November

13, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 69

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, today, I wish to inform hon.

members of the House of Assembly that we have revised our estimate of the

Province's budgetary position for the current fiscal year. This revision is

based on performance during the past six months, on expected performance during

Hon. members will recall that in our 1991 Budget, we

estimated a deficit on current account of $53.8 million and a net capital

expenditure of $241.3 million, for a total budgetary requirement of $295.1

million.

For the first six months ending September 30 we outperformed

our Budget. Our expenditures both on current and capital accounts were lower

than anticipated and our revenues were $700,000 higher than we budgeted for the

period. Retail sales tax revenues were down, but these were balanced by greater

than expected revenues from other sources.

However, we now expect a deterioration in revenues during the

second half of the year, both in own-source revenues and in transfers from the

Economic activity in the Province will be slower this year

than anticipated in the Budget. Poor performance in our primary manufacturing

industries, particularly the fishery, has caused us to scale back our estimates

of output, employment, and income. We now expect Gross Domestic Product in the

Province to contract by 0.7 per cent this year, compared to our estimate in the

Budget of 0.7 per cent growth.

We estimate that our-own source revenues will be down by the

end of the fiscal year. The shortfall of $9.5 million in retail sales tax by

mid-year is projected to reach $22 million by year-end. As a result of poor

economic performance nationally, we are now projecting that the installment

will each fall short of our Budget estimates by $7 million. However, these

shortfalls will be offset partly by $11 million from higher than expected

receipts from the gasoline tax and from lotteries. Thus, we now estimate that at

year-end our own-source revenues will be $25 million below Budget.

As well, we are estimating that equalization payments from

officially in October that federal re-estimates of our entitlements under this

program have resulted in a $17 million reduction. Our own calculations indicate

that likely we will lose a further $13 million when the full impacts of the

national recession are factored into payments this winter. However, Established

Program Financing payments should be $2.6 million higher than Budget. In

summary, transfer payments are now estimated to be $27 million below Budget by

year-end.

Current account expenditures are now expected to be $11

million below Budget. The most significant saving of $28.4 million relates to

servicing the public debt and results from lower than anticipated interest

rates, from the high Canadian dollar, and from change in the timing of our

borrowing program. The savings in current account expenditures will have been

offset somewhat by higher levels of expenditure in a number of areas, including

the employment stimulation programs implemented by Government in response to the

downturn in the fishery.

Adding the $25 million projected decline in own-source

revenues to the expected $27 million decline in transfer payments, and

subtracting the $11 million savings on expenditure, result in a projected $41

million increase in our current account deficit over that contained in the

Budget.

Mr. Speaker, we are now estimating that our current account

deficit at year-end will be approximately $95 million. Our revenues on current

account are now estimated to be $2.621 billion instead of the budgeted $2.673

billion, and our expenditures, $2.716 billion instead of $2.727 billion.

On capital account, our expenditures are now expected to be

$4 million below Budget. Savings have been realized in a number of areas,

including delays in the construction of health facilities and other

infrastructure. On the other hand, Government will have experienced cost

overruns and unanticipated capital expenditures, including $14.5 million to

assume the net debt resulting from the sale of the Marystown Shipyard.

Mr. Speaker, based on the latest information available, we

now expect net capital expenditure this year to be $237 million. This combined

with our revised projected deficit on current account of $95 million will result

in a total budgetary requirement of $332 million, $37 million more than

estimated in our Budget last March.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the revisions I have outlined

before year-end. Government must continue to monitor closely this situation and

continue to be prudent in our spending practices.

Other provinces are facing similar deterioration in their

fiscal and economic positions. Premiers of the four Atlantic Provinces met

recently and agreed to consider jointly short and longer term means to improve

our budgetary positions.

Mr. Speaker, despite the increase in the estimated deficit,

Honourable Members will agree that because of the restraint measures we

implemented during the past year, our fiscal outlook this day is a great deal

brighter than it would otherwise have been.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: My first comment, Mr. Speaker, is an obvious

one. It is the same comment I have made the last two years. I told you so; I

told you so; I told you so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: I thank the Minister for once again

confirming that my estimates are far more accurate than his and his officials.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister should not be surprised that retail

sales tax has dropped by $22 million, in spite of the fact that included in

those numbers is the increase that was built into piggybacking RST on GST, which

was a full 1 percentage point or .84 of a percentage point. That benefit, Mr.

Speaker, is included in here, and still they are losing $22 million from the

figure that they had estimated. We are now saying a $95 million deficit. In the

Minister's statement he also says that he saved $28.4 million in the fact that

interest rates have lowered so much, the cost of servicing the debt, so in fact

he is looking at almost $130 million actual deficit on current account, versus

the $53 million that he had predicted. The Premier can shake his head all he

wants but he cannot correct the world with a shake of his head or any more of

his pontifications, let me tell him.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is also a strong message here. The

gross provincial product is down by 0.7 per cent instead of the plus .7 per cent

the Minister had predicted. We told him he was being overly optimistic then.

Either he was being overly optimistic or he was deliberately misleading the

House, one or the other. Because he should have known, if he did not, that the

economy of this Province was going to suffer under the national recession, which

was predicted. It is no surprise to anyone. The Minister cooked the books to try

to come up with a $53 million deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: On capital account the Minister is now

telling us he is saving $18.5 million, in spite of the fact that he made a

payment to Marystown Shipyard. Why has this Government deliberately delayed

construction in this Province at a time when we so desperately need that

economic activity and the jobs that would have been created by that? It is clear

that both through the Department of Municipal Affairs, Public Works and

Transportation, and through many of the Crown agencies that are not reflected in

these numbers, that construction projects in this Province have been

deliberately delayed to try to balance the books by saying: well, we are over a

few million in current account but we are under a little bit in capital account,

so it balances - balances nothing.

But the real measure of this Government's performance is the

current account and the performance of the gross provincial economy. Mr.

Speaker, this statement, if we ever saw one, is justification for the Premier to

make another appointment from outside Cabinet, and call in John Kenneth

Galbraith to help him out of his mess.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

advise this hon. House about an experimental shipment of pulpwood from Goose Bay

to Stephenville. During the last couple of years my Department has been involved

in a number of initiatives to improve the wood supply for the Stephenville mill.

One of these was the study of various transportation systems for shipping wood

from Labrador to the Island.

Mr. Speaker, as most of the Members of the House may be

aware, there is no large scale permanent facility in Labrador for processing

pulpwood. During the past few years pulpwood from Labrador has been exported

mostly to Europe. Recently, that market did not accept the pulpwood because of

an alleged pinewood nematode problem in Canadian wood. By the way, Mr. Speaker,

this pest has not been recorded in Labrador wood so far.

Mr. Speaker, there was a necessity to market the pulpwood

from Labrador and at the same time there was a need to ascertain the feasibility

of using pulpwood from Labrador at the Stephenville mill. My department acted as

a facilitator and committed to participate in a trial shipment which is

currently under way.

Approximately 3,100 cords of wood have been loaded from Goose

Bay. It is currently on its way to Stephenville. The sale of the wood is a

private contract between Abitibi-Price and Eastern Wood Harvesters.

Abitibi-Price will be responsible for any additional costs between the dock and

the mill. My department's involvement through the Canada/Newfoundland

Co-operation Agreement on Forestry Development is in the transportation part of

this trial, specifically because of lack of any permanent facilities at the

Stephenville dock.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this trial will lead to a better

identification of the economics of using Labrador wood in Stephenville. Detailed

information from all parties will be analyzed by my department both on the

shipment of wood and the production of paper at Stephenville.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the

Minister for a copy of his statement previous to coming in the House.

For years now, Mr. Speaker, the previous administration have

been trying and doing some surveying with regards to the wood supply in

Labrador. There is an excellent source of wood supply - and that is no secret -

in the Labrador area of this Province, and it should be taken advantage of. I do

not think there could be a better company in this Province today to take

advantage of that than the Abitibi-Price mill in Stephenville, that is no

secret. Also within the next five or six years they will be experiencing a real

shortage of wood supply, especially wood with good fibre, and that is what is

needed, particularly for the Stephenville mill.

The danger with this, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose we ought to

thank the Federal Government too - this is under the Canada/Newfoundland

Co-operation Agreement - is with the transportation part of it. I want to

commend the Minister for at least doing something positive in this regard on

taking the wood out of Labrador. This is a positive thing for the Island and for

the whole industry in general. I want to go on record as saying that because we

have some real problems in the industry today in this Province, and

Abitibi-Price in Stephenville is one of the areas where they are going to be

affected sooner or later.

Only just a couple of short years ago, Mr. Speaker, they

would not ship wood from Roddickton to Stephenville. It was too expensive, not

viable. Today it is one of the best industries that we have on the West Coast,

the shipment of wood from the Roddickton - Main Brook area to the mill in

Stephenville, because they finally realized and finally found private

entrepreneurs to do it, which is a real asset to the mill in Stephenville. There

will not be any new jobs created by this, Mr. Speaker, because, as I said

before, the mills can only use x number of cords of wood. So there are really no

new jobs, but there will be a commitment and a dedication, I suppose, on behalf

of the department to try to sustain and keep the jobs we already have,

especially pertaining to Abitibi Price.

I would also mention too -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceedings with Oral Questions, on

behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the public galleries today

twelve students from the Avalon Community College of Seal Cove, Conception Bay,

accompanied by their teacher, Genevieve Murphy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Premier did

the unthinkable and made the statement he did with respect to an appointment

outside of his own caucus, he said, "He felt it was important to appoint a

Justice Minister and an Attorney General who has considerable knowledge and

experience in constitutional matters." That is a quote.

Would the Premier be kind enough to table before the House

the constitutional credentials that Mr. Roberts has attained, specific to

constitutional matters, which make him eminently qualified to serve in the

positions to which he was appointed. Has Mr. Roberts been closely associated and

closely involved with the Premier's own constitutional team over the last two

and a half years, and is that where he earned his credentials, constitutional

credentials?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask Mr. Roberts to

speak for himself as to what his credentials are. I can only say to the House,

Mr. Speaker, without meaning any disrespect to any other lawyer I am aware of in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or to most other lawyers that I am

aware of across the rest of this Country, that I have not had a discussion about

constitutional matters with any other lawyer - well, some other lawyers in other

parts of Canada - in Newfoundland with the depth of knowledge of constitutional

issues and constitutional law and the fundamental principles of the structure of

a Constitution and the political science basis for it that Edward Roberts has. I

have not encountered it in any other lawyer in the Province that I have

discussed it with and I have seldom seen his equal elsewhere in the nation.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: The Premier, I think, is saying, yes, he will

table the constitutional credentials of Mr. Roberts. Now, I want to ask him a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER WELLS: No, I didn't.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, you won't table it? Okay, I can understand

why.

Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary to the Premier, as well. The

former minister, the member for Humber West, said in recent interviews that

there were several outstanding key justice issues still remaining, the Police

Services Act, negotiations for RCMP services with the feds, the release of the

Hughes Commission Report, new facilities for the court system, and the make-up

of the Public Utilities Board. And there are others, firearms for the RNC, the

Police Commission, all kinds of issues. But the former minister, himself,

mentioned that those are the key outstanding Justice issues. He hardly mentioned

the Constitution. Now, is the Premier saying to this House that he must bring in

Ed Roberts to deal with those key Justice issues as described by the former

Minister? Is he saying that the Member for Bonavista South is not competent to

deal with those issues? Is he, in fact, saying there is nobody in that caucus

over there competent to deal with those key Justice issues as described by the

former minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying any such

thing. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would like to put those words in my

mouth and cause me to be saying those kinds of things, but that is not at all

what I said. I simply refer him to the detailed statement that I made yesterday.

Now, if he wants me to take up the time of Question Period rereading that

statement or restating it in my own words, I am quite prepared to do so. I

explained that we invited Mr. Roberts to accept the appointment of Minister of

Justice and Attorney General because, in my judgement, that particular position

is best filled by somebody with a fairly substantial background, knowledge, and

experience in the legal profession in the Province. In this particular time in

Canada, with the major constitutional problems that we have, and the burdens

that I have as Premier of the Province, quite apart from the constitutional

issues, I would very much welcome the assistance of somebody with Mr. Roberts'

knowledge and capability in constitutional issues. There is no other lawyer in

the Province with his level of knowledge and capability in those constitutional

issues, no other lawyer in the Province whose judgement in those matters I

respect more than I respect Mr. Roberts'. That is why none of the concoctions

that the Leader of the Opposition wants to put forward - I know it would sound

better for him politically if I were to agree with him, but he is dead wrong

again, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, obviously the key issue for the

Premier is the Constitution. Unfortunately, most Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians can't afford to be preoccupied with the Constitution like the

Premier and Ed Roberts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it has also been suggested by the

Premier, I think, in interviews outside the House yesterday evening, that there

may be a Cabinet shuffle in January, early in the new year. Can he now guarantee

the House and, more importantly, can he guarantee the members of his own caucus,

his own backbenchers, Mr. Speaker, that whenever that Cabinet shuffle takes

place, he will not be rejuvenating any Liberal politicians from the Liberal

museum but, instead, he will appoint members of his new Cabinet from within his

own caucus? Can he guarantee the House that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are several things that I need to

address out of that, one of which is the comment that we can't afford to be

engaged in these constitutional issues. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we can't afford

not to be engaged and to do it with intelligence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: We cannot afford to have somebody like the

members of the Opposition, with no competence or background or knowledge in the

issue, to deal with it. Fortunately, we have people like Edward Roberts

available to do it, Mr. Speaker. We cannot afford, if we are to have a future at

all, in this Province, not to pay attention to it. Besides, what have they got

against - are they frightened to death of Edward Roberts? Does he scare the

pants off them? What have they got against bringing in Edward Roberts? They are

frightened to death of him.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will guarantee the Leader of the

Opposition nothing, except one thing, Mr. Speaker, that I will conduct the

Government of this Province in a manner that is in the best interest of the

people of this Province without regard to the political concerns of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My

question is also for the Premier. There are a number of lingering questions with

respect to the appointment of Mr. Roberts to the Cabinet as Minister of Justice

and Attorney General. I don't know the answers, and that is why I would like the

Premier to give them to the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has stated that Mr. Roberts is being

appointed because he has expertise in constitutional issues, and that the Member

for Bonavista South does not have that expertise. He goes on to say in Hansard,

that the Member for Humber West, was appointed when we did not have a

constitutional crisis. Is the Premier saying, that the Member for Humber West

would not have been appointed Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if we

had been in the middle of a constitutional debate, and that, possibly, Mr.

Roberts would have been appointed at that particular time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying any such

thing. Somebody asked me to name the differences, and I named the difference.

Now, in front of the Member for Humber West, I say to him without hesitation - I

have no hesitation in saying - that in my judgement, Edward Roberts has

considerably more constitutional knowledge about the issues and fundamentals of

the Constitution than the Member for Humber West, and he would be the first to

agree with me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I do not understand is, what is it

that has the members in the Opposition in such a panic? I think I will call Norm

Whelan and see if he will come into the Cabinet too, and that will scare the

life out of them!

AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps he has already turned you down.

MR. SIMMS: Why don't you call some of your backbenchers?

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I almost detect an irritation

in the Premier's response; nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, my question again is to

the Premier.

Could the Premier explain why the Member for Bonavista South

is competent enough to become the Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney

General until January, but will not be competent enough to hold that position

indefinitely?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We will ask the Member for St. John's East Extern, to repeat

the question.

MR. PARSONS: Could the Premier explain why the Member for

Bonavista South is competent enough to become the Acting Minister of Justice and

Attorney General until January, but will not be competent to hold that position

indefinitely?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I never said any such thing.

I know the members opposite want to portray it in that way.

MR. MATTHEWS: You did say it.

PREMIER WELLS: I never said any such thing. I will tell

the House, if they want to know, exactly what I said. I will tell them of my

specific conversation with the Member for Bonavista South. I called him and told

him of my concerns and my desire to have somebody fill that position who had a

widespread experience in the legal profession beyond the level of experience

that the Member for Bonavista South had, that this would be highly desirable.

And, in this particular time, when Canada is embroiled in major constitutional

issues, and this Province is greatly concerned about its constitutional and

economic future as a result of that, it is also important to have somebody very

knowledgeable in that area, as well. I explained that to him, and the Member for

Bonavista South said, 'I agree with you. I understand your point of view and I

am quite prepared to do what I can to help you out.'

Now, I give the Member full credit for his willingness to put

the Province first, a lesson which the Members Opposite could take and use

wisely if they are really interested in this Province; but for some reason or

other they are in an utter political panic over the appointment of Ed Roberts

and it is giving me a complex because they do not seem to be afraid of me but

they are scared to death of Ed Roberts, and that is giving me a real complex.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Premier that the importance

of the constitutional debate across this Province, and indeed across Canada, has

not been very promising. In fact, people are much more worried about their jobs

than constitutional (inaudible).

My question again is to the Premier. Has the Premier really

given us the answer as to why the former Minister of Justice resigned, when he

said in the House yesterday, and I quote from Hansard, "The Member for Humber

West was appointed at a time when we did not have the major constitutional issue

in the country that we have at the moment." Is the reason why the Minister is

resigning because he is perceived by the Premier as not being qualified in the

present constitutional issues?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Where is all the concern about jobs and

the economy now? Where is all this fake concern about jobs and the economy? Mr.

Speaker, I do not know who wrote these questions, or who designed these

questions, but obviously the Member for Humber West in an eminently qualified

and able person, and performed very, very well in Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It was a great loss to me personally, to

the Government, and to the people of the Province, when the former Minister of

Justice tendered his resignation for entirely personal reasons, and no other. I

asked him to think about it, but I would not ask him to change his mind, because

I respect his judgement in putting his family concerns ahead of his own personal

political position, and I could only accept his decision. I am not going to

allow the hon. Members Opposite to cast spurious remarks in his direction now,

which they are doing. This is really a new low, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to see

it.

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

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

I have a question as well, Mr. Speaker - talk about a walking

contradiction - to the Premier. In recent months the Premier and the Minister of

Fisheries have made statements about the need for a joint Federal/Provincial

Fisheries Management Board. The Premier, over the last couple of years, has been

somewhat inconsistent on these issues as well, asking out loud if we could

afford it, and other times saying we should have it. I would like to ask the

Premier: has the Province presented proposals to the Federal Government, and are

negotiations currently under way for such a joint management agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have to do what I did

yesterday. There is the word 'management' and there is the word 'jurisdiction',

and the two are quite different. The legislative jurisdiction that the former

government wanted, we cannot afford. I have been consistent on that for years

and years and years, and I say it again now.

Joint management we cannot afford not to have. We cannot

allow ourselves to be pressured by the Federal Minister of Fisheries, John

Crosbie; by the Prime Minister and others, into not having joint management. We

need joint management! Jurisdiction we do not have the resources to cope with,

and it is - well, I was going to say it is silly and stupid in the extreme to be

promoting it, but they do not like those words, so I will not use them - but,

Mr. Speaker, it is ludicrous to even think of our having jurisdiction. We cannot

afford to exercise the legislative jurisdiction we have now. What are we going

to do with having to provide the cost of managing 400,000 square miles of the

North Atlantic Ocean? It is utter nonsense; but joint management, yes, we are

pursuing it vigorously, and we intend to pursue it vigorously. Now let me remind

the Members again - because I do not know whether they do not understand the

difference between the two words or they deliberately want to confuse - we have

always, always, always, insisted on joint management. We have always, always,

always, resisted the proposition for legislative jurisdiction, and we continue

to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Comparing the

Constitution with the fishery and management and jurisdiction, this is the real

thing that the Province cannot afford to stay out of if we are going to have a

future in this Province, I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: If there is anything that is worth anything

to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians this is it, our most important industry. I

ask the Premier: are there any proposals presently before the Federal Government

for consideration, and are negotiations under way for such an agreement? Has the

Premier discussed the matter of joint management in relation to fisheries with

the other Maritime premiers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the last time I met with the

Prime Minister, which was just before the Federal constitutional proposals came

down, which would have made it about late September, I spoke to him then about

joint management and Newfoundland's concern about joint management. I have

written him numerous times in recent months expressing my concerns and proposals

for consideration of joint management. I expect I will be having further

meetings with him in the not too distant future dealing with joint management.

The Province is preparing a very thorough position paper on the fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

PREMIER WELLS: Is it about ready? It is about ready to be

released publicly?

AN HON. MEMBER: Within days, yes.

PREMIER WELLS: Within days. It is about ready to be

released publicly within days. One of the primary aspects of it is the proposal

for joint management. We intend to do that. Yes, I have had discussions with

other Atlantic premiers about joint management. I have had discussion with a

particular Atlantic premier about joint management.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I think

really that active negotiations was what I was trying to pursue and to get an

answer whether or not active negotiations are ongoing on this very important

issue for the Province.

Let me ask the Premier another supplementary then. In his

discussion, he sort of indicates at least detailed discussions with one Atlantic

premier. It is my understanding that a number of the Atlantic provinces, the

governments of those provinces, are really not in favour of joint management

arrangements. Is that a fact? Has the Premier run into any problems with any of

the other Atlantic premiers that are opposed to a joint management agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me deal with the phrase "active

negotiations" first before I get down to the Atlantic premier. One person cannot

negotiate with somebody else who will not negotiate. Now, if the hon. Members

opposite really wanted to do something for this Province they would use all of

their considerable influence on their Federal colleague, the hon. John Crosbie,

and pressure him to agree to discussions! He won't do it! He's consistently

refused! Mr. Speaker, it is no good the Opposition badgering the Government to

pressure them to seek joint management when their political cohorts in Ottawa

refuse to participate in negotiations!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: How can there be active negotiations, Mr.

Speaker, if the Federal Government is not willing? We have done everything we

could: we have been nice to them, we have pressured them, we have cajoled them,

we have pleaded with them, we have done everything, except we have not been on

our knees to them, and I do not expect we will get on our knees to them. We will

find another solution to the problem. Over the last year and more we have been

doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's see the proposals, table them!

AN HON. MEMBER: Table your representations.

PREMIER WELLS: I have been writing the Prime Minister for

the last year and a half on the issue, on a number of occasions on the issue. I

have met with Mr. Crosbie. Every time I meet with Mr. Crosbie, virtually, I ask

him about the issue, to try and move him off the stubborn position he is taking.

He just absolutely refuses! And I cannot understand a Newfoundland Minister

resisting! Let me tell you that he has announced publicly he is putting forward

a proposal to revamp the structure of the Federal Department of Fisheries. And I

said: before you do anything let's have a discussion on joint management. This

is important. Structure it in such a way as to provide for joint management. He

will not even talk to us.

Now if the hon. Members opposite are really sincere and not

being simply politically mischievous, they will use whatever influence they have

with their Federal counterparts, Mr. Speaker, to persuade them to move on the

issue. Then maybe we can get active negotiations under way.

Now I believe the second part of the question had something

to do with the attitude of the other premiers. The province that is most

concerned, of course, is the Province of Nova Scotia. It has held out the

longest, and they have been the most difficult to deal with. I had one meeting

here with the Premier of Nova Scotia on that issue. I had another meeting in

Halifax about four weeks ago with the Premier of Nova Scotia on that issue. I

have not talked to the Premier of Nova Scotia about it in any detail. I

mentioned it to him at the last Atlantic Premier's meeting, but I have not

talked to him in any detail about that issue since that meeting about four weeks

ago. I expect I will be talking to him within the next few days about it.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: I have a question for the Minister of

Finance. In the Tuesday edition of the Telegram the President of Treasury Board

indicated that if the deficit for 1992-93 reaches $100 million, it could result

in further cutbacks. Last Friday the Minister of Health said that the health

system was revamped last year and that there would be no cutbacks in the next

fiscal year. The Minister shakes his head, but he did say it. The NTA is

protected by a 2 per cent savings clause in its contract. Since the Minister

indicated there could be some potential cutbacks could the Minister of Finance

tell us where it is going to come from since two sectors have already been

excluded?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to - if

Members Opposite are going to dig into the published papers and get their

questions in such a superficial way as that then I do not think they deserve an

appropriate answer. I question the validity of these remarks in the first place,

and the second point is we are not about to reveal our Budget strategy to the

Opposition at this stage in the game.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary to the same Minister. The

Premier in the same report said that figures may be significantly different in

January. Could he tell us what he means by this? Does it mean that there is

going to be a higher deficit or a lower deficit, or are there going to be some

changes as a result of Government introducing tax reform in January which will

already add an ever increasing tax burden on the population of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of

Finance would want me to say what I meant by what I said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah ha, that means he is not allowed to

speak.

PREMIER WELLS: No, no. He is quite free to speak, but I

mean, the inanity of asking the Minister of Finance what I meant when I said

something just boggles the mind, so I thought I would try and cover it up for

the hon. Member.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, cover it up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it covers up the hon.

Member's deficiency - I obviously have not succeeded - it has been exposed. Mr.

Speaker, what I meant is that the Federal Government, as hon. Members are aware,

change their estimates from time to time, and one of the periods of time when

they do it is January or February. Now we have estimated the cash flow by way of

Federal transfers based on the best information that we can get. We had done

that earlier, but we got a surprise - well, not exactly a surprise, we got a

revision this fall of $17 million and we are projecting it could be another $13

million in January. It might not. That figure might go down or that figure might

go up, so it could change in January, and that is what was meant by the comment.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, it is readily apparent from

labour unions and from Government that if the deficit is in the $100 million

range there has been indication that there could be further cutbacks. Let me ask

the Minister this then: has he given any consideration, in light of the fact

that we could have $100 million deficit to impose in his second year of wage

restraint in this Province, is there any consideration being given to that at

this time?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to 'ifs' and

'ands', if this, if that. There is an old saying that if 'ifs' and 'ands' were

kettles and pans there would be no need for tinkers.

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

MR. WOODFORD: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The Government has proposed, and I suppose in the next few

days or in a week or so bring in legislation making the City of St. John's the

regional authority for the northeast Avalon. For the City of St. John's and the

northeast Avalon communities, Mr. Speaker, it is government without

representation going back, as far as I am concerned, to the old colonial regime

- taxation without representation.

Could the Minister tell me why the Government did not

establish and will not establish a regional services board for the northeast

Avalon?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the House in

the Spring when we were debating the various resolutions concerning the

northeast Avalon, we clearly had two choices, and one of those choices was to,

in fact, establish a regional services board and have services delivered on a

regional basis, administered by that board, with representation from the

communities. It was a clear choice. The other choice we had was to have the

largest municipality in the Province, the City of St. John's, with its

considerable administrative structure and expertise already in place, provide

the administration for regional services for the region.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we chose the second alternative. We

feel it is the right alternative. Rather than having a large administration, an

extra administration, and what was deemed as another layer of government by the

municipalities - they spoke out very strongly against it throughout the process

of the feasibility hearings and the process itself. They clearly did not want

what they perceived as another level of government. We chose to have the City of

St. John's, as I said, be the administrator and facilitate the delivery of

regional services on behalf of all the municipalities or most of the

municipalities on the northeast Avalon. Where in fact they are recipients of

those services they would participate and they will participate - and you will

see this in the legislation - in discussions and in consideration of rates,

costs and so on. They will be part of that process, but the administration quite

clearly will be under the jurisdiction of the City of St. John's to deliver for

the region.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last year the Minister and the Administration rushed the bill

through on The Regional Services Board Act, even to the point of invoking

closure to make sure that the bill was rushed and forced through the House of

Assembly. To this day, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that regional services

board legislation has been proclaimed.

Based on the answer the Minister just gave me, is this the

actual reason why the legislation is not proclaimed and does the Minister think

that from now on that particular act is no good to him?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in the Spring, of course, the

resolutions were brought before the House of Assembly, and the next step in the

process is to have these resolutions debated by way of amendment to the various

acts that are involved. That will start very shortly in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the regional services board legislation will not

be required per se on the northeast Avalon, because we are not putting in place

a regional services board. I am not sure of the Member's question relating to

that legislation, but we are, in fact, asking the City of St. John's to deliver

services and administration relating to regional costs and services on behalf of

those communities that access a particular regional service.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

One of the questions I asked the Minister: Why was the

Legislation not proclaimed? Why is it not proclaimed to this date, after passing

through the House of Assembly last year?

Having said that, another question, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister: Has the Government changed its mind now with regard to The Regional

Services Board Act, and is amalgamation now the only means Government will use

for regional municipal services?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the regional services board

legislation, of course, is very necessary. We have not yet set up a board

anywhere in the Province. We are having discussions with various communities,

and I can give some examples where we are doing regional incinerators where four

or five or six communities are co-operating to provide them rather than have

each community, or two or three communities, with an incinerator, we are asking

that as many as possible co-operate, and do it on a regional basis. We see, in

some cases, a regional board would be very necessary to cost-share in the

facility and to administer the facility.

I can give other examples. The treatment plant in Grand Falls

- Windsor - Bishop's Falls will certainly require, in my view, a regional

services board when that is finally started and finally completed, so we will be

using the legislation. So far, we have not done so, but we will encourage that

legislation or co-operation which we presently have; of course, as all members

of the House know, we have co-operation now between communities, where they

share services. The importance of the board is to have a legal entity in place

where they can formalize their agreement and borrow money, if necessary, things

they cannot do now with just committees.

So, we see that legislation being used widely, and we will

also encourage amalgamation, wherever it is possible. That will continue to

happen. We have several groups of communities, right now, asking us to consider

them for amalgamation. We have many to complete which are presently under

consideration and until we finish those we certainly cannot consider any others.

But both amalgamation and regional services boards are very, very important.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before moving on to the other business, I just wanted to

remind hon. members - and I am sure hon. members will want me to do this,

particularly in the good will that has been prevailing in the last little while

- that I have heard a couple of unparliamentary words sneaking into the debate,

particularly from members' chairs, today.

Sometimes, it is difficult for the Chair to intervene when a

member is making a comment, because, if a member is making a comment in the

collective sense, then, of course, it is not unparliamentary. But when it is

just an individual word that is clearly unparliamentary, the Chair has to be

vigilant in this matter, and I wanted to remind hon. members about that, today.

A couple of words that were used were: 'deliberately misled',

'traitor', and there was one other, I have just forgotten it right now. If these

words were used in the governmental or the opposition sense, in the collective

sense, then they are not unparliamentary. But if such words were used in the

individual sense, then they are clearly unparliamentary. I want to make that

distinction to hon. members so that they be careful about their usage in the

future.

Just before I sit down, since the word occurred to me, I do

not know whether I said it - maybe I did - it was 'cover-up', I believe.

'Cover-up', 'traitor' and 'deliberately misleading' were the three terms I heard

today. I ask hon. members to be careful in the usage of these words.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Elections,

Controverted Elections and Financing." (Bill No. 55)

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some questions were

asked during Question Period yesterday that I took as notice and indicated I

would get the information for the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

The first question related to the snow clearing on a

section

of highway between Bay L'Argent and Terrenceville. The member indicated he was

an hour and ten minutes doing twenty-five miles. Mr. Speaker, that

section of

the road is the responsibility of two separate depots. One foreman left Boat

Harbour at approximately 5:10 a.m. and drove over the road. At that point in

time, the road was a bit slushy and wet, but, in the opinion of the foreman, the

equipment was not necessary, so he did not call the equipment out. A second

foreman from Grand Le Pierre depot inspected the road conditions at somewhere

around 7:30 a.m. and, at that point in time, it was necessary, so the equipment

was called in at approximately 7:50 a.m. So the vigilance of the foremen is

obvious in this particular instance.

The second part of the question was whether this had to do

with the winter

schedule that was not brought in. My answer was, absolutely not,

but that I would check into the circumstances and get back to the member. The

circumstances are that the foremen are now, and have been since November 4, on

the week on, week off schedule. In terms of the foremen going out and inspecting

the roads, since they have been on that

schedule since November 4, there is no

problem there.

It is the foremen who are responsible for calling in the

crews and the crews will be called in immediately that the foremen sense and

decide that there is a need to call in the particular crews. So, Mr. Speaker,

winter scheduling had absolutely nothing to do with the situation on that

particular morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Private Member's Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, Private Member's

resolution: I believe it is the Member for Port de Grave.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to start off my first twenty minutes, speaking about

the importance of this resolution, not only to this House of Assembly, but to

every man, woman and child in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today,

and in the future.

I want to start by making it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I

don't get a great deal of pleasure out of presenting this resolution to this

hon. House of Assembly today, because of the seriousness of the situation with

our fishing industry, in view of the importance of it to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and the position we find ourselves in today,

considering the fact that the total fishery, not only inshore and offshore

inside our 200-mile limit, but outside the 200-mile limit, is near its end. The

total depletion of the stocks is so close that it makes you shiver when you

think about what is happening to the Province.

I want to read a very short paragraph from something I came

across while going through my notes the other day. It is very simple but it

sends a very, very strong message. It begins, Mr. Speaker, this way: 'We entered

Confederation in 1949, and we were prepared to shut off our ties with the old

homelands of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England, France, China, and other

nations. We were ready to become Canadians first. We literally brought with us

our industry and were prepared to join with other Canadian provinces who already

possessed their own individual industries, too. We have respected their

industries as their own and, in return, they must reciprocate the feeling.

Newfoundland's fishing industry is indisputably historically Newfoundland's

industry in spite of the fact that Canada godfathered us into the 200-mile

limit.' Mr. Speaker, those are very simple words but very, very strong words,

and what that gentleman is saying in this paragraph is that the industry belongs

to Newfoundland. It is Newfoundland's industry, the industry of every man,

woman, and child, the industry of our forefathers, our people today and our

people in the future. Without the fishing industry in this Province,

Newfoundland's economy cannot survive. It is the mainstay, the mainstream of the

economy of the Province. We can develop small business - mines will come and go,

oil industries will come and go, but the fishing industry can be here to stay

if, with some basic common sense, we use conservation measures to protect the

stocks. We cannot do that unless the attitude in Ottawa changes, Mr. Speaker.

Ottawa's attitude towards the greatest industry in Newfoundland and Labrador,

the fishing industry, must change. If they respected our industry as we respect

the industries of other people across Canada, the important auto industry in

Ontario, the many manufacturing industries in Montreal and all over Canada, if

they gave us one small portion of their respect in return, we would be a lot

better off today. But, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that we have not received

that respect, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been treated as

second-class citizens by Ottawa in making decisions on the fishing industry.

Since Confederation, especially in the last two or three decades, you have seen

our fish stocks on the Grand Banks, the fishing industry of Newfoundland and

Labrador, being traded off in trade relations with the rest of the world. Mr

Speaker, if any in this hon. House of Assembly, or any in this Province do not

believe that, then I have to say a very unparliamentary word to those

individuals. Let me give you one example of what just happened, a very, very

short time ago on the Grand Banks. A foreign ship was being approached by the

Leonard J. Cowley with the intent to board that vessel to check it out, but when

they reached it, they were told, 'No, you are not coming aboard.' The fisheries

officers then called External Affairs, and were told by External Affairs, 'Leave

them alone.' They turned tail and headed straight for the 3NO division on the

Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador and arrested two small, under 65-foot,

Newfoundland vessels and towed them into port. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not

emotionalism, it is not exaggeration, it is reality; it is, in fact, what is

happening on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador. And we wonder why the

economy of this Province is in the mess it is in, with every man, woman and

child wondering where the next job is going to come from. Even the people who

are working are wondering if they are going to have a job next year. How can

they not be in fear of what is happening when every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian is being deprived of his basic right, the right to earn a living. I

am amused at the talk about the number of people involved in the fishing

industry. I am really amused at that. We have some 31,000 people today, in the

fishing industry. We don't have control over the fishing industry at all, and we

have 31,000 people deriving a living directly from the fishing industry. If we

had some say in those stocks on the Grand Banks, how many people would you see

employed? I say, without exaggeration, you would see at least 60,000 people

employed if we were into half the stocks that are out there. I tell people that

inside the 200-mile limit, Mr. Speaker, this year, alone, foreigners will take

356,000 tons of fish. The hon. member shakes his head, but it is a fact, it has

been announced by the Federal Government: 206,000 tons of all different species

and 150,000 tons by the NAFO countries. That is a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Inside the 200-mile limit?

MR. EFFORD: Inside the 200-mile limit, that is a fact -

356,000 metric tons.

Let us say that foreigners should be in there at some point.

If we could take 200,000 tons, or half, 175,000 tons, of that fish and have it

processed in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - that we take 175,000

tons of fish - can you just imagine the number of jobs that would make for

people in this Province, jobs directly involved in the processing of that

175,000 tons of fish? Can you just imagine the number of spin-off jobs that

would result from the money earned in the plants and spent in the community? Can

you just imagine the number of companies that would benefit from providing gear

to the boats, the number of crews and their families who would be involved in

the catching of that fish? It is mind-boggling to think of what we could have.

I hear people saying we can't have control of our fishery.

The country of Iceland, half the size of Newfoundland - I heard it today - with

half the population of Newfoundland, has control of their fishery. What happens

in Iceland? The fishery makes enough profit in Iceland to pay for the cost of

health, education and transportation. Everything else in this Province and this

country is subsidizing the fishing industry. It is a disgrace, a shame, that

John Cabot came over here and found such rich resources in our Province, and for

some 400 years we have allowed to take place what has taken place, and we are

still not benefitting, Mr. Speaker.

I am against foreigners fishing inside our 200-mile limit.

Very simply, John Crosbie, the federal Minister of Fisheries, and other

ministers, make it very clear that the only species of fish the foreign

countries catch inside the 200-mile limit are species that we, ourselves, cannot

use. That is total misrepresentation and a misleading statement for anybody in

this country to make. Are you telling me, having given to Japan this year, a

quota of 32,000 tons, 132 million pounds of squid, that we cannot catch squid in

this Province? Are you telling me that caplin was caught on the Grand Banks of

Newfoundland this year and off the Labrador coast by the Russians and many other

countries, and that we cannot catch caplin? The 180 tons of tuna - one of the

most profitable fish you can catch today, selling at some $15 a pound - are you

telling me that we are not able to catch that tuna? Let me tell you what is

happening out there: Newfoundland was given 107 tons, this year. They are only

allowed to catch it by a hook and line, a single hook and line. Japan was given

a quota inside the 200-mile limit of 180 tons of tuna and they are allowed to

purse seine it. Why? Why is Japan allowed to purse seine tuna and catch all

sizes, while we can only catch it by hook and line? Newfoundland fishing vessels

have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they are able to go out there.

They have the equipment, the technology and the courage.

A little Newfoundland fishing vessel, forty-two feet long,

left Fermeuse about a month ago, with a twenty-seven-year-old skipper. Last

year, he didn't have a job. He had the guts to put himself in debt and buy a

forty-two foot boat and he sailed 140 miles out to the Grand Banks to fish. The

"Leonard J. Cowley", the "Margarite", the war ship, and another boat boarded his

boat, arrested him, and brought him into port, yet, they give the Japanese, the

Russians, the Danes, and all of the other countries the right to go out and

catch our fish. And we wonder why we have such a high unemployment rate in this

Province.

We talk about diversification. Let's talk about

diversification for a second. Let's talk about building an industry in Gaultois.

Gaultois is a fishing community. The survival of that community depends on the

fishing industry. It is their mainstay. Can you imagine building a new industry

in Gaultois? Where are the people going to get the money to buy products in

Gaultois? Are they going to build a shoe factory up there? Are they going to

build a bottling plant up there? It is ludicrous! All that Gaultois and Port de

Grave and Black Tickle can survive on, is fish. The product is there. You don't

have to go looking for the product. The resource is, or was, there. It is not

there now, the way it was, and it should be there.

Do you realize that last year, outside the 200-mile limit,

the foreign countries were given a quota of some 150,000 tons total of all

species of fish and they caught five times that amount, in excess of 800 million

pounds of fish. They reported catching those quantities. God knows how much they

caught beyond that. If they have the audacity to report to the Government of

Canada that they took that much, how much did they take above and beyond that?

This year, alone, on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, inside, in the 3L

division, while our own Newfoundland fishermen were searching for fish and

couldn't get any, were forced to go in the fog and the dark of night in the 3NO

division to try to survive, do you know what Spain and Portugal did? Early this

spring, they reported taking 140 million pounds of cod and turbot in the 3L

division on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, where they do not have a quota

for one pound, not one pound. They are known all over the world as the pirates

of the sea. Tell me, how many vessels were arrested? Not one. Not one vessel was

boarded, under the surveillance of Canada. Not one. That was 140 million pounds

we know about. You fly out over the Atlantic Ocean on the Grand Banks in the

nighttime, you look down, and you don't know but you are flying over the City of

Mount Pearl. There are lights from factory freezer trawlers and ships all over

the place. It is mind-boggling to see what is happening out there. They never

leave the Grand Banks. They are out there 365 days a year. The fuel ships go

out. The supply ships go out and take the product. They take the fish out of the

water, process and package it, and ships come and take it and carry it to the

home port. Mr. Speaker, no resource in this world can stand what is happening

out there, and last. There is no way that you can keep taking, taking, taking,

and putting nothing back, and expect it to survive. An end has to come to the

fishing industry.

I am not talking only about cod. What really bothers me,

really frightens me, is that when we talk about fish, everybody in the Province

thinks we are talking about codfish. It is so far from the truth, it is unreal,

to think that anyone would even believe or consider that to be a fact. There are

so many different species out there, it is unimaginable, the money we could be

making from it. You are saying if you stop the foreigners fishing inside the

200-mile limit, you will close certain plants. You will not close plants,

because Canadians can catch those fish, and if Canadians do not have the boats

or the nets to catch that fish with, well then let's buy them. How many people

would you put to work if you allowed Canadians to catch all that fish the

foreigners are catching inside the 200-mile limit? It is very simple, you would

employ people and those people, those Canadians, those Newfoundlanders would

keep those plants going. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to get

back what is rightfully ours, and Canadians and Newfoundlanders must be given

first consideration in catching those fish. We should not be the last to be

considered. What is happening now is everybody gets first choice and we get

kicked in rebuttal. And do not think it is not happening out there!

I am going to distribute this in this hon. House of Assembly

to anybody who wants to see this. This is one of the most frightening things I

have seen. I cut this out of a paper, The Fishing News International. This is a

new jumbo trawl, an otto trawl, a dragnet, that Iceland just developed. Now,

just look at this paper, anybody who can see it, and you can have it afterwards.

This is Iceland's jumbo trawl, and they call it the new mammoth Gloria. That is

the name of it. The mouth of this dragnet is so large - and it is shown here on

this picture - that twelve - just think about it - twelve jumbo jets can fit in

the mouth of it. Now, that is a fact. It is here. Twelve jumbo jets! And you

wonder why the fish stocks are nearly at an end. And we are only talking one

net. Multiply that times the number of boats times the number of countries

fishing on the Grand Banks day and night, 365 days a year and somebody is going

to tell me, if we do not start putting some measures in place to protect our

stocks, that they can last, when you have one net that twelve jumbo jets can fit

into the mouth of.

I am telling you, most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do

not realize how serious this situation is. I spoke to a group of people out in

Mount Pearl recently, the Chamber of Commerce, and I spoke to a group of people

at Hotel Newfoundland, the Association of Engineers, and after I finished

telling them some of the figures that I have given here this afternoon, they

came up to me and said, 'I did not realize that. I did not know that. I did not

think that the industry was so important to my business.' Yet, in the same tone

of voice, they said that their businesses had dropped 40 per cent this year,

their sales had dropped 40 per cent this year.

The whole economy of this Province has dropped. Why? Last

year, if I have my numbers correct, the value-added product to the Newfoundland

and Labrador industry last year, the fishing industry, I think was in excess of

some $700 million. Take that $700 million out of the economy and what do you

have? You talk about 50,000 or 60,000 people unemployed now, you would have

triple that amount, because it has a spin-off effect everywhere. People living

in downtown St. John's or in Corner Brook or in Gander do not realize that the

fishing industry is important to their survival. They think because they are not

working directly at it or they do not see fish or they do not live along the

coast that it is not important. Mr. Speaker, that is very, very far from the

truth.

We are talking about training young people to become doctors

and lawyers. We are talking about training them to become electricians and

mechanics, and we are talking about keeping them here in this Province. If the

fishing industry does not survive, Mr. Speaker, you will not keep one man, woman

or child in this Province because there will be no economy here. Now, it sounds

like an exaggeration, but somebody stand up in this House of Assembly and

somebody in the Province of Newfoundland tell me that I am wrong. Tell me that I

am wrong, that if the fish are gone on the Grand Banks it is wrong.

The most ludicrous thing I heard the other day was when I

heard John Crosbie, the Federal Minister of Fisheries, make a statement saying

the only problem, Mr. Speaker, with the fishing industry today is due to

climatic conditions. I could not believe it, after I presented that Russian

document to him, a factual document, that he still tells us there are no

problems with foreign fishing, when that document that was given to me proved

beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are misreporting, that they are catching

species and quotas, as they are known for, inside and outside the 200-mile

limit. The original copies were given, translated and non-translated, to the

Minister of Fisheries, and he had his own people translate them, and he will

still come out and say that the only problem with the fishery today, in 1991, is

that we have very tremendous climatic conditions this year, and cold iceflows.

Can you imagine that his grandfather and his people, his

father's -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: I will continue later on, Mr. Speaker. Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Opposition

House Leader, just for the guidance of the Chair, I understand that we have

entered into rather loosely, a ten-minute time frame rather than a time limit.

If members would agree that the only thing the Chair can do when ten minutes

have elapsed, is to tell the hon. member ten minutes are up, then the hon.

member would try to clue up. We will not stop people. I think that is the

understanding.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, the Opposition House

Leader.

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

Let me just say that, yes, that is the kind of arrangement

that we have for today because I understand there is a fair number of members

who want to speak to this very important resolution as put forward by the Member

for Port de Grave, and I want to say to him at the outset, that I commend him

for the speech he has given so far, and I commend him for the efforts he has

taken, particularly on the foreign overfishing issue over the last number of

months in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the resolution that the hon.

Member has put before the Legislature today, there is nothing in it that anyone

can disagree with. It is motherhood, it is Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to

the hon. Member. It is the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. When I pursued

the joint management issue today with the Premier, I did it for a specific

reason, because, at least, over the last two years, I found the Premier of this

Province to be inconsistent on really how much say in management this Province

should have.

Initially, in the old Legislature, I remember the Premier in

debate asking out loudly: what would we do if we had more jurisdiction? What

would we do if we had more management? We cannot afford what we have now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the Minister of Development can

speak later on in debate, Mr. Speaker, I say to him, this is a very, very

important issue.

I just want to outline for the House the inconsistencies I

have heard coming from the Premier and I said to him in that particular debate

that I felt that Newfoundland and Labrador could not afford not to have more say

over our most important resource and I feel the same today.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, what I see - the Minister of

Fisheries is here, he is listening and I know he will participate in the debate

- is that there has been an inconsistency on the part of the Provincial

Government, and if I were the Federal Minister of Fisheries or the Prime

Minister of Canada on this particular issue, I would be somewhat confused as to

really what Newfoundland and Labrador wanted as regards input and say in the

fishery. I do not say that to be partisan. I say it because that is what I have

observed as a Member of this Legislature, as a Member who represents a fishing

district, as a Member, who, by the way, has seen the town where he was born and

raised in, where he grew up in, worked in the fish plant, I have seen what has

happened to my home town of Grand Bank as a result of the mismanagement, one way

or another in the fishery, and particularly the foreign overfishing.

I can remember sitting in the kitchen in my house on Edwin

Street in Grand Bank and there was one particular trawlerman by the name of Will

Miller, not the fellow with the Irish Rovers by the way, but in my mind, just as

big or bigger a legend, who used to fish the Grand Banks in the side trawlers.

He would come back after being at sea - in those times you did not have to be at

sea all that long before you came back with the boat loaded - and he would tell

about the Grand Banks and would tell about how it was like a city out on what we

now call the Nose and Tail of that area, the Flemish Cap, out and about that

area.

He would talk about how it was lit up like a city. Of course

I was only a boy at the time, and there were times I really wondered if Will

Miller was telling me as it was or if it was the result of a few home brews that

he had had with my father, because, as a young boy, it was hard to imagine that

there were so many boats out that far at sea in that particular area that it

would actually be lit up like a city. Now I say that because I want to refer to

what the Member for Port de Grave said, when he talked about going back over the

years.

This is not a problem that has been created in the last two

or three years, or since 1984 when Brian Mulroney became Prime Minister of

Canada, it goes back years and years and has been steadily getting to the point

where we are today. It has been a gradual, progressive, worsening of our fish

stocks that has been caused by things that Will Miller talked about when I was a

boy.

Now having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is not all the

foreigners' fault what has happened to our fish stocks. I want to go on record

in this Legislature and be upfront and say it. Because I do not believe in

saying things for the convenience of saying them, and for saying something that

is popular at the time to say. A lot of the problems in our fishery and with our

resource have been created by our own Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen and

fishing industry, and the Atlantic Canada fishing industry.

I look at the first

WHEREAS in the hon. Member's resolution,

he talks about "foreign fishing inside the Two Hundred Mile Economic Zone..."

and I concur with the hon. Member. As a matter of fact, I have had discussions

myself with the hon. John Crosbie's office to try and determine exactly how much

fish is taken inside of the Two Hundred Mile Economic Zone. I say to you that is

why I question the numbers when I shake my head, when the hon. Member who now on

two occasions has spoken in the Legislature. Because I have been trying to

verify and determine how much has been taken by foreigners inside the Two

Hundred. Because like the hon. Member I strongly believe how much of an economic

benefit it can be for us, in my opinion, I am not comfortable with. I know there

is some. I would like to think that it is a great economic benefit that could be

there for us if the foreigners were put outside the Two Hundred and the

resource, or part of that resource that they are now catching, could be utilized

by our Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen and fish processing companies, and

indeed Atlantic Canada.

Certainly there is some economic benefit there for us that we

can catch, if not all, at least some of the species and the allocations that are

being caught by foreigners. Bring that fish to Newfoundland and Atlantic

Canadian ports and have it processed and create jobs. I concur with the hon.

Member that that is something that seriously needs to be looked at. I hope that

the Federal Minister of Fisheries will take this particular challenge, will look

at it very seriously, and before too long I hope he will make a decision that is

in the best interest, first of all, of the fishery and the resource. Because we

are talking the future when we are talking that. But that he will indeed act on

those foreigners inside of Two Hundred.

Because my fear is that if we do not take a very serious look

at those foreigners inside of Two Hundred, and the species that they are

catching - and for the most part not bringing to Canadian ports for processing -

that what we now refer to as underutilized species is going to be in the same or

worse state than our groundfish stocks. So that is another real worry. Whether

or not there is enough - if we can take some of that inside of Two Hundred that

is being taken by foreigners, well that decision has to be made. But we must

remember, let's not do with what we refer to as underutilized what we have done

with our groundfish and deplete it, or consequently there will be no future

there.

Now I look at the situation in my home town where we are now

hopefully going to get into processing of surf clams and scallops. For us that

is different. I hope there is some real opportunity there for Grand Bank, and I

hope there is some opportunity for Gaultois - hopefully they will get more

redfish and can make the operation viable - and for Trepassey and all the

hundreds of communities around this coast. This is the worst I have ever seen.

Members in this Legislature must know that, considering the reaction to the

fisheries response programme. I do not know about anyone else but I am driven

out of my mind. Every year this time there is always a build up of calls. But I

have never witnessed anything like I have this year, and it tells us how bad the

situation is out there.

Outside of Two Hundred with foreign overfishing it is a very

complex problem that has to be addressed but it is an international problem.

Even if we enter into some kind of a joint management agreement with Ottawa,

where we have some say over licensing and allocation in our own waters, the

surveillance and enforcement and so on - I do not think that we really, as a

Province, can afford financially to get into those aspects. I do not think that

is what the hon. Member is referring to in his resolution, and I concur with him

on that. But it is an international matter, something that has to be addressed,

something that cannot be addressed overnight. I am sure the Minister of

Fisheries, who was very involved in the movement to get the, as it turned out to

be, Two Hundred Mile Economic Zone, how difficult and how long it is.

What we have to remember in this Legislature, I tell Members,

is that there is a minority of countries in this world that are concerned about

extending our economic zone beyond 200 miles. The reason for that is because

there are a minority of coastal states. I think there are only five or so in the

world where their continental shelves extend beyond 200. That is why we have 200

miles, Mr. Speaker, because the majority of coastal states` continental shelves

went about 200 miles, so that was the limit which was set. Of course, we were so

glad back in 1977, I think it was around then, to get 200 miles that we could

not believe our luck, but as we find out today it was not sufficient and we

should have gone further out.

I just want to say to hon. members that there is by far a

minority of coastal states that are even interested in extending a 200-mile zone

beyond, because they are protected by having theirs at 200. That is something we

have to think about and when we call for an extension of 200, as important as it

is and as much as I support it, Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that we are

talking a very complex issue. It is an international issue and a joint

management agreement between Canada and Newfoundland will not resolve that

that time is running out. We cannot wait much longer to go off to Brussels, to

go off to Spain, to Holland, to Portugal, and wherever else we go and be

diplomatic. We are soon going to have to take some action. I understand that is

why, in looking at the hon. Member's resolution, he talks about the date of

January 1, 1993, that unless overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks

is stopped by the foreign countries, or they are definitely going to cut out

overfishing, that Canada then will take whatever action is necessary to protect

the national interest, and specifically for us to protect the Newfoundland and

Labrador interests.

I realize I have my notice, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I

worried yesterday when we talked about ten minutes. It is hard to say what you

want to say on this issue in ten minutes. It is for me anyway because it is

something that means so much to me, as it does, I am sure to all members here,

when we talk about a Newfoundland and Labrador joint management arrangement with

Canada. That is why I asked the Premier today if he had had discussions with any

other Maritime Premiers. I understand that some of the Maritime Governments are

not interested in any joint management arrangements. If they were all interested

you could conceivably have a joint management arrangement between Newfoundland

and the Federal Government. You could have a joint arrangement with Nova Scotia,

PEI, New Brunswick and Quebec. Really, Mr. Speaker, you could conceivably have

five joint management arrangements. Now, when you really get down to the brass

tacks of this I do not know how in the name of God that could be possible. That

is why I asked the Premier, if in his discussion over the last few months, he

has had any negotiations or discussions, preliminary or detailed, with the other

premiers, because from what I have heard Mr. Crosbie say, the few times I have

heard him react publicly, he says: well, what about the other Atlantic

Provinces?

Of course, I know now where he is coming from because with

five separate arrangements it would be very difficult. The last two clauses:

IT RESOLVED that the Federal and Provincial Governments should immediately

develop a joint management plan for the fishing industry. I say get on with it,

and that is why I urge the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries to not waste

any time. If we do not have a detailed proposal to put before the Federal

Government let us get one there. That is why I pursued that line of questioning

today. 'That improvements be made in the observer program in monitoring the

Canadian dragger fleet.' Yes, and I think here, Mr. Speaker - and I will

conclude on this note - I think here the hon. Member really is touching on what

I said earlier, that it is not all caused by foreigners. I think the hon. Member

touches on that and says, I guess, as much sometimes as you can say about it,

that there must be an improvement in the observer programme in monitoring our

own Canadian boats, because remember there is abuse. Everyone is human.

Trawlermen are human, skippers are human and they are trying to make the best

living they can.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I say I have no difficulty

whatsoever. I commend the Member for bringing the resolution forward and tell

other Members of the House categorically that, yes, I support it and will

continue to support it. I can only wait for the day when this Province enters

into a joint management arrangement with the Federal Government because then, I

think - things cannot get any worse, and if we who are closest to the resource

can have some say over the aspects that are Newfoundland and Labrador related,

then the fishery will be better off and we as a people will be better off

accordingly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to

say these few remarks on this very important and very timely resolution. Before

I get into the resolution I would like to react very briefly to some comments

made by my friend opposite, the Member for Grand Bank, about joint management.

As the Premier indicated today a position paper is just about ready to go in

place. A lot of work has gone into it and it should be ready to be made public

within a very few days, and in that paper the Province's position with respect

to joint management will be outlined. I do not want to take up too much time

today discussing that aspect of our fishing industry because it really is not

dealt with in the resolution. The resolution, of course, deals with that which I

consider to be the number one problem today facing the Newfoundland fishing

industry namely, of course, foreign overfishing, and Canada's lack of control

over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and of NAFO's total inability to

properly manage and control that resource.

I was being interviewed a few days ago by a Telegram reporter

and he asked me to describe in my own words what I thought of NAFO. Well I did

not want to be too unkind but I said that NAFO, in my view, is a toothless

creature that does not have the intestinal fortitude to even discipline its own

members. That, in effect, is what is happening. Now I support this resolution,

and there are a couple of things here which I would like to draw to the

attention of the House and to the attention of the hon. gentleman who introduced

the resolution, and that has to do with the first

be it resolved: "THEREFORE

IT RESOLVED that the Federal Government take action to terminate all foreign

fishing inside the Two Hundred Mile Economic Zone and give notice to all foreign

countries that unless the overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the banks ceases

before January 1, 1993, Canada will take whatever action it deems necessary to

protect its national interests."

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. Member has been made aware

of what might very well be interpreted as a slight flaw in the wording of that

part of the resolution. That has to do with the part that says: "the Federal

Government take action to terminate all foreign fishing inside of the Two

Hundred Mile Economic Zone." Now that is a very noble ambition, I suppose, to

try and impose that kind of restriction on foreign fishing within the 200-mile

zone, but there are a few things that we must keep in mind. I understand that

the hon. gentleman has been made aware of this and will probably in his winding

up comments make reference to it. But as undesirable, as unacceptable as foreign

fishing is within the 200-mile limit as it is unacceptable beyond the 200-mile

limit, we must not lose sight of the fact that in some cases where we have

foreign fishing within the 200-mile limit that certain economic benefits do

accrue to the Newfoundland fishing industry, plus the fact, of course, we must

not lose sight of the fact that under the terms of the Law of the Sea regime

Canada, like all other coastal states, is now under an obligation, with which it

must comply, to be prepared to allow foreign countries to harvest fish deemed to

be surplus to their individual needs.

Now then what that says, Mr. Speaker, is that if Canada has

within its 200-mile limit silver hake, which is out there reasonably in

abundance, a fish that Canada is not harvesting, is not processing, and for a

variety of reasons has been unable to secure markets, then that is a fish that

is surplus to the coastal state's need, in this case Canada's need. So under the

Law of the Sea conference, under the Law of the Sea regime, Canada has no

choice, as undesirable as it might be, to see foreign ships, Russians and

others, fishing within the 200-mile limit then there are cases where Canada, if

Law of the Sea must allow foreigners to harvest that which is deemed to be

surplus to the Canadian need.

Also, we must not lose sight of the fact - and again I do not

wish to be put in the position of defending foreign overfishing anywhere on the

Canadian continental shelf, no man in this House or in this Province has

probably fought harder or has had more to say about what has been happening on

the Canadian continental shelf in the past fifteen or twenty years. In fact, I

had the great privilege of being a member of the Law of the Sea conference in

Geneva, in 1974, as part of the Canadian delegation that was then in the process

of negotiating with the other hundred and thirty-odd countries, who were Members

of that conference, negotiating a Law of the Sea regime. It is interesting to

note - and the hon. gentleman for Grand Bank touched on it - the fact that only

about five countries in the world have continental shelves that are not

protected by the 200-mile limit. I forget what countries - the Argentines, I

think, I believe, there are other countries anyway that, four or five, apart

from Canada, whose continental shelf extends beyond the 200-mile limit.

At that conference the Canadian delegation, certainly my

component of the Canadian delegation - I was then there as a Member of

Parliament - made it quite clear that the 200-mile limit would not suffice. It

would not adequately serve Canada's needs for the reasons that I have just

given. That 200 miles did not in fact cover the entire continental shelf. But

unfortunately the so-called powers that be, the experts then, did not see fit to

fight, because there is nothing sacred about 200 miles, it could just as easily

have been 250 miles but for the fact that, as the hon. gentleman opposite said,

200 miles happened to satisfy the needs of most of the coastal states that were

involved in the Law of the Sea conference negotiations.

Anyway, unfortunately, our request for an extension to the

edge and to the slopes of a coastal states' continental shelf fell on deaf ears

and consequently we are now left with this very serious problem of overfishing.

Overfishing in my view, certainly overfishing beyond the 200-mile limit, is like

a cancer. If it is left unchecked it has the potential to destroy the economy of

this Province and the lives and the livelihood of the tens of thousands of

Newfoundlanders who depend on the fishing industry for their survival. Canada

must, and I repeat, must take whatever action is necessary to gain management

control over the entire Canadian continental shelf. Unless and until Canada is

willing to do that then the fishing industry in Newfoundland - indeed the

economy of Newfoundland, and to maybe a lesser extent the economy of Atlantic

Canada - will be jeopardized.

Another thing we should keep in mind: while we look upon this

as being a Canadian or a Newfoundland problem - I suppose because it does affect

Newfoundlanders to a far greater extent then it affects any other area of the

Canadian nation - but we look upon it maybe as a Newfoundland problem. Well, let

me say this to you. Not only is it not merely a Newfoundland problem it is even

more than a Canadian problem. This is a world problem because what is happening

on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank is jeopardizing a source of protein that

could be there forever and a day, to help feed the multitude of the thousands,

the millions in fact, on this planet that need food for as long as this planet

exists.

That is what surprises me. When the seal hunt was supposed to

be endangered we saw this great hullabaloo by well know, world renowned

personalities - movies stars, kings, queens, members of royalty and so on - out

protesting the seal hunt, and very successfully brought it to an end. We have

seen certain individuals mounting very aggressive campaigns to protect the rain

forest of, I believe it is Brazil, all in the name of conservation. Yet, I have

not heard any of those people utter a single word against what is happening on

the southern Grand Banks just off our coast. But it is rather strange that that

sort of thing is happening. Because in (Inaudible) view of what is happening on

the Grand Banks of Newfoundland with respect to overfishing and the

unwillingness on the part of the countries that are guilty of overfishing, their

unwillingness to show any respect whatsoever for the resource or for its

conservation, these people have not uttered a single word against what is

happening. I think that is rather unfortunate.

But getting back to the point I raised at the outset, the

fact that while we might not like -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible.)

MR. CARTER: The hon. gentleman wanted to ask me a

question, I think. Do you still want to or...? I apologize for not responding -

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

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) you were making reference to

what has happened in Burgeo, sort of thing. That seems to be tied in to a

foreign effort that they are benefiting from. I just wondered if that -

MR. CARTER: That, Mr. Speaker, I suppose is something

with which we are going to have to live for awhile. The Newfoundland Government,

and I as Minister, objected strenuously to the Seafreez proposition. I did so

for what I still consider to be a very valid reason. That the whole deal

involved too much of a giveaway. Not only that, it involved just a little bit

too much activity on the part of foreign vessels to catch the fish that was so

generously allocated to them by the Federal Government. We objected to it as we

would object to any proposition that saw an onslaught of foreign vessels coming

into our waters and catching caplin and other fish. But the fact remains, as

much as we objected to it, and as undesirable as it might appear, unless and

until the Seafreez Company in Burgeo can succeed in finding an alternate means

of harvesting that resource, then I am afraid we are stuck with it.

In fact, I suppose the plant in Burgeo could not survive, it

would not survive, if those vessels were terminated. If their use was terminated

by the Federal Government the plant in Burgeo would cease to exist. That is why

I say that maybe the hon. gentleman in that first

BE IT RESOLVED would give some

thought maybe to modifying the word "terminate" or maybe qualifying it in order

to accommodate the inevitable. Accommodating that which we are now having to

live with, at least in the short term.

But that is not to say that we should stand by and very

passively agree to a continuation of that arrangement. The Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador is strongly in favour of the full Canadianization of

the ships that harvest fish within our 200-mile limit, and especially those

vessels that have been engaged by various Newfoundland companies to harvest the

so-called underutilized fish; for example, the Labrador Shrimp Company. My hon.

colleague from Eagle River will agree; in fact, he took

part in negotiations

with certain interests where it became necessary, again for a variety of

reasons, to secure the services of, I believe it was two foreign ships, that are

engaged in harvesting and processing on board, their shrimp allocation. Now, in

the case of these ships, I believe that, by and large, they have been

Canadianized. Certainly, the crews on board those ships, while not entirely

Canadian, I understand, a large percentage of them are Canadian, as they should

be. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Province will not relax until all of these

vessels engaged in fishing within our 200-mile limit have been fully

Canadianized.

Mr. Speaker, while the problem of fishing within the 200-mile

limit is a very serious one, the real problem is what is happening beyond the

200-mile limit. I suppose, in a sense, we have some control over what happens.

is happening within the 200-mile limit, but we have absolutely no control

whatever over what happens beyond the 200-mile limit, and that is what makes it

so serious.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on August 21, there was a very important

meeting held in this Province, which some pretty highly-placed people within the

fishing industry and Governments attended. The Premier, of course, was there, as

well as Mr. Crosbie, Ambassador Gherson, and key people in the private sector

and the union. We met in the basement of the West Block in the executive board

room for four, five, or six hours, and had a very free and frank discussion on

foreign overfishing. Ambassador Gherson was invited here to brief the members of

my Advisory Council and the Government, generally, on the status of the

overfishing negotiations. At that meeting, Mr. Speaker, our Premier let it be

known, in no uncertain terms, to Ambassador Gherson and to Mr. Crosbie and his

entourage, that Newfoundland was not prepared to go on indefinitely without some

action being taken by the Federal Government to put an end to the serious threat

to our economy, namely, foreign overfishing. At that meeting, we served notice

on Mr. Crosbie and on the Ambassador, as the hon. gentleman has done today in

his resolution, that Canada, we said, should establish a date - we named the

date of January 1, 1993 - beyond which Canada would not be prepared to go

without taking some definitive action to bring to an end this raping of our

resource.

Mr. Crosbie, at that time, expressed some interest in what we

were having to say. While he did not commit himself to following that course, he

did offer to undertake certain discussions with the then Minister of External

Affairs, Mr. Joe Clarke, and others in his Cabinet, and have a general

discussion on the possibility of Canada taking that kind of action. But, Mr.

Speaker, to say that we must serve notice that by a certain date Canada will

take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its national interest is, in

my view, not going quite far enough, because I believe that Canada should serve

notice on the international community, on the fishing nations of the world, that

beyond that date, Canada is not prepared to go, and that certain concrete action

will be taken.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that does not necessarily mean arbitrarily

pushing the limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf. There are other ways

through which Canada can exercise control and management over that resource. I

am not sure if there is any provision within the Law of the Sea regime where a

coastal state, in cases where you have straddling stocks, where you have areas

not covered by 200 miles - I always had the impression that maybe there was some

provision within the 200-mile limit regime, whereby the coastal state would

almost automatically be deemed to be the most appropriate authority to manage,

control and police that stock.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. CARTER: May I have a moment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. CARTER: So, Mr. Speaker, if it is not there, or if we

are not too clear on the wording of that part of the Law of the Sea documents,

then I think common sense would dictate that the coastal state - in this case

Canada - is certainly better qualified than any other organization or regime to

manage that resource.

There are a number of ways that can be done. For example, it

might very well be that NAFA would be willing to hand over its authority to

Canada and allow Canada to become the custodial managers of that resource. That

is not to say that we are going to just kick out everybody else and show a

complete disregard for the long-established historic rights of other countries.

Of course, we recognize that other countries have certain rights, too. But I

think, first and foremost, our concern must be for the stock and for their

rehabilitation. Then, having achieved that, we can sit down and negotiate with

countries that have an historic interest in that area, in the Grand Banks. Then,

we can set about to negotiate the allocation of a regenerated stock consistent

with their historical usage and hopefully, then, we will all be happy.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is surprising how fast ten minutes can

go, and you get up with great ideas and well-prepared, with some very good

statistics here on what is happening, and you find that the time is not

available to cover it. But let me conclude by saying that at the present time

there are roughly forty foreign vessels fishing within the Canadian 200-mile

limit. There are five Scandinavian vessels fishing shrimp on a short-term

charter arrangement. As I said, part of that is with the Labrador Shrimp

Company. Some, of course, are fishing for Nova Scotian-owned companies.

There are twenty-one other vessels, six Norwegian and fifteen

Soviet vessels, fishing turbot in zero and 2GH. Well, I take issue with that,

because if anybody who knows anything about the fishery in Newfoundland would

deem turbot to be an underutilized or surplus stock, then it is obvious they

don't know very much about what is happening out there. We object to turbot

being deemed as a surplus, underutilized stock because, in fact, it is not. We

have the catching capability, the processing capability, and the markets to

accommodate whatever turbot can be harvested within the 200-mile limit. There

are other vessels fishing out there, including three Japanese vessels, two

Soviet vessels fishing for caplin, and on and on it goes.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that beyond the

200-mile limit, at this point in time, there are ninety-three vessels actively

fishing. Some of these vessels belong to the European Economy Community. A large

number of them belong to Spain and Portugal, two of the countries that have

shown utter disregard for the rights of others and for the need to properly

manage and conserve that resource. I suppose, if I was asked to name the two

countries in the world that are probably contributing more to what is happening

and to the depletion of that resource than any other, I would have to point the

finger at Spain and Portugal.

Not only that, the other problem that we now have to contend

with, is, not only are we now being plundered by vessels that are members of

NAFEL, we are now subjected to the same kind of rape by a number of vessels that

are flying flags of convenience.

In fact, ships flying flags of convenience, from Panama, Cuba

and other countries, are guilty of harvesting, I believe close to 50,000 tons of

fish, in addition to the 150,000 tons that are being fished illegally by other

countries.

Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I have a lot more I would like to

say but I do not want to abuse the privilege and the courtesy that has been

extended to me, except to say that we welcome this resolution. I hope that the

member, when he sums up, can certainly refer to some of the things that I

mentioned as potentially troublesome if it is passed in its present form. Thank

you very much.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to

say, first of all, that I certainly support this resolution and I compliment

again the Member for Port de Grave, who brought this resolution to the floor of

the House.

I think we all realize and understand what is happening to

our fishery and, certainly, it is an ongoing problem. Mr. Speaker, I for one, am

very proud today when I stand here in my place and say that a number of people

saw many years ago that the stock was being depleted. When we were being told by

people who should know, professional people in the Department of Fisheries, and

other recognized bodies, that there was an abundance of fish out there, we felt

that they didn't know what they were talking about. At the time, certainly, I

was a very small spoke in a great wheel. But it became a reality that the

scientists really didn't know what they were talking about.

They said there were biomasses here and there; they had

three, and then they brought it down to two, then they figured it was only one,

and then there were two sources of supply from here, and whatever. Mr. Speaker,

most of it was done from the desks by bureaucrats who did not have a clue as to

what they were talking about.

Mr. Speaker, at that time, we had a gentleman who has since

left this Province and left Canada, Dr. Keats, who did a study for NIFA. Dr.

Keats said that if we were not careful, very careful, and if we didn't take the

bull by the horns now, then the situation down the road would have drastic

consequences for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am a member here today who represents a great

number of fishermen, and a number of fishing communities, and I have to say,

truthfully, to the hon. House today, that it has not always been lucrative in

that particular area. I can remember back in the late 1930s, when my father -

and there were thirty cod traps in Flat Rock at the time - was highliner, we

called it then. He had the most fish in the community, twelve quintals. But the

situation today is quite different. That was an isolated situation on a

particular part of the coastline, while other areas had an abundance of fish,

both to the north and south. It was just in that isolated area that the fish did

not come in, and granted, a couple of years after that the fish were back again

in abundance.

What we are seeing now, Mr. Speaker, is right from the

Labrador Coast, areas that were commonly harvested by many people from

Newfoundland who used to go to Labrador, where there was an abundance of fish -

it is the same thing, to put it in layman's words or to put it in baby talk, I

should say, as pulling down a blind. Mr. Speaker, you can pull down a blind on a

map of Newfoundland and Labrador, and you can see, coming down, the fish is

getting scarcer, with none in many areas. Again, we have been lucky in our neck

of the woods here on the Avalon Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, when we had good

seasons, both last year, the year before last and this year. But, Mr. Speaker,

it is a 'splash' in the pan deal. How long can it last?

Mr. Speaker, we can put blame on both governments. We can

say, 'yes, they are not doing what they should do,' but it is not as easy as

that. We have the French who have an allotment of fish on 2J and 3KL. The right

to catch that fish was given to the French in 1972. Now, there wasn't much

thought at that particular time about giving the French fish, because they were

told, the same as we were told, there was lots of it out there. This was only

going to be a stopgap thing, give them a few fish and keep them happy. But the

point remains now that the fish is not out there for the French, but they are

still going to be out there trying to catch the few fish that are there. I agree

with the Member for Port de Grave, that inside the 200-mile limit there should

be a moratorium. Now, the Minister of Fisheries says, 'Well, we can't do it.'

I realize, too, after speaking to my colleague from St.

Lawrence, that when Rose Ting managed the plant there in St. Lawrence, she tried

her best to process silver hake. Silver hake is a fish, Mr. Speaker, that has to

be processed immediately. You have to do it, really, with factory freezer

trawlers. She failed. She had a 5,000 ton quota and it was a dismal failure. The

point remains that it was tried and it failed at that particular time, but we

have better technology now. If the factory ships can do it, perhaps, somehow or

other, we could have someone out there doing it, bringing the fish back to our

own plants, thereby serving two lots of people. You have fishermen working in

the catching of the fish and you have the plant workers working in the

harvesting of the fish.

Now, the Minister of Fisheries, and rightly so, pointed out

other areas with historical rights that we have to think about. We certainly

cannot go out and boot them out tomorrow. But what I am talking about, I think,

is giving them a deadline. I think mostly all people are reasonable, and if they

understood the plight of this Province, then I think they would take that into

consideration. Say to them, 'Look, there are certain areas where you are not

going to be allowed to fish, because the stock is not there.'

I go back again to the 1972 agreement, remembering in the

latter part of it, one sentence that said, 'contingent on the state of the

stock.' Now, I feel great justification in being able to stand here and say

today that the Federal Government now should go back to France and say, 'The

stock is in a state now where you just cannot fish. There are no fish to be

caught.' I think that would solve that problem with the French.

Now, we talk about overfishing within the 200-mile limit. The

thing that worries me - the Minister of Fisheries mentioned today about the

shrimp trawlers. I was speaking to a gentleman who was in the know - I was never

shrimp trawling and know very little about it - and he tells me that the

by-catch alone on all those trawlers is astronomical.

Mr. Speaker, no one brought it up today, but I am going to

have to just touch on it. It is a touchy question. Mr. Speaker, we have heard

for this past while about part-time fishermen. Mr. Speaker, I want to go on

record. Glory be to god! We are not going to take those few dollars out of our

economy as well! The part-time fishermen could not catch as much in a hundred

years as one of those factory trawlers catch in one week. And then

Newfoundlanders are out there saying - we are sometimes our own worst enemies.

We are relieving the obligation on the feds by saying that this is caused, in

some aspects, by the part-time fishermen. Mr. Speaker, it is laughable. But the

point remains, the point is being made.

I have to tell a little story, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps a lot of

people have heard about it. In some instances we are our own worst enemies - I

have said it before and I will say it again. The old story goes, that there was

a man who went down to buy a lobster and the guy who was selling the lobsters

said, 'What do you want to buy, a Newfoundland lobster or an American lobster?'

The man looked at him and said, 'I didn't know there was a difference.' 'Oh,

yes,' he said, 'there is a difference.' He opened the lid on the American

lobsters and one lobster crawled up over the other and dumped himself out on the

wharf. 'Now, he said, 'that is the American lobster. Now, this is the

Newfoundland lobster.' I went over and took the lid off the box and the lobster

tried to get out, and every lobster in that cage put up a claw to haul that

lobster back.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a moral to that story. I have to

do it because I felt obligated to touch on this foolishness which is going on

about our own people depleting the stock. They have nothing to do with it, and

all we are doing is playing up to some people out there who are going to try to

force the issue for gain for themselves - no other reason. I mean this is

nonsense. Here we are depriving Newfoundlanders again. It is despicable! I am

surprised that politicians or otherwise would have such a thing in their mind,

to take something away. Our economy is such now we are going to take a few

thousand dollars away from the people who have the energy to go out and try to

get it...? while we let the foreigners do what they like out there, take what

they like. It is true what the Member said about the lights. I have not been out

there, it is only what I have been told. We are going to deprive the few

Newfoundlanders who go out and supplement their salary.

Let me tell you something about that. I have to go farther

into it now, Mr. Speaker. I was speaking to a man who worked part-time at

electrical work. There was no more work to do and he made about $5,000. $5,000

is a very small amount of money when you have a family, and he went fishing this

year and earned another $4,500, which is no money again. But there was $9,500,

and before he had $5,000 - can someone tell me, stand here and look me straight

in the eye and say that there is something wrong with it? Now if there is no

fish there the part-time fellows are not going to catch any more than the

full-time fellows, but in areas where there is fish the part-time people have

nothing. I think it is 1 per cent. The feds say about 4 per cent, but it is 1

per cent, that is all they are involved in. So I wanted to set the record

straight from my perspective. It is an ugly thing, a dastardly act by people to

imply that Newfoundlanders themselves are depleting this stock. And the Member

for Port de Grave is right. In putting down the stipulation saying you are

allowed to do it, where do we stop? Once they get in here they will do the same

thing as what they are doing now. What they are doing now, Mr. Speaker, is doing

exactly what they like.

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to a gentleman today - when you

go back to our whole scenario as it pertains to the fishery. I was speaking to a

gentleman today and we talked about the herring fishery. He said he remembered

in St. Mary's Bay when they had the old bar seines, there were millions of

herring, but we were not satisfied. We brought in the other seine - the purse

seine - and millions and millions of pounds of herring were lost because of the

purse seines because we killed them all. There was no way they could escape. And

when we only wanted 1,000 tons and we had 5,000 tons the other 4,000 tons were

dead. We defeated the purpose. Instead of doing it over the long haul, by

creating employment over the long haul we, ourselves, played an integral

part in

destroying the resource.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has reached the ten minute mark.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, can I clue up by leave?

The other thing that I have to say today is my hon. friend

for Grand Bank represents a district where the offshore plays a major role. I

say to this hon. House today, Mr. Speaker, that I for one would have no problem

supporting a resolution calling for a moratorium on all gillnetting and dragging

for a specific time until our stocks could rebuild, especially, I believe, in

the spawning area where we do untold damage ecologically to the fish habitat. I

think it is going to spell disaster - and I think we have seen some of it today

- Mr. Speaker, if we do not change our attitude as far as our own local people

are concerned. The major problem we say again, is foreign overfishing, but we do

have a problem locally, and I think that we have to stand on our own two feet

and have the guts of our convictions and say what we believe, that we are some

of the problem as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The situation which is brought up in this resolution today,

as we all remember this Summer when the hon. Member for Port de Grave was so

adept in taking the united fishermen who he was representing at that time to a

great amount of public scrutiny, a great amount of publicity for the united

fishermen at that time, and in bringing up the level of awareness that, of

course, someone in his position as an MHA, not in the Cabinet or the Government,

is able to do, having, of course, the ability then to speak out somewhat about

things in a manner that does not have his hands tied to the problems of

Government solidarity and that sort of thing.

I could go a little further into the actual resolution but in

speaking of what we are looking at as far as discrimination goes over the way

that Newfoundlanders are regularly discriminated against we can look at it a

number of ways. One, we can look at why we have arrived at the situation we are

now in from a Federal Government perspective. To look at the way that the

Federal Government has managed the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or

mismanaged is another point, the way that the fish stocks have been managed, but

another is looking at the Department of External Affairs and the way that the

Federal Government has seen to include and associate the two Departments, the

Department of External Affairs and the Department of International Trade. Now,

these two Departments at one time were two very senior ministries in the Federal

Government's array of ministries they would use in developing policy with other

countries, and also with respect to the way they handled trade matters with

other countries.

If we remember back in 1984, September 4, when the current

Prime Minister came into power he saw fit to draw these two Departments

together. Now, it has not often been looked at this way but if you think of

External Affairs as a solitude and that solitude is going to handle foreign

policy, policy with other countries, you remember the former Prime Minister

Trudeau and his fist-banging manner of dealing with the French - the French in

France I am speaking of - in spite of the fact that in dealing with it in this

way in some cases would cause an international kerfuffle, Prime Minister Trudeau

at the time was able to deal with a firm hand and be firm in his dealings with

foreign Governments as far as fishing went, and the mere threat of action of any

kind by Prime Minister Trudeau at that time would be such that these countries

would listen, and they would back off.

Then in 1984 when you draw together the Department of

External Affairs and the Department of International Trade you see the

trade-offs coming. All of a sudden the fish becomes a commodity to be traded

back and forth in respect of a certain amount of grain or in respect of a

certain amount of other commodities that are required here in the country. In

making deals this Government of Brian Mulroney made sure that the two became one

and therefore there was no check and balance, there was no balance of the

Department of International Trade to External Affairs. John Crosbie, when he was

sitting as Minister of International Trade, was but a junior Minister to the

current constitutional czar, Joe Clark, and had to play second fiddle. Trade

relations, of course, became subservient to what would be best for the public

policy interest of Canada in dealing with other nations, and not the other way

around. Canada's trade interests became secondary as it became a junior

department and a part of the Department of External Affairs.

Now, in looking at the proposition that is brought in here in

the form of a resolution by the hon. Member for Port de Grave we see in here a

certain part which affects my own district and that

part is, of course, the idea

of terminating all foreign fishing inside the

200 mile economic zone. I expect, with the re-opening of the

Port aux Basques Fish Plant this week, that some of this foreign fishing will

benefit the Port aux Basques operation. It will be either through the idea of

transfers, which is something that we all have some difficulty with, but those

transfers in turn will allow for the operation of the Port aux Basques plant,

either directly or indirectly, in allowing fish to be brought in there, sold and

processed, through some kind of trade arrangement with the USSR. That, in turn,

would be very difficult to see; that all that foreign fishing be terminated, to

see it as some of the foreign fishing, of course, which is unnecessary, and

which is excessive, and which is but a trade-off for what Newfoundlanders

deserve as their part of the fishing quotas. I would certainly support that part

of it, but again a certain amount of caution, because for the immediate solution

to the problem there is a lot of short-term immediate pain that would have to be

absorbed by some Newfoundland companies as well. So I just suggest that as far

as the Port aux Basques Fish Plant goes, from a purely local standpoint, there

are some extras that certainly have to be considered there.

Now, we also have to look at my own district, where the

Federal Government has shown its certain manner of dealing with the public of

the Province in a very caring manner by deciding that the people out our way

just do not matter. They have unilaterally decided, without consulting the

Province in any way as I understand, to deny the Emergency Fishery Response

Program for the southwest and south coast of the Province. How, in the area

where it is probably the most devastated area as far as fishery related disaster

has gone over the last three and four years, how can they justify it? Labrador

has had some problems. Labrador's problems were addressed this year, with the

severe weather conditions, the environmental conditions, fine. We had severe

problems last year, the year before, and the year before that, those problems

were addressed. These people who still participate in the fishery fully did have

their problems addressed, but this year for some ungodly reason, and I do not

understand why, in their caring way, the Federal Government has decided that the

200 to 300 people on the south and southwest coast of the Province are not

deserving of any assistance. How can you justify saying that my neighbour

deserves it, but I do not deserve it. You guys do not deserve it, but these

guys, because they happen to be across this boundary line here, deserve it. I am

trying to wrestle with this. I figure these are intelligent people we have in

the Federal bureaucracy, and these intelligent people-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: No, I have to give them that amount of

respect, but I am still trying to fathom and understand how they can decide that

the people on the south and southwest coast do not deserve the same amount of

understanding, consideration and concern as those others throughout the

Province. Is it because we were the only ones who needed a package last year?

Last year, as I understand, there was about $1.6 million in emergency fishery

response offered to the south and southwest coast - every bit of it. Four

hundred and fifty people in that area were put to work through the various

make-work efforts. Also, some programmes were developed for literacy training,

very successful programmes. We saw on the TV a couple of nights ago, a

graduation ceremony in the community of (inaudible) Islands where people had

finally graduated with their Grade X11 Diplomas, very proud of their

achievement, and through the assistance of the Federal Government in developing

this programme, these people now have other opportunities. But there are still

people who have solid ties to the fishery, and these people are the people who

are now being left out; they are being discriminated against by the Federal

Government, and I am calling on, along with some of my colleagues, the hon.

Minister of Fisheries, John Crosbie, and other Federal Ministers, to meet with

us and try to resolve this problem, because this kind of resolution that we

brought in here today is the reason why these people are currently having

problems. The foreign fishing vessels that are fishing in the Gulf of St.

Lawrence, which is decimated, possibly beyond repair - who knows if the Gulf of

St. Lawrence can rejuvenate?.. who knows if the Gulf of St. Lawrence can manage

to rebuild the stocks in order to allow the people who participate in the Gulf

fishery to get back to work and get these people who are tied to the fishery

back