May 6,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 31

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding with our routine business, on behalf of

hon. members, I would like to welcome to the galleries today, students from St.

Catherine's Elementary School, Port Union in the district of Trinity North,

accompanied by their teachers, Teresa White and Annie Stagg.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform hon. members of the House of

Assembly that after June 30, 1992 School Tax Authorities will cease to collect

school tax -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Wait, wait, now the other shoe, - and that

on July 1, 1992 responsibility for collecting arrears will be assumed by the Tax

Administration Branch of the Department of Finance.

The Department of Finance will on that date assume

responsibility for the offices of the School Tax Authorities, including the

liquidation of liabilities and the realization of all assets other than fixed

assets. The Department of Works, Services and Transportation will on the same

date assume title to all fixed assets of School Tax Authorities.

It will be the responsibility of the Department of Finance to

collect all school tax arrears outstanding as of July 1. In this connection,

School Tax Authorities have for the January to June period billed tax payers for

the full annual amount of the tax. Tax payers who have paid half the amount by

June 30 will be forgiven the remaining half, or be refunded any amount in excess

of half. Tax payers who have not by June 30 remitted all taxes due and payable

will not be relieved of the liability to settle any outstanding amounts.

Government intends to pursue vigorously clearing up the substantial amount of

school tax arrears of this and previous years using the collection policies and

procedures available to the Department of Finance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of

this statement where he has announced for the fourth time, the abolition of the

School Tax Authorities, so I would like to-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is trying

to convince himself that it is really going to happen, I believe, because he has

convinced most of the Province, but, Mr. Speaker, it raises a number of

questions. You know, there is no doubt that the School Tax Authorities will

cease to function as of June 30, but I want to ask the minister, where does he

get the Legislative authority to do what he is suggesting he is going to do

after June 30, as of July 1? Where does he get the authority to go about these

measures which he is now telling the people of the Province that he is going to

carry out - the legislative authority, I ask the minister? He does not have it

as of yet. He does not have it, so I guess between now and then we will probably

see something to that effect come into the House.

The other thing is: Will the Department of Finance now be

hiring additional people to carry out this extra work, and will some people that

will be coming out of the school tax authorities be hired to do this work? Will

this tax be collected by the Department of Finance on a regional basis? Will we

see it done through various regions of the Province? These are the kinds of

questions that the Minister of Finance has not answered in his statement, so I

would expect that over the next short while we can expect that by the minister.

The other thing here is that really I think the minister is

attempting to - I do not know if he can justly penalize people the way he is

saying that he is going to if they have not paid 50 per cent of their tax by

June 30. I doubt very much if the minister is going to be able to get away with

doing what he is saying he is going to do here today, because it is harsh

punishment to say that people are going to be held accountable for 100 per cent

of the school tax, if they are not 50 per cent paid by June 30.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: To impose some interest charges would have

been certainly more acceptable than what the minister is suggesting.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Premier. From recent news media reports it is pretty clear, I think, if one

watched FPI Chairman Vic Young in his report to the shareholders on Monday, I

think it was, it is pretty clear that FPI is planning for and looking at a major

downsizing of the company that he represents in order to adjust to declining

fish quotas, and I guess to restore profitability to the company.

Assuming the Premier has met with Mr. Young over the last few

recent days to deal with this very important issue, can I ask the Premier: Does

he know the scale of the cutbacks that are being talked about or being

contemplated? For example, does he know how many more fish plants might be

closed? How many more trawlers might be tied up? How many more trawlermen and

fish plant workers face permanent layoffs? Does he know the answers to any of

those questions at this stage?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's assumption

is not correct. I have not met with Mr. Young in the last few days. I expect I

will be meeting with him very shortly, but in any event I have not met with him

in the last few days. I am not prepared to join with the Leader of the

Opposition in speculating on fish plant closures or whether they will or they

won't, or whether they might or they might not, and where they might or might

not be. I do not think that serves the Province or its fishing interests very

well, so I don't intend to do it. But I will be meeting with Mr. Young fairly

shortly and I will make a statement to the House if there is anything that

requires my making a statement to the House. Otherwise the Minister of Fisheries

will in the ordinary course deal with the matter.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier

for the answer. I wasn't necessarily asking him to engage in speculation. I

agree that sometimes can be unhealthy. On the other hand I am sure he would

agree that it is important that the people of the Province know what is

happening, particularly those who will be affected by decisions that the company

might make in the future. So I am asking questions that people themselves are

out there asking, and the government is the body that has to provide those

answers.

Can I ask the Premier this question: Does he know whether or

not a decision has already been made, for example, concerning the closure of the

plants in Catalina and Ramea? Does he know if there is any truth to those

stories? They certainly are circulating out there all over the place. Does he

know if they plan to remove the trawlers which service that plant from the FPI

fleet? Does he know anything about those questions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions in the

very recent past with Mr. Young about their level of operations and how

reductions in cod quotas will affect them, how reductions in other fish quotas

might affect them, what their situation might be if there isn't increase fish

available in the near future. We have had these kinds of discussions in the very

recent past, but, Mr. Speaker, I say again to the Leader of the Opposition, I

don't believe that he is serving the interest of any of the communities he

mentioned well by causing these kinds of speculations at this stage. I will be

meeting with Mr. Young, and I can assure the House that as soon as the

government knows anything definitive on the issue it will make it known through

the House, if the House is in session at the time.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just in response very

briefly, I mean I agree with the Premier that these issues should not be out

there hanging over the heads of the workers and the people of the Province. That

is precisely why I am asking the Premier if he can clarify it one way or the

other. He is the leader of the government and he should be able to provide those

answers to the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Speaker, it is clear, I think the

Premier would agree from public statements made by Mr. Young, that FPI is

obviously working towards a smaller fishing industry in this particular

province. I guess it is fair to say, from government's statements in the past,

that they share that particular philosophy, and that is what should be worked

towards, a smaller fishery.

Let me ask him this question: Is this part of a deliberate

strategy by his government to take advantage of the resource shortage, the

resource crisis in order to permanently reduce the number of people who are

going to be involved in the fishery in this Province in the future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are two things wrong with the

leader's question, Mr. Speaker. The Province is not working towards a smaller

fishery. The Province would like to see a larger fishery but the Province cannot

plant fish in the sea. They grow by natural processes and if the fish are not

there and not available to be caught then that is what determines how large or

how small the fishery may or may not be, not provincial government policy, or

determination or anything else.

So, the Province does not have any such deliberate plan or

scheme, as the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. The Province, like

FPI, like the Fishermen's Union, like everybody else involved, have to bear the

consequences of the number of fish in the sea available to be caught and that is

what will dictate the level of fishing activity, either in fishing or processing

activity in this Province, and not the wishes of FPI or the wishes of the

government.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier. I want to refer the

Premier to an

article in The Evening Telegram of Saturday, May 2, where it says

the Premier urges patience with EEC. I think, more appropriately, after reading

the article, it probably could have read, Wells wimps out in Europe. I ask the

Premier, did he openly discuss with the European community, a moratorium on

fishing both outside and inside the 200-mile limit? Did he discuss that while he

was in Europe?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am glad the hon. member asked a question

about that story. I was horrified when I saw the headline in the story. As I

told the House yesterday, it is a total distortion, not only a distortion, it is

completely the opposite of the position. What I have insisted upon is that our

patience with the European community is at an end. I have asked the Government

of Canada to display some political courage and take action now, before the fish

stocks disappear, to protect the fishing interests of this Province, not to have

patience. I have told the European community that we have lost patience with

tried to negotiate a resolution to this problem through the diplomatic group and

it has been totally unsuccessful. I told the European community quite frankly

that our objective was to cause the maximum possible level of embarrassment to

every community member, and not to have patience with them but to display the

maximum possible level of impatience with them throughout the world, to bring

the wrath of the world on their shoulders for the grossly irresponsible way they

are fishing off the coast of Newfoundland. That is not patience, Mr. Speaker. We

have run out of patience, we have no cause to have patience with them anymore.

Now, I cannot accept responsibility for what The Evening

Telegram writes that does not reflect the reality, and I greatly regret that

they do that. I have expressed it to other news media. Other news media, for the

most part, seem to have gotten it pretty well correct. That particular story in

The Evening Telegram does not accurately represent the position. So the hon.

member's questions, based on that, have no relevance.

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

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

another question for the most misquoted, misstated Premier in Canada, because

that is what it seems to turn into.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Every time the Premier gets in a corner it

is because the news media misquotes him or makes misstatements. The Premier is

well aware that - there are no quotas outside of 200, there has been a

NAFO-imposed moratorium outside of 200. I am a bit disturbed by the Premier's

statements about our losing credibility, he seems to certainly suggest, if we

don't impose a moratorium inside of 200; that would seem to lend more

credibility to our argument about foreign overfishing.

I want to ask the Premier - there has been a moratorium in

existence for years outside. He is suggesting a moratorium inside. Is he

suggesting a total moratorium inside of 200, that all Canadian vessels would

cease fishing? Is that what he is suggesting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to solve what

is a difficult problem for Canada, because we got ourselves into a bit if a

problem in terms of credibility with the rest of the world on that moratorium

question.

It is simply this: The minister, when he set the quota this

year of 125,000 tons, and prohibited directed deep-sea fishing for cod, should,

instead, have said: We have a moratorium inside. Because that is the reality of

it. He's for deep-sea directed cod fishing, and he should have admitted to the

world what it was. But the real problem may have occurred in 1986 when, instead

of trying to get sole access to the entire stock of Northern cod or the

sustainable yield of Northern cod for Canada by means of causing NAFO to declare

a moratorium outside, we should have told the world: Those are Canadian stocks,

managed exclusively by Canada. NAFO considers them Canadian stocks, so Canada

should have and should fish the entire sustainable yield.

If that was our argument, that is what we should have done.

But what we cannot with credibility do, and I couldn't stand before the people

of Europe with credibility and defend, was the concept that we have a moratorium

on cod fishing on this side of the line and none on that side of an imaginary

line. There is no logic to it, there is no scientific sense to it, no scientific

basis, and that, Mr. Speaker, was the flaw in our position that allowed the

Europeans to do what they did, because they can then go with credibility to the

rest of the world and say, `Look, Canada is abusing this for her own right, so

we are going to create our own artificial quota outside. Canada is causing NAFO

to put a moratorium outside when there is no scientific justification for

treating the outside differently from inside the 200-mile limit. So, therefore,

we are going to establish our own quota.' Now, that is the basis on which the

Europeans did it and that is the most difficult thing Canada has had to deal

with in the last four years.

So I said to the Minister of Fisheries, `Look, the sensible

thing to do is if we feel we have a good argument for all of the sustainable

yield of Northern cod, then let's make the argument on that basis. Let's not

expose ourselves to having our credibility questioned by causing to be created

an artificial moratorium outside when there is none inside.'

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The moratorium outside, as the Premier knows, has never been

honoured, Mr. Speaker. The European community has flagrantly fished out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that your question?

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the question I was going to

ask the Premier is: Where have the principles of adjacency and historic

dependency gone, with the Premier's thinking? I mean, I have to wonder what

happened to the Premier in Europe. I made some suggestions a few days ago about

what he was doing over there.

Mr. Speaker, again the Premier didn't answer the question. Is

the Premier suggesting that all Canadian vessels should stop fishing inside the

200-mile limit?

PREMIER WELLS: No.

MR. MATTHEWS: Are you suggesting that the deep-sea

vessels should stop fishing inside the 200-mile limit? That is the question I

asked the Premier. I want him to explain for the people of the Province, because

they are very interested in knowing the answer. We ran into it on the Burin

Peninsula in the last couple of days. People are a bit confused by the Premier.

Perhaps that is what he is trying to do, confuse the people.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if there is not enough annual

catch of cod, Northern cod, available to sustain the inshore allowance, yes,

there should be a moratorium on directed Canadian deep-sea cod fishing. If there

is not enough to sustain the inshore fishery, we must do that. We have to

protect our future. There is no point in Canada going out there now and fishing

the stocks to extinction together with the European community. Who are we

helping by doing that? We are certainly not helping Canada, we are certainly not

helping the Newfoundland deep-sea fishery and we are certainly not helping the

inshore fishery. So we have to look at what is available.

Now, Canada has always reserved an allocation, not a limit,

not a quota, an allocation, for the inshore fishery. They have assumed that the

inshore fishery would catch about 115,000 tons. If they caught 125,000 tons,

nobody stopped them. If they only caught 80,000 tons they didn't give the

balance of the deep-sea. That is as it should be to protect that inshore fishery

which must, I believe, be a priority, because the offshore, Canadian and

otherwise, is a relatively recent innovation. Now, we have to protect that, and

if that means putting a moratorium on the directed deep-sea cod fishery for a

year, two years, three years, five years, whatever is necessary to rebuild the

stocks, then we must do that because we must protect our basic fisheries in this

Province, and if that is necessary to do it, then we must do it; but if it is

not necessary, then don't do it.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final

supplementary to the Premier.

Have the Premier and the provincial government recommended to

the federal Minister of Fisheries and the federal government that there be a

moratorium placed on the deep-sea fishery for one, two, five years? And if that

recommendation has gone, or if it is going to the federal government, what are

the Premier and the provincial government going to do to address the fallout

problems that will be associated with more plant closures, more laid-off

trawlermen and so on? What plans does the Premier have in case such an event

takes place?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not asked the

federal government, at this stage, to impose a moratorium on the directed

deep-sea cod fishery, but if the Minister of Fisheries is going to set a quota

at 125,000 tons, then he might just as well impose a moratorium and get the

credit for doing it with the rest of the world, and cause pressure on the

European community to enforce the moratorium that is outside the 200-mile limit.

Now, to deal with the second part of the question, the

Opposition -I have noticed this a number of times during this session - keep

insisting that the taxpayers of this Province take over federal responsibility

to pay the consequences of fisheries. I don't know why they keep wanting to put

that burden on the taxpayers. They do it day after day after day. Why isn't the

provincial government going to pay more money? Day after day after day they ask

questions to cause the Province to take on the responsibility of the federal

government. For whom are they working, the people of this Province or John

Crosbie and the Tories? Who are they working for? Whose interests are they

protecting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we must properly manage our

fisheries. We must properly manage our fisheries, and that proper management

includes protection of the fish stocks for the future so that we can maintain

our inshore fishery and so that we can maintain our offshore fishery, and

maintain the offshore plants and the employment that results from it.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question

is to the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Approximately two and a half years ago the government ordered

Albright and Wilson to clean up the pollution from the abandoned fluorspar plant

at Long Harbour. Would the minister advise how this cleanup is proceeding?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: The cleanup is proceeding, Mr. Speaker. If he

wants me to elaborate he is going to have to ask a further question, but it is,

indeed, proceeding and, I think, in a very responsible and efficient manner.

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

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

I wonder would the minister try to explain to this House how

she could say the cleanup is proceeding when her colleague, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, was on CBC yesterday saying that the cleanup is not

proceeding and he is very upset about it? Would the minister confirm what has

taken place so far with respect to the cleanup at Long Harbour?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not hear what my colleague had to say yesterday morning

on the radio. I would gather that, being the MHA for the area, he is impatient

with getting on with the proceedings and may have been reflecting that

impatience. However, I have been meeting with the Albright and Wilson management

in the last couple of days. They have been with me at a meeting also, with our

environmental assessment people, and we feel that the process is going ahead

with due dispatch.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I say to

the hon. minister that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs did say

publicly that he is very, very upset, he is very discouraged with the cleanup at

Long Harbour. Now, surely goodness, the Minister of Environment and Lands should

know what is going on out there. Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the minister:

Would the minister undertake to give this House a full report on the cleanup at

Long Harbour?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I think what is going in the Long

Harbour area is outstanding. First of all, it is the very first time in the

history of the Canadian nation that such an environmental cleanup has taken

place with the closing of a plant. I am very, very pleased that we have been

able to give them certain exceptions under the environmental assessment process,

where there are items that are not of great concern. The phosphorus is of the

greatest concern to us, and the company informed me yesterday that they are

doing a risk study of this and then a risk management study. My department will

be involved in that particular process and, again, I am confident that we will

meet all the requirements necessary to see that the cleanup is done in an

environmentally responsible manner.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final supplementary. The minister never answered my

question. Would the minister bring a full report of the activity to date on the

cleanup of the situation in Long Harbour, and, at the same time, would the

minister place financial liability on this company for not cleaning up this mess

that is out there? Would the minister kindly do that for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I think this is a tempest in a teapot, Mr.

Speaker, if you don't mind my saying so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. COWAN: I will be only to happy to take this under

advisement and see if there are any legal reasons or whatever, why I should not

bring full information to the House; if there is none, then I certainly would be

only too glad to bring a written report. However, I say again, as Minister of

Environment and Lands, that I am pleased with the progress that is being made to

date. The cleanup of that particular site is going to be a long job, and we have

to resign ourselves to that because of the nature of the cleanup that has to

take place.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the

Minister of Environment and Lands and it involves the Long Harbour site.

The principals of Albright and Wilson are involved with

others in a new project to bring domestic garbage and other things from the New

England states to that site for incineration, and I want to ask the minister,

because this is a matter of grave concern to many Newfoundlanders, not just in

the Long Harbour area, by what process is her department examining this project

and what process will be undertaken before this government considers whether or

not such a project will be permitted?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: The same process will take place, Mr. Speaker,

that takes place when any business within the Province or without, decides to

launch some new industry or whatever here. They will apply to the Department of

Environment and Lands for environmental assessment. This has not happened yet in

regard to the particular waste to energy project that the Member for St. John's

East mentions.

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

MR. HARRIS: Further to the minister, Mr. Speaker, I

wonder if the minister can advise the House what confidence people can have in

this process, if the Premier has already come out in favour of this project?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I find that, really a question that indicates,

Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for St. John's East has not listened properly

to the statements made by the Premier and by other members of our government who

have spoken on this particular issue. Let me repeat again what has been said by

our government, which I feel is an appropriate and broad-minded assessment of

the situation.

Furthermore, to put it in words, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps

the hon. gentleman can understand, we are neither for nor against the project;

we are exploring the full environmental impact of this. As soon as the thing is

registered, we will look into every question that is being asked by the

Newfoundland public and even more questions, and once we are satisfied that the

thing is either safe or unsafe to continue with. Then the decision will be made.

We are neither for nor against it at this stage.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final

supplementary was to be to the Minister of Development, but in his absence I

will ask the Premier. Can the Premier give the public some response to the

concerns that are already being raised by consultants in the tourism industry,

that the image of Newfoundland as the depository of New England and New York

garbage is going to have a tremendous and negative affect upon the tourism

industry in this Province? The advances that are being made in promoting

Newfoundland as a wilderness tourism site, and all of that industry, is going to

be negatively affected by this. Concerns are being expressed already. This is

not just an environmental issue in terms of the toxic wastes that might be

produced there, but also a development issue. Can the Premier comment on that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am quite happy to do it. It will take a

little bit of time, so I warn hon. members, to do it adequately it must take a

bit of time. It is an extensive question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Then the alternative is I take notice of

it and give answers later. But, Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to the

question. One is, this matter is not being driven or motivated by New York

trying to get rid of it's garbage or find a place to dump it's garbage. This is

being driven and motivated by the company out at Long Harbour trying to find an

economic means to help it continue the operation that it will have there for

perhaps the twenty years it would take to adequately and thoroughly clean up

that site, the old phosphorous plant. They know they are going to have to have

substantial activity there for twenty years. They know they have substantial

electrical assets there. They know they have a substantial port facility there,

and they are trying to find some means of using those valuable assets, that

would at the same time help them finance the cost, the tremendous cost, millions

and millions of dollars that would be involved in cleaning up that site at Long

Harbour. Now that is where the impetus is coming from. It is not New York trying

to dump it's garbage somewhere else.

Now we have told the company in no uncertain terms that this

Province is not prepared to see that built there unless the proposal goes

through a complete environmental impact assessment. Now in case members don't

know, an environmental impact assessment deals not only with the physical

environment, it deals also with the economic, social and political environment.

Now if the impact of building such a facility might have the kind of impact on

the tourist industry that the hon. member mentioned, then that would make the

project unacceptable. But, Mr. Speaker, we are not blindly prejudiced. We don't

just put up a blank wall and say no, to anything. We bear in mind that we make

the decisions on the basis of what is sound and sensible, and what can be

justified. If it can't be justified, then we won't do it.

MR. TOBIN: How come when you were in Opposition you asked

us not to do it?

PREMIER WELLS: We never did any such thing in Opposition.

MR. TOBIN: It is in Hansard!

PREMIER WELLS: Well, you dig out Hansard and we will deal

with that if and when you dig it out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another time. Carry on.

PREMIER WELLS: I will deal with what you dig out of

Hansard. If you are talking about Bell Island you are talking about a totally

different thing.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is exactly right.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That was toxic waste. That is the

difference. Bringing toxic waste into the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if this project is not totally acceptable

by all of those standards of measurement, not just the impact on the physical

environment, the impact on the social and economic environment as well. If it is

not acceptable after a full environmental impact assessment, then the project

will not proceed. The government will not authorize it to proceed. But, Mr.

Speaker, there is a major job to be done in cleaning up Long Harbour. It is

going to take millions and millions of dollars and years of activity to see that

is done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: I have a question for the Premier. Six months

ago the Premier named Ed Roberts as the new Justice Minister. In January Mr.

Roberts took up that position. After all this time, as everyone knows, Mr.

Roberts doesn't have a seat in this House of Assembly and there is no prospect

of a seat for Mr. Roberts. Will the Premier now take the correct and proper

constitutional action by removing Mr. Roberts from the position and appointing

an elected member to the Justice Portfolio?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roberts was sworn in, I

believe, on February 12. I had anticipated by this time, on the basis of advice

that had been given to me, that a member would have resigned. That was the

expectation that I had. He has delayed his resignation, for whatever reason. I

will leave that to a later date. That has made it impractical. Now, I have also

been advised that two other members opposite are about to resign.

AN HON. MEMBER: One.

PREMIER WELLS: Two other members.

AN HON. MEMBER: One.

PREMIER WELLS: Two other members opposite. I am sorry!

Three other members opposite. I apologize. It is not two, it is three other

members opposite. Two are about to resign, one is not going to run again. I

guess that was the answer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would prefer not to have to ask another

hon. member, either on that side or this side, to resign to accommodate Mr.

Roberts. I would prefer to wait a little while longer at least to see if one of

those members who have already stated their intention to resign, will carry out

their stated intention. There are two opposite and, if the hon. member wishes me

to, I will name them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you name them?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, I will, the hon. the Member for

Ferryland and the hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SIMMS: Well, you are wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

MR. SIMMS: The hon. the Member for Port au Port said he

was running in the next election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Make no wonder you don't know what is going

on, if you are waiting for that kind of information, depending on that. That is

why we are (inaudible) here today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I don't think what is going on now is in the Standing Orders,

so the Chair is moving on to the next item.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I answered a question yesterday,

and with the exuberance with which I answered the question I made a slight error

and I would like to correct for posterity two dates in my answer. On page 958 of

Hansard, May 5, 1992. The dates, September 17. The member asked about September

17, 1991 to October 15, 1991.

In the next column, I think about eight or ten lines down, I

did not go to Baie Verte on November 7. The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay,

an outstanding member, and I want to take credit for spending a day with him, I

went to Baie Verte on October 7. These were the two minor corrections, but for

historical purposes I would like for that second date to be corrected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, to the question

posed by the hon. Member for Kilbride. No trips were taken by me during the

period September 17, 1991, to October 15, 1991, inclusive.

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling Orders of the Day the Chair

would like to rule on a -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to make a ruling on a couple of points

of order that I have taken under advisement. The Chair would like to make a

ruling now with respect to the point of order raised on Thursday, April 30,

concerning the propriety, under the circumstances, of the Minister of Justice

presenting that Department's estimates before the estimates committee - the

rightness or correctness of this anticipated or potential development - members

called upon me to make a ruling regarding this procedural matter.

Firstly may I say that I do not think it would be prudent or

advisable to make a ruling based upon some possible or future development. That

is, to make rulings based upon some anticipated or hypothetical situation which

may or may not happen, and particularly when such a ruling is related to the

activities of a committee of the House. In this regard I probably was a bit too

generous in allowing the debate on the point of order that I did. Members will

recall that I said something to that effect but I was not sure what we were

into. But I knew we were into some shady area and wasn't able to think of the

authority at the time.

I therefore refer hon. members to Beauchesne, page 222,

paragraph 760, subsection (3): "The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that it

is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control over the

committees. Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure."

Also relevant is Beauchesne, page 232, paragraphs 821 and

822. Paragraph 821 reads: "

(1) All rulings of the Chairman may be appealed to

the committee;

(2) There is no appeal to the House from the Chairman's ruling

except by way of a report from the committee." Paragraph 822 reads: "Procedural

difficulties which arise in committees ought to be settled in the committee and

not in the House."

Now, with hon. members' indulgence I could relate to the

members the results of some research that we have done in the matter, but I want

to tell hon. members my ruling is substantially - supported by Beauchesne and

many other authorities - that a procedural matter of committees ought to be

dealt with by committees. Hon. members know the procedure for that. If the rules

are unclear then it is the job of the House to make the rules clear. If there

are some matters with which members find disagreement, then we will settle them

the same normal way as we do with matters of committee, by agreement between the

two House leaders, but substantially the Chair is not expected to rule on

procedural matters that affect committees. With respect to the research: we have

found, and I guess it falls into two categories, first of all hon. members

should know that not every House has their estimates done by committees. There

are still some houses doing them in the House and with that there is no problem,

everybody understands that situation. Even with that some houses still have

different rules with their committees so the research falls under two

categories.

First of all there is a wide opinion which states the

minister ought to be allowed to present the estimates, logically, because he is

the one who would know the details of the estimates more than anybody else, but

we do not always operate from logic, we operate procedurally. Included in that

logic was an authority known as, Mr. Philip Laundy, who spent many years in the

House of Commons as a table officer, and who now is being used by several

speakers I might add because he is one of the greatest authorities on the role

of the Speaker, and if anybody wants to know something about the Speaker they

ought to read Mr. Laundy's book, as I have on several occasions.

The BC Legislature is among those that think the minister

ought to be allowed for logical reasons, as New Brunswick. The other two

jurisdictions, the House of Commons and the UK: in the UK where they run into

procedural difficulties, where they run into difficulties with their committees,

they normally pass a resolution of the House to take care of that particular

situation. I suppose it sort of resembles our 'by agreement' except it is more

formalized and it is done by a resolution of the House.

In Ottawa, which is the major one, it is permitted, but a

minister under the circumstances, a minister who is not a member, is permitted

in the committees by virtue of his executive position by being minister of the

Crown and he is there on the same level as the deputy. He is not there as an

elected member, he is not there under any particular parliamentary procedure, he

is there by an executive procedure and he is regarded in the same way, as I

said, as his or her deputy.

That is the evidence we have come up with that I wanted to

present to hon. members, and I might also say as a distinction again with

Ottawa, with the parliamentary right and the executive right, in Ottawa the

committee has the right to order a minister who is not a member before the

committee, but it does not have that right with a member who is elected. To

distinguish between the parliamentary it is only the House who can order a

minister before the committees. I just offer these guidelines and the benefit of

the research that the table has found re. this matter, but as I said, it is a

matter for the committee and not a matter for the House.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I followed with great interest your rather lengthy

dissertation on that particular point and I am very pleased with the obvious

depth of your analysis and so on. If I understand correctly what Your Honour is

saying is that it is the committee who decides, that is the essence of Your

Honour's ruling, and if Your Honour verifies that is so we could solve the

problem right now by me simply asking for unanimous consent of the House to

allow the Minister of Justice to appear before the Estimates Committee of the

House. Mr. Speaker, that would avoid all kinds of procedural wrangling and so on

in committee, if we could get the unanimous consent of the House to allow the

minister to present his estimates to the committee. Mr. Speaker, I would like to

request the unanimous consent of the House.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking now partly in my

capacity as Vice-Chair of the Social Services Estimates Committee. Mr. Speaker,

there was never any question about anyone on this side of the House wanting the

nonelected Minister of Justice, Mr. Roberts, to appear before our committee. We

wanted Mr. Roberts, along with the other nonelected officials of the Department

of Justice, to appear before the committee.

The question we raised is: Whether it is not necessary for an

elected minister to lead the justice delegation with Mr. Roberts as well as the

Deputy Minister, Ms. Spracklin, sitting at the acting minister's side and

serving as advisors to the acting minister and elected minister, the same as in

this Chamber. It is only an elected minister who may speak for the government in

answering for the Department of Justice.

MR. SPEAKER: Again the Chair has made its ruling, and I

will allowed a couple of submissions. I want also to advise hon. members -

advise is not the correct word, I am just looking for another one - just to get

the co-operation, I should say, from hon. members, that when they are rising on

points of order - I am not requiring that for today but it is an appropriate

time to say it - hon. members will know if we are on a point of order or a point

of privilege, the job of hon. members is to assist the Chair with making the

decision. So I would ask hon. members to quote authorities where they can.

I noticed the last day when I was going through this, I had

very few quotes from hon. members, and hon. members should remember that because

when the Chair makes it's decision it has to substantiate it by the authorities.

So in the future if hon. members would remember that, it would help the Chair

much more if they came up with authorities.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: With all due respect, Your Honour, I was

simply asking for unanimous consent of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Precisely.

MR. BAKER: There are no authorities required. I am not so

sure whether we have unanimous consent or not from the answer of the hon.

member.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want the hon. the Government House

Leader to misunderstand. I made an exception to this. I said this was a bit

different. I just gave hon. members that advice for the future when they are

dealing with points of order and points of privilege. I understand quite well

what the Government House Leader has done.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought I was rather clear the first time. My point was

that to avoid unnecessary waste of time at the committee level and procedural

wrangling and things like that, that we could settle the matter here now simply

by unanimous consent that the Minister of Justice could appear before the

committee to defend the estimates of the Department of Justice.

The answer that I got from the hon. member opposite was

simply a lot of political nonsense, diatribe and no answer to the request. So I

ask again, to the Leader of the Opposition, who I assume is the leader, whether

we have the unanimous consent of the House to allow the Minister of Justice to

appear before that committee.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought Your Honour had clarified the matter for us in that

it is up to the committee, it is left to the committee.

MR. SIMMS: Exactly, that is his ruling.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the Speaker's ruling. That is His

Honour's ruling, that it is up to the committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: The committee will (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The committee will. One other way, of

course, Mr. Speaker, to simplify it and clarify it is one of two things, for the

Premier to fire the Minister of Justice and appoint an elected member of the

Legislature or for the acting Minister of Justice, which we have seen time and

time again, to come before the committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now, you want to resolve it in a simple way,

there it is.

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

MR. BAKER: It is my understanding now that the Opposition

has said, no, they do not accept the Minister of Justice appearing before the

Estimates Committee, they do not accept that. That is my understanding, we do

not have unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker. That is my understanding.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's East

because he has not made a submission.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess for clarification of the Chair, by way of a point of

order, my understanding was that the Government House Leader asked the House for

unanimous consent to do something to the rules of a committee. It is my

understanding that committees of this House are masters of their own rules and

procedure and that the House doesn't tell them what to do in terms of that. That

has been the Speaker's ruling on the issue and I think that the Government House

Leader's request for unanimous consent here in this House about something that a

committee would do is not proper and appropriate. I would like your honour's

ruling on that.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government House

Leader is deliberately misconstruing what we are saying. I will reiterate it.

There is no objection to the nonelected Minister of Justice, Ed Roberts,

advising the acting Minister when the elected acting Minister sits in the House

and answers for the Department of Justice. There is no objection from the

Opposition to the nonelected Minister of Justice, Mr. Roberts, attending

Estimates Committee meetings, and advising an elected acting minister, who will

head the Justice delegation at the Estimates Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair, again, has been fairly flexible because the hon.

the Member for St. John's East raises a question whether or not it is

permissable. The hon. the Government House Leader was asking for agreement from

the House. Of course by agreement from the House we could do anything and since

I am not sure what the agreement was, it is not for the Chair to decide. The

Chair can decide that the matter is over with. The Chair has made the ruling,

and it is up to others what they interpret from the explanation given by the

Official Opposition.

Orders of the day.

Private Member's Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

D'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important

resolution that I put forward today because it affects the lives of several

hundreds of people in the District of Burgeo - Bay D'Espoir. I have narrowed it

down to the first, 'WHEREAS the inshore fishery has been a complete and utter

failure this year on the South Coast, west of the Burin Peninsula.' Because the

federal government, when they look at the South Coast fishery they take from

Cape Race to Cape Ray. In that area this year I understand that part of the

fishery has been a very good fishery. As a matter of fact in Placentia Bay this

year, I think the bottom part of Placentia Bay around Southern Harbour and

places like this, I understand that the inshore fishery has been exceptionally

good this year, and as it was last summer in Placentia Bay - the inshore

fishery. So it distorts the statistics when you ask the federal Department of

Fisheries and point out the suffering that is going on in the inshore fishery on

the South Coast west of the Burin Peninsula, particularly in the District of

Burgeo - Bay D'Espoir, and west.

Now I understand that my colleague from Fortune - Hermitage

says that there are areas there where the fishery is very good. But I intend, as

I carry on in this debate this afternoon, to point out the figures, and show the

figures that have been presented to me, particularly by the fishermen in my

district, and the fishermen in McCallum, Francois, Grey River, Ramea and Burgeo.

That will point out in very graphic detail what has happened.

As I have said before in this House, Mr. Speaker, nothing

dramatic has happened to the fishery on the South Coast, but it is a gradual

decline in the fisheries, and I have the figures that I will present this

afternoon to see what has happened in the South Coast fishery over the last five

years.

Now because of this gradual decline those fishermen that I

represent in the District of Burgeo - Bay D'Espoir claim nobody has listened to

them. They feel that they are the forgotten people. They have made their

presentations and their concerns about the decline in their fishery to the

federal government, to their union, to the provincial government.

So over the last two or three months I have taken it upon

myself to make people aware of what is actually happening in the inshore fishery

west of the Burin Peninsula, as I said, particularly in my area.

Now over the last few weeks since the figures were available

for the first three months I have been through the district, and I have been in

the communities of McCallum, Francois, Grey River, Ramea and Burgeo, and had

meetings with the inshore fishermen. We have discovered that indeed this year

the failure is complete, and it has reached a stage now where those people will

find that on May 15 their unemployment will be expiring and they do not have

enough stamps to make another claim.

Now you must remember when we are talking that we do not know

what is going to happen to the total inshore fishery in Newfoundland this year,

because the fishery along the South Coast is different than the northwest coast

fishery or the northeast coast fishery, for the simple reason that the one thing

we know for a fact is that the inshore fishery along the South Coast is now over

for this year. You have a couple of more weeks, but June, July, and August were

never great months for the fishery on the South Coast.

Traditionally, in the old days, the fishermen east of

Franois would come down and fish in Cape St. Mary's and Cape Pine, and the ones

west of Franois, Burgeo, Ramea west, would go over and fish in Cape Breton in

the summertime. So the South Coast fishery in the summertime is closed, but the

fishermen fished the full eleven to twelve months of the year. It was a

different fishery than anywhere else because they did spend the full year

involved in the fishery, albeit some of it not right off their coast, so they

moved to be involved in it.

The reason for the first part of this resolution is to point

out that there is a very serious problem, and it is in a certain area of the

South Coast. This fishery is different that anywhere else in this Province, and

we know for a fact that it is a failure. We do not know what is going to happen

in the northeast coast. We do not know what is going to happen in Labrador, but

we do know that the fishery on the South Coast is a failure. It is for this

reason that I ask that it be resolved that this House go on record as asking the

Department of Employment and Immigration to extend unemployment benefits to

these South Coast fishermen as was done for the northeast coast fishermen and

women in the 1991 season.

The question that I am asking, or the solution that I am

asking for those people right now is not new. There is tradition. There is

history for what I am asking. Why I narrowed it down to what I did was to point

out to the federal government that if they were to take the area from Cape Race

to Cape Ray the statistics would be different. It is for this reason that I

intend to give the statistics for the area, the district of Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

I ask members, as sometimes happens with private members'

resolutions, we have people who want to play politics with it so they get up and

change it by adding to it or deleting from it. So I ask, because this is a very

important one for the people who are going to be affected, the ones who are

going to have to go to social services offices after May 15 unless something is

done, I ask that we do not play politics with this resolution today and do not

ask to make amendments to it, but to accept it as it is, a serious resolution on

behalf of the people who live in my district, and the inshore fishermen in that

district who make their living from the inshore - totally from the inshore - and

are twelve months of the year fishermen.

As I have said, on the South Coast the inshore fishery is

basically a fall and winter fishery, but I am going to give some statistics now

as to why I am asking the federal government to extend the unemployment

insurance to the people affected, and I am going to take it from my district

particularly. I am sure that other members, as they speak this evening, will be

able to provide the statistics and justify why they are supporting this

petition, the ones that represent the South Coast districts.

I will take the communities now as I go along, and I will

take them from east to west, so I will take McCallum. McCallum is a community in

the first starting of my district. It is on the coast, it is a coastal

community. The only way you can get there is by boat or helicopter. There are

about 180 people living there and there are forty-five inshore fishermen.

Now in that area - I just have a figure that I would like to

talk about for a minute. In the community of McCallum in the year 1991, for the

first three months of the year, there were 178,000 pounds of all species landed.

The fishermen in McCallum are different than they are in Franois, Grey River,

Ramea and Burgeo, because they mostly fish with gill nets. So we have in this

area that in 1991 for the first three months they caught 178,000 pounds. Now in

the first three months of 1992 you will notice that there were some dramatic

changes. The fishermen in McCallum caught 61,000 pounds in the same three months

in 1992. So this again bears out why it is important that this area be looked at

differently than, say, the areas in Placentia Bay or St. Mary's Bay, because the

fishery has not been as extremely bad as it is on this area of the South Coast.

Now just for comparison's sake I will go a little east of

McCallum, because I have the figures here for Hermitage too. I know the Member

for Fortune - Hermitage will be talking about it. Just to tell you that it is

not only in the district of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, but I do have the Hermitage

figures. In 1991 there were 633,000 pounds of all species sold to Conpak

Seafoods in Hermitage. So that was the 1991 season. In 1992 there was 343,000

pounds caught by these fishermen in Hermitage, and I do not know how many

fishermen are in Hermitage, but I have the total weight. So what I am saying is

that in that area there is certainly a rather dramatic decline this year over

the gradual ones that I will talk about as I go along in this. But you can see

that the people in McCallum are going to be in a desperate situation this year,

as many of them have not qualified for their unemployment, although some of them

have.

As we move on westward and we go to Franois, Franois again

is another coastal community. Its only reason for being is that it is involved

in the inshore fishery. One hundred and eighty people live there, twenty seven

inshore fishermen. The only people who would live in Franois who are not making

their living out of the inshore fishery would be the three or four teachers that

are in the school and the one man who works in the bait depot. Everybody else in

that community, men, women and children, are dependent on the inshore fishery,

as is the same in McCallum. In McCallum we have the same thing only we have a

federal fisheries officer in McCallum instead of a fellow who works in the bait

depot. But when you talk about, it is teachers or federal government employees,

one way or the other. The rest of them are depending for their living on the

fishery.

We then go to Grey River. In Grey River you have twenty

full-time fishermen, population is around 200. Again, statistics are equally as

bad. I was talking to the chairman of the fishermen' committee there this

morning, Ephraim Warren. He tells me that there are only about two fishermen out

of that twenty who will qualify for their unemployment now on May 15, unless the

unemployment is extended. So you can see the serious problems that are now

facing the people.

These are the three communities that have no other reason for

existing other than the inshore fishery. They do not have a plant for

processing. The fish is taken out, sold and processed elsewhere. So we are

talking about the livelihoods of the people in those three communities. Unless

something is done and the federal government listens to the pleas that have been

made by the fishermen and by myself, by the provincial Department of Fisheries -

which has recognised the problem and have already written the federal Minister

of Fisheries pointing out what has happened on the South Coast this year - there

is going to be a real problem and those people will have no other choice but to

resort to welfare in a few days time when the unemployment runs out on May 15.

Now we go to Ramea and Burgeo, the two biggest communities on the South Coast

and as we listened to Question Period today we heard some of the doubts that

have been raised by members of the opposition and I do not want to digress from

that to talk about the plants because there is a lot that could be said, but I

will talk about the inshore fishermen at this time just to point out that the

problem is equally as bad in Ramea and Burgeo.

Ramea is a community of 1,400 people and there are thirty-two

inshore fishermen. Now the statistics for Ramea, I had them here and they are

rather interesting too because when I get to Ramea I can go from 1986 to 1992 in

the first quarter just to give you basically what we are talking about. I can

give you the cod landings for 1986, for Ramea, which was 137,000 pounds in

January. In February it was 504,000 pounds and in March it was 277,000 pounds

for a total of 936,000 pounds for the first quarter of 1986.

If we go to the first quarter of 1987, you will find that the

total landings was 949,000 pounds for this same period in Ramea with these

thirty-two fishermen. In 1988, it started to drop off, there were 774,000

pounds. In 1989, now you see here is where the problem started to come in. In

'89 there were 144,000 pounds; in 1990, 149,000 pounds, in 1991, 156,000 pounds

and this year 1992, 50,000 pounds, so you can see, Mr. Speaker, this is a real

serious, serious problem and it is one that follows all along the South Coast .

I have some statistics here that the fishermen at Burgeo got

for me and they put it in a graph form. I intended to table all those statistics

that I am talking about, but we have for the figures for 1986 for Burgeo for the

cod landings, approximately 550,000 pounds. In '87, it was down to 330,000

pounds, in '88, it was down to 220,000, in '89, it was down to a little over

150,000; in '90, it was down to 50,000 pounds and this year about 20,000 pounds

was landed in Burgeo, and in Burgeo you have fifty-two inshore fishermen so, Mr.

Speaker, you can see that this is the thing that has followed all along the

South Coast and it has happened over a gradual decline, as those fishermen have

been saying to everybody who would listen to them and they feel that a lot of

people have not listened to them, and this is where their problem comes in. They

feel that they are neglected and nobody is listening and yet they are forced

into a situation where they are possibly going to be faced with going to the

social services offices after May 15.

Now I have here, a letter that was written by William Bowles,

he is the chairman of the Fishermen's Committee in Burgeo and he wrote it to the

editor of one of the papers on the West Coast, I guess it is the Gulf News, and

it starts off: the fishermen in 3P and 3Ps areas, during the past number of

years have experienced a total failure in the fixed-gear inshore fishing, and he

says: in the fall of 1991 in the years before us there is nothing to be joyous

about, fishermen have doubled and trebled their efforts and they do not get

enough stamps to qualify for unemployment. This is basically what has happened.

He says: less than ten years ago, a fisherman's take home pay was about 75 per

cent of his earnings. Today, this percentage has decreased to 40 or 45 per cent

of his earnings. In other words, his fishing income is less than what he is

getting from unemployment.

When I talked to George Durnford in Francois and we were

talking about the landings and the fish, what has happened is the trawl fish

that they are getting right now, the few they are getting in Francois - I just

quoted the statistics - are sixteen to eighteen inches long. In other words, it

is tomcods they are getting in the trawls. There is no size to them. So, it has

been a total failure. When they go and pay for their bait and their fuel, it is

not really worth their while to fish. So they have a problem. They have heard

all kinds of reasons as to why it was a failure, and we can talk about some of

them here today, I suppose.

When we talk about the things that caused the failure, the

one we talk about mostly is foreign overfishing. Everyone knows about foreign

overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. So naturally, if that had

an effect on the total fishery in Newfoundland, it would have some effect on the

South Coast. However, on the South Coast, in this particular area, they didn't

have catastrophes like ice and then rebound back, this thing has been a gradual

thing over the last five or six years.

So in 1987 - 1988, the big thing that was talked about on the

South coast as the reason for the failure was the French overfishing in 3Ps.

Now, that is still going on and it is supposed to be resolved sometime during

the next year or so when the world court gets a chance to settle it.

The other thing the inshore fishermen on the South Coast are

talking about is the sixty-five footers. They talked about the side draggers

that were used from the plants there at one time. There were thirty-odd of them.

They have been replaced by the sixty-five footers. There are about 200 of them.

They feel that they have had some effect on it.

Of course, the big problem that they see on the South Coast

now is a new phenomenon to the South Coast, seals. Never in the history of the

older fishermen there did they ever see any seals. Now, when they go out to haul

their gill nets in Francois or Grey River or McCallum, they are hauling up eight

or ten seals every day. So it is not the traditional grey seal that we asked

about, but it is the hoods and the harps. Certainly the increase in the seal

population must be having some effect on this gradual decline.

So these are just some of the problems they talk about. Some

of them are concerned about the fact that the moratorium on the salmon season

has now been forced upon them. So they are losing two or three stamps a year

which they were normally getting to help them in their fishing income. That is

gone because of the enforced closure of the salmon fishery by the federal

government and, I suppose, to some extent by the Province who shared it. But

these are the points that they make for the decline in the fishery.

However, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intent here today to

debate what is causing it. I just want to put them out, as this is what is

causing it. I am, in the first part of this resolution, talking about asking the

federal government to extend the unemployment for the fishermen along the South

Coast who haven't been able to get enough stamps over the last three months to

qualify when their claims run out on May 15.

Now, we could go on and have a great debate about the

unemployment for fishermen, why the fishermen have to file twice where everybody

else can get ten stamps and file once. But these are things that the federal

government - everybody says that the fishery is going to rebuild, with the

moratorium and the cutback in quota of the offshore everything is going to

rebuild. But those causes have to be looked at, every one of them. Those people

don't want unemployment for the sake of unemployment, and they don't want the

programs that were given to them before where they were building fences around

cemeteries and stuff like that. These people want to be in the fishery when the

stock is rebuilt. They want to be in their boats while they are waiting, the

three of four years that we are waiting for it to rebuild. We are talking here

today of a temporary measure of extending the unemployment from the 15 of May

for a couple of months this year to see how the thing is going to go. But what

they are asking for in the long run is for the federal government and all

governments and the union to get together and offer a solution. Those people are

full-time fishermen, they don't fish for six weeks or three months, or four

months, they fish twelve months of the year in this area. And they are asking

that while we are waiting - if everybody is right and we are going to solve all

those problems and what caused the failure in the inshore fishery on the South

Coast - they are asking that they be given the opportunity to be there when the

fishery has rebuilt, and they will have the opportunity to be in their boats and

be able to carry on the inshore fishery and provide a living for their families,

and to keep their communities alive.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will be saying a few more words on this

later on. My time is up.

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

MR. GILBERT: So I will sit down and let someone else talk

about it. I will be cluing up later on this evening. But the point is, this is a

plea from the inshore fishermen on the South Coast of Newfoundland, particularly

in my district, asking for immediate help and asking that the governments look

at the long-term solution while they are waiting for the stock to rebuild.

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

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

like to participate in this debate on this Private Member's resolution put

forward by the hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay D'Espoir. I might say it is an

important and serious resolution, one that should be brought to the floor of the

Legislature, there is no question. There has been an ongoing problem with the

inshore winter fishery for the South Coast, the Southwest Coast, particularly,

as we all know; we have all been aware of it for months. The people up there

have a very serious situation where they are wondering how they are going to

survive. So I think a call for an extension of unemployment insurance benefits

for people in the areas affected is a very legitimate one, and one that I think

we, as provincial legislators, should support.

I want to say to the minister very seriously and sincerely

that I am proposing amendments to his resolution. It is not to in any way water

down his resolution or to take away from the seriousness of the resolution. It

is just that there are a couple of other areas that I want to incorporate in the

resolution.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am proposing the following amendments:

After the first 'Be it resolved,' that paragraph, I want to insert another 'Be

it resolved' - 'that this House call upon the federal government to extend the

unemployment insurance benefits to fisherpersons in Labrador and other areas

where they cannot or will not be able to fish because of ice conditions. I want

to include that because we are soon going to be into that situation again where

we know in Labrador and areas on the Northeast Coast, people will not be able to

fish.

So that is another problem, Mr. Speaker, that our people are

going to be faced with very, very shortly, and we thought that this was an

opportunity today to incorporate that in the hon. member's resolution - as I

said, not to take away from the seriousness of the issue that the member is

talking about, but we have these other problems.

The other thing I want to amend is in the final 'Be it

further resolved,' Mr. Speaker. I want to delete all the words after 'March of

1992' to read, 'to all fisherpersons who experience catch failure and were

omitted from the original payout of this allowance.' That is referring to the

$800 gear-up allowance which was paid to certain fishermen, as the member said,

in the Province of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in March of 1992. That is

correct, and people in the hon. gentleman's area in the South, and particularly

the Southwest Coast area, certainly should be included in that program. But the

reason we wanted to include that amendment is that there were people in other

areas who had catch failures where on one side of the line people got the

gear-up program and some people on the other didn't, even though there was a

catch failure. It's all tied into, I guess, the maze and the mess there was in

the fishery. We all know the bit of controversy there has been about this $800

gear-up allowance, where some people who were very justified in receiving it

have received it.

So those are the reasons for the amendments, Mr. Speaker,

that I am proposing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I have given a copy to the Clerk prior

to my standing, and he is going to get copies for members to have a look at

them.

So those are the reasons for the amendments, not to take away

from the seriousness of this issue, because it is a very serious issue, you

know, one that I don't see any member of this House having problems supporting,

because we all realize the seriousness of the fisheries crisis in the Province

and what is going to be the end result. I guess we are all a bit afraid to guess

what is going to be the end result.

Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, that the federal minister met with

a committee, I believe, of fixed-gear fishermen some time ago and had discussion

on the matter. My understanding is that there were no commitments made at the

meeting. I know the federal minister has under consideration this serious area

that the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir is talking about. I hope, as I said a

number of days ago, that the federal minister does come forward with some aid

package for those fishermen to take care of their problems, the plant workers

and all those affected. I hope he does. But having said that, I am a little

disappointed today with the hon. member's resolution which is a common

occurrence here in the Legislature. It seems that members of the government,

particularly, government members for the most part, almost to a person, call

upon the federal government for assistance, which I support, and I think the

federal government should participate, but it is almost like they have shirked

their responsibility as members of a provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not everybody.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, not everybody. I said almost to a

person, so that left those out who legitimately should be left out, but having

said that, the majority of government members who -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has placed a couple of amendments so we

should now rule on them if the hon. member doesn't mind. To make sure we have it

done correctly, does the hon. member have someone second his resolution?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. SPEAKER: Just so everybody understands, the amendment

was in two forms. First of all, it was the addition of another resolve and then

there was an amendment to a further resolve, and the effect of both really is to

broaden the scope of the amendment, so I rule that it is in order. I just want

to say again to hon. members that they might want to look at this. Our Standing

Orders are very lax with respect to private member's resolutions. In other

Houses they are much more stringent and they would not allow any more than one

resolve, but we don't do that so it makes it difficult sometimes, as hon.

members know. We don't do that so it can't be ruled out of order. And, of

course, as to the amendments, the effect of both is just to broaden the scope,

so I rule both in order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for

Carbonear has some problem.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I ask the member for one minute to

speak.

MR. TOBIN: No, you will lose your time then.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is going to be taken from my time then.

MR. TOBIN: The answer is, no.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member doesn't want to.

The hon. member may continue.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is not that I don't want to be

co-operative, Mr. Speaker. I am just trying to get my few remarks out in the

time that I have, having broadened the resolution to include those other -

MR. HEARN: (Inaudible) let him speak.

MR. TOBIN: Let him get up and make his speech for the

Liberals.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I was saying it seems to be a

shirking of responsibility by members opposite. Every time they rise on an

issue, a crisis, in Newfoundland and Labrador about Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, the people they were elected to the Legislature to represent - of

course, as I said, I have no difficulty with them calling upon the federal

government for assistance, but they never propose that their government,

themselves, the government most and first responsible to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, ever contribute to any kind of an assistance program.

It is kind of hard to follow that kind of thinking and that kind of logic

because they are the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. The government in

DR. KITCHEN: It is a foreign country.

MR. MATTHEWS: It is a foreign country, the Minister of

Finance says. The only thing foreign in this country to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians is the government that the Minister of Finance is part of.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are wondering really why they exist. What are

they all about? What do they do for us? I see the Minister of Fisheries smiling.

I don't know if he is smiling in agreement or if he is smiling with amusement.

There he is nodding. I don't know if he is nodding with approval or nodding in

dismay at my statement. People all over the Province are asking the question,

What is this provincial government responsible for? Why don't they do something

for us?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fairness and balance.

MR. MATTHEWS: Fairness and balance. The fairness and

balances do nothing, Mr. Speaker. That is fairness and balance. I suppose it is

hard to be off balance when you don't do anything, I say to the Minister of

Finance. It is hard to be off balance when you don't do anything day in and day

out. I am sure when the members opposite try to tell their constituents what

they have done for them since they became the government, they must have a

nightmare trying to come up with it. They must get their ideas from nightmares,

because they don't propose to do anything.

The Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and the Member for

Fortune - Hermitage have some very serious problems in their areas. We all have

problems in our areas. Their area, the Southwest Coast particularly, has a

serious problem - the Member for LaPoile. But do you ever hear them stand in

their place or say anything publicly that they feel that the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador should develop an assistance program to help those

people in their areas who are hurting so badly? Never will you hear it. Never.

Why? Why? Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) from Ottawa (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: You are waiting for everything from Ottawa.

There you go again, Mr. Speaker. You are waiting for everything from Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, everything from Ottawa! You kick

Ottawa, and you kick Ottawa, and you kick Ottawa, and, at the same time, every

day you are asking Ottawa for more money.

AN HON. MEMBER: We were not waiting for the (inaudible)

to do the environmental impact in Long Harbour.

MR. MATTHEWS: You were waiting on them for everything.

That is another story, Long Harbour. I know what happened in Long Harbour in

1989. I can still remember the television coverage of the Premier out there

shaking hands with them when he told them coming off work: 'You take care of me

and I will take care of you.' I remember it all too well. I am sure that within

the next twelve months we will see it on television again, I say to the hon.

member, with the caption underneath: Now, really, what did Clyde do for you

after you took care of him? I am sure we will see it. I am sure the people of

the Province will be reminded, the same as a lot of the things the Liberal Party

said in their campaign document, what they were going to do for fishermen, and

catch failure - insurance, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. He hasn't

implemented one bit of it.

We do have a serious problem here, in other areas of the

Province. That is why I amended the resolution to include that 'Further

be it

resolved' because we are going to have a problem in Labrador and areas of the

Northeast Coast,where people are not going to be able to fish.

MR. WINSOR: The ice moved in today.

MR. MATTHEWS: The ice moved in today, the Member for Fogo

says. So you know the problem we have there.

The other problem we have, of course, is that if they could

get out to fish are they going to catch any fish? Will there be any there to

catch? That is the other thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) know for sure what we are

asking now (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Exactly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I am not changing anything, I say. It

is still in there: 'Be it resolved that this House go on record as asking the

Department of Employment and Immigration to extend the unemployment insurance

benefits to these South Coast fishermen, as was done for the Northeast Coast

fishermen in the 1991 season.' We have not changed that, and we agree with

calling for that, so we are not weakening it. But we are also recognizing that

we are going to have another problem in Labrador and other areas of the

Northeast Coast with ice, so why not incorporate that into the resolution, as

well?

We could have waited for another week and have another member

on this side get up and do a private member's resolution on Labrador and the

Northeast Coast, I say to the member. We would have done that, but we don't see

where we are taking away from the hon. member's resolution. We support it, I say

to him. We support it strongly and hope that the federal minister and the

federal government come up with a few dollars. They may be able to come up with

a few dollars even more quickly, I say to the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir,

if he can convince his counterpart, the Minister of Fisheries, to put in a few

dollars, as well, to a package of some sort. Maybe he will. It is always easier

to get something from someone else if you have a few dollars in your pocket and

say, 'We are willing to do this.' But when it is consistently one way, you have

to ask the question: How much longer will it continue, or can it continue? That

is the question.

The member should do some lobbying with his minister, and his

ministers over there, the Member for Fortune Hermitage, the Member for LaPoile.

They should all be doing that. But it is so popular these days to blame it all

on the feds, to slap it all in their lap. You blame them for the failure. Then

you knock them for some money and if they don't give the money you knock them,

but you never say what you are willing to do about the situation - never a

suggestion of what this provincial government is going to do for anyone. I don't

know.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as saying that, in

essence, the position of this provincial government as espoused by the Premier

today is that he supports a moratorium, by the way, inside the 200-mile limit,

by Canadian deep-sea offshore vessels. He supports that. We pinned him down

today and he supports it.

So can you imagine the fallout there is going to be if that

fishery is eliminated? Can you imagine the plant workers and the trawlermen, and

all the other businesses in those communities where offshore plants are located,

if the Premier's suggestion is accepted? I believe very strongly that the

Premier is advocating and recommending to the federal government the elimination

of the deep-sea fishery. But, I asked him today, if his suggestion, if this

moratorium is imposed, what plans does the Premier have for those people in

rural Newfoundland? What plans? I didn't ask him how much money he was going to

put in. I asked: 'What plans do you have? Do you know what the fallout will be,

how many plants will close, how many trawlermen will be unemployed, how many

fish plant workers will be unemployed, how many other small businesses will go

bankrupt, if there is a moratorium placed on the deep-sea fishery? So what plans

do you have to deal with that, Mr. Premier?' And he had no suggestions. What did

he do? He attacked me -

MR. TOBIN: Asking him what plans he had.

MR. MATTHEWS: - for asking what plans he had. The Premier

of Newfoundland and Labrador got upset because I asked him what plans he had as

Premier, as Leader of the Government of the Province, to deal with that crisis.

MR. TOBIN: And he attacked you.

MR. MATTHEWS: He attacked me, got upset, accused me of

all kinds of things. I am only asking for the people out and about the Province

who are asking me on a daily basis: 'What is going to happen to us?' Two days,

down in our area of the Province, my colleague and I, last Monday and Tuesday,

twenty-five or twenty-six different groups made presentations to us. They are

asking the question: 'What is going to happen to us? Who has a plan to keep body

and soul together?' Those are the questions they are asking, very legitimate

questions. They are very concerned about what might happen to them, fearing the

worst, thinking it is all going to come down around their ears, particularly in

light of the statements by the Chief Executive Officer of Fishery Products

International over the last few days. They are very, very concerned.

It is incumbent upon the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to have a plan for those people, I say to the Minister of Fisheries,

who is listening and making notes, and I am sure he is going to respond. It is

incumbent upon this Minister of Fisheries and this provincial government to have

a plan for those people. They are very suspicious, frustrated, out and about

this Province. They feel abandoned, I say to members opposite. They are very

cynical of politicians of whatever stripe, whatever level, whether it is

municipal, provincial, or federal. They are very cynical people out and about

today about politicians and politics. They question our motives, our sincerity.

It is all because they don't feel that anyone is paying enough attention to

their problems. That is the reason. They don't think we are taking our jobs

seriously enough, I say to members opposite.

So it is time that members opposite - they are the government

of the day. The people elected them to be their government, to look after their

problems, to find solutions, to assist, where necessary. But what have they done

since they have been elected, except throw up their hands and say: 'It is

Ottawa's problem. You deal with it, Mr. Ottawa.'

So I want to say to the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir that

it is a very serious resolution that he has put forward, one that I totally

support. We have broadened it a bit to include other areas that are having or

will have problems. We are asking that the $800 gear-up allowance, which was

paid to a number of our fishermen, be expanded to include all of those,

including those on the South and Southwest Coasts, who were omitted for some

reason, unjustifiably omitted from that program. We are asking that they be

included, and others.

All over this Province there were pockets of catch failure

this year. And how they came up with the decisions on who got it and who did not

is mind-boggling, Mr. Speaker. It is mind-boggling how some people were omitted

and others received it. There are accusations that people received the $800

gear-up allowance who didn't deserve it. There are claims that there were a lot

of people who were legitimate, really should have received it, and didn't

receive it. So that is the question that has to be addressed, and the hon.

member is correct in that.

But I want to say to him, there are other areas of catch

failure around the Province that did not get addressed either and we are calling

on this resolution, we are asking this resolution, amending it to ask that those

people be included as well -

MR. TOBIN: Labrador.

MR. MATTHEWS: -yes, Labrador for the ice, and other areas

of the Province where there are catch failures that were omitted for some reason

or other, that they be included, so it is a very, very serious resolution.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) amendment.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, that is up to him, they can vote as

they feel free on the amendment.

MR. TOBIN: If they want to vote against Labrador, they

can.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well I think Labrador should be included,

if not we will be back here next week with another resolution, as I said

earlier, calling for an extension because of the ice problems. Not only Labrador

but other areas, so -

MR. TOBIN: Well if they do not want Labrador, let them

vote against it.

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying

to members opposite that it is a very serious resolution, it is time that the

provincial government decided to help out in areas of great need, of which there

are many in the Province and start putting a few dollars back. Your fiscal

strategies have backfired on you, your financial position has worsened, you

cannot blame the financial position of the Province on that, that you have spent

all this money helping people out with work generation, employment generation,

you have done very little of that, so why don't you change your strategies, and

this is one area now where you can start the change. Give the Minister of

Fisheries the authority, have Cabinet give him the authority to go up and have

discussions with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and say: Mr.

Minister - well this minister would say John, and he would call him Walter

because they are fairly good friends, they go back a long way, I have a couple

of million dollars that I want to put into a program with you -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and I would say that if that is the case

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: - Mr. Speaker, in concluding, the federal

minister might be far more receptive to helping the problem that the Member for

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, so rightfully identified.

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

MR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take some pleasure I guess, in taking

part in this debate

this afternoon because it follows up some initiatives taken by the Province

recently when we wrote the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and pointed

out to him the seriousness of the situation and asked that he do something about

it.

Now the hon. gentlemen opposite seem to get a little charge

out of the fact that we write letters to the minister. I do not know what other

means there is of communicating. We could, I suppose try to bring back the

carrier pigeon or maybe the jungle drums or maybe smoke signals but given the

fact, Mr. Speaker, that the federal minister is operating in an office a couple

or 3,000 miles away, I suppose the most effective way of trying to communicate

with him and to get something on record would be by way of a letter.

Mr. Speaker, the history of the fishery on the southwest and

south coast of our Province is a shameful indictment against the managers of the

resource, namely of course the federal government, because whether or not my

friends opposite, who are now obviously acting as the agents of the Mulroney

government, agents of Mr. Crosbie, the defenders of the government in Ottawa,

they appear to be more interested, Mr. Speaker, in protecting their federal

bosses than in doing something to help the Newfoundland fishing industry and

fishermen. I think the Premier today, summed it up pretty well when he posed a

question to them: who are they working for?... is it for the people who elected

them to sit in this Legislature and represent their interests or are they

working for Mr. Crosbie and Mr. Valcourt and Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Joe Clark and

others in Ottawa?

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the history of the fishery on the

south and southwest coast of our Province, the way it has been allowed to

deteriorate over the years, is a terrible indictment against the federal

government and one that I am sure even the gentlemen opposite, in their

enthusiasm to defend Ottawa, must find extremely difficult to do. It is obvious

- and I must again repeat what the Premier said this afternoon, when he talked

about their behaviour and how almost on a daily basis they are on their feet

trying to put the Province on the spot, trying to point the finger at the

Province and to ask: what are we doing about it?

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously their intention not only to

defend their federal bosses but to deflect some of the blame from where it

rightfully belongs. That is, of course, on the shoulders of the federal

government.

The gentleman from Grand Bank, the House Leader, today made a

great fuss over the fact that the Premier is maybe suggesting that a moratorium

be placed on the deep sea fleet within the 200-mile limit. Now, Mr. Speaker, if

the member is on top of things, as he should be, he must realize that what his

federal boss, Mr. Crosbie, did a few weeks ago was in effect impose a moratorium

on the offshore fleet, but he did it under another guise. But it would have been

far more beneficial for Canada, and it would certainly have strengthened

Canada's hand had the federal minister gone the extra mile. In effect, what he

has done is placed a moratorium on the offshore fishing fleet, certainly in

terms of the northern cod, yet he has done it in such a way that Canada will get

no credit for it.

As we all know, the hon. gentleman, when he came down to the

Province a month or so ago and announced his revised management plan, stated

that the allocation or the quota for the offshore fleet would be reduced just

enough to cover that which is required as a by-catch quota, just a very few

thousands of tons. The Premier has been saying, and I of course agree, that it

would have been much more effective and would have had a far greater influence

on the European community, for example, had the minister gone all the way and

announced a moratorium on the Canadian deep sea fishing, certainly in the short

term. What we have done now is we are inflicting the pain on the companies

concerned, but we are not getting any credit for it. Again, that is regrettable.

Mr. Speaker, the problem on the south coast - I has senior

people in my department during the past week or ten days visit the areas

concerned on the south coast and parts of the southwest coast of the Province,

to conduct meetings with the fishermen and fishermen's committees and to see

first hand what was happening up there. Of course my colleague, the Member for

Burgeo - Bay D'Espoir pretty well took us through a tour of the district in his

speech and gave us a rundown as to precisely what has been happening there in

terms of the fishery catches.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that there is a very serious

crisis facing the people, the fishermen in that area. In the community of

Francois, for example, the winter fishery has been a total failure with only

about 30,000 pounds taken in the January to March period. That is considerably

lower than that which was caught in other years. Mr. Speaker, I have gone in

most of these communities, and I must agree with my friend opposite, these are

good, hard working, independent people who, given a chance, will survive. But

thanks to the bad management of the fishery resource by the federal government

these people have not been given a chance. Now, of course, the federal

government is turning its back on the people concerned, the innocent victims of

this bad management policy of the present government in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, that was what prompted me to write the minister

on April 28, where I outlined the problem in the communities affected and

requested that the minister extend to these people the same benefits that he has

extended to people in other parts of Atlantic Canada for, of course, the obvious

reason, that these people have experienced the same kind of failure as had the

fishermen in other parts of the Atlantic area, and there is no reason at all why

they should be denied the benefits that have already been accorded to fishermen

in other parts of the Atlantic area.

I have not received a reply yet to my letter to the minister

but I am hoping that he will give it a lot of thought and respond in a positive

way, because the people concerned are looking forward to that kind of a

response. I do not know what other choice they have. Gentlemen opposite, as I

said, try to put the finger on the Province and to attribute blame to the

Province and ask what are we doing about it. Well, Mr. Speaker, again the answer

to that silly question is obvious. That the responsibility for managing the

fishery, responsibility for establishing the total allowable catch,

responsibility for designating who is going to catch what where, and how much

and when, that responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of the federal

government. Now they must be prepared to accept responsibility for some of the

problems caused by their bad judgement and bad decisions.

To expect the Province to do it is not only unfair but it is

absolute and utter madness. Because the problem is so severe, and would cost so

much to remedy, that the Province could not possibly find the money to do it. So

therefore they perform a grave disservice to the Province and to the people who

elected them to come to this place and to represent them when they try to shift

the blame and to take the heat off the federal government. I am sure their

federal soul mates in Ottawa must be very grateful to them every time they do

that.

The entire fishery, as I see it, on the south coast of our

Province has all but collapsed. My friend and colleague here gave some figures.

For example, concerning Ramea, which is an old historic Newfoundland fishing

community, where in 1986, as he says, the fishermen there harvested 936,000

pounds. Almost a million pounds. In 1991, 156,000 pounds. But lo and behold, in

1992 the same community, with I suppose probably an increased effort, certainly

no less effort, the total harvest in that community, for the same period this

year, now is roughly 50,000 pounds. That has been the story in pretty well all

the communities on that coast.

The winter fishery, for example, in Franois, in the January

to April period in 1991, saw 201,204 pounds of codfish landed. In the same

period this year, 60,000 pounds. Sixty thousand pounds this year against over

200,000 pounds last year. Of course, last year was not that good a year either.

In Burgeo, another long-established historic Newfoundland fishing community,

January to April of 1991, inshore fishery in Burgeo saw a yield of 333,000

pounds. In the same period this year, less than half that much, in fact, 160,000

pounds, and that included redfish and cod.

MR. GILBERT: Twenty thousand pounds of cod (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Twenty thousand pounds of cod, my friend

tells me, and 140,000 pounds of less valuable and less labour-intensive redfish.

So you can see that town has been devastated, been actually devastated by virtue

of the reduction in landings.

In the community of Ramea, last year there were landings of

groundfish of 157,000 pounds. This year, a little over 50,000 pounds. More

devastation. For a community that has survived I suppose for the past 200 years,

and whose economy is based solely on the fishery, so that is the way it goes on

that coast, every single community.

Grey River, another small isolated Newfoundland community. I

have gone there several times, as a matter of fact, and I suppose there is not a

more independent or harder working group of people in this Province than you

will find in Grey River. They are totally isolated, people who live by their

initiative and get very little help from anybody. This year in Grey River the

fishery has again been a total flop and they are like most other people on the

southwest coast, and the south coast, they are not getting any help whatever

from the federal government even thought the policies of the government that has

caused the problem, the responsibility for that rests solely on the shoulders of

the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite can squirm all they like,

they can try and deflect the burden for what has happened from their federal

friends to the Province but it is not going to work. I think the fishermen in

those communities know this very well. They are not stupid, they know very well

who is responsible for the management of the resource, and they know that the

Province is doing the right thing when we look to the federal government for the

kind of help that is going to be necessary to enable them to keep body and soul

together during this critical period.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much longer it will take the

federal government to respond to our request for assistance but on the basis of

information I have, and conversations I have had with the hon. gentleman who has

visited the area quite frequently in the past couple of months, the people there

just cannot hold out much longer. Things are really tough, they are finding it

difficult to make ends meet and without some kind of federal help they will have

no choice but to seek help from the Department of Social Services. I suspect,

Mr. Speaker, knowing the people of that coast like I do, and while there is

nothing wrong with being forced on social services, on welfare, that certainly

for those people it will be a foreign experience because very few of them have

ever had to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. gentleman's resolution and I

hope the House will support it, and I hope the Opposition will support it

without trying to muddy the waters by introducing amendments just to score maybe

a cheap political point - and that is what they have done, in order to make

themselves look good and to try and jump on the bandwagon they have offered an

amendment to the resolution which really is quite different from the body and

the intent of the original resolution.

I am hoping that they will cut out their nonsense and do what

needs to be done, support the resolution presented by the Member for Burgeo -

Bay d'Espoir and next week, if the problem still exists, then why not introduce

maybe another resolution having to do with the other problem? Certainly, I do

not think they should try to water down what is the intent of this resolution

and muddy the waters, all of which will have the effect of just giving their

federal friends in Ottawa an alibi not to do anything. Maybe that is the purpose

of it, maybe that is the purpose of their amendment to the resolution because in

so doing, in introducing the amendment and broadening the area that we are now

seeking help for, there is less chance that the federal government will respond.

Maybe that is the real reason why they saw fit to introduce the amendment,

knowing very well that in so doing they would, if not kill the original motion,

then they would certainly water it down to the point where the federal

government would not come to the rescue.

Mr. Speaker, again I support the resolution presented by my

colleague and respectfully request that all members present do likewise.

Thank you, very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

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

First of all let me say that I support the resolution. I also

support the resolution as amended. Unlike the previous speaker who apparently

has not read the amendment very clearly, the amendment does absolutely nothing

to water down the resolution. It does a tremendous amount to strengthen the

resolution and to take care of some people who were affected by the resolution.

The resolution itself has not been changed. The body of the

resolution is exactly the same as it was when it was submitted by the member.

The resolution as amended does absolutely nothing to change the resolution as

submitted by the member. The member, being a private member, in submitting the

resolution to the House, asked all of us to support his request to the federal

government to assist residents within his own area. That is fair and proper, but

what we as members of the House must realize is that also in other areas of the

Province, and we must look after the Province generally, there are people who

are affected in the exact same way. As we discuss this resolution in the House,

there are parts of the Province today where the fishery cannot start because of

ice moving into the area. So if you are going to extend benefits for one reason

because of the failure of a fishery, which is right and fair and proper and

legitimate, then it is only right and fair and proper and legitimate that you

ask the feds to extend benefits also to people in an area where they cannot

fish.

The BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED section, where the House asked the

federal Department of Fisheries to pay $800 dollar gear-up allowance which was

paid to certain fishermen in the Province and in Nova Scotia in March, to all

fisherpersons - not just in the area for the member. There were people affected

in other areas, legitimate fishermen who were affected just as much as the

fishermen in the area from which the member comes, the area which he represents.

Let me give an example of that, because I was perhaps the one who suggested the

amendment.

The $800 gear-up allowance which was given to skippers could

not be given to every fisherperson because what would have happened then, it

would have been a complete and utter disaster, because the Department of

Fisheries made a mess of it as it is. The whole thing was a complete and utter

mess trying to decide who deserved it and who did not. They admit themselves

that it was extremely complicated. It is like all gear replacement programs of

the past and everything else. You take a list of names from a computer or

something, with nothing checked out, and send out cheques. Some of the people

had not fished for years, and others who were legitimately involved and should

have received the benefit did not receive it at all. If they had given the $800

to everyone, or $100 to everyone, they would look at a list of people registered

as licensed fishermen, or fisherpersons, and one of the major problems we have

today in the fishery in Newfoundland, especially when it pertains to looking for

assistance, whether it be from the federal government or the provincial

government or CEIC or anyone else, one of the biggest problems we have is that

nobody knows who is fishing and who is not. All they can go by is who is listed

as having a licence and who has been involved in the fishery.

There are many people in this Province today who hold fishing

licences who never get in a boat, who do not own a boat, who would not know a

boat if they saw one. We have a tremendous amount of people on the list holding

licences who do not fish. The unfortunate thing about that, to carry it further,

if they say: Well we will only pay it to those who drew income from the fishery

and received UI benefits, once again, unfortunately for those who are truly

hardworking legitimate fisherpersons, there are many who receive, on paper,

benefits from the fishery, who show landings and sales and who receive UI

benefits, who did not catch the fish, sell the fish, or benefit from the fish in

any way except to receive the income on paper, and receive UI because of it.

That is having a disastrous effect on the legitimate people who are involved in

the fishery, because it is costly and it is time-consuming to try to sort all of

that stuff out. It plays havoc with any programs that are brought in, and it

causes all kinds of disturbances.

So the first thing the Department of Fisheries has to do is

clean up its own act and determine who is a fisherperson and who is not. That

does not eliminate those who are not full-time fisherpersons. If you eliminate

in Newfoundland the part-time fishermen, you are eliminating some very solid

worthwhile contributors to the economy of this Province who in many cases

without them it would be impossible for the local fishing facilities, the

plants, the processing facilities to operate.

The big question to ask anybody is: if you really had to say

that the only full-time legitimate fisherman is one who does nothing else but

fish and he obtains all his income from the fishery, how many really truly

legitimate fishermen or people in this Province would fit in that category? In

Newfoundland you always scrabbled to make a living. If it meant fishing, farming

and picking blueberries, you fished, farmed and picked blueberries and you made

a living. That is not to say that we can tolerate perhaps in the days of scarce

resources people who have a steady long-term year round job and who get their

holidays and go out and set cod traps perhaps and take large amounts of fish

from legitimate people or take their cod berths. But it doesn't say either that

a fellow who gets a few months work carpentry or something during the year or

gets a week in the winter doing a part-time job can't go out in the summer as

they always did and catch a few fish and try to make up a living by gathering

together every dollar he can scrape up. So these are things we have to consider.

So consequently when it comes to the $800 dollars, the people

who received it - the skippers who received it, undoubtedly it was a benefit to

help them gear-up for the spring. But there were people in other parts of the

Province, including the area on the southwest coast, which because of its

uniqueness has experienced all kinds of problems in the fishery, who

legitimately deserve that $800 and should get it. I have no argument with that.

But I also say that there are other people in other parts of the Province who

deserve it just as legitimately. Let me give you an example.

Down the northeast coast and down the east coast right to

Cape Race people received the $800 start-up allowance. Now if you ask DFO why

did they get it they will tell you they got it because their fishing season last

year was affected by the lateness of the season starting, because of ice. I am

having problems because of ice now too, speaking of ice. But what happened last

spring, because of the severe ice conditions that we had, a lot of fishermen,

certainly on the Labrador Coast, down the northeast coast, and as far south as

Cape Race could not set their traps or put out their gill nets. They couldn't do

anything perhaps except jig (inaudible) for jigging, hand lining, or trawling.

That time of the year it is basically a gill net and cod trap in particular

along our shore. But you can't very well set a cod trap in your berth if there

is a bloody big iceberg there, and that is what happened.

You drove down around Pouch Cove, Flat Rock, Portugal Cove

and up the Southern Shore through Witless Bay, Bay Bulls, Ferryland and Renews

and all those places, all cod trap fishing areas. Up until the end of June

parked in every prime fishing berth you had one or more icebergs, so the

fishermen couldn't fish. But also during that time, those who could test the

possibilities of going fishing in those areas, related the fact that there were

no fish anyway. It wasn't just because of the icebergs. It was because perhaps

of the effect of ice on the water and everything else, but there was very little

fish around.

So what happened right around the turn off Cape Race? The

water temperature was the same. The fishery started exceptionally late. There

were a few icebergs, enough to deter some people from setting. But they were

told they did not qualify because really they weren't prevented from fishing

because of ice, but because of the cold water temperatures and the type of

weather we had, they also had a delayed fishing seasons, and even when they

could put their gear in the water all they got was slub. Because of the cold

temperatures and the lack of fish. There was no fish in the area either.

But they got no benefit. The DFO, CEIC, refused to extend

benefits to these people because: you were not affected by the ice and our

decision was only those who get extended benefits are those who are affected by

ice.

So what happened, Mr. Speaker? Well, as it happened, on parts

of the east coast, the northeast, east coast in particular and the southeast

coast, it wasn't a bad fishing season once they got started. They did relatively

well. There were trap crews who did better than they have done for years and

years. Late starting, but high volume once the fishery started. So these people

got their UIC extended, and legitimately so, because they could not fish, from

the middle of May up until the middle or the end of June. So they received extra

benefits. Then they had a good fishing season, or at least most of them did.

They did very well in the fishery.

But because of the program that was brought in the same time

as the extended benefits, because they were affected by the ice, and because

they were late starting, overlooking how well they did, they were now given this

$800 gear-up for the following year. You were late starting last year because of

ice, not because of anything else, because of ice conditions, so you get

extended benefits up front and you get $800 on the tail end. In between, many of

them had a good fishing season.

Now right around the turn, even though, like I say, they were

just as much affected, not as directly affected by ice to a great degree, but

affected enough to throw off their fishing season, but the affect of the ice on

the water and so on, which kept the fish away anyway, even if those on the

southern shore could fish they would not have gotten anything, it wasn't there.

But in St. Mary's Bay they were late catching fish, and in parts of the Bay, the

north end in particular, the fishery was a complete and utter failure.

So number one, these people did not get the extended

benefits. They were beyond the line, even though the seasons coincide perfectly.

They were not eligible for the $800 now, because they were not affected by ice

last year, and they had a poor season. So they ended up with nothing at all,

while others ended up with extended benefits, good summer, and $800 to boot. So

therein lies the reason why we suggest that the $800 be paid not only to the

southwest coast, where they legitimately deserve it, but also to the specific

areas where they were affected by the type of season we had last year, and where

their season was just as big a failure or worse than the southwest coast.

So that is the reason for it. I do not think anybody can

dispute that. Whether that be in - I was going to say Port de Grave, but these

people qualified - it would have to be around the turn off Cape Race. Because

people in St. Mary's Bay and perhaps part of Placentia Bay had poor fishing

seasons and like I say qualified for either extended benefits or the $800

gear-up. So that is why we have made the amendments.

Let me refer to a few of the remarks made by the Minister of

Fisheries. The Minister of Fisheries in supporting - question mark - the

resolution apparently did not read the amendment, as I said. Because as a

Minister of Fisheries he should be all for supporting this. What did he do when

he got up? He just berated the Opposition for defending the federal government.

Now, how in God's name can you say we are defending the federal government when

we are going above and beyond the request made by the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir in asking that they spend more money?

We are not asking them, say: oh no, you can't ask the feds,

you can't ask our friends the feds to pay out money to the southwest coast. We

can't do that. We not only did that, we not only said, yes, they should pay the

people on the Southwest Coast, we are also saying they should also pay others in

need that they neglected to cover when they brought in the program last spring.

That is certainly not defending the feds, that is calling upon them to do what

they should do, what is just and fair.

The minister didn't leave it at that. The minister goes on to

say, 'Oh, they were the managers of the resource and it is all their fault.' Let

me ask the Minister of Fisheries, who should be the leader in the fight to

preserve what we have in Newfoundland and what we have built on the fishery, the

minister who is known internationally, nationally, and certainly provincially as

a complete and utter wimp when it comes to fishing matters, says -

It is hard to be nice when the minister gets up and berates

the Member for Grand Bank for defending the feds when he is asking the feds to

put in more money and look after the people in Newfoundland who deserve it. But

the provincial government has responsibilities which they have completely and

utterly shirked.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: They are the managers of the resource. Yes,

they are the managers of the resource, and why was it allowed to deteriorate?

Because it was managed poorly, but also because not only has government

management and mismanagement or whatever, based upon scientific advice as good

or bad as it was, but because of the companies that did not give a hoot about

the fishery, who went out there to get everything they could get in any manner

in which they could catch it, and we cannot take the blame off individual

fishermen, the skippers and the crews and everyone else, who will say to you,

'We were just as much at fault as anybody else because we just went out there

and caught what we could catch. We threw away what we didn't want, and we didn't

worry about counting or accountability or anything else. So we are all to blame

there. We just cannot blame the government.'

What has happened, I wonder, during the time when all of this

big rush was on, when the government ignored what was happening and when the

companies went out after everything they could get? What did the Province do,

and who was the Minister of Fisheries during some of these years? The Minister

of Fisheries happened to be the very hon. gentleman who is now complaining about

what went on. What did he do? He ran around the Province giving out fish plants

like they were bubble gum. Every little nook and cranny that wanted a fish plant

got it. We have eight up in St. Mary's Bay, in every community, a plant here and

a plant there - 'If you want a plant, here is a plant,' and they all got fish

plants. What do you do if you have a fish plant? You have to try to get fish to

put in it. Then everybody goes out and catches fish. A lot of people said,

'Sure, we cannot get enough fish.' What did he do then, as Minister of

Fisheries? He said, 'Go get bigger boats.' And they said, 'Well, we can't afford

bigger boats.' 'Well,' he said, 'I am running for the leadership, so I will give

you bigger boats.' And many fishermen around this Province got into big boats

that they will tell you they should never have gotten into, convinced to get

into them by the provincial Department of Fisheries, by the present minister who

is now doing all the wimping about mismanagement of the resource. If starting up

fish plants all over the Province and giving out bigger boats to fishermen to

pursue the resource is not encouraging people to go out and catch fish, then how

can you say they didn't have a part to play?

AN HON. MEMBER: Two for a dollar, he told them.

MR. HEARN: I will not talk about prices. That is for

somebody else who might know more about the matter.

The fact is that a number of boats were given out at that

time, and fish plants were started all over the place during the very reign of

this present minister. Now, who is responsible for that, the feds? Who is

responsible for licensing fish processing facilities in the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Province.

MR. HEARN: The Province, through the Minister of

Fisheries. Who is responsible for licensing boats? You might say the feds. But

who encouraged them to get into the boats? The Province - to bring in fish to

keep all of these little plants going. So who is just as responsible as the

feds, and as the companies, and perhaps as all of us for the mismanagement? The

Province, the Minister of Fisheries, and especially, at that time, the Minister

of Fisheries, who is now the pontificat