March 10,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 4

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Premier about the

contradictory messages he and his ministers are giving the public about the

public sector wage and benefits issue.

The President of Treasury Board announced that there would be

layoffs and a reduction in wage rates because the Province has no choice. Then

the Premier came on Province-wide television and proclaimed that there had never

been a plan to reduce wage rates, but government would find the savings it seeks

through unpaid leave. Now, we hear the minister responsible for employment

saying there will be no unpaid leave, there will be no reduction in wage rates,

there will be no layoffs, because government has found another way.

Will the Premier tell the people honestly what is going on?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion, only

in the hon. member's mind, or that which the hon. member is seeking to instill

in the minds of others.

The Province's position has been the same from the beginning.

We have to reduce the public sector total compensation package. It has never

been a proposal of the government to reduce wage rates or salary levels. That

has never been.

Now, I saw a document delivered by a civil servant to a

bargaining group, at one time, and the way it was phrased it talked about

across-the-board wage reduction. That was not government policy and it was made

clear immediately after, and everybody knew, including - here is a letter from

Mr. Reid, on February 25, directed to me: 'Our approach was to help find a

bridge to span a difficult fiscal year. It would appear that the intention of

government is to reduce total compensation for the next fiscal year and the

fiscal years beyond that.'

So even he knew and understood what we were talking about was

not affecting wage rates or salary levels.

Now,I know the hon. member would like to create and sow some

confusion, but it is not going to work. The bogeyman has been exposed and you

can't recreate that same bogeyman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East, a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again because the

Premier ignored it, tried to avoid dealing with it. What is his plan regarding

unpaid leave? What is his intention regarding reducing wage rates? What is his

plan regarding layoffs? How does he propose to reduce the overall public sector

compensation package and by how much?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to conduct

collective bargaining on behalf of the public service through an interchange of

questions and answers with the hon. member or any other hon. member, for that

matter, nor am I going to conduct it through the medium of the media. It isn't

going to be done that way. It is quite important that we stay with the process

that is in place and I hope we will have a degree of success. To speak

specifically to the question of the government's position with respect to unpaid

leave - we have said clearly, unpaid leave, or layoff, or leave without pay,

however you want to do it, is one possibility that might be taken into account.

It is one of the things that have been put forward. We want to negotiate it with

all the public sector unions. Our bargaining position is fairly simple.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: There are a variety of things that add to

the compensation, quite apart from the babble that you hear from mindless

mouths, uncontrolled mouths opposite, quite apart from that kind of babble, Mr.

Speaker. If they want to babble on I am quite prepared to answer the question -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - or I am prepared to sit down and allow

the House to record this constant babble but I am not prepared to have both take

place at the same time, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the

Premier.

Is it the Premier's intention to cut $80 million, this year,

the 1993-94 Budget year, from public sector wages and benefits?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the number we have been

working with in the last week or ten days, has been $70 million and the

objective is to try to find a balanced way to deal with these problems. Hon.

members will remember that we took measures in this House in December that

increased -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, either remove the hon. member

or stuff something in the (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Member for Kilbride to please restrain

himself.

Order, please!

I was specifically asking the Member for Kilbride to restrain

himself, that it sort of interferes with the even flow, the smooth flow of the

answers.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to answer

questions but I am not prepared to shout against mindless babble. I mean, I

don't want the truth confused with mindless, stupid babble. I am prepared to

answer the question but I not prepared to stand here and compete for noise level

with mindless babble.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How does the Premier expect people to believe his claim that

he is not using the news media or going over the heads of the bargaining table

people in trying to confuse people about the government's plans regarding public

sector wages and benefits?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, my address to the Province

last week dealt with the financial situation of the Province and explained, with

the tax increases that were put in place last fall, why it was necessary now to

find a solution to the balance of the problem - why it was necessary to find a

solution to the balance of the problem through a reduction of that portion of

governmental expenditures which consumes 68.5 per cent of the total expenditure

that is within the discretion of government.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Are the on/off rollbacks, the on/off unpaid leave, the on/off

lay offs part of a deliberate PR ploy leading up to the election campaign? Is

this the same kind of scam the government carried out in November and last

winter and the winter of 1991?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: For the first time, Mr. Speaker, in twenty

years, this Province has had a government sufficiently honest not to run from

the issues in the face of an election, to tell the people what it is. For the

first time in twenty years, there has been a politically honest government, and

the hon. members opposite can't take it.

MR. TOBIN: Why don't you run in Humber East? What changed

your mind?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

When the House comes to order, I will recognize the hon.

member, not before.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is this the same -

MR. SPEAKER: I have not recognized the hon. member yet, I

am about to do so. I was waiting for the House to cool down.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is this the same Premier who promised to build new university

campuses in Central Newfoundland and other parts of Newfoundland and expand

Grenfell College immediately? Is this the same Premier who promised to bring

mothers' sons home from the Mainland for jobs in Newfoundland? Is the same

Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is the same Premier who

led the Liberal party's position that we intend to expand the campus of Memorial

University in Corner Brook and build one in Central Newfoundland. But it's also

the same Premier who faced the consequences of an economic recession and took

the responsible decision to defer and delay that. Now we will be here the next

time and we will implement our program in that. Make no mistake about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It's not the same Premier who promised to

bring every mother's son home, because that's the fabrication of hon. members

opposite. The Leader of the Opposition knows that because he very quickly

crawled back off the limb and wouldn't put his seat on the line on the issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not quite sure if the Premier

is now prepared to challenge me in the district of Grand Falls. Is that what

he's suggesting? Is that what he wants to do?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Well if he is, I'm prepared to accept this

challenge. If that's what it is I'm prepared to accept this challenge, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: You said you were going to bring home every

mother's son!

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be diverted

by these petty little remarks of the Premier. I want to ask him some serious

questions about the Auditor General's report, which was tabled here in the House

the last day or so.

In that report it shows that Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador, which is run by the Economic Recovery Commission, as the board of

directors, has gone completely out of control, if you read thoroughly through

that document. By now the Premier would be aware that 40 per cent, according to

the AG's report, of ENL contracts were not tendered. It also says - that's in

contravention of the Public Tender Act. Now we also learn that's only half of

the story. Because there are also serious doubts about the legality of the other

60 per cent that were tendered. I want to ask the Premier: is he aware that the

Auditor General could not find any record of contracts tendered by ENL being

opened in public with at least two witnesses present, as is required by the

public tender regulations? If he's aware of it, how does he explain it?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the hon. -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the last part of the question,

with -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

If hon. members are not happy with the question asked there's

another opportunity to do so. The Leader of the Opposition has put a question

and I'm having great difficulty trying to listen to the minister answer it

because members are still asking questions.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take the last

portion of the question under advisement, with respect to the Public Tender Act.

This is brand new to me. What the Auditor General did say, Mr. Speaker, was that

there were some small contracts which were let that were less than $5,000, or

just over $5,000. I think she cited five examples. We've put those controls in

place now to deal with that. A form called Form B should have been issued by the

corporation to the minister who would issue it to the Minister of Works,

Services who in turn would table it in the House for exemption.

Now, with respect to the 42 per cent let us set the record

straight, Mr. Speaker. Let us set it clearly straight. There is a $70.2 million

investment portfolio out there under the name of Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador. When this government took over and proclaimed the new corporation on

January 1, 1991 we combined three divisions. One was called the Rural

Development Authority, Mr. Speaker, not set up by this government but set up by

the previous government. The next one was their investment house called

Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation, not set up by this government

but set up by that government. Of the accounts that are labelled doubtful or

accounts that we believe - we have not written them off - will be difficult to

collect, there is an outstanding amount of $29.6 million. This is where the

Auditor General, quite correctly gets her 42 per cent of the total $70 million.

Now, of the 42 per cent 90 per cent of it came from the former government.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, those questions were asked and

answered by the minister yesterday. That was not the question. The question was

about tendering and obviously nobody over there is capable of answering the

question. Let me ask the Premier another question. There is another area raised

by the Auditor General that should cause him as leader of the government some

serious alarm. The Auditor General says that Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador does not have a policy or guidelines for hiring consultants, no process

to evaluate the qualification of candidates and no committee to review

candidates and in effect they can hire whom they want. I want to ask the Premier

if he can tell this House whether he or any of his ministers have told any

Enterprise Newfoundland managers around this Province to hire certain political

friends of theirs?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is confusing the

former government with the current government. This government has been open, it

has been honest, it has been transparent. Every single job down to the last job,

Mr. Speaker, was advertised publicly, put in papers across the Province, put on

the radio. Every Newfoundlander and Labradorian - not a Tory, not a Liberal, not

even a Socialist - every Newfoundlander and Labradorian had a shot at these

jobs. They were open. They were public. They were honest, and they just do not

understand it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not want to get drawn into that kind of silly debate by

the minister. He knows far better than what he is saying. There are at least

half a dozen former Liberal members or candidates or executive assistants who

have patronage appointments with Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, no matter

what he says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask the Premier a question. He is the

Leader of the government. I am trying to ask him the question to respond on

behalf of the government. I want to ask him about certain patronage practices

that he must be aware of that have taken place at Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador. Specifically I want to ask him about the $75,000 consulting contract

that the former executive assistant to the minister now responsible for ENL, and

then responsible, got after he left his job with the minister - a stroke of

amazing good fortune, I might say.

We understand that the individual, Mr. MacKenzie, set himself

up as a consultant in Gander - this was all publicly reported - just days before

he got a $75,000 contract with ENL.

I want to ask the Premier, as leader of the government and

the person responsible for these policies: How can someone, with all of a few

days in the consulting business, hook into a contract like that - a $75,000

contract like that? Did he have the job in his pocket before he left his job

with the minister?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, every single job and contract at

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador - I know they find this difficult to take -

but it was advertised publicly. I can table the newspapers. A board of three

vice-presidents interviewed it. It was passed to the president. The board of

directors accepted it.

Now I know they do not understand that, and you know why they

do not understand it? Because let me tell you about this. Tom Hickey, Young

Offenders Board, $65,000 - never advertised; Everett Osmond, the fellow I beat

in St. Barbe, $45,000 to count pastures on the Northern Peninsula - never

advertised. Andy Wells to the PUB - never advertised; Ed Maynard to Workers'

Compensation - never advertised. Steve Delaney to the Royal Commission on

Unemployment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - never advertised. Martin Hammond -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - never advertised.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair does not want the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can go back with Gordon Seabright - never

advertised, Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal; Ambrose

Stoyles, Chairman of the Social Assistance Appeal Tribunal - never advertised.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Roger Simmons, Chairman of the Agriculture

Marketing Board - never advertised.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to take his place.

The Chair stopped the minister for doing the same thing. I

can only do the same thing with the Leader of the Opposition and ask him to get

on with the question.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will not get into that game. I will keep putting my

questions to the Premier, who continuously refuses. One of these times I will

ask him a question that he will have no choice but to answer; but let me ask the

Premier this: Can he tell the House who in Enterprise Newfoundland, in the

office in Gander, awarded this contract to Mr. MacKenzie? Was it the

vice-president for central region, the former campaign manager for the Liberal

party, Fraser Lush, who got his $80,000 a year plum job from the Premier? Is

that who awarded that particular contract, doing it as a favour for the

government in return?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have a general statement.

The specifics I will ask the minister responsible to answer because I simply do

not know; but just by way of general comment -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Just to quell the mindless babble that

comes from the other side, let me deal with it in the way in which I have dealt

with it in the past.

Mr. Speaker, this government was determined, and still is

determined, to make sure that we fill all of the positions in the public sector

with the best people available, without regard to their political background.

That has been our credo and we have maintained it.

Now we have been very severely criticized by a lot of

Liberals who would like to have seen a little vengeance, but that has been our

position. I have stood in this House time and time again, and I will stand as

many times as is necessary in the future, to say that we will not refuse to

appoint people because they do have a Liberal background, if they deserve it,

merely because mindless mouths opposite will continue to babble this kind of

unsustainable nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, it is inevitable that a number of people who are

appointed will have a Liberal background. It is inevitable that a number of

people will have an NDP background. It is inevitable that a number of people

will have a PC background. It is inevitable that this will occur, because I

refuse to be goaded -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

AN HON. MEMBER: Just a minute now, fellows.

PREMIER WELLS: I refuse to be goaded. I refuse to be

goaded into failing to appoint people on the basis of fair and balanced

treatment of everybody merely because bigoted politicians would try to make this

kind of hay out of it. We're going to do what's right. We've made it and we will

continue to do it. I will tell this House, Mr. Speaker, that as long as the

government is here we will provide for appointments on a fair and balanced basis

without regard to political affiliation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Caught you again! Guilty again!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if ever there was an admission of

guilt, there it was. The best example ever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: You talk about skate around. I have a

supplementary for the Premier. I was asking him about the MacKenzie story.

Surely he's not unaware of this particular issue. Because it does show, I think,

how Enterprise Newfoundland does operate. Not only do they ignore the Public

Tender Act, as the Auditor General says, they ignore the conflict of interest

act.

I want to ask the Premier: is he aware that under the

conflict of interest regulations - and this is something the Premier is

responsible for - Mr. MacKenzie would not be able to receive a contract from his

former employer until one year after his resignation, without first obtaining

the approval of Cabinet?

He got a contract in less than six months. So I would like to

ask the Premier: given the guidelines under conflict of interest, did Cabinet

give approval for that particular contract, $75,000, to be awarded to Mr.

MacKenzie?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can only say we're

following the same conflict of interest guidelines. About this specific incident

I have no knowledge whatsoever, and that's the specifics that I asked the

minister to answer. So I'll now ask the minister who's responsible to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: Not that I know of.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, Cabinet didn't approve it, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker -

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

The Chair has ruled before about the transferring of answers.

If the Opposition doesn't want to hear the minister well then we won't hear the

answer. Does the Opposition want to hear the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Doesn't want to hear the minister.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't want to hear (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

Obviously the minister didn't hear -

MR. SIMMS: The Premier (Inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier gave (Inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: No. Didn't want the answer, so....

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The answer was given

by the Premier. He said he didn't know. The question was: did Cabinet give

approval? The Premier said he didn't know. So if he doesn't know, he's the head

of the Cabinet, who should know?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to get on with his

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When this story

first broke about Mr. MacKenzie's contract the minister said that the conflict

of interest regulations didn't apply because his executive assistant wasn't an

employee of Enterprise Newfoundland. Now what hogwash. Because the Premier would

know that the individual was the minister's executive assistant. His

responsibility encompassed all of the minister's responsibilities, including

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. Wouldn't the Premier agree that this

smacks of conflict of interest and that Enterprise Newfoundland is looking like

a patronage trough more and more every day in this Province?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it's amazing how far they will

reach. How desperate that they really are. Imagine attacking Susan Hollett,

Vice-President of the eastern region, a competent woman who went to the London

School of Economics, and we appointed out there. Are you against appointing a

competent woman to the eastern region to run this entire (Inaudible)? Imagine

attacking the good character of Larry Guinchard, a chartered accountant who won

the job fairly and squarely.

With respect to Mr. MacKenzie, who is a decent man - and

anybody who knows him knows that he's a decent, honourable and hard-working man.

A very decent human being. When the hon. Leader of the Opposition, 'Mr.

Patronage' himself, raised this out in the public domain, I asked the President

of Enterprise Newfoundland, I said: would you please ask your lawyers if this

indeed is a conflict of interest? He checked with them and reported back to me

and said: no, Mr. Minister this is not a conflict of interest. This is not a

conflict of interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Now, Mr. Speaker, I was about to say, the hon.

member stood up and gave a couple of flimsy little - you know, how can he stand

there with a straight face, having sat in a cabinet that appointed somebody who

was defeated in St. Barbe to count sheep pastures along the Northern Peninsula

for four years, at a cost of $45 thousand a year, how can he do that with a

straight face? Also, the Member for Kilbride, who was the Minister of

Agriculture, appointing the former president of his party to look after the milk

marketing board, how can he sit there with a straight face? Mr. Speaker, we do

not have to answer to this crowd who are the mothers of all givers of patronage.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. My question is to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations and concerns the situation in the St. John's

city council workers strike.

PREMIER WELLS: I would like to hear the question.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would as well. The hon. the Member

for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: I would like to ask the minister what

discussions, efforts and involvement he had at the time of the amalgamation

decisions being made by his government to look after the problems that are

created by amalgamation with the City of St. John's workers in the issue of

contracting out. I know the minister was very involved in past legislation to

look after the situation involving the St. John's Fire Department, why did he,

his department and his government not look after that issue as well and avoid

the very serious strike that we now have?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Minister and the House

should do the courtesy of listening to the question and listening to the answer.

The hon. the Minister.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question from the hon. member although I am

a little bit at a lost as to where it is coming from or what it is supposed to

accomplish. I did, even though there was a bit of noise, I did hear it and I

think I understood it, as to why did I not have some involvement back when the

amalgamation was done to straighten out something about services in the Goulds.

At that point in time I can tell the hon. member, clearly and the rest of the

House and the public through this particular medium, that I did not have any

involvement in the discussions relating to the amalgamation of the City of St.

John's. As to what would happen in terms of services, that was never part of the

mandate and I had no involvement in it. I had no idea that it was going to

become an issue in a contract dispute between the City and it's outside workers,

so I do not understand the basis of the question. I had no participation at that

time.

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, on a slightly

different tack, the minister may well be aware of some of the difficulties

between the parties in this dispute. I ask the minister whether he is aware that

immediately upon the commencement of the strike the City gave notice to the

carrier of a group plan, Blue Cross, to cancel existing insurances, life

insurance, drug plans and that sort of thing, even though under the Labour

Relations Act they would still be considered employees. Is the minister aware of

that and would he undertake to consider having a look at changing the Labour

Relations Act to prevent employers in such situations from depriving people of

continuing benefits that the unions commonly paid for? I know the government

itself, when it is involved in strike situations, makes arrangements with unions

to look after the continuation of such programs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to please get on with it.

MR. HARRIS: Would the minister look into that issue and

consider passing legislation to ensure that this type of thing does not happen

again?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I will

certainly check Hansard so I can get the details of the issue that the hon.

member just raised and see if there is anything to look into because I will

openly and honestly admit to the House, it is the first time I have heard it

raised, it has not come to the attention of our department, either as a concern

of the workers involved or the City or from any other source. This is the first

time that I have heard the issue raised. I will check and see if it has surfaced

anywhere in the department and has been dealt with, other than through my

attention and I will check and see if there is something that we should be

looking into in a little more detail.

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

There is time for a quick supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister could advise the House what efforts

he has made and his department intends to make, to try and bring about a

resolution to the situation in St. John's that has been going on for quite some

time causing great hardship to people both on strike and the citizens of St.

John's?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just suggest because the time for Question Period has

expired I understand, unless the hon. member has been absent from the City or

the Province, he would know of the intervention that I tried to be helpful with

over the past weekend and that that matter is unfolding as it should, and I wish

the parties success in trying to resolve their differences.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the

annual report of the Economic Recovery Commission.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Member for St. John's East asked

the Premier some questions relating to four organizations which occupy the King

George V Institute and what was the specific situation surrounding the

notification of those organizations in that building. Today, I am prepared to

table the notifications that have been sent to those organizations. The first

notification, dated June 19, 1992, is a letter outlining the government's policy

on space, as well as a letter to the tenants of the Harvey Road building and a

letter to the tenants of the King George V building, advising them that the King

George V building would be closed as of March 31 of this year and advising them

of the new government policy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a letter from the

President of the Newfoundland Safety Council to myself concerning the

organizations in the King George V building and I would also like to table my

response to that letter, dated January 26, 1993, again advising them of the

policy and the closure of the building. I would, as well, like to table the same

response from the Director of Accommodations to the other three organizations

advising them of the same thing. I will table the letter sent to me February 11

from the four organizations and my response to the four organizations, dated

March 2, 1993, again advising them of government's policy with respect to the

King George V Institute. As well, I would like to table the response to the

three organizations which have been sponsored by the Department of Health which

outlines the degree of sponsorship the Department of Health is willing to

provide.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from

the Member for Humber East, on Monday, in my absence, concerning maintenance

payments to single mothers: Our policy is that maintenance payments now are

consistent to single mothers and the policy has been changed to reflect that. We

treat it similar to all other income from other sources. Whether it be pensions

or any other income, it is treated equitably across the board. Actually, the

question is a very relevant and important one because our highest case numbers

are in this area. We presently have some 9000 single mothers in the Province

receiving assistance and 30 per cent of our caseload is in this category.

Mr. Speaker, in Corner Brook, as the hon. member knows, we

have the enforcement agency which attempts to enforce the regulations and ensure

that maintenance payments are made on time. This agency, of course, has been an

improvement over previous procedures but we still have situations where

maintenance is not forthcoming in a timely way. We are working with the Justice

Department now to see that we tighten up those procedures and see that

maintenance is paid.

Mr. Speaker, I might add that just recently we have had

difficulty with the moratorium package in respect of some thirty-six men, where

we can't enforce regulations and garnishee wages because of federal regulations

- difficulty in collecting from these sources. It is a very important area and

one that we are constantly working on with Justice and trying to make sure that

these single mothers who count on these maintenance payments receive their

payments in a timely fashion, and therefore we don't have to have them falling

back on social assistance as frequently as they do from time to time.

Petitions

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on behalf of 2,014 Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. I will read the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker: 'To the hon.

House of Assembly in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly showeth:

Whereas the Chronic Pain Clinic at the Health Sciences Centre

is operational for those on Workers' Compensation only; and

Whereas other chronic pain sufferers in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador must now pay for equivalent services offered within

the Province; and

Whereas Newfoundlanders and Labradorians cannot bear the cost

of travel outside the Province to chronic pain clinics;

Wherefore, expanding the Chronic Pain Clinic at the Health

Sciences Centre to accept all chronic pain sufferers on the recommendation of

their physicians and not just those receiving workers' compensation and, as in

duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.'

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand in the House

today because this petition, even though it contains the names of 2,014

Newfoundlanders, was primarily put together by one individual, who is in the

House today after a long period of time and on his own, because of his

suffering, not associated with workers' compensation. And I compliment the

minister responsible for workers' compensation, the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, for putting together this pain clinic, commonly known as the

Flynn Clinic, to handle the tremendous amount of back injuries and what have you

that have taken place over the years; and this government have taken the

initiative to put that in place. However, in doing that, Mr. Speaker, what has

obviously transpired is we have learned how to handle those who are injured in

the workplace but we have not addressed those who were not injured in the

workplace but suffer the same consequences.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been affiliated with Occupational

Health and Safety for twenty-seven years and I have seen the horrendous amount

of pain and suffering that people have gone through. Let me say to this hon.

House that this clinic addresses not only the medication associated with pain

but it deals with the social, psychological, psychiatric problems associated

with those who are in constant pain.

Now Mr. Hubert Ryall took it upon himself because Mr. Ryall

was one of those chronic pain sufferers and had nowhere to go, only to one

doctor to receive medication. But, on the understanding that each and every

other province throughout the country do have these pain clinics in place to

support those who are not on workers' compensation, he took it upon himself and

not only did he get 2,014 signatures on this petition, Mr. Speaker, but he found

sixty-five pieces of correspondence from communities throughout Labrador and

throughout the Island part of the Province to support this chronic pain clinic.

He found thirty-six unions, organizations, companies supporting the petition,

chiropractors, psychologists, general practitioners and, of course, the 2,014.

So, if you look at what Mr. Ryall has done by himself to get this petition into

the House of Assembly, and to make sure that this government understands the

predicament, you are looking at organizations and people who represent over

50,000 people. That is quite an undertaking for any individual and I commend Mr.

Ryall for his effort.

I want, also, in respect of this petition, to thank the

Minister of Health, who has been very receptive, not only to Mr. Ryall and

others, but receptive to me, as the Member for St. John's South. I think this is

needed and it is something we can offer all Newfoundlanders, because I am sure

most of us are associated with people who have suffered chronic pain and we see

them every single day; if we don't see them ourselves, we hear from them, as

hon. members. So it is a great privilege for me, Mr. Speaker, to stand and

support this petition so ably put together by Mr. Ryall and I would hope that we

will have some positive news very shortly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

Just before recognizing the hon. member - the Chair should

have done this a little earlier. With respect to welcoming some students we

apologize to the hon. member, we won't start timing him out of this time that I

am doing.

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

public galleries today, thirteen pupils from St. Simon/St. Jude School in

Franois, in the district of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. The students are accompanied

by their teachers, Mr. Terry Baker and Ms. Tammy Taylor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to stand today to support the petition

presented by the hon. the Member for St. John's South. I am very familiar, as a

matter of fact, with the efforts of Mr. Hubert Ryall in this regard. Over the

months he has been attempting to secure the services of a chronic pain facility

and to get treatment himself for chronic pain. As a matter of fact, I remember

speaking to him back a number of months ago on this particular issue.

I want to make two points with respect to this particular

issue and this particular petition that the Member for St. John's South

presented today, and that is the cost of health care generally, not only in

Newfoundland and Labrador, but all across the nation. It is astronomical, as

everyone knows, and governments at all levels are attempting to trim costs and

what have you in the health care system.

Most of the cost associated with the health care system today

has to do with managing pain, and visiting doctors, and buying prescription

drugs, in order to manage pain, to help those people who are in pain; but we are

told that pain today can be scientifically managed in an effective way, and it

is an effective means to reduce the overall cost in the health care system.

So, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me to make an awful lot of

sense for government, for the Department of Health, to invest some of its money

in chronic pain facilities across the Province, because not only people who are

on workers' compensation deserve the benefit of having their pain managed. There

are a whole lot more people out there, as well, who are in pain and cannot

secure the services that should be available at chronic pain facilities.

The petitioners draw attention to the fact that the Workers'

Compensation Commission are actively involved in that, and the question you have

to ask is: Why are they involved in it? Well, quite simply because it helps the

recipients of workers' compensation to get back in the work force a little bit

more quickly than they normally would, it reduces the cost of medical treatment

to the Workers' Compensation Commission, and it reduces the length of time that

these people will be on workers' compensation. So the overall benefit to the

commission and to the economy generally is easily seen.

Forgetting about that - forgetting about the cost of the

health care system, and the cost to governments and what have you, let us think

about the compassion that we should all have for people who are suffering pain

and who don't have the facilities available to them to have that pain relieved.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully now when the Budget is brought down,

some provision will be made within the Department of Health to have a chronic

pain facility made available to all people in the Province, not only those who

are on workers' compensation.

I support the petition and I support the efforts of Mr. Ryall

in this regard, and we wish him well in his efforts to have a chronic pain

facility established. He certainly deserves a great deal of credit for the

effort he has put into it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like to support this petition that has been so

very ably presented by my colleague, the Member for St. John's South, and

supported so well by the Member for Harbour Main.

I want to congratulate Mr. Ryall and all of those other

people who signed the petition and who are instrumental in bringing it to the

floor of the House today.

Finding funds for new ventures is a very difficult task in

government, but let me say that April 19, 1993 should be an historic day for

people in this Province who have chronic pain and are not covered by workers'

compensation. On April 19, that clinic will admit the first people there who are

not part of workers' compensation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, let me just indicate who this

clinic is for. It is for people who have finished seeing their doctors. After

you have seen your doctors and you have everything cured that can be cured, and

you are still left with chronic pain - you have pain - this clinic is to manage

that pain, to control it, to enable people to be able to fulfil their lives as

best they can.

In that clinic there is a team of individuals. First of all,

there is a physiotherapist who can perhaps strengthen some muscles, maybe

relieve the muscles that are giving pain, or whatever is causing it. That would

be one person who is there. Then there is an occupational therapist who perhaps

can devise better ways of doing certain things, so again, the pain is not

exacerbated by various postures and so on. There is also a social worker who can

discuss with some people the pressures that are on people that may aggravate

pain. Then there is a psychologist, as well, and a psychologist assistant.

These, together with a consulting physician, form the pain clinic.

The procedure is that people will be referred by a physician,

with certain criteria, and letters will be going out around the Province to all

physicians indicating how this will happen. Then, the physicians will refer

people to the clinic, and the clinic staff will assess the individuals to see if

they can possibly benefit from what the clinic does. Perhaps not everybody can

benefit - maybe because their treatment is not complete yet.

Anyway, the people will be chosen. It is not going to be a

very large number of people right now because we are expanding what workers'

compensation has there to include one or two people each five-week session. It

is a five-week session, where people go all day or most of the day for

treatment. The appropriate treatment is designed for the individual. Then, over

the next year, we will be evaluating this. We will have an appropriate

evaluation to see how effective it is and we will see where we go from there,

whether it is something we should expand or whatever. But we will be starting in

a small way on April 19.

I want to thank very much, Mr. Ryall, for coming to see me in

my office and bringing this to my attention. I first noted it when he was

commenting in the press. He came, and then Mr. Murphy, the Member for St. John's

South came, and I believe somebody else came to my office, and we had a good

discussion. I had previously visited the Miller Centre where this rehabilitation

clinic is, and had been very much impressed with what I saw there. So it was

very timely when we all got together. The problem from there on in was to try to

work to get the funds available to start an expansion in this clinic.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, Private Members' Day, I

call on the hon. the Member for Grand Bank to introduce and proceed with his

resolution.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to

propose and debate the resolution that I gave notice of on Monday. I will just

run through it again for members:

"WHEREAS the processing sector of the fishing industry is

within provincial jurisdiction;

AND

WHEREAS the restructuring of the processing sector of the

fishery to take full advantage of opportunities for the manufacture of higher

valued fish products is our best prospect to rebuild the economic value of the

fishery;

AND

WHEREAS the Provincial Government has done nothing to

develop the potential in the processing sector for new investment and job

creation;

BE IT RESOLVED that the government immediately determine the

amount of excess capacity in our current processing plant inventory, and how

much of that capacity can be converted to value-added secondary processing;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that the government

immediately put a plan in place to help primary processors and new investors

diversify into the production of value-added products, including the utilization

of by-products and other utilized species.

Mr. Speaker, it is a resolution and a thought, that I felt

very strongly about for some time now. It is highlighted by the decline in the

fish resources off our shores. We all know the state of - not only our northern

cod, we know what has happened to our caplin, we know what is happening to the

flounder stocks. If you follow the news at all and are in touch with the

happenings in the fishing industry over the last couple of months particularly,

you see there is a very alarming situation that has developed as well with flat

fish stocks. As a matter of fact, where FPI last year finished catching

flounder, there was flounder there, this year they cannot find flounder, so it

is a very alarming situation.

I guess we should have really took the signal very seriously

when we encountered the problem with caplin but of course we said; oh well, that

is only the caplin. Then we had the northern cod crisis which we are now going

through and now it seems the flounder. So, it leaves one to wonder what is going

to be next. What is going to be next? That is three species, three very

important species of fish for the incomes of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

and very, very important of course to the general revenues of the Province. So

that is why, Mr. Speaker, I think that with whatever fish that is left there, we

all hope it recovers and we hope it recovers fast. We hope it recovers fast but

I am sure that we all are feeling that it is certainly not going to recover very

much by the time that the NCARP Program comes to an end. Now hopefully the NCARP

Program will be extended but we cannot guarantee that, at least we cannot, not

here, but if we are talking about another year, I do not think we are going to

see much of an increase or a regeneration of our fish stocks by that time.

So what is the other avenue that we, as a Province, have

available to us? To try and generate more employment or to make the most of the

fish resources that are there, to bring them to our ports and to create as much

employment as we possibly can from that very limited resource. That is why I

think we have to get into value-added or more commonly referred to, secondary

processing. We have to do that for two reasons; one is the very important issue

of saving or creating as much employment as possible; number two is, it will

buoy up, financially buoy up and make more viable the fishing industry and of

course it all has very important and significant implications for the financial

situation that we, as a Province, find ourselves in.

So that is why, Mr. Speaker, I am very, very strong in

suggesting to the Minister of Fisheries and government that we should very

quickly look at the situation in the Province with the processing capacity that

is available. I think we pretty well know where that is, what it does and the

traditional species that are processed and look at some ways of seeing if we can

value-add to whatever limited amount of resource that are going to come into

those plants.

Now I see the Member for Eagle River looking up under his

eyes very curiously over there and he made some remarks the other day in the

Throne Speech. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there has been a call over the last

number of months for the Province to put in a plan to look at the processing

capacity, the number of fish plants, where they are located and I guess the

processors and the fishing industry have been asking the Province to bring in a

plan or make decisions as to what plants should process what, what plants should

be left open, hopefully no plants will have to be closed but if you look at what

the Premier said last Thursday in his response to the Throne Speech. He said;

so, the biggest challenge facing government is how to plan for and manage the

fishery of the future. How to cope with the circumstances that will exist a

little more than twelve months from now, when supposedly the Cod Moratorium

ends.

Now, perhaps the Cod Moratorium will end in twelve months but

certainly, I mean I am sure we are all in touch enough with the realities of

what is happening out there in our waters, that there is no way that we are

going to see a replenishing of those fish stocks in that length of time. So

please God, that we will have a government in Ottawa at the time who will extend

the Moratorium period but there is no guarantee of that. Hopefully they will

extend that compensation period because if not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Forestry says it may be a

Liberal government, well perhaps it will be but even if it is a Liberal

government there is no guarantee that they are going to be as generous with

NCARP benefits as the present federal government has been. They may not be as

generous with NCARP I say to the minister. I hope they are if they are there. I

do not hope they are there but if they are there I hope they are just as

generous and they extend it, but my worst fears are they will not because it is

a significant amount of money.

The Premier went on to say: does anybody in this Chamber

believe for one moment that we are going to go back to a 200,000 ton TAC, I say

to the Member for Eagle River, because when he read the resolution the other day

it was like he took some exception to it, like I was suggesting some bad things

which I was certainly not. What I am trying to do with this resolution and with

things I said publicly over the last number of months is try to get government

to come up with a plan where we value-add to these raw materials that we are

bringing ashore and either keep some of the employment that we have, or

hopefully, if it got good enough, that we would increase employment, which I

think is a long-term dream. We are not going to see that tomorrow either, but at

least keep as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working as we possibly can

with our limited resources. Now, that is what this resolution is about I say to

the Member for Eagle River.

Now, the Premier said: does anybody in this Chamber believe

for one moment that we are going back to a 200,000 ton TAC? I say that is a very

good question. We all hope that we do over time but even with things going very,

very well I say to members in this Chamber, with the way things are going to

date it is going to be quite awhile before we get anywhere close to that. Then

the Premier said: we will be lucky if we get 40,000 to 50,000 tons a year from

now. Now, I do not know if they recorded that correctly in Hansard. Maybe he

said 50,000 tons a year from now. I do not know, but he said, a year from now,

if that means on into the future. It may not even be open in a year for now, he

says. It may not even be open, talking about northern cod. What do we do then?..

he said. This is the major challenge facing this government. That is true, it

is. It is a big challenge. It is a big challenge for both governments. It is a

big challenge for all of us because we can all look in any area of our Province

and see fish plants that not too long ago were open that are now idle, that are

closed. We have all this great capacity there with no one working there because

of a lack of fish.

I think the Premier is right, hopefully in twelve months time

we will be able to have a TAC of 200,000 tons but I think we have to be

realistic. We will be lucky in ten years, in my estimation, if we get anywhere

close to that total allowable catch again. I hope I am wrong on that one but we

have to be realistic. We have to try and deal with it in a realistic manner.

That is the reason for my resolution, Mr. Speaker. I think that with the limited

resources available, regardless of specie, we as Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, with some help from the government, have to try to get as much

value as possible from those limited resources. We create employment to make it

more valuable for sale in the marketplaces. We do not ship the raw materials off

to the US to be further processed, to be breaded, or to be put in packages for

the microwaves, that we gear up to do that here in Newfoundland and Labrador

with whatever species we are talking about.

I honestly do not know how in the name of God we are going to

keep the Province together if we do not do those kind of things. I think we

really have to look seriously at it. I put this resolution on today because we

hear so much about the economy. This probably has more to do with the

Newfoundland economy than anything else, our fishing industry, and we have to

make the most of what is left now and continue in that vein as the stocks

rebuild. Hopefully, at the end of the day with the stocks regenerating and with

us more into value-added and secondary processing, that one of these days in the

future we will have a stronger fishing industry, certainly than we have today

because it is not very strong today, a stronger fishing industry than we had a

few years and I think that can happen.

Of course the biggest question is, what is going to happen to

our fish resources? If they do not recover then all this I am talking about will

help some but it will not help as much as I hope it will help if we put in

proper plans and do the things I am suggesting we do. I have to be very sincere

and honest, Mr. Speaker. I am very, very concerned today for the fish resources

off our shores. There are times and days, particularly these last few months,

where I wonder, as Dr. Harris said, if we have not gone too far. When you hear

the stories of the FPI boats that I am most familiar with going out and they

can't find a fish, or very few fish. When I hear tell of research vessels that

are going from one end of the banks to the other, and have difficulty finding

enough fish to even put tags on, that tells me just how very serious it is. In

areas where you could always go and find some fish.

But now they can't even find it there. So it makes you wonder

what's gone on out there. What's gone on out there. I think personally, and I've

said it, that there's something above and beyond foreign overfishing, which we

all know has contributed. Above and beyond the problems that our own domestic

efforts have caused, both inshore and offshore, deep-sea. There's something

above and beyond that which has gone on in the oceans. I think there's something

above and beyond the problems caused by the seal herds.

Having said that, we all know that those three factors have

certainly contributed to the problem. I believe that there's something above and

beyond and bigger than all those three that have got us to the problems that

we're in in our fishery today. I think there's something seriously

environmentally wrong. Of course, if there's something seriously environmentally

wrong, first of all finding out what's wrong is no small task when you look at

that great ocean and the problems with the world that of course are affecting

our oceans as well as other oceans in the world.

So these are the concerns that I have for it all, Mr.

Speaker. I really think that there is a role here for the provincial government

to put a plan in place to help and assist with value-added products which will

hopefully take up some of the slack from those people who've been put out of the

fishery now because of the declining resources. Who will take up the slack and

keep some of them employed by having value-added products. Hopefully it will

make the fishing industry, the processors, a little stronger financially and

more viable.

If we can get that on the right track - we do have the

capacity there now, there's no doubt about that. There's certainly enough

capacity in the Province, without doubt. I would like to see the Minister of

Fisheries - he told me in the fall that he had some group looking at the

situation and he hoped to have a consultant's report. I think it was in

November. I haven't heard tell of it yet. There must be capacity that's out and

about now that, with minor modifications and probably some equipment, could get

into some secondary processing, value-added stuff, that would buoy up the

fishing industry, create a bit of employment and make the processors viable, and

keep the industry alive.

Of course, very importantly as well, it will help out the

provincial economy. Because as we all know, one of the biggest problems with our

economy today is that there are too few people working. There are too many

people laid off. There are too many people on social assistance. There are too

many people on the unemployment insurance. That's the problem out there today.

I'm sure we all look at our own areas and see just how serious it is.

When I look at my district, from St. Lawrence around to

Garnish, and I've done this, and I calculate how many people are receiving NCARP

benefits, and how many people are receiving unemployment insurance, and how many

people are receiving social assistance, it is nothing short of frightening. Very

alarming statistics. When you've got full communities - outside of a few

government jobs, provincial or federal - that are existing on some kind of

support payments, from one source or the other. You go right through the

district. Every community there. That's the story. I'm sure most of you are no

different than what we are. I know the Minister of Social Services was down some

time the fall and we had a quick chat, went down to St. Lawrence when we were

unveiling that memorial down there. He told me then about what he expected to

happen in our region of the Province in a matter of months. How his case load

was going to escalate. That's what's out and about there.

So what I'm saying is, even though the fishery is in trouble,

we know there's a resource crisis, let's try and make the most of what's there

now. If we can build on that as our resources rebuild and improve, then we won't

be just doing the primary processing where there's fewer jobs, where the value

is not there for the product that you sell to someone else to value add to it.

That's the problem we have with the fishery, is we're primary producers. We're

sending our raw materials - we fillet it, we trim it, we pack it, and we freeze

it, and we send it off to someone else to their fancy plants who hire hundreds

of thousands of people to value add. To make their fish sticks and their t.v.

dinners, and all their other stuff.

Think of all the jobs we're losing, and we are supplying the

raw material. Why can't we do it here? Can you imagine how many jobs we could

create in this Province if we did that? Then with the tariffs coming off the

products and so on, it is even more enticing to do it in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is my reason for introducing the

resolution, and I look forward to hearing what other members have to say about

it. I am sure they must have some interest and some concern as well about it. I

just hope that by doing this we can at least engineer some thinking and

hopefully get some results from government. I realize that government is not

flushed with dollars. I know that, but I think we have come to a stage -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mr. Simms.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) tell Mr. Simms. Mr. Simms knows

that. Mr. Simms knows that. But it is interesting, I was watching something on

television last night from the U.S. with President Clinton, and there is a

debate there, of course, over budgets these days. There are big concerns in the

U.S. that if they cut expenditure any more they are going to further, further,

damage and injure the American economy, I say to members opposite.

When I heard that last night it triggered very quickly in my

mind and it made me wonder, when you think about the Newfoundland economy, all

we have heard the last four years is cutbacks and layoffs. The dollar is not

worth as much anymore. What have we done to the Newfoundland economy only shrunk

it more?

As soon as I heard that concern being raised in the U.S. last

night on the news channels by Democrats and Republicans, I might say, both camps

have the same concern, it made me very quickly reflect back to our own

situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am just about out of time right now. I will be

able to finish up the resolution later on today. I want to put the resolution

before hon. members. I know there are some who cannot wait to speak on it, but I

would be very interested in hearing the response from members opposite,

particularly the Minister of Fisheries, because it is something about which I

feel very strongly. I think we have to move on it before much longer or else our

situation with our fishery and our provincial economy is going to get even

worse.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Premier, I

have a note here bringing attention to the presence in the gallery of a

long-time elected official of Crow Head who was recently awarded the thirty year

pin by the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, and I refer to Mr. Walter

Elliott.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to speak to

this resolution because it will enable me, it will provide me, with an

opportunity to deal with a broader issue - but first to deal with the specifics

of the resolution. Some aspects of it we can agree with. Other aspects of it are

dead wrong and we have to say so.

Whereas the processing sector of the fishing industry is

within provincial jurisdiction - yes, yes, yes, it is a statement of the very

obvious, but what does it have to do with anything in reality? When you look

down: the government immediately put a plan in place to help primary processors

- primary processors. It goes on to say: and new investors. I understand that -

and new investors diversify, help primary processors.

Now, Mr. Speaker, yes, we have responsibility in

jurisdictional terms for the processing sector, but why is the processing sector

in such trouble today? Why is it closed? Why is it having these problems?

Because we did not provide help to diversify? No, that has nothing to do with

it. Why is it in the problem? Because it has no fish to process. When are they

going to learn that? When are they going to acknowledge that? It has a minimal

amount compared to what it should have. It has some, but it has a minor fraction

of what it ought to have. Whose responsibility is that? The provincial

government? No. It is federal. Then why do the Opposition insist that the poor

taxpayers of this Province take the responsibility for relieving the federal

government of it's burden? Why do they want to penalize our taxpayers? They have

a lot to answer for when we get to an election, Mr. Speaker, if that is their

policy!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: This resolution is that the government

immediately put a plan in place to help primary processors and new investors

diversify into production of value-added products.

Now the minister will deal with the plans and what has been

done and the opportunities and everything else and what is being done in place,

I will leave that to the minister to deal with in detail, but I want the House

and the public of this Province to recognize that this is a federally-caused

problem, and why the Opposition keeps insisting that the poor taxpayers of this

Province should subsidize the federal government and take them off the hook, I

will never understand if I live to be a thousand. Why, Mr. Speaker, why? Is

there any kind of an explanation for that? The only think I can think of, is the

stalking horse for Mr. Crosbie, the federal Minister of Fishery, the stalking

horse is for Crosbie, to take him off the hook.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for five years this party now forming the

government but before we were the government, when we sat on the opposite side

of the House, stated our position very clearly with respect to joint management.

It has been our position declared and outlined for at least five years, spelled

out very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that has been our position. Mr. Speaker, we

stated it when we were in Opposition, we explained the defects of the then

government's proposal, we stated the defects very clearly. Now, Mr. Speaker, for

the last three-and-a-half years we have tried to persuade the federal government

to come to their senses and recognize the problems in the fisheries of this

Province, to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that prior to 1949, this Province, country

as it was then, ran its fisheries reasonably well. It did not devastate the

stocks as was done, but shortly after Confederation, when administration was

transferred to Ottawa, the stocks came under attack both by other Canadian users

and foreign users and the stocks were virtually devastated, so that the inshore

fishery which used to take 200,000 to 250,000 tons a year, was reduced to 35,000

tons. Okay, that is what happened, under federal management exclusively, do not

ever forget that.

We put pressure on and other parts of the world did too, and

the Law of the Sea came in and we thought we were going to solve our problems,

and, Mr. Speaker, I will give full credit to the former government, they argued

strongly and made the case. They put forward a terrific proposal in 1979 to the

federal government that warned them: now we are on the way back, for God's sake

do not increase the TAC too quickly, increase it gradually so our fishermen will

have a chance to expand and catch the fish. The former government was determined

and I acknowledge it and I give them credit for it, and they pursued that, Mr.

Speaker, they pursued that course of action and then, Mr. Speaker, the federal

government, what did they do? They doubled the TAC from 67,000 tons to 130,000

tons, one year, they ignored the provincial government, nevertheless, Mr.

Speaker, the provincial government persevered and I give former Premier Peckford

and his ministers -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I am making the speech, the member

Opposite can speak in his turn. I ask, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to be

heard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a procedure that hon. members can speak, there is a

procedure to do that; the hon. member will be given his turn and he should allow

other members to carry on in a sensible manner.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There is nothing quite as mindless, Mr.

Speaker, as whistling. If babbling is mindless, whistling is even worse and the

hon. member makes no impact by doing it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I was giving the former government the

credit that I believe they deserve, because, Mr. Speaker, they stood up for the

protection of the Newfoundland fishery and I give them credit and acknowledge

that, and they kept trying to resist it but the federal government kept

increasing it, and it was not just the former Liberal government, I give them

full share of responsibility as well, the next government that came in power, of

which the present Minister of Fisheries has been a part ever since it was there,

they followed on the same course, increased the TAC year after year after year,

and the former government in this Province tried to resist.

They did their very best, they put forward the arguments and

told them they were wrecking the fishery, told them that they could not rely on

the science to the extent in which they were, that it would cause devastating

problems and as late as 1988, Mr. Speaker, the government in Ottawa decided they

wanted to increase the TAC from 255,000 tons to 295,000 tons, and the former

premier, Mr. Peckford, nearly blew a gasket, and I don't blame him. He was

absolutely right. He told those minions, who knew nothing about the fishery, not

to do it, but they were doing it. Why, Mr. Speaker? - because they were under

pressure from Quebec and New Brunswick to provide access to Nova Nord, to the

Northern cod.

The members sitting opposite know what I am talking about.

They complained about it at the time, and quite correctly, and I give them full

credit for it. I acknowledge it, give them full credit. They brought enough

pressure to bear, among everybody, that the Federal Government chickened out a

bit - they only increased it to 266,000 tons.

Now, Mr. Speaker, lest anybody forget, that was 1988. In

1988, they increased it to 266,000 tons. In four years, they have reduced it to

zero. All of the predictions of the prior twenty years were brought home to

roost. Now, whom would you trust to manage the fishery - Ottawa or St. John's?

Whom would you trust? And it doesn't matter whether it is a Conservative, a

Liberal or an NDP, or any other form of government. Whom would you trust to

manage the fishery?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The case for provincial involvement in the

management of the fisheries is irrefutable. All of the documents demonstrate it

unquestionably. There should be an involvement.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for three-and-a-half years, I tried to

achieve this by a civilized means. I tried to do it by negotiation and

discussion with Mr. Valcourt. If ever there was a disaster for this Province, it

has to be Bernard Valcourt. If ever there was a beaut, it has to be Bernard

Valcourt. I got nowhere with him. I then tried to negotiate it with the Prime

Minister, talked to him in June of 1990. I talked yesterday in the House about

what happened, but the Prime Minister said: 'Don't worry about it, Clyde, we

will do it because it is the right thing to do.' I will never forget those words

- 'We will do it because it is the right thing to do.' He was quite correct. It

is the right thing to do. But now, politics has intervened.

And here is John Crosbie, a minister from Newfoundland,

resisting it with all the vim and vigour he can organize. Why? - Why, why, why?

It doesn't make any sense, as hon. members agree. Why? - because he doesn't like

me? If John Crosbie would give us joint management tomorrow, I would resign, if

that's what he wants. If that's what it takes I will do it. The future of this

Province is more important. Now, if it is because John Crosbie doesn't like me,

give us joint management and he can have my resignation! If that's what he wants

he's got it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: If that's what he wants he's got it. If it

is for those crass political reasons, I will remove them, I will remove myself.

Give us joint management.

I had some hope, as long as the Prime Minister was there. I

spoke to him in November with Mr. Crosbie. And while he took Mr. Crosbie's

position at the outset and said: 'Well, what would you do with the other

provinces?' - and I have explained this in the House, so I won't repeat it. I

gave him the answer to it, the obvious answer. He turned to John and asked: 'Why

not, John? Why can't we do it on that basis? Why can't we pattern it after the

Offshore Board?'

Well, that tells me it is not Prime Minister Mulroney who is

stopping this. Who is, and why? Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Crosbie.

MR. MATTHEWS: He is not Prime Minister.

PREMIER WELLS: He is the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans, and there is the one who is calling the shots at the moment. Mr.

Speaker, we still tried to do it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I became -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair has told hon. members time and time again the

procedure for asking questions. The Chair doesn't mind a little bit of

commentary back and forth, but when it gets loud - hon. members know what they

are supposed to do. They could ask the member speaking if he would accept a

question. If the hon. member doesn't accept a question, then the speech goes on

without any interference. I ask hon. members to observe those basic rules,

please.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, we have indicated clearly

our position to fight this thing on a national basis. Now, hon. members opposite

immediately jumped in with skepticism: 'Oh, it is all an election ploy, you are

only doing it because of that.' But, Mr. Speaker, we had heard rumours of the

Crosbie proposal - that the Crosbie proposal for management by representatives

from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec would be brought down soon. We heard

rumours that this was coming. Then, the killer was the Prime Minister's

resignation, so I knew the last ally I had there, Prime Minister Mulroney,

believe it or not, was gone.

The combination of those two things told me clearly that the

only way we are ever going to achieve it is to carry on a national campaign, so

we are going to bring it on.

Now, members opposite say: 'Oh, this is an election ploy.' As

late as this morning, the hon. John Crosbie, speaking on an Open Line program, I

think, told everybody who would want to listen, in his explanation of it: 'Oh,

this is the Premier's election ploy.'

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: He was asked specifically.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, I have a transcript of it, and I am

reading from a transcript of it. He was asked specifically, and Mr. Crosbie said

this: 'Well, this is obviously, I think, an election ploy. Clyde has an election

that he is apparently going to call in the next couple of months. He doesn't

have any kind of record to go on, that I can see, except he wrecked Meech Lake -

that is the most significant thing.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, this is Crosbie. 'This is an election

ploy,' he said, and I gave my reasons for it, one of which is what Crosbie is

going to do that will devastate the fishery.

He gets on the news this afternoon and announces his program.

Here it is! He released it this afternoon!

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

PREMIER WELLS: Here it is. He released it this afternoon,

and here is what it is - his fisheries management program, just hot off the

press, delivered it to me twenty minutes or half-an-hour ago. Here it is. Just

listen to it, and if people think it is an election ploy on my part, listen to

this: The new boards - one on the Pacific and one on the Atlantic - would take

over some key powers currently exercised by the minister in DFO under the

Fisheries Act, namely, licensing and allocation of the marine commercial

fishery.

The new boards are going to do that. Listen to him: The

Pacific Coast board would have five members. The Atlantic Coast board would have

seven. There is no Pacific Coast board. There is the BC provincial board - only

BC. They have their own provincial board, but Newfoundland can't have its board.

Fisheries is infinitely more important to Newfoundland in relative terms than it

is to BC. What does Crosbie have against Newfoundland?

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame! Sellout!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Then he is going to put additional members

on the board - would assist the executive board in coping with its workload of

allocation, licensing and sanction hearing.

Mr. Speaker, that is bad news. Here is the worst. Here is

worse news. The new board is going to follow these policy principles. Remember

the old principles on which Canada got access to the 200-mile limit? Remember

the fundamental principles? - Conservation and restoration of the fisheries

resource, one; two, allocation of fisheries resources will be on the basis of

equity, taking into account adjacency to the resource, the relative dependence

of coastal communities and the various fleet sectors upon a given resource, and

economic efficiency and fleet mobility. Listen to his new ones.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, those are the old ones. Those are the

standards. Listen to his new policy principles: 'The legislation will specify

that allocation orders of the board shall take into account' - conservation,

nowhere mentioned. Conservation doesn't even appear in his new policy. Here is

the first item: 'The provision to resource users of reasonably secure access to

fishery resources.' Listen to that: 'The provision to resource users of

reasonably secure access to fishery resources.' Resource users where? Nova

Scotia? Quebec? New Brunswick? He is going to take that as his number one

principle of the Newfoundland fishery?

Listen to his second one: 'The needs of resource users who

are adjacent to a particular resource.' Just listen to this: 'The relative

mobility of fleet sectors and the relative dependence of resource users on a

particular fishery resource, and the economic viability of users of fishery

resource.' Where did that come from? Who are they protecting - National Sea

Products? What about the fishermen on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland, in

the 300 communities that are devastated?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, that is what I was afraid of. That is

why I moved. That is why I announced two weeks ago, because I knew this was

coming down, and down it comes today - the same day as the stalking horse

resolution appears on our Order Paper here and members deal with -

MR. MATTHEWS: That was a coincidence.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, okay. If the hon. member tell me

that, I accept it without question. I accept it and I withdraw any reference to

it. I don't attribute any motive to the hon. member in that regard. I think the

hon. member is right about secondary processing and I share his point of view.

Let there be no doubt, that this government supports the

expansion of secondary processing to the maximum extent that we can do it. Let

there be no doubt, but we are not going to divert our attention from Crosbie's

effort to devastate the fishery of this Province by a debate on this resolution

today. We are going to deal with the real issues in the fishery of this

Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting diversion today.

Crosbie's announcement is clear. He is in the process of sowing the seeds of

destruction. Now, I am prepared to accept that the position and the resolution

of the hon. members was taken advantage of by Mr. Crosbie today, and this was

announced when this resolution was coming up. I am prepared to accept that. I

don't know - or maybe it is a pure and simple coincidence. Maybe it is a pure

and simple coincidence but, Mr. Speaker, let us not get our attention diverted

from the fact that the Federal Government is now proposing to give the Province

of B.C. - listen now - the Federal Government is now proposing to give the

Province of British Columbia a major say, its own board with federal-provincial

participation. It is prepared to do that for B.C. which has a major fishery but

it is not prepared to do it for Newfoundland which brought the whole Northeast

Atlantic into the Canadian economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Why, Mr. Speaker, why, why, why? Mr.

Crosbie says today: Well, Mr. Wells gave his own reasons, fish swim back and

forth. How would you deal with that? They swim from one area of provincial

waters to another provinces water. Of course they do, everybody knows that, but

the answer is fairly simple, Mr. Speaker, if you have three federal members on

the board in Newfoundland, have the same three federal members on the board in

Nova Scotia, on the board in New Brunswick, on the board in P.E.I. and on the

board in Quebec. It is no big problem - and they have full information of what

every board is doing because they are the same members on each board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier's time is up.

PREMIER WELLS: May I just summarize quickly?

MR. SPEAKER: Can the hon. the Premier have leave to

summarize?

PREMIER WELLS: I will not be long, I won't abuse it.

Mr. Speaker, there will be other times to deal with this

issue because this has to be a major cause for everybody in this Province. What

is being proposed is to turn over, to representatives chosen, from Quebec, New

Brunswick, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia, the right to determine the allocation of

Northern cod, all around the 300 communities in Northeast Newfoundland that are

relying on it. Now, where do you think - and bearing in mind the new principles:

the economic viability of fishery resources, of users of fishery resources; the

needs of resource users who are adjacent to a particular resource; the provision

to resource users of reasonably secure access to fishery resources, without

regard to where they are, Mr. Speaker. The old principles of adjacency and

historic dependency have fallen by the wayside and priority is given to the

needs of the resource users. Now, Mr. Speaker, what about the tens of thousands

of people in the 300 communities on the Coast of Labrador and from St. Anthony

around to Cape St. Marys? What about the tens of thousands of people who have

built and maintained those communities for 300 years? Where is their priority?

It was their fishery and their effort that brought this into Confederation in

the first place.

Now, I hope the members opposite will stand with us strong

and firm on the question of joint management and will tell Mr. Crosbie exactly

where he - be polite and courteous to Mr. Crosbie and tell him why this proposal

is reprehensible to anybody who has the interest of the Newfoundland fishery at

heart.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members opposite for their

indulgence, in giving me a little extra time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, I stand to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I was just wondering if the hon. member would permit me to

welcome a group of students before he begins?

Please welcome to the House of Assembly, twenty-three Grade

XII students from Point Leamington, the Central High School, in the district of

Exploits. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Mercer, who is also the

Mayor of the town, and Mr. (inaudible), and their bus driver, Mr. Burton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in the Legislature to

speak in support of the resolution brought in by my colleague from Grand Bank,

but I would like to have a few comments on what the Premier just had to say.

I want to say, for the record in this Legislature, that the

first we knew of this program that Crosbie announced today was when the Premier

brought it before the Legislature. Let there be no mistake about that. We did

not know it, nor do we or have we ever supported anything that is detrimental to

the lives of Newfoundlanders!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Not only that, Mr. Speaker - the last time

they brought it in, it was this party that was the first off the mark to condemn

the Federal Government for their actions, and I can tell you, we won't be last

off the mark to condemn them for anything they do - fisheries-related or

anything else - that affects the lives of Newfoundlanders.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier just gave us a full scope. He

did it today on the Throne Speech, and he went back - and I say this to members

opposite - the Premier has gone back to the 1970s when he talked about the fight

that the Progressive Conservative Government in this Province put up to try to

secure the fisheries.

I would say to the Premier, attack Crosbie, if that is what

he wants to do, if that is what needs to be done, but don't just get up and

attack John Crosbie on this issue alone. Don't forget George Baker, who was the

Member of Parliament who refused, in the 1970s, to let us have jurisdiction.

Don't forget Roger Simmons, who sat in Trudeau's Cabinet. Don't forget Bill

Rompkey, who sat in Trudeau's Cabinet when we were fighting -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Premier, when we - yes, we fought to have

it enshrined in the Constitution. We fought to have it enshrined in the

Constitution, and George Baker, Roger Simmons, Bill Rompkey and Brian Tobin, the

four of them, were part of a government that refused, day-in and day-out. The

Premier knows what I am saying is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) jurisdiction?

MR. TOBIN: It was having it enshrined in the

Constitution, the right of Newfoundlanders.

What it was, I say to the Premier, was the right for the

people in St. John's - for Newfoundland, to rule the fisheries, and not some

yahoo up in Ottawa. That is what we were fighting for, the same as you are

fighting - and Brian Tobin, Bill Rompkey, Roger Simmons, George Baker -

AN HON. MEMBER: John Crosbie and Ross Reid.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and include John Crosbie and Ross Reid in

this round - no problem. We are not, I can say to this House - as a party we

have never stood and never will stand with a Federal Government that does

something against Newfoundlanders.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River, on a point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I have to correct the record, Mr.

Speaker. In 1979 when this issue was first raised, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East, Jim McGrath, was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That is who

it was.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the ghost supporter of the

fund for animal welfare - the ghost supporter - going around with his picture in

the paper supporting the fund for animal welfare, has the right to stand in this

House and smile, with what the seals are after doing to the fishery in this

Province, and you support that clique that comes around here. You have a right

to smile, alright.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member every time

I see a horse back on.

I got up to speak to the resolution brought in by my

colleague, and I was a bit concerned. Now, there is a point that has to be made

and that is that this party, Mr. Speaker, and the former Conservative Government

in this Province, have always been consistent.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) an endangered species.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if he had wings he'd be a crow.

This party -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you going to shut that up or am I going

to shut it up?

MR. TOBIN: Yes!

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should have to

put up, day-in and day-out, with the constant heckling of the Member for Eagle

River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I will muzzle that pretty quick if he keeps

it up.

MR. TOBIN: Our position has always been consistent as it

relates to the rights of Newfoundland for Newfoundlanders. But this government

here, their position has never been consistent when it relates to the rights of

Newfoundland and Newfoundland waters for Newfoundlanders. We should not forget

that it was this Premier, Mr. Speaker, who went to court for the Federal

Government to deny us the rights to the offshore resources, the oil and gas. It

was this Premier who fought in the courts against Newfoundlanders having the

rights to their offshore. We were consistent.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He was one of Joey's fellows, one of

Joey's Cabinet ministers, who said: Burn your boats.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Go on, 'Glen', get on with your speech.

Don't listen to them. Go on, make your points about 'Clyde'.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it was this Premier who, in the

Supreme Court of Canada, I believe, fought the rights of Newfoundlanders owning

the resources that lay in the ocean. The Premier cannot say we should have it in

the fisheries today, and a few years ago say we shouldn't have the resource

management of the offshore oil and gas. There has to be consistency, and it is

time - he is learning. He is beginning to come to our way of thinking on the

fisheries. But this Premier cannot have a double standard.

MR. WALSH: Well, he scuttled you in the last election and

he will scuttle you again.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I wish someone would scuttle the

hon. member.

MR. WALSH: Too fearful for that.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: There's not a Tory (inaudible) enough.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Puffin? The old puffin?

MR. MATTHEWS: Puffin. The puffin bill.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, any man who would spend his life

picking chicken wings for - before he came in here, the best part of his life

was picking chicken wings for Mary Brown's. Now, he comes in here and knows

everything. Now, he comes in here and the only contribution he has made to this

Legislature in this Province is the puffin act. And if you wanted to look at

something in the Legislature that resembles a puffin it would be the hon.

member.

Mr. Speaker, this government has not been consistent on any

issue as it relates to the offshore in this Province. I believe, and I strongly

support the belief, that Newfoundlanders should have the say over our resources

and Newfoundlanders should manage our resources. But I want to say one thing,

that when this crowd took over government four years ago, when you talk about

managing our resources, there were mines operating in Baie Verte, St. Lawrence,

Long Harbour, Hope Brook - there were seven mines operating in this Province.

MR. MATTHEWS: They don't like to hear this!

MR. TOBIN: And they are all closed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: All closed today, boy. You closed them,

boy. Don't blame that on John. You closed them up.

MR. TOBIN: That is how this crowd over there manages the

mines. The forestry, Mr. Speaker - my colleague from Humber Valley is more

qualified to speak about that. But the forest industry in this Province has been

cut almost in half since this crowd took over. Steady cut.

MR. R. AYLWARD: On the agricultural land, they are

jeopardizing all that protected land.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, What about our other resources?

What about our most important resource? Forty thousand Newfoundlanders have gone

to the mainland in four years, forty thousand young Newfoundlanders, Mr.

Speaker. This Premier got up in the election campaign and said he was going to

bring home every mother's son but he has driven 40,000 Newfoundlanders to the

mainland in four years. What about our education? What about the education in

this Province? They have gutted it.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with the

fishery?

MR. TOBIN: What does education have to do with the

fisheries? No wonder you got 12 per cent of the support in Harbour Grace. No

wonder you got 12 per cent of the support in the polls.

Back in 1983, Mr. Speaker, there was an announcement that

Fishery Products was going to close the plant at Burin, a primary processing

plant, the first by the way. The first deep sea plant in this Province was at

Burin and in 1982, the fall of 1982, Fishery Products announced they were going

to close that plant and the Premier of the day took on Fishery Products and

tried to change their mind. There was a group of people in Burin, an action

committee got involved led by Lou Bailey and Cathy Dunderdale and Cathy

Dunderdale along with Lou Bailey had a lot of experience in keeping plants open,

fighting to keep plants open. They organized themselves and that group, together

with a government and a Premier of the day who cared -

AN HON. MEMBER: And Vic Young.

MR. TOBIN: Vic Young had as much to do with Burin as you

had. They took on Fishery Products and all of a sudden things started to unfold,

I guess, or unravel, whatever the case may be. What happened was the Burin

Peninsula Development Fund, in particular, with Brian Peckford went over the

heads of a lot of people, upset some people, got the money and said to Vic

Young: there is a secondary processing plant going in Burin. Here is the money.

I am not sure they were very eager at the time to go to Burin with it. I know

the story on it, know it well. They opened up the secondary processing plant and

we started to make gains because all the fish from Newfoundland at that time was

being cut, filleted, put in cold storage in a big box, taken down to Gloucester,

Massachusetts and turned into secondary processing so all the work was being

done by people in the United States with our fish. At that time nobody in this

Province had put any priority into secondary processing. They opened the

secondary processing in Burin. There was some question about whether they could

get markets, how they could do it, and what could happen with the tariffs and

all that. Mr. Speaker, do you know that today the secondary processing plant in

Burin has markets in Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, China, and

in Japan?

AN HON. MEMBER: How much capacity is it producing at?

MR. TOBIN: This is what I am getting to, Mr. Speaker.

All of that was done, that was established, the move was on,

the government was supporting it and then all of a sudden this crowd came into

office and bango, there has been no support for secondary processing in this

Province ever since.

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

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

a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult to sit

and listen to the hon. member when I know the difference. The facility at Burin

never, ever produced to 100 per cent of capability. Even when the hon. member

was a minister in the previous government, so the hon. member should get up and

say it like it is, not mislead people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, say it as it is, it never

produced 100 per cent? I say to the hon. member that I doubt if it ever produced

at 50 per cent, if it did, that was the closest it ever was, but we went from

nowhere to 50 per cent. That is the point I am making and then she bottomed off,

and, Mr. Speaker, if this government had committed to secondary processing as

the previous government had, not only would this plant there be producing, there

would be plants in other parts of the Province producing, but this Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Member for St.

John's South, that there is fish enough right now being landed in Marystown -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker the Member for Bell Island knows

nothing about the fishery, he knows nothing about anything, so would he keep his

big old mouth shut and let me talk to someone who knows something about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are a double negative (inaudible) -

MR. TOBIN: Your are a double negative -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: You are a double negative, you are a

disappointment to society. Mr. Speaker, what I am saying to the member is that

when you look at the fish that is landed in Burin right now, there are draggers

as a matter of fact coming in to Burin with full loads, blocked right solid, no

problem, full loads from St. Pierre banks, but what is happening is that the

markets are not fully utilized.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Wait, I will tell the member what is

happening; there is more concern by the companies for primary fillets than there

is for secondary processing, that is what I am saying to the member. But if the

fish, instead of the primary fillet which is going to the markets now on the

back of a truck somewhere, in a box, to be filleted or for something else to

happen to it somewhere else, if that was being done in Burin, if that was being

shipped from Marystown to Burin instead of being shipped to the States for

value-added product, then it would be up to 100 per cent, so there has to be a

greater emphasis and that is what this resolution says. There has to be a

greater emphasis and a greater priority for the value-added product of fish put

by this government and by private investors, there is no question. But while

there is a shortage, I mean we all acknowledge that, while there is a shortage,

and I know the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay knows what I am talking about.

While there is a shortage of secondary processing of fish in

this Province, primary fish, because of the cod moratorium or whatever the case

may be, well, that is a fact and there is nothing much anyone can do about it,

this government, any government, any party, nothing can be done about it, but

what I am saying is that, there is fish enough being brought in today but the

companies are more involved in supplying the market with the primary processing

than they are with the secondary processing, and this government has

responsibility for processing. It is not the federal government, it is this

government that has the responsibility for processing and this government should

have an obligation to the men and women in this Province, that they get the jobs

in the secondary processing rather than giving the jobs to somebody in

Gloucester, Massachusetts or in some place in Maine or some place in Ontario.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well as a matter of fact, part of the Free

Trade Agreement is that some of the tariffs will be relieved. That is another

thing you know, you talk about the Free Trade Agreement, if there is a good side

to the Free Trade Agreement, it has to be the fact that the tariffs on our

secondary processing going into the United States will be gone in 1995, and that

is the bright side for places like Burin, Mr. Speaker, and this government

should be planning for the day when the tariffs are totally eliminated, because

there is a fishery on the south coast. The fishermen today from Cape St. Mary's

to the Western, all up to Port aux Basques and other parts of this Province are

fishing, there is a fishery, it might not be that great but there is a fishery;

as a matter of fact, this winter, in Placentia Bay, they had one of the best

fisheries they ever had, they had a good fishery.

But this government and this minister have not done anything

to try and attract industry, have not provided any incentives for industry to

get involved in the secondary processing of fish in this Province and you know,

you could wave your hands, shake your arms, sing out and blame John Crosbie all

day for whatever issues you want to. But on the secondary processing in this

Province it's this government, Mr. Speaker, that has jurisdiction, and this

government has done nothing. This minister has been a total, absolute failure in

the fishery portfolio. He has done nothing to encourage secondary processing. As

a matter of fact he's been Minister of Fisheries for four years, and I doubt if

he has ever gone into the secondary processing plant in Burin yet. I doubt that

very much, if he has ever gone into that secondary processing plant in Burin

yet. I'd suggest that he not stay too close to anyone who supports Greenpeace,

like the Member for Eagle River.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I urge the minister

to do what has to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: Mr. Speaker, I had a job to get started off

because I stutter a bit, you know. I'm very pleased to rise today to speak to

this motion. I must say 'tis a half-good motion. I guess it's like being

half-pregnant. It's not much good at all. I think we have some room to do some

secondary processing in Newfoundland. I spent a lot of time in the industry. I

guess nineteen years after I went back to fishing the last time. I have quite a

bit of experience.

What I've seen happen in those nineteen years in

unbelievable. When we see our young people sitting up in the audience today and

they look and see what our governments have done to our efficient industry, I'm

ashamed. When I started fishing up in Labrador in the early nineteen-seventies

we were catching turbot up there then, and we were catching cod. They were so

big that you couldn't lift them up with your two hands. The last year I was up

there fishing, in 1990, they were so small you couldn't catch them in the gill

nets.

So it's completely destroyed. I blame a lot of it on our

federal government. We had trawlers coming across from Nova Scotia and other

parts of Canada. They were constantly going up the Labrador, day in and day out.

They were bringing back loads and loads of fish. They depleted our stocks to

such a state that they were so sick that they couldn't rebuild. Then they fished

out off all of the other banks. The Funk Island Banks. I've been out

gill-netting out by the Funk Island Banks when the large National Sea trawlers

would come right in (Inaudible) my buoys that I had on the gill net, and she'd

drop her drag net and she'd just drag on. That's what has happened to our fish

stocks. We've torn up the bottom, we've torn up the environment where the fish

spawn.

Then we had our foreigners. It was controlled by the federal

government. Because they wanted to make deals with the foreign countries they

traded away our fish stocks. Until we get management over our fishery it'll

never be any better. What I see Mr. Crosbie come out with today, he's proposing

a joint management board between all Atlantic Canada and some other provinces. I

think we need a board made up of our Province and our federal government.

Maybe we should have the majority on that board. Because

Newfoundland and Labrador once was a country. When we joined Canada we brought

our fish stocks into Canada. We should have the most say in those stocks.

Newfoundland is not allowed to go up to Alberta and have a say in their oil

industry, so why should other provinces be allowed to have a say in our stocks

that are off our coast?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: We only have a population around Newfoundland,

all Newfoundland, of the population of one large city.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SMALL: I cannot leave out Labrador. Danny reminds me

of that all the time, but I guess I am from the old school where we always said

'Newfoundland', but we only have the population of one large city, and here we

are constantly begging to Ottawa to be bailed out, when we had the biggest fish

stocks in all the world.

We had our cod; we had turbot; we had red fish; we had

herring, flounder, squid, and everything you could mention, and we are set right

down in the middle of it. You mean to say today that our whole industry is shut

down because we destroyed it - we have destroyed it - and we may never see it

come back like it was at one time, because when you get our stocks so sick,

there is only a small percentage of the spawn that ever matures. So when you get

your stocks down so low, there are all kinds of environment things that have

their say into it, and it may never rebound; but when it does rebound, the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador must have a say in it. We must have a say

in the way that it is managed, and I will back our Premier 100 per cent. We have

to defeat this thing that John Crosbie brought out today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: And if it means going to the people and asking

them for a mandate, then we should do that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: We should do that.

Mr. Crosbie shut down our fishing industry this summer, and

he came out like a drunken sailor, throwing money out to whosoever will. People

were getting this money for six months, and then they were cut off all of a

sudden. There is all kinds of stress caused out in those small communities today

because they have to go to welfare. If this is the way we are going to manage

our fishery, we are in for trouble.

We might have more people in our fishing industry than should

be, and that was caused by the UI system. A lot of our young people left school

because they could go fishing for seven or eight weeks and draw UI the rest of

the year. Now we have no fish; they have no education, and they have no jobs,

and that is poor management.

I think we have a lot of room for secondary processing. We

have our herring; we have our mackerel, and we have our lump roe. Imagine the

barrels of lump roe that are shipped out of Newfoundland every summer. It goes

to Germany, and it goes down to Boston, and it goes down to New York, and it is

put in little bottles, and it comes back here to Newfoundland and we buy it -

deplorable.

Now there may not be high paid jobs in the secondary

industry, because if we do secondary work it is more costly, and we may have to

sell it at a bit lower price, so we may have to adjust our wage rates. Maybe

there is not money enough there to get $10.00 or $12.00 an hour putting lump roe

in bottles. Maybe we have to face reality and work for $5.00 or $6.00 dollars an

hour. It is better to be working for $5.00 or $6.00 per hour, being employed and

having your dignity instead of going up and sitting down in the welfare office

and begging for money to buy some food. We have to put some serious discussions

into where we are going after 1994, if not the people of Newfoundland are going

to be like they were put out on an indian reserve. They will be giving us money,

the people will be just sitting around and their home life will be breaking up,

is this what we want for Newfoundland? Do we want to shut down all of our plants

around Newfoundland and have people just receiving money from Ottawa? We will be

a lost generation.

I think we have to put a plan in place for secondary

processing and create some jobs because it is all to easy to catch your caplin.

You take our caplin for instance, we catch all of these caplin and they are

shipped off to Japan and Korea and it creates hundreds and hundreds of jobs

skivering those little caplin on by the eyes, creating jobs over there. Why can

we not do this in Newfoundland? I fear for what is going to happen to

Newfoundland. What is going to happen to rural Newfoundland? We can shut down

our fishing industry but what are we going to have? What can you create than in

Harbour Round? What can you create in Branch Cove, where those people grew up

fishing and that is all they know and Nippers Harbour and other places all

around Newfoundland? Newfoundland was built on our fishery and all of a sudden

you are going to shut it down? Can you imagine what impact that is going to have

on our people? So, we must put a plan in place for 1994.

When I said it was half right what our member put forth, he

said our government has done nothing. I think that is completely wrong and if I

was writing up that resolution I would never put those words in there. If you

are going to draw up a resolution put the words in there what is right because

that takes away the credibility of this resolution.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will clue up by saying this, that we have

some tough decisions to make in our fishery but without joint management and the

majority of management I mean, I do not mean an equal board, I mean a board

where Newfoundland has the majority of say because we brought the fish stocks

into Canada. We need our own board and manage it so that we will have a fishery

down the road.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The parrot from Eagle River has begun, the

parrot, a trained seal. Now, if he does not stop, Mr. Speaker, I will expose him

for what he is. His picture was up in one of the leading papers on the mainland

for the animal rights. His picture there supporting the animal rights people who

destroyed our seal fishery, a part of our existence.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Point of Order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River, on a point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is

intentionally trying to mislead this House. Mr. Speaker, this is a couple of

times that it has been raised in this House today about my support for the

International Fund for Animal Welfare. If they had heard the CBC news this

morning they would know I have had and will not have any part of that

organization and everybody in this Province must know that I am out there trying

to do what I can to have a sustainable seal fishery and if they want to go and

use anything to further their cause they certainly will have no association with

this hon. member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is really no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I said what I said and I will

say it again, that his name and picture is in one of the national papers in

support of the animal welfare associations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say it. When the member got up on a point

of order he never denied it. That's all I said, Mr. Speaker. But now, seeing

that the hon. member, the parrot, wasn't able to shut up, I want to remind him

of something. In his hatred, his dislike, for the Progressive Conservative Party

in Ottawa, in his dislike for John Crosbie, he opened his mouth about the

$50,000 that was to be spent on some sort of an investigative program about the

seal hunt.

The Premier said today that, if because John Crosbie hated

him, if he would tell the people that he will accept the Premier's resignation

and bring in joint management, then he would resign. So I would say to the hon.

member: seeing what a mess you made of it, if your hatred for Crosbie and the

Progressive Conservative Party is that great, then because of what happened with

the animal - seal welfare fund people, then you should resign. You should stand

up and be counted. At least the Premier did it. He stood up and he was counted.

I respect him for it. What you should do is the same thing.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Crosbie's parrot.

MR. PARSONS: Look, sometimes I get annoyed. He has a very

limited vocabulary. I believe that why he is doing it now, he is going to go

across the country with the Premier. I think he's looking for a job. Certainly

the hon. Members for Pleasantville and Humber West, they're not going. Because

the hon. Member for Humber West, a fine gentleman, he has since left the

Cabinet; and the hon. Member for Pleasantville, after what he did yesterday, in

chastising the Premier in The Evening Telegram, he's not going to get the chance

to go.

The parrot from Eagle River is going to be sitting out in the

audience. As the Premier asks: who caused the demise of the fishery? The parrot

will speak: John Crosbie! Who killed the caplin fishery? The parrot will say:

John Crosbie. Who's responsible for the sinking of the Titanic? He'll say: John,

and the Premier will look around and say: sshh. There'll be silence. Whatever

happened it's going to be John Crosbie. That's his vocabulary. John Crosbie,

John Crosbie.

Who caused the problems as it pertained to all other aspects

of the fishery?

MR. DUMARESQUE: John Crosbie. It's John Crosbie

(Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: John Crosbie. It's John Crosbie. I can

foresee this. Let me be a bit of a soothsayer. Let me predict what will happen

in the audience. Someone there will say, knowing what has transpired, will

perhaps stand up and ask: but Mr. Premier, wasn't it John Crosbie who brought in

the $800 million for the program? Wasn't it John Crosbie? You'll hear silence.

The parrot will be silenced. The parrot won't have one single thing to say.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, he'll ask for a cracker then.

MR. PARSONS: He'll ask for a cracker. Polly, give me a

cracker, Polly, give me a cracker. That's what the parrot will say then. That's

the only thing he knows, is to ridicule a good Newfoundlander. That's all he

knows, is to backbite. He hasn't got the sense or the decency to go up to the

man himself and say to the man's face what he says in here. Or take the man on

in a public forum. You haven't got the guts to do it. Only come in here and

rattle the desk and get up and almost fall over the desk.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I'm not chicken, I'll -

MR. PARSONS: You almost fall over the desk.

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

MR. PARSONS: That little parrot, Eagle River parrot!

That's all he can be classed as. To get up... a parrot. You can sing all you

like. You can sing John Crosbie's tone all you like, but the Premier today, let

me say to the hon. members, the Premier today gave a good speech. He gave a good

speech. He doesn't need a parrot.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, get a cracker and give him over there,

Mr. Speaker. He thinks he's going to get in the Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, the

Premier, well let's face it, a fairly smart individual, a good man on his feet,

and he says - he did not tell me personally, but I hear overtures; I have heard

from responsible people - that he is too immature. He is immature - the hon.

Member for Eagle River. The people from Eagle River now realize that the hon.

member just does not have it, and as much as he wants to get up and aspire to

the Premier's aspirations, the Premier is not taking him in. He is not taking

him in.

Now at one time I was going to speak to the Premier privately

and say: Look, do not hold that against him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Kevin, had to import a Labrador member.

Had to get one from St. John's.

MR. PARSONS: Had to get a member from St. John's - could

not find one down in Labrador. Now a fine gentleman; I have nothing to say that

he is not a fine gentleman, but they had to import him - a fine gentleman from

St. John's. They could not find one down there. The parrot could not sing loud

enough to ask someone.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: My point of order has relevance, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking parrots, chickens, birds; this is about fish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Maybe the hon. member would like to talk about

fish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Oh, Mr. Speaker, of all the points of order.

The Minister of ITT did it again. He did it again.

Mr. Speaker, I did get up to speak on this resolution, but as

soon as I rose to my feet I was rudely interrupted by the parrot from Eagle

River, and that is why I got off on that tangent. Now I will go back to the

resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Eagle River to restrain himself.

MR. PARSONS: As far as the picture being in the national

newspaper, where the Member for Eagle River supports the animal welfare

organization, well I always thought that he had a bit of leniency. I thought he

was a little soft when he got up as far as the seal fishery was concerned, but

there is nothing I can do about that. That is up to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member today, the House Leader,

brought before this hon. House was a good, sound, motion. All it talked about

was a value-added product, more responsibility being placed on the Province to

act in a responsible manner as far as those products are concerned.

We have a scarcity of fish - not alone cod fish - but we have

a serious problem with other species of fish, and if we do not do something as a

Province - the Province already controls - the minister can relate to this. He

knows what I am saying is right. The Province, at this moment, controls the

licensing of the plants, and I can almost see his point that he is not coming

out and saying which plant could close or which plant must close. I think