and I really know something about the South Coast of the Province of Newfoundland. I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the former speakers. I always placed the hon.

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Jamieson) in a special category because he certainly brings o~t everything so plainly and so simply that even a child would understand it. And I also want to say a special word to my friend from Burin- Placentia West (Mr. Hollett). I was here when he spoke and he always is unbiased and he is a good Newfoundlander. He is interested, I remember when we used to be working together in the Federation of Mayor and Municipalities, he always showed great statesmanship and in fact the qualities he has are really almost too numerous to mention. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! AN HON.

MEMBER: Oo you hear that? MR. WOODROW: Very good. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read the bill because everybody knows what the bill is all about. But I would like to say that we are talking about 500 communities along the Northeast Coast and Labrador and I suppose we could probably include, Mr. Speaker, communities on the South Coast as well. We are talking about the codfish and the codfish is the king of all the fish. In fact,many of us, I suppose, our ancestors they were really brought up on fish and as long as Newfoundland remains, that will be I suppose for all time, we have to support the fishery.

AN HON. !>1.EMBER: Hear, hear! MR. WOODROW: Now we have to support it, Mr. Speaker, because the fishery is the traditional way. I suppose I would be only repeating myself if I said that the people in all, just about all the 2 Cl7 '-'·

;.pril 16, 198 0 Tape No. 826 I:B-2 ~!R. t-IOOOR~i: outports of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, they live by t.~e fish and it is going to remain for a long time. Now •.;r.at has happened, ~ suppose - I recall, for example, in, I suppose we could re£er to them as the old days alt.~ough not so very far away, I used to see, Mr.

Speaker, the traps and proD<lbly a two inch mesh maybe set almost in on the rocks which you would ca~l them and they would come in and take sometimes probably ju~ in one community, they would probably take say during a year possibly 100,000 quintals of fish and in many cases the fish was too small to split and it went as tomcod as it was referred to and - AN BON. Mn!BER: ~!R. WOODROW: G~rounded . Ground ed, that is right. And in many cases it was just thrown down over the stage head,as the saying goes. I often look back at those days a.nd say to myself i£ only then we had to have the 2 1 9 g

April 16, 1980 Tape No. 827 IB-1 MR. WOODROW: means at our disposal as we have today for preserving our cod stock. And I remember mysel~ just more or less to reminisce a little, being up all night, tired, beat out, trying to put that fish away. You had to stay up all nightjotherwise, in fact, it would be spoiled in the morning. Now perhaps this all leads to the fact that we have had a lot of overfishing. In fact,the ~reezer trawlers and all other types of trawlers that they have gone out and they have raped, I suppose you could say, they have raped our fishery.

So with the management that is put on now by the federal government,we hope that this is going to become a thing of the past. And I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that we as a Province, the han. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) who is here in the House at the present time, I think that he as the minister,and the government in general, I suppose all of the House of Assembly I think we certainly should have some say in it. I do not know how far we should go.

But it is a kind of disheartening on times when you hear an announcement coming from Ottawa, you ask the Minister of Fisheries, "Did you have any input in this?", and the answer comes back, "Never heard a thing about it". So I hope that this thing will not continue in the future. Now also, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important if we want to keep our plants going all year arounc the fish must be landed in Newfoundland and it must be also processeu in Newfoundland.

How in the world can we give our people a better economic base or keep them off welfare or keep them off unemployment insurance unless we increase the capacities of our fish plants in the Province? I think at the present time the plants are working about 40 per cent capacity, three or four months of the year. And above all else, Mr. Speaker, I think that the fish must be made available to all the communities. I think, as my han. friend from St. Barbe South (Mr. Bennett) knows 1this year I believe there was some fish taken from St. Anthony, taken further up the coast.

There is no reason why 1 with the roads that we have today 1that the fish could not be taken as far as the Bay of Islands which you know is my second love in this House. It is not the first love,because my first love is the Province. This would give people all over 2 ~ 0 Q i ,"J . ~

Aprl.l 16, 1980 Tape No . 827 IS -2 MR . \-IOOORQ;o/: the Province or in other parts of the Province, it would give them a livelihood . At least it would help them gain their livelihood. I also think, Mr . Speaker, that our first claim should be on the Northern cod stocks . l'lhy? Beca use we are the nearest to the~. And Nova Scotia, for examp le, has the first claim on the scallops on George's Sank of Southe...""ll Nova Scotia. This is sixty miles :rom Nova Scotia. 220 11

April 16, 1980 Tape 828 EC - 1 MR. L. WOODROW: I believe therefore that we should also have the first claim and this should also be recognized by the provincial government as well. Mr. Speaker, just to wind up what I have to say, I would like to quote from a speech that was given here by the Premier in the House some time ago. I think it probably sums up everything that has been said.

I quote: "Therefore, to this aim and principle is the acquisition by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians of additional fish to allow for the continued operation of our fish processing facilities beyond the normal four, five or six months period now presently in-effect.

This, of course, leads to the realistic contention that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians must have first call on the Northern cod stock, that the inshore fishery must be protected at all costs, and that even after it has been protected and expanded to a realistic level over the next five to ten years, the so-called surplus that might exist in addition to what would be needed on the inshore should be,in the first instance,relegated to Newfoundland and Labrador, so that the processing sectors have access to this additional fish to bring about the fish plants being open for eight to ten and even twelve months of the year and hence reduce our unemployment and thereby increase our wealth.

This kind of contention is not based on any selfish motive, but rather on the principle of traditional historic rights which we believe should apply to the extraction of the resources throughout all of Canada, and if this kind of reasonable, equitable principle is applied, then justice will not only be done as it relates to the Northern cod stock, but will be done for Nova Scotians, New Brunswickers, Prince Edward Islanders and people throughout the nation who can make such claims:' Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that I could play at least a small role in this bill or resolution, 2201

April 16, 1980 Tape 828 EC - 2 MR. L. WOODROW: whatever you want to call it, and I think - I not only think but I know that all members of this hon. House are unanimous on this resolution. I think they are unanimous on it because they realize once again, how important the fishery is to this Province. I just want to end up by perhaps concurring with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he ended up speaking about the oil and gas and the fish. I hope that no matter - I know it is going to be of great benefit to the Province - but no matter what happens, I hope that we, as members of this hon.

House of Assembly, will do all we can in conjunction naturally with the oil and gas, will do all we can, Mr. Speaker, to protect our fishery. Thank you very much. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER (Baird) : SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. E. HISCOCK: Hear, hear! The hon. the member for Eagle River. Hear, hear! The member for Bay of Islands (Mr. L. Woodrow) said at the beginning when he spoke that many people in L~is House have spoken on this resolution, and also each person when he rose to speak basically had no hesitation in supporting the principle of the resolution.

The wording may be questioned but the principle is an issue that is very, very close to me, basically representing Coastal Labrador from L'Anse-au-Clair to Paradise River. I have heard many people here speak about the Northern cod, and basically what I have heard when they spoke was it has to be processed in Newfoundland. This is one of the main things that I and the people of Labrador get