November

5, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 58

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Premier.

One of the central planks, I suppose, in the government's

Economic Strategic Plan, is the development of the Lower Churchill River hydro

sites which, of course, is then dependent on an agreement between the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Quebec.

Now, in 1990, the Minister of Mines and Energy said he was

very optimistic that there would be an agreement in 1991. In 1992, he said he

was optimistic there would be an agreement in 1992. Now, of course, we are about

to enter 1993. I would like to ask the Premier: Have there been any substantial

talks since they broke off last March, as we understand it, seven or eight

months ago? Have the governments, specifically, had any talks, to any degree at

least, and can he tell us when Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can expect to

find jobs on that site at Lower Churchill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have to check, but to the best of my

knowledge there have been no detailed discussions since March of 1992. The

minister nods, that is correct. There may never be an agreement with Hydro

Quebec on the development. That may never occur. We were frank and honest enough

not to pretend that it was going to be there, that agreement was going to be

realized. We didn't go down and start digging tunnels and spend $75 million -

AN HON. MEMBER: $150 million.

PREMIER WELLS: - $150 million. We didn't waste $150

million of public funds putting on a show of digging tunnels and pretending

everything was under way. We were frank and honest with people and said, we are

going to start these discussions, we hope it will come to fruition, but we were

very clear, they may not be realized and I say to people again, there is still a

reasonable prospect that an agreement can be reached, but it may well be that it

will not be realized.

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

MR. SIMMS: The Premier never fails to take the

opportunity, I suppose, to try to somehow divert from the issue, get away from

the question. In fact, I think the incident he referred to was done by his

successor, the former Leader of the Liberal Party, was it not, when he was

Minister of Mines and Energy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the

Minister of Mines and Energy. Since the Premier doesn't really appear to be up

to speed on this very important issue, let me ask the minister. He has lately

been playing down the need for an agreement, as well, because he has told the

people of the Province that we probably won't need that additional supply of

power or electricity as early as they had first thought; in fact it might be

another three years, I believe, is what he has said, that it could be moved back

to three years. So, I want to ask him, is he preparing us for an announcement

now that, in fact, these talks are broken off and there is nothing really about

to occur, or is he going to level with the people of the Province and tell them

specifically what is likely to happen? In other words, what is the time frame

now? When must we have an agreement in place in order to get the power when we

will need it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, in a sense I probably have been playing down the need,

because it is real. The need is not as urgent as it was three years ago when we

started to negotiate with Hydro Quebec. Presently, in the near term, it seems

that there is a very adequate supply of small hydro.

In a tender that closed just a couple of days ago, there were

seventeen companies that proposed thirty-three projects totalling 243 megawatts,

when Hydro only asked for 50 megawatts for 1996. So between now and the year

2000 there seems to me to be an adequate supply of just small hydro alone, if we

wanted to stick to that on the Island. So, in terms of the need, there is no

longer the same urgency to have Labrador power by the year 2000, and others

don't have the same need to have Labrador power by the year 2000.

In our earlier negotiations, which started three years ago,

at that time we estimated that we would like to have Labrador power by the year

2000 to fill the needs that we would have here on the Island, in addition to

other needs. The talks have not broken off, but I acknowledge that the last

meeting was in March. At that meeting our negotiating team tabled a

comprehensive document with the Hydro Quebec negotiating team, and it is their

call as to when they want to have a meeting to discuss their response to that.

In terms of time frame, it takes about six years to get first

power from the time the construction starts. If there were an agreement this

year, with construction four years from now, in 1996, there could have been

first power by 2001; 2002, 2003. It is not critical at this time, what time it

starts.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, apparently, it has now become a

fact that the reality is that the Lower Churchill really now is on the back

burner - the minister has practically confirmed that here this afternoon - and

that nothing really significant -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier can put the spin on

it that he wishes, but it is pretty clear that nothing is happening. You said

yourself, earlier today, nothing is really happening; nothing significant has

happened in eight months. Now, since that is the apparent situation, that really

it is on the back burner, I want to ask him this question: Since the government

itself put out its Strategic Economic Plan, one of the major planks here was

that we need a portion of that power as a result of the Lower Churchill

development to accommodate any feasible industrial activity. Now, if that is one

of their major planks in the Strategic Economic Plan, how is this delay going to

affect that plan? Does it not mean, therefore, seriously, the economic

development of the Province is in jeopardy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Not at all, Mr. Speaker, because we have an

adequate supply of power in the near term, and will continue to have an adequate

supply in the near term.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. I want to

ask the minister one final question. Since there appears to be little urgency to

these negotiations - I mean, I think he has pretty well confirmed that here

today, depending on which point of view you look at, I suppose. But they have

certainly been delayed, and nothing significant has transpired over the last

eight months. Doesn't the minister think it is perhaps time to give a full

accounting to the people of this Province?

The government has been at for three years or more. Would the

minister consider tabling in this House details of the Province's position and

the Province of Quebec's position in these negotiations? - so that the people of

the Province will be able to decide and determine for themselves whether or not

anything concrete is likely to happen or whether this is all political -

whatever you want to call it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to get

something straight. This is the government's Strategic Economic Plan. Here is

what's stated in it: 'Under current demand forecasts there will be a need for

additional supply, etc.' Then it says: 'one option for meeting the shortfall

beyond the year 2000 is the development of the Lower Churchill river sites.'

That's one option.

Next paragraph: 'Because of uncertainty associated with the

Lower Churchill development, it is necessary to consider a strategy to meet the

anticipated supply shortfall in case that development is delayed or does not

proceed;

Now, what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is a total

misrepresentation, a complete fabrication.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I just read directly from the Plan. That's

what is in the Plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That's what is in the Plan!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Tell the people (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I can't say when the

corporation of Hydro Quebec will respond to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro,

that corporation. I can say that in August I was speaking to Premier Bourassa

about the matter. I am happy to report to the people of the Province that

Premier Bourassa is still very anxious to see the discussions pursued, or so he

told me, and is anxious now to get on with it and pursue the discussions

afterwards.

I haven't spoken with Premier Bourassa since that meeting in

August. So I can't say whether he has changed his mind or not since that time.

But I see no reason to think that. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure that

the people weren't mislead by these misrepresentations about what was in the

plan or the leader's

interpretation of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Mines and Energy. I understand, Mr. Speaker, in the last little

while some twelve meters have been removed from homes in Sheshatshit and I

understand were delivered to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro today. I further

understand that electricity is still flowing into those particular homes. Would

the minister advise if those people will be required to pay for the electricity

that is going into those homes? If so how will it be evaluated now that there

are no meters on those particular homes?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have not been informed that

meters have been removed from homes and electricity is still running. The Hydro

Corporation will do its business as per the regulations given to it by the

Public Utilities Board.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Some time ago the minister indicated through

media reports, and indeed at the mayors and municipalities convention in Gander,

that government had made some mistakes in its dealings with municipalities with

respect to municipal operating grants. The minister also said some time ago that

any municipality that could demonstrate that it had been impacted in a

significant way would be compensated by the government. Has this been done? And

how many municipalities in the province have received the compensation as the

minister indicated they would?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that we made a

mistake in giving out the municipal operating grants. What I said was that we

erred in recalling them in the middle of a budgetary process, a sort of a

clawback because of information that was given us by the municipalities. I don't

know the numbers of municipalities that have done so right off the top of my

head but what we have done in the past and up to date, at least up to yesterday,

is that those municipalities that did experience any hardship because of the

reduction in MOG grants were asked to contact our regional offices. They were

visited and consulted, and either the repayment was alleviated or in some cases

there was a grant issued in lieu of the loss to the municipalities.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: If I understood the minister correctly, he is

saying that municipalities that had these shortfalls have now been compensated

due to the changes to MOGs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Received a grant in lieu of it.

MR. WINSOR: Received a grant in lieu of it. Is that

right?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member misunderstood

what I said. What I said was, people and municipalities who had inordinate

expenses or an inordinate failure because of the Municipal Operating Grant not

being able to assist them or effecting their budget adversely, were visited by

our regional people who consulted them and examined their budgets, and we had

either alleviated the repayment or in some cases reimbursed the municipalities.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry! I didn't see the hon. Member for

Fogo. I will recognize the hon. Member for St. John's East the next time, if he

will concede to the hon. Member for Fogo.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure municipalities are still not going to be much

clearer based on what the minister just said.

Let me ask the minister this, then: Is the minister satisfied

with the present system of repayment of debt on capital that municipalities had

acquired, whereby each household in a community has to pay $315 per year? Is

that a fair method to assess debt charges to a municipality?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Yes, generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, it is a

fair method. But there are some municipalities that can afford it and there are

some that cannot. We try and assist wherever we can.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister didn't answer my

question.

Let me ask the minister this, then: In a community where only

half the households are serviced, which means they have no mechanism to collect

any water and sewer taxes, is it fair that unserviced households are assessed at

$315 per household even though the municipality has no chance to collect any

revenues? Is that a fair method of assessing debt charges?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a fair way, the way

the hon. member expresses it, but he doesn't know what he is talking about.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education, and concerns

aid for single parents.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question to the Minister of Education concerns aid for

single parents who are post-secondary students. Mr. Speaker, in a press release

of August 27, 1992 the minister spoke of a new arrangement between social

services and the Department of Education as being, and I quote: Satisfactory to

the students, administratively clear, and allowing for single parents on social

assistance to cover the basic cost of pursuing their educational endeavours.

Can the minister explain why single parents are still getting

the runaround; why officials cannot even clarify policies; and why child care

allocations under the student aid program do not provide for the actual and

realistic cost of child care; and why no provision or allowance is made for

single parents with more than one child?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, that question would certainly be

more appropriate for an Order Paper, but I will try to address the gist of what

the member is talking about.

Hon. members will know that there have been a lot of

complaints in the past years from single parents over the problems they are

having with the conflict between social assistance and a certain component in

the student loans and student aid. Both the Minister of Social Services and

myself contributed a considerable amount of time to this issue, and attempted to

come to grips with the whole issue; and if there was any problem there that we

could resolve, which might have been caused by bureaucratic red tape or

something, we endeavoured to deal with it and to improve it. We did that.

Notwithstanding what was done, there might be a few cases

which are not totally satisfied. Unfortunately, realistically speaking, there is

always the example. No matter what program government comes up with, or anyone

comes up with, there will always be the example. Now there is a process in place

to deal with the exception and that, to my knowledge, is being dealt with; but

if the hon. member has a specific case, I would be most delighted to sit down

with him and discuss that case and see if it can be resolved. I cannot assure

him that we do have a quick fix for every single problem, but there will be no

stone left unturned in our endeavour to deal with each individual problem, if we

can.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Can the minister explain then, Mr. Speaker,

why a senior student from the district of Baie Verte - White Bay, who is a year

away from being a qualified teacher, is now being told that she will not get her

student grant for another ten to fourteen days, and she is only getting

two-thirds of what she was told in writing on two occasions that she would

receive. Is this not indicative of the attitude expressed by the Director of

Family Services and the Social Services Department, that these students would be

better off on social assistance? Is that not the message that the government is

sending to these students, by its policies?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the message that we are sending

to all of our people in this Province is that we consider education to be one of

the most important things that we can give this generation of Newfoundlanders

there now. That is the message we are giving. We are also giving the message

that we will bend over backwards to do anything we can, within the law, to

encourage all of our people to get a university education or some kind of

education beyond.

If there is an exception; if there is a specific case, we are

more than willing - I will go to Baie Verte and talk to the parent - that is how

concerned we are; but I will tell the hon. member this: I will not try to get up

and make political grandstanding on the backs of some single parent. This issue

should have been brought to my attention three weeks ago if the hon. member knew

about it - not to wait until the House opened, to get up and try to make some

cheap political points on it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: The hon. member should have better sense. He

should have brought it to my attention three weeks ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Minister of Health is going to meet with the parents

in Baie Verte - White Bay, it is more than he did for the parents in Labrador

West. The Premier had to send you down after you refused to go.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister

of Development. I would like to ask him if he can tell me: What are the

short-term job prospects for the Marystown Shipyard?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should tell my

hon. friend that the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle is the Minister of

Education now, and I am the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -

Development has changed.

The short-term prospects at the Shipyard are not very good,

to be perfectly frank about it. Currently we are doing some repair on a small

tug, I believe, for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. The Leonard Cowley I believe is

due to arrive at the Shipyard soon. We're preparing some bids for two other

boats, the Beaumont Hamel and the Hood.

In terms of ship construction and ship repair the marketplace

is completely flat. It's not just flat in Newfoundland, it's flat everywhere.

People are bidding. These bids are very competitive. Most companies are walking

the margins and in fact taking some losses. The best and brightest hope for the

Shipyard at this time is through our joint venture partner, Vinland Industries,

for the contracts for Hibernia.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologise to the

minister because I was not present in the House when the legislation was

introduced obviously to set up the new department.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) newspapers or listen to radio

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: I heard the Minister of Development - or the

Minister of Trade. The Minister of Development or Trade, whatever he's called it

MR. MATTHEWS: Industry.

MR. TOBIN: Industry. State on radio some time ago that

the federal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Crosbie, had a moral responsibility to

his constituents to look after them in the compensation package. I ask the

minister: does he feel the same moral obligation as the - not just the

government, but as the owner of the Marystown Shipyard - to put in place a

compensation package for the 500 men and their families who are now on layoff

notice from the Marystown Shipyard?

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

Technology.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, we have a moral responsibility to

every single taxpayer in this Province. Hon. members will know that when we

attempted to sell the Shipyard and came very close a number of factors entered

the equation which we had no control over. We wrote down, I believe, some $14.5

million in last year's Budget to clear that debt off under the assumption that

$15.5 million would come for the sale. We're still carrying that debt. In fact,

the operating losses for last year and this year are still considerable.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are they?

MR. FUREY: They will be made known very soon. So we have

a moral responsibility to everybody in the Province, Mr. Speaker. The people of

Labrador are paying taxes so that we can keep that Shipyard open. The people in

St. John's, Gander and Port au Choix and all around the place. You can't compare

apples and oranges, which is what you're doing when you're comparing the

moratorium on the fishery, which affects the entire Province, every single part

of the Province. There are people everywhere that are being affected by that.

You can't compare apples and oranges and say that one little

place down in Marystown - because of the economic circumstances that we find

ourselves in, and the very competitive environment that shipbuilding and ship

repair finds itself in - that just because we're the owners and there's no work

out there to bid on and we can't win that work in a very competitive

environment, somehow we have a moral responsibility to pump all the Treasury

dollars down into Marystown to keep this alive and open.

No, Mr. Speaker, we're spending our money wisely, preparing

very good and solid bids under our joint venture with Vinland Industries to

capture a very large portion of the mechanical shaft outfitting which will put

600 people to work in the $40 million facility that we just built there.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is

addressed to the minister responsible for Mines and Energy., I'm sure he's quite

familiar with the Change and Challenge, a Strategic Economic Plan for

Newfoundland and Labrador. He knows that in that plan, I quote in part: that the

relatively high total tax burden on the mining industry is a major constraint to

mineral development.

Now let me ask the minister this. If he and his colleagues

knew this to be true, and it is, why did they increase the burden of taxes upon

the mining industry? Why did they for example place the infamous payroll tax of

$3 million on that particular industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: I have to apologize, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't

listening, and I was working here at my desk. So if he can repeat the question

I'd appreciate it.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Again I'll address my question to the

minister responsible for Mines and Energy. It's concerning the infamous Change

and Challenge, the Strategic Economic Plan, the plan that his government has put

forward for economic development in this Province and in part, a quote from that

plan, says in part that: the relatively high total tax burden on the mining

industry is a major constraint to mineral development. Now, if he recognized

that, it is recognized in the plan, it is there, it is true, why did they then

impose this new payroll tax, a $3 million tax burden on the mining industry if

they knew that to be true?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, it also says in the strategic

plan that we are reviewing the mining tax regime and looking at that and we are

doing a lot of other things that are going to be very positive for the mining

industry and we hope to make Newfoundland and Labrador a mining friendly place

to work.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, that is fine and well, but I

will also ask the minister this: if he agrees that this has constrained the

development of the industry, would that not also cause the industry to cut back,

have layoffs? Would he agree with that and would he respond to it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I am pleased to respond and in my opinion it has not affected

the industry, it has not caused industry to cut back because that tax is in

place.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I mean, he already recognized

it, he said it here in the plan on one side, the industry is saying it on the

other and now he says that it does not cost them any money. We know of course

that 90 per cent of the mineral production and the payroll of the mining

industry is in Western Labrador, 90 per cent of the mineral production in this

Province is in Labrador West, as a matter of fact. That $3 million could

possible represent as much as a 100 jobs! Now we have lost approximately 600

jobs in Western Labrador over the last year or so, approximately 600 jobs. Some

of those jobs, probably up to 100 could have been saved. They could have been

saved if this government had not imposed this $3 million tax burden on the

mining industry in Western Labrador, so will you now go back to your colleagues

in Cabinet and ask them to review this tax burden?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: As I said, Mr. Speaker, in my view, the

payroll tax is not to the detriment of mining in this Province and is not a big

factor in Labrador West in the layoffs that have occurred there.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Menihek, a

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, this minister talks about being

mining friendly. I mean that is not being very friendly when you talk about

laying off 100 people (inaudible) tax burden.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member to get to the question

please.

MR. A. SNOW: Now how much will he roll back these fees

and how much will he roll back the taxes? I will ask him that then.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the numbers, I

believe we cancelled about $400,000 in fees last Spring in the budget. I do not

have the exact figure with me, but about that amount province-wide, and that is

not significant.

The problems that we are having in Labrador West in the iron

sector, are problems relating to international iron and steel and the companies

in Labrador West in my view, are doing things they have to do to survive and

continue to compete in that world of iron and steel and I want them to continue

to survive until every ounce of iron ore has been mined in the Labrador trough.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East, time

for a short question and a correspondingly brief answer.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a short question

to the Minister of Social Services.

Will the minister introduce in this Fall sitting of the

Legislature, an amendment to the Child Welfare Act to close the gap in services

for young people between the ages of sixteen and eighteen? If the minister

recalls, we in the official opposition offered in the last sitting to co-operate

with the government in ensuring speedy passage of such an amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as stated by the Minister of

Justice in his statement to the House, that question, along with several others

and amendments and changes to the child welfare legislation are being considered

right now and if possible will be brought forward in this sitting, but we cannot

guarantee that. We are looking at it right now and if possible it will be

brought forward in this sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before moving on to our routine business, on behalf of hon.

members I would like to welcome to the galleries today a couple of groups of

students. The first group of students is a group of thirty-six Level III

students from Holy Trinity Regional High School, Heart's Content, accompanied by

their teachers, Mr. Legge and Mr. Peach, and the bus driver, Mr. St. George.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The second group of students if from the

District of St. John's South and we have twenty-two Grade VII students from St.

John Bosco School, Shea Heights, accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Elaine

Shortall and teacher aid, Ms. Mary Wilcox.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the 18th.

annual report of the Newfoundland Liquor Licensing Board.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Co-operative Societies Act."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Workers'

Compensation Act."

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday I was asked a question by the Member for St. John's

East concerning our emergency housing repair program. He mentioned a case in

Bellevue District where, in fact, he suggested work had not been completed. I am

happy to report to the House that that case, in fact, has been looked after, I

believe a couple of months ago. These two disabled individuals who required heat

and electricity added to their house, through the intervention and hard work of

the Member for Bellevue and my staff, we were able to carry out that work some

two months ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1. The Chair is momentarily without

the Orders of the Day. Is that Committee of Supply?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill No. 26.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think it is ten and ten, is it, ten minutes each in this

debate? It is not very long but, then again, I suppose we can go back and forth.

I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to make

a few comments. When we are talking about a supplementary supply bill or

anything like that I suppose we can talk about anything, as it is fairly

wide-ranging.

I have for some time, Mr. Speaker, especially the last

three-and-a-half years, and previous to that I might add, had some grave, grave

concerns about some of the resource industries in our Province. Just yesterday

the Premier, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition pertaining to the fishery

in this Province, was talking about joint management and getting jurisdiction

over our fishery. I agree wholeheartedly with it, we should have some

jurisdiction over it, we should have some say in what is going on out there. We

have been long enough in this Province, as far as I am concerned, listening to

someone else, whether it is the federal government, whether it is a fish company

or whatever it is. We have been long enough.

The question I always asked, Mr. Chairman, is this - and hon.

members opposite might be asking themselves the same question over the last

three-and-a-half years and previous - Why are we looking for jurisdiction or

some say over the fishery out there? We have say over pretty well all the other

resources in this Province. We have say over the forestry. We have all the say

over agriculture. We have all the say over our service industry. We have all the

say over pretty well every other - mining resource industry in this province

today, and what are we doing with it? We have control over what I have just

talked about, absolute control, and what are we doing with it?

Now, one of the things that comes to mind, and the Minister

of Forestry, if he could just - I don't know. He is not going to be here. I

don't know who the designate is for forestry here but I would like for him to

listen to what I am going to say.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Bud Hulan.

I am listening.

MR. WOODFORD: Maybe Bud Hulan is listening. I don't know.

But anyway, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Stephenville is not here either. I have

a few comments pertaining to Abitibi Price. Just recently, I have been informed

that Abitibi Price in Stephenville is bringing in pulp wood from PEI. That is

factual because I checked it out. I think the last load, the third load, is

coming in this week or has just come in.

Now this, Mr. Chairman, is a prime example of having control

over your resources in the Province. A company, I admit, in eight or nine years

time might have a shortfall of raw materials, but why are they bringing in from

PEI now when I have people in my district, when the hon. Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay has people in his district, the hon. Member for Springdale has people

in his district, and there are people throughout Central and Eastern

Newfoundland today who are laid off, with absolutely nothing to do. I questioned

them, saying, 'This is a reasonable question and I want an honest answer. First

of all tell me how much you are paying for the wood from PEI.' 'No, I can't tell

you.' I said: You don't have to tell me how much you are paying for the wood on

this Island and in my area. They are paying $85 a cord. Those jobbers - I call

them jobbers - are private entrepreneurs, small business people in this Province

who put up their money, mortgage their homes and their land, put their families

at risk, everything at risk, their total livelihood to go and buy equipment, put

people in the woods hiring twenty to eighty people and put them to work doing an

honest day's work and a hard day's work. And what do they get in return? Friday

at noon they got notice. In fact, I had five or six truckers in the yard who

were told to go home with their loads, and they would not accept that, They

stayed there until they unloaded the wood. And I don't blame them, but that is

not a fair way, Mr. Chairman for a large company in this Province to be

operated. It is not fair. We got two months, the month of November and the month

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I also questioned him about the Member for

the Straits and the Member for St. Barbe. I questioned him on that particular

area down there, because those people are sending a lot of wood to the mill in

Stephenville now. And he said, 'We are paying $85 for the wood in the Deer Lake

area but I can't tell you what we are paying' - I knew. But the trick, Mr.

Chairman is this: The question has to be ask and the answer is going to have to

be given because sooner or later,and sooner rather than later, we are going to

have to stand up and say to Abitibi or say to Kruger, 'Enough is enough.' Those

people have all the men paid. Wages are paid for cutting this particular wood. I

have one gentleman with 900 cords of wood in the woods, wages paid, all his

taxes paid, his UI, his CPP, all paid, and now he is left holding the bag with

900 cords of wood. That is not fair, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to mention to the minister today that he is going to

have to intercede along with the other Cabinet ministers, and make sure that

this never happens again. They knew before Friday how much wood they wanted.

They knew before Friday when they were going to cut off the wood supply into

Stephenville. They also knew how much was coming in from PEI. That wasn't an

overnight decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: 'Rick', how much are they paying for it

in PEI?

MR. WOODFORD: That is a debate for another time. They

won't tell you the exact price. But they are also getting - anything brought

into this Province, as you know, trucked or by boat, they also get the Atlantic

transportation subsidy automatically. That's 10 per cent automatically, not

counting, as far as I am concerned, subsidies from the PEI government to clear

this particular land and selling it into the Province.

I think, if we have to wait eight or nine years down the road

for a shortage of wood, then and only then should it brought in here. We are at

our worst time in this Province with regard to small businesspeople today. They

just can't survive. Mr. Chairman, by the time they pay UI, CPP and all this kind

of stuff, RST and stumpage and gasoline tax, the workers have nothing left. They

are only surviving as it is, if that.

Only for the generosity of some of their banks and their

operating loans - and I always said the banks in this Province and the banks in

Canada never did have a social conscience. As far as I'm concerned, they don't.

But what do they do? Monday and Tuesday of this week they moved in on a lot of

those small operators and said: 'Okay, we want our bucks. You have a $20,000

line of credit signed, you have a $60,000 line of credit signed, you haven't met

your commitments, and there's nothing else to come in until the new year.'

When I talked to Abitibi-Price, in this case, they said:

'Yes, sure, we are going to take 50,000 to 60,000 cubic metres of wood in the

new year, in January, February and March,' but what's the good of that today?

What is the good of that today, for the next two months? What do they do with

Christmas coming up, the worst time of the year for their families, to put food

on the table for the contractors themselves, and for the individuals in

Newfoundland and Labrador who are working for them?

I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the social service rolls

are going to be swelled over the next couple of months. Because a lot of those

people had no notice, absolutely nothing, just an overnight decision to shove

them out the door with absolutely nothing. This is factual, this is not

something hypothetical that is going to happen. This is something that has

happened, and someone, especially the minister responsible for Forestry and

Agriculture, is definitely going to have to do something to try to rectify this

particular situation.

Now, I would like to comment on another company in this

Province and that's Kruger - Corner Brook Pulp and Paper. For some time, Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper - and like all members opposite, and members on this side

of the House, they all know what I'm going to talk about. You will all know

about what I am going talk about. I guess the companies will probably know

tonight, if the press take their time to report.

As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: By leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to get up

today and speak but after my good friend for Humber Valley made his opening

remarks I thought that I should get up. Because I was sort of shocked at what he

said. I understand his concern about the pulp and paper industry, the forest

industry, the agriculture industry, and other industries in his area; he has a

legitimate right to be concerned, because there are some major problems there,

no question about that. I have no argument with all the points he made about

that.

But to say that Newfoundland has total control over those

industries, and because the job is not being done to his satisfaction, or that

he should see it done to his satisfaction, that we should not have control over

the fishery, is an unbelievable -

MR. MATTHEWS: He didn't say that!

MR. EFFORD: He did. He said: 'Why should we be seeking

jurisdiction over the fisheries when we are doing such a poor job with the

resource industry?'

Mr. Chairman, there are ten thousand reasons why we should

have control over the fishery in this Province. There are ten thousand reasons

why we should have joint management over the fisheries in this Province. We

could have at least 40,000 to 50,000 people employed on a seasonal basis in this

Province. If we had the control over the industry and the decisions were not

being made in Ottawa,where they are being made in such a ridiculous fashion now,

we would be a lot better off in this Province, not only in the past two or three

decades, but in the future; and that is what we are talking about - the future

of this Province.

The moratorium facing this Province now affects - everybody

is saying, about 20,000 people. That is so far from the truth it is

unbelievable!

AN HON. MEMBER: Direct (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Direct, 20,000 people, but when you multiply

the service industry factor you are talking closer to 50,000 to 55,000 and you

can probably go on and on from that right across the Province.

The problem is that it is not getting better.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is getting worse.

MR. EFFORD: It is getting worse. My real concern about it

is that these people are still making the decisions to affect the future of this

Province and eighteen months down the road, or less, that figure is not going to

decrease, it is going to increase. It is going to go further. It will be not

only the moratorium on the Northern cod, but right around the Province in every

sector of the Province, and it is not only going to be cod, it is going to be

all species of fish.

I am saying to everybody in this House of Assembly that we

should not be talking about 'Should we get joint management?' Every person in

this House should be in Ottawa demanding, knocking on the doors and taking what

is rightfully ours, and demanding that we have that put in our laps right now

today, not tomorrow and not next week, because we don't have any time to fool

around. We don't have time to play partisan politics about the future of this

Province. It is now or never. If the fishery goes in this Province, you don't

have to worry about anything else happening in this Province, because nothing

else will survive. This Province cannot survive without the fishery.

I have often said, if you took the forestry and the lumber

industry out of British Columbia, you would have nothing left. Well, if you take

the fishing industry out of this Province, then you have absolutely no future in

this Province. Not enough people are accepting that reality. A lot of people are

playing lip service to it, but very few people are acting as if that is a real

factor; but it is real. We are going to find out how real it is eighteen months

down the road when the moratorium is left there, because how long can any

government - whether it be the federal government in Ottawa or any government in

this country - keep up a compensation package such as is being paid out to

20,000 people today? It is impossible for it to go on. Nobody in his wildest

imagination could expect it to go on any longer than eighteen months down the

road.

My question is: What then? What happens eighteen months down

the road, to the 35,000 or 40,000 people who are now unemployed, that will

increase up to 55,000 or 60,000 people and more, and more, and more?

MR. MATTHEWS: Walter will take care of us.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, we are all being taken care of right

now; but I can tell you one thing, Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of problems in

this Province, and they are all related to the backbone of this Province, which

is the main industry.

My fear is that we are not going to get joint management, or

we are not going to get it quick enough; and if we have to go into the future

with the people in Ottawa making the same decisions, regardless of what

political stripe they are - and like the Opposition have pointed out many times,

and I will admit it and I will agree with it - I have agreed with it publicly

many times - the Administration before the present Administration in Ottawa made

just as many ridiculous, stupid decisions affecting the Newfoundland fishing

industry as has been made today. If not, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in

today. But as I said, it is time not to be partisan in our politics in this

Province. It is time for all of us to sit down and look at the future.

What happened in the past you are not going to change. The

cod is gone, the herring is gone, the mackerel is gone, the caplin is gone; and

we need to come to a concise agreement, all of us, that we do something about

what is taking place out there now.

I love the word moratorium. How we fool ourselves and accept

the silliness of a word! Moratorium means everything stops.

AN HON. MEMBER: A wake.

MR. EFFORD: A wake.

I have often used the analogy, if you had a box of matches in

the center of the kitchen table, and you had four children there and you are

concerned that they are going to burn down the house, so you left the key in

your house and you took one child with you but left the other three children and

the box of matches, the probability of burning down that house is just as real -

the fisheries critic shakes his head.

Out there on the Grand Banks, the foreign fishing fleets are

still going ahead. There are eight to ten million seals still eating fish, Nova

Scotians are still fishing the Grand Banks, the foreigners are still fishing

inside the 200-mile limit, FPI trawls are still out there dragging other species

of fish, so where is the moratorium? The only people who are not allowed to fish

are the Newfoundland fishermen, the small Newfoundland fishermen. All those

factors still apply, and you are telling me that the fishery is going to be

restored eighteen months down the road? The only way it will be is if the Man

above comes down and does as he did with the loaves and fishes, multiplies it

with a miracle. It will never come back any other way.

And that is my concern, Mr. Chairman, we are still not

addressing the real issue. The moratorium, so-called, is not going to be

effective enough in the short term, even if it is on for ten years, and we still

get these silly statements coming out from scientists and researchers: seals

don't eat fish. Another press release came out a couple of weeks ago: two

scientists and nine years of looking into the study of seals, some 3,000 seals -

found no content of fish. My God Almighty, what did they find? It is as I said

in an interview with one of the press people here in St. John's, now I know how

Colonel Sanders made his multimillions, selling Kentucky Fried Chicken to the

cod. That is how silly it is!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, it is alright to bark back and

forth across the House of Assembly, but over the next eighteen months, what

Newfoundland is going to be faced with in the future is, if we do not demand -

and I think the fisheries critic said it last year, and others, I think the

Member for St. John's South said it, that every member of this House of Assembly

should be on the doorstep of the House of Commons.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. EFFORD: And I agree with that more today than ever I

agreed with anything before in this Legislature. Every single member of this

House should be up in Ottawa demanding, not next week, not next month, not next

year, now we want jurisdiction, not joint management. We want it today because

we don't have any time to waste. We do not have any time to waste, and I am

telling you, Mr. Chairman -

MR. MATTHEWS: What would it do?

MR. EFFORD: What would it do? What will sitting on our

laurels in the House of Assembly do? At least we will have tried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are we trying in the forest industry?

MR. EFFORD: Can you believe that individual? Can you

believe that man? The forest industry is owned by private companies. Is Abitibi

a private company or is it a Crown corporation?

MR. HEWLETT: Regulated by the provincial government.

MR. EFFORD: That has nothing to do - everybody is

regulated by the law and the governing body of the land. My God, make no wonder

we are in the mess we are in - they governed the Province for seventeen years,

making statements like that. Dear God Almighty! This is the reason we are into

the stupidity, the demise mess that we are into, seventeen years of attitudes

like that. What will we do if we go to Ottawa?

MR. WARREN: Why are you sitting in the back benches?

MR. EFFORD: I take full responsibility for sitting in the

back benches but, at least, I never lay down and died when I sat up here. I

never lay down and perished. That is one thing I have never done. At least I had

the courage to stand up and fight for what I believe, in this Province, and I

will not go through with the abysmal mess. You people don't have the ability to

ask questions in Question Period. You are not concerned about the Province, you

don't even know what is going on in the Province. Any member representing a

fishing district and in the fishing industry all of his life, to say what he

just said - make no wonder we are in the mess we are into, Mr. Chairman. It is

absolutely ridiculous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to get into

debate with the member on what I said from the outset. I will say that I did not

say it is not important to get - well, I might have said jurisdiction, but to

get the joint management of the fishery, I did not say the like, and you can

check Hansard for that. I said I was in full agreement with it. But I will make

a comment, Mr. Chairman, on a comment from the Member for St. John's East Extern

-no comparison, because they are big private companies regulated by the

province. No comparison. What is the difference, I ask the member, if Ottawa has

management jurisdiction over the fishery and a company like Abitibi-Price or

Kruger has management jurisdiction over the forestry? Absolutely no difference.

Absolutely none. I will tell the hon. member and members opposite why. I will

tell them why.

If people in rural Newfoundland today want to cut a stick of

wood - unless the minister responsible for forestry can give them a permit and

that is very unlikely because that is very strict, that is gone - who do they

have to go to? They have to go to Kruger or Abitibi-Price. They don't go to the

government, they go to those two large companies, and if they don't they cannot

get the permit.

When they want to build a home and they want to saw 10,000

feet of lumber, where do they go? They go to Abitibi-Price or Kruger. When you

want to build a cabin, where do you go? Kruger. Abitibi-Price. If they say no.

Build it illegally. That is what people have to do in this Province. And you

talk about jurisdiction and talk about joint management. We don't even own the

land we are living on. We don't even own the land we are living on except for

the Crown acreage in this province, and that to me is a disaster.

AN HON. MEMBER: How old is that?

MR. WOODFORD: That goes well back. I am not pointing any

fingers, but what I am saying today is we have to have a different attitude and

we have to take control. I say it here - we have to take control over that

particular industry. We are used to blackmail. We are used to that. Everybody

who ever came to this province yet I am sure said to the Premier - no matter

what Premier, going right back to Mr. Smallwood: give us that and we will do

this. We have always heard it right back to 1949, and I would say we will still

hear it today with the present Premier. Right back we have never had control.

You can't even put a boat out in Deer Lake. You can't get a permit to take a

boat and put a marina in Deer Lake. It is something as far as I am concerned,

Mr. Chairman, that is ridiculous. We talked about getting control. It is

hypocritical.

I went up the other day and a fellow wanted to put a marina

on the other side of Deer Lake to haul his boat in. He can't do it. He can't get

a permit. I had a young fellow the other day from Spillway. He is living on a

piece of land and has his house on it, and lucky enough the poor young fellow

went and paid for it and paid off the loan. I went and called Kruger, Corner

Brook Pulp and Paper, and I am going to tell you, you should have heard them. I

have been getting it for a few years, but I said enough is enough. When I got

the answers I went aboard of him in no uncertain terms. I told him now in no

uncertain terms what I thought of what he was going to say, and before I was

finished, I don't know - if I had asked him to be my campaign manager he

probably would have come. Nice enough, but it is not solving the problem. He

said: Does he have any money? The first question was: does he have any money? I

said: What for? He said: For lawyers. It is going to cost him a survey, it is

going to cost him location certificates, it is going to cost him a mortgage, he

has to pay us the fair market value.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: This young fellow is not even working now.

He wants to try to get a loan on his house, a mortgage, but he can't get it. I

mean they control everything. If today you want to cut a truckload of wood for

your furnace for domestic use you have to go to them and beg them for a permit,

and I mean beg. Don't go in last. Go in and stay in the waiting room for two

hours, and then if they let you in, good enough, if they let you in. It depends

on your name and who you are as to whether you get in to try to get a permit to

cut a bit of birch - any ordinary Newfoundlander in rural Newfoundland today.

Now that to me is ludicrous.

I stand on record today both here in the House and anywhere

else to say that as far as I am concerned that should be changed. The regulatory

process with regards to Kruger or Corner Brook Pulp and Paper and Abitibi-Price

should be changed. Whether it is by this administration or another one, we have

to have control over that particular resource. We must have it, and we should

start this very day to do it because Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today

around this province as far as I am concerned are being crucified, Mr. Chairman,

and I mean crucified.

We don't hear it all the time. You have to get out there and

get down among them and then you will hear it. They are hurting like they never

hurt before. They used to be able to take their power saws and run in and cut a

cord of wood and come out and get their fifty dollars, a day's pay for the

family. You can't do that anymore. They have you right where they want you.

Mr. Chairman, something else I have to mention - and this is

something that the Minister for Works, Services and Transportation has control

over, and some members opposite will know what I am talking about and some will

not - is the trucking industry pertaining to pulp wood. What does a trucker out

there, an independent operator who is trucking the wood to the mill in Corner

Brook or Stephenville, do? He leaves the woodlot in Chain Lakes or in Cat Arm or

somewhere and goes on out the Trans Canada. What do they do then? The weigh

scales nail them. Granted some fellows are trying to get away with it, but this

minister and previous ministers have been asked and given an option, and the

option is this: Give them a measured load. Give them the option of a measured

load. If wood was cut three, four or six months ago, it is drier than something

that was cut last week. So once the trucker puts it on his truck twenty miles

inland, he has no mechanism to weight it, he has absolutely none. When he gets

out on the Trans Canada - he is only making $150 or $200 anyway on the load -

what happens, Mr. Chairman? He is ticketed $400 or $500 and that is it, he is

finished for the week.

The two members opposite for the Northern Peninsula know

exactly what I am talking about because they have been confronted with it I am

sure, and a few other members. They are independent operators and they are

hurting. It just takes away the bit of dignity that those truckers have. They

want to work for a living, and what do they do?... line them up under the

overpass in Corner Brook and say: I tell you, now, you either go to the weigh

scales, the other side of Corner Brook, fifteen kilometers out, and get weighed

or else you forfeit four points. Now, that is something for a man who gets up

four or five o'clock in the morning and is trucking three or four loads a day,

sixteen or seventeen hours every day. That is ludicrous! That has to stop!

Ministers opposite - it is only the ministers, through the

Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation, who can change

that. They are not asking for anything anybody else hasn't got. They are asking

for a measured load so that you put a mark on the machine and if they go over

it, ticket them. Proper thing! But if they are on the mark, let their load go

through, because it could be the difference between a green and a dry load of

wood. The driver has no way of knowing that particular problem.

Now, that is a sensible thing. Does anyone have any problems

with that? It makes sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is done (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, it is not done. Just last week I had

six or seven truckers nailed. I mean, it is shocking. One had a $700 fine. I

mean, that is not right. That is absolutely wrong, Mr. Chairman, and it is

incumbent upon the Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation

to do something about it. That particular question should be addressed through

other members and other ministers that are here today.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is done now.

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is done.

MR. WOODFORD: No, it is not done. They were hit last week

and hit hard, and I am glad I brought it up. Because if that is the case, if it

is done -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) it is done by weight.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, the load, the mark. If, for instance,

they have a six-foot back on their truck or something like that, a measured load

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, I am going to have to try to get some

answers on that, because, if that is the case, those gentlemen on the weigh

scales are really ripping off the truck drivers.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is my understanding that they change

the volume (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, to change the height of the load.

Well, I better check that one out.

Mr. Chairman, this is something that we have control over,

and I go back to what the member said again. I agree -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: His maiden speech (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues, but I

would say to my friend from the Strait of Belle Isle who feels this is my maiden

speech, that when I made my maiden speech in this House he was considerably more

innocent than he is today.

MR. DECKER: And much, much younger.

MR. ROBERTS: Much younger. I do want to say a few words,

Mr. Chairman, about a question raised yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition.

I regret he's not here. I sent him a note, because I believe that if one is

going to refer to another member - this is sort of an ancient courtesy that I

was taught when I was first in the House, 174 years ago, as I recall it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I was also taught, Mr. Chairman, the

courtesy of allowing a member to speak without interruption, and the wisdom

given to me by an old fisherman in Northeast Crouse, in White Bay North, now

Strait of Belle Isle district, who once said - and I would say this to my

friends for Grand Bank and Burin - Placentia West - that a politician, this old

gentleman said to me, is like a fish. I said: how do you mean? I had no idea

what he meant. He said: you only get in trouble when your mouth is open. I would

say that to my hon. friend opposite. He should remember the old adage: better to

have people think you're ignorant than open your mouth and have them know it.

Now what I was saying is that I sent the Leader of the

Opposition a note to say that I'd be having a few words on one of the questions

that he raised yesterday, and that he may or may not want to stay. He wrote back

a very kind note and said he assured me he had important discussions arranged -

probably in the mirror - and he said: as much as I'd like to hear some of the

old 'sixties stuff I'll leave it to my colleagues to respond if they feel it

necessary.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is very concerned about

the fact that I first came in to this house back in 1966, at which stage he was

hoping to tag a job with John Lundrigan. He finally got the job with Mr.

Lundrigan and in due course went on from there. But in 1966 the hon. gentleman

from Grand Falls was a Liberal. He was a Liberal. He was tagging on to the

Liberal Party, and when that tag got him nowhere he tagged on to John Lundrigan,

who was briefly the Member of Parliament for Gander - Twillingate in the House

of Commons, and then latterly became the Member for Grand Falls for one term.

But what I say to my hon. friend - a number of them opposite

as well - that I was in this House in the 'sixties and proud to be here; I was

in the House in the 'seventies; I was in the House in the 'eighties; and I'm in

the House in the 'nineties. I was here before any of them was here, and I expect

to be here long after they're all gone.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me do something that my hon. friends

opposite may find strange, because they don't do it. That is, come to the

substance of something to say. I exempt my friend for Humber Valley, who I think

made some very good points. Another time I'd like to discuss some of his points

with him. But the trio here, the terrible trio, I'll find a name for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: At large gang.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. members who believe that if they

make fools of themselves they'll somehow ennoble their political cause.

Yesterday in the House the Leader of the opposition

inadvertently - and I have no doubt it was inadvertent - misled this House on a

very important point. He got up and he asked the Premier a question. The Leader

of the Opposition obviously feels that this is his only way to make a mark so

off he went, by asking a question. He first asked, Your Honour may recall, about

a remark made by Deborah Coyne in her book about her time with the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: "The Roll of the Dice."

MR. ROBERTS: It's called "The Roll of the Dice," my hon.

friend reminds me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I have no idea. Does the hon. gentleman

know? I know he gets in some pretty low places, but was he there? Was he under

the bed?

Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition went on to say to

the Premier, and I'm quoting from page 1966 of yesterday's Hansard:

"I want to first of all point out, of course, that when the

Premier went to Charlottetown to negotiate the new constitutional deal he had at

his fingertips, no doubt, the interim report of our own Provincial

Constitutional Committee, which was chaired, I guess, by his chief lieutenant

there, the Government House Leader."

When he said "chief lieutenant," eight of my colleagues stood

up, of course.

"In that interim report the Provincial Constitutional

Committee recommended that a fisheries agreement should be sought and indeed

constitutionalized. That is their recommendation, and I have the excerpt from

the interim report here as well which indicates that is the case.

I want to ask the Premier then: Why did he not take the

advice of his own constitutional committee and push to have fisheries included

on the agenda during those negotiations?"

Well the Premier disposed of the Leader of the Opposition in

one well taken sentence by pointing out that the negotiations at Charlottetown

had nothing to do with the issue the hon. gentleman raised, and that was not our

decision. But what the Leader of the Opposition does not know - and I say does

not know because if he knew and did not say it, he misled the House deliberately

and I would not say he would do that. He misled the House inadvertently. He just

does not know what he is talking about - that the deal struck at Charlottetown

specifically allowed the implementation of precisely the kind of joint

management plan that this administration has sought and, were it not for John

Crosbie, would have gained by now, specifically.

Now let me just go through this in a little detail. I realize

I only have ten minutes under the rules in Committee. When I finish my ten

minutes the other side will have at it. We will hear from them. Then, if my

colleagues will permit, I will pick up the train and we will carry on. So we

will have it sort of like a layer of cake. Layer by layer of the good stuff will

be coming out.

Mr. Chairman, first let us make sure that we know what we are

talking about. I do not have a lot of copies of this, but I do not need them

because the hon. gentlemen opposite have referred to this, but perhaps the Pages

would be kind enough to take these up to the press gallery as we come along with

them.

First, let us look at the Interim Report of the

Constitutional Committee which I had the pleasure and the honour to Chair. We

look at Page 23 on resource issues, point five, and it says: the committee

agrees that Newfoundland and Labrador needs greater flexibility to plan and

co-ordinate the development of the fisheries and other offshore resources in

order to achieve the social and economic goals of the Province. Hon. gentlemen

opposite surely would subscribe to that.

province, management agreements appropriate to the circumstances of that

province. Such agreements should be given constitutional force.

Now the Leader of the Opposition did not tell us that, did

he? The Leader of the Opposition inadvertently misled the House. The Leader of

the Opposition - and I am being kind to him - I am not being charitable, because

he did not intentionally mislead the House. I said inadvertently.

For my hon. friend from Kilbride, I apologize. The word has

three or four syllables and I realize he has trouble coping with it, but it is

inadvertent; in-ad-ver-tent. It means not deliberate. It means not advertent.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend from Kilbride, in

words that John Diefenbaker used against Richard Cashin in the House of Assembly

when even my hon. friend was not around: When I am after elephants, do not be

diverting me with rabbits.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me come back. The Leader of the

Opposition did not say that the committee had recommended the Government of

Canada express its readiness to negotiate with any coastal province. Why did the

Leader of the Opposition not say that? I do not know. I know what he did say.

What he did say was that the provincial constitutional committee recommended the

fisheries agreement should be sought, and indeed he just got it bass-ackwards -

not unusual for my friend from Grand Falls, perhaps - but he got it completely

wrong.

Now I do not know why he said that, but I think it should be

on the record of the House that what the committee said was exactly and

diametrically different from that which was said by the Leader of the

Opposition.

He could have known. The report was signed by his colleagues

- not the gentleman from Kilbride - because we have the more sensible members

opposite sitting on it; but the hon. member, the lady from Humber East, and the

hon. Member for Menihek, and there was another - who was he?

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's East.

MR. ROBERTS: No, the Member for St. John's East is not a

Tory. He has his failings but he is not that bad.

Anyway, there were three of them. I have forgotten the third;

however, it does not matter. They signed the report, so they knew. We could only

assume the Leader of the Opposition did not know. Now that is point one - he did

not even know what he was talking about.

Now let us go on just so that the record is complete, to the

final report of the committee, a real best-seller, 110 copies - that was the

last report - the sort of thing that people around this province are up nights

over. Still, Mr. Chairman, a very valuable report put together by a group of

fourteen or fifteen Newfoundlanders and Labradorians after very wide

consultation, again representing the unanimous view of all the members with the

exception of some dissents registered by individual members on specific points.

My friend from Humber East dissented on one or two points, my friend from St.

John's East dissented on a number of points, and Dr. Doug May from the

university dissented on one or two points.

The interim report I have given you: The conclusion of the

interim report -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. ROBERTS: All right, next round.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognized the hon. Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is, I suppose, an honour and a privilege to follow the

hon. Member for Naskaupi, a seasoned veteran of this House but a relative

newcomer to the benches of the Wells Administration, latecomer, I should say, in

that I think the current slogan of the times should now read something to this

effect, `Vote P.C. for a real change.' It is about time something of that nature

happened, Mr. Chairman.

Today's Globe and Mail had a front page headline dealing with

politics in this nation, and it indicated that politicians in governing parties

in the country were gearing up for a mood on the part of the voters for real

change. The Wells Administration having shot the bolt on that particular slogan

some three years ago, Mr. Chairman, is probably ready to move out and let a

party that puts the people first have a chance at governing this Province. The

Americans have similarly gone through such a change recently. The

neoconservative agenda of Mr. Bush, very much like the agenda of our current

Premier, Mr. Wells, was rejected by the American people. The Canadian people

and, I think, the people of this Province are also in the mood for change. They

want their government no longer to stand back and be disinterested in their

economic affairs, as the Wells Administration has been. They no longer want a

government to let market forces and mother nature rule the day. I think they

want a government that has a tendency to take the bull by the horns and wrestle

some of these economic problems to the ground.

The Liberal Administration of Mr. Wells really only had two

hallmarks. Mr. Chairman, those have been the amalgamation process, that has

thrown municipal government back into the dark ages, and the Meech Lake and

other constitutional matters that have totally preoccupied the Premier, in which

case he spent some time playing lawyer and very little time playing Premier.

Being Premier of this Province is a very real, difficult and practical job, Mr.

Chairman, and our Premier has spent more time chasing after the niceties of

legal nuances in constitutional phrases, etc., and meanwhile, our people and our

economy have suffered greatly.

This government, under Mr. Wells, was elected on a change

mandate but a change mandate with regard to the economy, to create jobs and to

bring home every mother's son. As my colleague from Humber Valley pointed out in

speaking earlier, this particular government, even though it has jurisdiction

over a number of areas, like mining and forestry, really hasn't dipped its hand

into these areas of jurisdiction at all. It has basically let the large

companies and market forces, local, national and international, carry the day.

As a result, many of our people are far worse off now than they have been,

probably since well back in the 1970s certainly.

In my own District of Green Bay, Mr. Chairman, the fishing

industry is not a large industry compared to the forest industry. We used to

have a mining industry, at least a mineral exploration industry, but over the

last few years both forestry and the mineral industry have fallen on hard times

under the auspices of the Wells Administration. In particular, with the

withdrawal of the federal incentive program in the mining exploration industry

that industry in my district has all but died, and the Wells Administration have

really done very little, if anything, in that particular industry. Lately, I see

the Minister of Mines and Energy is talking about the creation of a chamber of

mining in the Province which is, indeed, I suppose, a positive move. But much

more practical things should have been done much earlier in bringing in some

sort of incentive program to encourage mineral exploration and the development

of mines in this province.

Forestry has been totally left alone by this government. We

are running out of trees. The reforestation programs are minimal at best. The

two large companies basically rule the roost in most of the forestry areas of

this province. On the highways of our province there is a set of rules that has

basically driven the truckers into bankruptcy. And replying to some comments

made by my friend for Humber Valley a little while ago, certain government

ministers indicated that the government had brought in some changes to measure

wood on wood trucks on a volume basis, but that is certainly news to me. If that

is true it is good news, but it is very late, much too late indeed for a lot of

wood truckers in the Green Bay and central and western areas who have been

literally ticketed off the road into bankruptcy because wood is measured by

weight and not by volume. I do hope the changes that they mentioned are

forthcoming, but unfortunately as I said for a lot of people it is far too late.

Mr. Speaker, in these very difficult times one expects in a

poor province like this that the government would take a direct hand in job

creation as well. This government has made certain moves in that regard very

reluctantly and only after the pain has become almost unbearable. It has been

very partisan in the way it has passed out job creation funds. My district, as

is the case with regard to roads, water and sewer has been shamefully treated,

and I found as a provincial member I have had tremendous difficulty in finding

out even the most fragile or sparse information with regard to what job creation

programs are on the go. I read more about them in the paper than I can find out

from government offices.

So this particular government, elected on a mandate for

economic change, has basically let the world run things over the last little

while. They really haven't taken an active hand in the economy of the province.

They have restructured government's lending agency, created a paper tiger called

the Recovery Commission that seems to have disappeared from our political

consciousness these days. But apart from that they have done absolutely very

little in managing our economy or trying to boost our economy in any real or

significant way. Newfoundlanders are used to having their government intervene

in the economy to try and boost things along, to try and get things going, but

this particular government really has laid back and done very little over the

last three years. We may now, Mr. Chairman, hear some rumblings, with an

election, I suppose, growing closer, that the government is going to take a

greater hand in the economy, but I would say that in judging this administration

such efforts come reluctantly and they come far too late.

People want progressive governments in this nation and, I

think, on this continent today, Mr. Chairman. We have had the Reagan/Bush era

and the way it has dominated economic thinking on this continent. That has

fallen into disrepute as times have gotten difficult, and I think it is time for

a more interventionist role in managing our economy. Whether or not the

problem and their jurisdiction, and I certainly hope that they would. But down

here I am a member of this Legislature and I can only encourage this particular

government to start acting in that direction, but I have my doubts, Mr.

Chairman.

The Premier is not the sort, by virtue of his own philosophy,

to involve himself in economic matters. He has a tendency to let the large

companies and market forces rule the day in what little private sector economy

we have. That isn't what he got elected to do. That isn't what he promised to do

prior to election, but nonetheless that is what he has done since election. All

we have heard from the Premier basically are words, Mr. Chairman. A lot of

words, a lot of fancy words, a lot of smooth talking, but very little concrete

action in the creation of jobs and the bringing home of mother's sons.

I have my doubts, Mr. Chairman, if the mother is still

kissing the Premier's shoes as he indicated during the last election campaign

because he was going to bring her son home. Her son, if anything, has been

joined by his brothers, nephews, cousins, aunts and uncles in a desperate romp

across Canada looking for whatever work might be found up there. Heaven help us,

Mr. Chairman, that's very little.

So as I indicated earlier, perhaps it's time now for this

Party, who put people first, to borrow the slogan of the Liberal Party from the

last election. Maybe, if our people are to find any hope from government, hope

of a government that cares, they should in the next election vote Progressive

Conservative in Newfoundland and Labrador for a real change, Mr. Chairman, thank

you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Once again impelled into the fray. I was

making a reference to the interim report and I referred then to the final report

of the Constitutional Committee which made a recommendation somewhat different

than that in the interim report. But nonetheless, still somewhat different from

where the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman from Kilbride is having

some physical difficulty, I gather. He's erupting, Mr. Chairman. Now if he would

be good enough to possess his soul in patience, as his grandmother I hope would

tell him, I'll try to get on with it, Sir. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the final report of the Committee made a

recommendation which was still different from that put forward by the gentleman

from Grand Falls, the present temporary Leader of the Opposition. Now let me go

on to look at what was done in Charlottetown. Hon. gentlemen opposite supported

the Accord, as did my colleagues and I. They, like us, went around the Province

and asked the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to vote in favour of it, as

they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, now if the yaps have yipped,

and the yips have yapped, let me carry on. They supported it - one would assume

they knew what was in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, obviously my hon. friend didn't know

what was in it. But we're quite used to that. My hon. friend has made a career

in this House of speaking when he doesn't know what he's talking about. He

demonstrates it day after day. But now let me look at what was in it.

I am reading now from the Charlottetown Accord. It's page 9,

it's paragraph 26, and it says: Protection of Intergovernmental Agreements. The

Constitution should be amended to provide a mechanism to ensure that designated

agreements between governments are protected from unilateral change. This would

occur when Parliament and the Legislatures enact laws approving the agreement.

If my hon. friends opposite were learned, and they aren't,

with the exception of my friend for Humber East - my friend for St. John's East

is very learned - they would also be able to look at

Section 126A of the legal

text which makes the point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Member for Port de Grave.

MR. ROBERTS: The Member for Port de Grave has proven the

wisdom of the Court of Appeal in allowing people not members of the Bar to

appear at the Bar and plead in behalf of those who wish to engage persons not

members of the Bar to plead in their behalf at the Bar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my hon. friends opposite. Now, Mr.

Chairman, the point I'm making is a very simple one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: I realize my friend for Torngat Mountains

hasn't grasped it. It's not simple enough for him. But I can only try. You can

lead a horse to water, I say to my friend for Torngat Mountains, but you can't

make it drink. In the case of my friend for Torngat Mountains, you could lead

half a horse to water, but you still can't make it drink. Even though it may not

be the end which does the drinking.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me carry on, if I may. The

Charlottetown Accord specifically allowed precisely the sort of arrangement that

the Constitutional Committee recommended. My friend for Grand Falls doesn't know

that. If he knew it he would have misled the House deliberately. He didn't

mislead the House deliberately, he's just stunned. He doesn't know what he's

talking about. Now that's -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: I didn't say I'm learned. But before I speak

I try to find out whether -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I don't care whether the hon. gentleman is

listening or not. I don't expect the hon. gentleman to listen. I don't even

expect him to understand.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, all I'm trying to do in my

humble way is to explain to the hon. gentlemen opposite, and to the hon.

gentlemen on this side, and to the hon. lady opposite, and to the hon. lady on

this side, and anybody who cares to know, that the Leader of the Opposition

yesterday, got up and launched a vicious attack on the Premier, a spirited

attack on the Premier, at least it was like striking the Premier with limp

macaroni but for the Leader of the Opposition that is a spirited attack. He did

his best and he did know what he was talking about. The very kind of fisheries

joint management agreement that we believe this Province needs could have been

achieved under the Charlottetown Agreement, so when my hon. friends opposite, as

they no doubt will again, launched themselves into this attack that somehow on

the constitutional process the fisheries were neglected. I do not expect them to

pay attention to the facts, but I will say to them that I will do my humble best

- unlike my friend from Kilbride, whose humble best is neither best nor humble -

I will do my humble best to point out the facts to them.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do want to place one other fact on the

record. This was not the Leader of the Opposition who got it wrong, it was one

of his hon. colleagues over there. I want to point out, Sir, that their charge

that the Premier somehow was off talking about the Senate when he should have

been here dealing with the fisheries was completely baseless. I simply want to

place it on the record. The Premier was in Toronto at a meeting of all of the

premiers of Canada, including if memory serves me Robert Bourassa, but I am

subject to correction on that, but certainly the other eight premiers, called at

the request of the Prime Minister, chaired by Joe Clark, a man who deserves well

of Canada in my impression.

Joe Clark served Canada well in the constitutional process, a

man who deserves well of Canada. Joe was there, Mike Harcourt the Premier of

British Columbia chaired the meeting, that was where the Premier was the day the

balloon broke, the day the second shoe dropped on the fisheries, the Premier

left at the first available flight at midday and came home and carried on with

the work. Some hon gentleman opposite, and I do not know who it was, I did not

make a note and Hansard did not record it, but I want to be sure we do not leave

any misunderstanding, the Premier was not in Calgary dealing with the Senate at

that time, he has never been in Calgary dealing with the Senate, the only trip

he has made to Calgary recently has been in connection with Hibernia and that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: - I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I have no idea where Miss Coyne is or is

not. That is her concern. I do not know what the hon. gentleman is trying to

attack the woman for -

MR. TOBIN: I did not attack the woman.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, what does her name have to do with it?

The Premier was in Calgary -

MR. TOBIN: I did not attack the woman.

MR. ROBERTS: - what is the hon. gentleman bringing the

lady's name into the debate for? I am talking about Calgary, what have I said -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I do not care what the hon. gentleman's name

is, in this House I regard him as an hon. gentleman, but why is the hon.

gentleman bringing the lady's name into the debate? I have not said anything to

raise that. All I am talking about is the Premier was in Calgary and if the hon.

gentlemen opposite want to know why he was there, he was there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I do not know whether Miss Coyne was or was

not. The only time the Premier has been in Calgary recently - I do not know

whether Miss Coyne was there or not, the Premier was in Calgary and I believe my

friend, the Minister of Mines and Energy was also there, some officials were

there, they were meeting with the Hibernia group for good and sufficient reason.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the only other point I want to make is -

my, how time goes when one is having fun. You know, I had forgotten, the six or

seven years I stayed out of the House I had forgotten how much fun it was to

deal with hon. gentlemen opposite. Now, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman for

Humber Valley, who has temporarily left the Chamber, made a point that I think

also deserves an answer. He said: Why are we looking for jurisdiction?... and I

noted his precise words: why are we looking for jurisdiction? Well I would like

to know the answer to that and all I can say is, he should ask his colleagues

because nobody on this side of the House has ever looked for jurisdiction in the

fisheries. What we are looking for is a joint management agreement and we will

get it if only John Carnell Crosbie, Member of Parliament, Privy Counsellor,

Queen's Counsellor - if only John C. Crosbie, the hon. John Crosbie, Member for

St. John's West, former colleague of mine, another of those '60s people, he came

into the House in the '60s - '66, a vintage year for liberalism in Newfoundland

and Labrador, one of many - but if only the hon. John Crosbie would stop his

stubborn desire to impose his own will. Now what we do have, as the Premier said

yesterday, is the Prime Minister's assurance that the right thing will be done.

I know that means that the Prime Minister will honour his word. He will either

make John Crosbie change his mind, or he will change John Crosbie. I would

rather he made John Crosbie change his mind, but not even the Prime Minister of

the country may be able to do that, because you don't know what stubborn is

until you have seen John Carnell Crosbie, Member of Parliament, Privy

Councillor, Queen's Councillor, Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Laws, in full

flight. Until you have seen him in full flight you don't know what stubborn is!

I know him well. We came into the House together.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. ROBERTS: I gather, overwhelming public demand, but I

will draw to a close quickly because there are others - my hon. friend from

Grand Bank was saying something and I tried to hear him.

MR. MATTHEWS: I said, there is one other person that is

more stubborn, but it is not right to talk about him while he is absent.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, I see. Well, I don't want to talk about

the Leader of the Opposition anymore, I have taken care of him.

Mr. Chairman, the point I want to make is that every

Newfoundlander and every Labradorian should, in my view, be seeking joint

management of the fisheries. We don't need to underline the obvious, of how

important the resource is. My friend from Ferryland, yesterday, in an excellent

maiden speech which unfortunately got next to no attention in the media - and I

am not here to beat up the media.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: All day.

MR. ROBERTS: All day? Then I heard the wrong stations. I

am glad that he got the attention he deserves. It was an excellent speech and I

commend him on it.

My friend from Eagle River, and my friend from Twillingate,

the Minister of Fisheries, we don't need to underline - even the hon. gentleman

from Kilbride understands how important the fishery is. It is that penetrating

an insight into the obvious, even the gentleman from Kilbride understands it. He

is trying hard to be the new John Carter. You will never make it. I say to my

learned and honourable friend, you will never make it. Not only did John Carter

have a great deal more on the outside of his head than my hon. friend, he has a

great deal more inside. I say to my hon. friend that he should just bide his

time until he collects the pension. 'Lord, now lettest thou thy servant go in

peace' - 'Nunc dimittis'- not re-mittis - dimittis. 'Lord, now lettest thou thy

servant depart in peace'.

No, I believe the hon. gentleman doesn't understand. It is

part of the Roman and the Anglican liturgy.

MR. MATTHEWS: No leave. Withdraw leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carry on.

MR. ROBERTS: Just carrying on.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the few modest points I had to make I

made in my own modest way. Your Honour is trying to say something to me? Anyway,

the gentleman from St. John's East Extern, now it is his turn, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's East

Extern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must say, I was delighted to be present and listen to the

hon. the Member for Humber Valley give a very fine presentation.

Mr. Chairman, what he said as it pertained to the fishery and

our needing jurisdiction or management was a very, very, sound declaration of

the truth. He said: Why do we need management when what we already manage we are

not managing at all? He was speaking primarily of the industry in the district

that he represents, that is all. He did not say, we don't need more

jurisdiction.

Let me tell the hon. the Member for Port de Grave, he gets up

and rants and raves and says nothing - Go up to the House of Commons, go up to

the door. Glory be, Mr. Chairman! No wonder he is back in the third row. If

there were another row on the back of that he should be back in that one. Glory

be!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: We do have problems in the fishery, and we

all can relate in some way, and many of us in many ways. But when I hear that

hon. gentleman over there talk about all the problems - Crosbie - thank God, Mr.

Crosbie is still in politics, or that group over there wouldn't have one thing

to say. The House would close the day after it opened, because all that has been

said here in the House is, John Crosbie - what John Crosbie hasn't done. John

Crosbie is a saviour for you bunch -

MR. EFFORD: What!

MR. PARSONS: - a saviour for you crowd. Because if not,

those 20,000 fishermen that you did nothing for would be up here, not to the

doors in Ottawa but right here at the Confederation Building, to lynch you

crowd. Lynch you, that's what they'd do.

Let me say this to you. I listened to the rhetoric here

yesterday. I listened to the Member for Eagle River. It was vilification. As far

as I'm concerned, if I were in the Chair I would have serious reservations about

allowing him to continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. PARSONS: It was slanderous, a slanderous attack on a

Newfoundlander who did his best, who represents Newfoundland well. He started

talking over there about things that he knew very little about. He's too young.

It is very seldom I agree with the Premier, but the Premier was right in saying

that he couldn't make him a Cabinet minister, he's wet behind the ears.

Yesterday proved beyond a doubt how wet he really is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, we all know that the Province

plays a role in the fishing industry. Part of the problem with the fishing

industry as we know it was licensing, processing. There was more than one

problem. Advice from the scientists was the major problem. Our friend from Eagle

River doesn't see that. Our friend from Port de Grave doesn't see that. He got

up today and lashed out about the Member for Humber Valley, who at least got up

on his feet and said something sensible. But the hon. member doesn't understand

sense. He doesn't have it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: Let me say to the hon. members in this

House, what that member said was very simple. He said, if you are a farmer

today, and you go out and apply for Crown land -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Listen, I say to the Member for St. John's

South, listen and learn something. If you go out today and apply for land you

can apply for a maximum of 100 acres and you must do something with two-thirds

of it. There are companies up there with vast acreage owning half this Province,

where you can't go up and build a cabin, you can't go up and get a load of wood.

It's time we got off our butts and did something about it. It's time for that

government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Perhaps they didn't do it years ago. They

were wrong when they didn't do it. But it is time now for us to realize that we

have control of that industry, so let's take control of it and do something

about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: They weren't tearing down cabins when we

were there.

MR. PARSONS: No, they wouldn't allow them. Mr. Chairman,

I'll tell you how much power they have - that now they are forcing this

government to increase the number of moose licenses. There aren't that many

moose there. Here are our Newfoundlanders, who look forward to going hunting.

AN HON. MEMBER: From 300 to 1,200 (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: From 300 to 1,200 licences - there aren't

1,200 moose out there. But the companies said they need the moose destroyed -

nothing about the poor people spending their money, nothing about the poor

people applying for licences in the hope - some people go hunting for the

pleasure of hunting. A great number of people go hunting combining hunting for

pleasure and for the meat. A great number of people go hunting just for the meat

because they need it. They're allowed to go out on the West Coast where they get

1,200 licences because that was advocated by the big wood processor out there

saying: They're going to destroy the wood so kill off all the moose.

There are 1,200 licences. There are not 1,200 moose out

there. That will tell you how powerful those companies are - not only in not

allowing you to build a cabin, not allowing you to haul up a boat on the rivers,

now they're dictating as to how many people should be out there spending their

money, money that some of them don't have, to look for a moose that's not there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: Now, I think I'd be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if

I didn't comment on the comments of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of

Justice rose today to chastise the Leader of the Opposition for misleading the

House. For twenty minutes the Minister of Justice got up there and went on and

on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: I'm certainly not one of his learned

friends, and I can see now why people don't read the small print. Because all

his rhetoric today as it pertained to misleading the House, all of it was

rhetoric that you don't even see if you have a document that's the small print.

I'd say to the Minister of Justice that he should read Deborah Coyne's book when

he talks about joint management of the fishery.

MR. ROBERTS: I have.

MR. PARSONS: Well, okay. On page 126 she said: the

present Premier was given a letter and in that letter from the Prime Minister

was that agreement for joint management.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier answered that letter.

MR. PARSONS: He did not answer it! He said he skimmed

through it. Deborah Coyne, I don't know the lady, but I can't see why she lied

in the book. Because she was pro-Premier all through it. The point remains is

what the Premier said, it would take away from his ego. It would destroy his

pride. He couldn't care less about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. But his

pride would have been hurt if he had to accept that letter, which would place

the fisheries on the agenda for the First Ministers' Conference every year.

Why don't you people get up and tell it as it is? The

Minister of Justice talks about joint management. We have management now of many

of our resources, and what are we doing about it? I'm not saying that we should

not have some more control. But the Minister of Justice reads from a paper. He

says: Oh, well, this is what the PCs said. I've been in the House for six years

and all I've ever heard from this side, this group, was that we could not afford

jurisdiction. We could not afford complete jurisdiction. We don't have the

financial ability to go into complete jurisdiction. All we said, over and over,

was that there should be sharing of management to the bays and to the rise and

to the inlets of this Province, that we should know more about it than someone

in Ottawa. I agree.

I agree, too, with the Member for Port de Grave that it is a

serious problem. But I can't see for the life of me how every member from that

side gets up and ridicules one man in Ottawa, one man up there. The man has done

his best. He won't accept joint management. Do you know why? Because they want

the feds to put all the money in there and they will have all the say. I agree

with him. If that's the way it's going to be then he shouldn't accept it! He

shouldn't accept it! The feds putting in the money, that's the agreement they

are looking for - the feds would put in the money and they would have control.

They would have a veto on whatever is happening in that joint management.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to stand to

my feet again just to take a couple of minutes. I can't believe what the Member

for St. John's East Extern just said, that as a member representing a fishing

district in this Province, he agrees that Ottawa should remain in control of all

of the decisions made on the fishery in the future. Is that what the member

said, That he

doesn't agree with joint management?

MR. PARSONS: I never said that!

MR. EFFORD: But he will only agree with it if

Newfoundland pays its share of jurisdiction? Surely, he doesn't expect

Newfoundland to pay the cost of surveillance on the Grand Banks?

MR. MURPHY: He's a Crosbie worshipper.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, if you share jurisdiction then you have

to share the cost. Joint management is a whole different area from sharing

jurisdiction.

MR. PARSONS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: You have to make up your mind what you're

standing for, and that's the problem we are into. Most of the people don't know

what they're talking about, Mr. Chairman. It's absolutely unbelievable!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) managing the fisheries.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of points

being lost here. The fact that John Crosbie is the Minister of Fisheries is the

reason why he is taking the responsibility. If he were not the Minister of

Fisheries then he would not have to take the responsibility. But he is in that

position today when we are at the worst crisis in the history of the Province.

Whether it's good or bad or not is not the fault of people saying that John

Crosbie is shocking or John Crosbie did this. John Crosbie didn't cause the

problem but he certainly can move in the right direction to correct the problem,

and that is what everybody in this Province is saying. The responsibility of the

minister is to make the right decisions for the future and make them now. Okay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Just give me a couple of minutes and I will

point out to you why I disagree with a lot of things that are being said. First

of all, we have to recognise who has first access to the fish. We don't have

first access to any of the fish stocks except the few fish that swim in around

our lands. The foreign fleets are fishing on the Grand Banks as we argue our

petty differences here in the House of Assembly today, approximately 147 vessels

out there now as we are talking, and that has been going on for the last

twenty-five, thirty-five, forty years or however long from the time they started

coming since Confederation, since Ottawa took over control. Now, if that is not

a reality, am I fabricating, am I dreaming that or are they out there fishing?

Well, let me give you some figures.

In 1990, FPI landed 200 million pounds of fish and they

created 8,000 jobs directly in the fishery, and that same year, the foreign

fishing fleets reported taking 800 million pounds, four times what FPI took,

that is relative to 32,000 jobs in the stock.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trudeau.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is not the issue. You are right.

MR. MURPHY: It is not only Trudeau.

MR. EFFORD: But what I am telling you is, that is what

caused the demise of the fish stocks in this Province and we are paying the

ultimate price for it, and they are still fishing out there today. What I am

telling you is, if we should stop fishing they should be stopped whether it is

international waters or not, they should stop until the stocks are rebuilt; so

let us talk some common sense. Let me give you another example. Let us say there

are 8 million seals, for argument sake, let us say they eat only one pound of

fish per day of some species, that is 8 million pounds a day and we can't come

to an agreement whether there should be a seal hunt. I mean, when are we all

going to wake up and talk some reality as to what is going to happen down the

road?

The fish stocks are still gone so we call John Crosbie names

- is that going to help? I mean, the point is, he is Minister of Fisheries now.

He should bring in a seal hunt. He should stop the foreign fishing fleet.

Instead of that, this year - and every member on the other side who is

representing fishing districts knows - this year as we were arguing about

stopping them, foreigners still have access to quotas inside the 200-mile limit,

and my hon. friend there, the Opposition House Leader, knows what I am saying is

correct. Everybody in this Province knows that the Minister of Fisheries gave

foreign quotas this year inside the 200-mile limit. Now, how can you rationalize

and say that is right. If there were lots of fish out there, yes it is right,

but we have stopped fishing and they are still catching fish, and we say, well,

they have quotas for turbot and flounder and herring and mackerel and shrimp,

but we know that is all a valuable resource and when you heave the net

overboard, don't tell me a whole net of turbot comes up.

Russia, this year, got a cod quota in 3No. The hon. the

Member for Ferryland - most of his constituents fish out in that 3Ps - 3No area

and they would fish there successfully if they had permission. And how can any

minister in this country justify giving Russia 1,600 tons this year in 3No when

all of his constituents are up there starving for the want of work? Nova Scotia

- how much fish did Nova Scotia catch this year in 3No? I mean, we have to talk

reality. We are being set on, gouged, we have been robbed and pillaged on all

sides, all over this Province, and it is time to face up to what is happening,

but we are still allowing it to go on. And there is only one man who is making

that decision, the hon. John Crosbie.

MR. DUMARESQUE: John Crosbie. Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Now, whether your opinion is the right

decision or the wrong decision is another issue, nevertheless, Newfoundlanders

are not catching the fish and others are. This year, there was a boat down from

Port de Grave on the Labrador Coast fishing turbot -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member could just take his seat for a

minute while I announce the questions for the Late Show.

The three questions - No. 1: I am not satisfied with the

response by the Minister of Education to my question pertaining to the

provincial government's commitment to the Newfoundland Student Aid Program, and

that is from the hon. the Member for the Ferryland district.

Mr. Speaker, I was not satisfied with the answer given by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs in response to my question on Municipal Operating

Grants - that is from the hon. the Member for Fogo.

I am not satisfied with the response from the Minister of

Mines and Energy to my question re the payroll tax burden on the mining

industry, and that is from the hon. the Member for Menihek.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, it is simple enough to understand what the

economy of this Province needs - we need the fish stocks back. As I said

earlier, the foreign fishing fleets were reported as having taken 800 million

pounds of fish - God knows how much they took beyond that, but 800 million in

1990. That would represent 32,000 direct jobs in this Province, the spin-off

factor another 20,000 to 25,000, and you are talking about 50,000 jobs.

Now, we know that the Canadian dragger fleet has caused a lot

of problems, we know that the inshore people have caused problems with their

gill nets and other things, but what I am saying is that it is time to stop all

of the factors that cause the problem and look to the future to make the right

decisions. That is in the power of one man and one man only today. It may be

another minister tomorrow, next week or next month, but today it is the hon.

Minister of Fisheries' responsibility and while he is minister he must take that

responsibility. And there is only one way to turn back to this Province what

rightfully belongs to us.

I said a couple of weeks ago in the press: If we in

Newfoundland, the citizens, never mind the politicians, believed in the fishing

industry as the backbone of this Province, we should fight for it just as hard

as the people in Quebec fight for their language and culture rights. We

shouldn't be critical of what they do, we should be taking a lesson from what

they are doing and be just as aggressive as they are. I think if we changed our

attitudes, everybody in this Province, we would be a lot better off.

I mean, if you would only just imagine - I only spoke about

what the foreign fleets took in 1990, and that was outside. That had nothing to

do with inside the 200-mile limit, not the quotas we have given. That is only

what they took out there in international waters, inside and outside on the

foggy and dark nights. The logic of what I am saying is there is a future for

this Province if we all think the right way. But what do they do? My hon. friend

from Grand Bank asked a couple of minutes ago, 'Did they put another dory out

there?'

MR. MATTHEWS: I didn't say that.

MR. EFFORD: Who was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Burin - Placentia West.

MR. EFFORD: Burin - Placentia West was it? He said: 'I

wonder if they would put another dory out there?' I agree with him because he

was making a sarcastic remark about what they did and he is quite right. Just

imagine, the greatest accomplishment that the union leader and the hon. the

Minister of Fisheries made was the deal with the international flotilla on the

Grand Banks. They brought a dory out there back three or four months ago and

they pulled a grappling overboard, and that is their total contribution to

stopping the foreign fishing fleets out there. I mean, it is unbelievable! And

they wouldn't have done that only we kicked up such a fuss in this Province.

Except for a group of fishermen getting together and demonstrating all over the

Province, they wouldn't even have done that. Now, they have gone back in their

shell, and what I am saying is they should come out of their shell and start

planning what is going to happen twelve to eighteen months down the road when

the cod stocks are supposed to be there and the compensation package is over.

There is one awful lot of money leaving this Province, one

awful lot of jobs being lost day-to-day. And if it happened in any other

province in this country or any other part of the world people would not put up

with it. We have become complacent, laid back, we don't care anymore. The

average person on the street is satisfied, as you said, with the compensation

package and there is nobody fighting except for two or three people speaking

out. The union has disappeared and Crosbie has disappeared. They have

disappeared, after making the decision that you stop fishing and bring back the

cod stocks. While the foreigners are out there, there will be no cod stocks

coming back, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. member's time is

up.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought a moment

ago when I saw the Member for Eagle River sitting in the Premier's chair that he

had been promoted as a result of his speech yesterday in the House, a speech,

Mr. Chairman, which basically nothing other than an attack on the federal

minister, John Crosbie. He is not a member of my party, but he does get credit

for one thing - on the topic we were discussing yesterday, which was the

moratorium, he and his government did increase the compensation package by a

significant factor after there was a very strong leadership on that from the

elected representatives, the legitimate representatives of the fishermen, the

Fishermen's Union,not the pressure from this government.

The topic yesterday - and Mr. Dumaresque, the Member for

Eagle River, makes a lot of good points that would do well to be made in the

election campaign, Mr. Chairman, if he were to have the courage to run in an

election campaign against the federal minister in St. John's West. He has every

opportunity to do that, Mr. Chairman, if he were really serious. Both he and the

Member for Port de Grave seem to have nothing to say about provincial

jurisdiction or provincial matters but are quite happy to talk about things that

really should be debated in the House of Commons. So I urge them, Mr. Chairman,

in the next federal election to resign their seats here and run in the federal

House of Commons to try to change the policies for the people of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: All of the things that the Member for Port de

Grave and the Member for Eagle River were saying were things that should be said

and should be brought up and raised in the House of Commons in Ottawa. They

don't seem to want to belong to this Chamber because they don't address the

provincial issues and the issues of provincial concern.

They should, Mr. Chairman. If they are going to say what the

in Ottawa and say that, or have resolutions passed by their own government which

have some influence on that.

There are two issues that nobody on that side of the House

addressed yesterday, that are matters of provincial jurisdiction, and they may

involve the expenditure of a few dollars. I know the new Minister of Finance,

now that he has less to worry about, no longer being Government House Leader,

can address these more carefully.

There are two issues that do come up, and I have to remind

hon. members, as the Member for Ferryland did in his very commendable opening

speech in this House, the resolution that was presented was:

BE IT RESOLVED that

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador address its responsibility to those

directly affected by the moratorium.

It says: Address 'its' responsibility - the Government of

Newfoundland's responsibility. What does that responsibility consist of, Mr.

Chairman? Because fisheries jurisdiction in this country - even though

responsibility for offshore fisheries rests with the federal government, under

the constitution of this country, there are a considerable number of matters

related to the fishery that the Province does now, indeed, have not only the

jurisdiction, but the responsibility for, and these can involve two things with

respect to the moratorium, that this government did not address, or addressed to

the detriment of the people of this Province.

Number one is the clawback. Now, I listened very carefully to

what the Minister of Fisheries said yesterday, and I think if you read carefully

in Hansard what he said, there are somewhat sort of weasel words. I will not

call the Minister of Fisheries a weasel because that would be unparliamentary,

but the words were weasel words. He said that this government did not ask for or

support the clawback as it relates to fisheries income. That is what he said.

But they did, Mr. Chairman, not only support the clawback, but demanded and

insisted upon the provision of a clawback in the overall program - and they are

proud of it.

They are just as proud of that, no doubt, as was the

Commission of Government back in the early 1940s when the Americans were coming

here to build bases, and the Commission of Government told the Americans not to

pay Newfoundlanders the wage that they intended to pay - not to pay them a

dollar an hour, I think was the figure - but to pay them about half of that,

'because we don't want the Newfoundland economy to be upset by the wages being

paid by Americans.' That is what the Commission of Government said, and they

were no doubt proud of that. They were no doubt proud of that because they said:

Don't pay Newfoundlanders a decent wage because it might upset the economy. That

is what they said, and that is the truth. I know the Minister of Finance is

ashamed of what he just said, that he was proud that he had told the Government

of Canada not to pay Newfoundlanders what they had intended to pay, after

changing their plans as a result of the pressure from the Fishermen's Union.

That rests on their head just as it rests on the Commission of Government's

head, that they told the Americans not to pay Newfoundlanders a decent wage - to

cut their wages by about half.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) merchant (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Well, it was the merchants who requested it.

The merchants wanted that. They didn't want to have to pay the wage rates in

this Province that the people of Newfoundland needed in order to have a decent

livelihood.

The same thing has happened here, and the Province is

responsible for that. I didn't hear one member on that side of the House address

that. I didn't hear that from the Member for Eagle River when he was so busy

trying to deflect attention on to the federal Minister of Fisheries and

attacking him for being a Newfoundlander.

That, Mr. Chairman, is what the other side of this House

did,. The Minister of Fisheries did not address that question. He was afraid to

address that question. At least the Minister of Finance has the courage to say

that he's proud that the Newfoundland government told the feds not to pay

Newfoundlanders enough. That he's proud of it. At least he's prepared to stand

by it. But that's what they said. Their response was the clawback and they might

as well admit it, face the facts, and face the music for it.

The second thing is that there is some leadership being

provided in this Province on the issue of what to do during the moratorium, but

it's not coming from the government, it's coming in fact from the Fishermen's

Union. They're trying to devise plans to assist in sorting out what's going to

happen to the fishery of this Province in the future. One of the areas that this

government has been approached on - and I don't know if the Member for Port de

Grave knows anything about this; perhaps he doesn't - but it was part of the

program being put forth by the Fishermen's Union, by the members, the

democratically elected representatives of the fishermen through their

Fishermen's Union.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, one of the parts of that

program was to give older workers in the fisheries an opportunity to take

part

in an early retirement program. What did the Government of Newfoundland say? No.

We don't agree with that. They're prepared to accept that an early retirement

program can apply to fishermen aged fifty-five and older, but a special program

being put forth as part of the adjustment, a program for fishermen aged fifty to

fifty-four, the answer of the government was: no, we're not going to support

that. Even though the cost to this government - and I want the Minister of

Finance to respond to this; if I'm wrong let him deny it - but the cost of this

program to the Government of Newfoundland in terms of the dollars that would go

into the pockets of these fishermen would be seventeen cents on