May 31,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 19

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings, I would like to

welcome to the Speaker's gallery Dr. Martin Knapp of the London School of

Economics and Political Science, and Dr. Joan Pennell, Director of the School of

Social Work of Memorial University of Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, in the public galleries today we

have sixteen grade V students from Vaters Academy in the District of St. John's

North, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Ralph Cann, and chaperones Ms Strickland

and Mr. Fowlow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have from the O'Donnel High School in

Mount Pearl thirty Grade IX students accompanied by their teacher Mr. Mike

Sutton.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to inform the

hon. members that today marks the beginning of Tourism Awareness Month. The

theme for this month's campaign is "Ready for '97".

Previously a week-long campaign, this year we now have a

month devoted to tourism awareness. This is a Hospitality Newfoundland and

Labrador initiative which works to promote and generate awareness for the

economic and social benefits derived from the province's tourism industry. The

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation is proud to be a partner with

Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador in its efforts to increase the profile of

this province's tourism sector.

Tourism is the fastest growing segment of our global economy.

For Newfoundland and Labrador, tourism expenditures account for more than $480

million annually. In realizing the objectives established by the Cabot

Celebrations, next year government will grow expenditures by approximately $30

million and the number of tourists by 60,000.

Mr. Speaker, this year's awareness campaign will focus on

ensuring that our province's tourism industry is ready for the opportunities

that will result from the 500th anniversary celebration year. Driven by this

government, this celebration represents the greatest opportunity ever for the

province's long-term development of our tourism and hospitality sectors. The

fact that the 1996 campaign has expanded from a week-long agenda to a month-long

calendar of events, is truly indicative of the interest in and value for

building awareness about the tourism industry and its economic and social

benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this strong partnership between industry and

government will work to ensure that the Province recognizes the opportunities

for 1997; that it is ready to act on those opportunities; and that it will

maximize the return on investment for the benefits of all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. This government participated with industry in Bristol, England

last week in a highly successful public private partnership at the Festival of

the Sea.

I encourage all members of the House of Assembly to take

part

in Tourism Awareness Month and to do their part to help promote awareness of

this important segment of our economy. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is indeed a good move. I understand that the Bristol

contingency was quite successful and I congratulate the minister on that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: However, the Premier still should have been

in town.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OSBORNE: I find that it is a great move that the

tourism awareness has been moved to a full month rather than just a week. I feel

that tourism is a growing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and that we

should all put every effort possible into ensuring the success of the tourism

industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon.

House of Assembly of the re-opening of the Salmonier Nature Park on June 1,

1996. The park will be open seven days a week until Labour Day, and for more

restricted hours after that until the end of October. I would like to highlight,

Mr. Speaker, that school groups can take advantage of the quality

interpretation

tours provided by our staff with no admission charge.

Mr. Speaker, Salmonier Nature Park offers the rare chance to

see many of this Province's plants and animals in one place and at one time.

Animals at the park include moose, caribou, lynx, snowshoe hare, arctic fox,

mink, and beaver, as well as birds of prey, such as snowy owl, great horned

owls, and bald eagles. There are also Canada geese, ducks and spruce grouse - no

budworm.

Although the park is home to a small number of endangered

Newfoundland pine marten, this species will not be on display. These animals are

part of a captive breeding program that is designed to assist the recovery of

this species in the wild. Last fall three female pine martens were captured in

the wild and placed in the Salmonier Nature Park as part of the captive breeding

program, and I am happy to report to this House that this endangered species on

the West Coast of the Province recently gave birth to three litters of pine

martens. Future plans for a video monitoring system will allow undisturbed

viewing of the pine marten from the park's visitor's centre.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to

encourage Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and in particular tourists to our

Province, to visit this unique facility on the Salmonier Line.

Thank you.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say the government is getting worse. I got this statement

two minutes before the minister spoke.

MR. TULK: I only got one before I spoke.

MR. OSBORNE: Is that right? The Salmonier Nature Park is

a wonderful facility. I have been through the Salmonier Nature Park and there

are indeed a number of animals and breeds of species in Newfoundland and

Labrador that are in danger and it is good to see that the Province is taking

the initiative to contain these animals in places where they can be viewed

without being in danger of hunters and so on.

I feel that the Salmonier Nature Park, however, should

probably be open to the tourism season later than it is. I noticed in the

estimates for 1996 that the expenditures for the Salmonier Nature Park have been

reduced, and I will speak to the minister on that in the estimates meeting which

is to be held next week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am assuming that the hon. member is asking leave to respond

to the statement made by the hon. minister?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. TULK: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not receive a copy of the statement any more than the

minister did until a minute or so before the House opened this morning. But

rather than have the minister use up the time of the House for a public service

announcement about the opening of a park, I would rather hear him tell us his

plans for increasing the amount of wilderness in this Province, to the goals

that have been set by this government, agreed on several years ago, and tell us

what his plans are to meet those goals rather than just to be letting us know

that a park is going to open which opens every year at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Our Province is losing some $800 million every year on the

sale of electricity to Quebec as a result of a horrendous, Upper Churchill deal

signed in 1969 and the worst is yet to come.

I ask the minister, is the government currently pursuing any

options for increasing our take on the sale of this electricity to Quebec?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the Upper Churchill contract is

quite clear and has been challenged at least twice, I think, by Governments of

Newfoundland to the Supreme Court of Canada and I think we have been shut out

each time. So, the contract is what it is, we are twenty years into the contract

and it expires in 2041.

There is not a citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador who would

not like to see a change in that contract. Every last one of us would like to

see a change in that contract but I am not sure what avenues we could take at

this time to change the contract. There seems to be no interest on the other

side to change the contract. In the meantime, we have to do everything we can to

try to find ways to make extra money from Churchill power if there is any way to

make extra money from Churchill power.

For a number of years, we have had, sort of a subsidiary

agreement relative to providing power for winter availability during the peak

needs in the winter season, and we made a few dollars extra in that regard. We

are working on that again right now because I think the arrangement that was in

place for a number of years has pretty well run its course. So, we are working

on that particular aspect of it in terms of trying to provide power when it is

most seriously needed during the big demand season, but other than that, I am

not aware of any other particular aspect of it.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"William Moull, Associate Professor at Osgood Law School in

1985, said that

section 92A of the Constitution may well give Newfoundland the

power to place restrictions on the export of Churchill Falls power to Quebec,

regardless of the contract."

Now, is the Premier aware of this legal opinion, that the

Constitution may well give us the power to set a maximum amount of electricity

that can be exported from this Province, and the power to impose a new minimum

price on what we are exporting?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new to that

particular statement that he made. A number of people have made representations

relative to that including, I am sure, the person who wrote that particular

question for him, because I have seen copies of it stated by a number of people

in the past, and at this time we are not taking any new action before the

Supreme Court of Canada in that regard.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wasn't asking him about taking action to the Supreme Court.

The Water Rights Reversion Act was passed in 1980, and all of it was not

proclaimed. The Constitution was not repatriated until 1982, and there was no

reference made in the Supreme Court decision to

section 92A of this

Constitution. So, subsection (1)(

c) of

section 92A of the Constitution provides

for exclusive provincial legislative jurisdiction in relation to the

development, the conservation, and the management of sites and facilities in the

Province for the generation and production of electrical energy. Now, management

includes such things as supply and pricing.

I ask the Premier, or the minister: Are you aware of, and

will you act on legal advice that this Legislature may very well have the power,

under section (1)(c), 92A, to impose a new minimum price on any electricity that

we now export?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I understand that

section 92A

of the Constitution is not new. I am told that is has been there since 1867,

which means I am assuming that it was there the last two times that the

Government of Newfoundland went before the Supreme Court of Canada and

challenged it. Which also was when we did have some of the best legal minds that

we could find in Canada to help the government of the day on these particular

cases. I'm not about to say that we are going off on that tangent once again.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister I have discussed with

people who may be considered to be legal experts too in the area.

Subsection (4) of that same

section of the Constitution now

authorizes the Province to impose a taxation on sites and facilities in the

Province for the generation of electrical energy and the production therefrom as

long as the tax regime is not discriminatory against another province.

I ask the minister: Are you aware of, and will you act on

legal advice, that we may very well have the power under the Constitution to

place a tax on electricity that we export from Churchill Falls and to gain some

desperately needed additional revenues for the Province?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we generally act on the best

legal advice that we can get. Any time that we have good legal advice we will

consider it carefully. In this regard at this time we are not about to go off on

a tangent based on the legal advice from across the House.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Subsection (2) of that same section, 92A of

the Constitution, says: In each province, the Legislature may make laws in

relation to the export from the province to another part of Canada of the

production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical

energy, as long as the laws are not discriminatory against another province.

I ask the minister: Are you aware of, and will you act on

legal advice, that we may very well have that power under the Constitution to

impose restrictions on electricity and thereby to place ourselves in a far

different situation from the one that we are in today?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should

understand that there are more things than legal advice given in isolation.

There is also the contract itself and there are certain conditions in that

contract, imposed on that contract by the people who have lent money for the

construction of the Churchill Falls project, and these conditions apply until

about, I think, 2014 when the bonds are paid off. So it is not a matter of just

saying: We have a lawyer's opinion on this now and therefore you have to do it.

We have had lots of legal advice. I'm sure we will get lots more in the future.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister

aware that

section 92A was not referenced in the Supreme Court decision

pertaining to Newfoundland's right to be able to impose a tax on electricity? Is

the minister aware that the Supreme Court did not reference

Section 92A?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Personally, Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of

it.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Will the minister

confirm that on December 15 of last year Cabinet issued a directive calling for

the invitation of proposals to establish a sport fishing lodge on the Eagle

River system in Labrador? Will she also confirm that the call for proposals was

advertized in the Island papers on January 20 and in Labrador papers on January

24?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the question from

the Member for St. John's South, as you know I was not a part of government

then. But in looking at my briefing notes and being very involved in this

proposal because it has recently been accepted and announced by government, I

believe the time frames are probably correct there.

I would have to check for you to make sure that it did go

through Cabinet on December 15 and that it was in the Island papers on January

20 and in the Labrador papers on January 24. I would not have knowledge of those

exact dates, and also would have to check. But we certainly can check and get

back to the hon. member.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Does the minister have any reason to believe

that any party submitting a proposal may have had advanced knowledge of this

call for proposals or advance reason to believe that their proposal may have

been successful?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any reason to

believe that anyone had advanced knowledge of the proposal or the content of the

proposal.

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

a supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: The head of the Labrador Metis Association

said that it appears from comments made by one of the pair who were awarded the

license that they began work on their proposal for the camp in October 1995.

Part of the proposal was the custom design of a log cabin, and it is alleged

that the successful proponents had the blueprints and architectural drawings all

done up and ready to go when the proposals had gone out. In view of these

allegations already made public by the head of the Labrador Metis Association

will the minister commission an internal review to determine if the integrity of

the proposal process has been compromised, and will the minister commission an

independent review to determine whether the integrity of this process has been

compromised?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly ask my department

to look into these allegations but in reviewing all of this, as we were

preparing to announce the proposal, there certainly was no indication of any

improprieties. I will go as far, as a matter of fact, of contacting the Labrador

Metis Association to get more information, because this is very flimsy

information, and I would like to be able to follow through in a more proper

manner.

I certainly will speak to the association who are making

these accusations, and I also state to you that if you have further information

would you please pass it on to me so that we can address this issue which is a

very serious matter. I consider this a very serious allegation and I will check

it through my department.

Thank you.

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

a final supplementary.

MR. OSBORNE: Is it not true that the head of the Labrador

Metis Association has already been in contact with your department about these

allegations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: The head of the Metis Association has not been

in contact with me. I can certainly check to see if, him or her, I am not sure

who it is, if they have been in contact with my department. I can certainly

check that, and as I have just said to you I will check and report back to the

House. I would assume that the hon. member will be prepared to make an apology

if these allegations are totally incorrect.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

Corporation's statement of revenues and expenditures for 1995 indicate revenues

from rental properties at $20,435,000. Mr. Minister you have stated that

government plans to continue to sell off Newfoundland Housing market rental

units. How does your government plan to make up this yearly loss from revenues,

and what impact do you see on Newfoundland and Labrador housing's social rental

program?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I suggest to the hon. member and the hon.

House, Mr. Speaker, to go back and read Hansard of Monday and you will find the

answers to those particular questions.

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

a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the minister that he may think the

answers are there but he had better look again himself. Mr. Speaker, the

minister stated that he was going to continue to sell off 200 market residents

units this year. Could the minister inform the House what kind of demand there

is for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to rent these units, what type of

demand is there?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring

to market housing that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing owns, maintains in the

City of Corner Brook, St. John's, Stephenville, Goose Bay, Gander, and maybe one

or two others. These units are rented based on the market value in the area.

Churchill Square, for example, anybody can apply for admittance to any of these

units. The catch to it all is that they would have to pay basically what someone

across the street would be paying in private accommodations. These units have

been on the market for the past, almost ten years now and we have gradually sold

off blocks of these units based on government policy. I would say right now, in

the city of St. John's, we have a number vacant that we cannot rent. There are

vacancies at Arnold's Loop, there are vacancies in the East End of St. John's,

there are no vacancies at Churchill Square - I am sorry, there are some

vacancies at Churchill Square and the rental market per se is weak out there at

the present time and not only is Newfoundland and Labrador Housing finding it

weak but the private sector is finding it weak as well.

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

Cape St. Francis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I checked with people at Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing yesterday and they tell me that there is a rather large waiting

list for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing units, as much as two to four years

waiting period for a two-bedroom apartment. Mr. Minister, recently, members of

the House of Assembly have taken up residence in Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing apartments. Can you inform the House if these MHAs were on a waiting

list, for how long, and if not, why not?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is confused. He

is combining social housing in St. John's with rental housing units. There are

almost 4,000 people on a waiting list for social housing units in the Province.

The majority of those people live in and about the St. John's area. There is a

large number of social housing applications. Now, social housing people are

basically the social services recipients, the lower income people that we try to

help as well as we can and we subsidize. In the case of social services

recipients, for example, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Social Services pays the

rent. Somebody who is on the borderline, 25 per cent of the income of these

people will go towards their rent for these particular units.

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the second question, I believe that

when a former member, Mr. Bill Matthews, moved out of his apartment in Churchill

Square, somebody moved in from this side.

AN HON. MEMBER: I did.

MR. A. REID: You did. At the present time, I am living

down there. I was on the waiting list since 1989 and I am living in a

two-bedroom Churchill Square apartment and paying full cost for it. Who else do

you want to know?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Yes, there are MHAs and you asked me what

their names were. I don't know -

MR. J. BYRNE: Were they on the waiting list and for how

long?

MR. A. REID: I cannot tell you. I know I was on since

1989. I can check it out and get back to you, no problem, I can do that. I don't

know if there is anybody over there down in housing now but if there were I know

that on the other side of the House, your friend and colleague, for example,

traded one apartment with somebody else on this side. So, yes, there has been a

number of MHAs since Churchill Square has been built, living at Churchill

Square. There are a number of rental units in Churchill Square, one-bedroom

units, available right now that I would certainly make available to any member

on the other side of the House if they want it or anyone in the city of St.

John's or Newfoundland. We have vacancies down there and we would love to fill

them. You have the opportunity as well as anyone else in the Province to apply

for them.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Development and Rural

Renewal. During the month of April, Rowan Limited, the company drilling for Hunt

Oil on the West Coast, overlooked qualified Newfoundlanders when it hired fifty

technical people for jobs. I would like to ask the minister, who is responsible

for employment in the Province, does she find this situation acceptable, and has

she done anything about the situation?

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Mines

and Energy to take this question, please. Thank you.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Rowan Gorilla has done a

commendable job, the Rowan Group of Companies in the employment on the west

coast, a commendable job. At this time Regis is drilling. The rig spouted on May

15. Of about 180 people employed with this new system brought into the Province,

60 per cent are from this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: The total number of people - Rowan Gorilla

and the other contractors. Secunda, which is providing the two ships relative to

this drilling project, have, I think, about fifty-five people, all of whom are

Newfoundlanders.

On the Rowan Gorilla itself, the company has hired, I

believe, about fifty-five Newfoundlanders, of whom about forty-two have been put

on this rig and another fifteen or so put on a rig in Nova Scotia - the Rowan

Gorilla III - to get them trained in case we are moving into a second well some

time after the first one is completed. They have done a commendable job. We are

at the maximum that we have normally ever seen for employment of Newfoundlanders

and Canadians on a rig like this. There is no one who needs to apologize for

what this company has done. They are doing a great job. I hope they are

successful; I hope they find oil, because if they do, they will be here longer

than four months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to commend the minister for

the great speech he just made in the House, but he failed to answer the

question. No one is questioning the number of Newfoundlanders working on the

Gorilla rig with Hunt Oil or Rowan Limited. What I am questioning is that they

are at the lower salary scales. The reality is that there are fifty technical

positions, including derrick men, motor men, mechanics, crane operators, all of

which, I repeat to the minister, could have been filled by qualified

Newfoundlanders - high salary position.

The question the minister and the government must answer is

this: Why were Newfoundlanders overlooked in this instance for the high salary,

highly skilled positions, when they were fully trained and qualified here? And

doesn't the minister agree that the first beneficiaries of any resource

development in this Province should be trained and skilled Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: There is no question about it, that we look

for maximum benefits to the people of this Province, and in this case we are

quite pleased with the benefits we are getting and the potential future benefits

we are going to get if we should be fortunate enough to have success when this

rig completes its job. There is no question in my mind at all about the quality

of the jobs that are on this rig. Sure, some of our people are in the lower

paying jobs, but all of the jobs on these rigs are well- paying jobs. There are

none here that are going to be paying $4.75 an hour. They are all well-paying

jobs, and they are all jobs that can lead people upwards.

I will give a little bit of history. The rig that is working

onshore, the Noble rig that is drilling onshore, now has, I think, for the most

part, just about everybody a Newfoundlander, or Newfoundlanders who came home

who had the appropriate experience.

I visited the rig two days ago - I toured the Talisman rig

and I met one of the young people who is back working on that rig, the first

time that he has been able to come back to Newfoundland and work on an oil

project after graduating here, and it is great to see young Newfoundlanders get

jobs in good positions relative to oil and gas coming here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a supplementary.

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

There is nobody in this House who would not agree that it is

great to see Newfoundlanders get paying jobs, etcetera. The reality is that

there are enough qualified Newfoundlanders in this Province today - four times

enough - to at least man four drill rigs in the highly skilled, highly technical

positions. The question that you fail to answer is this: Why were they

overlooked? You do not know, obviously. Would you do something about it?

Obviously, you haven't. Will you act today to look at why they were overlooked,

and in the future when those high skilled, high technical jobs become available,

your government ensures these qualified Newfoundlanders get the jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there are limits to what any

company can do in a single drilling project. You are not going to hire every

unemployed Newfoundlander or Labradorian who has ever worked in the offshore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: They have done a great job, in my view, of

doing the appropriate review of those who are qualified and interested. They

have done a great job in Western Newfoundland. They, in particular, in this

case, have targeted the local area and have hired a lot of people from the local

area to get them trained for future jobs over in that area. I commend them for

what they have done, and in the future if we go from a one-well project to a

many-well project, many of the other people in this Province who have experience

will get jobs, but they should not all expect to get jobs on the first and only

well that is being drilled this year.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Make that speech to the 200 or 150 people

who are technically skilled and qualified for the jobs out on the West Coast,

make that speech to them and ask them why they didn't get it.

Let me ask the minister this question: Why did Rowan Limited

take the people from Gorilla 111 in Nova Scotia, bring them down to the Port au

Port Peninsula and put them on Gorilla 1V and then hire people from Nova Scotia

to put on the Gorilla 111 when there were qualified people here? It is a

make-work project for technical staff in Nova Scotia when Newfoundlanders should

have had the jobs. Can the minister answer that question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, people should realize that

despite the fact that the Rowan Gorilla 111 is operating off Nova Scotia despite

the fact that 98 per cent I think of the people who are working on that are

Canadians. There are about thirty Newfoundlanders working on that rig. Nobody in

Nova Scotia said: Don't go to Newfoundland and hire somebody; there are about

thirty Newfoundlanders working on that rig before ever the Rowan Gorilla 1V was

contracted to come to the West Coast.

There are people being brought in, experienced people being

brought in from a Rowan rig and being put in places that are appropriate,

positions that are appropriate in this one and there are more Newfoundlanders

now being taken over to Nova Scotia and being filled into positions over there

to help us. In general, what is going to happen is that more Newfoundland

residents and Labrador residents will be qualified for the future jobs. More of

us will be qualified for the future jobs that come with future drilling.

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

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

My question today is for the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board.

Minister, at the Government Service Estimates committee

meetings, I questioned the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and

staff on the cost overrun on renovations to Philip Place compared to the

original estimates.

Minister, could you tell this House the full amount of the

overruns and the cause and, is it true that the extra was caused by major

changes requested by the ministers to occupy the building?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again, is making accusations,

trying to impute motive towards ministers of the House of Assembly.

Changes to Philip Place was done in the engineering design

according to the restructuring of government. It was originally designed for one

department, one minister's office and as the restructuring of government and the

changes in departments had taken place, then a request went in to change the

procedure that is being followed according to the demand of the staff that is

going into that particular building.

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

a supplementary.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary will be to

the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

On May 18, '96, Mr. Minister, an ad, a very small ad I might

add, a request for tender was placed in The Evening Telegram under the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation's name. The project, 119305083

is: General and systems furniture of Philip Place, Elizabeth Avenue. Interested

parties are advised that the tender closing date on the above noted project has

been extended to 3:00 p. m. May 23.

Can the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: I know it is unusual to raise a point of order

during Question Period, but if the hon. gentleman is going to go on and read a

speech on a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I have to object and ask the Speaker, to

bring him to order. A supplementary should be one, short question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, hon. members know that on

supplementary questions that information absolutely necessary for the question

should only be given and that they should be brief and they should get to their

question immediately.

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

ruling but I believe that the Government House Leader is just abusing the time

of the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TULK: You are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to get to his question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Can the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board inform the House why the closing date was extended and the amount of money

the department has allotted to furnish the Natural Resources Building?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the hon. member should take some advice,

probably even from his own colleagues. If he is going to stand in this House of

Assembly and ask questions, and if he believes there is anything wrong being

done, first of all he should research the question he is asking, find the

answer, know the facts before he comes to the House of Assembly. In this case he

is not doing it. All he had to do was, phone over to the Department of Public

Works, the ADM, or any director in that department regarding the public

tendering. They would tell him if there was any underlying reason or any special

circumstances that would cause a tender to be delayed or an extension given.

In many instances there is a reason to extend the date of a

tender, and if a tender goes out to extend it beyond that. That isn't an

abnormal thing to do. What the hon. member is not doing is researching the

answer to his questions and finding out before. There is a normal - certainly in

any renovations taken to any building anywhere in this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

MR. EFFORD: - for extenuating circumstances to take place

in the public tendering act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before we move to the routine proceedings I would like to

welcome to the gallery on behalf of all members a former MP for Grand Falls -

White Bay - Labrador in the person of Andrew Chatwood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well we have thirty-seven grade V

students from the Twillingate Island Elementary School from the District of

Twillingate & Fogo, accompanied by their teachers Margie Green, Dave Dove, Jane

Bussey.

MR. E. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the past two

weeks or so there seems to be a consistent sort of approach by government during

Question Period to stand up in the House during Question Period on points of

order, which really takes away from the Opposition's time to ask questions.

People in the House understand that Question Period is for

the Opposition to ask government questions on matters that we consider

important, and for Opposition to hold government accountable for its actions. It

clearly states in Beauchesne on page 123, 415, Questions of Privileges and

Order during Question Period: "A question of privilege or point of order raised

during the Question Period ought to be taken up after the Question Period,

unless the Speaker considers it to be an extremely grave matter."

If members on this side have abused Question Period or have

not followed the rules the way in which they should have been followed, I am

sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would have taken us to task. The Government House

Leader knows full well that Question Period is for the Opposition to hold

government accountable. The consistent actions of not only the Government House

Leader but the Premier on occasion to interrupt on points of order during

Question Period, to disallow members of the Opposition a question, frankly is

unacceptable, and I ask the Speaker to consider it a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, there is a half truth in what the

hon. gentleman says. In that nobody -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: And that, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition, is 50 per cent more than we usually hear from over there.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. gentleman

that it is not the usual practice, I say to him. I use the word -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Twice. I say to the hon. - if he could go down

and spray the old budworm down there we would put the point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Let me - Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Let me say to the hon. gentleman that it is not

usual for anybody to rise in the House on a point of order during Question

Period. He is half right. But it is also a privilege in this House, and it has

been here for a number of years, and I would ask that if he looked at the

precedents of the House he would see. I can tell him that I had to put up with

some House Leaders from this side when I was the Opposition House Leader in

which they rose consistently during Question Period, time after time.

AN HON. MEMBER: That doesn't make it right.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I'm frightened to death of him. Of

course it is up to the Speaker. The Speaker could have very easily said to me:

You can't rise during Question Period. That discretion is left to the Speaker.

If the Speaker thinks -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Let me finish. If the Speaker thinks that when

somebody stands on a point of order during Question Period that it is acceptable

for somebody to stand on a point of order during Question Period, then the

Speaker will let that person proceed. That is what Beauchesne says to him. He

should read it very carefully, the last four or five words. Unless the Speaker

so determines, I say to him. That is what he should read very carefully.

If the Speaker wants me or anybody else, to let me stand on a

point of order during Question Period he is perfectly at liberty to do so,

otherwise he is perfectly at liberty to tell me to sit down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will hear the hon. the Opposition House Leader briefly on

this point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say

that it is the intention of the Opposition to exercise its privileges under the

Question Period and we respect the rulings that His Honour has made. Mr.

Speaker, however the precedent in this House, since I have been here, is that it

is a very, very rare occasion in which any member on the government side would

rise on a point of order during Question Period. I have seen it happen, I think

it is three times in the past week. So, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we do

need to look at the precedent and we have to remember Beauchesne because this

certainly takes away from our privileges as the official Opposition in the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will ask the hon. member to be brief.

MR. TULK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, let me also say to the

Opposition House Leader that it takes away from his privileges and everybody

else's when somebody stands up here and abuses asking something that requires

such long speeches.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, it has been the practise of course

and Beauchesne clearly states that unless there is a serious point of order to

be raised that it ought not to be raised until the end of Question Period.

However, the Chair has no idea when a member stands on a point of order, until

he hears what the member has to say, whether it is a serious breach of the

proceedings in the House or not that the hon. member is raising. So again, I ask

hon. members that unless it is a serious point of order that during Question

Period it should not be raised until the end of the period.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

present a petition submitted on behalf of a couple of hundred names from the

district of Bonavista South. I will read part of the petition because the

Minister of Education is back in the House today and I am sure that he will want

it done properly again. To make sure that the petition is in order and if he

agrees to the petition to the House of Assembly: To the hon. the House of

Assembly in Newfoundland in legislative session convened. The petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador that;

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power having made some $27.8 million

profit last year is not in need of extra revenue from customers; and

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House intervene on behalf

of the residents of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here day after day presenting those

petitions and obviously it is a big concern, not only in my district but in all

areas of Newfoundland and Labrador. When you see a utility company that made $28

million last year as a profit, a utility company with a monopoly and wanted a

service that they provide come forward and look for a 4.9 per cent increase in

their hydro rates then I think it is time that somebody intervened and spoke out

on behalf of the ratepayers in this particular Province. I brought up here

before about the way that Newfoundland Power meters the consumption of

electricity that domestic users own and also industrial users, Mr. Speaker. You

will find that when you reach a certain point in the year that you consumed x

number of kilowatts of electricity than your whole billing for that particular

year is based on your consumption for that particular month, whatever the peak

is. I have known in past experiences of seasonal fish plants in this Province

that went under. Seasonal fish plants that just could not pay their hydro bills

because of the exorbitant charges that they had to pay even in the winter months

when they were not operating. I am sure that that can go back to sawmill

operations and every other operation that consumes electricity and is burdened

with such a thing as a demand meter in this Province. I think it is unheard of

that you have to go and pay all during the year for something that you have

already paid for when you used it. It doesn't make sense at all.

When you look at the cost to home owners in this Province

now, who are paying for this particular necessity, you will find that I suppose

the days of the $25 and $35 and $50 hydro bill is non-existent any more, even in

the summertime now. Even in the summertime people's hydro bill, people's utility

bill, is up to $80, $90, $100, or $110 for just the basic domestic appliances.

Here again we find that this utility company is coming back to look for another

grab, if you would, from the consumers of this Province.

One of the arguments they use is that they have not had a

rate increase since 1992. I don't think that is an argument that can be put

forward in the economy that we face today, and I don't think it is hard to find

a lot of people who have not had a rate increase in their own personal pay

cheques since 1992, and long, long before that.

When you look at the advertising that this particular utility

continues to do to try to compete with the oil companies, who is paying for it?

It comes off the bottom line, it comes off their profits for the year, and at

the end of the year when they go back and say their shareholders expect such a

percentage, probably around 12 to 13 per cent on the investment that they put

forward in that particular utility, then they have to up the rate in order to

increase their profits in order to maintain investments so they might continue

to supply the services they do to the consumers of electricity.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is about time that we started to hold

some of those giants in this Province responsible. I think it is about time that

we spoke up and said: If you are making $28 million profit a year, or if you are

getting a rate of return on your investment of 13 or 14 per cent, then that

should be sufficient.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: I don't think the burden should be passed

on to the rate payers of this Province who do not have any other choice of where

they buy electricity.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to

rise for a few moments to support the petition put forward by my hon. colleague.

I do believe that it is sufficient to say that we have made

great numbers of presentations to the House on behalf of ordinary

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are very concerned about the application by

Newfoundland Power for a rate increase. We acknowledge that the government has

appointed a Consumer Advocate, and we acknowledge that the Consumer Advocate,

from all public appearances, appears to be doing a very, very good job, but the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador expect us, as legislators, to represent

them, to bring forward their viewpoints.

Mr. Speaker, what we have is a situation where we have

application for an increase on a basic consumer commodity. Electricity is

fundamental to all people in Newfoundland and Labrador, rich and poor alike;

however, the better off families, those who have jobs, can certainly afford to

pay the extra cost a lot more than the people who are without jobs.

Mr. Speaker, in the Budget Speech the Minister of Finance

indicated that we are going to be losing substantially this year in terms of

employment. He indicated that employment might drop by as many as 9,000 people.

We know that the government has laid off 1,000 people, not counting the numbers

which were laid off last December; and, of course, we know there are going to be

more and more people affected because of the indirect lay-offs that will occur.

Mr. Speaker, in a year in which we have the GDP going down by

more than 4 per cent, to the tune of $344 million, and the number of people

losing their jobs this year, the decline in employment, is going to go down by

an extra 9,000 people, personal income is going to drop by 4.5 per cent - those

are not our stats; those are the stats of the government. Therefore, we are

saying and acknowledging that this is the minimal impact that will occur.

Mr. Speaker, in this kind of an economic situation, to even

suggest that we would further compound the economic difficulties and the

availability of disposable income of ordinary Newfoundlanders by permitting a

Newfoundland Power rate increase is certainly not acceptable to the great

majority of our people. I would ask all hon. members to support the concern of

the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, and let us do all we can to make

sure that this rate increase does not occur.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

petition.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition. I will read the petition,

although the Minister of Education is not in the House, but to keep his rules

and technicalities.

The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, known as the Fightin' Nfld'ers. I ask the House of

Assembly to accept the following prayer: We, the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador, do hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to support our petition to do one of the following: Open a food and

recreational fishery to all Newfoundland families, or close the food and

recreational fishery for the rest of Atlantic Canada.

Yesterday when we presented a petition - I am glad when the

members on the opposite side get up to make comments. They do not need to bawl

and shout, just make points. I have points to make, they can make points on it.

I was glad when the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture got up to make some

points on it. I was really delighted the other day when the Premier, who was the

fisheries minister at the time, got up to respond to this petition. I told the

Premier that I will continue every single day to present a petition as long as

the House is open, to make the points.

The first point I want to make - and again, from a few calls

I have had in the last couple of days, is that I don't know if it is the

majority of Newfoundlanders who support a food fishery. I didn't do a poll or

survey. As a matter of fact, I will go as far as to tell you this: I don't know

if my district, as a majority, supports a food fishery. I don't have a poll done

on it, I don't have a survey done on it. It's not for a popularity contest. As a

matter of fact, as most members tell me, nobody is listening to it - that's what

they say. I think they are. It is not on a popularity note, it is not in the

media much. I don't know if the people in my district, the majority, support it.

I am not doing it for that.

I started it two years ago when the first food fishery was

stopped. Because there were a couple of things that came up during that food

fishery that bothered me for the reasons that it was closed. It was given by the

now-Premier who was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is two points for

any members in the House who didn't hear the Premier say it. He said it is

because we were getting small fish. I can't remember the exact dates - I had it

written down but I didn't take it to the House with me - when the food fishery

was open, but it was sometime in August. It was open for a couple of weeks.

There were two reasons that fishermen - so I went to ask

fishermen who were fishing during that food fishery. They asked why there were

so many small fish. I said: Maybe they are right, maybe there are very low

counts of fish in the bays. The fishermen said: No, they aren't right, and here

is why. First and foremost, any fisherman will tell you - if you ask the

fisherman who has been fishing for years; and the Member for Bonavista North

referred to it. But the first thing fishermen will tell you, and he knows this,

they say: Paul, we don't go out catching our fish for the fall until September

or October. That is when, for some reason - they don't understand. Scientists

can't tell you either. But there are more fish in the bays in September and

October. That is when they go to get their fall fish.

If you go around this Province to the small outports, that is

what they will tell you. A fisherman doesn't go out in July and August. Some

people go out for a little bit of recreation, but for the most part when

fishermen go out to get their fall fish for the winter to be salted away or

corned, or whatever they are going to do with it, they will get it usually in

September and October. So point one is that they opened up the food fishery at

the wrong time, if they want to get the best time for fishing.

Second is a point I made yesterday about it, when the Premier

talks about the small fish they get. It is because there were doctors, lawyers,

you name it, MHAs, going out fishing on the fishing ground. Anybody in Petty

Harbour will tell you - because I did go out in Petty Harbour while that food

fishery was open, with friends of mine. I went out with a fisherman and we went

directly to the berth and we got our fish. The three times that I went out

during that food fishery, I got my fish within an hour, an hour-and-a-half - ten

nice fish, and came back. I went with fishermen, Mr. Speaker.

As a matter of fact, while we sat in the boat off Petty

Harbour - and I forget the name of the berth, I wish I could remember it,

because they all have names on these. But when I sat there with the fishermen,

they saw this guy coming out in the boat and going around, going all over the

place, and they laughed because they said, that man could be out here for ten

years and if he doesn't know where the berths are on the fishing grounds, he

will not get his fish. That's what was happening, Mr. Speaker, that's why the

Premier was getting back reports that: oh, we are getting small fish, or we were

out all day and used two tanks of gas and didn't get any.

Those doctors, lawyers, MHAs and MPs go out and circle around

those guys in Petty Harbour who were launched on a berth. For members who don't

know - and the Member for Bonavista North knows - if you go out in a fishing

boat, you can be ten feet away from a fisherman on a berth and you could be over

the edge of that berth and not get a fish. As a matter of fact, if you have been

out there, and I know some members have experienced it, if you drift a little

bit off the berth, just a few feet, you will not get your fish.

Mr. Speaker, it's a very particular way that the fishermen go

about their business, and it is not what everybody else knows. I would not be

able to go out off Petty Harbour, anchor down, and moor off on a berth. So, Mr.

Speaker, the argument that the Premier used, that a lot of people were coming in

saying: I didn't get any fish -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave just to finish that point?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

No leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am certainly pleased to rise in my place and support the

petition presented by the Member for Baie Verte, a petition to request, I

suppose, and support the opening of the food fishery. I certainly support that.

If you want to go back in history somewhat, prior to 1949

when the debates were on to discuss whether we should or should not join

Confederation, go with Canada or with the United States, or remain independent

as a colony of Britain, there was a person at that point in time very opposed to

Confederation and he made some statements. I have done a bit of reading on that

period of time over the years, and that person was Mr. Cashin, Peter Cashin, I

believe his name was, Mr. Speaker. He predicted that the day would come when the

people in Ottawa would prevent Newfoundlanders from going out and jigging a cod

fish, and it is sad to say, that man's predictions and beliefs turned out to be

correct. Why now, Mr. Speaker, do we not have a food fishery in this Province?

we do have a fishery - but the normal codfish which was the reason why we

settled here in the first place. It is only in recent years that we got involved

with under-utilized species. We settled here for the food fishery, the cod

fishery.

Mr. Speaker, there's fish in them there bays. As they used to

say: There's gold in them there hills, we say: There's fish in them there bays.

If you talk to a lot of the fishermen now, they will tell you that there are

fish in the bays, in Placentia Bay, and in different bays around this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't profess to be a fisherman and I don't profess to be an

expert in any sense of the word when it comes to talking about the fishery in

this Province. But I do know fishermen in my district who are well-versed on the

fishery, who know the fishery, who have fished all their lives, and they tell me

that there is fish in the bays.

Mr. Speaker, to say that we can't have a food fishery - when

you compare our Province to other provinces, especially the Atlantic Provinces,

where you can go out and jig a fish. Up in Labrador you have people in one

community looking at people in another community, when looking at Quebec and

Labrador, being able to go out on the same grounds and jig a fish, and to me,

that is morally wrong.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the amount of fish that a food

fishery would take, if it were to open up for a couple of weeks, at the right

time of the year - not at the wrong time as was done two years ago when people

were not able to jig a fish, again leading people to believe there were no fish

out there - a food fishery at the right time of the year when ordinary

Newfoundlanders can go out and jig a fish, bring it home and either salt it down

or put it in the freezer for the winter months - when you compare that to the

amount of fish that the seal are taking in our waters this day and age.

We now know that seal do eat cod. People tried to proclaim

that seal did not eat cod. We know now that seals are actually going up salmon

rivers and taking salmon. I believe that is happening on the West Coast of

Canada, so we know that seals eat salmon and seals eat cod. The Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture himself, the other day mentioned that there were 2.7

billion pounds per year of cod being eaten by seals. Now, that is a lot of fish,

and that is only if the seals eat one pound per day, but from what I have been

told, the seals will actually take a bite out of a cod, it would probably take a

part of the belly or part of the back and what have you and the cod is gone and

then they move on to another one. So, how much codfish are actually being

destroyed by the seal, Mr. Speaker? So if you look at the amount of fish that

will be taken by Newfoundlanders in Newfoundland if we had a food fishery, in

comparison, it would be very minimal, Mr. Speaker.

My belief, the reason why we do not have a food fishery in

Newfoundland is all to do with public relations, and public relations with

respect to the present-day Premier of the Province when he was Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans, when he wanted to go over to Europe and say: Listen, we

have people in my own Province who can't go out and jig a fish. He is talking

about the conservation end of it and rightly so, we have to look at the

conservation and proper planning of our fishery in the future. But in the past,

it was poor management by the Federal Government that allowed the fishery in

this Province to be destroyed.

Again, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is only right and

proper that Newfoundlanders be permitted -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I will only say

that it would be right and proper to allow Newfoundlanders to have a food

fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, this year.

Thank you.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today with a petition, to petition the

discontinuation of school busing. The residents of St. John's South have

delivered this petition; the students of St. John Bosco School are being

discriminated against; the students in Shea Heights who travel to St. Mary's

School are being discriminated against. My hon. colleague, the Member for St.

John's East, presented a petition within the past couple of days from the

residents of Brophy Place and area, they are being discriminated against. I know

that the students in Quidi Vidi are being discriminated against; the eastern end

of Newfoundland Drive and many other areas in the city of St. John's and indeed,

the students in St. John's itself are being discriminated against, as the

government does not subsidize Metrobus as they do subsidize school busing for

many other communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. So I ask the House to

accept this petition on behalf of the students in Shea Heights and indeed, the

students in the remainder of the city of St. John's.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to support the petition presented by the Member

for St. John's South on the issue of school busing within the city of St.

John's.

There are two different systems in operation in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, with respect to school busing. One is provided by the

Department of Education and paid for by the Provincial Government. The other is

the Metrobus system in St. John's and is paid for by the St. John's municipal

taxpayer and by the people who put their money in the coin box on the bus or buy

a bus pass, and that's a very interesting situation that has been allowed to go

on, Mr. Speaker, where students who require busing to get to school outside of

St. John's have the buses paid for, have their transportation paid for by the

Province, by the Department of Education, and students in St. John's have to pay

their own way on school buses and the Province contributes nothing; no direct

subsidy to transportation in St. John's by the Province.

The St. John's city taxpayer subsidizes the Metrobus and the

students and their parents have to pay the transportation costs. That is an

incredible anomaly, Mr. Speaker, that has been allowed to go on for many, many

years, and little bits and pieces of those anomalies have made it even more

outrageous, Mr. Speaker, when Wedgewood Park continued its school busing

service, paid for by the department, special arrangements were made for Brophy

Place, and there are other little bits and pieces that have continued on. Now,

the government is going to take them away as well, and maintain the gross

inequity between St. John's, Mount Pearl, Conception Bay South, St. Anthony and

every other part of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, except for the city

of St. John's.

Now, that is a gross inequity; it is discrimination of the

worst kind. Even solutions that have been suggested by the Member for St. John's

South to allow an existing school bus contract which carries students from

Blackhead down to St. Mary's Church is not being allowed to stop at Shea Heights

and take people from there. This is the kind of policy that this government are

pursuing and they are making no effort to redress that situation. There have not

been any plans from the Minister of Education to deal with that and they are

allowing this gross discrimination to continue.

I am anxiously awaiting some response from the government on

this as to how they are going to redress this anomaly, by either offering a

subsidy to the school buses or the Metrobus system in St. John's to allow them

to provide better student rates or by offering a subsidy directly to the

students who must use Metrobuses so that they can get transportation to school

by means of a bus pass for free or be subsidized by the Provincial Government.

Those kinds of solutions are the kinds of solutions that we need, Mr. Speaker,

to end discrimination against students from St. John's.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Order No. 11, Bill No. 9.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 9, adjourn debate on the second

reading on Bill No. 9.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am certainly happy to rise again today and continue debate

on Bill 9, the professionalization of a fish harvesters certification board. Mr.

Speaker, as I said yesterday in this House, I think it is a very positive piece

of legislation. I think it is long overdue; but even if it is long overdue, it

is certainly very meaningful now that it is here. When we look at some of the

things that have been allowed to happen in this fishery over the past number of

decades, it is only right that we start involving the stakeholders and making

them part of the decision-making process and making them part of the fishery of

the future.

The minister gave us some thoughts and ideas of what he

thought the fishery of the future might be allowed to look like when and if - as

I suppose a lot of people say - the fishery returns. I speak of the cod fishery

I guess, when I say the fishery because there is still a very active, vibrant

fishery out there today in many, many other species of fish. In fact, I suppose

the income for this particular department is probably greater than it ever was.

You talk with Fishery Products International and they will tell you that their

sale volumes have certainly increased and their profits have increased in most

cases from what it was in prior years. But if we look around our coastal

communities we are reminded very quickly that some of those fish companies might

be doing all right but the people, the greatest stakeholders of all, the

fishermen, the fisherwomen and the plant workers are not doing very well, Mr.

Speaker. And I think it is the responsibility of each and every one of us, as

elected officials here, to make sure that we never again allow what has happened

in the past to be repeated.

When we talk of the fishery of the future, there are many

questions that need to be asked. We talk about - the minister spoke about it

yesterday - about gill nets, saying that he never, ever believed in gill nets. I

think if we are going to use gill nets - it was a way of fishing, it was new, it

was a way of having something out there fishing for you when you were doing

other things, when they came about back in the 1960s, and allowed us to increase

our catch and increase our dollars, increase the fishermen's income. If we are

going to replace that, then let us replace it with something that is

environmentally friendly, and replace it with something that is never going to

destroy our stocks, as we have seen done in the past.

I, for one, don't disagree with the use of gill nets if it is

done right. I think if you use the proper type of material in a gill net, that

is biodegradable, if you would, if you use a gill net with a mesh of a

sufficient size that will not catch small, juvenile fish, if you use them in a

way that they have to be attended to every day, then maybe we can use gill nets

again, but the people who should decide that are not you or me; it is the

professional fisherpeople. Those are the people who should decide what type of

gear should be used in what particular area of this Province.

We look at the size of mesh that was used when it was first

brought forward - I don't know the exact size, but I know that gradually, year

after year, the size of the mesh was decreased, the size of the mesh was made

smaller - we should have recognized we had a problem then, but we didn't. All we

did was change our method of fishing to adapt to the size of fish. That is what

we did, and the fish plants kept buying it, and naturally, we kept catching it

and carrying it there. When you look at using gill nets again, and if it is

going to part of the fishery of the future, then we should consult the

stakeholders, consult the fishermen.

Should there be a limit on the number of gill nets used? Up

until now there has never been a limit. You could go out, and if you wanted to

put out 100 nets, you could; if you wanted to put out 200 nets, it was just a

matter of putting out nets and finding berths to tie them somewhere and anchor

them in a place where they would fish and give you a good catch. In a lot of

cases, this again was abused, because people here who know anything about the

fishery, when you are talking about the inshore fishery, it is completely

different from the offshore. You cannot allow fish to lie in a net for two or

three days, or you cannot allow fish to lie in a trap if they are meshed in the

leader or something, for three or four days, and go back and still have a good

product. The type of feed that inshore fish feed on, you will find that if it is

allowed to be left for any period of time, then the acidity in the feed will

break down the inner walls of the stomach and the fish will deteriorate very,

very fast, and I suppose the water temperature will play a part as well.

As you know, if you buy crap on the wharf, then you pack crap

in the plant, then you ship crap out the door and that is what you market, and

it has to come back to haunt you in the price that you get in the marketplace

and in the profits that our plants make, and that is probably the reason why

many of our plants were not very profitable, and the reason why many of our

fishermen just eked out a meagre livelihood.

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to go back into the fishery

again, I think we should have some limits on the size of our boats. I don't

think it should be kept where it is today. I think people should be allowed to

increase the size of their boats. I don't think they should be stifled by some

of the foolish rules and regulations that are there today. If we are going to go

fishing again tomorrow we should decide, or I suppose somebody should decide for

us, what species of fish we are allowed to catch. Should we only be allowed to

catch black back and lump and skate, or should we be allowed to catch all

species of fish, and that way it can be brought into all seasons of the year,

and we will go from the trap fishery into the caplin fishery, the crab fishery,

into the cod fishery, and then the herring fishery, the mackerel fishery, right

on in through the fall of the year, Mr. Speaker.

As it stands today many of our fishermen have only a few

licences. It is only certain times of the year that they can fish. Many of them

are limited as well to the quota of fish they can catch. I suppose that is an

indication of the number of people involved in the fishery. Because if we were

allowed to go out and just take whatever might be there then it would be a

situation where we would destroy the stocks again and go right back from where

we started.

There should be limitations on it. The cod trap fishery: How

many cod traps should we be allowed to fish? Should we be able to go out and put

them wherever there is a berth, or should we limit the number of cod traps that

people are allowed to go and take

part in? If we are fishing with hook and line

what is the size of the hooks that we should use? What size hooks should we be

allowed to use? The modifications and limitations on gear should certainly be

considered.

We are talking about multi-species plants. That is the way of

the future, and it should be. I think if you are into the fishing business then

that is the business that is there to process fish. If you are only going to be

open two or three months of the year then nobody realizes much benefit from that

particular enterprise. Not only the plant owners, but the fishermen, the fish

plant workers, will not survive any more on two and three months' work. I think

we should look at multi-species plants and we should look at every fisherman

being a multi-species fisherman as well.

Secondary processing. I think we have one major plant in this

Province today that takes

part in secondary processing, FPI down in Burin. I

think it does very well. Up until now that particular plant has been fairly

successful but I don't think it operates year-round. In fact, I think it might

be only operating probably six, seven months of the year. I know that the time

frame is increasing there, and the product that it put up is an excellent

product and it is shipped. I think the markets are down in the United States.

Why shouldn't we be doing secondary processing? Why should we

be shipping our lump roe out in barrels by the truckload, by the boat load, and

have it come back into this Province in a little bottle of about one gram and

appear on our supermarket shelves ready for the marketplace? Why can't we do

that here? This is nothing new. We have all been saying this year after year but

nothing seems to happen. It seems like when we go and we can take part and do

something we allow things to leave this Province in the crudest form and be

happy with the small amount of benefit derived from it.

This reflects back on not only the fishery. We can look at

Hibernia. The Member for Kilbride brought up, I suppose, another example in

Question Period today when he talked about Newfoundlanders being denied the

opportunity to work on a couple of oil rigs. The minister responded by saying

that we do have thirty Newfoundlanders on a particular oil rig. Minister, what I

say to you is, if there are sixty jobs there why settle for thirty? Don't be

happy until we can look after each and every one of our people here. If it means

going and giving them some training and if it means having to go to bat for

them, then let's do it, because that is the only way that we are going to

survive.

It is disgraceful when you see - and it is still happening

right across this Province today - the fish that we catch - the crab is a prime

example. Last year I think a lot of it left this Province in a state just pretty

much the same as it came from the water. It was caught, it was bought it, it was

cooked, it was cleaned and put in a package and shipped out to the Japanese

market. What were we told? We expressed a concern, we told them we had problems

with what was being done because it wasn't employing our people. We were told

that that is what the marketplace demanded, that is what the marketplace wants.

If the marketplace wanted crab meat, which is the bottom line

- that is the only way that it is going to be consumed is the meat, there is

nothing else on it any good - then let them buy it the way that we want to

produce it, and let's derive the most benefits that we can here. I believe that

can be done, minister, and I think that is the way of getting our people back to

work.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't serve crab out of a can in the

restaurants in Japan they usually serve it out of a shell.

MR. FITZGERALD: That can be done here, sir, that is what

they have been doing for years but you don't have to go - and I don't think that

they put the full crab on the plate. They may with the Alaskan crab. I think

that is the way that the Alaskan crab is served for the most part but our snow

crab is a much, much smaller species and what you find is that that is served

with most of the shell removed, I say to the minister. That is the way that I

have seen it over the years. It is probably done a little bit differently in

other places but I am sure there is a place for it out of a can as well. If

there is a demand for it let's put it in the cans here. If there is no demand

for it in a can, you are right -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) fish, millions and millions

of dollars worth. They have it in cans stored in warehouses on the mainland and

they cannot sell it because nobody wants it.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is probably true but I am sure that

the way a lot of that crab left this Province last year that there was something

else done with it before it reached the marketplace and this is what we find

with a lot of the produce that we put forward here. The same thing out at

Hibernia -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to clue up because there

are other people who want to speak. I just want to clue up by saying this Bill 9

is a very, very positive bill, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly going to change the

way fishermen do things. It is about time that they were consulted. Is it the

answer to all of our fisheries problems? Is it going to get our people back to

work? Is it going to be the lifeblood of our towns? No, Mr. Speaker, it won't do

any of that but what it will do is give the stakeholders, it will give the

fishermen some say in what they do. It will, I think, go a long way in never

allowing what has happened in the past to happen again if this bill is taken at

its value. Those people are allowed to have the input that they should have and

that they deserve to have in this particular industry. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to

rise on Bill 9 in second reading and speak in favour of this legislation which

does something very important and very significant for the fishing people of

this Province. It is something that is a long time coming and it is due to the

efforts, principally, of the fishermen's union in promoting the recognition of

the professional character of people who engage in the fishing industry. It is

important for what it contains but it is also important for its symbolic

content. The professionalism of fishermen and fish harvesters is something that

was not recognized by the governments of Newfoundland, indeed by the people of

Newfoundland. Fishing was often seen as something that people did as a last

resort and that anybody could go into a fishing boat and become a fisherman

without getting the recognition and having the pride of the fishing enterprise

being recognized by society in general.

It probably was not, Mr. Speaker, until the success of the

William Coaker's fishermen's protective union in electing fishermen to this

House of Assembly that fishermen started taking their rightful place in having

an influence on the fortunes of government and of politics in Newfoundland. We

see in this latter day the influence of fishermen and women, plant workers,

people engaged in the fishing industry, whom, since the late '60s, have through

their organization, the fishermen's union, developed a role for the fishing

industry and for the participants in the fishery in terms of having a say in the

working conditions through getting legislation passed in this House, recognizing

that fishers have the right to collective bargaining and to negotiate

collectively for the price of fish. A very substantial change in the recognition

and the ability of fishermen to have any control over their lives, instead of

being at the bottom end of society, the victims of the market, the victims of

manipulation by fish merchants who have more knowledge about the markets, more

control over the lives of individual fishermen through credit arrangements and

other activities, and the virtual monopoly in many cases around the Province as

to whom fishermen could sell their fish.

What we are seeing here is a significant development in terms

of societal recognition of the professionalism of fish harvesters, of fishermen

and women who make their living from the sea. And I am sure it is controversial

as well. There is nobody here in this House going to say much about that, but it

is controversial, the idea of designating certain people as certified

professional fish harvesters, because there are some who say that there is a

God-given right to fish in this Province, and perhaps even to catch the last

fish some might say, but there isn't.

There is a group, a class of people, who have dedicated their

lives and their livelihood to engage in the fishery, to invest their time, their

education, their training, their experience, their cash, their credit, in

getting involved in the fishing enterprise. And when we are talking about who

shall have access to this resource in terms of making a livelihood, I think

there is a developed consensus that is recognized in this act, although the

Province does not have the control over licensing, there is a developing

consensus that certain people whose attachments to the fishing industry, whose

experience, whose education, whose training, whose ability, whose commitment,

and whose dependency on the fishery for a livelihood qualify them to be

recognized as certified, professional fish harvesters.

I think it is inevitable that programs, government programs,

government assistance, whether at the provincial or federal level, will be

limited or defined by people who are certified fish harvesters. That is

something that is inevitable with the passage of this act, and I think that is

appropriate, because the people who are defining the qualifications and the

needs for professional fish harvesters are, in fact, in large measure, the

fishermen themselves.

With other elements of society, representatives appointed by

government, representatives of other players in the industry, the stakeholders

is the favourite term these days, who will have an influence on who is involved

with, or what the rules are going to be for this fish harvesters certification

board. I think it is very important that the objectives of the board are spelled

out here as providing an advisory role to both the federal and provincial

governments in the formation of fisheries policies consistent with the common

good of fish harvesters, and it spells out the areas of resource conservation,

fish quality improvement, a reasonable return to participants, optimizing

product value, and a very important one, the safety of fish harvesters and the

public.

Fishing continues to be, by far, the most dangerous

industrial activity in all of North America, more dangerous than mining, despite

the drama of a mine disaster such as Westray.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fishing is.

MR. HARRIS: Fishing is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, absolutely.

MR. HARRIS: Fishing is far more dangerous than mining,

far more dangerous than industrial, high level construction, heavy construction.

There are far more lives lost in fishing than in any other industry in Canada.

So it is very important that this board address itself to the issues of safety

of fish harvesters, but it is also interesting and unique, the establishment and

the development of a compliance code for a code of ethics for fish harvesters.

That is something that is brand new, Mr. Speaker, well recognized that not every

person who is engaged in fishing follows proper environmental and ecological

practices in the activities that are involved in harvesting fish, and I am

assuming that we are talking about harvesting seals here as well.

Under strange

definitions, some of our acts, a seal is a fish

according to the Fisheries Act of Canada so I think this code of ethics for

fishermen and for fish harvesters will also include sealers and I think that,

that is important, important to our understanding that anybody engaged in the

harvesting of animals whether they be seals, caribou, moose or fish or seals or

any other alive animals, have to abide by a code of ethics that recognizes that

this type of activity cannot be done in any manner that one chooses but must

follow standards and principles that are acceptable to not only the fishers

themselves, but to the public at large.

So it is right and proper that the board not merely be

representative of fishermen themselves but also include others outside of the

direct fishing community, including a representative at large to be chosen by

the minister, representatives of the fisheries co-operatives group,

representatives of the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture,

Department of Environment and Labour Relations presumably on the environmental

side having a great influence on the development of a code of ethics for fish

harvesters.

I look forward to seeing that, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps

having that code of ethics up for public discussion and debate before it is

adopted so it can't be suggested that the fish harvesters are developing a code

of ethics inside the tent as it were, without public scrutiny and public

discussion before it is adopted. I think it is a very forward step in the life

of the fishing industry in Newfoundland to have finally recognized that the

activity of engaging in fishery is a professional occupation that requires

education, training, experience, standards that are not available to every

person, and that require perhaps an apprenticeship to get one to the stage of

being able to properly conduct the fishery.

There are many skills as other members have said, associated

with being engaged in the fishery. A fisherman is called upon to deal with

dangerous weather, dangerous water, called upon to look after marine engines,

electronic equipment, radar, all sorts of new technologies that are involved in

the fishery, and I think that an examination has to be made as we contemplate

the return of a commercial fishery in the cod sector. There is a very

significant role that must be played in examining the technologies that are

being used to harvest fish, whether the technologies themselves are damaging to

the fish stocks, not only damaging to the fish stocks but damaging to the way of

life of our communities. We also have to consider that, not simply whether or

not more fish can be caught faster in a particular way but whether or not there

is a better way that ensures healthy communities as well as healthy companies.

So there are a lot of complex issues in the return of the

fishery and I for one, am delighted to see that The Professional Fish Harvesters

Certification Act is being presented to this House at this time, and perhaps in

some ways it is appropriate that the time that is upon us during the moratorium,

that this is a time to consolidate some of these ideas to establish this type of

forward-looking and forward-thinking board and legislation, so that as the cod

fishery returns we have it returning on a different level, perhaps with less

participants - I think that people recognize there are going to be less

participants in the fishery - but that the primary access to the fishery ought

to be and must be people who have an attachment to the fishery and who, by their

education, training, experience, and their degree of dependency upon the fishery

for their livelihood, meet the qualifications of being regarded as a

professional fish harvester, and be given prior access to the resource provided

by principles established and agreed upon in advance of the federal government

relicensing, or reopening and reestablishing quotas.

I think we have been through a very difficult time in the

fisheries. It has forced everybody in this Province, not just fishers themselves

but everybody in this Province, to examine the role that the fishery plays in

our society, and to recognize that not every person is entitled to go and become

a commercial fisherman when there are significant numbers of people who have the

education, training and experience, and involvement in the fishery, that gives

them, in fact, a prior right to engage in that activity. Other provinces have

similar programs for agriculture, that if you are not considered a professional

farmer you don't have access to certain programs of government that are designed

to support farming and agricultural activities.

It is not an outrage against individual rights and liberties

to establish a professional fish harvesting board and certification program to

allow that recognition that fishing men and women in this Province deserve to

have, and to recognize their qualifications, their professional status, and

their ability to control, through this board, ethical practices, and ensure that

fisher people who claim to be professional fish harvesters, in fact, meet

professional standards and are prepared to abide by the rules and codes of

ethics laid down by the professional fish harvesting board.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I indicate firmly my support for this

process, and my congratulations to those involved who have been fighting for

this for many years, and to also acknowledge, of course, the minister who has,

in fact, introduced this legislation, that he has accepted the advice of the

fishermen's union and presented this for consideration by the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am glad today to rise and make a few comments on this

particular Bill 9, on the new fishery of the future I guess you could say. The

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, of course, in his opening remarks, said

it is an historic time, and it certainly is. I guess a lot of people have not

realized it yet, but we are about to mark the 500th birthday of this Province,

why we came to this Island so many years ago. It is sort of ironic that 500

years later we are about to take our first step in a new direction in the

fishery. Some would say that we may be 500 years late, but the truth is that

everybody in this Province realizes - everybody in this Province, I think, now

realizes - and in this country, and probably around the world, what a problem

with management of such a resource can do to the livelihood of a place such as

Newfoundland, that after 500 years, when John Cabot threw his basket over the

side of the boat, with so many fish, they came to this Island and made a living

and stayed here. Therefore, we have the history before us today that so many

people are proud of, that we live on this Island and in Labrador, in a part of

the world where teems of fish were in abundance and attracted so many people

from all over the world, the different countries of the world, the Spanish, the

British, the Scots, the Irish, and so on. That is why we have such a proud

history in this Province today.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in opening, refers

to the first step, and that is what it is. That is why I support the

legislation, and that is why I agree with him, that it is the first step, but it

is just a small baby step.

Now, what needs to be followed by this is real effort by

every single person in this Province, including the politicians, the people in

the industry, the unions and so on. What was also positive about this is that

consultation with the unions and the people in the industry, and the people in

the fishery, were really the ones who brought this to the forefront, who

initiated the consultation and so on, because they were the ones with the input

who saw what really should happen in the fishery of this Province.

The old-timers who are around will tell you now, when I

talked about the food fishery a couple of times, and it is not bawl and shout

about points, it is just an opinion I am giving on my behalf, on their behalf,

about the principle of what we are talking about here today. We are talking

about a new professionalization, a new movement, and a new direction we should

take in the fishery.

Here we are about to celebrate our 500th birthday next year

and the reason that brought us to this Province. It is the reason that brought

us to this Province and made us so proud of what we are today, but there is

nobody in this Province or in Canada that does not realize that the management

of the fishery of the past is what we have to learn from. That is what the

minister said in his opening remarks, that we have to learn from our mistakes of

the past. Really, this minister and this government has a golden opportunity,

which is the way I look at it. If we say we should look at things positively

well that is the way I look at it.

Right now the minister and the government have an

opportunity, a golden opportunity, to start us on the right track, back to the

fishery of the future, to the fishery of the future that is going to be

sustainable and will be managed properly. I agree with the minister when he

talks in his estimates about the attitude. That is the first priority and that

is what has to be the foundation and the root of the whole beginning of this new

legislation. It is a step in the right direction, it is the foundation, but

unless we change the attitude before we move on into the fishery of the future

the same thing will happen, we will have another collapse.

That is why it is so important that the foundation be laid of

an attitude where we have to process properly, secondary processing, the

technology we use, how we go about managing the fishery, how we harvest the

fish, and the full utilization, Mr. Speaker. That is what we have to start with,

so it has to start with every single person in the industry, and say that this

is our resource and it has to be managed in such a way that our children, the

children of the future, can also go into an industry that is professionalized

and is a resource that is going to be used. It is in front of us in the waters

every single day and that we use all of it, Mr. Speaker.

It is also encouraging to hear the minister in the estimates

and in his opening remarks talk about multi-species licenses because I have said

it, and I know the minister has heard it from many people in the industry over

the years, it is not just cod that Newfoundland is all about, it is all those

species out there, even the cucumbers that the minister talks about. To be

honest with you, I heard very little talk about that before, the cucumbers they

find all around this Province. That is something new, but that is just a small

example of what is out there. That is why I really believe that funding has to

be available, especially for research and development.

If we are just going to jump back into our boats and go out

and start catching fish again we are going to be in the same downward slope, but

the problem this time is that we will not have so long. We had 500 years to get

to this, 500 years to get to the destruction, but we do not have the luxury of

going another 500 years before we correct the mistakes again. If we make

mistakes the second time, now that we have started on the right foot, we will

not have the luxury of waiting 500 years for the collapse. The collapse will

come within years, in the short-term. That is what will happen. The collapse

will come quickly this time if we make the same mistakes again.

That is why the attitude of the people in the industry,

government, provincial and federal, in management and harvesting, processing,

has to change and has to change quickly. We will not be able to go for another

twenty years, or 100 years for sure, if we start on that same slippery downward

slope. The word is always used by fishermen themselves, besides all the people

in the industry, DFO and so on, the word is `greed.' That is where all this came

from - greed. The quickest way to get it, use whatever technology, don't worry

if there is anything left for tomorrow. Don't worry about that - get a name on

your boat, get out there and scoop it up as quick as you can or somebody else is

going to get it. That has been the problem, Mr. Speaker.

That is why I agree wholeheartedly with what the minister

says in the Estimates and in the House about attitude. That is a big challenge,

but it has to be put forward in black and white and what are processing,

harvesting and so on, how we are going to manage the fishery of the future.

Because the history of this Province and what brought us here is something to be

proud of, yes, but we have to learn and learn quickly and do something about it

quickly, in legislation like this, which is the first step, so that it doesn't

happen again. Because we will find very quickly that we don't have the luxury of

time. We can't go experimenting now. This is not a time for experimenting, I say

to the minister. This is a time, we have learned, to put in place the actions

that are going to make sure we don't follow the same mistakes again. That is

what we have to start with.

Then, there is secondary processing. We have all talked in

this House about secondary processing. It is a funny thing, you know, you take a

practical example: My brother who left home three months ago, and he is working

in a McCains fish stick plant just outside of Windsor, Ontario. You know, we

have Newfoundlanders going away and working on secondary processing of fish. It

is incredible when you stop to think about it. I wonder how many Newfoundlanders

- as they say, there are more Newfoundlanders gone than there are here - more

Newfoundlanders across this country - don't go to the United States yet; just

across Canada, how many proud Newfoundlanders who want to live home - the irony

of the situation - are working in secondary processing plants in Ontario and all

over?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: And Labrador. They are working across this

country, Mr. Speaker, on secondary processing. You talk about the multi-species

licence and the cucumbers and whatever else we can take in from the oceans.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sea cucumbers.

MR. SHELLEY: Sea cucumbers, I have to remember that - not

Sprung cucumbers. There is so much in that ocean that could be beneficial to us

that we haven't even tapped. It is like the tourism industry we talk about in

the Province. It is not tapped. There are so many resources in this Province,

and for the last five or six years in this business -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not doing a tap.

AN HON. MEMBER: We know they're not doing a tap.

MR. SHELLEY: They say the government wasn't doing a tap,

Mr. Speaker. Maybe that is true, but I won't say that. I wouldn't say the

government isn't doing a tap.

The point is, and we have all said it, that we haven't tapped

the multi-species around our coasts, the same as we haven't tapped the tourism

potential. So funny - all these resources that are in front of us and just blow

up in our faces, and we don't see any benefits from it. Hibernia, Churchill

Falls, we can go on and on.

The attitude change, number one - I agree with the minister,

and that is where he has to start. If the attitude doesn't change, in ten years,

twelve years, we will see another collapse. Whether the minister is still in

that portfolio, or whoever is in the portfolio, we will see another collapse.

But the point I am making to the minister, I say, is that we don't have the

luxury now to wait another 500 years. I agree that this legislation is going in

the right direction but we have to do it quickly.

From all indications - and the minister says it so we are

going to hold him to it, that he acts quickly and does things quickly, because

they need to be done quickly. But they need to be done in consultation. When we

talk about multi-species licences and so on - I've talked to the minister about

it a few times. I told the minister, and the minister did talk to me. He doesn't

like to admit it in the House but he actually does talk to us sometimes - not

very often.

My message to the minister is that when we do increase

licences, multi-species or whatever the licence is, that people should be

consulted so they know what is going on with their livelihood. It is not a time

to play with people's minds, it is a time to let people know what their fate is.

When they get up in the morning, they look at a fish plant that lies idle that

has been working for years; like in La Scie, they have looked at that plant -

and not just La Scie, but people around, the communities around, Brent's Cove,

there are ten or twelve communities that made their living from that big

building there in La Scie. For a long time it has been the hub of that part of

the peninsula. The mines went in Baie Verte - that was the hub for that. Then

there was the plant in La Scie.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that those plants -

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Twillingate &

Fogo wants to know why the people in La Scie gave away their licences and in

what year, I don't remember. Does the minister know what year it was?

MR. EFFORD: Nineteen ninety.

MR. SHELLEY: Nineteen ninety. You will have to ask that,

Mr. Speaker. You will have to ask the people of La Scie. You can do that very

easily, I say to the minister. Don't use anything to divert attention from the

point I am making, that if there are any new licences or new restructuring in

this Province, that he do it through the people of those communities. Don't play

it with companies and cartels and use all of that. We are talking about human

beings, people who should be consulted.

The people in La Scie know about that plant, and can give you

its history, the people who lived there for years. The people in Fleur de Lys

know about their plant, and what that did, and in Little Bay Islands, and in

Middle Arm, and all over this Province - I am just talking about my district now

- the point being that before anything is moved on, if there is anything new

happening, the people, not just the industry, the people who own the companies,

but the people in the communities who make their livelihood and live in those

communities because of that industry, they should know what is happening. There

should be no cooked up deals behind closed doors with the so-called cartels that

the minister keeps referring to.

All I say to the minister is that if it is going to be done

fairly, let everybody have their say, and if there is a community anywhere in

this Province that has a plant in the community, then those people, from the

mayor right down to the councillors, right down to every citizen in that

community, should at least know what the plans are, should at least have some

idea, not some idea that some plan is being cooked up behind closed doors with

industry or cartels, as the minister talks about, and then they find out in a

press release that a plant is opening here or there, or licences are gone here

or there. That is what I say to the minister, just be reasonable, sincere,

honest, up front with people, to at least give them their fair chance to put

forward why they think their plant should reopen.

I don't believe a plant in a community belongs to any

particular company; the building and the structure itself, yes, but the licences

don't. The licence is for the government to issue, I believe, to a community so

that they decide what happens with it.

Now, the crab industry, of course, has grown in leaps and

bounds, especially since the moratorium, and that is why that particular

licence, and a multi-species licence that the minister keeps referring to,

should be consulted on with the people of the community - that is all I say

about it. But secondary processing, to get back to that for a second, has to be

a big part, an integral part, of the new fisheries of the future, so that what

we catch in our waters, from a cucumber to a crab to a codfish, whatever is

done, that every possible chance and potential be considered for that to be

processed in this Province, and we can send it out in a package - like what is

being done with FPI now on the Burin Peninsula, it can be done in this Province.

I think the minister - and I am sure he will make some more

responses - when we does get up, will respond to that and tell us what his

feelings are on secondary processing; I know what they are, but I want to ask

him again - I have heard him say - on this particular piece of legislation.

Now, of course, the Premier, who once was the federal

Minister of Fisheries, does - he should - understand the fisheries of this

Province, and the problems we have had in the past. And with consultation with

everybody - and by everybody, I mean the government officials, I mean the

Premier, I mean the minister, I mean the Cabinet officials, I mean the

Opposition, the NDP, the Independent here in this House, people in the industry,

DFO, union, but we cannot leave out in those consultations... That word

`consultation', that escapes us so often, when we talk about consulting we talk

about some board that is made up, a committee that is struck. The real

consultation always has to be referred to the person the implications are going

to affect the most, and in that case, I mean the people who live in the

community, just the regular citizen, the regular resident of that community.

That is who it is going to affect, so they have to have some say. At least, if

nothing else, they have to have input. If you are going to affect their

livelihood, if they are going to have to take up their family and move anywhere

else in the Province, or move to the mainland, the least that a government has

to do, and it is incumbent upon any government, is to consult with those

stakeholders. They are the real stakeholders.

The processors are the people who make the profit. They are

there for one reason, to make profit. Yes, they should be part of the

consultation process, there is no doubt about it, but that citizen, that person

who lived in a community for forty, fifty or sixty years, and their families

longer, they have to be recognized as the real people who will feel the effects

of any changes to the fishery. They are the people who get up every morning and

walk down the street with nothing to do now, on TAGS or unemployment or social

assistance, and look at this mammoth building, the biggest building in the

community usually - the fish plant is usually the biggest building in most

communities. They look at that, Mr. Speaker, and they want to know, I say to the

minister, what their fate is.

There are a lot of people at a point in this Province right

now who will look at you and say: If the plant is not going to open just tell us

there is no chance, or if it is, then get on with it. That is what the minister

credits himself with saying, that we are going to get on with it. But if he does

get on with it, remember the people who are affected most. It isn't the

processors who bring in the profits but the `Joe Blow' who lives up the street,

who looks at that plant every day and wonders if he is going to live in that

community next week or next month, and wonders if his children are going to grow

up in that community. Those are the real people who have to be part of the

consultation process. It's not a matter of profits.

There is always a balance between the processor, the guy who

makes the profit and, of course, the person who lives in the community. Yes,

they have to make profits, but at the same time, these people have to live

there. They want to live there. When we talked about rural Newfoundland - and

when the minister spoke in Estimates, he referred to rural Newfoundland - I have

always said this: St. John's and the bigger centres of this Province only go to

the beat of rural Newfoundland. I've said that long before I even considered

politics, let alone entered it. If rural Newfoundland survives and thrives, then

St. John's, Corner Brook, and the bigger centres in this Province so go - the

same thing, Mr. Speaker.

That is why the golden opportunity of the fishery of the

future - and I have mentioned this before, Voisey's Bay. We are all excited

about Voisey's Bay and that is great. We were excited about Hibernia. That is

great, too. But those are mega-projects in one location with so many jobs. They

are wonderful and we are all going to support them, and we are all going to

watch very closely that the right thing happens to Voisey's Bay and Hibernia and

the Port au Port Peninsula. They are all great and exciting. But I still say

that the backbone of this Province and why we are here is the fishery. Because

all of those little plants, and the man who went out on the water and had a net

or fished hand line, they were, they are, they always will be the backbone of

Newfoundland. They are what Newfoundland is all about.

On that principle alone, although we are talking about this

new Bill No. 9 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: - and I don't do it to get a shouting match

going with the Government House Leader. I do it on the principle of the food

fishery that comes right back to the root of the principle of why I am always

requesting and support a recreational food fishery in this Province. Because the

people who are asking now for the food fishery, the genuine people I talk about,

a lot of them who fished for years, and now at a ripe old age, they look down

from their houses in a small community, and after all these years of living

there, knowing that there are fish right in that little bay - and there are

plenty of fish there - knowing that there are fish there, they are not allowed

to go down there and jig a fish.

That hurts them a lot deeper than any law or regulation. Like

I said, it is the reason we came here. It is the last person who should be

blamed for any collapse. And the last person to be blamed for the collapse of

the fishery in this Province and therefore the collapse of the economy, is the

person who jigged a fish to eat. The hand line was the last technology that was

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I go back, and like I say I do

it - and I am glad the Premier is back in his seat. Because instead of a

shouting match like you had with the Government House Leader yesterday - I am

glad you are back because I didn't want another shouting match like I had with

the Government House Leader yesterday. I make this sincere principle point,

because I'm glad also that the Premier responded to one of my petitions on the

food fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: What were all your other points?

MR. SHELLEY: On the food fishery. I say to the Premier, I

do not know - and it is the root of all this legislation, I think, it is very

closely tied to this Bill No. 9. We are talking about a new fishery of the

future and so on, so I was making the point - I know the Premier is busy

talking, but I was making the point that this comes back to our great history.

Five hundred years ago we came with buckets of fish over the side, and now the

hand line and the fisherman who went out to jig a fish to eat - before you sell;

I'm not talking about a commercial fishery - he was the last person to blame for

the collapse of the fishery in this Province. The skipper who went out in his

dory, he was the last person we should blame for the collapse of the fishery.

I say to the Premier, in my district - he knows, because it

was his district, I do not know right now if even the majority of the people in

- maybe the Premier can afford to do a poll. I can't. But the people in my

district, just from going around, on hearsay and talking to people in Snook's

Arm and Round Harbour and all those places that the Premier knows about. That is

all I got it from. I will be quite honest. I would like to do a poll to see if

people in my district support a food fishery. As I stand here today I do not

know if the majority of people in my district support a food fishery. All I am

saying, if it is five people in Round Harbour, if it is five, if that is all in

the Province who supported a food fishery for the arguments that they gave me as

people who - I am talking about the older guys now who sat with me and said this

is why I think that we should have one.

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: And that is a good point, Premier, I do

already have all those votes and that is exactly what I am saying. I am not up

here to get votes on a popularity contest for the food fishery because, Mr.

Speaker, as some members have already told me, none of the media is listening to

this. I said it two years ago and I will say it again, before the election -

during the election I brought it up and the Premier is right by the way, it

wasn't a big issue. So I agree with him. When he stood and said that I agree

with him. I tried to make it an issue during the election. I will confess that.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? There were so many other issues and the Premier

had such a big red tide going that they were not paying attention to it. I tried

to make it a big issue but I couldn't so I failed in that. All together, the

strength of my point is that I don't know, we could do a poll - maybe the

Premier could afford to do it - a poll in the Province on the food fishery, a

plebiscite or whatever you want to call it and maybe 90 per cent of the Province

are against it but until the scientific research from this -

AN HON. MEMBER: You're insulting the media in the gallery

now, I say there is nobody up there listening now.

MR. SHELLEY: The federal research that was done on this,

of why we have a moratorium, I fully support. I don't support a commercial food

fishery, I say to the Premier, until - of course the evidence that we have right

now does not allow for a commercial food fishery. Mr. Speaker, I will just say

that the principle of a man being able to jig a fish to eat, if I can see

concrete evidence that that would hurt the recovering fish stocks, I would not

support it. If that can be shown that is fair enough, Mr. Speaker, but I still,

as of right now, unless there is new evidence, new scientific research to

support a man or woman in this Province who wants to jig a fish in their bay to

eat. How it is done, the criteria and so on - like the Premier mentioned before,

I am sure that with consultation with the right people that we could sit down

and come up with some rules and regulations. I am not sure what those rules and

regulations should be but all I am asking is that it even be opened up for

discussion, if not to open up the food fishery then open it up for discussion.

Mr. Speaker, as far as Bill 9, I think it is a step in the

right direction. Yes it is but the attitude has to change very quickly and rules

and regulations have to be put in place with the proper consultation. So that

this Bill 9, a step in the right direction, will continue with more steps so

that we develop it carefully, well planned consultations with the stakeholders.

By stakeholders I don't just mean the people in the industry, I mean the people

who live in these communities all around this Province who are waiting for

answers on this. That is what I am talking about so that we can give a fair,

reasonable imputation on a step by step, very carefully planned fishery of the

future. That is what is going to bring back this Province, Voisey's Bay and so

on, yes, Mr. Speaker, but the fishery of the future is the backbone, is going to

be our reason for survival, is going to be a reason to bring hope back into

rural Newfoundland and therefore hope back into the Province because that is

where it starts, in rural Newfoundland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to

pass some comments on Bill 9 to establish a professional fish harvesters

certification board and provide for certification of professional fish

harvesters.

I commend the work done by Father Des McGrath and members of

the Fishermen Food and Allied Workers Union in being the forerunners in putting

forth legislation to deal with fish harvesters in this Province. We have

numerous different groups and organizations that have certain professional

organizational standards within the legal profession, parliamentarians,

electricians and numerous groups. In addition to their union initiatives there

is a certain professional aspect to the harvesting of different species in this

Province. I think it is important that the people who are involved in

harvesting, the fishers themselves are the ones who should have a particular

input. They should be involved in setting the standards for the professional

fish harvesters. It should not just be us -certainly as parliamentarians here -

to initiate that and it has not been done. I understand that it could very well

have come under the heading of Father Des McGrath because it is in line with

what their suggestions are and I compliment the minister for seeing what they

were presenting and having the harvesters themselves have the initiative and the

input into establishing standards for professionalization for the people who are

going to be affected by it, they should set standards. Sure, I say to the

minister, we are doing the right thing.

I do have reservations on what is going to happen with the

movement of a core fisher as set down by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans,

and how it is going to affect the standards by which, and I am sure in the

direction we are moving, that a core fisher of course, is not going to be one

who meets the professionalization standards; they are not going to be parallel I

understand, I mean from what is happening and I know it is the right of the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans to set down standards for licensing and who

is eligible to avail of a specific licence, and it is also the right of this

provincial body to set down legislation based on any training or any aspect of

professionalization.

I know we have two areas of jurisdiction which clearly

defines responsibilities but I think it is very important; I know the union -

Father McGrath, I have spoken to him on occasion and had an opportu