The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today, on behalf of all members of the House, participants from Canada World Youth. There are seven participants from Jamaica, and seven from other parts of Canada, and they are visiting the District of Placentia & St. Mary's. They are accompanied by teachers Donna Malone and Beverly Boothe Swaby, and bus driver Paul Whittle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the good news.

MR. DICKS: I share the sadness of the hon. member opposite.

This morning I joined with the President of NAPE, Mr. David Curtis, and with Minister Bettney in her capacity as minister responsible for the status of women, to announce that the government has reached a joint pay equity agreement with NAPE for the general government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DICKS: The agreement we announced today comes after several years of hard work and co-operation between the government and the union, and positively affects thousands of jobs within the general service.

This agreement, together with others that have been reached in recent years, has occurred without legislation intervention. This marks this series of discussions as virtually unique within the pay equity field in this country.

Today's agreement totals $4.1 million per year for some 2,100 employees in female dominated classifications.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Effective October 1, 1996, and until the end of this fiscal year alone, government will provide almost $2 million in salary adjustments to employees in provincial government departments, Cabot College, Workers' Compensation Commission, West Viking College, Central Regional College, Eastern College, Labrador College, Medical Care Commission, C.A. Pippy Park, Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation, and the Marine Institute.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, the increase in salary for approximately seventy-five female-dominated job classifications will have a very positive impact on many employees. The pay equity adjustments will be phased in two stages, the first being effective October 1 of this year - that is retroactive - the second on April 1, 1998. Upon the full implementation of the adjustment, employees in many classifications will receive a significant yearly salary increase. For example, in the classification of Clerk I there will be a gross salary increase per year of $2,700; Clerk Stenographer I, $2,700; Domestic Worker, $2,600; Early Childhood Education Worker, $3,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: We have been thorough in reviewing job classifications and salaries within the general government, and we reached an agreement through a joint management/union process. This is a

progressive step in ensuring that pay equity is implemented throughout the public service. It is a significant benefit for women in the fields identified.

Government reached pay equity agreements within the health care sector and with Newfoundland Hydro in 1990; and with the Nurses Union and Allied Health Professionals in 1995. Together with today's agreement, government will provide $28.5 million per year in pay equity salary adjustments for almost 11,000 employees by the year 2000.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House we want to commend the government. This is indeed an initiative that is long overdue, it is a good idea; it has been promised repeatedly in the past and we are happy to see that action has been taken.

Mr. Speaker, we want to say that we are happy that government has caught up with the values in society, so we say to the government, this is a positive step on behalf of the females who are in the civil service and in other workforces of this Province. We know that they welcome this initiative and we want to commend the government. It is a progressive step and we regret to say that it has taken a long time and we hope that this will send a signal to all other employers in this Province that, we have to treat people with equal dignity and equal pay for work of equal value.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi, does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a good day for the workers who have fought for this. It is not an initiative of government but the result of a collective bargaining effort on which I congratulate both parties on achieving but it is something that has been fought for, for many years. It is something to be celebrated. It is pure equality that is needed. We would like to see further announcements from government on recognizing pay equity for home care workers in this Province as the next step, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, as minister responsible for local government and, on behalf of all members of this House of Assembly, I wish to offer our congratulations to the new council elected Tuesday night in the Town of Conception Bay South -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. REID: - and also, on your behalf to extend our best wishes for every success during their tenure of office.

I believe the decision to cause a new election to be held was one that was in the overall best interest of the residents of Conception Bay South, and it means that the town can once again take ownership of its own affairs.

The new council will remain in office for a period of five years. Officials in my department are already making plans to provide extensive training for the new council with respect to procedures and budget preparation, etc., and my department will provide whatever help and assistance that may be required by the new council.

I was very pleased to see as many as thirty-seven people came forward to offer themselves in this particular election and that certainly shows the amount of interest in the community. It does serve to indicate that local government in at least the town of Conception Bay South is alive and well.

Mr. Speaker, the government is very cognizant and appreciative of the significant contribution that men and women - volunteers for the most part - make to local government throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister today for a copy of his statement, and of course thank my colleague for allowing me today to respond to this.

I would like, before I get into this Mr. Minister, to give a very small bit of advice to your Minister of Education who decided he should dabble in provincial politics. Might I say to him that he should stay out of municipal politics. It is certainly not his area. In a rainstorm on a Sunday with his fedora down around his eyes, he should stay out of the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness I too want to join with the minister today in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: He lost. I wasn't going to say that, but.... I too, Mr. Speaker, would like to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. FRENCH: I would like to join with the minister in congratulating the men and the women in Conception Bay South who were elected last night. It is nice to see that there were thirty-seven people who offered themselves for office. The minister and I have had conversations of disagreement as to what happened in the previous council. But that is in the past. I think it is onward and upward. We have elected an excellent group of people, we have elected an excellent mayor, and I think that we are in for some good times in the District of Conception Bay South. I would like to join with you too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my hon. colleagues in the House that an independent review panel has been appointed to conduct the public review of the Terra Nova development project. This panel will be chaired by Dr. Leslie Harris, former president of Memorial University of Newfoundland. Dr. Harris has a long and distinguished academic career and has served on a wide variety of boards and advisory bodies. The other members of the panel are Ms Irene Baird, who is a health and social services consultant in St. John's, and Dr. Jon Lien, Professor at the Ocean Sciences Centre and the Department of Psychology at Memorial.

The panel's job is to review: the potential environmental effects for the proposed development project; safety considerations which will be incorporated into the design; The general approach proposed to develop and exploit the petroleum reserves of the Terra Nova oil field; and the employment and industrial benefits that are expected to accrue to the Province and the country from the project.

The panel will hold public hearings to permit interested parties to present their views on the proposed development. And, Mr. Speaker, the panel must submit its final report to the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board (C-NOPB) and to the federal ministers of Environment and of Natural Resources, and to the provincial ministers of Mines and Energy and Environment and Labour no later than 270 days after it receives the application from the C-NOPB.

Mr. Speaker, also the terms of reference for the panel are here for members of the House.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, this represents, another step in the ongoing development of our oil and gas industry. Specifically I want to refer to Dr. Leslie Harris and government's, I guess, in their wisdom appointing Dr. Harris, a distinguished Newfoundlander, a Newfoundlander of tremendous credibility. I think all members of the House and certainly on this side, applaud government's efforts in appointing Dr. Harris because I know that the information that will emanate from the process government has just announced certainly will be exhaustive, conclusive and very, very to the point in terms of what it recommends.

I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we, on this side of the House, look forward to a similar process that will outline the potential environmental effects, the possible employment and industrial benefits that may accrue from Voisey's Bay and government appointing a similar process that will allow all Newfoundlanders -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: - a chance to have a look at what this Province will get in terms of the resources that we own and what we should ultimately have.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi. Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. Inco paid $4.3 billion to buy Voisey's Bay nickel company. This is a considerable expenditure even for a company as large as Inco. Inco plans to reach full nickel production of 270 million pounds per year by the year 2000 and the Premier knows that at that rate the reserves will last for about twenty years. Now, will the Premier ensure that such a long-term commitment is obtained not just from Voisey's Bay but from Inco as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, it is very doubtful that Inco will have a brand new smelter refinery complex which will be constructed between now and the year 2000 up and running at full capacity such that it would be producing 270 million pounds of product instantly. It usually takes a few years for these refineries to bring their capacity up to a full load, so the premise of the question is not quite correct.

If the Leader of the Opposition is asking the government whether or not we are committed to seeing that the smelter refinery complex, and indeed the mine and all associated properties yield the greatest amount of benefits for the greatest period of time, for the people of Labrador and of Newfoundland, then I can give him that assurance, that it is exactly the government's intention. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he has any suggestion to the contrary, I would be interested in hearing about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My information came from a mining magazine, a statement by Dr. Michael Sopko, I inform the Premier. Indonesia had the foresight to get Inco into a long-term contract, I would like to inform the Premier. Now, since the size of the reserve has not been determined, will the Premier ensure that Inco commits to an aggressive exploration program over the next five years and provision for continued exploration beyond that as long as sufficient new reserves are determined?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says: My information from a comment by Dr. Sopko is that Inco intends to produce 270 million pounds a year. Well, that has been known for months. There is nothing new about that. The question is, Why is the Leader of the Opposition trying to suggest, and trying to convey, the impression to the people of the Province that he has some insider information, beyond the magazine he is now reading, to suggest that Inco is going to sink $4.5 billion and then leave the Province. It does not make sense, and frankly it does not contribute to the kind of confident and positive environment that I think people should be feeling about the development of this project.

If the Leader of the Opposition had any reason whatsoever to suggest - and by the way, Inco should get new management if they are thinking that way - that they want to sink $4.5 billion and leave town, then all I can say is: Turn the ownership over to us and we will run it for another forty years. This is too silly to really comment on seriously, unless the Leader of the Opposition - I know he is a serious man - has some serious information to put on the Table of the House beyond quoting old information from a mining magazine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Twelve rigs were involved in drilling at Voisey's Bay, and a barge is now on its way to take one half of them back with exploration reduced to one-half of its current level. Does the Premier know why this is happening?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible to me, it really is, that, you know, days before, hours before, we have yet another milestone being met with respect to this project, an announcement on a facility, a nickel smelter refinery facility that is going to be the largest of its kind in the world - the largest - the largest annualized rate of production in the world, the most modern, technologically advanced in the world, the most environmentally clean in the world, with jobs that are high-tech and high-paying for Labradorians and Newfoundlanders surrounding the whole development, it is incredible to me that the Leader of the Opposition has gone out and found a black cloud that he attempting to drag onto the floor of the House of Assembly, and drive what should be a good news announcement into a whole era of suspicion and worry and frustration and negativity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - you know, life is better than that in Newfoundland and Labrador. Have a little faith, have a little confidence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier permit the module construction of the smelter and refinery to be done in Quebec or elsewhere, and then be shipped here, or will he ensure that the work is done here in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we intend to ensure that the absolute maximum benefits are brought and the jobs are brought and revenues are brought to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why when it comes to maximizing benefits from our resources, I was surprised that even before I had a chance to deliver my speech in Montreal, to the Montreal Rotary Club, on the unfairness of the Churchill Falls power contract, that the Leader of the Opposition had already released a press release condemning the speech before he ever heard it.

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear when someone is playing politics rather than playing for the good of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The opportunity for secondary processing will only happen in this Province if there is a long-term contract for continued exploration and production. Has the Premier, or any of his colleagues, done any preliminary work to identify secondary processing opportunities for the refined nickel?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to remind the House, and I have to remind the people of the Province through the House, that last winter during the election campaign the party of which the member opposite is now the leader, and all of the members who ran under that slate said of, for example, trans shipment: that it was a cover-up, the whole announcement that the trans-shipment facility would be built in the Province; it was not going to be done here; right after the election we would be announcing it for the Province of Nova Scotia; you cannot trust the Liberals; you cannot trust the government. Mr. Speaker, we are building a trans-shipment facility out in Placentia Bay!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: And we are going to build the largest nickel smelter refinery complex in the world in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: We are going to maximize the revenues for the people, and the Leader of the Opposition can gnarl and twist his teeth. He can work himself into a knot. We are going to be happy soldiers doing it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Health.

Is the Minister of Health aware that employees of the company providing cleaning services for the Health Care Corporation have been recently advised that there has been a change in the way that hospitals are to be cleaned, and that indeed at St. Clare's Hospital they have been advised that only certain parts of operating rooms are to be cleaned, which is certainly different than it was in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not intimately aware of how floors or walls are cleaned at the hospitals in terms of where they start or where they finish, or in terms of what type of chemicals they are using, or other ingredients or products they are using to do it. If there has been a change in the timing of cleaning, or the method of cleaning, or the mode of cleaning by the private contractors who are doing the work, there must be a good reason for it. If the member has a specific reason for asking that question, I would be happy to undertake, through the Health Care Corporation, to get him specific information.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South, a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To me it is a very serious issue when you find that people in operating rooms, who work in operating rooms and who clean operating rooms, are told that they must now clean them differently, and they are certainly not to put the same time and effort into it as they have in the past.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us why, or investigate why, several rooms were not cleaned at the Health Sciences Centre on Monday, and why employees are expected to do seven hours of work that in actual fact would take twelve?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of government, through the health care boards of the Province, and the Health Care Corporation, is to ensure that we deliver the appropriate level of medical service, that we provide a safe and clean environment in which health care can be delivered. That is the mandate of the Health Care Corporation, and the method by which they clean floors or clean walls, or do anything else in the health care system, is a matter of operations that, I have to be very frank with you, I do not get into on a daily basis, but if you want to put forward a proposition or a specific question, if you want to know exactly how we clean the hospitals, I will arrange to get you the information based on the questions that you are specifically putting and if necessary, as was offered to me the other day, I am prepared to take you on a tour of the hospitals to have a look-see while they are doing the cleaning. I really do not know what the point of the question is, quite frankly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: The bottom line is that we will have safe, clean -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and good hospitals to work from.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that as Minister of Health, if he does not care about the hospital cleaning and what I just told him about the Health Sciences Centre and the garbage being left in the rooms and the cleaning of the operating rooms, if you do not care, then the Premier of this Province should remove you today, from the job that you have because you should care.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question please, he is on a supplementary.

MR. FRENCH: Now, is the minister aware that some of these employees were actually timed with a stopwatch on Monday to see how long it took to clean parts of the Waterford Hospital and, does he believe that this type of watch-dog behaviour is a good, healthy, working environment, and is good for the employees who work there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know why the hon. minister - oh, the hon. member who wishes he was a minister - would suggest that this government or this minister does not care. We care and we demonstrate the care that we have for issues like health care by putting budgets and resources and all of those sorts of things in place to get the job done and to meet the need in as appropriate a fashion as is realistic to expect, but to the question of whether or not the contractor who does the cleaning at the Health Sciences or in any other hospital, uses a stopwatch to find out time measurements as to how long it takes to do a job, I really don't know that level of minute detail with respect to how they do cleaning at the hospitals.

If he has something specific he wants to know, I will find out for him but as to whether or not he wants me to pass a judgement on whether or not the managers are managing the staff properly, I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that they are managing their staff in an appropriate manner. I have not heard anything to the contrary.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I would like to ask the minister if he would confirm that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is considering reducing the crab harvesting quota in 1997 by as much as 50 per cent in Bonavista Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the management plan for crab will be down some time in January, they have agreed to have it down before the 31st of January. There are some concerns expressed by signs that the regroupment in crab off Bonavista is not at the level that it should be. No decision has been made as yet as to the percentage, if any. Signs certainly indicate that there will be some reduction in the amount of quota, but I have not had any confirmation from the Minister of Fisheries on what the actual percentage will be but we will have further discussions within the next several weeks and the final decision will be announced in January.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: I would also like to ask the minister, if he is aware that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is also looking at reducing the harvesting capacity of crab in 1997 as much as 33 per cent in White Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I could give almost the identical answer as I just gave on Bonavista Bay. The whole crab stocks are under review by signs. There is some concern about the regroupment in different areas around Newfoundland and Labrador. There is concern and rightly so, conservation in all species must be utmost on everybody's mind in Ottawa and in Newfoundland and Labrador.

If there is any danger of any level of regroupment to the stocks, consideration will have to be given to the 1997 and future quotas. What the actual percentage of reduction will be, I cannot give an answer on that until the final decisions have been made, when the minister gets all the recommendations in from the 1996 harvest, which he does not have at his disposal yet, and the management plan, the final decision made, the management plan will be then offered to the people of the Province and that will be some time in January.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, a supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, despite declining groundfish stocks for many years, processing licenses continued to be issued, resulting in a vast over-capacity in this particular industry today. I ask the minister, is he planning on issuing new crab processing licenses and will the health of crab stocks be a factor in his decisions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is listening to a lot of rumours on the street, as he does on many, many other issues. What I have said over and over again in this Province, is that the industry of the past cannot go forward into the fisheries of the future with an industry like we had in the past. We must do something about the problems that we have in the processing sector. Unfortunately, every time you make a suggestion or anybody makes a suggestion on how we should move forward, what type of processing industry we have, the crab issue always clouds the area and the direction we are talking about on a consulting basis, on a day-to-day basis, with the industry.

Ten to twelve years ago the quota in this Province was around 10,000 metric tons. Today we have 37,000 metric tons with three more processors added for 1997. They have not yet begun to process but they will in 1997. Now, in the year 1979, '80, '81 or whatever the years, the quotas were 10,000 tons with the same numbers of processors. The question I am asking - no decisions, no recommendations - the question I am asking is: How can we now process 80 million pounds of crab within ten or twelve weeks, when in those days the same number of processors processed crab, 10,000 metric tons, approximately forty weeks of the year? There is something wrong with the industry and we are going to take a look at it.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I saw the minister appear on television the other night and he confused me more than ever when he talked about issuing licenses and actually taking away licenses. Because in that particular interview he talked about taking licenses back from processors that are already involved in the industry. I ask the minister, yes or no, is he looking to issue new licenses in the processing of crab or is he not? A simple yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member - it is not very difficult to confuse him. He pays too much attention to what he listens to on the news media and not enough to the facts of what is happening.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: First of all, I did not say - I have said time and time again that this government will never walk into any community and tell any community: Your fish plant is going to close. We will not play God with people's lives. What we must do is change the industry, the fishing industry as a whole, to improve, to bring more stability to the industry so it can be more stable, to facilitate and substantiate the lives of the people who depend on it. Does the member opposite agree with a plant, regardless of whether it is for crab, caplin, herring or what species, operating for four or five weeks, and then shut its doors and forget about the people? Does he agree that 220 plants can operate on the amount of resources available? We have to take a serious look at it and make it work and be stable for the community.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In a recent announcement some months ago, the Minister of Environment and Labour announced an increase in the minimum wage, which certainly every member in the House applauded, and I would say, most of the working poor. Is the minister aware that the Workers' Compensation Commission is now using this increase in the minimum wage to reduce the benefits for injured workers? If he is, can he explain to the House what he intends, as minister, to do about that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for raising the question. Yes, I am aware. As a matter of fact, I have already had a meeting with the Chairman of the Injured Workers Association and his executive and we are going to be meeting with the Workers' Compensation Commission in the next few days. We are going to be discussing the issue with them. This decision has been made by the board, by the Commission, and we want to have a dialogue with the board to see exactly what the rationale for the decision was. Based on the discussions that we have with the Commission, we will then decide whether or not that decision should stand. We are concerned about it, we have had a meeting already and we look forward to seeing if we can resolve the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would suggest to the minister that there is more than dialogue required at the Workers' Compensation Commission. Just let me explain that the Commission's current policy - so he is aware clearly - the Commission's current policy states that the pre-injury earnings will be indexed but the earning capacity estimates fixed at the prescribed minimum wage level. So my question is this: The Commission has now informed injured workers, Mr. Speaker, who have been deemed capable of earning the minimum wage, which has been now set by government, and have been informing injured workers who have been injured as far back as 1980, which is resulting, Mr. Speaker, in an annual net loss of income of approximately $1,040 to injured workers in the Province. When you meet with the Commission, Mr. Minister, will you do more than dialogue, and give them clear ministerial direction that this must stop, and that those benefits that are being clawed back from injured workers now must be put back in their pockets immediately?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated to the member that we have already had a meeting with the concerned individuals representing injured workers, who, by the way, are doing an excellent job and have done an excellent job over the past couple of years in representing the interests of injured workers in the Province.

We are going to be meeting with the Commission to discuss this issue. As a matter of fact, there has been a proposal put forward by injured workers of the Province to help resolve the issue. We are going to look at that very closely in the next few days. I expect I can report back to the member and to the House of Assembly in the very near future on this issue. We are concerned about it, we are going to be dealing with it. And, Mr. Speaker, you know, we announced an increase in the minimum wage, and that was a good piece of news for workers in this Province, and that was a good move to make. We want to make sure that injured workers are not directly affected. We will be, as I said, consulting with the Commission. In the next few days we will have a formal response.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. When will the Minister of Justice eliminate the disparity between the RCMP and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary in policing regarding the wearing of firearms?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question, because I am hoping the hon. member will tell us what the position of his party is on that very issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: In recent months the Newfoundland Constabulary has asked government to review the issue, and we are doing that. In the fullness of time we will. But I would like for the hon. member when he gets up again to tell us exactly where his party stands on the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, Question Period, I believe, is for the Opposition to ask the government the questions and get the answers from them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: Our position will be known - you need not worry, it will be known. You are the government, you are the ones who are in power to make the decisions. When will the minister acknowledge that nothing in the training of the respective police forces and nothing in the demographics of this Province justifies tolerating the distinction that says RCMP officers can wear sidearms and RNC officers cannot? Will he then tell us exactly what the current justification is for permitting an RCMP officer to wear a sidearm in, say, Arnold's Cove, Grand Falls, Windsor or Stephenville, while preventing an RNC officer from wearing a sidearm in St. John's, Labrador West or Corner Brook? What is your justification?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the RNC, as you know, is an armed police force. They are trained in the use of firearms. They are highly trained and over the years they have won some of the most prestigious awards in North America. The only restriction is, they do not wear them as part of their uniform as the RCMP do, and they have to get permission when they are responding to a specific case.

It is an issue which we are considering. When we consider any issue, we like to consult with everybody, and it would be very helpful to us -

AN HON. MEMBER: We will get leave.

MR. DECKER: - if the hon. member, and we are quite prepared to give him leave, would tell us what is the position of his party. Should we give the RNC the right to carry the sidearm or should we not? It would certainly help us make our decision if we knew where the hon. member's party stands.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the minister, written requests between January 1 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) position?

MR. J. BYRNE: My personal position? I will tell you right here and now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I can tell you my personal position.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Written requests between January 1 and October 4 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you asking the questions or am I?

Written requests between January 1 and October 4 of this year by the RNC officers to carry firearms were approved in 568 incidents. That is from January to October. Doesn't the minister at all care that the current discriminatory policy that lets only RCMP officers carry sidearms may be actually jeopardizing the safety of the officers themselves and the general public in areas served by the RNC?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I would even go further and tell the hon. member that all last winter the Newfoundland Constabulary in Labrador City wore sidearms because they used to freeze up in the trunk of their car, and no doubt this year they will do the same thing again. As I said we are considering the issue and unless the hon. member is prepared to tell us where his party stands I consider him to be disarmed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis on a final supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Education that if he cannot figure out my position from these questions he is not all that bright.

What exactly does the minister have to satisfy himself about before he agrees to bring the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis and I ask hon members to do the courteous thing and let him ask his question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What exactly does the minister have to satisfy himself about before he agrees to bring the two policies regarding sidearms for the RNC and the RCMP in line with one another, and does he have any criteria in mind while he considers the request of the RNC association to end the discrimination, and what are those criteria?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. he Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should pick up Hansard this afternoon or tomorrow and read it because he is asking the same question in several different ways. We take a whole lot of things into consideration but the most important thing we have to consider is if it is in the best interest of the people the RNC are serving. We recognized the RNC as being a very prestigious in North America, and the oldest police force in North America.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: I attended their 125 Anniversary just a month or so ago, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous police force. Now, we have to give them the tools to do the job and if it is essential, if it is necessary for them to wear a sidearm then we will make that decision, but we want to make sure that we have looked at all sides of the issue. It would be extremely helpful, and I repeat myself as the hon. member did, it would be extremely helpful if members on the opposite side would tell us what is the position of their party. Should we arm the RNC or should we not? A simple yes or no would certainly help us as we make our decision.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

In previous weeks there were many talks concerning the EDGE program, and while I would support an EDGE program that works it is clear that the present program needs to be reinvented. I ask the minister, considering the fact that this program is in the process of being reinvented, is this a good time to revisit the possibility of eliminating the payroll tax?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the government is on record as saying we want to remove the payroll tax at the earliest opportunity. The tax, as you know, generates some $70 million. The problem is how do you fill in that gap if you take away that tax. As the economy improves the Minister of Finance will judge when is the appropriate time to look at the payroll tax.

With respect to the harmonization, we have instructed the board, which is a public private sector board, to review all of the EDGE program in light of the HST Atlantic Advantage, the Atlantic Advantage. We will review all of that. We have to find something to backfill with respect to the RST exemption. A couple of things that are being looked at are training programs in consultation with the federal government, new marketing and development programs to get out products out on the world stage, those kind of things, and when they are ready to report to me I will report to Cabinet, and through Cabinet through the House and to the people of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table two Orders in Council to meet the requirements of section 26(4) of the Financial Administration Act. These relate to pre-commitments for spending in our next fiscal year.

The first is an Order in Council 96-851 which authorizes the Department of Works, Services and Transportation to enter into a contract for the construction of the exterior shell of the James Paton Memorial Hospital, Gander, with a funding allocation of $2 million to be provided in the 1997-1998 estimates.

The second is Order in Council 96-829, which authorizes the same department, that is Works, Services and Transportation, to enter into a contract for the upgrading and pavement of the Conne River Road, with a funding allocation of $1.5 million to be provided in the 1997-1998 estimates under a new $3 million federal-provincial cost-shared agreement which will be paid 100 per cent by the federal government. It is expected that $1.5 million will also be expended during the current fiscal year. I have six copies of those for tabling.

Secondly, I also wish to table the audited financial statements of the Newfoundland Municipal Financing Corporation for the year ended March 31 1996. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report (inaudible) the Newfoundland Crop Insurance Agency for the period April 1 1995 to March 31 1996, including the financial statements for the Newfoundland crop insurance fund and the report of the provincial auditor.

MR. SPEAKER: It is Wednesday and it is Private Members' Day. I call on the hon. Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of the resolution that I brought to the House yesterday. I want to say that this is not an issue, this is a cause, a cause for all of us who represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador no matter where you are from.

I grew up in Labrador. I saw for my own eyes the building of Churchill Falls, the building of the mines in Labrador West. I saw iron ore being taken from Wabush and pelletized at Pointe Noire. I saw a transmission line built from CF(L) Co. in Churchill Falls go to the Quebec border, and I call that a corridor of shame, because that is what it is. That is what it has come to be.

This particular contract is synonymous with humilation. We have friends in our neighbouring province, in the Province of Quebec, who say to each of us and all of us who live in this country that: We want to break the contract called Canada because we feel a great deal of humiliation. We want to change the contract called CF(L)Co. because of humiliation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, through the years Newfoundland and Labrador has tried many times to change this inequity, this terrible contract, that has taken from us the ability to be independent, from having to reach out to Ottawa all the time looking for the kind of support that we need to create a sound economy and a society that each of us can be proud of.

In 1974 this Province bought out BRINCO. From 1973 to 1976 Quebec and Newfoundland carried out negotiations on the development of Lower Churchill. It failed. In 1978 and 1980 negotiations resumed on the Muskrat Falls proposal. Again, failure. In the 1980s we attempted to recall 800 megawatts of power. Hydro Quebec refused. The Supreme Court decided against Newfoundland and Labrador in 1988. The water reversions act: Again we tried to change the contract and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against us.

The last proposal that I'm aware of is the one that would have caused us to extend a tax-free holiday to Hydro Quebec from the year 2016 to the year 2041. We simply cannot, as a Province, ever, ever give Hydro Quebec an extension of that tax holiday.

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise an issue to the House, through you. At VOCM, I think the Leader of the Opposition was probably misquoted. I hope he was. He said this to the interviewer: It does not make sense to threaten someone who holds all the cards.

Mr. Speaker, I say to each of you: Hydro Quebec, or the Province of Quebec, does not hold all the cards. Churchill Falls is in Labrador. Labrador is in this Province. We own that resource. That is ours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about how we got to this point. Who dictated the terms of the Churchill Falls agreement? Hydro Quebec dictated the terms of that agreement. Could power be sold to anyone except Hydro Quebec? The answer to that is, no. Could power have been transmitted across the Hydro Quebec grid? Again, the answer was, no. Could a dedicated transmission line be built across Quebec? The answer again was, no. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a pipeline that brings gas, there is a pipeline that brings oil, across other provinces to source Quebec, to cause them to have a flow of energy for their own purposes. Yet, when this Province stood on their feet and said: Let us put a transmission line across your Province, the answer was: No, you must sell it to us at the border.

Mr. Speaker, circumstances have changed. There was a good deal for Quebec in the 1960s based on their level of risk and their investment. Since the energy crisis, a good business deal now has turned to an unconscionable windfall profit for the other partner in this particular agreement. Since 1976 Quebec has averaged some $600 million per year in benefits. During the same period, we received some $23 million a year in profit.

Just let me tell you, from the beginning of that contract to the year 2041 Hydro Quebec will have gotten $56 billion. That is how much they would get.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. CANNING: Fifty-six billion, and we would lose $340 million through CF(L)Co. That is unconscionable. Nobody could stand on their feet anywhere in the Western Hemisphere and say that one partner should earn $56 billion and the other partner should lose $340 million. Who should be able to say that and have any face about them? Nobody should be able to say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, there are many commentaries across the whole of our country. The Premier has, and the government has, embarked on a mission across this country to expose this inequity for what it is. The first part of problem solving is defining the problem. The government has taken it upon themselves to define the problem. They have gone from St. John's to Vancouver to define the problem, to tell our fellow Canadians how bad this deal is, how contrary to decency this particular deal is, how terrible it is to us.

We look at the Labrador situation, and we look at the abject poverty on the North Coast, the lack of transportation infrastructure throughout Labrador down along the coast. We could build and pave a highway from Labrador West to Red Bay in one year with the cash flowing out of Churchill Falls. That is why I call that a corridor of shame.

PREMIER TOBIN: We could retire the debt in ten years.

MR. CANNING: We could retire the debt in ten years - that is quite correct, Mr. Premier.

The fact of the matter is that all of us, each of us who has a public responsibility in this Province, have to pull together and tell Canadians, tell Quebec, tell Hydro Quebec, that this deal is improper and ought to be changed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, how is it that we were trapped into this deal? We were trapped by what some would call the tragedy of geography. We simply had to give our wealth at the border.

Now, about 150 miles from the Labrador border into Quebec there lies a majestic dam, the biggest arch and buttressed dam in the world today. If Newfoundland and Labrador were getting the kinds of profits from Mannick 5 that they are getting from Churchill Falls, I can assure you that the Government of Quebec, the politicians of Quebec, Hydro Quebec would make sure that that were changed. They would not accept it at all. There is nobody could tell me that if we were taking from Mannick 5 as they are taking from Churchill Falls that anybody would find that acceptable. The fact of the matter is they would not, and it would be changed, and changed quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this House to stand and endorse this resolution. This is a significant step in the path of redressing an historic wrong. Each of us should feel that we need to put each shoulder to the wheel and push forward and make sure that Quebec understands that there is no option only changing that contract.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members across the House to join with us to say, That which you have began, that which you are undertaking, is the right way to go. This is the proper step. We will tell the people across Canada how bad this deal is, how terrible it is. We will have to get Hydro Quebec back to the table, but they are not going to come back to the table with a twenty-five year tax gift, I can guarantee you that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to support this resolution, to stand and speak on behalf of the people of this Province. Whether you live in Nain or Red Bay, Goose Bay or Labrador West, St. Anthony or Baie Verte, St. John's or Placentia, you need to support the will of this government to seek changes in that contract so we do not have to go begging cap-in-hand all the time to Ottawa for help. We have our own resources. The biggest mistruth in this Province is that we are a have-not Province. That is not true. We are a have Province who have not made a good deal out of all those things we have had.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: But I want to say in concluding, Mr. Speaker, that you have seen the last Churchill Falls. There will be no more Churchill Falls agreements.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make my comments regarding the Churchill Falls deal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, not at all. In fact, I am very strongly opposed to an atrocious deal that was made between this Province or between CF(L) Co and Hydro Quebec. I think it is an unacceptable deal. That is why it is important that we approach it in the most realistic way of trying to get a resolution to this. I support getting it changed. I support getting revenues that is going to make CF(L) Co viable, that is going to fit our monies. We would be able to get monies back to our Province to assist us in maintaining facilities around this Province. I do not condone the methods of achieving this deal. I do not condone methods of grandstanding and running around the country to do it. I believe strongly in sitting down and dealing with the people with whom we have the contract and trying to strike a deal to change it.

I am committed to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have worked here in Newfoundland and Labrador all my life, employed up to 200 people working here, invested considerable dollars into this Province personally. I am going to stay here and live in Newfoundland and Labrador and I am committed to it. I do not accept -

I read the history of Churchill Falls, by Philip Smith, a very interesting book, interesting reading for anybody who will go back and read that book. It is a very lengthy, detailed description of what happened back during the history of Churchill Falls. There are different theories and views people will put forward, but whatever the case may be, a deal was signed that the public were not made aware of. On the ongoing stages, had there been public consultation, public input on these deals - that is why I make the parallel now to Inco and other areas,that we need to have experts in the field. We need to have mining experts, we need to have tax experts, we need to have legal opinions, we need to have consultation. I hope the government is consulting the best people available when we do a comparison on Voisey's Bay, because the people of this Province deserve the best advice. Government then has an obligation to make a decision based upon what those experts will tell us.

It is difficult as an opposition when we are not told anything. We were told harmonization was not an issue, as an example, in the election campaign. A memorandum of understanding was signed. There was no public presentation for discussion until the deal was signed in secret, and the Premier was not even in the Province at the time. Had there been something positive there, we would have had a major news conference to that effect.

So we just want an opportunity to have public input, for us to have input and suggestions into what is happening. If there are positive things, I will support it. I supported Education Reform and the changing of Term 17 because I believe it is best for the young men and women who are going through the school system in this Province, and I say so today whether it is popular or whether it is not in my district. I stated it and I will stand on that. It has never posed a problem for me what is publicly acceptable. There are times when we stand on basic principles and integrity out there, and let the chips fall where they may. I am not dependent on politics for a future in Newfoundland and Labrador, I can tell you. I was not in the past. I shaped my own future in a way, and I am not going to follow the sway of opinion just because everybody else is going in that direction.

I feel the Premier, by taking the approach he has - I cannot endorse getting on the airwaves in Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and those areas and condemning and attacking the people in Quebec. It is just not my way of getting a change. I want a change every bit as much as the Premier wants it and I want to see benefits.

To talk about Labrador: Just very recently, I might add, in the House of Commons - the federal government has been and could have been a major player in this issue. On March 15, 1996 in the House of Commons, this resolution was put to the House of Commons, that this House condemned the government for its neglect of Labrador and for refusing to resolve the injustice of the Churchill Falls Hydro Contract, thus perpetuating interprovincial trade barriers and denying the residents of Labrador the right to enjoy the benefits of their own natural resources. That resolution was put to the House of Commons and was defeated, and I will tell you some of the people who voted against that. They were, George Baker, Bonnie Hickey, Lawrence O'Brien, Jean Payne, Fred Mifflin and Roger Simmons.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sheila Copps.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and Sheila Copps, supporter of Newfoundland and Labrador. They are the people who voted against giving Labrador its rightful amount, former colleagues, close friends, accomplices and cousins in Ottawa of the Premier of the Province, and they stood and voted against it. Who are the true friends in Newfoundland and Labrador? The true friends are people who stand up and fight.

They complained about Unemployment Insurance and when it came to the vote, not one Newfoundland MP stood up to be counted when the vote came in the House of Commons. That is not what I call showing true patriotism and belief in Newfoundland and Labrador. I find that is not the approach to use.

We have to be realistic. There is a long, long history of Churchill Falls. There was one underlying theme in the history of Churchill Falls, as I read that book, one thing that jumped out at me in almost every part as I read through that book, and that is: Quebec would seem to want to change that contract only under one condition. That is what I gathered from reading it, and that condition is a boundary change. It seemed to me that that jumped out when René Lévesque was National Resource minister. He was a key player in the history of discussions on this. I am convinced that Hydro Quebec and the Quebec Government will put dollars in the coffers to keep CF(L)Co viable.

In fact, in 1991 - I will just use one example - in the 1991 deal, the opportunity there, they offered under the winter availability section, $6.2 billion. Whether we get it by changing the basic contract - I will get the same dollars from side contracts - is not the highly relevant issue. The relevant issue -

MR. GRIMES: So, you are going to vote against this motion?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you what I am going to do very shortly,

I say to the Minister of Education. There will be no doubt where I am to, I can tell you. You will find that very clearly.

I would say there are a lot of basic concerns and there are a lot of particular aspects.

MR. GRIMES: Are you going to vote against it?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you in due course if I am going to support this or not. Do not worry! I will be here, I say to the minister.

There has been an evolution in this contract and discussions. When you are offered $6.2 billion for winter availability - just think for a moment, from now until the year 204l we are going to get, under the current contract, which I say is atrocious, I agree it is atrocious, we are only going to get $3 billion. I think that is despicable, I think it is unacceptable, and I want to see -

PREMIER TOBIN: But, you do not think we should take about it?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, that is not what I said. The Premier does not seem to listen very well. He spends too much time talking and not listening. Here is what I am saying. They are willing to give double, under winter availability, what we are going to get under the entire contract. Aren't billions of dollars in CF(L) Co and into this Province dollars? Does it matter during the live of that contract? Let us get the revenues into CF(L) Co, make it viable to maintain its operation, to give a return to this Province which we deserve, and then we have the opportunity. That power is going to be there for many years to come for future generations of this Province, and I do not advocate giving one particular inch to Quebec. We need a better deal. If we can get through a legal contract enough inside agreements that are going to be double what we are getting now, then we hold all the trump cards at the end of that, and that is the important thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: If we give what? What are we supposed to give for that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Allowing during peak periods the winter availability that they need, and that they want, as they have been doing. There are numerous other aspects of discussion on Churchill Falls, numerous other aspects.

AN HON. MEMBER: What else do they want for that?

MR. SULLIVAN: There are two different theories. I will not get into debating why a 1991 deal wasn't signed because the former Premier and the current Minister of Mines and Energy gave two different reasons. There was a lot of back-patting. The minister was in the Cabinet and he knows: What a great deal we have here! He sat there in that Cabinet, if you go back - other people thought it was a great deal at the time, but it did not go through because the Premier did not want it. The same ministers who sat in Cabinet and are there today thought it was a great deal then, but now they don't.

AN HON. MEMBER: What else did Hydro Quebec want for it? What was the rest of the deal?

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you, there are numerous different aspects.

When you have people here representing our Province who are not going to support a resolution on Newfoundland and Labrador,I think it is very sad.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speaking of resolutions, what are you going to do?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will tell you what I am going to do.

MR. TULK: Move an amendment.

MR. SULLIVAN: I might move an amendment, I just might. Are there any amendments there that I can move? Oh, good idea! I say, you have to stop putting ideas in my head because I am dangerous enough without putting them there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody has to put them there.

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right.

MR. GRIMES: You will get no chance. You are going to have to vote against it. There are no amendments going through, I can guarantee you that.

MR. SULLIVAN: No problem. Don't you worry. We will do what is appropriate I say to the minister. I have not sat on the fence before, I say to the minister. That is more than I can say about him, and more than I can say about the Premier. I hear he goes and gets his skates sharpened every single day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Private Member's Resolution now before the House of Assembly be ended by deleting the words, `the government in its efforts to change', and substitute the words `a change to therefore'. Just to make sure it is quite clear I will read it in its entirety now with the amendment there to make it clear. It states that the Private Member's Resolution -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know what you are doing?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, certainly.

The amended resolution would now read - here is the wording: Therefore be it resolved that this Honourable House fully endorse and support a change to this unconscionable contract to maximize the financial benefits accruing from this Labrador resource in the Labrador region of our Province.

Here is what we don't support. We don't support efforts when we haven't seen a plan. What is what we are voting for. In any resolution, if the Premier of this Province or the mover or anybody is prepared to stand and indicate what specific effort you want us to support, we will clearly tell you immediately whether we support it or not. How can you support a blank cheque, support it without any specifics in a resolution? It would be irresponsible of us to support something that is general and vague, without specifics. We support the intent, we support a change to it, and we support maximizing the benefits for Labrador. We support that. We don't have any problems in supporting it.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: There has been an amendment moved, and I would suggest that since he has moved the amendment that the hon. gentleman not continue to tell us that he doesn't support the Premier putting out our case to the people of Canada; that instead of that, he wait until the Speaker has ruled whether indeed the amendment is in order, and then he might speak to the amended resolution. He can't make the amendment and then go on making his speech. He has to slow down. It is pathetic enough what he is doing over there, let alone abusing the rules of the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is speaking to the point of order?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm indicating that I moved an amendment. It is seconded by the Opposition House Leader. It is incumbent certainly, I suggest, upon the Chair if it is ruled out of order. Unless a ruling is made to rule it out of order, I make an assumption it is in order. I will certainly have to give the Speaker an opportunity to pass that judgement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To clarify the situation, the hon. member was proposing an amendment but I hadn't heard an amendment because there was no seconder. The hon. member was going on continuing the debate. The Chair would like to see the proposed amendment so the Chair can rule on it, and then we will continue with the debate.

We will take a couple of minutes break.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready? Are the House Leaders ready? Okay.

The Chair has examined the amendment and finds that the amendment is in order according to our Standing Order 36. The amendment is in order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Whose time is up, I think.

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe leave for a minute or two just to finish up?

MR. SPEAKER: It is Private Members' Day. Members have fifteen minutes to speak in -

MR. SULLIVAN: I understand. That is certainly why I wouldn't want to abuse the time. I will do it in less than two minutes if possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave. Okay. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does he have leave or what, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up. The Chair has asked if the member had leave. The member doesn't have leave.

I recognize the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

Before we begin, the Chair would like the clarify who seconded the motion.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Opposition House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to support the motion -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - as put forth by the Member for Labrador West, and I want to tell you that I do so because I see this as an opportunity for this House, in a unified manner, to send a message, a clear and full and unanimous message -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - that the people of Newfoundland are unified in their desire to insist that this contract be changed.

I, like all members in this House, have been steeped in the mythology of Newfoundland history, and that mythology is as follows: That we are a people who are rich in resources; that we are a wealthy Province which has had the resources of the sea, and the resources of the land, and the resources of the forests, and the resources of the mines.

Contrary to that, Mr. Speaker, I looked around, as a child, at my own family, at my own neighbours, and I look around now at our Province, and I see children who are going to school hungry. I see a Province with statistics that keep being repeated in this House, about how we have the highest unemployment rate, the highest level of illiteracy, and the litany of other problems when we talk of the difficulties that we have. I saw that in my youth. I saw that as a young adult, as a student, and I was always concerned, like everybody else, I should think, in this House, that there was something wrong, that we were not maximizing the resources, not only of our people but of our land, of our water power, of our sea, for the benefit of the people of this Province.

Nothing stands more starkly - except, perhaps, for the fishery that has been destroyed by mismanagement - in the way of the mythology of wealth of resources and the actual reality of the people of this Province, as the Churchill Falls contract.

I want to remind the Leader of the Official Opposition that when the Churchill Falls contract was put to this House back in 1969, it was supported unanimously. It was supported unanimously by the Progressive Conservatives of the day as well as the Liberals of the day. So the mistake that was made was not a partisan mistake of the Liberals or of the Tories. This House made a mistake in endorsing a contract that they were party to, but it was mainly a deal done by BRINCO, a foreign company, foreign capital, with Quebec Hydro, to suit their particular purposes, not primarily first and foremost the purposes of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was not their aim. Their aim was to take on this project to make money to maximize their return on their capital. They saw they could do that with the contract that was there, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador went along with it.

I think the message that the Premier is trying to get out, and I am not saying that I agree with every word the Premier said on this topic - don't get me wrong - but I am not going to sit here and criticize the effort of a government that is trying to change it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I am more interested in criticizing the government for what they are not doing, not for what they are doing. I will stand here and criticize them for not properly looking after the feeding of the children of this Province through a full-fledged School Lunch Program. I will stand here and criticize them for not looking after people on social assistance. I will stand here and criticize them for not doing the kinds of things they should be doing to create jobs for everyone in this Province who needs one. But I will not stand here and criticize government for taking on a task that needs to be taken on, on behalf of all of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: So if we have an opportunity here today to send, along with the government, the feelings of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this contract has to be changed, and if the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is the one who is in the position to seek those changes, then I think we have to not sit around here and look for petty reasons to find wording to change the motion and show that we can vote against it or for it because of various wordings. I do not think this is necessarily a wording that says we must praise the government for all of its efforts but we are supporting the efforts to change this contract. The efforts are being made by the government. Perhaps we could all be more involved in what the details of it are and I think that is a good suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition but the motion itself is a motion that requires, I think, the support of every member of this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion which has been put forward by the Member for Labrador West for consideration by all members of the House. May I say to the Member for Labrador West that I think he reflects well the strong feeling of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to stay and show me the same courtesy I showed him during the course of his remarks.

MR. SULLIVAN: I have a meeting planned. I certainly -

MR. TULK: Well, he has one, too. You could stay and listen (inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, then I think we know the Leader of the Opposition's interest, then, if it is to leave in the middle of a debate when he has moved a motion, an amendment, himself. I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I think he should reflect upon the work of the Member for Labrador West and the motives of the Member for Labrador West in putting down this motion. This is a motion that reflects fairly and accurately, without exaggeration, the circumstance that currently captures the reality of the Churchill Falls power contract. He has given a presentation to the House which accurately and properly reflects the disparity in the contract. It sets forth a course of action. It does not call for partisan support of a political party or partisan support of the government, but merely support of the government in its efforts only insofar as those efforts are directed at renewing this contract and giving a fair return of the benefit of the contract to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what the Member for Labrador West has set out in his motion. I think it is something that every single member of the Legislature ought to be able to support without playing petty partisan games in the Chamber today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, let me acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Jack Harris, the Leader of the NDP, in standing in his place today and putting the good of Newfoundland and Labrador before political consideration in his remarks to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that leadership is not defined by the size of the caucus that sits around you. Leadership is not defined by the title attached to your name. Leadership is not defined by the size of your office or the perks or privileges assigned to you. Leadership does not come with the title Leader of the Opposition or for that matter, Premier of the Province. Leadership is defined by those who stand when the moment is right and do the right thing in the interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: And, Mr. Speaker, I salute the Leader of the NDP for showing leadership today in this Chamber.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition and I have to say to his colleagues who sustain him in that role, that I understand the nature of Opposition. I had been a vigorous member of the Opposition. I understand the role is to oppose and I understand the role is to criticize and I understand the role is to offer alternatives. I understand all that. But I also understood that when the cause was important to the country, there came a time to stand as one and be heard in the interest of the country as a whole, or in this case, in the interest of the Province as a whole.

I want to tell members opposite that I felt personally wounded, more to the point, I was surprised - perhaps I should not have been; perhaps I will never be again - but I was surprised the day I walked into a ballroom in the city of Montreal to address a business audience of anglophones, of francophones, of allophones, people of neither french nor english origin, business leaders who were there to hear Newfoundland's case on the Churchill Falls contract, and on the way in, before I even had a chance to make a presentation, reporters were asking me to respond to the criticisms of the Leader of the Opposition who critiqued my speech and condemned it before I even gave it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that kind of action will not catch me by surprise again. But I want to confess something. It took something out of me. I was surprised. Perhaps I was naive. I expected at least to be allowed to state the case of the government on behalf of the people of the Province. I expected at least our historic circumstance to be considered prior to our mission being condemned by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, yes, it disappoints me, and it pains me, and I will go further, it undermines the Province. It undermines our position.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

PREMIER TOBIN: It does! I would like to be able to stand and say it makes no difference, who cares what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, but it undermines us when, as a Province, on something as fundamental as Churchill Falls, one of the major historical parties, at least the Leader of that party, consistently undermines the case.

A few weeks ago I was in Placentia. And I think every member of the House can relate to this, because we have no monopoly on empathy for our young people on one side of the House versus another. The Leader of the NDP talked about ensuring that young people have a full meal in their bellies when they go to school every day. We all subscribe to that, we all want that, and we all have to seek to do more. But I was standing in front of representatives of fifty-two high schools in Placentia at their annual leadership conference, all young people, fifteen-, sixteen-, seventeen-years-old. I walked in prepared to give a pep speech, we have all done that, to a group of young people. I was going to pump them up and try to make them feel better and more confident about their Province because I assumed that they needed to be pumped up and made to feel more confident.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, they pumped me up. They made me feel more confident. Some of the brightest and the best - great confidence in their Province, great confidence in our future, great confidence in their own personal ability to make a difference, positive and constructive attitude; and it struck me as I looked out on this crowd of young people, all fifteen- or sixteen-years-old - not one of them was even born when the Churchill Falls contract was negotiated - that all would complete their education, live their working lives, and many would be retired and grandparents by the time the current contract expired. I really felt, looking out upon that room, 400 or 500 young people, that here was a generation who if nothing changed would have their heritage stolen from them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they did not negotiate the contract. Our sons and daughters did not negotiate that contract. Our sons and daughters did not bargain to have their circumstance in Canada and their potential in Canada stolen from them before they ever came into the planet Earth. They did not bargain to see decades go by, an entire lifetime go by, before there could be any renewal of this contract. And, Mr. Speaker, it is up to every single member of this House to do everything in our power to set aside our partisan differences and to work for the future of those young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says we could have had a deal in 1991. The Leader of the Opposition says: What difference does it make? I mean, the Leader of the Opposition from henceforth should be known as the hon. member for Hydro Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, don't be ridiculous!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he is.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber, advocating a position. Let me tell you what position is being advocated: that the government of 1991, and I do not care what persuasion that government was, because I applaud the efforts of Premier Peckford when he was here to try to renegotiate that contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I applaud the efforts of Premier Moores when he was here to try to renegotiate that contract, and I applaud the efforts of Premier Wells to do exactly the same.

Mr. Speaker, what was the deal in 1991? The deal was, that if the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador would extend the contract from the year 2016, the protection of the contract, the full protection against taxation, would extend by twenty-five more years, the most draconian part of this contract, the protection for Hydro Quebec, then Hydro Quebec would give us a few dollars. The Leader of the Opposition says it would give us twice as much as we are getting now. Well, twice as much as nothing is still nothing, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, is that the position of the Leader of the Opposition, to extend the contract protection for twenty-five more years? Mr. Speaker, I appeal - and there is no election in this Province, there will be no election before the year 2000, we all have work to do in the meantime, we all have a role to play and a responsibility to undertake in the meantime - but I appeal to all members of this House on this issue, not to forego our responsibility to ask questions, not to forego our responsibility to criticize, not to forego the opportunity when it is apparent and necessary to offer critique. No, I do not ask the Opposition to do that, but I ask us to approach it with balance, to approach this issue with seriousness, and I ask all of us to put the Province, in this regard, first, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad today to rise and speak on this particular motion and amendment and, in fact, to speak on this particular issue, not just the amendment or the motion put forward. And I say, when I hear the Member for Labrador West put forward some of the thoughts about Churchill Falls, he said it quite well, and I am going to say this: That the issue of Churchill Falls has struck each and every one of us in the same way and just as deeply. The people in this Province have for years - by my generation and the generation coming behind me, a lot of the people who sit in this very House, Churchill Falls will be talked about over and over, putting blame on who was responsible. The Leader of the NDP talks about the different governments in the House, but the bottom line is, it was a big, big mistake for this Province, and our children and the future children of this Province will now be paying those debts because of a major blunder in this Province.

There is nobody, from the Premier to every single member in this House, to this hon. member, any hon. member here, the Pages who sit in this House, the Speaker, anybody, who feels that we never got a bad, bad deal out of Quebec. So don't anybody think, in this Province, throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, that anybody feels differently about it and has any less passion about this particular issue than any Newfoundlander in this Province. And that is what bothers me a little bit when we do a show on it all, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are afraid of, the show.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the word that we had the problem with - and it is not the issue that we have the problem with - it is the wording of the amendment. Right now, we are talking about the `efforts'. The only word we changed was the word `efforts', because we do not know what the efforts are.

We sat there - and the popular thing, by the way - you talk about partisan politics, Mr. Speaker. You know, the easy, popular thing for all of us to do today was to come out - and the Premier has a lot of support on this from across the country. The easy thing for the Opposition to do today, which the Leader of the NDP did, was to support it. The Premier has a big roll going, there is a big bandwagon going; let's support it. It would have been easy for me to stand here today and do that, but there is a reason why we did not do it, and I am going to put it out during the fifteen minutes that I have.

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: I know it is not the intention, or I do not believe it is the intention, of the hon. gentleman, the Member for Baie Verte, to mislead this House, but he just did, without knowing it, I suspect. He says the only thing with which they had a problem here was the word `efforts'. I ask him why it is that the amended resolution has cut out the words, `the government, in its efforts'. In other words, his leader cut out - I will read the resolutions, I tell the hon. gentleman.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no point of order.

MR. TULK: It is a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will listen to the arguments. If the Chair cannot listen to the arguments it cannot determine whether or not it is a point of order.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman just said that the only word they had a problem with was the word `efforts'. Yet, the amended resolution as put forward by his leader has struck out the words, `support the government in its efforts', and put in place of it, `support a change'.

Mr. Speaker, he cannot have it both ways. The truth of the matter is that they are not supporting the government in its efforts to get the changes that are required.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear what the hon. the Member for Baie Verte said. I think this is just an argument amongst two hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of disagreement.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of disagreement. I do not think there is a point of order as such.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think it is just a point of disagreement.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be very serious about this issue. I may have just used the word `efforts' but, whether there are three or four word together, the bottom line I am trying to get at is that the change we had was to do with the efforts of government to date, specifically the efforts of the Premier. That is the reason for the change, and I want to go on to try to explain that. I am sorry if I just used the one word. The intention is the method and the manner of what he is doing, which all rolls into the idea of the efforts of the government to date. That should be clear enough. I just want to make the point, and I want to be able to do that without being interrupted again.

We talked about Churchill Falls, of course, and I talked about the passion for it. The Premier, by the way - an aside - sat in the House of Commons, was there for sixteen years, and decides, when he comes back to this Province after sixteen years, that he just noticed it, like it never happened before. The Premier did have a chance, in his previous portfolio as a Member of the House of Commons, to raise the issue. He had a chance to raise that issue. As a matter of fact, while he is going across the country persuading people, in all seriousness, I say to the House Leader, why did he not stop and talk to the Prime Minister, the man who would have the most influence on this particular deal? The man who could talk to Quebec? What did the Prime Minister say, his colleague, his friend? A contract is a contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) weak.

MR. SHELLEY: It is not weak at all; it is a fact.

MR. GRIMES: Sit down and relax, boy. You are after embarrassing yourself to tears (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I allowed the Premier and the other people to speak, and I would hope that the Minister of Education will allow me to make the same points.

MR. GRIMES: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SHELLEY: It is a very serious issue. The first point is that I do not need the Premier, and neither should any member in this House, to tell us how passionate we are about this issue, and what a bad deal it is, and I want that deal changed, Mr. Speaker.

The point in the amendment -

AN HON. MEMBER: But you will not vote (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: What I am saying is that I would vote for the amendment to it, and the only thing that the Premier would have to do in the House is give us some idea of what the efforts - the efforts of the past we have seen. He has had three meetings across the country, in Toronto with a business group, in Vancouver another group, and so on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has requested silence, I guess, and the hon. member, under the rules of the House, has the right to be heard in silence.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: I was hoping I could have the same response, Mr. Speaker. It is a very personal and very emotional issue, this Churchill Falls deal. I am trying to make the point, Mr. Speaker.

The efforts of the past are questionable. The efforts of the past - if I want to make a political issue and support it and get all the popularity that the Premier is getting, I say to the Government House Leader. The point is, the three meetings of the past at the Empire Club in Montreal and the so-called meeting in Toronto, we have the question how effective that was. Are we closer to the deal now, Mr. Speaker? Are we closer to correcting the deal of Churchill Falls because of the past efforts of the Premier? I am not saying yes or no. I ask hon. members: Are we closer, have we gotten closer to correcting the deal because of the three meetings they had across the country? Mr. Speaker, the bigger question and the second part of the concern I have - so that is one, whether the past meetings and the route that the Premier has taken -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will say to the Government House Leader, I only have fifteen minutes, if he wants to get up on this issue he should get up and make his points. I let the Premier say everything he wanted to say and also the Leader of the NDP.

So one point being again - I have to retract that because Skip, you keep interrupting - the efforts of the past are questionable, whether they were effective and we are actually closer to a deal with Churchill Falls. The second part is even moreso, Mr. Speaker, and why the amendment was put there. What is the Premier planning to do? Is he going to come to this House and say I am going to do a twenty-city tour of speaking? Is he going to say I am going to have a rally in Montreal? What is he going to say? Mr. Speaker, if I thought it was something that we could support, I would go with the Premier, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. I would go with the Premier if I thought it would be effective and I would pay my own way there. That is what I would do.

All we are doing is questioning what the efforts of the past have done and what is the Premier planning? If the Premier will lay in front of us what his plans are when he talks about his `efforts', then he may have support. But we cannot give a blank cheque to this Premier to say sit here today, and I hope they believe in - if he remembers this in five months from now when he comes back and says, I am going to do a twenty-city tour of Canada - and give him a blank cheque! So, is it going to work?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the next question we have to ask is - let us take a scenario, Mr. Speaker: the Premier goes across the country and gets the entire country supporting him - and by the way, I do not think the Premier has to go across the country to get the support of Canada, he has it. He can do it from his fax machine. He can do by a phone call. He has it. I got the support. I have talked to people in the country, too, who said they have the support. Is there anybody questioning that we do not have the support of Canada on this deal, that it is a bad deal? Pick up the phone anywhere in this country and call them and ask them if they support Newfoundland on this deal.

The Member for Harbour Main, unless he is going to stand in his place and finally say something after being here for three years, he should be quiet, because he is saying nothing.

So, Mr. Speaker, the point is, we are not questioning whether the Premier is going to get the support of Canadians - we know he will, and power to him, but does he have to do all of these carte blanc across the country, the Empire Club in Toronto and so on? Is it not more effective, Mr. Speaker, to get the proper meetings in place for people in Quebec and get the support out of Quebec? Can you imagine going to Vancouver? Who in Vancouver, British Columbia is not going to support the Premier when he says Newfoundland got such a bad deal? Who is not going to support him, Mr. Speaker? Where were the Liberal MPs in the House on March 15? Where were the Liberal MPs in the House of Commons on March 15 when he talked about the neglect of Labrador, I say to the Member for Labrador? Here is the voting - I will show him if he wants me to - seven Liberal MPs, all of them voted no, that the government neglected it. Now, what about a motion in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, to put pressure on this deal, or are we just going to run across the country every time and jump up and get the media to follow? That is what we are saying. So all we are asking -

MR. EFFORD: You are afraid he is going to be successful (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: That is the real problem.

MR. SHELLEY: Don't make a joke of it, I say to the minister. Don't make a joke, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, because he is out to lunch if he is making a joke of it. He is out to lunch on it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) it is not out to lunch is it?

MR. SHELLEY: I am more serious than you will ever be about this issue, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. All we are asking is: What is the Premier planning when he talks about his efforts? What are his plans for the next year or so? Mr. Speaker, I tell the minister that I would walk across Canada with this Premier if I thought we could change the deal on Churchill Falls. You have that on record in this House.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I don't need any government members to tell me - how silly to get on with saying, We don't want the Churchill Falls deal changed. How silly it is to get on with that foolishness. You talk about partisan politics. I suppose, the next thing, the Premier will be in front of the cameras saying: The Opposition doesn't want the Churchill Falls deal changed, they are on side with Quebec. What a ridiculous statement! If you are going to make a statement, be serious about it, I say to the Government House Leader.

The only questions are - and there are two questions - to this particular amendment: Was the Premier effective, and has he made any difference to us getting closer to solving the contract in Churchill Falls? That is one. The bigger question is: What are his plans to further get closer to a deal with Churchill Falls? That is what you have to question. That is what I say.

That is why, when we hear people stand and talk about the Churchill Falls issue, I think that every member here is passionate about it. I am sick of hearing about the Churchill Falls deal. If I could change it tomorrow I would do it. If I thought that the Premier's efforts to date were in any way getting us closer to that, I would do it. I would pay my own way up there. If the Premier has an idea where he is going to invite maybe the House Leader and the NDP Leader to some kinds of meetings that are set in Quebec, or somewhere where there is going to be effective representation on this, then we will do it. We will do what we think would be effective.

But to stand up and just say: Premier, you go ahead, do whatever you want over the next year and we will support whatever it is you are doing - maybe we will support some of the things he is going to do now. This motion is going to pass in the House. We want to be clear that we are not just giving the Premier a blank cheque to do whatever he likes. Hopefully, and this is the point here, we will not have to object to anything that is happening in the next six months, and hopefully none of his own colleagues will have to object to it. Who knows where he is going from here, who he is speaking to next, and what his plans are? Nobody knows, Mr. Speaker.

Many times during the Premier's reign as a federal MP, he had many opportunities to discuss this issue in the House of Commons. He had a better opportunity. As the Premier sat in the House of Commons he had a very good opportunity over sixteen years to raise this issue.

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: And not once, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main - Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WHELAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ordinarily, I would get up and I would say it is certainly a delight and an honour and a privilege for me to be standing in the House today to speak on this very important issue. I think the more important word today is I feel obligated to speak on this matter. I am honoured to be able to stand in the House and support the private member's motion put forth by the Member for Labrador West, so ably and quite capably. There is no doubt in my mind of the injustice that was done this Province when the Churchill Falls deal was signed.

There is no doubt in the minds of most Newfoundlanders - I would say most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I am beginning to be a little bit doubtful about the people on the other side, or at least some of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WHELAN: This is an issue that rises above party, partisan politics. It hurts me to sit here in my chair and look across the House, and have thoughts in the back of my mind, for example: What are they thinking? Why are they not supporting this particular motion? What would happen to them as a party if we were successful in renegotiating the deal that was signed many years ago? I am sure that question is in their minds, too. What would happen to them politically if we were successful in changing the Churchill Falls deal?

Mr. Speaker, I would hate to think that that is the driving force behind the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition while the hon. the Premier was on his way across Canada trying to influence other Canadians. In the court of public opinion there is a lot of power. We have to go down each and every avenue that we have in order to be able to successfully renegotiate the contract.

A number of things have been changed in the past and a number of things have been tried in the past. We have gone the legal route and there were a number of different issues we addressed, unsuccessfully. Maybe there are some things that will come up in the future but we cannot just sit down and die. We cannot lie down and play dead. We as Newfoundlanders have been left a legacy, a legacy of courage and determination, and we have to succeed, we have no other choice. We have to claw and scratch, bite our way, claw our way to the top no matter how we get there.

I am sure there are a lot of people in Quebec who agree that this is an atrocity, but unfortunately the government of Quebec does not see things their way. We have now, and we have in the past, for a number of years, a government in Quebec unequal to that in any other part of the world. It is an atrocity. That is the lowest word I can call it. If I could think of something else I would call it that but there is nothing else I can think of.

When you look at the bottom line and the bottom line is that in 2041 we are going to be owing $340 million, I believe, as opposed to their gaining $56 billion, it is immoral and we have to deal with it. We just cannot sit down and play dead. I encourage members across the House to rise above the partisan politics they have been showing in the House this past few months. The leadership is probably a big factor. I am sure there are members across the House who no doubt support this particular issue, this particular motion, and I encourage them to rise above the partisan politics and support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, first of all to say that I support a change in the Churchill Falls contract. I think it is unconscionable, the contract that is now in place, and I think the only way we are going to successfully change this contract is by successfully lobbying the government of Quebec, by lobbying the people of Quebec and by gaining the sympathy of the people of Quebec and the government of Quebec.

I think the only reason members of this side of the House are not in favour of supporting the motion is because we feel that at some point down the road, if there was a decision to be made by the Premier that we were not in agreement with, it could come back and the Premier could say, you supported us and told us to do whatever we had to do. I think this is the only reason the members on this side of the House are afraid to give 100 per cent consent to this motion.

We need to change the Churchill Falls contract that the Province has with the province of Quebec. We need to change the unconscionable contact. We need to work out a better contract. There is no question of that, but I think the way to do it, if we are going to be successful, is to lobby Quebec and the government of Quebec, and gain their sympathy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This gives me a great opportunity to speak to this most important resolution introduced by the hon. member who did a marvellous job in outlining the rationale for this resolution. I feel, as the hon. member who preceded me on this side of the House, I feel an obligation and responsibility to speak to this resolution today.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition talked about the history of Churchill Falls, and I am very glad to say that I was a part of that history in a very unusual and unique way. As different from most other members in this House I was there from the beginning to the finish.

I was at Churchill and observed and watched the digging of every bit of rock that took place and took part in the official opening.

Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for us here today to be calling that great development a mistake and a blunder, all very well, but decisions are made in view of the conditions and the circumstances of the time. I do not want to stand here today and be blaming anybody. We all know that the contract turned out to be a bad contract but nobody intentionally set out to make this a bad contract. The Churchill development was one of the biggest engineering, one of the biggest financial accomplishments of its kind. Just to bring the financing together to do that tremendous job, Mr. Speaker, took skill and took all of the talents of the people of the time to bring together that financial combination of companies right throughout the Western World. The largest companies, the largest financial companies and we had the best engineering minds and we had the best financial advice that could be given at the time.

The hon. member talks about consultation. There should have been consultation back in those times, public consultation. The hon. member ought to know that that was the day of brush cuts. That was the day when smoking was popular. Public consultation was practically unheard of. A consultation of its type was done and was done with the best minds, the best financial people, the best engineers, but even with that, nobody could foretell the way things were going to turn out economically and, Mr. Speaker, it is not much point for us and, as proof positive how that was all done, that was done with the best advice of the day.

The hon. the Leader of the New Democratic Party acknowledged that nobody in this House, nobody on either side objected to the contract or the development at the time, nobody, but what are we saying, that they were a bunch of nitwits, are we condemning these people, are we condemning these people to historical eradication or historical traitorship? No, Mr. Speaker, they did it with the best of advice that they had. Today we have a chance to change what they set out to do. They got the job, the got the development, we today can support the efforts to change that and, Mr. Speaker, I hear the words of the opposition.

I hear the words of the opposition, they want to see the contract changed to maximize the benefits to the people of this Province. They want to see it changed but they are not willing to support the efforts of a government that wants to bring in all that change. Now, Mr. Speaker, what flimflam! What gobbledegook! What unmitigated twaddle! What fuddleduddle! Mr. Speaker, never in this House have we seen such squirmy and such wiggly, such slithering to try and twist around the resolution, to try and twist around the resolution to meet their own political ends.

Mr. Speaker, you talk about a mistake. I have sat in the opposition, longer years than I have been over here and we had to agree when the government came up with an initiative that affected the benefits of this Province. Hon. members can go back through the Hansard and see just about every initiative taken of this nature, we supported it, to a person, without trying to get into this method of trying to change and twist the words of a resolution just to meet their own political desire.

Such an issue, such a critical issue, such an issue so important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to find the Opposition trying to twist the words. Talk about a mistake and a blunder, I would think that the Opposition would have done just that today. They would have done just that today, make this large mistake, this blunder, when we have a chance to stand united today in supporting the efforts of a Premier, supporting the efforts and initiative of a government that wants to change this contract so that it will bring maximum benefit to the people of this Province. What does the Opposition do? They take this narrow, buttoned-down, myopic view that they want to see a change but they do not want to support the efforts of the one trying to bring about that change. What a narrow, buttoned-down, myopic view!

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that is not going to be bought by the Newfoundland people. It is not going to be bought, and it is time that the Opposition threw away that narrow view. It is time, in those matters, that they decided to stand with the Province and stand with the people to show that they, indeed, want to see change.

The Leader of the Opposition is playing that old, traditional, classical role of an opposition, which suggests that you have to oppose everything done by the government; you have to oppose everything. The Leader of the Opposition has taken the same position on this issue, although it is not nearly as important, as he took with respect to the Canada/Newfoundland $100 million Economic Renewal Agreement. He hates to hear the Premier talking about that great arrangement that we have entered into to develop this Province, this $100 million Economic Renewal Agreement. He gets really sick when he hears the Premier make an announcement about this project and that project. He says: What time is he going to stop doing it?

He did it all during the election; he is now carrying on again. What government was there ever in existence that did not announce to its people when they had a good project going on, when that project was about to take place, or to give some accountability of a project? It is a very traditional view of the Opposition.

I would suggest the time has come for the Leader of the Opposition to realize that we are approaching the year 2000, and the people of this Province, if he hopes to convince them that he is the (inaudible) of government, I am afraid he has to change his direction, he has to change his focus, and he has to tell the people of this Province that when a position develops in this House of Assembly that requires all members to stand together, requires all members to vote together, on an issue for the benefit of all of the people of this Province, that he has to demonstrate to them that he is with that initiative, that he is with that effort; not to try and twist and change the language to the effect that he supports a change but he does not support the efforts of a government trying to bring around that change. As I said, that is nothing but gobbledygook of the first order, and it is time now for the Leader of the Opposition to change that approach.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to support this resolution. I'm glad to be part of a government that has the initiative, that has the will, to try and bring about this change, to try and change a travesty of justice. I'm glad to be a part of a government that would do this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: That is alright, Mr. Speaker. I'm just getting my thoughts together. (Inaudible).

In conclusion, I'm glad to be supporting the initiative of a government that and of a person who wants to change that contract for the maximum benefit of the people of Newfoundland. The Premier is trying to do it by convincing the people of Canada what a terrible contract this was. He is trying to get a consensus of the Canadian nation on his side, because to change a contract of this proportion we realize it is a big thing to be doing. But contracts have changed, and contracts can be changed. The Premier is trying to point out to the people of Canada what a mistake this was.

Now is the hon. member against it? Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition against that? Against the Premier because he doesn't know what his efforts are. He is against that? Against the efforts of the Premier, trying to convince the people of Canada that that contract is an unjust contract and it should be changed to maximize the benefits to the people of this Province. Is that what he is against?

He is against the fuzziness, the vagueness, of the resolution, because he doesn't know what the efforts will be. The efforts will be to change the contract so it will maximize the economic benefits to the people of this Province! That is the effort!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: All of the efforts of this government will be focused, Mr. Speaker, on changing the contract to maximize the economic benefits to the people of this Province. That is the effort. But he doesn't support the efforts, but he supports a change to bring that around.

I clearly can't see any clarity to that particular resolution, any more clarity to that than the fuzziness and vagueness he says is attached to the government resolution. So I clearly today want to support the efforts of this government, the initiative of this government, the efforts and the initiative of the Premier, to bring about a change that will see this contract change so that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will have a standard of living that is equal to that enjoyed by all other Canadians. That is my position, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Virginia Waters.

MR. NOEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise also today to urge all members of this House to support this motion, and in particular to urge the Leader of the Opposition. Because unfortunately he has already given some comfort to the people who would suggest that there is division in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: In his press release of October 15 of this year he said the time has come to turn the page on the Churchill Falls deal, and to accept the inequity of that deal. I was very disappointed to hear him say that, and I urge him to change his position and I urge that party to make it clear that that is not their position. We must demonstrate to all Canadians and to Quebecers in particular that this Province is united in getting a better deal on this Churchill Falls agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: We have to do that because we have to ensure we have maximum support right across this country. We have to put whatever pressure we can on Quebec, and we have to put whatever pressure we can on the Government of Canada to play a role in resolving this issue because we cannot accept -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Virginia Waters.

MR. NOEL: We cannot accept that there was not a role for the Government of Canada today in resolving this issue because it is the Government of Canada that caused the problem in the first place by not ensuring that Newfoundland had the right to transmit its power across Quebec as is provided for in our Constitution.

You know, if we are to believe an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail last Saturday, authored by Mr. Cabot Martin who was involved in government some years ago, what actually happened was scandalous. The case seems to be that the deal that was made back in the 60s was not in fact a blunder but a deal that was made because we had no alternative if we wanted to develop that resource. We had no alternative because Quebec refused to ensure that we had the right that every province of Canada should have, the freedom of interprovincial trade and freedom to transmit and sell our resources through a particular province.

Now, the Premier of the day, Mr. Joseph Smallwood was asked, according to Mr. Martin, by Martin a few years ago, why he had not delivered Newfoundland's formal request, that Ottawa take jurisdiction over the project, including installing transmission lines across Quebec as he had been instructed by his own government's Order in Council. Premier Smallwood said he had driven up to Ottawa from Montreal by car sometime before the deal was finalized so that nobody would know he was in the capital.

He meet with Mr. Pearson and two other Cabinet ministers, and before I could say a word, Premier Smallwood said, Mr. Pearson said, Joe, I know why you are here and if you ask me I will have to say, yes, otherwise we would not really have a country. I am asking you not to ask me because we will not be able to keep the towers up, and Premier Smallwood said, so I did not ask him. He did not ask him for our right to transmit power across Quebec because Prime Minister Pearson said that if that were not granted we would not really have a country.

I submit that issue had to be resolved in the way it should be resolved if we are to demonstrate to all Canadians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in particular, that we do have a country, and that Newfoundlanders will get their rights just as Quebec would if the shoe were on the other foot. Who could ever believe that if this issue stood in a manner that gave Quebec the kind of disadvantages that Newfoundland has, we would not see the Government of Canada intervene and it would not be changed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to your buddies.

MR. NOEL: We will talk to our buddies. I talked to our buddies but I also stand together with the people of Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: It is not enough

There is no point in me talking to Mr. Chrétien if he says it appears that Newfoundlanders are divided on this question, Mr. Noel. So that is why it is important today. It is important today for all members of this House to demonstrate to all Canadians that we support this objective and we will not be content with anything less! We will not be content with a few crumbs when we should have the whole loaf!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: And we will not be content to be bought off by a deal for benefits lower than we should get on development of the Churchill Falls or anything else. We want our full rightful benefits out of the Churchill Falls deal before we will give up on trying to resolve this issue and we will be content with nothing less, Mr. Speaker, and I hope all the members today demonstrate that that is the irrevocable position of this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was also disturbed some time ago to see a newspaper article by a Mr. Eric Kierans who seemed to be suggesting that for Newfoundlanders to try to get our fair rights in this whole question, we were being disloyal to Canada. We were adding to disunity in the country because we were raising ill feelings towards Quebec. Now what kind of people does Mr. Kierans think that Newfoundlanders are? Are we too green to burn? The reality is that Newfoundlanders are the ones who are suffering an injustice in this case and we would be less than loyal Newfoundlanders if we never did everything that we can to resolve it. For Mr. Kierans to suggest that we should continue the sacrifices we are enduring for the sake of some people in another Province is very disappointing to me because Mr. Kierans used to be a Liberal Cabinet minister in Quebec and that is certainly not part of the Liberal philosophy in my view.

Fortunately Mr. Kierans has a cousin who lives in my district, a Mr. Tom Kierans, who takes an entirely different view. Mr. Kierans has written some letters recently advocating the approach that should be taken is that we should not seek to break the Churchill Falls contract but that we should restore its original intention. Its original intention was to ensure that Newfoundland got reasonable benefits out of the whole development. The kind of benefits that we would have gotten when oil prices were what they were back in those days. Now that is a case that we can make in law. It has not been made properly yet. I would urge the government to consider making that case, that we want the restoration, on the basis of what we can contend to be a force majeure. There has been a substantial and considerable change in the circumstances between the time that the contract was signed and today. I think the change has been significant enough that we can invoke the principle of force majeure and say that the benefits that were intended to accrue to our Province in that contract should accrue today and necessary changes should be made.

So I would urge the members on the other side of the House to make sure that we demonstrate to all Canadians that this Province is united. I would point out that what we are debating here today is a motion, not a contract. If you support this motion today that does not mean that you have to endorse everything the Premier or the government might do for months and years to come. If he does something you don't like you can say you don't like it and not support it. This is not a contract. You support the motion today that demonstrates to all Canadians that Newfoundlanders are united in our objectives in getting a fair deal on this agreement and you will still remain free to disagree with any particular actions the government might chose to take along the way. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few minutes to go on the record to support the motion put forward by the Member for Labrador West.

I remember quite vividly when the Churchill Falls project was in operation and I can remember my own brother who was out of work at the time working in Churchill Falls and stayed down there, I think it was six months before he came back and when he did, he had enough money to buy himself a house, and I would suggest that there were many people in the same situation. At the time, people were proud of the opportunity to work but we can look at it here in the House today, tomorrow and the next day, and say that hindsight now is 20/20.

We can look at it and say that the contract should not have been forty-five years, it should have been twenty, it should have been fifteen but that is not going to change the situation in which we find ourselves. We are faced today with a contract that many people have said is unconscionable, that is immoral and it must change and as the Member for Virginia Waters said a few moments ago, this in itself is not a contract, it is a motion that we want to put forth not only here to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but to the rest of Canada, and I would say to the people in opposition, that there are many reasons why we should, but cannot support. Name me one that we should not support.

Every day we come into the House and as opposition has a right to do, you criticize the government for people who are unemployed. You criticize the government and have a legitimate right to criticize the fact that children go to school hungry. We criticize the fact that we have the lowest educational spending in the country. We criticize that our social services rates are the lowest in the country. We criticize that our health conditions are not what they should be.

Alright, let us suppose that today because of the negotiations that we do renegotiate the Upper Churchill contract and that we do bring hundreds of millions of dollars into the coffers, what that could do for this particular Province, as far as I am concerned, with all of the other things that we have going on, is like winning a Lotto. It is a windfall for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and not to support that, to me, is unconscionable and we cannot find any reason to say other than that.

When I look at my own district and look at where the government could find extra dollars to build a new health facility in Harbour Breton, and for the one in Stephenville and one up in St. Barbe on the Northern Peninsula and one in Fogo Island, we could do all of these things if we had extra money but we do not have the money to do it, and I am beginning to think that the Member for Harbour Main might have been right when he said that, the crowd opposite, the Loyal Opposition is afraid that the Premier is going to succeed. Because, I am telling you that if he does succeed, it is going to mean that they will be over there for the next term and the next term and next term after.

But I am telling you, that is a situation because right now, there is probably some scepticism out there that the Premier cannot really do that, but I believe that he will because he has the people of the Province behind him, totally behind him to renegotiate this contract and when it is done it will be to the chagrin of the people opposite but it will be to the glorification of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is why I cannot see why you would not support that.

I would ask the opposition to ask people in government who were in opposition at the time, when Premier Peckford went and tried to negotiate, they supported him. They supported Moores when he was trying to do it, they supported the previous Premier when he tried to do it, why not this one? They are afraid that he is going to succeed and I am telling you that their fear is probably founded because he is going to succeed. He will succeed in spite of them so, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the people opposite to think of this personally and think what it means for the people in your district.

I can remember, Mr. Speaker, a few years ago when we were looking at the changing -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydro.

MR. LANGDON: Not Hydro, when we had to go out to our members and we had to get their -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Constitution.

MR. LANGDON: The Constitution - I remember that we went out and had to solicit the support of the people in the districts and when we came in overwhelmingly we did what they did, and I would think, today, that if every member in this House went to their district and asked their constituents if they support the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador in changing the Upper Churchill Falls agreement, I am telling you, it would not be ninety-nine to one; it would be 100 to zero.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: And that is what you have to support, and that is what this resolution is, supporting the Premier to change the Upper Churchill contract so it can pay dividends to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is for no other reason. That is what we are here for, and I suggest that every member in the House think honourably, do the honourable thing, and support the Member for Labrador West in his motion to change the Upper Churchill contract.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and congratulate the member on bringing forward this resolution today.

What are we dealing with here as far as the Opposition goes? One might look at it as the possibility that the Opposition thought that this would be a non-issue. When the initial activity came about on the part of the Premier of the Province, they thought at that time: Well, let's oppose this and it will go away. Unbeknownst to them at the time, it did not go away. It just became an extremely popular move on the part of the government, and it was not done for popularity sake. It was done for the right reasons. It was done to redress the contract that was there, and within this particular period of our history in the Province we could potentially see the control of the Churchill Falls Corporation go to Quebec. Do we really want that to happen while we are here in government, at this point in our history? I submit that is not the case.

I submit that the reasons and the rationale for the government pursuing this policy are very sound. I also would think that the Opposition have not gotten themselves into a pickle. They are out in the public at this point in time opposing the Province's position, and there is no real opportunity for them to save face and come around and support the issue in the way that they have. The opportunity is there now, and rather than eat crow they choose to follow the activity they have undertaken at this point and to continue with it, and they are very uncomfortable. I do not know if I have ever seen an Opposition as uncomfortable as this Opposition is today.

Just look at the things that are happening. There will be change in the electricity market; we all know that. In fact, to read the last paragraph of an article in the Globe and Mail today, on page B5: Quebec looks more to the private sector for electricity.

Quebec, of course, has just gotten into arrangements which will, in effect, allow them to wield power through to the U.S. So future developments for electricity in Newfoundland and Labrador will be able to be arranged and sold without the benefit of Quebec's involvement as we will be allowed, from what we can tell - if we can come to an agreement with them - to wield our power through. That is part of the NAFTA agreement.

There are a lot of changes occurring in the power marketplace throughout North America, and Quebec is just going to have to change if it wants to be seen as anything other than a pariah in the marketplace. They are going to have to provide the beneficial return to their supplier.

What we have in this case is not unlike having a supplier to a manufacturer of anything being unhappy. Normally in a business relationship, business relationships and contracts often change; relationships between suppliers and producers often change. If you look at the manufacturing sector in Japan, for instance, when the dollar changed very dramatically five or six years ago, and the Japanese automobile industry was under huge pressure because of the differentials in the U.S. dollar and the Canadian dollar versus the Japanese yen, what did the Japanese manufacturers do? They went to their suppliers, and they put pressure on their suppliers to comply so they could continue to make money. Well, this is no different whatsoever. We will end up in a deficit position. So, as a supplier - it is a reverse arrangement, of course - to the seller of the electricity, we need to redress the contract. We need to be provided with the opportunity to get a fair return on our investment, and not to end up in a deficit position on into the future.

Now, the arrangement, Mr. Speaker - and I will not continue on because I understand there are others here who would like to have a few words before the hon. member who has put forward the resolution wants to clue up. But to look at it in general we have an Opposition, of course, that is turning itself inside out and we understand that. When you take a public position it is very hard to change and to vary from that position without your leader or your party looking like they are divided from their own group. We do not want to see that happen. We think they should speak with one voice. We feel that they should join us in making sure that this position goes ahead because the people of the Province - and they were the ones who have offered this across the House to us in the past, during the Hydro debate when the decision that was finally taken was not to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to the private sector, to make it a publicly-held company and maintain it as a publicly-owned entity, owned fully by the government. They were telling us that we should bow to popular opinion.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as difficult as it was, we did, we supported the public position, the position of the people of the Province eventually and we did not allow Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to be sold. In this case, they should certainly look at public opinion, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they should also look at public opinion throughout the country, and if the country feels that this should be redressed properly - I mean, it is obvious and the telling point in all of this is with the Quebec media who initially when it was talked about were saying, Well, we do not believe what is being said here. This cannot be as bad as you are saying. The Quebec media said, If you are not telling the truth, we will be the first to credit you with the fact and we will be the first not to criticize you.

Well, when the Quebec media was finally briefed, we did not hear a word. How come? We must be right. In fact we are right. The figures we have been putting forward, the information that we have been bringing forward on this issue, is that it is - the word that is being used to describe it is it is an `unconscionable' contract. I agree fully with that. It has also been described as a contract where the supplier cannot be kept happy. That has to be addressed properly by the renegotiation of the contract and not just to come to us with some small proposition to change it marginally. It has to be changed for the future, and if the Province of Quebec wants to be involved in future hydro negotiations and developments in Churchill Falls, in the Lower Churchilll, I think they should certainly take a strong look at the business relationship between our Province and theirs, and get off the pot, so to speak, and do what it takes to bring about a resolution to this issue.

Certainly, it will make for better relationships throughout the country. Well, maybe that is not what they want, but we will reserve -

MR. TULK: You know why they do not want it.

MR. RAMSAY: There is a passibility there that they want Canada to look like a problem and maybe that is what is driving the boat at this time, the `ship of state' of Quebec.

We will leave at that, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly would encourage members of the Opposition not to remain divided, to be bigger than each and every one of themselves and to support the hon. member's resolution. With that I will allow someone else here from this side to have a few words.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I would not get up and speak to this if members on the other side wanted to do so - I would be quite prepared to sit down; but obviously, there is so little interest over there they are not even prepared to get up and speak to the issue.

The first thing I have to do is congratulate the Member for Labrador West for coming forward with this motion. This is a timely motion. This is an opportunity where that hon. member, and let me assure hon. members in this House that hon. member is going places. That hon. member is a true Labradorian and a true Newfoundlander. What he did, like few people over the term of history have done, he saw when the iron was hot and he gave it a solid smack. He came in at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker, this hon. member represents 99.999 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today. If you were to find yourself, if in a twinkling of an eye, we were to be transformed and were to stand up today in the airport in Stephenville, I can tell you that within fifteen minutes, 99 per cent of the people in that airport would come up and say: Decker, your Premier is on the right issue this time. Your Premier is right this time. You tell your Premier not to back off, because he has every Newfoundlander and Labradorian at his back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: I heard it in St. Anthony, Mr. Speaker, I heard it in Conche, I heard it in Port de Grave, I heard it in Port aux Basques. Tories, Liberals, NDPs, non-political people, children, old people, young people, there is not an issue in Newfoundland and Labrador which has captured the imagination of our people more than this issue!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: And, Mr. Speaker, wouldn't I hope and pray that we were four years into our mandate instead of only a few months into our mandate. What a political issue we have! Every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, 99.999 per cent. Now who is that one one-hundredth that we are talking about? Who is that one one-thousandth that we are talking about, Mr. Speaker? Regretfully I have to point fingers, and it is not something I like to be doing, pointing fingers. It is not in my nature to point fingers, Mr. Speaker, but regretfully I have to point fingers. I could not believe my ears. I could not believe my eyes. A few weeks ago when our Premier was taking this message up to the mainland of Canada, going right into the lion's den, right into the Province of Quebec itself, Mr. Speaker, and meeting with a group of business men and women in the city of Montreal. Now, Mr. Speaker, he went forward, 99.999 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to his back and what was the first thing that turned up in The Globe and Mail, Mr. Speaker? What were they waving? What was the media waving when he goes in with the support of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, except that one-thousandth? A press release.

AN HON. MEMBER: From whom?

MR. DECKER: The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. When we say Her Majesty, Mr. Speaker, in a democratic monarchy, Her Majesty means Newfoundland and Labrador. We are talking about the state. We are talking about the Province. Her Majesty in the right of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Leader of the Loyal Opposition, loyal to Newfoundland and Labrador, 99.999 per cent of our people were supporting the Premier. Tory and Liberal, NDP, it did not matter, nothing mattered. One issue and one issue alone - and where was that one person who could issue a press release which would be noticed in the Montreal papers? Was it the Minister of Justice of Newfoundland? No. Was it my colleague and friend, the hon. the Government House Leader or the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture or any of my colleagues on this side of the House? No, Mr. Speaker. The one member, the one person in Newfoundland, in Canada, in North America, the one person whose support the Premier could have used and would really have put that issue over the top, was the Leader of Newfoundland and Labrador's Loyal Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame!

MR. DECKER: I could not believe my eyes. I could not believe my ears. If ever there was an appropriate time to say shame, this is the time to say it and that was the time to say it.

Then today, Mr. Speaker, almost as bad, when my friend, my dear friend from Labrador West catches the imagination of the people of this Province and puts forth a motion asking for the support of the Premier and the government, they are so blinded over there. They are so blinded by politics, big `P' politics. They want to let politics stand in the way, Mr. Speaker, of what is right for Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: They cannot get up and support the government. They are such a group of nay sayers. They are so much against everything that they cannot support good itself when it comes from this side of the House. They cannot stand good. Oh, but they will pay for this one. They were so blinded by politics, Mr. Speaker, they took their advice - I know who they took their advice from. You don't have to go far west of the overpass to find out where they took their advice from on this one, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell hon. members that they are on the wrong side of the fence. And there is only one hope that I see for them. There is only one chance they have to redeem themselves, Mr. Speaker, and that is today when this amendment is defeated - and will it be defeated?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: If there is any doubt, let everybody know that all doubt has been dispelled. The amendment will be defeated. Then comes that one opportunity to redeem themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: One last chance.

MR. DECKER: One last chance. I appeal to them, as fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -

AN HON. MEMBER: Call for division.

MR. DECKER: Let us call for division, and let us have a standing vote, and let everybody in this House stand up with the whole 99.999 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: Then, after this vote is put, the next speaker who gets up, or the next time it is reported, no longer will he have to say 99.999 per cent; he will say 100 per cent!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: One hundred per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians stand solidly behind the Premier, behind the Liberal Government, and we are going to do what is best, what is in the interest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I appeal to the members opposite to redeem themselves and get up and support this motion.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that the clock says 4:44 p.m. He has one minute before I recognize the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have been blamed in Port de Grave for having an accent and talking fast, but I cannot talk that fast!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I am going to be very quick about it, Mr. Speaker. I only want to make one point, and the point is simply this: that that Opposition party is controlled by one individual, and that individual is sitting in the leader's chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: My time is up?

MR. TULK: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. TULK: The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture obviously feels so deeply about this issue, as we all do on this side of the House, and this issue is so important to the people of this Province, that I am wondering if the Opposition would give us leave so that we could take another half-an-hour or so to debate this issue before we put it to a vote? I wonder if they would give us leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, would it be in order to give the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture five minutes of my time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CANNING: Well, I say to the Opposition, perhaps Dale Carnegie said it best when he said: When you're wrong, admit it emphatically!

Perhaps I was naive today when I stood in this House and put this resolution forward. I had thought that there were some issues that were above politics, that there were some issues so important to the people of this Province that each of us who have been elected to carry the will of the people would stand together and appreciate and support any effort to change that which makes us all angry. Perhaps I was naive in believing that.

I look across the House. I hear, many times, the Leader of the Opposition and his friends talking about Voisey's Bay and how important it is to our Province, talking about how important Labrador is to our Province; yet I get a mixed message when I hear that perhaps their view was that a paved highway across Labrador was not part of a better tomorrow. I see now that a $56 billion problem is not a part of a better tomorrow, and trying to fix that, which makes us all angry.

Mr. Speaker, the infamous press release by the Leader of the Opposition - What did he say? He said: Without the concurrence of Quebec, the contract will not be open for renegotiations. He said: It is time now for us to accept the fact and turn the page. He said that the contract will not be open for negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, are we to negotiate as mice, or are we to negotiate as a people who are standing for that which we believe?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, there comes a time in the history of a people when we all have to stand on our own two feet and say that what we have we want to partake in, we want to use to build a better society for everybody who lives within our boundaries. That is what this is all about. I have lived close enough to Churchill Falls all my life. I full well know what it does and what it is capable of doing for our Province. There is a Voisey's Bay already built in Labrador: It is called Churchill Falls, and all the revenue from that flows into Quebec.

I drive down through our highways, even in the best part of the highway structure in this Province, and I see nothing that is comparable with some of the highways I drive through in Quebec. Not that I am against good highways in Quebec, but I am certainly against the people of the poorest province of the land having money flowing to the border of Quebec to build those highways, and that is exactly what is happening.

Let me go on about Hydro Quebec. I understand through the printed media that if it were not for Churchill Falls, the CF(L)Co. agreement, Hydro Quebec would probably be bankrupt. They are such a bloated organization. They have come to terms with it, they know it, they have hired people to deal with it. They full well recognize the problems with it, and how have they decided to maintain that bloated organization? They have decided to hang tough with the CF(L)Co. contract to maintain a bloated Hydro Quebec organization within the borders of Quebec. And the Opposition says: That's okay, that's fine, be happy. Mr. Speaker, the people on this side of the House will never agree with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never! Never!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, I heard through the comments of some of the speakers that they are concerned that this can be seen as against the people of Quebec. This is not against the people of Quebec. It is not against anybody. It is for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from an article that I know my hon. friends across the House are familiar with the author. What does he say in his article in the Globe and Mail, the truth behind Churchill Falls. The author was Cabot Martin. What does he say? He says: The Upper Churchill contract-

AN HON. MEMBER: Cabot Martin?

MR. CANNING: The one and only. It is a special to the Globe and Mail from St. John's, Newfoundland: The Upper Churchill contract which came into force in 1969 is not between governments or provinces. It is a private contract between two corporations, Hydro Quebec and CF(L)Co. In contract law sometimes, if one party beats up too much on the other party in the process, by way of making a deal, the contract will not be enforced by the courts. Economic duress, unjust and unconscionable transactions are all issues that might be a cause for a court to rule, and, Mr. Speaker, he goes on, he says: that this contract had more to do with geography than commerce because it was the tragedy, some would say the tyranny of geography that looped us into this deal in the first instance.

I agree with my hon. friend when he says it is not the fault of those who were here before us that we are into this mess but it is our fault if we do not try to change it and I ask the opposition to work with us to do just that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I grew up in Labrador, I travelled around Labrador, I full-well know the needs and I have some sense of the needs within the Island portion of our Province and the needs are there. How is it that any government can provide those things that our people need by having the revenue to do it? What we are fighting for is a better contract at the CF(L)Co in the CF(L)Co arrangement. What Quebec has is unconscionable, it cannot be justified, we all have to stand together and I ask all members of this House to stand and support this resolution.

What you are doing is not endorsing the government forever. You are not saying whatever the government does is okay, what you are saying is that, on this instant, in this time in our development, we all accept and agree that the government should take this and move forward and change this contract and help provide the kind of revenue that we need to build a sound and just society within this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CANNING: I heard my hon. friend from Baie Verte say that he is sick and tired of hearing about Churchill Falls. Well I am sick and tired of hearing about the Churchill Falls contract too and it is time for it to be changed.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important time in our history. It is a time like no other. We are looking at great economic opportunity in our future, from Hibernia, Terra Nova, Voisey's Bay and yes, Churchill Falls. I ask all people to stand together say that we are for this government, this Premier, these actions to change that contract and give us the kind of reward from Churchill Falls that we all deserve. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We are voting on the amendment at this time. The House is ready for the question. I will put the amendment;

All those in favour of the amendment, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion defeated.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment, please stand.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Roger Fitzgerald; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. French.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those against the amendment, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; Mr. Flight; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Education; Mr. Lush, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Penney, Mr. Langdon, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Mr. Noel, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Whelan, Ms Hodder, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Reid, Ms Thistle, Mr. Sparrow, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Harris, Ms Jones.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, nine ayes, thirty-four nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Now voting on the motion.

All those in favour of the motion, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the division vote?

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Premier, the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Mr. Flight, Mr. Walsh, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Education, Mr. Lush, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Penney, Mr. Langdon, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon. the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, Mr. Noel, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Canning, Mr. Smith, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Whelan, Ms Hodder, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Reid, Ms Thistle, Mr. Sparrow, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Harris, Ms Jones.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. French.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, thirty-four ayes, nine nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.