March 22,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 4

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have a question for the Minister of

Fisheries on a situation I pursued with the minister yesterday. In light of the

Prime Minister's public statements yesterday which indicated to the people of

this Province and the country that it is quite alright now for a reduced number

of European community vessels to fish on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks

even though they are taking 75 per cent or so of juvenile fish, even though they

flagrantly overfished the quota, even though Canada has agreed not to take its

full limit of quota in the name of conservation, does the minister and the

provincial government support those statements of the Prime Minister, that it is

okay now for a half dozen or so Spanish vessels to be fishing on the Nose and

Tail of the Banks?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must have missed something. I did not hear the Prime

Minister make any such statement, that it was okay.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You missed something.

DR. HULAN: I sure did. That is all I can say so I will

leave it at that for now.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: For the minister's information the Prime

Minister said there were forty-nine before but now there is a reduced number

there so it did not seem to be quite as serious, which indicates to me that the

federal government now is going to tolerate six Spanish vessels overfishing in

an area where they have already overfished. Overfishing, taking juvenile turbot

is quite alright now, backed up by a Spanish military vessel.

I want to ask the minister if he supports that position and

those statements by the Prime Minister of Canada?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister stated very clearly that he had raised the

issue of the four, or six, vessels that are out on the Nose and Tail of the

Banks right now with the President of the EU. He made it very clear that he had

raised the issue with the Prime Minister of Spain and there was no indication

that the Prime Minister was indicating any tolerance to fishing on the Nose and

Tail of the Banks again. To answer the other question... where do I stand? Mr.

Speaker, very, very, clearly, this will not be tolerated from our standpoint and

that our recommendation to the federal government would be to proceed with the

action that was taken earlier if it does continue.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The one thing that is perfectly clear

now, as indicated by the federal minister and officials, is that the Spanish are

fishing today with the presence of a military or an enforcement vessel in the

area. I want to ask the minister directly: Has the minister demanded that the

federal government arrest Spanish vessels that are continuing to overfish in

that zone? Have you demanded of Mr. Tobin and the Prime Minister and the federal

government that they arrest those Spanish vessels and get them out?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did hear out of my right ear that someone wondered if I had

been talking or had made the telephone call to the federal minister. Indeed, at

approximately 5:45.5 p.m. yesterday, I spoke with the federal minister at length

on this issue and I made this Province's position very clear, that we will not

tolerate; we, as a Province will not tolerate and would recommend that the

actions that were taken earlier be carried out again if it is necessary, if

these vessels continue to have activity on the Nose and Tail.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has indicated he talked to the federal minister

yesterday. I want to ask the minister: Did the federal minister indicate how

long they are going to tolerate this inflammatory overfishing by the Spaniards,

how long are they going to tolerate this? We know they are fishing today. How

long will they tolerate this flagrant overfishing before we see action from the

federal government, arrest those vessels and get them off the banks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I have never been applauded so

much from the other side of the House as I have today and it is very nice.

I am not in a position, Mr. Speaker, to dictate, as the hon.

member across the floor has asked if I had dictated to the federal minister to

take action immediately. Let us also remember that the vessels moved in on the

Nose of the Bank yesterday afternoon some time, and I am sure in the good

decisions of the federal minister up to this point, would not want to, within

minutes of their arrival move out with boats to arrest them. But I am also

equally sure that the conditions on the Banks, if they continue, action will be

taken in a reasonable length of time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I mean, is the minister

forgetting that just a week or so ago the federal government arrested the

Estai and brought it to port here, has he forgotten that? If it wasn't all

right to overfish then, why is it all right to fish now? That's the question.

You arrested the Estai , one vessel, but you allow six more to go out

there today and flagrantly overfish the stock which is in jeopardy of

extinction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There is a name to be put on what is

happening, I say to the minister, there is a name to be put on it. Now I want to

ask the minister directly, did the federal minister give you any indication of

how long the federal government is going to tolerate this flagrant overfishing,

taking juvenile turbot and other species from the water? How long will they

tolerate this before they move in and take the Spaniards out? Can you answer

that?

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

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes there is a name

for what is going on, it is called responsible action on Mr. Tobin's part and

the federal government's.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Approximately a year ago with much fanfare, Mr. Speaker, the

federal government announced, along with the provinces and municipalities around

Canada, an infrastructure program whereby the projects would be cost-shared on a

one-third basis to provide jobs for Canadians, much needed jobs, Mr. Speaker.

There has been some concern in the last couple of weeks - some comments made by

the federal people that that money will be spread over five years instead of

three. Could the minister confirm and tell the House today whether this is true

and whether that final agreement has been reached?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely correct, the

member is correct. The federal government now is negotiating with the provincial

committee which is headed up by Mr. Baker, maybe Mr. Baker should be the one to

answer the question. They are suggesting that rather than the three year period,

can we possibly look at spreading the same amount of money over five years. That

is going to cause some problems for us. Exactly to what extent we are not sure

because of the holdback on the Corner Brook civic centre which will go into the

third and possibly the fourth year. We are debating that now. Mr. Baker is going

to speak to his counterpart in Ottawa in the next couple of days and hopefully

within a week or less we will have a solution to this dilemma that we are in at

the present time.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Could the minister tell the House, then,

because some grave concerns have been expressed to me about - you just mentioned

one, the Civic Centre in Corner Brook which is needed in the very near future in

order to get the Canada Games. In fact, they got the Canada Games - in order for

it to be held here. We have seen examples, for instance, with the Caboto Centre

here in St. John's, where that is probably not going to be ready now for 1997

because of some snarls by both levels of government. Because there have been

tenders let, for instance the Lagoon system in Deer Lake and the Civic Centre in

Corner Brook are two major projects in the Province that have been let. Could

the minister now explain to the House what kind of effect that will have on

those projects?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing. The contracts

that have been let, the announcements that have been made prior to, I guess,

now, and most of them, I think, were made by the end of last year, it will have

absolutely no affect. The Civic Centre in Corner Brook will proceed on schedule.

The money will probably take longer than two years to spend, so that is what I

was referring to. It will probably take two or three years, maybe four, before

we can actually finish the project in Corner Brook. It has nothing to do with

that particular project or the project in the hon. member's district.

The contracts have been let and they will be honoured. They

will continue. The problem I have is that I have about $20 million - or I should

say we have about $20 million - left in the infrastructure program. If it means

that we have to reduce and save some money for year four and year five, that

would come out of that money. That would come out of what is left, which would

basically mean, then, I wouldn't have the honour of being able to get up in the

House and tell certain members on this side and on that side that there is no

money in infrastructure for them this year.

Thank you.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

final supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, if there was approximately

$150 million allocated last year on a one-third basis by the feds, province, and

municipalities, and it is going to be spread out over five years instead of

three, that would mean there is approximately $20 million a year less to be

spent on construction in the Province - less to be spent each year - so I don't

know where the minister comes with regard to the $20 million that is left. I can

understand if $20 million is left in the total infrastructure program and not

called yet. If that if the case, Mr. Speaker, could the minister now tell the

House that if that particular money is not going to be spent in the three years,

it is going to be spent over five, could he tell the House now if the Province

will come in with a major capital works program this year for municipalities

around the Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what a tempting question for me to

go into a charade of how much money has been spent over the last ten years in

capital works. What a tempting question!

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with any of the $100

million-plus that we've already committed. It will not touch that. What the

Federal Government has basically said to us is: Can you save $5 million for the

fifth year of the program? Save $5 million. That saving could easily come out of

the $20 million, $20-odd million that I have left. But I'm going to tell you

this, Mr. Speaker - Mr. Baker is a great negotiator. I don't think for one

minute that at the end of the day -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. REID: The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is a

great negotiator. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day that

Newfoundland is going to have any trouble with our cousins in Ottawa when it

comes to splitting up the few miserable dollars - and that is what I can call

them - that we have left to spend in infrastructure funding.

I can assure you this - that with over $100 million gone into

the infrastructure program directly financed by this government, for the $100

million that we've put in so far, I doubt very much if this government or this

Province can afford to put any more money into any kind of a program this year,

including a capital works program.

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

West.

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

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if I may, that Mr. Baker will

not have problems with his cousins in Ottawa, it's his brother in Ottawa he will

have trouble with!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Minister of Natural Resources. There has been a lot of talk around this Province

about the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and we are glad to

see that the privatization bill has finally been taken away from the Order

Paper. Unfortunately, it appears the issue is not yet over. Many people have

questions regarding the next phase of life with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

The Premier has expressed a term, `commercialization', that has caused some

concern. I would like to ask the minister if he could explain exactly what is

meant and what is involved in the commercialization of Newfoundland Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, personally, I don't use the

word. We want Hydro to be the most efficient electrical utility that it can be

for this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: - and we want it to do that with the board

of directors it has in place, the management it has in place, and it can do

that. There is nothing further to say on the issue.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: If the minister doesn't like the word

`commercialization', I can assure him that the Premier doesn't mind using it.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister, as it relates to making

it as effective and commercialized as he possibly can, has the minister or the

Premier consulted with the union or the management of Newfoundland Hydro about

exactly what this restructuring is and how many jobs will be lost?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have had regular meetings,

occasional meetings with the union representing Hydro, the IBEW over time and

trying to answer their questions about it. We have not taken any decision on the

matter, frankly, as to what step we would take next. We have not taken any

decision at all. I am aware that Hydro itself, the Hydro management and Hydro

board have taken some staffing action recently that was not directed by

government and not asked for by government. It is a matter that the board of

directors took on its own.

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

for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Like the $7 million that has already been

spent trying to privatize it. I guess you are trying to say now that that was

all taken on its own by the board of directors as well.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister know it has already been

announced that fifty jobs will be lost this year? We also understand that the

union was not actually consulted, nor was management consulted except recently

when they were called into a meeting - the union back a little while ago alone

and just recently both of them were called in. So don't just say that it was all

done by the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro when the

Premier himself, and probably you, have been involved in it. Can the minister

confirm, Mr. Speaker, or will he deny that fifty jobs have been cut? Can he

explain exactly what the process was to choose which jobs would be eliminated?

Are these jobs part of the nutrient program, an early retirement program or did

the employees have no choice at all? I can say to the minister, I know the

positions that are going to be eliminated.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Hydro has been under restraint

for several years like government has been under restraint for several years. In

particular, for the last couple of years they have had a policy in place that if

someone left the organization, for the first six months, no matter how essential

that position was, they did not refill it. They did not refill it and any time

that they did refill a position, it was done on a temporary basis in the last

couple of years. They have now changed that policy because they have looked at

the organization - because they had an opportunity to look at the organization

from the top down.

In December, the president of CF(L)Co and the senior

vice-president of Hydro took retirement. At that time, Hydro management and

Hydro board looked at the situation and said, `It is an appropriate time for us

to look at some functional rearrangements for the executive members of Hydro and

the management of Hydro.' At that time, as they reviewed it, they said, Let's

set it up so that we have a VP in charge of production, a VP in charge of

transmission and distribution, etcetera, and let's look down through the

organization to see what effect this might have on the organization and see what

positions are essential and otherwise.' In doing this review, the senior

management of Hydro have identified about forty positions that they consider to

be non-essential. There are more positions than that in Hydro that are vacant.

Of these non-essential positions, they are going to cancel them now and only

eighteen of these positions had people in them and all on a temporary basis,

eighteen people in them on a temporary basis. So they have now given notice to

these people that on May 31, the temporary positions end. There are a number of

- eight, I think, permanent people in the non-essential positions and these

people are being told: We are not going to lay you off, we are going to move you

into vacant positions in Hydro that are essential. That is what they are doing,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: May I have another question, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, members have three questions. I will

allow the member another question.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister, first of all,

didn't know anything about it - it was all done by Hydro, and now he (inaudible)

it is temporary and all that. The minister was trying to hide something when he

got into that game. Let me say to the minister that there are permanent people

being laid off. The temporary people have been there for years. And the

permanent positions have not been filled because the Premier, since he became

Premier of this Province, intended to privatize Hydro and he would not fill

permanent positions, he put them in temporary. There are people there as

temporary who have been working for years with Hydro, I say to the minister.

Now, with all that bologna he got on with about the

reorganization, the Vice-President, and everything else, let me ask the minister

what that has to do with the jobs that are going to be lost in Roddickton,

Cartwright, Rigolet, Hopedale, St. John's, Whitbourne, Bishop's Falls, St.

Alban's, McCallum, Stephenville, and St. Anthony? What does that have to do with

the jobs in those plants and those power outlets throughout the Province, the

fact that there is a new Vice-President?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I was fully briefed by Hydro on

Monday morning when they were taking their actions on this, fully briefed on it

and given the positions, etc. What they have said is they are going to look for

fifty non-essential positions in the next year. They now have forty that they

consider to be non-essential, vacant positions at this time. These are not

filled by permanent people and they are cancelling the jobs that are not filled

by permanent people. If they don't need them they shouldn't have them filled, if

they can run very efficiently without them.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation. In 1988, Marine Atlantic was given operation of the St. John's

dry dock and now that Marine Atlantic is experiencing losses, the Federal

Government is putting strains on the federal Crown corporation to sell off the

asset known as the St. John's dry dock to private industry. The union has been

trying to find out exactly what is going on and has been unable to get a

response, or even a meeting with the federal Minister of Transport. Perhaps the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will be able to shed some light

on exactly what has been proposed. I now ask the minister: Has he been talking

to his federal counterpart on the plans to privatize the dry dock, and can the

minister tell this House what plans have been made?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, we have been told a number of

months ago, the St. John's dry dock was stopped by the federal Crown corporation

from bidding on an international project. Probably it was just a ruse or an way

to put another nail in the coffin of the St. John's dry dock and the

Newfoundlanders that it employs. There is a fear that the dry dock will be sold

off to an offshore supply company, an oil company, that could be using the dock

for a limited time, as long as the oil industry is viable. We wonder what will

become of the dry dock and its employees when the offshore business is finished?

Mr. Minister, do you know the terms of reference, or the

mandate to be fulfilled by the Federal Government with regard to this

privatization, and would he please share with us what that mandate is?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in the

federal Minister of Transport and in his terms of reference he has set forth in

the privatization of the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the hon. minister.

MR. EFFORD: They are kind of testy over there today, no

chicken today, hey?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: I hear, Mr. Speaker, that they have changed

from chicken to submarines.

I have every confidence in the federal Minister of Transport

in his proposed privatization of Newfoundland Dockyard, that he will do for the

best interest of the Newfoundland Dockyard, the future of the Newfoundland

Dockyard, and its people. I will not argue against the privatization of anything

that private industry could do that government is now involved in. Surely the

members opposite wouldn't argue that case either.

What the hon. member is talking about is pure rumour. He is

acting on rumour, on assumption, of what may or may not happen. Let's wait and

see. Privatization is where they should be going. Anything that privatization

can operate, governments should not be involved in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: Probably, probably, yes.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: I was led to believe one time, Mr. Speaker,

that the minister had an open mind, but what I've discovered since I came in

here is that it is only a vacuum. If the dry-dock is privatized and does go for

the purposes of offshore oil facilities, a possible end, could result, would be

the closure of the St. John's dry-dock and an eventual shifting of that business

to other cities, like Halifax or Saint John, New Brunswick. The only one to be

happy is the Irving group of companies that are situated up in Canada. Minister,

do you have any concerns with regards to the future of the dry-dock, and how are

these concerns being addressed?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me inform the hon. member

very clearly, and this is the only answer, because it doesn't deserve any more

than this: Newfoundland is a part of Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A couple of days

ago I rose here in the House of Assembly and I asked the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations if he would be kind enough to name the special committee of

Cabinet that was constructed in order to look at the criteria that were brought

forward in the emergency response program some weeks ago. The minister replied

that there was no special committee of Cabinet. He said it was done by the whole

Cabinet in general. I would like to ask the minister if he still stands by those

words, please.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I said to

the hon. member was it was a Cabinet decision, and I will stand by that

statement.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister said, and I

think it can be found in Hansard, that there was no special committee of

Cabinet. I have a press release here put out by the minister - I don't know if

it was a typing error, or if the minister was misquoted, or if the minister

misled the House. It was put out on February 2, Newfoundland Information

Services. It says: Tom Murphy, Minister of Employment and Labour Relations,

advises the special Cabinet committee appointed to look at the provincial

employment creation program met late yesterday with the Minister of Finance,

Winston Baker.

I would like to ask the minister once again, who was this

special committee of Cabinet? Who is on it?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if

the hon. member is aware -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to take that, Murphy?

MR. MURPHY: I don't know. Somebody said one time that an

empty barrel makes the most noise, I say to the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

What I said was, as the hon. member may or may not know, that

at times certain situations require a Cabinet committee to look in more detail

into a specific problem. At the end of the day Cabinet decides, and I stand by

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who were they?

MR. MURPHY: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was on the committee?

MR. MURPHY: The fourteen members of Cabinet and the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the truth! (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) misled the House.

MR. ROBERTS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Bonavista -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to a point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order, the hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman for

Bonavista South has just accused my colleague, the Member for St. John's South,

of misleading the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I've just reviewed the Hansard,

and the member very clearly, the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the

Opposition is in his bullying, petulant mood today, but it won't stop us.

The hon. minister made it very clear there was a Cabinet

committee. I would call upon the hon. gentleman for Bonavista South to withdraw

the allegation he just made, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the problem here is that

the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations publicly told the people of this

Province that indeed there was a special Cabinet committee appointed. He

announced they met with the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. The Member

for Bonavista South yesterday asked the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to name the ministers that were on it, that made up the Cabinet

committee. The minister refused to do it and indeed said it was the whole

Cabinet; he did refuse and said there was not a special Cabinet committee. We

now have a press release from the government verifying the point, so why doesn't

the minister just stand in his place and tell us the ministers who were on the

Cabinet committee and that would resolve it? Why are the ministers who were on

the committee so ashamed to be a part of the process, I ask the Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: I will look into the matter and make a

ruling later.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. House

Leader would read right down through Hansard and not only pick part of it out,

he would find that the minister did say that there was no special committee of

Cabinet, and I ask the minister again, Mr. Speaker, to name the people there. Is

it because he is ashamed of the people who were part of that process, is he

ashamed because those people, Mr. Speaker, give a kick in the teeth to the poor,

the unemployed, in trying to make them not be responsible and respond to this

program so that they will have to continue on the welfare rolls of this

Province? Stand up and let people know who they were.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the hon. member that this government provided

this year, in very difficult times, $5 million as a bridging for Newfoundlanders

who were unfortunate enough not to have - I ask hon. members in the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Let me say to the hon. member, it was this

government and this Cabinet action that brought about 2,700 positions in this

Province; it is this government that did it and this government will continue to

address it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) John the Baptist (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You do it quite often, I say to the

minister. You have done it too often.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Motion 4.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And Pontius Pilate and all the others -

Judas, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist.

MR. SPEAKER: If I may interrupt, I offer my apologies. I

should say that after recognizing the hon. member I realized I had forgotten to

welcome some distinguished visitors to the House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No, I have stopped the time. In fact, he

only had five seconds.

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

Speaker's gallery the Honourable Ambassador of the Netherlands to Canada, His

Excellency Johannes Fietelaars, together with his wife, Leonie, and Mr. Jan

Gerrit van Dam, who is the Consul General from Montreal for the Netherlands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it appears

we are about to start the Private Members' business for the day and I

understand, from seeing a note sent around by the Member for Pleasantville, that

it appears there was a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation of the amendment

to the Government House Leader's motion on Private Members' Day.

As I understood the Member for Pleasantville, he was

proposing that all speeches be limited to fifteen minutes for Private Members'

Day, and I understand that what the Speaker may have put, after reading Hansard,

was that that exclude the first and last speaker. I don't believe that is what

the Member for Pleasantville proposed, and I don't think that was what the

Leader of the Opposition was referring to because he said he thought that all

speeches, not only for Private Members' Day but for every day, should be limited

to fifteen minutes. So we were all obviously talking about fifteen minute

speeches for Private Members' Day, first, middle and last, but it appears - and

I didn't hear this when Your Honour was putting it to the House, and I don't

think anybody else heard it that way - but it appears that Your Honour put the

motion to the House not in the wording proposed by the Member for Pleasantville

and not in the wording as the House understood it. So I wonder if it is possible

for Your Honour to put the motion once again in the means and the manner that

the Member for Pleasantville put it so that we can consider that and perhaps

ensure there be no confusion about what is going to happen when the Opposition

House Leader gets up to speak on this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: If I may say, and I don't need to hear

further on the point of order, I put the motion that it would only be the

speakers other than the mover and seconder - the mover, rather - when he spoke

first and also finished debate. I am satisfied in my mind that I was very clear,

and the record will show that was the motion put. That was on an amendment to

the resolution.

I saw the note from the hon. member and mentioned to him that

if he felt there was some confusion and wished to change it, it was certainly

open to him to make a further amendment, and I think he consulted and chose not

to do so. So the procedure for today is that the mover would have twenty minutes

to open and to close, unless someone should amend it prior to it, but I

certainly cannot do it unilaterally. We would need a motion from the floor to do

so. In the absence of that, I think we will proceed with the hon. member having

twenty minutes.

I take it there are no motions, and I recognize the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure today

in moving the Private Members' resolution for debate today, considering the very

serious situation off our shores on the Nose and Tail of the Banks, a situation

which took our full attention on Monday in a motion moved by the Premier, a

motion which we unanimously supported, all parties supported in this House,

because of the very serious situation, the very serious implications, for

Newfoundland and Labrador and for Atlantic Canada, so it gives me great pleasure

today to move and debate the following resolution, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS three years ago, on March 13, 1992, this hon. House

unanimously approved a resolution calling on Canada to extend management

jurisdiction to the limits of the continental shelf; and

WHEREAS NAFO is still utterly unable to stop international

overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and in the Flemish Cap

despite clear evidence that many fish stocks are being fished to extinction;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House once again call on the

the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

It is a very serious resolution, Mr. Speaker, I say to all

hon. members, it is a very serious situation. It has attracted the attention of

not only Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Canadians but it has attracted the

attention of the world, the situation that has developed on the Nose and Tail of

the Grand Banks over the last few weeks particularly but, for the last number of

years, it is a situation that has attracted, certainly, the extreme attention of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Atlantic Canadians and as I said three

years ago, when I introduced an emergency resolution which was supported

unanimously by all members of the House, that this matter has evolved over

years.

First of all, we had a 3-mile zone then we had a 12-mile

zone, 12-mile limit and then in 1977, we accomplished what we thought was utopia

when it came to management of our fish resources; in 1977 when we accomplished

and obtained control up to 200 miles, a 200-mile limit. The Member for

Twillingate, as I recollect, certainly played a

part in that, was involved in

the process from the Ottawa scene and we were very delighted at that particular

time. We were quite relieved, we thought it was going to take care of all our

problems when it came to our fish stocks. We thought it was going to stop

overfishing. We thought it would ensure the future of Newfoundland and Labrador

and Atlantic Canada I say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He was in Opposition when we got the

200-mile limit. Well if the Member for Windsor - Buchans thinks that is

significant, I will certainly recognize it but what I was doing, was paying

tribute to an individual who certainly played a

part in Canada achieving that

particular goal, that was my point -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - not whether he was in opposition or

government, that was not the point; I said he played a

part in it and I wanted

to recognize him for that, as did many other people -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I look forward to the member's

participation in the debate later on today, I say to him. But, Mr. Speaker, as

we know now, that did not completely take care of our problem. Two hundred miles

for Canada was not quite enough because our continental shelf extends beyond 200

miles, and as I said back three years ago, the minority of coastal states, a

200-mile limit completely takes in their continental shelf so it took care of

their problems, it took care of their concerns but for us it didn't, and I

believe the number is that there are only five coastal states where their

continental shelves extend beyond 200 miles and of course Canada is one of

those.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in the world?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is what I understand. Five in the

world of which Canada is one; so that is part of the problem. We are certainly

in the minority when it comes to continental shelves and coastal states

controlling continental shelves at by far the majority, 200 miles take care of

their problems and their concerns so that is certainly a contributor to the

problem but, Mr. Speaker, personally, I don't think any other action by the

taking place on the Grand Banks today.

We have talked diplomacy until we are blue in the face. We

have negotiated until we are blue in the face but the European Community still

will not recognize the gravity of the situation with our fish stocks. They just

refuse to recognize the serious situation and it is very difficult to understand

when their fishing industry and their people are going through the same

downturn, the same increased unemployment levels, the same decreased earnings,

fish plants shut down, trawlers harvesting less fish, that they still refuse to

recognize the very serious situation with our fish stocks. They flatly refuse to

recognize it, and I think if there is one thing that will highlight that, is

when you think about today, today, on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks there

are Spanish vessels that are still fishing and catching 75 per cent to 80 per

cent of juvenile fish, of fish stocks that are very seriously depleted.

MR. WOODFORD: It was wrong two weeks ago, it is wrong

now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: As my colleague says, it was wrong two

weeks ago, it is wrong now. When they arrested the Estai and brought it

into St. John's. How can it be so wrong two weeks ago, I say to the Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, when his federal counterpart and the Prime

Minister and the federal government so rightly arrested that vessel and brought

it to St. John's that today we have six vessels flagrantly overfishing? The

federal government knows it, it is monitoring it. They are thumbing their noses

not only at NAFO, but at the recent federal legislation that the minister

piloted through the House of Commons, which the Member for Eagle River applauded

on Monday, and which we applaud, and did applaud. But when you have the European

Community thumbing its nose at that very legislation, what does that really say

about the situation, I say to the Minister of Environment.

What does it really say about what is happening with the

Prime Minister of this country and the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

What does it really say about it all? I am not optimistic today - I have to say

that I'm disappointed to say it - but I'm not optimistic that we will negotiate

a resolve to this. Because how can we hope for a negotiated settlement when we

have the Spanish vessels out there fishing again today when those sensitive

negotiations are supposed to be ongoing? Are they out there, Mr. Speaker, today

fishing because they think it is going to improve the negotiating climate? Are

they out there today fishing because they think it is going to help the process,

to resolve it?

Think about it. Why are they there today? Are they there

because they want a negotiated settlement? Certainly not. If you were interested

in negotiating a resolve to this very serious situation, you certainly wouldn't

send your vessels out to overfish in an area that you've already overfished. So

this action that Spain has taken in the last couple of days in my view is very

inflammatory. They are sending a very strong message to the Prime Minister and

the government of this country. In their own way they are telling the federal

government really where to go, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture. They are really telling the Prime Minister of this country, his

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the entire federal government, and this

country, really where to go on this issue.

The federal government has a choice. I'm very surprised, I

say to the minister, and to other members in this House, that once the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans realized that they had their nets in the

water that they did not act. They did not act immediately once the nets went

into water, which now I understand that they have verified. How could you a week

or ten days ago arrest a vessel and bring it into St. John's, and today you

ignore six vessels doing exactly the same thing? How can you do that? How can

you justify that to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and to Canadians, I ask.

How can you justify that to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who today are

unemployed because of the depletion of our fish stocks, who are unemployed

because our cod stocks have been depleted, that are unemployed because our

flounder and flatfish stocks are depleted? That are becoming further unemployed,

if that is possible, because our turbot stocks are at the state of decimation.

Contributed very largely by the same people who are out there overfishing today,

flagrantly overfishing, violating Canadian legislation, violating NAFO quotas.

full Canadian quota of turbot in the name of conservation.

A very bitter pill to swallow, as I said on Monday. A very

bitter pill for me to swallow, to know that Atlantic Canadian fishermen,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, will catch less turbot this year and have less

earnings this year because the European Community overfished. A very bitter pill

to swallow, that fish plant workers, processors, will have less earnings this

year because the European Community overfished. We, in the name of conservation,

and with our good common sense, which I support, as bitter as it is, will not

catch all of our quota because those people broke the rules. Our people are

suffering because those people broke the rules. We will not catch all of our

quota because of what they did.

Then to know today that those very same people who've

flagrantly overfished, who are catching 75 per cent to 80 per cent of juvenile

fish in their net liners, are back there today with their nets in the water. We

can negotiate forever I say to members opposite. I would prefer a negotiated

settlement. I wish that Spain, Portugal and the other countries would come to

their senses but having been there four or five years ago and sitting down face

to face in Brussels, Lisbon and Madrid with the industry people and talking this

situation to them face to face, explaining to them what we were doing here, the

pain we were suffering, the conservation measures that we had introduced where

we had put on a moratorium on Northern Cod, put our plants out of business, laid

off our people but they still look at you as if there is no problem even though

their own industry is going through the same decline.

Now how can you be reasonable with people like that, I say to

members opposite, to all members of the House? What do you have to do to impress

upon them the gravity of the situation when their own people are suffering as a

consequence and still today their vessels overfish? There is only way to deal

with it, that Canada, as the coastal state nearest to the resource and nearest

to the problem, has to take control. Extend jurisdiction to take in the Nose and

Tail of the Banks and the entire Continental Shelf. There is no other resolve

and I am convinced as I stand here today that the vast majority of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, if not the vast majority of members opposite,

the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want Canada to control

that zone. They want the Spaniards and the Portuguese out. They will not refuse,

I say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans. They will not flatly refuse to have

them back when the stocks regenerate. We know they have traditionally fished, I

am not ignoring that fact, they have been 400 or 500 years coming there to fish.

MR. SIMMS: Not turbot.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not turbot. They have only fished turbot

since 1991, the Premier told us the other day. I looked at the charts after he

spoke when I was over there speaking to him about a matter. In 1991 they first

started to catch turbot and up it's gone. You should see the catch rates now.

You should see the catch rates of turbot now by the European community when at

the same time ours has gone down. Our catch rates have decreased just as

significantly as theirs have increased and yet they are quite content to go out

there today and scrape up what is left of that juvenile fish. When you think

about 15 per cent of mature fish, how can there be a future to the stock if that

is all that is left? Fifteen percent of mature fish with the potential to spawn

and they still want to come over today, put their nets in the water and catch 80

per cent of juvenile fish.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are doing it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I know they are doing it.

So how do you deal reasonably, as much as Canada wants to, if

there was ever a country in the world that attempted to be reasonable on the

world scene to negotiate, to be the conciliator -

MR. SIMMS: It's us.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It's Canada and there are times you have

to wonder if we really have it over the period of time - at times been a little

too nice. We are still probably trying to be a little too nice today. Yes, we

are being nice to the detriment of our own people. Now I really don't believe,

Mr. Speaker, that there is too much going on in negotiations between the two

countries. I am not convinced that very much has been achieved since they

started a week or so ago to try and address this issue. I am not a believer that

there has been very much materialized except that the European Community has

really where to go on this issue. I just pray to God, Mr. Speaker, that they

don't roll over and cave in on the issue. I hope they don't.

We all applauded their efforts of a week or ten days ago. I

applauded their efforts. I applauded the strong action taken by the federal

minister and the Prime Minister and I will applaud them again if they take more

strong action which they need to do right now. Don't wait while they are out

there today pulling in tons of juvenile fish aboard of those Spanish boats

again. What are we going to wait for, to make their trip viable? Is that what we

are waiting for, before we send them back home? Are we waiting for those vessels

to fill up their holds with juvenile fish before they head back home so they pay

for their fuel, they pay their crews and their boat expenses? We cannot afford

for another juvenile turbot to be taken out of the waters out there. We cannot

afford for another turbot to be taken out of the waters, and that is by Canadian

domestic vessels as well as foreigners, and we had better stop it, and the only

way we are going to stop them is to get them out of the zone. That is very

obvious, isn't it? We will talk until we are blue in the face; we will talk

until there is no more turbot out there. There will not even be 15 per cent

mature fish there. That is what we are going to do; we are going to negotiate

the 15 per cent of mature fish away so that there is no future for the turbot

stocks on the Grand Banks.

I am very, very dubious if we are ever going to see a return

of the cod stocks. For a long while I was optimistic and said: Oh, yes, it will

come back; but with the scientific data that we are now receiving, it is getting

very frightening. They just can't find any cod. The flatfish stocks are

decimated, and now we are standing by and watching another stock being depleted

- severely depleted - to the point of extinction. Yet, people say to us: Now,

let's be nice and let's negotiate, and negotiate, and negotiate, and while we

are doing it the people we are negotiating with are thumbing their noses at our

federal government, thumbing their noses at our unemployed people, at our

unemployed processors, and still continue to take that fish.

I think there is only one resolve to it. There is only one

way we can resolve it, and that is to take control, extend jurisdiction over the

entire Continental Shelf. Anything less is not going to work, I say to members

opposite. As much as I would like to see it negotiated and settled, it will not

work.

MR. SIMMS: They know.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, deep down within their own souls

they know as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I told John Crosbie that.

MR. SIMMS: You told Mulroney, too.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I told Brian Mulroney that. I told Brian

Mulroney in his office that he had better have a plan to go out there and remove

them from the banks, because all of his diplomatic efforts were not going to

succeed, I say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans, and I am sorry to say today

that I was right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Diplomacy - I support diplomacy. I like

diplomacy; it's the way to go, but you can be so diplomatic until there is

nothing to negotiate, there is nothing to talk about, and that is what worries

me out there on the Grand Banks. We are soon not going to have anything to sit

down and talk and negotiate about, because it is going to be completely wiped

out. It is the most serious situation we have ever faced in this Province, and

we had better get the European Community out of there, and fast. That is why

today I asked the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture what indication he

has had from the federal government about this situation. How long are they

going to sit back and watch the Spaniards overfish? How long are they going to

tolerate the nets in the water? Seriously - and for anyone to think that the

Government of Spain doesn't know what is going on when they have a military boat

out there with them, who sent that out there? The fishing industry in Spain

didn't send it, did they? The ship owners don't own military vessels, do they?

The Government of Spain is sponsoring and supporting the vessel that is out

there, I say to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And the sooner the Prime Minister

realizes that, the better. What is he waiting for a call back from the Prime

Minister for, I say? So he can tell him: I sent the vessel over with them. How

smart do you have to be to realize that it is the Government of Spain that has

that vessel out there, not the Spanish fishing industry. They don't own any

military vessels. They are supporting the efforts of those Spanish vessels that

are overfishing. Why else would they have it out there? They haven't got it out

there to take them back home, or they wouldn't have been over here in the first

place.

Mr. Speaker, I just hope that all hon. members realize how

serious this situation is, and they realize just what is happening on the Nose

and Tail of the Banks today, that they realize what is happening with the

international dialogue and negotiations that are supposedly taking place. I just

hope my worst fears aren't realized, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Spaniards are out

of there before dark tonight, and that we do get this matter resolved for the

benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Canadians, Spaniards and

Portuguese, because we have a world food resource that we have to conserve and

protect, and if we don't act soon there isn't going to be anything left of it.

I will conclude my remarks later on today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to be a part of this debate,

and also interesting, I would say, in light of the fluid situation as it is now

presented to us with respect to the ship that is allegedly fishing on the Grand

Banks, according to DFO officials there are a number of ships out there. The

latest reports I heard was that there was one NAFO patrol vessel, a Spanish

vessel that was an armed vessel, and a third fishing vessel. That is the report

I heard as late as last evening on this. There may have been some changes yet

that I have been unaware of, but it is very interesting to hear the hon.

Opposition House Leader speak of the difficult situation that we are now placed

in, and that we should continue our non-diplomatic efforts, and continue our

efforts in seizing these vessels, and that is one way of going about it. I think

Canada took a stand recently and we will be seeking, I would suspect, next week

at the United Nations conference on straddling stocks, we would be seeking

changes to the management regime that would allow Canada, on behalf of NAFO, to

undertake efforts to manage this stock on NAFO's behalf, and if that is gained

for the country, for mankind, then we will be much better off for everyone's

sake at the time.

In the interest of the diplomatic efforts that have currently

been undertaken, in the interest of preventing those who oppose us on this

issue, those nations that oppose us, from having the stick to beat us over the

head with, so to speak, to prevent them from having an issue with which to say

that Canada is only interested in its own management of the resources off our

coast, these fish resources, and in the interest of making certain that we do

not inflame the situation to a point, we have already taken a very giant step, a

very strong step forward, that the hon. members opposite were not, of course, as

interested in pushing the government at the time.

The hon. Opposition House Leader does state that he told the

Prime Minister back when they were in government that they should do this. He

told the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that they should do this, but

again there was no public outcry, and what we see here today is the bandwagon

effect, I could say. When the Opposition has decided, despite the efforts of

trying to reach a diplomatic solution to this, now that we have taken strong

action, the Opposition is intent on making sure that they get out in front of

the parade should there be one.

They want to make sure that this issue is made as difficult

for those of us who are trying to accomplish something in this situation, and in

so doing their whole intent in this is to try to gain politically from the

difficulty of the negotiations that will be undertaken. It is so obvious to see

that they are in their position on this issue they are intent on bringing it

forward in such a way as to say that the country of Canada, as they would put

it, is now holding back, that there is but one way to accomplish this task.

Now, if there were but one way to accomplish this task the

Opposition's methods of the past and the Progressive Conservative government of

the stewardship of the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Fisheries, have

taken a certain course of action, and I say to the Opposition that it is in

their best interest and the best interest of the people of this Province that we

support them in this initiative and allow the Prime Minister of the county, and

allow the Minister of Fisheries to have a certain amount of latitude in trying

to make this decision, and in trying to negotiate for us all the best overall

resolution to the problem.

The hon. member is putting it forward in such a way so as to

allow people to think that the government is now backing off, which is not the

case.

The government is in the middle of negotiations. As you know

and as you have supported in the past, diplomacy is a difficult situation,

especially when Canada has taken a certain amount of effort up to this point,

which is difficult. It is a matter where we've gone forward and seized a ship in

the past, there a couple of weeks ago. We've seized this ship in light of our

efforts to try to bring the issue to the forefront. I would suggest at this

time, Mr. Speaker, that I would move an amendment, so I could put forward the

rationale for the amendment.

I would like to move an amendment to the resolution put

forward by the hon. Member for Grand Bank. This amendment is seconded by the

Member for Eagle River. What we would put forward is that the resolution be

amended by deleting immediately following the words "Grand Banks" in the second

stanza, the words "and in the Flemish Cap," and in the final stanza that the

resolution be amended by deleting immediately following the word "House," the

stanza of the resolution, and substituting immediately therefore the following:

to exercise for conservation purposes only custodial management over the Nose

and Tail of the Grand Banks.

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of this amendment for you. The

rationale of course for this is for us to go beyond -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry, I don't know if Your Honour has

seen a copy of the amendment, the amended resolution or not. I'm just wondering

if the - you can't alter the intent of the resolution. I'm wondering if Your

Honour would want to reflect on that and just make sure that what the government

is doing here, that it is not altering the intent of the resolution as I moved.

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

MR. ROBERTS: The amendment is intended to alter the

thrust of the resolution. That is a perfectly appropriate and proper rationale

for an amendment. Mr. Speaker, it puts before the House an alternate proposition

which the House can accept or reject as it so wishes. To me that is the

foundation for any amendment before the House. I could refer Your Honour to

Beauchesne, but I suggest that is not really necessary.

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

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is just going to recess briefly to

consult with -

MR. SIMMS: That is the only appeal I was going to make.

That may be what the -

MR. SPEAKER: - the Table Officers on the....

MR. SIMMS: - House Leader on the Government side says in

terms of his opinion.

MR. SPEAKER: To see if the -

MR. SIMMS: And the House Leader's opinion here might be

different. So maybe if Your Honour was going to look at this, fine.

MR. SPEAKER: We will just recess briefly to see if the

amendment is in order.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, just if I could, at this point,

just to be able to read the motion as amended. If that would be helpful?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. RAMSAY: No. Okay.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair has a copy of the amendment as

presented by the hon. member, so we will take it from there.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the hon. the Member for Grand

Bank on the amendment to the resolution, the Chair has looked at the amendment

that has been made by the hon. the Member for LaPoile and determined that the

amendment is in order.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, just to try to put it in some

perspective, the reason for the amendment, to consider the situation where

foreign countries are now looking for some reason to have Canada look like the

villain, to have our country be seen as the villain - of course, if we were to

allow this to pass in its current form, the inclusion of the Flemish Cap, as one

particular thing that would be a point in contention along with the bringing to

the floor of the House here today, the wording of the final stanza would be

inflammatory in the current stage of negotiations. So it is very important that

Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to have some latitude in their

negotiations and to hope that we are able to make some headway at the United

Nations Conference on straddling fish stocks next week. So, Mr. Speaker, we put

forward this amendment for that reason, not to try to change the intent in any

way. It is entirely to make it more acceptable to the government at this stage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made reference to

the intent of the resolution that we put there today as being inflammatory. I

wonder what is more inflammatory than the Spaniards being back today fishing on

the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible) firing shots across the bow.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Government

of Canada went out there and - I support what they did and I wish they would do

it again - fired shots across the bow of a Spanish trawler to get her to heave

to, and so they should, Mr. Speaker, and I commend them for doing it. And today,

a resolution in this Legislature calling to extend jurisdiction over the

Continental Shelf, the Nose and Tail of the Banks and the Flemish Cap is going

to blow negotiations apart in Brussels? Mr. Speaker, I don't share that view. My

position, I say to the Premier, on this, is that if we were to pass the

resolution that was put forth today by the Member for Grand Bank it would give

strength to Mr. Tobin and the Prime Minister of the country in making the

argument as to why they have to do it for Canada - here is a coastal province.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) Mr. Tobin (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: You should have thought about that when

they fired the shots across the bow.

PREMIER WELLS: We don't have to cut the legs out from

under them. You should be supporting them (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what we are doing here.

MR. TOBIN: I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of trying to

cut the legs from under Mr. Tobin or the Prime Minister of this country. I

support the actions today of the Prime Minister of this country and the Minister

of Fisheries. I commend them, Mr. Speaker, for their action in bringing that

trawler in and putting a halt to the flagrant overfishing by the Spaniards and

the destruction of the turbot off the coast of this Province.

PREMIER WELLS: Then, agree with the resolution

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: But, Premier, the resolution today calls for

jurisdiction, to extend control to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the

Flemish Cap. Now, that is what the resolution called for.

PREMIER WELLS: Would the hon. member yield for just a

moment?

MR. TOBIN: Sure.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The concern, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple, and I don't

question for a moment the good intentions of the hon. members opposite in

putting forward their resolution as it is, but Canada is treading a very, very

fine line in international law, trying to maintain adequate support with as many

nations as possible in the world for what it is doing. Many of them are saying,

`Canada you are going outside international law. You're starting a war, you

fired shots.' There is an argument in that direction. Canada is saying, `No, it

is necessary for conservation purposes that we do that,' and that's our

argument, and we are getting a lot of support around the world for that because

we are doing it for conservation purposes.

The concern that I have and that Mr. Tobin has - and I have

talked to him about it in the last few days - the concern that we have is that,

if this House now passes a resolution that says: `extend jurisdiction', the

European Community and everybody else who is of a mind to attack Canada on it,

will say: See, we told you so. Canada in not interested in conservation, this is

a jurisdiction and a resources grab. That's what Canada wants to do, get all

this for itself, so don't let Canada fool you.

Now, that is the concern that we have and that would

undermine the effort that Canada is trying to make and will make, starting again

on Monday at the United Nations, the effort that we are trying to make to gather

support from the maximum possible number of nations around the world. That's the

basis of the concern. Now, I don't for a moment question the sincerity or

genuine nature of the intention of the hon. members opposite, I just say to you

that technically it is very, very harmful to Canada's world-wide cause at this

moment.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, nor do I question what the

Premier is saying, but I have to say to the Premier that, three years ago in

this House that you were part - I would assume you were part of it because it

was an unanimous resolution passed to the same effect.

You gave us a great lesson here the other day on

international law and I listened very attentively as to how international laws

developed and how they are formed; you went back to how they brought the slaves

out of South Africa and these places. And that is where that law came from and I

think the same thing happens, but I have difficulty accepting the fact that the

bow to make the Spanish trawler heave to, when at the same time, a resolution

that we passed in this Legislature three weeks ago, is now going to cause

problems on the international scene as it relates to this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Passing this resolution at this time - it

doesn't matter what we said two years ago or three years ago - passing this

resolution at this time, in this context of this fight with Spain and Portugal

and the European Community, would undermine Canada's ability to maintain support

with other nations on the basis of Canada acting for conservation purposes only,

that's why the amendment was put forward as it was, to convey it in those terms.

It essentially goes along with the principle of custodial management that the

members are arguing for, I won't take any more time but just to clear the point.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: I am sure we can straighten up the time at the

end of it, that is not a problem, but I say to the Premier that the intent of

our resolution was done for conservation purposes, make no mistake about that,

it was to extend jurisdiction for conservation purposes so that Canada would

have control and would be able to conserve the stocks; because right -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) add those words.

MR. TOBIN: No, it does and I don't have a problem with

that part of it but I do have somewhat of a problem personally, I don't know

where caucus stands on it, probably not to the extent that I would vote against

it or anything, but I do have some problem with the softening of our position to

custodial management because, as I understand that, it is that we would be

taking custody of it and managing it probably for the rest of the world or

whatever the case may be. But I think -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) Canada.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Canada, too, but I am afraid, Premier,

that what will happen, is the same thing that is happening today, that we will

be managing it and allocating stocks through whatever form necessary, that will

be ignored by the EU countries, particularly Spain and Portugal; they will thumb

their noses as they have been doing for decades.

PREMIER WELLS: Management would include enforcement of

rules, too.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I have some concerns about what is

there. I think, and I know you are saying it for other reasons that you believe

in, but I tend to disagree. I say to the Premier that I honestly believe we have

to extend jurisdiction and take control of that as a country, because what we

are seeing today - and I speak, representing a fishing district, a deep-sea

fishing district, some of them who fished on the Nose and Tail of the Banks for

many years; I come, to some extent, from a family with a fishing background in

terms of people who fished the deep-sea fishery in this Province; and I have

spoken to a lot of them in the last number of weeks, particularly since the

arrest of that vessel, and all of them felt that the right decision was made,

that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for this country is to be commended

and that if one more Spaniard goes out there and does what they have done in the

past, they should again be arrested and brought in.

Now, what has been happening there in the last twenty-four to

forty-eight hours is something that should cause all of us concern, and I was a

bit taken aback last night when I heard the Prime Minister of this country say -

his words at the time: `Well, there are only two fishing there now, that is down

significantly from the forty-nine that were fishing there last week.'

I don't care, Mr. Speaker, if it is forty-nine, 449, or one.

If they are fishing juvenile turbot on the Nose or Tail of the Grand Banks, then

they should be removed. They should be brought in. We should not tolerate it,

because you cannot do what you believe is right one week and then ignore it the

next week. You cannot do that. The vessels out there, the Spaniards, have to be

taken to task. If you talk about what is happening, 15 per cent of what they are

catching is mature fish.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

PREMIER WELLS: I understood they haven't found one single

fish capable of reproduction. Something like 79 or 80 per cent was less than

fifteen inches, and not one was capable of reproduction. This is what I am told

was the situation.

MR. TOBIN: If that is the case, then it's 100 per cent,

and now they are back there on the Grand Banks again today doing the same thing.

I don't know - I really believe, and I say it in all sincerity, that the

Minister of Fisheries should repeat the action that he initiated last week.

Now, I realize that Brian Tobin is not the only one who sits

at the Cabinet table, and I would suspect there are opposing views to what he is

doing. I would suspect that the officials in External Affairs and some of the

ministers are not supportive of what Mr. Tobin has been doing. I commend him

fully for the action he has taken, but I don't think he should back down one

inch. I think he should go toe to toe with the Spaniards once again and arrest

the vessels and bring them in, teach them the lesson that he started.

We talk about the fisheries, and the destruction of the

fisheries, and who is doing it, and we are all there to point fingers. Make no

mistake about it, let no one in this House make any mistake about it, the

Spaniards are good fishermen. They know how to catch fish. The Spaniards, it is

my understanding, were the ones who put the pier trawling together. When the

Portuguese, even, couldn't get it to work, the Spaniards were the ones who got

it to work, so they know how to catch fish - no mistake about that. Canadian

boats, FPI boats on the Nose of the Grand Banks the other day were catching

1,000 pounds, I believe it was, in twenty-four hours, and they were catching

15,000 to 20,000 pounds, so they are doing something. We all know what they were

doing. They were operating with a liner, but that is not strange to fishing

either, operating with liners and cod-bags. The Spaniards can do just what they

like in their own countries and in their own waters, and they can be good

fishermen in any waters, but they should not be allowed to do what they like in

our waters, on the Continental Shelf. They should not be allowed.

We talk about the destruction of various fisheries, you know,

the haddock. Everybody seems to point fingers. The Minister of Fisheries, Food

and Agriculture is not here. I was going to say to him that the haddock

disappeared in the waters back in the 1950s and early 1960s. There was lots of

haddock - you could bring it in - but what you have to remember is that

Canadians did not have the vessels at the time to destroy the haddock. There

were a few trawlers. Penney's, I believe, had a few. FPI, the old Fishery

Products had four or five, the old Zibet and Zerda, Zibet - well Zibet and Zibet

are the same - the Zebroid, and a few of those. Those are the vessels they had

that could probably carry 100,000 pounds of fish. Every vessel, particularly the

Russians, came in fishing the haddock, and the Brits, in the Fair Trite

boats, were the ones who came in. The haddock are extinct, but it was the Brits

in the Fair Trite boats, and the Russians and others, who came in and

took that haddock away.

I will tell you a little story. The Premier might be

interested in this as well. There is one vessel, one of the Fair Trite

boats, and a good friend, by the way, of the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture was captain on her - Chaytor. And he had a man who got broke up

while they were fishing out in the Gullies. Mr. Speaker, they called for help.

They were trying to get the man off her. The Russians were fishing there at the

time, and the Russians had a doctor on board. They put the doctor on board the

Fair Trite boat to take care of the man who was injured. And the doctor,

when he got aboard, wouldn't leave. It became an international incident.

The Prime Minister of the country at the time, Prime Minister

Pearson, I believe it was, got involved in this international incident because

it was in Canadian waters, when the Russian doctor wouldn't leave that British

ship. I'm not sure who was Prime Minister of England at the time but there was

to port with the Russian doctor on board, and they had to give protection to the

captain of that vessel and his family from the Soviet people from the Soviet

bloc who were living in England. So there have been international incidents

before on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.

At the time of these incidents it was when the Brits, the

Russians and the Europeans were taking our fish. What we have today is another

international incident where the Spaniards are out there raping our fish. And

the resolution here today, Mr. Speaker, is a cop-out! It is lacking the courage

to be strong and to stand up for the people of this Province. I don't know how

someone like the Member for Eagle River, who professes to be a great defender of

the people of Newfoundland, can come to this House and, rather than stand and

vote against the resolution, they amend the resolution and he seconds it.

It is childishness on the part of this government to think

that a resolution brought before this Assembly is going to cause a major

international incident in negotiations in Brussels. It is shocking what is

taking place. How can the Member for LaPoile, representing a fishing district,

and the Member for Eagle River bring an amendment to this House abolishing an

original resolution calling for the extension of jurisdiction and control over

the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap? You lack the courage

to stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Listen to your House Leader and listen to

your Leader.

MR. TOBIN: I listen to myself. I listen to the

fisherpersons of this Province on fishing issues. That is who I listen to. That

is a cowardly act, Mr. Speaker, that is what it is, to bring in that amendment.

Why can we not have - how can people who understand the fishery not agree to

extending jurisdiction? You have the Prime Minister up there now who is involved

in a cop-out, who has become - basically, I hate to say it, he was very strong

on the international scene a few weeks ago when he gave the okay to go out and

fire the shots. He was very powerful on the international scene. But you can

become a wimp on the international scene rather quickly, as well.

I would say that despite - I would like to know what happened

today. I would like to know what has happened in that caucus this morning on

this resolution. I would say something happened in that caucus this morning on

this resolution. Because I spoke to members who were willing and ready to

support this resolution yesterday evening. I spoke to members who thought the

resolution was a good resolution - and today they are here with an amendment?

What we have, let there be no mistake about it, and let the

word go out -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has already made allowance for the

hon. member to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, then, Mr. Speaker, let me say

that I think it is regrettable that this government has decided not to support a

resolution calling for the extension of jurisdiction over the Nose and Tail of

the Bank and the Flemish Cap, that this government has decided not to support

this resolution. They brought in an amendment that totally eliminates extending

jurisdiction to the Nose and Tail of the Banks and asks for custodial

management.

There is a great difference, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous

difference between extending jurisdiction and custodial management. It is a

tremendous difference and I say it is a darned shame, a shame that the Member

for LaPoile and the Member for Eagle River decided to sanction an amendment,

that was a cowardly act, and not to support extending jurisdiction to the

Continental Shelf.

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

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words

about what has been going on on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, or in the

fishery in Newfoundland over the last ten years, at least, since I have been in

the House. I found it interesting, as I listened to my friend, the Member for

Burin - Placentia there, making his impassioned speech, and no doubt he, like

all of us in this House, has a very grave concern about what is happening in the

fishery in this Province.

Coming from Placentia Bay, as I did myself, I am sure he is

aware of what effect the fishery has had on Newfoundlanders down through the

centuries. Where I grew up in Placentia Bay was on an island called Long Island

in a place called Haystack. Now, on that island fifty years ago it was the

centre of the bank fishery in Newfoundland, and for comparison sake now, fifty

years ago in Harbour Buffett, Kingwell, and Port Royal there were more people

lived right there than lived in Marystown. It was a bigger community than

Marystown. Haystack and Spencers Cove were bigger than if you took Rushoon,

Parkers Cove, Baine Harbour and put it together because it was the centre of the

bank fishery for Placentia Bay.

Twenty bankers fished out of there and the average banker

crew on a four dory boat was twenty men, so all told, I would say, you could

take, with the bigger boats and all, there were 600 people on Long Island who

were dependent on the bank fishery. I am old enough to have seen not only the

bank fishery decline but I have also seen the one that followed, because from

1945 to 1950 the bank fishery disappeared, hence Long Island is now deserted. It

is nice place to go back to in the summertime. Those of us who lived there some

years ago go back and look, and say, here is a community that was here fifty

years ago because of an offshore fishery.

Mr. Speaker, there was a change in the offshore fishery and

in 1948 we started processing fresh fish in Newfoundland and the district I

represent, the district of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, 50 per cent of that district

existed on an offshore fishery. It was there in Burgeo and Ramea that the fresh

fish industry was started. It was there that the plants were open in 1948 and

started to produce fresh fish which saw the decline of the banker fleet that

made the island of Long Island viable for 2,000 people from our beginning, from

the 1800s up to the 1950s when the island disappeared.

Mr. Speaker, this motion that we have here today is so

vitally important that we have seen now another way of life and another offshore

fishery disappear. The trawler fishery has disappeared. It has disappeared, not

like the banker fishery because of a technology change, we went from bankers, to

trawlers, to salt fish, to fresh fish. The fishery that we now see disappear has

disappeared because of a mismanagement, because of the fact that we didn't

manage it and we didn't conserve the stocks. We didn't look after what we had

there. Ten years ago it was almost unheard of to think that we would be in a

position in Newfoundland today where there wouldn't be a fishery.

That is the same way it was forty-five years ago out in

Placentia Bay and Long Island where there was 2,200 people living. Nobody ever

could envisage that by the year 1960 or 1965 there wouldn't be anybody living on

Long Island. We saw a way of life disappear. A bank fishery disappeared to a

technology change, trawlers, and there was no reason for Long Island to stay.

Mr. Speaker, we are down to the fact that due to this

technology and the mismanagement, and not handling the stock that we had, and

not being conscious of the environment and what we had there, we have now

reached the stage that I wonder, if we don't do something about this, if we

don't take control of the Continental Shelf and don't take control of the

conservation measures to maintain what we have there, will someone in fifteen

years' or twenty years' time, will the Island of Newfoundland be the same as

Long Island out in Placentia Bay?

Because that is how important our fishery is to us. It is

that important, that the environment - if we don't protect this fish stock that

we have there, it is gone. Nobody has questioned the motion. It is the intent of

the motion that right now - and why the change came in here today. Because we

can all sit here and say that - you know, last week we were all so happy to see

Minister Tobin and the Prime Minister take the approach they did, took a very

firm approach and arrested a Spanish ship. It should have been done a long time

ago.

Just to show you how history - again, I'm in a little history

lesson today, but I talked about forty-five years ago. Now I will talk about ten

years ago when we were elected in Opposition first. From August to October in

1985 there was a crisis in the fishery in Newfoundland. The Liberal caucus, we

took it upon ourselves - the members over there were then in government. We took

it upon ourselves then to form a committee. I will name that committee now -

because my colleague, the Member for Fogo is going to speak in a few minutes -

just to give you an idea about what happened there.

That committee was made up of Beaton Tulk, the Member for

Fogo; Walter Carter, the Member for Twillingate; John Efford, the Member for

Port de Grave; and Tom Lush, the Member for Bonavista North. The inshore fishery

that year had failed in the summer of 1985, was an abject failure. The Liberal

caucus as Opposition, we decided then that we were certainly going to have a

look at it, and we were going to go around the Province. We had twenty-eight

meetings all over this Province and we listened to the fishermen. They came back

and they put it in this report.

I can remember when we tabled this report in the House of

Assembly. The members over there - the Members for Grand Bank, Humber Valley,

Mount Pearl, Grand Falls, Burin - Placentia West - they were all there. I can

remember the hoots of laughter and the scorn and the indignation with which this

report was received when we first tabled it in the House of Assembly. They were

laughing at us. I'm just going to point out some of the things we asked. We

talked about here - we are here today debating a motion which those fellows put

in over there, the members from the Opposition put in two years ago. So we are

here again debating the same motion today concerning the fish stock, the

management, the conservation.

Ten years ago when we presented this report - the first major

package of short-term recommendations came at a meeting in Twillingate, which

was incorporated into a resolution and forwarded immediately to Premier

Peckford, Prime Minister Mulroney, Fisheries ministers Fraser and Rideout. It

was unanimously passed at that meeting in Twillingate. Now, the recommendations

- they talked about needing to have the UI regulations changed, they needed to

relax the payments to the Fisheries Loan Board. They needed the fishermen's

license fee changed but the long term recommendation, Mr. Speaker, is the one

that is interesting in this report. It says, `a significant reduction in

offshore dragging operations by foreign and Canadian fleets.' Now, Mr. Speaker,

that was presented to this House in the fall of 1985. This is what the inshore

fishermen around this Province were saying then. So I mean the main

recommendation of this report, which was presented in this House ten years ago -

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. GILBERT: Yes, but the thing about it, I say to the

Member for Humber Valley, the salient recommendation - just again, I will just

say it again, the single dominant universally accepted explanation among

Newfoundland inshore fishermen for this years disaster in the inshore, and

previous years decline in overfishing, is deep sea offshore fishery by foreign

and Canadian fleets, especially as those fleets obtain what has now become known

as the Northern Cod stock. Draggers, Canadian, foreign and foreign vessels are

operating without regard to conservation and sometimes in violation of quota

allocations with inadequate surveillance during a season when mother fish are in

spawn and with the most rigorous harvesting technology now available. This

operation comes close to land as well as far off shore and is the cardinal

reason why fishermen this year fish with empty waters.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was ten years ago when this report was

put in this House. So there is nothing new. When we were in Opposition we were

conscious of what was happening there, we went and we listened to the inshore

fishermen, we asked the then government to make a recommendation to the federal

government at that time to take control and manage the fishing in the offshore

area because the inshore fishermen were telling us what was happening, we didn't

listen to them. We waited until - now we have the disaster that we have run

into.

So this motion today - it is all very good to bluster and

make a motion to say go with the gunboats. I think we should be commending the

federal government for the action that they finally took. Unfortunately, they

did not take it soon enough. It wasn't this government, the previous government,

we asked you when you were in government, we asked the Mulroney government to

take a stand and to take control of this stock. I don't think any of us here at

that time saw the grave circumstances that we are in today but we felt there was

a serious problem and we asked that it be addressed.

So when I hear my friend from Burin - Placentia West get up

and make an impassionate speech that we are not doing anything about it, this

government - in Opposition and in government - has done something about it. They

have maintained a degree of sense about it. We have asked that the federal

government carry out a management plan and to take control of our Continental

Shelf. Now to do it for the sake that we want to protect this stock, not only

for the Newfoundlanders because as I said earlier, if we don't do it the Island

of Newfoundland is going to be like Long Island in Placentia Bay, in fifteen

years there is nobody going to be here. The point we have to talk about now is a

control to protect the fishery, to ensure that there is fish there, not only for

the Newfoundlanders who harvest it but for mankind. We have to protect this

protein stock for mankind in order to maintain a system that we, as man, are

destroying by not managing our resources as we should.

So it is all very good to get up and say we are going to take

the gunboats, we are going out there and we are going to take charge, we are

going to drive off the Spaniards and we are going to fight this one and that one

but the reason that we are doing it, Mr. Speaker, has to be the right reason.

The fact is that we have destroyed it by our own mismanagement, by letting the

foreigners fish and the world not being aware enough that this protein stock is

being destroyed because it has not been managed. So I think that the steps the

federal government have taken are the right ones. I believe that they have to

carry on. They have shown now that they are prepared to put some teeth into what

they are doing. I think the thing we must do in this House, as we did on Monday,

is congratulate the federal government on the stand they are taking.

I hear from the media today that the Spanish are coming back

to fish. The thing that we have to show, Mr. Speaker, is to show the world that

those people are bandits. They are. By the very fact that we arrested that ship

we have now proof positive that they are fishing with illegal methods. For this

reason I think we have a case now where our federal government can carry on and

protect and take the action that is necessary in order to protect that stock.

As I conclude this I say again that as the Member for the

District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir that if we don't take care, and if the federal

government now doesn't step in, carry on the way they have started and take care

of the conservation of this stock for the good of mankind - not just for the

people in my district. Although as the member yesterday for St. John's Centre

when he got up, he said there is a time, you know, you wonder who you are

representing. I know, it is the people of my district. They are first and

foremost. If the federal government doesn't protect this stock for the good of

mankind, not only for the people of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir so that they can get a

job, but so that we will have a stock that is there so that we can help to feed

the hungry mankind of this world.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you, that has to be the concern that we

all have here. Not the cheap political thing to -

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

MR. GILBERT: In conclusion, Sir, if you would for a

minute. Not just to make a cheap political thing that we have to go with the

gunboats now and back off. I think we should commend the federal government for

the decision they made. Let's carry on with the conservation of that stock, so

not only will Newfoundlanders be here in fifteen years, but we will be able to

feed mankind. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to rise

today on this private member's motion as put forward by the Member for Grand

Bank, and I might add, completely changed by the government. I don't know how

the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir can get up and talk about conservation and

the diplomatic process. What a difference a day makes. The Member for Eagle

River was up chest-thumping, pounding on his desk, talking about how proud he

was to be a Liberal, how proud he was to be a Canadian, and everybody was going:

What a wonderful bunch we are, what a wonderful government we are, what a

wonderful government we have up in Ottawa.

Look at them today. Hallelujah. Torn to pieces. Now they are

going back and extolling the virtue that the other government brought forward.

We have to get back to the diplomatic process. Leave the gunboats in the

harbour, let them go aground on the meat bones up in Halifax, leave them in the

harbour, let's not take them out, we can't go firing bullets over the bows of

the ships. It may not work. We have to control the stocks. We will allow them to

fish, we will allow them to use smaller mesh, we will allow them to use liners

in their nets, we will allow all this - because now the hon. Brian Tobin is the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and our cousins and our brothers are up in

Ottawa and we have to support them.

I say, shame. Shame on the government on the other side,

shame on the government in Ottawa. If you are going to start something, then

let's finish it, let's go all the way. I think it was on the 9th of this month

we went out and our people arrested the Spanish trawler, brought it back to the

Harbour here. We all went down, 10,000 of us. The Premier didn't go down because

he was afraid the people in Newfoundland would be unruly, he didn't trust them,

couldn't go near them. Stay away from it, don't take

part in it. You may not be

able to control your emotions. I went down and I know there were people from the

other side went down, from government side. I saw them down there, proud, happy,

as proud as I was. Forget the blue and the red, put away your political stripes,

and let's go out as true Canadians and true Newfoundlanders. Because this is our

lifeblood. This is the reason why we are here. This is the reason why we exist,

our fish. If we lose sight of that then I'm afraid that it is all over.

Getting back to that. We arrested the ship, the Spanish

trawler, brought it into our port here. Recognized and identified all kinds of

rules being broken. Undersized mesh, liners in their nets, a hidden hold where

they had fish stored that they couldn't catch, two log books. If it was one of

our own trawlers - if FPI owned that trawler they would have Vic Young down

there now being fed behind bars, I can guarantee you that, or National Sea.

Let me tell you about a little thing that happened down in my

district the other day. It is very slim in comparison. A couple of people went

in the woods logging, went in the woods cutting domestic firewood. They went in

and cut their wood and piled it. A couple of days ago they went back with their

skidoos and bikes to bring it out. Forestry showed up, took their bikes, took

their skidoos, and haven't even laid a charge against them. They haven't found

anything to charge them with other than to say that they had a log among their

wood.

AN HON. MEMBER: A log?

MR. FITZGERALD: They had a log. Apparently there was

something there that could make a piece of 2x4, so they took their bikes, they

took their skidoo, and they went back looking for it. These are reasonable

people, Mr. Speaker, who wanted to cut their firewood for the winter. Apparently

they had permits. Forestry went and took their bikes, took their skidoos, and

said: We will let you know when you can get them back, and we will let you know

what you are charged with after we do an investigation - guilty until proven

innocent.

Here we had a ship out breaking all of the fishing rules and

regulations, out breaking them all, taking advantage of our stocks, allowed them

to come into the harbour, put up overnight, put them up in hotels, $500,000 - a

$500,000 bond - and we allowed the boat to sail out of the harbour, back on the

high seas again, probably one of the boats today that is out there scraping the

bottom, tearing up the habitat, catching our fish, no respect for conservation,

and here we are saying that we believe in conservation. In fact, we rewarded

them. We went and said: What we will do is take this quota away from our own

people. We will take it away from Newfoundlanders, we will take it away from

Canadians, in the name of conservation. That is not good enough for me. I don't

think you can go down and talk to the people in my district, where 90 per cent

of them make their living from the fishery, and expect them to accept that.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation got up

here the other day and talked in this debate in support of the resolution that

was brought forward by the Premier. The minister got up and talked about how,

for the first time since the moratorium was announced, he has seen hope in

people's faces. I have witnessed that same thing myself, but I don't think there

is much hope there today. I think today we have gone back to exactly where we

were before. I think we are probably gone back further because we allowed a

little hope to creep in, but now it has disappeared.

When the PC government was in Ottawa it always talked about

diplomacy, being diplomatic; it doesn't work; we have to go out and do something

different. I agreed, and I remember the day that the Prime Minister and Minister

Tobin came here in the hallway of Confederation Building, and I think it was Mr.

Etchegary at the time who brought forward a giant petition that was taken up

from all across Newfoundland and Labrador. At that time the minister spoke, and

the Prime Minister spoke, and they talked about how they were going to take

control of the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks, and they realized how

important it was to us as Newfoundlanders. The federal minister himself, I

think, stated that within ninety days he would start the process of taking back

the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, getting those foreigners off the

Continental Shelf, bringing it once again back to Newfoundland and back to

Canadians where it belongs.

Now I suppose 200 miles is a long distance, and in most

countries 200 miles is certainly sufficient to take in the shelf around the

perimeter of the country. Ours is a little bit different, and it extends beyond

200 miles, and some of the richest fishing grounds in the world - or at least

they were - were those areas known as the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks.

Today, after going through the whole exercise of creating some hope, bringing

some hope to our people, we are seeing again those foreigners, those criminals,

Mr. Speaker, returning to those fishing grounds again and I can be certain as I

am standing here, using the same fishing procedures as they used before.

Mr. Speaker, we are not asking for anything out of the

ordinary over here on this side by asking to extend jurisdiction beyond the

200-mile limit, beyond the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks, we are not

asking for the world and I don't believe for one minute that if this resolution

was passed as it was presented by the Opposition House Leader, that it would

have any effect on what is happening over in Brussels today. I don't think

anybody over in Brussels today is tuned in to the radio, trying to pick up VOCM

on the satellite to see what Bill Matthews has to say here in the House of

Assembly. I don't think it will have one iota of bearing on it and I think we

are being led down the garden path by saying that it will.

We are being taken for fools, Mr. Speaker, we are being taken

for fools, and what we should all do here today, is, stand up as

Newfoundlanders, represent our people and show the world that we will be

responsible and that we are Newfoundlanders and that we will fight for our

right, because if we allow those things to happen off our coast, if we allow

those people to come over here, reap our seas, tear up the habitat of our

spawning grounds, then we will never survive. We will never survive, Mr.

Speaker. It is time for friendly words and it is time for being the nice guy,

being the nice people - The maple leaf, Mr. Speaker, signifies many things. We

are known as law-abiding people, we are people who go out and instead of causing

disturbances we usually go forward and try to settle strife and settle disputes,

but I think it is time for us as Newfoundlanders to revert to what our

forefathers would have done and take control and allow our people to live with

respect and dignity.

I fear what has happened since the 9th of this month, Mr.

Speaker, I fear that up in Ottawa we are losing ground again - what do we have,

seven MPs compared to -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Silent Seven.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Silent Seven, call them what we want,

but I fear that the heavy hand of Ontario, the heavy hand of External Affairs,

Mr. Speaker, has suddenly taken hold and the minister of whom we were so proud,

the minister of whom we spoke so highly, put him on a pedestal on Monday, Mr.

Speaker, has fallen (inaudible) to that heavy hand. I am not happy today to

stand and say that, I am not happy to stand here and say that; I would like to

see the harbour down here full of Spanish trawlers, if they are out there

breaking the law, bring them in. There is no point in having one down in the

harbour and having another thirty-eight out fishing. There is no point in saying

that a boat has returned to fish when there are probably six boats out there

fishing.

If our own people, if FPI and National Sea cannot go out on

the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks, Mr. Speaker, and make it a paying

trip, go out and bring back enough mature fish in order to make it a paying

trip, pay their expenses, pay their men, pay their costs, then, Mr. Speaker, how

in the hell can the Spanish do it? How can they do it without going and doing

the things they were just caught red-handed at?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier talks about custodial management.

Custodial management. I do not have a clue what it is. I have no idea what

custodial management is, and I do not know if anybody over there does, other

than it is popular to be said because the Premier said it. I have not heard the

Minister of Fisheries talk about custodial management. I do not know if he knows

what it is. If he does I would be glad to listen to him and have him explain it

because I do not know what he means when he talks about custodial management.

What I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, is ownership. I know there is a vast

difference between custodial management and ownership. There must be or it would

not be brought forward. If you have management of something and you do not have

ownership then that means somebody else must have their finger in the pie,

somebody else must be picking what is out there. You must have to go to somebody

else to get rules to find out what you can do and what you can't do.

Let us go for the ownership of it and let us control it, Mr.

Speaker. We owe our people nothing less. The time for conciliatory action is

gone. The time for being conciliatory and the time for being diplomatic is gone.

It went the other day when that ship was arrested. We made our move so why are

we being backtracked now? Why are we backtracking now because somebody up in

Ottawa said, little Newfoundland, Brian Tobin, you must listen to us.

Just listen to us, Mr. Speaker. We have to trade this, we

have to trade that, and we cannot stand to say we are going to save a few fish

for the sake of this country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I will just be one second.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to

take

part in this debate, and I must say that in the long number of years I have

been in politics I have lost track of the number of such debates I have engaged

in. My memory goes back to 1968 when I first became a member of the Canadian

House of Commons, and one of the first actions taken by the then members of the

House of Commons representing Newfoundland was to engage in an undertaking to

have Canada recognize the rights of the coastal states, especially Canada, and

to extend jurisdiction to the edge and the slopes of the Continental Shelf.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we pay attention to

that because when Canada became part of the agreement for an extension of the

Canadian 200-mile limit in l977, that was a tragedy. When Canada agreed to a 200

mile extension that was a real tragedy because it soon became obvious that 200

miles did not accommodate Canadian fishing interests on the Canadian Continental

Shelf.

I do not want to bore you with history or maybe some small

part that I might have played in the events of the day, but I recall being a

member of the Canadian delegation to Geneva, to the Law of the Sea Convention,

wherein we tried to get Canada to fight for, not 200 miles, but to extend

jurisdiction to the edge and to the slopes of the Continental Shelf. Obviously,

our efforts in that respect failed because unfortunately the member nations of

the Law of the Sea, there were 135 of them, 130 were quite served by a 200-mile

limit. The United States, for example, had no need for anymore than a 200-mile

limit. In fact I think less than 200 miles would have satisfied their needs.

The great little country of Iceland that fought so valiantly

back in the late 1960s to defend its rights, it had a fifty-mile continental

shelf. As a result, of course, they didn't need 200 miles. All but a handful of

countries including Canada, I believe Argentina, I believe India, and one or two

other countries, had continental shelves that extended beyond 200 miles.

I say a tragedy happened in 1977 because in my view - and

having been part of it at the time, I think it would have been just as easy, had

Canada pushed hard enough, to have had extension of our jurisdiction to the edge

of the Continental Shelf as 200 miles. There is nothing sacrosanct about 200

miles. It could just as easily have been 300 miles. The unfortunate part about

it is that 200 miles served the needs of 90-odd per cent, 95 per cent, of the

member nations of the Law of the Sea.

I remember very well that Canadian delegation at the time was

headed by a man named Alan Beesley. A very fine man, but certainly not my choice

for that kind of a position. He was a very mild-mannered, typical Ottawa

bureaucrat, who would rather not fight. Mr. Beesley, who chaired all of our

Canadian meetings at the time, got to the point where he couldn't bear to look

at certain of us: Cabot Martin, for example, who was also a member of the

delegation, and myself and others. When we would continue to harass Mr. Beesley

and his committee about the need to forget the words 200-miles, drop it from

your vocabulary, because we knew then that it would not suit Canada, it would

not fill our needs. Mr. Beesley being the very timid person that he was wouldn't

think of it. He kept saying: Look, we are doing alright. We've gone from three

to twelve and now from twelve to 200. Given time then we will make a case and

hopefully we will get it extended out to the edge of the Continental Shelf. We

are finding out now, much to our sorrow, that maybe we should have fought a bit

harder. We should not have allowed Mr. Beesley and his little cadre of

bureaucrats and diplomats from External Affairs to get away with it. Because we

are paying a big price.

AN HON. MEMBER: Still at it.

MR. CARTER: Yes, and they are still at it. At no time,

Mr. Speaker - and I was very much involved in the issue, as a Member of the

Commons, not playing a major role, but certainly a peripheral role. I introduced

in the House of Commons in July of 1975, twenty years ago, a petition calling

for Canada to protect the marine resources - now hear this - not 200 miles, but

to the edge of the Continental Shelf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: But 200 miles was not in our vocabulary.

Every time we talked about it.... I should point out, by the way, that in

addressing the House at the time in my motion, I made reference to the people

who had already signed the petition. I said the petition is signed by the

premier of the Province, Frank Moores - now hear this - signed also by the

leader of the Official Opposition in Newfoundland, Mr. Ed Roberts. So you see

our very learned House Leader, the Minister of Justice, was in the forefront

then doing what was right for Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, my petition was presented and it contained

100,000 names. I spent an entire summer travelling the Province just soliciting

peoples names on the petition. I don't know what effect it had, if any, but I

can only tell you that during that period there was a lot of interest in the

need to extend some kind of jurisdiction. Whether it was custodial management,

just plain Canadian jurisdiction or what, but we knew what we wanted and we went

after it.

I recall during the so-called Icelandic cod war going in the

House of Commons and getting up and asking the then-Minister of Fisheries, Mr.

Jack Davis - and my question went something like this: In light of the action

taken by Iceland to protect its natural resources from overfishing by the

British - at the time - would Canada consider taking the same kind of action to

protect the Newfoundland fisheries against foreign overfishing? A good question.

Of course the Prime Minister and the minister of the day waffled around it and

gave all kinds of reasons why Canada could not be seen to be taking that kind of

action.

Well, one of the advantages in having asked that question is

that by the time I got back to my office that afternoon there was an invitation

there from the Premier of Iceland. The Prime Minister of Iceland had invited me

and three of my colleagues, through the ambassador in Ottawa, to come to Iceland

at their expense to hear and see their side of the story. Of course, we

immediately accepted the invitation and the four of us left the day after. We

went to New York and got the Icelandic airline, a flight paid for by the

Icelandic Government, to Iceland where we were met and actually given the red

carpet treatment. The Prime Minister, himself met us at the airport, because

they were so delighted that parliamentarians in Canada were supporting their

cause. They were pretty well standing alone then. They didn't have too many

friends, certainly not in Europe. So we went to Iceland, we were given the royal

treatment, we listened to what they had to say, we visited their fish plants, we

went on board their gun boats that were out shooting across the bows of the

British war ships and we have pictures to prove it. During our trip to Iceland

in 1969 -

MR. TOBIN: Were there any other Newfoundlanders with you?

MR. CARTER: Yes, there were four of us, Jim McGrath, John

Lundrigan, Jack Marshall and myself, four Members of Parliament.

While in Iceland, we were invited by the then Minister of

Fisheries for England, Lady Tweedsmuir, to come to England at their expense and

hear the British side of the story, and we were doing pretty well. Of course, we

listened to what the Icelanders had to say and we had a press conference. In

fact, there is a bit of humour in this story in that Richard Nixon, by the way,

had visited Iceland the day before and we had our press conference in the

evening as he left in the morning. The next morning our story got billing on the

Front Page and brother Nixon's came up on page 3, I think it was. So we thought

that was - by the way, it was all written in Icelandic,so I still don't know

what it said, but at least it looked good. Every once in awhile I would see my

name `Carter' and a lot of Icelandic afterwards so - but anyway, we went to

England at the invitation of the Minister of Fisheries, were wined and dined by

the British, met at the airport by the little fellows in bowler hats from the

Colonial Office, they met us at the ramp of the aircraft, had people there to

look after our luggage, took us in a huge car, to the best hotel in London, put

us up, everything at their expense, everything. There was nothing they couldn't

do for us. They provided us with a guide that took us around London to do some

shopping for our wives.

If the President of the United States had gone, he would not

have gotten better treatment. We were quite happy but not feeling too good about

it. In the meantime, Lady Tweedsmuir invited us to a press conference that she

had called, but just as we were getting ready to go to the press conference, we

were told by one of her assistants that the Lady had to withdraw her invitation.

The reason she gave was because, how could she possibly justify inviting

Canadian Members of Parliament to her press conference and not invite their own

Members of Parliament? She was presenting Britain's White Paper on the cod war.

We weren't too disappointed because,in the meantime,we had our own press

conference planned for the same afternoon, which we held. We took a strong

position against Britain on that one. We came down on the side of the

Icelanders. That night, Lady Tweedsmuir and her husband, Lord Tweedsmuir, hosted

a steak dinner for the Canadian Parliamentarians who were visiting. I sat next

to a gentleman who was one time Prime Minister of England, as a matter of fact,

at the head table.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. CARTER: Sir Douglas Hume.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, for goodness sakes!

MR. CARTER: Then he was the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Pardon? I can't hear you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: No, no, he was our advisor back in Canada.

Anyway, we were sitting down having a delicious meal, with

all of the pomp and pageantry that you would expect on such an occasion. We ate

at Manchester House. Sitting next to me was Sir Douglas Alec Hume, the one-time

Prime Minister of England, and I recall, he looked up at me - he was a small

man, not too impressive - and said: `I say, old chap, what would you do if you

were in my position?' I said: `Sir Douglas, if I were in your position I would

tell the British Navy to get the heck home. They have no right in Icelandic

waters. They are making shows of themselves, letting Great Britain down.'

I will never forget him. He looked up at me and grinned. He

said: `I say, old chap, that is precisely the advice that I gave Heath this

morning.'

Strangely enough, the next morning, the headline in The

London Times was that Britain was now withdrawing its navy from Icelandic

waters - I don't know if it was because of my representation or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: To make a long story short, there is a bit of

humour in this. We were invited to Britain, at their expense, to hear the

British side of the story. We had a press conference, and we came down on the

side of the Icelanders. I told you a moment ago that when we arrived we were

given the royal treatment. We were met by huge automobiles, Rolls-Royce, given

the royal treatment in the biggest hotel in London, but when the news hit the

street that we were supporting the Icelanders, we went to the airport in a

Volkswagen. We were lucky to get a bicycle to take us to the airport.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member doesn't have leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just to clue up.

MR. CARTER: I will clue up. I apologize. I have maybe

gone back too much in history, but there is a very important -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member doesn't have the leave of the House.

MR. CARTER: You have missed a real good story.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a shame that some people got carried away today and got

willy-nilly, and we have to debate a watered-down version of a good motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Willy-nilly.

This Federal Government whom we supported, and whom the

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as well, supported in their efforts just two

weeks ago, now are letting the Spaniards shove it up our faces - and other parts

as well. They are over here in a place, raping it, cleaning it out. What is

more, they have an armed ship with them. They are armed, and they are ready for

trouble, because they know that we aren't going to do anything about it.

When it was taken out of the hands of some people in the

Federal Government and put into the hands of the diplomats, we all knew what was

going to happen. The people with the manicured hands and who talk so nice, they

want to keep on good terms with other foreign diplomats. They want to go to the

cocktail circuits where they are used to being. They should have left it with

Fisheries and the Prime Minister to work it out, and probably the Defence

Minister; that is where it should be, not in the hands of these nice little

proper people who are allowing the Spaniards to come over us again. Now, we have

the Portuguese out there, as well, and centuries ago Portugal broke off with

Spain and the Spanish government has not recognized Portugal since, but the two

of them in conjunction are out there raping what is left. The Spaniards are

still there and our people are told they can't fish? They are told whole bunches

of stuff. They are over-regulated and under-employed, a resettlement program

that they are not being paid to resettle for.

They talk about custody. Well, custody is debatable.

Custodial management, what the Premier says, is like when a couple divorce and

there are children involved. You don't own the children, nobody owns the

children. They are yours in a certain fact of life but the custody, whoever is

the better parent - it is argued in favour of whoever is the better one to look

after them. Well, I am telling you right now, it is not Spain, definitely not

Spain, and definitely not Portugal who are going to be the better ones to look

after the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks or the Flemish Cap.

Canada, after hauling