May 18,

1994 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLII

No. 44

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

Speaker's gallery, three college officials from the People's Republic of China -

Mr. Kuang Shitan, President of Chengdu Electromechanical College (CEC), Mr. Ding

Zhenming, Vice-President of the corporation and Mr. Wu Zhangping, project

officer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Premier, as leader of the government, dealing with the current teachers strike.

We are now into the third day of this particular strike that's affecting the

education of more than 100,000 students and has put in jeopardy, I guess, the

final evaluations of students who expect to or hope to graduate this year, and

still there doesn't appear to be any sign of any attempt by the government over

the past three days to get back to the bargaining table.

First of all, I'd like to ask the Premier, as leader of the

government, is his government serious or even interested in finding a negotiated

solution to the teachers strike right now? I'm not asking (inaudible).

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as we have stated many times, we

are anxious to get to the negotiating table so that we can put our teams

together to try to work out a solution to this problem. At some point in the

past three or four months, dating back to January, I only wish we had been able

to get our teams of professionals together to try solve this problem; we have

not. I hope this will occur in the very near future.

In the past three days, Mr. Speaker, two-and-a-half days -

since Sunday night, we've been examining and preparing a response to a position

put by the NLTA in response to a meeting that we had the previous Thursday

night, a very long meeting. That response will go to the NLTA this afternoon. So

the lines of communication are open and there are positions being exchanged.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the President of Treasury

Board for his update on the negotiations.

I ask the Premier: Is his government serious about trying to

find a negotiated settlement - his government?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question again.

We are absolutely serious about trying to find a negotiated settlement that is

consistent with our position.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let me try again. Let me ask the

Premier. We all know there is only one reason not to negotiate and that is when

you don't want to negotiate. Now, it is clear from all the reports - and the

Premier commented on it this morning so I don't know why he wouldn't comment in

the House - government has been determined from the beginning to try to take $23

million from the teachers' compensation by getting rid of the 2 per cent clause

and by reducing pension contributions.

I want to ask the Premier, can he, as leader of this

government, tell the people of the Province that you are prepared to sit down

now and genuinely negotiate any of those issues with the NLTA?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the NLTA has not been willing to

put its negotiating team to work. They feel they have no mandate from their

membership to negotiate any kind of a concession, not one single dollar's worth

of concession. Their position is, that because of that they cannot put their

negotiating team to work. That's what is happening.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a wasted effort to

try to get the Premier to say anything about it. Let me ask him anyway, and

maybe he will comment. This morning, in particular, he is quoted by news reports

referring to the negotiations and what might happen in the future. We have heard

the concerns of teachers. We all know the concerns of the teachers, and we now

have been hearing public reports of the concerns of parents.

Today, my colleague, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, our

education critic, has an important petition containing hundreds of names

expressing concerns of students. They want to know if the government has another

agenda. So, I want to ask the Premier, based on the news reports this morning,

comments he made, has the government already made up its mind to legislate an

end to this strike at some point soon and, at the same time, impose a settlement

on the teachers that you want by legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury

Board speaks for the government on these matters of negotiation. That is why he

is doing it, and he is going to speak for the government on the matter. Now,

occasionally, I am interviewed by the news media and they will say, somebody

interviewed me in the last couple of days. Are you prepared to introduce

legislation? My response was, whether or not we need to introduce legislation

will have to be determined in the future, but the government can't be rushing

into in the legislation every time that it runs into difficulty in the

collective bargaining process. If it were to do that, it would destroy the

collective bargaining process, so the answer is no -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is no, we are not now planning

legislation. Will it be necessary in the future? I don't know. What will the

future bring? We will make the decision on the basis of the situation at the

time.

I read in the paper today that I hinted, I hinted at

legislation; I did no such thing. I answered a question from a newspaper

reported and my answer was: no, we are not intending to bring in any

legislation, whether or not it will be necessary in the future, the future will

decide, but it would be inappropriate for the government to seek to bring in

legislation simply because it is running into difficulty with collective

bargaining. Let the collective bargaining process try and achieve the result

that's desired by both parties.

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

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier can't have it

both ways. Either he is prepared to comment on it publicly and in this House, or

he is not prepared to comment on it, one thing or the other, he can't have it

both ways. Let me ask him a final question again, the question I asked earlier

and did not get a straight answer to as far as I am concerned, and this is a

government position that I am asking about.

The Premier of the Province is the leader of the government.

On the two issues I referred to earlier, the 2 per cent clause and reducing the

pension contributions, is the government prepared to genuinely negotiate either

of those two issues?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The President of the Treasury Board speaks

for the government on the matter; he speaks for the government. Now I don't know

how much plainer I can make it. He has spoken and answered the question and he

speaks for the government on the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I will give the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition, one final question.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the Premier is not going to answer the question, I will

ask the President of Treasury Board again. I will ask him very directly: Is the

government, and you are speaking on behalf of the government on this issue, we

now just heard, is the government prepared to negotiate, genuinely negotiate on

either of those two issues with the NLTA? Let me ask him that question.

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

MR. BAKER: We have been attempting, Mr. Speaker, to get

our teams together to negotiate those and other issues certainly. This is part

of the process, certainly, absolutely. I don't know how much more clearly the

member wants me to state it; I don't know what I have to say to make him

understand, absolutely, clearly, yes, that and other issues as well.

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

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

Recently the Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers

Association ran an ad in The Evening Telegram directed to injured workers

and the problems they face with workers compensation. In response, Workers

Compensation hired a local company, provided them confidential information on

some 400 to 500 workers compensation claimants.

My question for the minister is this: Can he explain in this

House today why confidential information on some 400 to 500 injured workers in

this Province was provided to a local company to conduct a survey without the

express written permission of those people?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question

though because it is another good opportunity publicly and in this House to

explain why I wouldn't be expected to know exactly what the Workers'

Compensation Commission is doing on any one day.

Everybody here in this Legislature at least I would expect

would know very clearly - because members opposite have been involved with this

for years when they were in the government - that the Workers' Compensation

Commission itself is an autonomous body appointed by the government under a

piece of legislation, but once appointed with employer representatives, employee

representatives, and a neutral chairperson or two in that case, then they are

given full authority to make policy and operate the Workers' Compensation

Commission which is totally funded by employer contributions. No tax dollars,

not in any way connected to the government. Everybody by the way really wishes

that the government was even further removed from Workers' Compensation so that

the Workers' Compensation could go ahead and deliver the service that it is

supposed to on behalf of the unfortunate injured workers in the Province.

They do not report to me on a regular basis. We deal with the

legislation. If there is something wrong with the legislation this government,

or the members opposite if they are ever to return to office again, would deal

with it. We do not do operational decisions with respect to Workers'

Compensation. Never have since - I don't know what members opposite did when

they had people like Mr. Maynard down there as the commissioner and so on. Maybe

you called Mr. Maynard and asked him or told him what to do.

We don't do that, never have, and this minister from day to

day, other than a problem with the legislation and the framework in which they

set policy, operate and make decisions, wouldn't know what they are doing, and

if you have a problem with that, ask the chairperson or the CEO of Workers'

Compensation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the answer

I've heard. While injured workers in this Province are being crucified the

minister stands up and pretends that he is Pontius Pilate and washes his hands

clear of responsibility. That is the problem here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the minister this. The Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations is responsible for enforcement of the

Workers' Compensation Act. He as a member of the government is responsible for

appointing the boards of directors. Will he find out why confidential

information which includes, I say to the minister, medical information, personal

information, and professional information, was given to a local company without

the express written permission of those people, and will he report back to this

House why that event took place?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I may very well do that just out

of interest or curiosity but I would like to point out in the Legislature that I

would not be doing that because there is any responsibility in my role as the

minister responsible for the legislation.

If in fact these 400 or 500 injured workers - and I don't

know if what the hon. member says is accurate or not, I assume that because he

raised it in the Legislature it would be. Many times - most times - when the

hon. member raises issues in the House they are verified to be as he says. There

have been times when he has raised issues that have had no validity to them

whatsoever, so I don't know the validity of whether or not confidential

information relating to 400 or 500 claimants was passed over to a private

company by the board of directors or the CEO and staff of Workers' Compensation.

If those individuals feel aggrieved in that manner, their grievance is with the

Workers' Compensation Commission, which is not a government agency. I don't know

how many times I can tell the hon. member or the House that.

If any department of government, the department that I have

direct responsibility for, had done that and someone felt aggrieved, we would

deal with it. They should bring their question to the Workers' Compensation

Commission directly and have it dealt with.

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

for Kilbride.

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

Let me remind the minister that he is the minister

responsible for the act, and in the Workers' Compensation Act there is a

section

that deals with confidentiality. I suggest that he read it, maybe for the first

time, and he would understand clearly that it is his responsibility and he

cannot wash his hands of this - not of some interest by the minister because he

will look into it.

Let me ask him again: Injured workers in this Province are

being crucified in many ways, shapes and forms by the Workers' Compensation

Commission. Will he, as the minister, champion that cause and stand up for

injured workers in this Province - stand up and fight for them, and find out why

confidential information was given on themselves, without their permission? Will

he do that today?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, in response to the question, there are two comments I

might make. First of all, I have had an extremely good working relationship with

the Injured Workers Association of Newfoundland and Labrador since they have

been established. Every single time that they have made a request of me, as

minister, to provide information, or to assist them, or to attend meetings and

answer questions, I have done so. Every time they have requested a meeting, I

have had meetings with them. They know that I am aware of their concerns and

that they can meet with me and have anything done at any time.

This is the first I have heard of this issue. Normally I

would have expected that some representative of those 400 or 500 people, if they

are in the Association of Injured Workers, Newfoundland and Labrador, would have

contacted myself or the office. I never heard of it until today.

The second issue talks about standing up for injured workers.

This government stood up for injured workers in Newfoundland and Labrador in the

most meaningful way possible a year ago when we saved the Workers' Compensation

Commission from absolute and almost total certain bankruptcy and collapse. That

is what we did for injured workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we don't

have anything to apologize for in terms of saving the system for the injured

workers so that they will have some benefits if they are unfortunate enough to

get injured in the future.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Can the minister confirm that in excess of $100,000 will be

spent to upgrade and repair the Premier's private elevator on the eight floor of

this building this year?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that but I

will check into it to see the actual cost of servicing all of the elevators that

we have in the building that have been out of service, most of the time for the

past ten to fifteen, twenty years. The elevators in the building are very, very

old and they need major renovations and we intend to do that. The contracts have

been let but I'll get the exact amount for the hon. member.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, there's a fair amount of money that has been

allotted to do work on these four elevators, we know. We also know that the work

is not being done for free on the Premier's private elevator. With all the

restraints going on in this Province the public servants, what's happening to

teachers, money being cut out on the working group for child abuse, my

suggestion, Sir, is that the Premier, in these times of restraint, use the other

three elevators like us mere mortals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, they're getting sillier and

sillier every day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: First of all, there is no such thing in this

building as a private elevator for the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: There is no such thing as a private elevator

for the Premier in this building.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have a question for the Premier. On

April 19 and April 20 - April 19 was the day of Mr. Tobin's announcement on the

new TAGS program and the following day I questioned the Premier on the mandate

of the Fishing Industry Renewal Boards. On April 20, the Premier in a response

to my question said: he took the precaution, yesterday, of writing to Mr. Tobin

to get a clarification on the mandate of the Fishing Industry Renewal Boards

because Mr. Tobin had said in his press conference that the renewal boards only

had the mandate to reduce the harvesting of the processing sector to a minimum

of 50 per cent. I'm wondering if the Premier could inform the House whether or

not he's had a response to his letter from Mr. Tobin?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I've had verbal

discussions with Mr. Tobin about the matter. I've also had discussions with

other federal ministers. Negotiating teams have been negotiating and developing

proposals for genuine industry renewal boards that will not have, as their sole

function, down-sizing the existing processing capacity; that will have as their

function the decisions that are necessary to manage the fishery on a go forward

basis. Those discussions are underway.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you. I find the Premier's response

quite interesting because he was pretty determined, Mr. Speaker, the days I

asked - as a matter of fact, he indeed suggested that perhaps the wording in Mr.

Tobin's release and in his documents was a misprint. So obviously the Premier

didn't -

AN HON. MEMBER: Typo.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it's a typo he said. So I want to

ask the Premier, on April 20 he said as well that the Province would not

participate in the Fishing Industry Renewal Boards if they did not have a

mandate for general renewal, continued operation and development of the fishery.

Does the Province's position still remain the same or does the Premier think

that by being involved in some form of negotiation, the Province will get its

way and indeed the renewal boards will deal with the fishery of the future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Province's position

remains the same and the discussions are along the same lines. Now let me add

something, those discussions are difficult. The hon. member doesn't help it any

by taking this position. They're difficult because other provinces want to

prevent Newfoundland from having a more effective say. We're trying - we're

struggling with it to try and make sure that we achieve that for the Province. I

think we will in the end be able to achieve that for the Province if we go about

it the right way and if we don't create a great brouhaha about it. If we try and

achieve it through a sensible basis of ensuring that what we do in terms of

planning for the fishery for the future we do on a joint basis, that the

licensing be done on a joint basis in terms of licensing for catching, and in

terms of licensing for processing, that is done on a go forward basis so that

the fishery is managed with a view to its genuine renewal and not simply its

downsizing.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. Opposition

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Premier should be delighted I asked

the question, because at least I have straightened out in his mind that the

renewal boards didn't have the mandate that he thought they had. You only have

to refer to Hansard. You thought they had a broader mandate, and indeed they

didn't, and you have confirmed that because you are now up negotiating a mandate

for the boards, so you should be happy I asked the question, or else we would

have been taken in again by your federal counterparts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, has the provincial

government put a time frame, have you put a deadline on negotiations, because

thousands of fishermen and plant workers out and about this Province have been

put on hold for two years. They cannot afford to be put on hold for another

year, or two or three years. They want to make decisions about retraining either

inside or outside the fishery. It doesn't make sense for them to retrain for

inside the fishery if there is not going to be a fish plant or they are not

going to be involved in the fishery. So has the Province put a deadline on these

negotiations, and if these negotiations fall apart, when can the people of this

Province involved expect a decision from the Province, which has 100 per cent

control over the processing sector, to make a decision for those people so they

can plan the rest of their lives?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to give the

hon. member credit for, as the hon. member read, himself; when we stood up, he

read from a statement I made in the House indicating that a letter had been sent

immediately; I saw this. I sent a letter to Mr. Tobin and made it very clear.

Mr. Tobin knows the positions. Why that press release was stated in that way, I

have no way of knowing and I don't see any purpose in inquiring, quite frankly,

but the simple fact is, the only discussions that have taken place at all with

respect to renewal boards is that they be on a genuine renewal basis. That is

the only discussion that the Province intends to have with relation to that

matter.

It is going forward, and I am hopeful that it will be quite a

successful round of discussion. The Province can't set an arbitrary deadline or

time limit. I would hope, however, that there would be a resolution fairly soon.

I don't anticipate that it will take a lengthy period of time. I would hope

there will be a resolution fairly soon.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

When the decision to close several highway depots across the

Province was made a number of months ago, the reason given was, it was a

cost-cutting measure. I would like to ask the minister: Was the safety and

concern of the travelling public taken into consideration when this decision was

made?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: If I understood the question - I didn't hear

the last part, but I think it was if safety was a concern? Was that the

question? Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was most definitely a concern of the department.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: What a minister.

Mr. Speaker, almost three weeks ago all the equipment and

personnel from the depot at St. Bride's, in my district, was moved to Placentia.

Since that, none of those people or the equipment has operated in that area and

in the Cape Shore since. It is getting close to the last of May, and no work has

been done in regards to shouldering or ditching in that area this year. There

haven't been any repairs or maintenance carried out with damage to the asphalt

during the winter months. Doesn't the minister believe that this lack of

attention to this area is placing the safety of the travelling public in

jeopardy, and will he see that this work is carried out as soon as possible?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, it will not be done as soon

as possible. It will be done in the proper order as set out by the officials of

the department. There is a

schedule set out by the department to close your

depots.

Back after Confederation, before the roads were built around

the Island, we needed depots right around this Island to take care of the

construction and the building and maintenance of the highways and roads,

secondary roads, at that time. We do not need as many depots today as we did

years ago, so that is one of the reasons for closing out the depots.

As far as the maintenance on all the roads, one of the things

is that people have looked at workers on the roadside from the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation over the years, is individual people out on

the side of a road trying to replace a culvert. What we are going to do now is

put crews of people out. Instead of putting one or two people out, identify an

area where the maintenance needs to be done, send a crew out there for that week

or two weeks, whatever it takes to get it done, and do it in an orderly fashion,

the same as you would run a construction company. So there won't be that

intimidation by the general public of people working in the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation. When the

schedule comes around to your area it will

be done but not until then.

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

West.

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

Minister of Health. Last year I brought an issue to the attention of the

minister and I want to say that I appreciated his efforts at the time, although

I wasn't satisfied with the final answer, regarding the admission of students to

the medical school at Memorial University.

I've had constituents of mine who've graduated from

universities throughout Atlantic Canada, let me say that, with averages for four

years in excess of 90 per cent and cannot get admission to the medical school at

Memorial University. These students are from rural Newfoundland, they are

willing to work in rural Newfoundland, yet all they can get over there are

obstacles and blocks thrown in their way. Could I ask the minister what criteria

are used, what objective measures are used, in order to award seats at the

medical school?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for

that question. Last year I did look into that and satisfied myself that the

criteria and selection process was fair. There are certain criteria in place,

certain numbers that are from outside the Province, because of the deal we have

with New Brunswick, and a certain number from the Province. At that time the

criteria were appropriate. If the member has certain questions from people I

would appreciate knowing who they are and we could follow up to see in more

detail as to what might have happened.

I am concerned, I don't mind saying, about the number of

graduates from Memorial who do not choose to practice in rural Newfoundland.

I've had, and I'm having, I have scheduled meetings with the Dean of the

University medical school to try to come to grips with that question. If the

member knows of any particular cases that he feels have been unduly

discriminated against then I will have the matter investigated. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin

- Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his

answer. I can tell him that in addition to the one that I had last year I have a

similar situation in my District this year. I'm not as satisfied as the minister

regarding the process that is put in place at Memorial University. Because I'm

somewhat suspicious (inaudible) the first choice of seats over there is not

given to the sons and daughters of some doctors in this city. That is one of the

concerns that I have, I say to the Minister of Health. The people of rural

Newfoundland in all of our districts are being forgotten about.

I will ask the minister: Will he ask the Dean of Medicine

when he has the meeting regarding admission to the medical school if he will

reassess and give you the information regarding the fact that he has turned down

or objected or not accepted - consideration has not been given, let me say to

the minister, to those students from rural Newfoundland who are prepared to work

in rural Newfoundland. Who are not prepared to get their doctor's degree and go

somewhere else to practice. They want to work under the rules as set down by

your department. Will you ask the Dean of Medicine to check into that as well?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is no problem, in

discussing the criteria and the application of the criteria. What I can't do and

what I won't do is to say: Put so-and-so in the medical school. That I can't do.

I'm sure the member appreciates that. I will certainly try to see that things

are fair, because it is our medical school, and that fair criteria are applied.

We will have that discussion. Thank you.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would not ask nor would I

expect the minister or anyone else to interfere in a fair system but I'm not

convinced that the system of admissions at the medical school is fair, I would

say to the Minister of Health. I believe that students in rural Newfoundland are

just as important as some of the students from St. John's. I would ask: Would he

put in place some criteria - there are some stipulations now as it relates to

students from outside the Province, and I'm not necessarily objecting to that -

but would he put in place something that would ensure that the students from

rural Newfoundland are at least on a fair playing field with some of the elite

from the City of St. John's?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, be assured that appropriate

criteria are in place. This is what we have to do. We can't bar people who

happen to be the children of certain people from entering the medical

profession. There is a tendency for people in any profession to encourage their

children to enter the same profession - teachers beget teachers, in a sense, and

civil servants beget civil servants; they know their ways through the system and

they can encourage their children to take the right courses, they can coach them

and so on and they do extremely well. So we can't really bar that type of thing

from happening, but we can be firm that the criteria used are fair. As I

indicated, I did look into this matter last year and I was assured, and I

assured myself, in that the process that was in place last year appeared to me

to be quite fair. However, I will have another look at it and discuss it with

the appropriate officials.

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

Extern.

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

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Madam Minister, on April 20, you announced the Spread the

Message, not the Mess anti-litter campaign. Well, I believe this was a good,

first step. There will be $2 million spent over four years on education and

advertising, but with the high cost of advertising in the Province, does the

minister believe that this is enough money to be effective and have the desired

result?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I am not sure I heard the question exactly but

I think, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the question so many times - is that right,

have I heard this question a million times? that I will -

AN HON. MEMBER: The department didn't get the message.

MS. COWAN: My department, actually, is not particularly

interested in messages that are of a political nature; my department is

interested in messages to the people to encourage environmental responsibility

and where it is necessary, will be backed up by the appropriate legislation.

I am anticipating that this education program, along with the

other components of it, that look at the waste management program is going to

make an impact on the problem that we have with litter here in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, because he heard me

ask the question at least fifteen times one morning in the Estimates, the

department has carefully-built-in benchmarks, we have carefully-built-in - what

word do I want?

AN HON. MEMBER: Whatever.

MS. COWAN: Whatever, right. We have carefully-built-in

methods of checking every two or three years to see if, indeed, litter is being

collected, as we expect it will be. If it is not, then we are totally free, Mr.

Speaker, to take a different point of view.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House

resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions

relating to the raising of loans by the Province.

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I am still waiting for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to table the documents about Gordon Seabright, the executive

director's report and the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Answers to questions for which notice has been given.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this is not Answers to

Questions. I am asking leave of the House to revert to tabling reports. I was

diverted when it was called.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave given.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to table the annual report of the Advisory

Council on the Economy.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) tomorrow. `All our yesterdays' -

MS. VERGE: `Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow' - What's

he, cooking the books?

MR. SIMMS: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of privilege.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations to table the information. I was going to raise

it then, but since he is not going to table it today as he promised he would, I

do have to raise a point of privilege based on false information given to the

House yesterday by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I hope he

will take the opportunity under the point of privilege to apologize to the

House, and maybe want to apologize to the individual concerned.

I quote from Hansard yesterday, or at least the unedited

transcript that we received today, page 1550, where the minister, tabling

information concerning the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal said, `The

hon. members opposite might like to be reminded that when they were in position

the vice-chair' - that is, the Vice-Chair of the Appeals Tribunal, `at that

point in time was the President of the PC Association for the district of Grand

Falls that represents the hon. the Leader of the Opposition,' and members

opposite gleefully clapped and pounded on their desks.

Now, first of all, the person involved - I since found out

who he was talking about - was not the President of the PC Association of Grand

Falls, was not the Vice-President -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: - was a supporter of mine, yes, point number

one; point number two, was appointed to the position based on her competence and

qualifications, in fact, competence and qualifications that not only did we

recognize, but the minister and his government have since recognized, because

she has since been appointed as a judge by this government. The little aside

that he forgot to mention to all members in the House, the press and anybody who

might be interested, is that the individual concerned was also the sister-in-law

of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, so he might want to withdraw

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations wish to be heard on that point?

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if there is any apology by

virtue of the fact that I may have misnamed the position that the person

actually held on the executive of the hon. the Member for Grand Falls, the

Opposition House Leader, I render an apology by virtue of the fact that I didn't

know the exact position she held with the district association for the

Progressive Conservatives of Grand Falls district.

In the meantime, it might also be an opportunity, Mr.

Speaker, since they persist with those kinds of talks about patronage, to remind

people as well that the very beginning of the Workers' Compensation Appeal

Tribunal had been surrounded by some controversy even by virtue of the fact of

where it was housed, in a building for which the Minister of Finance of the day

had some particular interest in holdings. That was a public issue of the day, as

members opposite might like to recall.

I am just pointing out that I think everybody in this

Legislature knows that I don't bother to get involved in those things, but if I

did, by virtue of a position for the person, misname the position that person

held in the district Progressive Conservative Association for the district of

Grand Falls, I apologize for misnaming the position.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would rather that they didn't bring

up silly accusations about patronage because if anybody wanted to go back over

seventeen years of their history we would be paled and shamed into

insignificance by comparison with how they good they were at that very approach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think the question raised by the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition has been clarified for the record.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to

rise and present a petition on behalf of approximately 300 senior high school

students in the schools of the St. John's area and Mount Pearl, particularly

from Bishop's College, Booth Memorial, Beaconsfield, and Mount Pearl Senior High

School.

The prayer of the petition calls upon the government to `work

their hardest to come to a quick and fair resolution to the teachers' strike,

which is putting our education at risk. We are asking that the government try

not only to think of saving money in this matter, but to think also of our

education.

Furthermore, we are asking that teachers do their

part in

helping with these negotiations. We are not asking the teachers to take a cut,

by any means, but we are asking that they help us in our fight to save our

education.

We hope that there can be some sort of resolution to this

problem that will enable us to continue with our education this year.'

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by approximately 300

students from the schools that I have named.

Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of anxiety out in the

population of this Province today. The anxiety centres specifically and most

poignantly with the students who are about to finish their high school years. In

particular, we are talking about Level III students who are eligible to graduate

this year. Parents are concerned. Parents are very anxious about what is going

to happen to their children's education if there isn't a resolution found to the

current labour dispute.

Mr. Speaker, we know what has happened to lead up to this

dispute. We know the context. We know about Bill 16 and Bill 17. We know about

the use of ultimatums. We know about the issues that were mentioned by the hon.

the Premier last year as he gave his announcement about the election. We know

about severance pay. We know about the intimidation that has occurred. We know

about the efforts of the government, their behaviour showing a confrontational,

dictatorial, mean-minded attitude. We know what that has done to really turn

off, to poison the collective bargaining process in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the government cannot say: We

can wash our hands of it. They can't all behave as the minister did this

afternoon with regard to the Workers' Compensation Board and say: It's not my

fault; I didn't have anything to do with it.

Mr. Speaker, the anxiety out there is real. I can tell

members now that I will have another petition from another part of the Province

to present tomorrow, and I know of one coming into my office for Friday's

session, from students. The message they want to communicate to the government

is that this year means a lot to them.

Now, we have had the Minister of Education talk about how he

is going to give Grade XII examinations in Level III courses. Let me tell the

Minister of Education that there are only eighteen courses that will be examined

in public examinations. There are some Level III courses for which there are no

examinations at the departmental level. In addition to the problems that we know

with the marking, we admit to the minister that the exams are made up. They have

been made up for weeks and weeks. That has been the pattern for years and years;

however, when we start to try to evaluate the progress of Grade XII students,

and we are looking around and saying, we will get retired teachers to do it -

incidentally, retired teachers have said to me, just this very day, that when

they wanted last year to get some time substituting, the minister said, `Be off

with you.' Well, they are saying to the minister today, `Be off with the

minister.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: They are not going to co-operate with the

Minister of Education. They are not going to cut the throats of their colleagues

who are in the teaching profession.

Mr. Speaker, likewise, this idea that we are going to have

these students evaluated by students at the university, or university professors

- now, there is a recognition that the evaluation must be reliable, it must be

valid, it must be consistent, it must be commensurate with the objectives of the

course. So we are going to parade in a bunch of people who have not taught the

course, have had no participation in setting the goals, have no idea what the

objectives are -

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

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: - (Inaudible) people that we are not going to

go and do an evaluation that reflects their standard of excellence at this

stage. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the

petition of these students who are only asking for what is just. They have a

stake in their own education and in their future and they are asking that there

be real negotiations.

In order to understand what they are really asking for we

have to go back to last fall when the negotiators on behalf of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Teachers Association approached the government and said that they

were well aware of the changes that needed to be made in the education system of

this Province. They said that they understood that the Province had plans, or

were talking about plans, to decrease the number of school boards. They said

that they had promoted change themselves and reform in the school system along

the lines of the Williams report, and knew that the government was doing some

planning of their own, and that they wanted to be part of the process. Because

they knew that there were going to be consequences for the teachers and for the

contract that they were operating under and for reorganization of the school

system.

They said that back then. They wanted to put on the table all

of those issues - the issue of reorganization, the issues that were affected by

it - and one of those included the 2 per cent clause and whatever clauses there

were that had to with the organization of schools and the organization of

classrooms. That was done back in October, before Christmas. What was the

response of Treasury Board? They were told by Treasury Board: No, we have

collective bargaining over here and we have our own business over here, and what

we do over here is no business of yours.

That was the beginning of the collision course that this

government set out deliberately and aimed it at the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers Association. When they said back in October or November: No, we will

not discuss these issues, and then in January and February started putting the

gun to the teachers' heads, laying out a plan of taking away severance pay, for

example, causing dissension in the ranks of teachers, causing concerns amongst

older teachers who might qualify for pensions. Blaming the Teachers Association

for all of that, refusing in this House to commit themselves to not introducing

any legislation that would make the severance clause a part of a legislated

solution. Refusing to do all that, and place the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers Association in a position where they had to act on principle or be

regarded as peons, as peasants subject to the whim of the Minister of Finance,

the whim of the Minister of Education, the whim of the Premier who has not

hesitated over almost every year since he has been elected to legislate

collective agreements out of existence.

That is what the teachers of this Province were faced with as

a result of this government's approach to collective bargaining, as a result of

this government's approach to how negotiations would take place. It is laughable

to see the Premier here in this House today say of course he could not talk

about legislation because that would destroy the collective bargaining process.

He is the Premier who for two years in a row wrote back collective agreements,

took away collective agreements, some of which they had negotiated themselves

only days prior to the legislation being brought in. This government has done

more to make collective bargaining with its own employees a joke than any other

government that we've had.

There is an awful lot of comments that this government has

made about teaching in the school - how we are going to handle negotiations.

Upping the ante every step they can. The Minister of Education coming in and

saying: We can run the exams, we can do all this. I don't know who we are going

to get to mark them; we will figure that out later. We are going to go ahead

with the exams, he says. He says: All the work has been done anyway. Here is the

minister who said: All the work has been done anyway. Don't have to worry about

the next five or six weeks because all the work has been covered anyway.

Here is the minister who says that the school year is too

short. We need to lengthen the school day, lengthen the school year, so we can

have a proper education system, and then he says: We don't need to worry about

the next month, that is only another month, they should be reviewing now anyway,

they've already learned everything.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member

for bringing the concerns of students to this hon. House of Assembly. This is

not an ordinary strike. In an ordinary strike, the employee is a victim; the

employee is losing his or her wages. The employer or company is losing its

ability to process or manufacture or whatever it is doing. It is running the

risk of losing its markets.

In this strike, Mr. Speaker, the real victim, as the hon.

member pointed out, is the student, caught square in the middle, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: There are no villains, Mr. Speaker.

Government has a limit that it cannot go beyond. Government recognizes the

reality of the world, the whole world -

MR. TOBIN: $100,000 on elevators.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, teachers are not the victims. My

heart goes out to the vast majority of teachers out there in their classrooms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: The vast majority of whom, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: The vast majority of whom, Mr. Speaker, are

hard-working, conscientious people who are out there doing a good job in very

difficult times so, Mr. Speaker, they are not the real villains, but the real

victim, is the student. Government is doing everything in our power to make sure

that the student's year is not jeopardised. If we can in any way, stop this year

from being jeopardised, we are trying to do it.

Now I know the process, the hon. member needn't think that he

somehow has special knowledge as to the process. In the old days when he and I

attended school, the exam was the be-all and end-all, everything depended on the

exam. I am the proud possessor of a `B' mark in mathematics in university, Mr.

Speaker. I don't deserve a minus F if there is such a thing, I don't know

anything about math but I managed to cram the night before and based on that, I

was given a `B', and the whole world thinks I am a great mathematician because I

got a `B' I don't deserve it, so I know, Mr. Speaker, that when a mark was taken

into consideration in the mid-terms, it must take into consideration the year's

evaluation, we know that. Times have changed, but, Mr. Speaker, we are now in a

very difficult situation.

It is like a house on fire, you have to do something to deal

with a specific case, Mr. Speaker, so we are trying our utmost to deal with this

specific case. Hopefully, tomorrow or the next day the strike will be over and

we will go back to normal and teachers will teach the students and students will

learn and government will govern, hopefully that will happen, but in the event

that that does not happen, Mr. Speaker, we have to try to help the real victim

of this dispute. We have to try to help the student, and yes, we are trying to

run the exams. Yes, it is going to be extremely difficult; yes, it is going to

be difficult to get people to mark the exams; yes, Mr. Speaker, there are

insurmountable obstacles in our way but we are not going to roll over and play

dead because we have too much concern for the victims of this through no fault

of their own, so we are going to run the exams if it is at all possible.

We are going to have them corrected if it is at all possible,

but the hon. member can take back to his constituents or the students who signed

this petition, he can take back to them the very real concern of the government

of this Province, the concern for the real victim and we are trying to do

everything in our power so that that real victim is not the loser, but he or she

will have a certificate that he or she can present to a post-secondary

institution or to the job market or whatever the case might be, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess if you didn't know the minister you would almost be

prepared to believe it.

It is my pleasure to rise and present a petition on behalf of

some residents of the Goulds area, Mount Pearl, St. John's areas and the prayer

of the petition:

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners pray and call

upon Parliament to demand that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not

privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, you are sick of doing it and the

people are sick of listening to government's dictatorial methods. We were in the

House last night and for the third time, on the one bill, we have seen closure,

unprecedented I would say in the history of this Province, with three closures

in the previous seventeen years, we have seen three on the one bill, we have

seen several in the past year because the government is not prepared to listen

to the people of this Province. The people have spoken.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many names are on the petition?

MR. SULLIVAN: How many names are on the petition? You can

gladly read it afterwards. It is not the number that's on the petition. We're

had Hydro petitions with several thousand names presented here in this House.

Every single name on this petition is legitimate and deserves to be heard. All

you need is three and this has many times more than three. So it's not the

matter of numbers. It's the matter of what the petition has to say and the

people crying out across this Province to be heard. We just passed a bill in

this House yesterday - very reluctantly by the Opposition, we voted against it -

that's camouflaging the privatization of Hydro. It's there, it's opening the

doors to give away, that's right, possibly 100 per cent of a new Hydro can be

given to people outside the Province with the utilities board and approval of

Cabinet. The minister given virtual powers, the Minister of Finance, under this

act.

So we've seen a government being asked by the people of this

Province in public opinion polls conducted by reputable firms, reputable

companies and the government has not listened. It hasn't listened, it hasn't

listened on collective bargaining, it's been a one-way street. They've refused

to listen and negotiate. They've refused to listen to the people. They failed to

discuss Hydro in the last election. They brushed it off as if it wasn't an

issue. They denied in the House of Assembly last winter, the Minister of Mines

and Energy denied it back in May that it was an issue and it only surfaced in

August. The Government House Leader, yes the Government House Leader admitted

that he had shares in the same company, Newfoundland Power.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, sure but you didn't sit around the

Cabinet Table -

MR. ROBERTS: Of course not (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, of course. You have absolved yourself

from all Cabinet meetings. At the same time the government denied that Hydro was

a part of their agenda - if the minister wants to speak when I'm finished, I'm

sure he will be recognized and be given the opportunity. I'd like to have the

one minute I have left to address this concern because the people of the

Province have been ignored and public opinion polls have told the Premier that.

The Premier stood in his place, in this House, and he stated on public

television on March 24: we will not proceed against the wishes of the majority

of the people in this Province. A government should not use its powers of

majority to cast something among the people that they do not want and the people

do not want it. The government is ignoring it and they're pressing ahead -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It's now 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday and we move to private

members' day.

Private Members' Day

MR. ROBERTS: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in my place

this afternoon and place before this House, what I call a good news resolution.

A resolution of hope, a resolution about action and a resolution about

conservation.

Mr. Speaker, as we know, last week the federal parliament

passed an important amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Act and, Mr. Speaker,

this was made possible because all members of the House of Commons felt that it

was an important piece of legislation for Canada, even the Bloc Qubcois

thought so. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the total time from the first reading

to the passing of the bill was about one-and-a-half hours. I think we should be

so lucky in this House sometimes to have a record like that but in another way,

Mr. Speaker, my private members' resolution reads as follows and I'd like to

repeat it if possible:

WHEREAS the restoration of the cod stocks on the Canadian

Continental Shelf is essential for the future social and economic development of

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS foreign fishing efforts continue to plunder the

straddling fish stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks; and

the Newfoundland and Labrador cod fishery;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House commend the

Parliament to adopt legislation to empower the government to enact regulations

to protect the fish stocks which straddle the limits of Canada's extended

fishing zone; and that the House commend the Parliament of Canada for adopting

the legislation with such alacrity."

Mr. Speaker, this private member's resolution is not meant to

be a partisan endorsement of the Federal Government's actions, rather, it is

meant to encourage the Federal Government to carry on, to use the enabling

legislation that they have passed, to put teeth into the regulations that are

now being developed. It is my hope that this afternoon the debate will be

by-partisan, or rather, I guess, tri-partisan in nature.

We are discussing and debating an important step taken by the

Federal Government, a step to ensure, not only the survival of an industry, but

the survival of a people, and the survival of a way of life that has existed on

this beautiful Island, the Province of Newfoundland and the Labrador Coast for

over 500 years. As I said, I view the amendment to the coastal fisheries act as

a step, just a step, a very important step, in the renewal of the fish resources

off our coast.

I think all members of this House will be in agreement that

such a move as this will enable Canada to deal effectively and legally with

those fishing vessels that fly flags of convenience, those fishing vessels that

are pirate ships. It will help deal with them and it is a good and very

progressive step.

Mr. Speaker, before beginning the body of my text, I want to

acknowledge the work of the former federal administration. There were times we

would have wanted quicker and more decisive action but we knew their heart was

in the right place and they were trying to move in the right direction. They

felt that diplomacy, given time, would correct the very serious destruction of

the straddling fish stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

We all acknowledge, and commend the work of the former

Fisheries and Oceans Minister, the hon. John Crosbie. He was working towards a

solution, one that would curtail the destruction of our stock. We may not have

always agreed with his methods but at least he was working towards a goal we all

agreed with. We, too, have to give Mr. Crosbie, of course, and I think it has

been said before, credit for bringing into the Province a program to compensate

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and, indeed, Atlantic Canadians for the

devastation, and the mismanagement really, over the years -not just the last

administration but, I suppose, all administrations can take responsibility for

the devastation.

Mr. Crosbie and the former administration brought into effect

the NCARP program in tough financial times in this country, and I think we can

all appreciate the struggle he went through to secure the funding. I am sure

that he had to contend with the fears of the Finance Minister at the time, Mr.

Mazankowski, and the Minister of International Trade. They, too, had to consider

to stop overfishing by foreign nations? What effects would the action by Canada

have on existing trade agreements with European countries? Mazankowski and the

other federal ministers, obviously, were concerned, and I am sure that if the

shoe were on the other foot we, too, would be concerned about our trade

relations with other countries.

I am sure members of the Opposition might be surprised that I

would compliment Mr. Crosbie, but I want to convey, in my opening remarks, the

nature and the spirit that I hope this debate will take this afternoon, Mr.

Speaker.

I say to members opposite, I would like to congratulate them

for their efforts over the years, and I know that their hearts were also in the

right place. I am sure they pressed a case for Newfoundland and Labrador. I am

sure the Member for Burin - Placentia West and the Member for Grand Bank spoke

out loud and clear against the actions of foreign countries.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. OLDFORD: When they met with Mr. Crosbie in private,

and I think they should be commended, too, for their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this legislation marks an

important step towards ensuring the survival of both a fishery and the people.

I, like all members from fishing districts, have seen the effect the collapse of

the fishery has had, both physically and emotionally, on our people.

Mr. Speaker, there is what I would term a paralysis amongst

our people, a loss of hope and a loss of confidence in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a good word, though.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a good (inaudible) at least.

MR. OLDFORD: It reminds me of the dust bowls in the

Prairies. You see these old newsreels, farmers watching their livelihood blow

away right in front of their faces.

Mr. Speaker, people in Newfoundland, out in the rural areas

and the fishing communities, feel a sense of abandonment. Whether rightly or

wrongly, they felt they were being abandoned by the very people who were elected

to look after their interests. Their livelihood and their identity have been

ripped away from them with the collapse of the fishery and the subsequent

moratorium.

When I travel out to my district, the district of Trinity

North, and I travel up and down the Bonavista Peninsula, and to the community of

Catalina that was a bustling fishing community -

AN HON. MEMBER: Every week.

MR. OLDFORD: Every week.

- communities like Bonaventure, that you would be familiar

with, I see the despair on the faces of those people. That was back in the days

of hope, I contend.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OLDFORD: Right.

Mr. Speaker, the fishermen and the fisherpersons in those

communities look out to sea, and they realize that they were barred from

fishing, but there are these merciless marauders of the high seas, the ships,

flying the flags of convenience, searching out and destroying the few fish that

remained. These high sea assassins were in the process of delivering a death

knell to one of Mother Nature's most abundant gifts - the fish resources on the

Grand Banks, especially on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

This federal legislation gives some reason for hope, reason

to believe that this slaughter will now stop, and one day, hopefully very soon,

the moratorium will be lifted. To quote a former Premier, `One day the sun will

shine and have not will be no more.' I hope, with all Newfoundlanders, that day

will come very soon.

Mr. Speaker, for those who think that the Federal

Government's legislation is a knee-jerk reaction to overfishing on the Nose and

Tail of the Grand Banks, I want to quote something. The quote is this: `A

Liberal government will implement effective conservation measures immediately,

because if the remaining stocks are not conserved now, there will be no fishing

industry left on which to build a sustainable development. A Liberal government

will deal with foreign fishing outside the 200-mile limit and scrutinize foreign

quotas within the 200-mile limit.'

Mr. Speaker, that is a quote from the famous or infamous Red

Book about creating opportunities, the Liberal Plan for Canada. It is a good

book. That is a commitment to action and a commitment to conservation. Of

course, there are many in this Province and, I suppose, in this country, who

felt that once the election was over that promise would not be kept, thought it

was just an election promise and it would soon be abandoned by the Federal

Government, as I said, once the election was over and done with. But, as I said,

it was in the famous Red Book and, as the Prime Minister always says, if it is

in the Red Book, it will be done. I think he has been true to his word in a

number of cases.

There were even those in the media here in the Province who

doubted the new Federal Government's resolve. On January 4 1994 in an editorial

in The Evening Telegram it was written, and I quote: `It is time indeed

to remind federal Fisheries Minister Brian Tobin -

MR. TOBIN: Who was that?

MR. OLDFORD: That is on January 4 1994: It is time,

indeed, to remind federal Fisheries Minister, Brian Tobin, that the ninety-day

period in which he pledged to begin the process of getting those foreign

trawlers out of the Grand Banks, else Canada would assume custodial management,

is flying by and in fact two-thirds gone. Is this to be one of the first

significant promises broken or shoved aside by the new Liberal Government?

That is from The Evening Telegram . The answer is loud

and clear. The answer is that Prime Minister Jean Chrtien stands with us, by us

and for us. He stands by his commitments to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

In mid-February, Mr. Speaker, federal minister Brian Tobin -

to follow up on some of the actions taken by the Federal Government - Mr. Tobin

put NAFO to the test and he won a one-year cod moratorium on the Nose and Tail

of the Banks. In late February, the Prime Minister was here. He spoke in the

lobby of the Confederation Building. He said he was ready to fight for fish. Do

you remember that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. OLDFORD: - and to drive the foreign draggers who were

slaughtering the few remaining fish off the Nose and the Tail. That is a quote

from the Prime Minister. In a further quote, he said: `I'm not afraid of these

people and I will take them on.' Mr. Speaker, even The Evening Telegram

had to admit that the Prime Minister's words after the election matched his

rhetoric during the campaign. The Telegram observed this: `It was a

pledge strikingly similar to Liberal vows made during the October election

campaign. Obviously the Telegram was on side at this point. Even the

Telegram was.

Of course, people around the Province were asking themselves

could this be true. Was the Federal Government finally going to take on the

foreign trawlers who were vacuuming up the few remaining fish off the Nose and

the Tail? But, of course, those of us on this side, on Your Honour's left, we

were convinced, we were confident.

MR. TULK: There was a little smidgen of doubt.

MR. OLDFORD: Some. A little bit. A little doubt. But we

had very little doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister would keep his word.

We also felt that Mr. Tobin had the necessary clout to get the job done. We

knew, we had faith and we had confidence in Jean Chrtien, and we had confidence

in Brian Tobin. I think that confidence was the proper thing and it has been

well served.

The Prime Minister, of course, `the little fellow from

Shawinigan', knows rural Newfoundland, knows rural Canada.

MR. TULK: Used to call himself a pea-souper, remember?

MR. OLDFORD: Right.

MR. TULK: He wrote on a book for me one time: A

pea-souper is the same as a bayman, eh?

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, throughout his political career

of course Newfoundlanders stood by Jean Chrtien. We knew that in our hour of

need that Mr. Chrtien would understand and he would stand up for Newfoundland

and stand up for our fishery.

Mr. Speaker, in introducing the legislation Mr. Tobin said

the following about Canada's reason for doing so, he said: we propose a bill to

give Canada the capacity, authority and ability not to extend our jurisdiction

out beyond 200 miles, not to make a territorial grab, not to expand our economic

zone and not to pull onto ourselves more territorial water. That is not Canada's

nature. It is not Canada's way. It is not part of our history. It is not part of

our culture. We propose a measure today to give us the ability to enforce the

conservation measures necessary to protect endangered species not just for

ourselves but for the world and that's the crux of the matter. It's a

conservation measure. It's an interim measure and I ask all hon. members, Mr.

Speaker, can there be a more noble cause then this? Then to conserve the fish

stocks of the Nose and Tail and the Continental Shelf for the use of Canada,

Newfoundland and for the world.

The World Commission on Environment and Development chaired

by the Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, issued a report, Mr.

Speaker, in 1987 entitled: Our Common Future, which warned about the magnitude

of overfishing. A quote from that says this: today the living resources of the

sea are under threat from over exploitation, pollution and land base

development. Most major familiar fish stocks throughout the waters over the

continental shelves, which provide 95 per cent of the worlds fish catch, are now

threatened by overfishing, Mr. Speaker.

It was predicted by the food and agricultural organization

that world demand at 113 million tons would outstrip supply by at least 20

million tons in 1984. The Brundtland Report offers this very simple but

effective warning; the annual depletion of fish stocks must not exceed the rate

of regeneration. The problem, Mr. Speaker, was summed up in a treatise

concerning the law of the sea and it's in Ordering the Oceans, by Mr. Clyde

Sanger, my quote is this: there's probably no country left in the world where

hunters outnumber the cultivators but they certainly do in every ocean. I think

that bears repeating, there's probably no country left in the world where the

hunters outnumber the cultivators but they certainly do in every ocean. I would

add that we in Canada have the resolve and we have the ability to become

cultivators of the Grand Bank. We can, we shall, Mr. Speaker, and we must.

US President Lyndon Johnson said on the death of Sir Winston

Churchill that when the world was at its darkest ebb, a generous providence gave

us Winston Churchill. Well, Mr. Speaker, the cod stocks are at their lowest ebb

and once again a generous providence has provided us with the leadership

necessary to say no to lawlessness, to say no to genocide. Providence has given

us the leadership to protect and conserve what is left of the fish stocks on the

Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I want to have a few words on the resolution put forward by

the Member for Trinity North. I find the resolution interesting and to say, I

guess, last night we had a very lively debate about the same issue. A debate

which I enjoyed very much and a debate about which there was a variance of

opinion as to the effectiveness of the legislation brought forward by Mr. Tobin.

I have to say that my mind hasn't changed since I went home at twelve-thirty

this morning. I've still the same mind set about this legislation but I have to

say that I support any initiative that will take any foreign vessels off the

Grand Banks, whether it's the vessels flying flags of convenience or what they

call stateless vessels or whatever they are, if they get some of them out of

there then certainly it's a positive as long as countries like Spain and

Portugal don't put their own flags on them and bring them back over. That's a

real possibility I say to the Member for Trinity North. That is a real

possibility.

There is no guarantee with this legislation, Mr. Speaker,

that we are going to see a reduction in the foreign fishing effort on the Nose

and Tail of the Grand Banks of the Flemish Cap. I hope it does but what we have

to remember is that since January of this year, there are more foreign vessels

fishing outside our 200 mile limit than there have been for years; they are

taking more fish than they have taken for years and that's very alarming. It is

something that must stop and I support that and I support the minister in his

initiative to try and get it done.

I support the diplomatic efforts by Mr. Crosbie when he was

federal minister and by Mr. Tobin since he has been the federal minister, but I

consistently said that I did not have any faith whatsoever that diplomatic

efforts would be successful when you are dealing with the fishing industry in

Spain and Portugal, because they just seem to disregard totally the implications

of what they are doing out on the Nose and Tail of the banks of the Flemish Cap.

I had an opportunity to go to Portugal and Spain a few years

ago and met with representatives of the fishing industry over there, and I

couldn't believe, Mr. Speaker, how blatant they were, and how disrespectful they

were over what damage was being done out there to our fish stocks; their fish

stocks too because they fished it for 400 or 500 years, but they somehow

couldn't come to grips that there was any problem and any time you tried to tell

them how serious it was, they always said it was our problem, that we had caused

the damage particularly inside of 200 because they weren't allowed in there

then, so that's the kind of arguments that they put forward, so I don't think,

because the federal government and the federal ministers brought forward this

legislation that it is going to change their minds too much. I don't think they

are going to change their minds too much, Spain and Portugal, I don't think so,

but having said that, any effort that promotes getting those foreigners off the

banks we have to support. I support any effort that does it but as I said last

night, merely passing the legislation in the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Okay. He is talking rather loudly too;

he doesn't have a hearing problem; he is very close to you. You don't need to

shout, you don't need to shout - but just passing the legislation in the House

of Commons I was saying before I was interrupted by the Member for Fogo is not

going to resolve the problem, not going to resolve the problem and what I find

interesting as well, is that, legislation, in order to deal with the NAFO

vessels, that, that has to go to the federal Cabinet for consideration, so it is

not yet decided that they are going to deal with them. They haven't yet decided,

Mr. Speaker, that they are going to deal with the vessels that are under the

NAFO organization, which is very, very surprising, very, very surprising. That

has to go to the federal Cabinet for consideration to see if the Government of

Canada is going to take any action against those vessels, so that tells me just

how strong and how much teeth is in this legislation.

The federal Cabinet may decide not to take any action for

whatever reason which is most likely to happen. If they were so decisive, if

they were so determined they were going to take action against the NAFO vessels,

it would be automatically covered in the legislation, but no, what does it have

to do before any action is taken? It has to go to the Cabinet so they can have a

powwow about it; all sit around, the pros and cons of not only the overfishing

on the Nose and Tail of the Banks, but what are the trade, the import and export

implications for this country? That's what we are going to find, Mr. Speaker,

that's what we are going to find.

I see the Member for Fogo laughs at that but that's exactly

what is going to happen here because when you talk about the Government of

going to look at all of the implications, trade and otherwise for this country

before they go out and interfere with the NAFO vessels. It has to go to the

Cabinet for consideration, so the first day, when I reacted to the statement by

the Premier, I said I wasn't so sure that the legislation had the teeth that it

needed. I am still not convinced that it has the teeth that is needed to deal,

to get those vessels out; I hope it does and I hope the minister gets them off

the Banks tomorrow.

I have to be realistic, I know that can't happen even if we

had the mechanism to do it, it is going to take a while to do that, to get them

out of there and I hope in a month, two, three months time we will see some

progress and the number of vessels out there will decrease till eventually there

is nobody, I hope that's what happens, that's what we want and we support that

action. I hope it happens, but they are out there now fishing away, total

disregard, total disregard, and I want to say to the Member for Trinity North,

but I believe he has left, since it was his resolution, that I do not want to

tamper with the resolution, amend it, or in any way try to take away from it,

but I think he should have been a little more broad when he says:

WHEREAS the

restoration of the cod stocks. I think he should have went on a bit. I mean, the

flounder stocks are in trouble, and they are out there fishing turbot and

redfish. That is what they are doing out there now. There is some shrimp fishing

on the Flemish Cap, so I think we should broaden it a bit to cover the other

stocks, I guess, for whatever reason.

MR. TULK: I am sure he will have no problem doing that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I do not want to amend his resolution. I

am not saying it for that, but I just thought that when he read it. They are out

there now taking turbot and redfish. That is why they are there, and whatever

cod they scoop up with that, they quite naturally keep.

AN HON. MEMBER: I do not think I have any problem with

that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am not suggesting you do. I just

wanted to make the point.

MR. TOBIN: You should make an amendment. Don't be so

foolish.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am not going to make an amendment

to it. It is the member's resolution.

WHEREAS the foreign fishing efforts continue to plunder the

straddling fish stocks. We all know that. How can anybody speak against that?

and courageous decision to ask Parliament to adopt legislation to empower the

government to enact regulations. Well, I suppose we could modestly and

moderately, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, I might find it within me somewhere if I dig

down deep enough.

MR. TULK: If you get over your flu.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I might strongly commend the

government then, or the minister.

MR. TULK: If he could provide you with a cure for the

cold.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, if he could give me a cure for the

cold I would probably go out and drive them out myself, swim out.

I know where the member is coming from. The other side want

to applaud their cousins in Ottawa, to get in their good books. That is what it

is all about, to try to buoy up their good friend, Mr. Tobin.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Where is that? It must be 91 per cent in

his family, is it?

MR. TULK: No, not in his family.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is 91 per cent of his family who are

supporting him. He has done very well. The honeymoon is still on. The honeymoon

was on with this government for about five years.

MR. TULK: You will be surprised how long this one will

last.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, this one is over I say to the Member

for Fogo, long gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Quebec and BC. That is true.

MR. CRANE: You will be retired by then.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Maybe I will, I say to the Member for

Harbour Grace.

I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that before I retire we have this

serious problem dealt with. I do not know how long it is going to be before I

retire. It could be tonight, it could be tomorrow, it could be the fall.

AN HON. MEMBER: I have a feeling that if the hon. member

could get this fixed he would retire now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I would not go that far, but I

only hope that it happens before I retire. I hope I can see this problem

resolved while I am still in politics. I hope I do. Now, that could be another

ten years, of course, but if it is resolved in ten years at least it is a

positive because for the last ten years it had not been resolved. If we can

reduce that foreign effort over the next number of years, or the next number of

months, and get them out it will be positive. If I can see that before I go I

think that will be great.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have another big objective, too.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to get the federal member down

in your area.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I might take care of him, yes. Who

knows, I might be the one who has to boot them off the banks. I never thought

about that, but that would take some kind of a political miracle, not for me to

get rid of Simmons. That would not be a political miracle. That would be a

political blessing. It would be a political blessing if that happened.

MR. TOBIN: We got clear of him once before.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We did, when we puts our minds to it,

and we were only on the fringes then organizing. Imagine what we will be when we

are really into it?

MR. TOBIN: That is right, and you the candidate.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And you the campaign manager, look out.

DR. KITCHEN: You should get rid of Simms.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Never mind. I say to the Minister of

Health that when he is welcomed into the gallery as the former member and the

former minister, it will be Premier Simms over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, you can count on that,

guaranteed, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, basically we don't have a big problem with the

resolution. I do have concern about the legislation. I am concerned about it

because again, as I said last night, I don't know how they are really going to

get at the problem. I really don't. I don't understand that. If someone could

convince me, and I could see it happening, if I could see some results of where

they go out there and get those vessels out of there, then I will be 100 per

cent behind it, but I am a little bit dubious because what I can't understand,

for whatever we think about John Crosbie, when we are honest about him, he is

not a stupid man. He is a smart, bright, individual, a very bright individual.

He certainly had the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at heart.

He wanted the foreigners off the Banks; he did, he wanted them off there like

any Newfoundlander and Labradorian wanted, the same as Brian Tobin wants them

off, the same as the former chairperson of the United Fisherpersons used to want

them off.

MR. EFFORD: Always did.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Used to want them off, don't care now,

too comfortable now, don't care now if the Spaniards come into the Harbour out

where he lives.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yes he does.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Couldn't care less. He would probably go

down and get a bottle of the Portuguese and Spanish wine, and that is all he

would care about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Jose. He would be calling them Jose.

Come aboard, come in and have -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is what would happen.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) the Premier's own private

elevator. This time last year (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: I tell the truth (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: There is only one other minister uses it, and

that's Roberts.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes and a lot of us have seen that. A

lot of us have witnessed that - eyewitness to the scene.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Eyewitness to what?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Government House Leader getting

aboard the private elevator as well as the Premier. I have never seen another

minister get aboard of it, but I have seen him. He uses it quite regularly, and

maybe that's why they were thinking about putting a seat in it. There was

serious consideration -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) throne.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, you might call it that, but there

was serious consideration given to putting a seat in that, you know?

AN HON. MEMBER: An ejection seat.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A seat, yes. The member laughs. It's

true. They thought about putting a plush seat in the private elevator - yes,

Sir. I don't know if there is going to be velvet up around it, because there

were people at one time who used chariots. There were people who used to ride in

chariots.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who said that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Two air bags would look good.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I tell you, if the Government

House Leader was going to get into it, they would need more than an air bag if

he went forward. If he went forward with any speed, the Government House Leader

would need more than an air bag, I guarantee you that.

MR. TOBIN: Danny was going to be the air bag.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Danny the air bag. That's pretty good.

Did you hear this? You've got a new role.

MR. DUMARESQUE: What's that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You're going to be the air bag on the

Premier's private elevator. I knew there was going to be a place for you with

the Premier; I knew it.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how I got sidetracked to the

elevator. I hate people doing that. I wish people would not interrupt me and

distract me.

MR. SULLIVAN: I know how you got sidetracked. You got a

rise out of them, see.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A rise out of the elevator, yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is so hard, Mr. Speaker, to keep

serious in this House. I have to work at it, to be serious. It is a full-time

job.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, you will take care of it. I tell

you, you took care of the Member for St. George's last night. You finished him.

I think that was the best ruling I have seen since - how long have I been here?

I don't know, but that was the best ruling. As a matter of fact, we were saying

today in caucus that if we could have an election for Speaker you would have all

of our votes today, we enjoyed it that much.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was so decisive.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He was decisive, yes, right to the

point. That is what that group is lacking over there, decisiveness.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't cite Beauchesne or anything

like that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, and I tell you, I respect him more

for that.

There was one former member of the House who was, I think,

Deputy Speaker when -

MR. TOBIN: From Harbour Grace.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A former Member for Harbour Grace, when

Premier Smallwood was here - got up on points of order, going on, and he lost

his patience with Premier Smallwood; and he said, in giving his ruling: This is

not according to `Joechesne'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TULK: He thought it was `Joechesne.'

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, it might be, but that is what he

said anyway.

Mr. Speaker, to the resolution.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) don't have to worry about it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm sorry?

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) don't have to worry about that now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that is enough, too, I say to the

member.

Mr. Speaker, you have to support any initiative that gives

our fish stocks a chance to rebuild, and as I've said for I don't know how long,

there are three big factors that have to be dealt with - the seal population;

our own fishing effort, our own technology has to be dealt with, no doubt about

that. There have to be changes. We all recognize that. I'm very worried, by the

way, that the last couple of years have slipped by and I don't know if there

have been any real improvements or advancements in technology types. I don't

know. I say that without knowing. I'm concerned that we will be going through

all this time and will get to a point where our fish stocks start to rebuild and

find that we haven't done a thing to consider new technology. I wonder will it

happen? I hope it doesn't but it just might, you know, and I'm worried about

that. Because we will need to have changes.

MR. TULK: May I interrupt for a second?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sure.

MR. TULK: One of the things we should be looking at now

is the place of science and technology (inaudible) -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Is what? I can't hear you.

MR. TULK: The place of science and technology in this

fishery.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I agree.

MR. TULK: And we (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I agree, and it worries me that we will

go through another three, four or five years and then at the end of the day,

when things improve, we hope, that we will say: My god, we didn't look at the

technology. What technology should we be using now to harvest the fish? We will

go back to using the same technology. That is possible. I know there is certain

technology that will never be allowed to be utilized at certain times of the

year. We know that. But, you know, that worries me.

And unless we deal with this foreign fishing effort and get

it out of there - it is a very big factor. It is hard to believe that today they

are out there catching so much fish and here we are doing nothing, can't fish.

And I say, the boats are out there. I went out over there last Wednesday morning

and had a lookout with a surveillance crew. I wanted to have a look at the

technology, because I didn't fully understand how it worked - how they picked up

the vessel and how they tracked it and located it, went down and identified it.

It is amazing; really, it is very sophisticated and very effective. I have to

say, it is very effective and the money they are spending on it are dollars well

spent, I say. Because how else can you cover that big area?

We were out in the Flemish Cap area. Some day I hope to go

back again and go to the Nose and Tail and have a look, on the Tail more so,

because they say there is a fair bit of effort there - not much on the Nose, but

the Flemish Cap area up to an area they call, what is it, the Sackville Spur,

which runs out about 120 miles from the Nose, the farthest point of the Nose

out. That is where they are concentrated out there - turbot and redfish, they

are there scooping it up.

I saw where - they briefed me before I went out and they

showed me the board with the names on them and the identification numbers and

the country. They are so familiar with them, by the way, that they can almost

tell you where they are today if you went out with them. They can name the

vessel and say: They are somewhere in this area. They can pick them up.

I was very impressed with it, I have to say that, and that is

why I wanted to go. What I hope to find when I go back in four or five or six

months' time is that there will certainly be a significant reduction, and

hopefully none left there. I certainly would recommend to any member, if you can

get a chance, go out and have a look for yourself and understand it. Because I

didn't until I went out and saw the equipment in use. I am really impressed with

it - it's very sophisticated, very effective. I conclude my remarks.

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

MR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I want

to congratulate the hon. the Member for Trinity North for taking the initiative

to introduce this resolution today. Because I believe it is very appropriate in

that there is no question about it, the legislation that was recently passed in

the House of Commons is probably the most important initiative that Canada has

ever taken in addressing the problem of overfishing.

It is certainly a refreshing departure from the approach

taken by the previous administration and by the previous minister. I had a lot

of dealings with the former minister, Mr. Speaker, and while he was in the

position of Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, with his officials, and as I look

back on what transpired at the meetings that we had, I can appreciate all the

more the accomplishment of our own new federal minister, Mr. Tobin, in what he

achieved, because I can tell you now that in my discussions with federal

politicians and bureaucrats and diplomats, the mere mention of Newfoundland or

Canada declaring custodial management, or extending jurisdiction unilaterally,

would not be received too favourably. So for that reason I appreciate - probably

more than anybody in this House, because I have probably been closer to it

during the past four or five years - I appreciate what the hon. minister in

Ottawa has done.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the next step now must be for the

allow for the responsible implementation of the recently passed legislation. I

am told that work is under way now, on developing those regulations.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that by far the biggest

offenders in terms of overfishing outside of the Canadian 200-mile limit

continue to be countries that are supposedly regulated by NAFO, and members of

the European Union. Spain and Portugal, of course, are the two biggest

offenders. These two countries are by far the biggest offenders when it comes to

foreign overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

Mr. Speaker, when the Christina Logos was arrested some weeks

ago - April, I think it was - I went onboard with some of my officials to see

firsthand the size, quality and type of fish they had in their hold. We knew by

reports that they had 100 tons of fish in their holds. When we boarded, we went

down to the bottom of the vessel and saw firsthand some of the fish that was

there. We asked the fishery officer who accompanied us if he would pick at

random a couple of cartons of fish. They were in flat boxes, probably

twenty-five pounds per box. So he went and picked at random a number of boxes,

and he broke the seal and opened them up. I can tell you now, Mr. Speaker, that

if ever I needed convincing that action must be taken to put a stop to foreign

overfishing, that was the most effective lesson I ever learned.

Let me show you what I saw onboard that vessel. Now, mind

you, this was a foreign vessel, supposedly flying a flag from Panama - had its

registry mixed up, they weren't sure where it was registered, and luckily it was

found that the registry of Panama that they thought was in effect was not, and

therefore it gave Canada the right to take some action.

What I have here, and I regret the House is not full to see

this, that is the codfish they had in their hold. They had 100 tons of fish -

MR. TULK: How much?

MR. CARTER: One hundred tons.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a codfish - that's only a

(inaudible).

MS. COWAN: It looks like a sardine.

MR. CARTER: It's about the size of a pan-size trout, not

much bigger than a pen. There it is. Now, can you imagine a country or a company

or a sea captain - In fact, I don't know if I should apologize, or be ashamed of

myself or not, but when we walked onboard that vessel the captain was on the

bridge, and I was introduced to him, and having seen this -

AN HON. MEMBER: What boat?

MR. CARTER: The Christina Logos.

- I could not force myself to shake the man's hand. I was

introduced to him and I said `hello' and kept on walking, because any sea

captain, or anybody else, for that matter - I don't blame the crew, they are

there to do what they are told, but the captain didn't have to do it. There is

what they were catching.

MS. COWAN: Do you have the picture of the other ones?

MR. CARTER: There is what they were catching - just

incredible! It is unbelievable - the ordinary Newfoundlander wouldn't take that

out of the water. Let me show you what they were using to catch it with. There

is the mesh. Mr. Speaker, they had a trap, a net, and they had two liners like

that. So you can imagine, if you take that and put another liner to it, then

there is what you get, plus another one on top of that. It is scarcely big

enough for the water to go through. A caplin would not escape through that.

By the way, the trawls, or the nets, were still on the deck,

rolled up, with the two liners still in them.

MR. TOBIN: That's been happening for years.

MR. CARTER: It is still happening. I suggest to you today

that is happening. Now, then, there is a codfish, a Northern codfish at three

years old.

MR. BAKER: That is not three years old.

MR. CARTER: No, and just look at it. Pardon me for

grabbing it that way, `Winst'. That fish there is not a year old, I wouldn't

think - that is three years old; so, you see, about a year-and-a-half old.

MR. TOBIN: What would you use that for?

MS. COWAN: They use it for decoration of plates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CARTER: For the benefit of hon. members, Mr. Speaker,

we all know that it takes a Northern codfish seven years to mature to the point

where it can reproduce - seven years for a Northern cod, unlike a Southern

codfish, where they grow faster because of certain conditions. Northern cod

takes seven years.

There is the size of a codfish, a Northern cod - that is the

size it has to be in order to be mature enough to spawn and reproduce. You can

imagine the damage that is being done to our fishery by these vessels.

As we talk here today there are probably sixty or seventy

vessels fishing on the Grand Banks, the Nose and Tail, and I suspect that if you

were to check, they are all using mesh size like this. As I said a moment ago,

this vessel was not content, by the way, to use one liner, they had two liners,

so there were actually three sets of mesh - hardly enough for water to go

through, much less a codfish. In the hold of that vessel there were 100 tons,

and I suspect if the vessel hadn't been arrested when it was, it might very well

have been 10,000 tons of the same size fish, and we have no reason to believe

that other ships are catching anything any different.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is why I view this legislation that

just recently went through the House of Commons -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A moment, if I may?

MR. CARTER: Yes, of course.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Just a little story to show the

hypocrisy of these people. When I went out on the surveillance plane last

Wednesday, one of the gentlemen handling the computer end of things was reading

an

article and he showed it to me, from a U.K. News. It was an

article on

harvesting of anchovies somewhere in Spanish territory, or in disputed

territory, in any case. Anyway, the French had gone in and taken too much

anchovies, exceeded the limit by so much, and sixty Spanish trawlers went out

with their crews and took them over. Yet they feel that they can come over here

and do this kind of thing and it is quite alright. You know what I mean? That is

what I was saying earlier. I don't know how in the name of god you are going to

deal with it, I really don't.

MR. CARTER: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon.

gentleman for his comments. But, Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that in 1993 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Pardon?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) get that frozen (inaudible)?

MR. CARTER: That is frozen now but it is sealed in a

vacuum, so even if it thaws out we are all safe.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: That is right. Just think, if you will, that

in 1993 the European Community vessels, flying flags of countries within the

European Union, and some, of course, flying flags of convenience, but yet, owned

by European countries - because a flag of convenience is precisely what it

implies. It's a flag of convenience because the vessels that fly flags of

convenience, Mr. Speaker - and by the way I should point out, that when we went

onboard this vessel, it now was flying a Panamanian flag supposed to be

registered in Panama, supposedly or allegedly having no connection whatever with

Portugal. We knew that there was a Portuguese crew onboard, but by a strange

coincidence, all of the fish was packed in boxes clearly labelled `Portugal' - a

company in Portugal. So this fish, caught by this so-called stateless vessel, a

vessel with a flag of convenience, catching the fish, all of it was consigned to

Portugal. So that speaks for itself.

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 foreign vessels - vessels flying flags

of the European Community, countries and flags of convenience are responsible

for harvesting 100,000 metric tons of fish. Now, I have no reason to doubt that

a lot of that fish, that 100,000, were fish of that size because this didn't

just happen. This size fish just didn't make an appearance on the Grand Banks.

So I think that points out - even though, Mr. Speaker, the legislation that our

friend in Ottawa recently introduced and had passed in the Commons and in the

Senate, even though it might not contain all of the precautions that we would

like to see there, I can tell you now that it's a good start.

having the courage to take this action because it does take some courage given

the fact that - and I think we would be naive, Mr. Speaker, if we didn't

recognize the fact that there must be a very strong and potent lobby in Central

Canada against their central government taking any kind of action against their

trading partners in Europe such as is envisaged in this legislation. Therefore,

the pressure must be great and any government or any prime minister who was

prepared to still proceed to take this action, he has my admiration.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, there are a number of

other important things that Canada must be prepared to do. For example, we have

a very healthy turbot stock at the present time that is being ravaged by foreign

fishing effort. In fact, I don't have the exact figures here but I'm told that

it's quite conceivable that foreign vessels fishing turbot on the Nose of the

Grand Banks last year harvested close to 50,000 metric tons. Turbot, of course,

is an unregulated stock and consequently it's difficult to control it but

obviously, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to avoid having happen to the turbot what

has happened to other groundfish or codfish out there, then steps will have to

be taken by Canada and by NAFO to put a stop to the plundering that's going on

now.

Then, of course, the other problem that, for obvious reasons,

is not addressed in the legislation that just went through the House is the

stocks on the Flemish Cap. Now, we all know that the Flemish Cap is beyond the

Canadian 200-mile limit. In fact, it's not even part of the Canadian Continental

Shelf, but it is a very prolific fishing area. And it's said that the groundfish

stocks on the Flemish Cap are a discreet stock, they're not part of the overall

stock out there. But it is no less important, Mr. Speaker, that steps be taken

to protect the stocks on the Flemish Cap, again to ensure that they won't go the

way of the Northern cod.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I say that I'm very proud and

very happy that our Newfoundland minister and his government were able to

introduce and to get passage of this legislation in the House of Commons and in

the Senate, I commend them for it, and I only hope now that this will be a

beginning, that they are now going to address the problem of ships flying flags

of convenience but I believe that there will come a time in the not too distant

future when they are going to have to adjust the problem of European Community

vessels that continue to fish on the Nose and Tail of our Grand Banks.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to pass some comments on this resolution. Yes, I have

to say there are some positive aspects to it; I take a couple of points here:

far-sighted decision, I don't necessarily agree with that aspect because there

is a major problem overall that's a little farther into the future. It is a

short-term thing that is going to happen with boats and ships that are flying

flags of convenience and stateless vessels. Now we do know for some time that on

the vessels that are flying flags of convenience, over the past couple of years

significant progress has been made.

There were thirty-three vessels in 1993 and prior, that were

there flying flags of convenience and we will call them stateless vessels, but

as of this year I believe, on May 2, it has been reduced to eleven, so since

1993, we have made tremendous strides in trying to eliminate those boats from

fishing on the straddling stocks outside the 200-mile limit. Now we realize that

there is a much bigger problem here. I guess it is certainly a start, some

people might call it, maybe some of the foreign nations might call it

territorial encroachment is a term, or we will call it probably creeping

jurisdiction on limits. It is a term that will be frequently used to describe

what we might be able to do in the future.

I think there are some positive aspects to dealing with this

problem here, but overall, we have seen those vessels other than NAFO countries,

catch probably 20 per cent of the fish that is there, and I am sure those close

to the scene and the ministers are probably quite aware that in the past year or

so we have seen some of the nations voluntarily withdrawing their flags of

convenience and getting that number down. I think Minister Tobin stated on May

2, I believe, eleven at the time were now fishing out there which is a

considerable improvement since the thirty-three over a year ago.

Now numerous have agreed prior to this federal government

taking over and since they have continued that, I commend the current government

for doing that and the previous for reducing that number to only eleven but it

is not even the tip of the iceberg that is there. We have a major problem there,

in fact NAFO has the responsibility to establish quotas and to control outside

the 200-mile limit, they set a quota last September, established a quota of

6,000 tons of 3No cod outside the 200-mile limit on the Nose and Tail of the

Grand Banks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Inside that?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that's correct, that's right in 3No

cod. In February, when Minister Tobin went to Brussels and put forward a case to

be able to have the fishery shut down in that area - now our government had been

saying, the former minister John Crosbie and the current minister, Brian Tobin

have stated that even though we were given I believe roughly 60 per cent of that

quota of 6,000 tons, were given to Canadian boats, 40 per cent were given to

other NAFO boats. They felt that we shouldn't fish our 40 per cent because we

felt there was a problem there, a declining in stocks would be very severe and

detrimental to the future recovery of the fish stocks in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am getting to that. As a result of

that and from pressures being brought on NAFO, Minister Tobin went there in

February, they agreed eventually to - and their quota was only 2,200 tons, 2,400

tons - they agreed after that meeting, or at that time, actually, to close it

for this year, when they already had caught almost all their quota.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. How much did they catch?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: They got 900 tons? Fifty percent almost. I

understand they had 1,600 tons, is what I heard, out of 2,200 tons. I don't know

the exact figure. Let's put it this way. They agreed to stop fishing when they

had either close to half or 60 per cent of what they were supposed to catch, and

for 1993.

When NAFO agreed to close it - they may set a quota next

year, that is quite possible. The big problem here is that 80 per cent of the

fish being caught is being caught out there by NAFO countries of which we have

no direct control or supervision or enforcement. In fact, what NAFO has out

there is a managerial aspect and a supervision but no enforcement regime in

place. None whatsoever! NAFO has no enforcement regime in place.

You can put on paper whatever TAC you allow out there,

whatever quotas you want to establish. You could board and observe and do

whatever you like, but if you do not have an enforcement regime in place to

follow up on those violations we are not going to accomplish what we need to

accomplish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Out there now the cod stocks on the Nose

and Tail of the Banks, there is 97 per cent, generally speaking, of the stock is

usually within the 200-mile limit. I think they call it 5 per cent outside on

the average. At certain points of the year there is about 25 per cent outside

the 200-mile limit. That is a very vulnerable position of which we don't have

control.

John Crosbie stated on numerous occasions that we do not have

the legal right to be able to be able to regulate those. I regard this step that

has just been taken is going to address a problem that has been addressed

already to a great extent. We've seen a reduction from thirty-three to eleven

stateless vessels and flags of convenience, we call them. It is down to

one-third what it was a year ago. This legislation will hopefully eliminate the

other one-third that is there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, that is correct, that is right. Some

countries have agreed voluntarily - Korea and various others, I believe

Venezuela - they have agreed. There is an international understanding with those

countries, an agreement, not to allow flags of convenience. All we have out

there now are like Belize and Honduras and we have Panama. A few countries out

there still are not respecting the declining stocks, or they are ignorant of the

circumstances, or they don't place a high value on the preservation of stocks

that do not have a direct impact on their country, or countries that do not have

an ongoing trade relationship with Canada. They have no obligation of an

international basis to deal and address that. That could always be a problem.

I sincerely hope that within thirty days, as they've

indicated, they will go out and board these and use whatever force is there to

get those flags of convenience vessels out of the water. I hope that the avenue

could be open to be able to go out and do the same with NAFO, but I can assure

you it is not there. The forum is not there in international law to be able to

do that, and that is regrettable.

When you see people here - and I see them in my district;

twenty-some hundred people directly involved in the fishery in my district, a

significant number, the big percentage of the workforce - and they have to stay

at home and watch fish six and seven inches long being landed and caught outside

the Nose and Tail of the Bank and they in here being given an income. They are

frustrated with it. They feel you should go out and blow every ship out of the

water that is out there, NAFO countries and otherwise.

The United States is not a member of NAFO and the United

States will not be bullied on the international market, I can assure you that.

There is a growing movement afoot in the United States to get some degree of

protectionism in there. They are facing an onslaught from Japan and there is a

period which arose in American politics, in American society now, that we want

protection; if we give, we want something in return. There is tremendous

pressure on the U.S. administration, and that has been brewing over the past

year. We want to protect what we have. If we are going to have a trade off, it

is going to be of significant impact. It's not going to be something that is

going to drain. There was an anti-government backlash, and they got the message

there, and they are not going to succumb to any international agreements that

are not in their best interest, I can assure you of that.

Now we have numerous countries out there, and today in The

Evening Telegram I was pleased to see one aspect there that they are going

to go out, the RCMP, the army, the navy, the air force, whatever you have to go

out there, board those stateless vessels and flags of convenience, take them in

and prosecute them and do whatever is necessary. I sure hope that will happen,

and I will applaud that. We need that. In fact, maybe I would advocate an

extreme, maybe go after NAFO countries, the real violators - Spain and Portugal

- who wouldn't even sign the agreement in Brussels to shut down the 3No cod

fishery on the -

AN HON. MEMBER: But they did not object.

MR. SULLIVAN: They didn't object; they didn't agree. If

you don't agree, in my mind, you object. He who is not with us is against us.

They sat on the fence.

AN HON. MEMBER: They had sixty days to object; they did

not (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. They didn't object, so they

didn't vote for it. They abstained, I believe. They abstained, and if you don't

support something, you are against it. You either support this international

effort or you are against it. You can't sit on the fence.

The most violent, flagrant abusers of this system cannot sit

on the fence. We know where Spain and Portugal are in this fishery. They are out

there catching fish and violating international law, not adhering to quotas that

are there, and they are not going to go along and participate with it.

The Evening Telegram today outlines a few interesting

things. The Evening Telegram said today that most nations registered a

measure of objection to the bill. Many nations objected to this bill that was

presented in the House of Commons and passed. Minister Tobin admitted that, it

said. They disagree with Canada stepping outside established international

rules, but I say we should go for the total works out there.

We are on the high moral ground on this issue. We have the

support of fair-minded nations out there, like-minded nations out there. It has

moral support, and anything that has moral support, you take your knocks on the

international community because of it. Who can knock Canada for being aggressive

and pushing forward in trying to get established certain protection for a

resource that is not given the significance by other countries?

They are pirates out there, not just those ones we are going

to pick on now, not just those from Panama, Belize and Honduras, but the Spanish

and Portuguese who we are not even touching in this legislation. We are not

touching the countries that are pillaging 80 per cent of the stocks out there.

We are going to take away those flags of convenience and they will up the

amounts they are catching, and the same amount will get caught.

Now there was a theory, and people said that cod disappeared,

the Northern cod, 2J and 3K and 3L gradually got scarcer as we moved south, and

they said it couldn't move outside the 200-mile limit, it couldn't go out

through the deep trenches between the Continental Shelf and the Flemish Cap, but

scientists are reporting, and I have heard just recently that they are finding

cod in those depths that they didn't expect to find them before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sh, sh.

MR. SULLIVAN: We won't tell the foreigners that,

hopefully; we will try to keep it here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can tell you, scientists have been wrong

before. Scientists were wrong in their estimation; that is right. Scientists

were wrong. The people who are not wrong, the people who have never been wrong,

I can tell you, are the people who have fished that resource for fifteen, twenty

and thirty years. They said ten years ago what is happening, and it is criminal

to have liners in nets. It wasn't just done by those foreigners out there, I can

tell you. It is being done by trawlers out of companies operating here in this

Province, and it has been done out of boats operating in this Province for many

years, and the reason they did it -

AN HON. MEMBER: One of the worst offenders in this

Province was FPI (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It sure was. I have talked to people in my

district. As I went door-to-door in my district - and twice within a year I went

to every door in my district - I talked fishery matters in 80 per cent of those

conversations, and often up to an hour in group discussions. It took me four

weeks to visit every door, 2400 doors, and I asked people who fished on those

trawlers for twenty-five years and they said it was just lit up like hotels out

there. When they pulled in their nets and reached up they could see almost every

mesh with flounder about four inches long, every single mesh was full. They

destroyed a young growing resource, they tore up the sea bottom, the sea beds in

breeding areas, they fished in the wintertime during spawning seasons, they

ignored every conservation rule in the book, Canadians as well as foreigners.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Newfoundlanders.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Newfoundlanders. It is little wonder

we are having a job convincing foreigners, now that the fish is gone, that they

should start using some conservation. We lost control of a resource and when we

did realize it was slipping away the political leaders of the day said: we

cannot throw thousands of people out of work. We have to balance the

conservation aspect with the social upheaval by eliminating several thousand

people from jobs. And what did they do? They only closed down certain plants,

and only cut down certain aspects of the fishery, so we could ease in the social

upheaval.

What we have is social upheaval in this Province the likes of

which never existed in this country before, the likes that has never existed, I

say, in this world before, with the massive unemployment because of a shutdown

in the fishery. There is no single industry that has such an impact as the

impact this is having on the Newfoundland economy today. From the direct people

involved in the harvesting and processing to spin-off industries here it is

criminal and there is no real hope in the next short-term until these stocks can

rebuild.

We know, and the minister referred to it, that it takes seven

years under normal conditions, maybe slightly less under optimal conditions, and

we do not have optimal environmental conditions existing anymore out there. We

have colder water temperatures. It has been documented, and scientists can tell

you. We have the salinity levels affecting the eggs that come to the surface,

where the eggs come to the surface and where they hatch, where they feed near

the surface of the water. They are not coming to the surface of the water; they

are dying on the bottom of the ocean, the ones that are there. The water

temperature, too, is affecting the mortality rate and the survival. We only have

one in a million that would hatch under normal conditions and