March 10,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 3

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, again this year Newfoundland

fared extremely well at the Gemini Awards that were handed out Sunday night in

Toronto by the Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television.

Actor-Director-Writer Gordon Pinsent was the recipient of the

John Drainie Award which recognizes his significant contribution to Canadian

Broadcasting. Mr. Pinsent, a native of Grand Falls (now Grand Falls-Windsor) is

one of Canada's few film stars and a film star of international structure. He is

a man of many talents.

Additionally, on Sunday night, the comedy series CODCO,

produced for CBC by Salter Street Films won the Gemini for best comedy series

after taking best variety series in 1990 and best comedy series in 1989.

CODCO including Andy Jones, Cathy Jones, Greg Malone, Tommy

Sexton and Mary Walsh also won the award for the best writing in a comedy or

variety program or series.

I think Mr. Pinsent and CODCO once again brought distinction

to themselves and to their Province and as Minister Responsible for the Arts, I

would like to move that they receive an expression of congratulations from the

House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for sending

over a copy of his statement well in advance. I hope other ministers will follow

his lead in that regard. Knowing Gordon Pinsent, of course, and hearing of this

latest reward is no surprise to me, and I guess it is no surprise to anybody in

the Legislature, and indeed in the Province as they would be very aware that

Gordon Pinsent is a man of many talents, tremendous talent, and has done a lot,

I think, to bring Newfoundland and Labrador's name to the forefront simply by

being a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador, but more specifically Grand Falls

ward now. Secondly, CODCO has also earned a tremendous reputation for the work

they have done over many, many years, and we want to join with the minister in

expressing our congratulations to both these groups.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I might take the opportunity to

note that in recent days there have been a number of programs on CBC television

for example, in an arts program in the entertainment

section of one of their

evening broadcasts, talking about the arts and a number of artists have recently

been interviewed and talked about the lack of support they seem to be getting

from the present Government in particular, so maybe the minister, since he is so

delighted to take the opportunity to take advantage of this kind of an occasion

and try to somehow align himself with the winners, might also wish to put his

money where his mouth is in the future, when it comes to the arts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. TOBIN: Andy Wells looked after you.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on Valentine's Day, February

14th, the people of the Province will remember that the Hibernia partners

announced a major slowdown of the Hibernia project until they were successful in

finding new investors to replace Gulf Canada. We were told at that time that

Gulf Canada was required by the partners agreement to continue to bear its share

of the costs for eight months after the announcement and after their decision to

pull out of the project. I would like to ask the Minister of Mines and Energy,

then, when the minister and the Premier met with the Hibernia partners on the

evening of February 13th, and again, February 14th I believe it was, in the

morning, were they told then that the partners in fact would take the full eight

months if necessary to find new investors to replace Gulf? In other words, were

they therefore guaranteed that the project was going to continue and to be

guaranteed for at least that eight-month period of time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there

are no guarantees. The contractual obligations between the partners require that

Gulf continue to pay its share of the costs for 243 days from the date that they

served their withdrawal notice, that withdrawal notice was served on February

4th. However, the process then started for what should be done to address this

withdrawal and in the finding of new partners and there are decision points

along the way. In the end, I would expect that if new partners are found - I

would certainly hope that new partners are found - they would come in at the end

of that contractual period of 243 days after February 4th, but I would hope and

expect that they would find someone to fill that hole much sooner than eight

months. My own concern would be that if it is not done within a shorter period

that some decisions will have to be made much sooner than eight months.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I was not asking the minister to explain the contractual

obligations of the partners. We understood that very clearly. The eight month

period is there, presumably assuming the project continues for that eight month

period. That was my question. Did the minister and the Premier get a guarantee

at that meeting back on February 14 or 13, or whenever it was, that this project

would in fact continue for that eight month period? That is what I want him to

clarify. While he is on his feet could he also tell us whether he or the Premier

at that time were told that the partners would in fact review their own

situation after that sixty day period that we heard so much about the last few

days? Were they told that at that time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we were told that within a

certain time frame they would have to assess what is happening with the

marketing, and they would have to look at the various other decisions that might

be taken at that time. It is not exactly necessarily sixty days, but it is a

time frame in the order of sixty days plus a few more days in which they would

have to decide on what options and what happens next. There are various things

that would happen next from that date of withdrawal on February 4.

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

MR. SIMMS: Therefore I think I understand the minister.

He is now saying that in fact they were aware of this sixty day provision that

Mr. Hopper was attacked about a couple of weeks ago. I think that is what he

just said. You were aware of it.

I want to ask him this question, because, Mr. Speaker, I can

assure you, as your Honour is aware, there is a lot of concern out there about

whether or not this Government has grasp of the situation. So I want to ask him

this. I want to ask him this. Members can laugh afterwards if they wish. As one

of the major investment partners in the Hibernia project, did this Province -

did this Government - ask to be represented on the team that is put together

searching for new investors? Did the Government ask to be represented? Is the

Province an active participant on that particular group? What

part in fact is

the Province playing in dealing with that specific issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the matter is an owners issue

as per the contractual obligations when it comes to the team. However, we are

participating the same way that the federal side is participating in dealing

with the owners as they make their progress towards the marketing. Last week,

officials from my department and others from this government were in Ottawa

meeting with federal officials and the company team. This week, today, my

officials and other officials from this government are in Ottawa meeting right

now at this minute with the company team, reviewing the progress. They expect to

be there for another two days.

We are part of the team in that regard, but the companies

have two agents. They have Goldman Sachs internationally out of the United

States, and Wood Gundy out of Canada. These two agents are working with them to

help them in their marketing and to contact all possible targets worldwide. They

are keeping us and the federal side advised at the same time in joint meetings

like the meetings last week, like the meetings that are going on today. We are

there doing everything we need to do, as the federal side is doing everything it

needs to do in working with the partners to help make sure it is successful in

finding somebody.

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

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

Let me just ask the minister again to clarify one thing. I

asked him if the government insisted on and asked to be represented on the team

that was being put together to search for new investors. Did the government make

such a request? Did the government insist upon doing that, and is the

government, in fact, on a team looking and searching for new investors? - not

what you are trying to find out about what is going on with respect to the

project, but the investors issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, no, we did not insist on being

on the company team that is doing the investing, neither did the federal side

insist on being on the team that is out there doing the selling. That is the

role of the partners in consultation with their investment advisors. However, we

are playing the same role as the federal side, and we are regularly in contact.

As I said a moment ago, last week, federal and provincial officials met with the

company team, and in that sense, we are part of the team in looking at what is

being done and what the targets are, who the targets are, and we are doing the

same thing again today.

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

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

I ask the minister this: Has the Province, has the government

established its own team to help try to find new investors? Is it doing anything

like that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we have our team in place that

has been on this subject from day one, not so much out there doing our own

beating of the bushes but we are meeting with the company officials and the

federal officials on it and reviewing the targets that are being identified by

the investment advisors and the investment bankers. They are the ones who are

doing the searching. We are there as a part of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I should

direct another question to the Minister of Energy and point out to him that we

are not in this like the feds. This is just another industry for the feds, but

for us it is more than just another industry, it is a new industry -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: - the beginning, hopefully, of an industry

that will help diversify our economy, a stated goal of the Wells administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1982 you refused to sign the deal for

fear of overheating the economy.

MR. HEWLETT: What deal? Taking welfare from John Chrtien

is not a deal!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I ask hon. members to my left, please, to restrain themselves

as members are asking questions.

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for not

sitting immediately as you stood.

I ask the minister this, seeing they are monitoring the

situation rather than being directly involved. How many people are working right

now at Bull Arm, and how many people are working in and around, say, the Avalon

or the capital city, with regard to this project now that the slow-down has been

announced?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the exact numbers

on the employees working on the project in Newfoundland today. My understanding

is that up to now, approximately 500 jobs have terminated, but there are still

about 1,000 people working on the project in Newfoundland. There are still more

than 600 working on the project doing detailed engineering in Montreal. We are

in the 150 to 200 range working on engineering in the Paris office. There are

still a lot of people working on this project and the companies are still

spending about $1.5 million a day.

Last year, up to December 31, the total expenditures on the

Hibernia project were $435 million. This year, the commitment at $1.5 million,

approximately, per day is still to spend about $500 million on the project in

1992, which is more than was spent up to December 31, 1991. There is still

significant activity going on with Hibernia.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the minister

doesn't have exact numbers; not being a seller, at least he should be a good

monitor. We have people in Montreal, we have people in Paris. I am concerned

about people here in Newfoundland working.

I ask the minister this: Let's pretend it is June. How many

people would have been out there compared to right now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's pretend it's 1982 (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, if the project had continued at

the same scheduled rate of employment as was projected, by this time next year

there would have been about 2,000 people at the Bull Arm site, and by mid next

year, probably 3,000. Right now, because of the rescheduling, the total amount

of work will still have to be done but stretched over an extra year. There is

nothing going to be lost to us assuming that a partner or partners are found to

fill the gap and the project continues. We will just get work for an extra

several months, up to an extra year, on the project. The peak is what would be

lower, but the total amount of work would still have to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, a final

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of

small and medium-sized Newfoundland companies, contractors, literally hanging on

by their fingernails for this particular project to move ahead, and all of the

sudden, now, the expenditures have been cut in half.

Does the Minister's monitoring expertise have any indication

of how many companies have gone under or are about to go under because the

expected contracts will not be forthcoming in the near future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, no

companies have gone under directly related to the slowdown of Hibernia which

started less than a month ago.

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

West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Minister of Development regarding the proposed sale of the Marystown Shipyard.

The minister, in the latter part of November, announced in

Marystown, and let me say in good faith, that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, is that comment parliamentary?

MR. SIMMS: The minister! They are paying him $100,000 a

year to interject, that is what they are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair didn't hear the comment. If the member would ask

that I make a ruling, then I will check Hansard, but I didn't hear the comment.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs I was in the process of asking the

Minister of Development a very serious question regarding the Marystown

Shipyard.

The Minister announced in the latter part of November, Mr.

Speaker, that the yard was to be sold to the Kvaerner Group, and the deadline

was February 3 for the finalization of that deal. It was then extended, I

believe, to March 3. I wonder if the minister is in a position to give any new

information as to when we can anticipate the finalization of that sale.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his

question, and it is indeed a serious question because it affects the lives of

the people on the Burin Peninsula and particularly the Marystown Shipyard. I

take it seriously. The situation is, as the hon. member correctly states, that

February 3 was the deadline. In the agreement in principle, Mr. Speaker, there

were certain conditions precedent that had to be achieved by both parties in

order for the agreement to be executed and signed off. Some of those conditions

precedent the hon. member is familiar with. Investment Canada would have to be

notified. There was a provision for an overrun on the Offshore Development Fund

for the expansion of Cow Head which had to be signed off at both levels. There

were water lease lot rights that had to be declared, Mr. Speaker, from the

Minister of Transport Canada. There was the expropriation of some land and a

number of other conditions. These conditions were not met. These conditions

precedent were not met at February 3. Both parties agreed mutually to extend it

for one month to March 3, and in that intervening time, eleven days later on the

14, as the Leader of the Opposition referred to, the Gulf pull out occurred and

that cast a shadow across the project. We were notified by Kvaerner that they

wanted to talk about the agreement in principle and that on March 3 the

agreement would not be executed at that time and signed off even though 99 per

cent of the conditions precedent had been achieved at that point in time. There

were one or two, I think, outstanding issues, so as a consequence of that I

notified the Chief Executive Officer in Norway. In fact he is in St. John's

today and I intend to meet with him at 4 o'clock today to finalize whether in

fact we have an agreement or not.

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

West on a supplementary.

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

answer. He stated: whether they would finalize an agreement or not. May I ask

the minister then, whether he can give assurance to the House, and indeed to the

employees of the Marystown Shipyard in the event that agreement is not

finalized, whether or not the Government will continue to operate the shipyard?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any assurances.

First of all I have to have the meeting. Then I have to determine whether in

fact there is an agreement still in place. My own view is that I would like to

see the original agreement in principle. They may ask for some further delay as

we observe this Hibernia climate, to see in fact whether new investors are

brought in to secure that 25 per cent position. You know, and all hon. members

know, that Cow Head is being build for the mechanical outfitting, the shaft

outfitting, and that is a substantial portion of the fabrication that would be

done in that yard. As a consequence businesses everywhere are watching the

Hibernia situation to see in fact whether this will proceed, or whether new

investment will come in, so from their business perspective, I guess, they are

looking and saying: should we carry forward with this agreement in principle or

should we delay it for a period of time to observe the Hibernia climate and to

see if in fact this project will find new investment and carry forward.

I expect they will probably ask for an extension in that

regard and then the Province has to make a decision. With respect to whether

this agreement collapses and what the future of the yard holds, I do not have to

tell my hon. friend the difficult financial circumstances this Province finds

itself in. I do not have to tell my hon. friend the considerable debt that

continues to sit on the books of that yard. What we are continuing to do is, as

we move through this agreement in principle towards a final agreement, we are

continuing business as usual. It is a very competitive environment out there.

There are only three projects that I know of that are on the horizon right now

and the direct consequence of work that would be garnered from those projects is

very minuscule, so I cannot give any assurances at this time.

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

West on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hope one of the projects the

minister refers to will be a ferry for Fogo Island, but in any case let me say

that in the same announcement which the minister made about the sale of the

Marystown Shipyard he announced that approximately 200 employees of the yard

would be leaving right after Christmas to go to Norway for training. Funding for

that, I understand, was to come from the Offshore Development Fund but this has

not happened yet. I am wondering if the minister could tell me if Cabinet has

approved the funding for this training program and if he is in a position to

tell us when the people will be taking

part in this training program?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, my friend is quite right. It was

our hope that 100 to 150 workers would be sent to the Norwegian yards at

Stavanger and North for on-site training. What happened was we were waiting -

and we said, that the company would be able to take advantage of all programs,

Federal and Provincial, irrespective of the sale price of the Yard.

One of those programs they were looking at was called the

OTTOP program which at the current time has a zero balance. So it would require

the Provincial Minister of Mines and Energy and the Federal Minister to divert

funds from the offshore development fund, the general fund, into this specific

program. We only just, I believe three, maybe four weeks ago, received the

actual compilation of the application for that program from Kvaerner Rosenberg.

At that time I think they applied for slightly over $4 million in training.

After our assessment we determined that the eligibility from that slightly more

than $4 million was just over $2 million. So that is being assessed.

There is really no point in asking both levels of Government

to proceed to divert funding into that specific program until we hear from

Kvaerner at the table this afternoon to see where our deal is. If in fact there

is some kind of delay for sixty days or thirty days or whatever the

determination is, if we can agree mutually that the agreement of principle will

hold true, then I would think that we would proceed with the diversion of that

funding and try to execute that particular training component as quickly as

possible.

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

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

question for the Minister of Fisheries. A few minutes ago I saw the Minister

reading today's Globe, and I see other Members opposite reading today's Globe. I

would like to ask the Minister: what plans do he and the Provincial Government

have to counter the very powerful advertising that we see displayed in the Globe

and Mail today? "Who had cod for dinner? Not me." By all those seals. What plans

does the Minister have to counter this very powerful advertising campaign that

is undertaken by the International Welfare group?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to counter lies

and this kind of false, misleading advertising. For the benefit of those who

have not read today's Globe and Mail there is a two-page ad in the paper showing

seals saying "Not me" when they were asked what they had for dinner. "Who had

cod for dinner?" Seals saying, "Not me." Now I can only say that the author of

the article, the people whom they are quoting, and the seals, are all a bunch of

damned liars. I would hardly dignify it by commenting on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

times I am sure when we have all felt like the Minister has expressed himself

today. But the situation is that this campaign has begun in earnest and I say to

the Minister: we just cannot sit back and let it happen without trying to

counter it. Because we will have world opinion on the side of environmentalists,

more so outside of Canada than within, and of course that is where our major

problems are, with foreign over-fishing, are outside of Canada.

Let me ask the Minister again, because he did not respond:

what plans have the Minister, his officials and the Government made to counter

this advertising campaign by the International Welfare Organization?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I guess we have done many things

in the past number of years, and in fact in the past few years we have spent

over $5 million years promoting the seal harvest by seeking out markets for seal

meat and other parts of the animal. That is pretty well the pattern that we have

been following and will continue to follow. I do not think Newfoundland could

possibly call for and defend a wholesale slaughter of seals, as desirable as

that might be and maybe as necessary as it might be, but I do not think we could

get away with it.

The Province has been trying, working with the Canadian

Sealers Association and others - my hon. friend and colleague for Baie Verte -

White Bay - trying to develop a seal harvest based on the total utilization of

the animal. I believe if we can do that then we can get around the people who

would use this kind of propaganda for their own benefit, I suspect, in many

cases. Last year the Newfoundland seal harvest accounted for around 60,000 or

70,000 seals, I believe, all of which were just about fully utilized. This year

we are hoping that maybe that amount can be almost doubled but again, I repeat,

using all parts of the animal. Because while these people would successfully,

maybe, get away with putting ads in the Globe and Mail and maybe picketing or

threatening to picket or boycott fish from countries that are engaged in the

seal hunt, I do not see how they could possibly succeed in raising that kind of

protest against a province or a person or a company that is in the business of

providing protein for the starving.

It is interesting to note the people in Eastern Europe, for

example, are being forced to eat animals in order to stay alive, and it seems

rather strange that we cannot find a need for that meat in those countries where

people are starving.

So we are working, Mr. Speaker, with the governments, with

all agencies of both governments, seeking out ways of being able to accelerate

the seal hunt and properly utilizing all of the products therefrom.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the Minister, that we surely do have to develop

markets and we do have to utilize all of the seal so that there is no wastage or

as little wastage as possible.

Is the Minister telling me that he and the Provincial

Government are going to ignore this campaign that has been started by the

International Welfare Association, the International Agency for Animal Welfare?

Is he saying today in this Legislature that he has no plans whatsoever, that he

did not anticipate this campaign, that once again, as we saw yesterday and have

seen for the last number of weeks and the last number of months, that this

Minister has no plan to deal with this issue and is just going to sit idly by on

his hands again and do nothing? Is that what he is telling the Legislature

today?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what more I can

say or do and how more emphatic I can be in trying to enlighten the hon.

gentleman as to exactly what we are trying to do.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the Province is now about to

embark on a public relations campaign across this country, one that the hon.

Leader of the Opposition supported on the day the House opened and, in fact,

offered his services and that of his caucus. I can tell him now that back about

six or eight months ago that idea was conceived and we have since been putting

it in place, an idea that came from an advisory council, Mr. Speaker, that had

been appointed to advise me on such matters.

We will be, no doubt, in the course of that campaign,

focusing some attention on this propaganda being put in the papers by the animal

welfare people and others. We are going to be endeavouring to build up our own

harvest. But, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is suggesting that we should go

to the Globe and Mail and buy another two pages to counteract that kind of

nonsense, well then I can only tell him that not only is the Province not

interested, but I do not think we should even consider taking that kind of

action. In fact, Mr. Speaker, to even recognize that kind of nonsense and

malicious propaganda is to dignify it and I would prefer not to do that.

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

Extern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: My question is to the President of Treasury

Board, in the absence of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr.

Speaker, St. John's City Council has asked Government to amend The St. John's

Leasehold Act which was implemented in 1977 which gave the residents of St.

John's the right to buy back their leasehold property at twenty times the annual

rental value. Mr. Speaker, this has been held in abeyance for the longest time

and people are wondering just what is happening to it.

I want to ask the hon. Minister what is holding it up. It is

only a minor, minor amendment. And would he tell the people of Penetanguishene

that he will see to it that this amendment goes through the House immediately?

People are out there waiting. There is no need for the delay. I ask the

Minister, would he do something about it?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will look into the situation and get back to the hon.

gentleman.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo. There is time

for one short question with an appropriate short answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In last year's Budget Speech the Minister of Finance

announced deferral of the Fogo Island ferry for one year. Can the Minister of

Transportation now confirm that this delay was only for a one year period as was

announced in last year's Budget, and that construction will take place this

year?

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

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I explained to the representatives from the Marystown

Shipyard when they met with me today, consideration of the Fogo ferry could be

given in this particular budgetary process but no commitment can be made that in

fact that ferry would go ahead until in fact the Minister of Finance makes his

Budget Speech here in the House. We certainly appreciate the significance of the

project for the workers at Marystown and for the people of Fogo Island. As I

have indicated to them, consideration will be given to it but no commitment to

it at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: In view of the lengthy applause, I will give

the member one more short supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: At the same time last year in the Budget

Speech, the Government also announced the elimination of the two ferry system

serving the islands for almost nine months of the year. This system did not work

in the past. It has not worked this year. Is it the intention of Government to

revert back to a dedicated ferry service for each of the islands for most of the

year?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this answer is dependent upon the resources which are

provided to that particular segment of the department in the budget process.

Changes to the Fogo service and Change Islands service will be dependent upon

the amount of money provided through the budgetary process.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the accounts of Crown

Corporations, Boards and Authorities for 1991, and, Mr. Speaker, while I am on

my feet, I would like to table two pre-commitments. One is for the purchase and

distribution of school textbooks in the amount of $6,500,000.00 and for the

printing of public examinations and related materials of $103,000. The other is

a pre-commitment for the Department of Works, Services and Transportation,

totalling $400,000.00 against its 1992-1993 appropriations, to facilitate the

calling and awarding of a contract to Burry's Marine Division for the provision

of ferry services between South East Bight, Petit Forte and Little Paradise and,

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would like to table some special warrants.

The three special warrants, one for the Legislature in the

amount of $255,000.00 to provide additional funding for communications and

members travel expenses. One for the Department of Justice, a special warrant of

$1,350,000.00 to provide for the payment of salary increases for correctional

officers as a result of the award of an arbitration board, and to the Department

of Social Services, a special warrant of $12,700,000., $6.35 million net, to

provide additional funds for social assistance and foster home allowances. Mr.

Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would like to table under

Section 51,

paragraph 3 of the Financial and Administration Act, a list of guaranteed loans

paid out by the Province since the spring of 1991.

One for Eastern Ocean Products Limited in the amount of

$200,826.42; Oceana Seafood Processors Limited, $1,827,630.56; Vokey's Shipyard

Limited, $152,442.16 and another to the same group, $69,326.65; Torrent

Fisheries Limited, $88,408.92; Baie Verte Mines Limited, $7,970,854.41; Cote's

Mechanical Limited, $219,735.58; Great Northern Seafoods Limited, $1,016,876.24;

Sop's Arm Fisheries Limited, $309,273.28; White's Fisheries Limited,

$549,541.68; St. Lawrence Flurospar Limited, $3,421,968.09 and another to the

same for $42,850.57; Regional Optical Limited, $104,597.19; Newfound Harvesting

Limited, $3,142,475.30; Superior Logging Limited,$764,635.09 and, under the

Fisheries Loan Board Bank Loan Guarantee Program, on behalf of William Short,

$201,561.55. I will be glad to answer any questions related to that.

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the

annual report of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation for 1991, and of the

Department of Finance for the same year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present a

petition of approximately 400 citizens of Corner Brook. The petition calls on

the Provincial Government to drop the three year old proposal to amalgamate

Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah. In the five minutes available to me

I will read the petition in its entirety and give a brief background

explanation. I hope the new Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will

then respond on behalf of the government.

The petition, the recitals and the prayer are as follows: To

the Premier and the Members of the House of Assembly, and to the Mayor and

Councillors of the City of Corner Brook:

WHEREAS there has not been a proper study of the cost of the

proposed amalgamation of Corner Brook, Mount Moriah and Massey Drive; and

WHEREAS the only independent commissioner appointed by the

government to conduct a feasibility study, Hubert Harnett, Chartered Accountant,

concluded that the government commissioner did not make a case for amalgamation

benefiting the whole; and

WHEREAS the staff of the City of Corner Brook have estimated

that amalgamation would result in a net additional cost to the City of Corner

Brook after collecting taxes at full Corner Brook rates from Mount Moriah and

Massey Drive of approximately $600,000 a year; and

WHEREAS almost all the citizens of Massey Drive and Mount

Moriah are opposed to amalgamation;

THEREFORE your petitioners pray that the provincial

government not proceed at this time with the proposed amalgamation of Corner

Brook, Mount Moriah and Massey Drive, and that the City of Corner Brook ask the

provincial government to drop the current amalgamation proposal.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this petition is of citizens of

Corner Brook. The petition has been spearheaded by a small group of residents of

the three municipalities: Massey Drive, Corner Brook and Mount Moriah. It was

prepared three or four weeks ago, and these 400 signatures represent just two

nights canvassing, one night in Humbermouth in the district I represent, another

night in Curling in areas represented by the Premier and the Member for Humber

West. What is significant, Mr. Speaker, is that almost all the Corner Brook

residents approached signed this petition without hesitation. About 1 per cent

did not sign saying that they do not have enough information.

The reasons Corner Brook citizens gave for signing the

petition had to do with a concern that amalgamation will drive up taxes in

Corner Brook, and also a reluctance to be part of coercing Massey Drive and

Mount Moriah to join Corner Brook against their will.

Mr. Speaker, this petition demonstrates, along with other

evidence, that the vast majority of residence of all three municipalities

affected do not want amalgamation. People do not want amalgamation for good

reasons, Mr. Speaker. First and foremost because this amalgamation will result

in higher overall costs of municipal government. Now amalgamation is usually

advocated when it will result in economies of scale, when the unit cost of

providing local services will go down because of elimination of duplication or

because of harmonizing the delivery of services.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, mainly because Massey Drive and

Mount Moriah have relatively small populations for their territory, and because

those small municipalities have a high degree of volunteer service, which after

amalgamation would be replaced by paid services, would result in increased cost

of municipal government.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the residents of Mount Moriah and Massey

Drive believe that amalgamation would dampen the very special quality of life in

their communities. Massey Drive, with which I am very familiar, has a great

spirit. There is a high degree of volunteer citizen involvement in running the

community, including operating a very efficient fire department.

So, Mr. Speaker, the residents of Corner Brook who signed

this petition are joining with their neighbours in Massey Drive and Mount Moriah

in saying to the Wells Administration: Please recognize facts, recognize that in

our case amalgamation will drive up the overall cost of local government, and

please leave well enough alone.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few

words in support of the petition presented by my colleague, the Member for

Humber East. I am very familiar, Mr. Speaker, with the communities of Massey

Drive, Mount Moriah and the City of Corner Brook, in particular, because I

served with them on the Humber Joint Council there for years as a council

member. I am very familiar, Mr. Speaker, with the level of volunteerism put into

it by all those municipalities.

When the former Minister of Municipal Affairs came out, I

believe it was in the Spring of 1989 or 1990, Mr. Speaker, he announced the

amalgamation scheme in Corner Brook. In fact, that is pretty well where it was

announced although it was at a Humber Joint Council meeting. Just after that the

Minister announced it. It never really went anywhere. There was a lot of talk

about amalgamating 140-odd municipalities in the Province and so on. Then it

went into the Regional Services Board and some of the municipalities looked at

that as possibly a way out. In fact, at a Humber Joint Council meeting in

Jackson's Arm the former Minister announced some of the terms of The Regional

Services Board Act that was being proposed. That has been passed in the House

but has never been proclaimed and hasn't been gazetted as far as I am concerned,

Mr. Speaker, unless something happened since last term.

This is the type of thing that would help a lot of those

municipalities, rather than the amalgamation scheme. People in those

municipalities do not want amalgamation. They have shown in their own right that

they are determined to show some level of fiscal responsibility. They have

proven that, moreso as of lately. They have proven they can run their

municipalities in a very efficient way and develop their municipalities in a

proper way that is just as good. Big does not mean better, Mr. Speaker. Those

municipalities can run their affairs in a very competent and efficient manner.

This is where I think the department is wrong when they look

at municipalities in the Province and say that - and I heard the Minister say it

at a meeting in Steady Brook - the average mil rate for rural Newfoundland is

nine mils. Now, that to me, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. You cannot just take an

average. Massey Drive just recently has gone to ten mils.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: And water and sewer hookups and so on. I

mean, those are things that have to be taken into consideration, not look at the

overall picture of just putting Massey Drive or Mount Moriah or anywhere else in

with a larger municipality.

The thing I find wrong, Mr. Speaker, one of the most basic

principles that I find wrong with the larger cities, and I will talk about the

City of St. John's and, in this case, I guess, the City of Corner Brook, is that

they are not letting their citizens know what it is going to cost the people in

their municipalities.

That, to me, is fundamentally wrong. They knew and they know

and they should tell the citizens, whom they represent, what it is going to cost

them. Because it is lost in the fact that it is Mount Moriah, for instance, in

this case, and Massey Drive, that are on the outskirts and should be in the

larger City of Corner Brook. That is wrong, because it is going to cost the

citizens of Corner Brook. I ask the minister, who is very much aware of the

costs to municipalities in this Province, to take a second look at all

municipalities in the Province that they have singled out for amalgamation. I am

sure that he will find that in a goodly number of cases it is not warranted and

he should turn it down, the same as he turned down a lot of other municipalities

just in the last couple of weeks.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Just to

respond very quickly and briefly to the hon. members who spoke on behalf of this

petition. I have met with some of the parties involved, and, indeed, the Member

for Humber, and have had some brief discussions on the amalgamation of the

communities of which they speak. They have put forth very interesting arguments.

I have undertaken, in this particular case, to revisit the amalgamation units in

question, and if there are any fears that the hon. member or the council or any

other interested parties on the subject of this particular amalgamation need

addressed, I will address them all. Hopefully, in co-operation with the citizens

and with the members who speak on their behalf, a unanimous resolution of the

amalgamation subject, not only in their district but in other districts, can be

met by more level heads.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. HOGAN: When I am ready.

AN HON. MEMBER: When you're ready.

MS. VERGE: This year?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I called Orders of the Day. Do hon. members

agree to go back to petitions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition to

present on behalf of 127 residents of Island Harbour, located on Fogo Island. I

will read the prayer of the petition.

It is to the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in

Legislative Session convened.

WHEREAS the road in the Fogo Island community of Island

Harbour is in such desperate need of upgrading that residents served by the road

are without proper access to ambulance service, fire protection or the delivery

of basic supplies;

THEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to act without delay to provide the necessary funding

to upgrade this road, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, the road in question is some fourteen kilometres

in length. It is a road that serves two communities, Deep Bay and Island

Harbour. About six kilometres of the road would serve both communities, and then

there is a branch that goes to the community of Island Harbour, some eight

kilometres in distance. For the past three years this road has seen a steady

deterioration. There is nothing left on the road to grade. If you talk to the

local department of highways people they tell you they can no longer maintain

that road. It is in dire need of considerable upgrading. They have requested it

on several occasions. During the spring and fall it is virtually impossible for

vehicles to travel over that road without incurring all kinds of damage.

In addition to that, a number of years ago, a major school

was built in the centre of Fogo Island to service the needs of all the students

of Fogo Island. These students have to travel by bus often over roads that are

certainly not conducive to the travelling public, whether it is a private

vehicle or school buses. There is ample material in the immediate area that can

be used to service the road, to bring it up at least to a decent gravel road

standard. Obviously, the ultimate goal was to pave the road. We realize that

cannot be done in a day or two days, but certainly some attention can be given

to this road to upgrade it, to at least make it acceptable for the summer, and

perhaps in the following year, paving could take place.

In addition to that, this administration in the last two

years, has not spent one cent in Fogo district on the upgrading of roads. In

1989 there was some money spent to pave the road from Man of War Cove to Seldom.

Since then there hasn't been a dollar in provincial roads component spent in

Fogo district.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the fairness and balance that is

talked about so much, then I think it is time that Fogo district is entitled to

some of the fairness in the roads component, and I ask the minister, when he

makes his allocations for roads, to certainly consider the Island Harbour - Deep

Bay road as a top priority, since the road is in a deplorable condition.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Fogo presented a

petition, and I don't know if the new minister realizes it or not, but it is

basically the responsibility of the minister, if he is concerned. Now, he has to

be concerned about the needs of the people in question - if he is not concerned

he does not speak about it. If he doesn't accept responsibility he doesn't speak

about it, but he should at least have the courtesy to stand in this House -

MR. SIMMS: As his colleague just did.

MR. TOBIN: - yes, as his colleague, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs did, just stand in this House and either support or reject the

petition that was presented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just very briefly, I would like to point out that obviously,

there is no point of order. The minister is not obligated to respond to any

petition. The minister has not even seen the petition yet. It has not been

passed along to the department for any kind of response, so the minister

obviously cannot respond.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the fact that the

member has no support on that side. That surprises me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, there is no point of order. I do not

know what it is a point of, but it certainly is not a point of order.

I just want to tell hon. members again that we always run

into a difficulty here. The Chair waited ample time for somebody to stand, and

nobody stood. Then, obviously, the next duty of the Chair is to call - and that

is what I did, I called Orders of the Day, and this is where it is. Orders of

the Day.

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

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would be, indeed, honoured to

speak on behalf of the petition presented by my colleague, if the members

opposite would extend the courtesy for me to speak on behalf of it. Do I have

leave, Mr. Speaker, as the President of Treasury Board suggested? I certainly

would be honoured to speak on it. I would be very honoured to support it, and I

will now ask the Government House Leader to put his money where his mouth is and

to give me leave or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker,

obviously, there is no point of order. Your Honour had already called the Orders

of the Day. However, if the Member for Burin - Placentia West has an overcoming

desire to speak in support of that petition, and if the only reason that he did

not jump to his feet immediately was because he was asleep or something, then I

would be happy to allow him the opportunity to take five minutes. I look forward

to it.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the President of

Treasury Board, the Government House Leader, for giving me the opportunity to

speak to the petition. I can say to him that I was not asleep. I was eagerly

awaiting the response from the Minister of Transportation so that I could -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact he was

not asleep. He wasn't in the Chamber because I had to ask the President of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind the hon. member that he is now speaking to

the petition, and for the benefit of everybody we want to have the right decorum

in this House. Speaking to the petition is not giving explanation now as to why

the hon. member didn't stand. The hon. member is now given the permission to

speak to the petition, and I read from our old Standing Orders which says: 92.

Every member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself to the

statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached

to it and the material allegations it contains." It is quite clear. So I ask the

hon. member, please, to abide by the rules.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. SIMMS: Members over there shouldn't be asking him

questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Your Honour, I beg your forgiveness for

getting carried away.

Mr. Speaker, there is something in the rule book, too,

regarding interjections by members opposite.

MR. SIMMS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: But in any case, Mr. Speaker, I want to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members know what we are into, we are into a petition. I

am assuming hon. members are taking the petition seriously. I know the hon. the

Member for Fogo thinks it is serious, and I ask all hon. members to afford it

the seriousness and the gravity it deserves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate your

ruling, because this is an extremely serious issue, and I am glad that you

brought it to the attention of hon. members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support this petition that has been

presented. I think there were 116 signatures.

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and twenty-seven.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this petition from my colleague's

district, with one hundred and twenty-seven signatures, requests paving of the

road.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs

is interjecting again, old pork barrel.

Mr. Speaker, I think that asking to have their roads paved is

a fair request by the people of the constituency of Fogo. I know that the Member

for Fogo has had several concerns. I believe he presented several petitions last

year regarding the need to have the road in his district upgraded and paved, and

most of the time it was met with scorn and contempt from the former Minister of

Transportation, which was not unusual. But I ask this minister, who I believe

has compassion, or I sincerely hope has compassion for the needs of the people

in the Fogo district and other districts of the Province. I ask him, Mr.

Speaker, if he would do everything possible to convince his colleagues of the

necessity, when they are divvying up the funding, to practice what the Premier

preaches: fairness and balance. Because it is important that when the ministers

get together to divvy up some of the pies, to divvy up some of the capital works

- and the Premier may or may not be there, Mr. Speaker - it is very important

that this be done in a way that it not be referred back to the various

departments because other people's needs were not considered. That is extremely

important.

I will also say, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to people

of Island Harbour to have the road upgraded, paved and improvements made.

MR. SIMMS: Island Harbour.

MR. TOBIN: Island Harbour. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure

the Member for Gander is familiar with that, since he is a minister from that

area.

MR. SIMMS: He only goes to Gander once a year.

MR. TOBIN: Seeing he is a minister from that area, I

would hope that he would lend his support around the Cabinet table to the people

from that community, and lend his support to the colleague from Fogo who has -

if any member in this legislature had been standing up, looking, fighting, and

demanding improvements to his district over the past couple of years since this

government slashed the budget - This government, Mr. Speaker, slashed the road

budget from $48 million in 1988, something in the provincial Budget, I believe

it was $48 million. This government last year had a capital works budget for $25

million. And not only that, I understand some of that wasn't even spent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Some of that wasn't even spent. It is not

lies, Mr. Speaker, it is not lies! It is the truth! It is not lies I say to the

member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave.

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

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Leader of the Opposition asked an important question. I

will ask the hon. member to take his place. The Chair assumed that when we gave

leave to the Member for Burin - Placentia West we were then back to petitions.

If we were not, the House can direct me accordingly. Is the Chair of the right

understanding that when we gave leave to the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, we came back to petitions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is the difficulty we get into when we call for Orders of

the Day and we go back to Petitions to allow somebody to speak. The Chair can

only assume that when I called Orders of the Day and asked, Will I now go back

to Petitions? that we would revert to petitions. So the Chair assumes we are

back to Petitions.

MR. BAKER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I understand the technicality. I

naturally assumed that we were reverting to Petitions and if there were other

petitions, that we are still in Petitions. However, if that is not the

situation, the ultimate outcome would be no different, because I am sure members

opposite, in the spirit of co-operation, would allow the minister to respond,

anyway.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, now, that I raised

the question, now, but earlier, on the point of order raised by the Government

House Leader, you will recall that the Government House Leader got up and

explained that the Minister of Transportation didn't have to respond and didn't

intend to respond, so we assumed he didn't intend to respond. Then the Member

for Burin - Placentia West asked for leave to say a few words to the petition

and members of the House granted leave and that was fine. All I simply asked

was, Well, does the minister have leave? I didn't know we had reverted to

Petitions. But, anyway, to clarify it all - I know the Government House Leader

is starting to get up there. He wants to jump up again. Let us just clarify it

all and say, if there is leave required, we give leave, and if there is no leave

required and we are back at Petitions, then we are back at Petitions. It doesn't

really matter. It is no big problem.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to correct an incorrect statement the Leader of

the Opposition just made. He is good at that. He did it two or three times in

Question Period today, and so on. I did not say -

AN HON. MEMBER: You did so.

MR. BAKER: - that the minister did not want to speak. I

just said that the minister did not have to speak and there is a big difference,

Mr. Speaker. I wish the Leader of the Opposition would pay a little more

attention when things are happening in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair wants to know which it is. The

Chair is assuming we are back to Petitions.

MR. GOVER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would assure the hon. member that this particular project

will be looked at on the same basis as any other project is looked at. Whether

the project comes from Fogo district or Humber Valley or Burin - Placentia West

or Bonavista South or Harbour Grace or Carbonear, all these projects will be

looked at on the same basis, and the only basis they should be looked at, which

is on the basis of need. This need will be assessed in relation to the hundreds

and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of requests that have gone in to the

department. And we will evaluate this particular road as it stands in relation

to the other roads in the Province, the roads in Twillingate district, in Gander

district, in Grand Bank district. The roads will be evaluated on a fair and

objective basis, and I can assure the hon. member that if his road rates high

enough, within the allocation the Government sees fit to give the department to

conduct this particular program, his road will be done. The fact that he sits on

that side of the House has no bearing on whether the road will be done or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: I can only assume that when hon. members speak

of roads being done on any other basis rather than on the basis of fairness and

balance and assessment of need, they must be speaking from their own personal

experience, because I have no experience except that these projects are done on

the basis of need.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the hon.

member that we will assess this project as we assess all others and it will

certainly be done on the basis of need, fairness and balance, and I appreciate

the importance of this project to the people of Fogo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order No. l, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader called Order No.

1 on the Address in Reply. I believe the Opposition House Leader adjourned the

debate yesterday.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I had a few minutes on this debate yesterday. I want to first

of all, congratulate the new Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I

think he fielded his first question this afternoon and now he reacted to his

first petition.

MR. SIMMS: His first one as Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation. I think we asked him one as Justice Minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, but as Justice Minister he had his

answer written by someone else, but today, he performed by himself, so I want to

congratulate him on that.

I want to say to him that we have all had some experiences

with fairness and balance, and I also want to say to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation that it is going into the fourth year now, that

there hasn't been a nickel spent on transportation in the District of Grand

Bank, so if he considers that fairness and balance, sobeit. Not a nickel, Mr.

Speaker, and perhaps I might get a chance for some money on transportation

initiatives in my district if the Cabinet paper gets sent back, again, because

some people didn't think things were as they should be. I might have a chance

then, you never know.

But anyway, getting back to the debate on the Address in

Reply. I was talking about the fishery yesterday and reacting to some comments

made by the Member for Port de Grave, who is not here today. The thrust of his

speech was co-operation, the need for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

co-operate on this very, very important fisheries issue, that we should all be

together, we should all be going in the one direction to address the crisis in

our fishery, and I thought that was, Mr. Speaker, a pretty good thrust and the

crux of his speech.

But as I said yesterday when I spoke, I observed that the

Member for Port de Grave and the Chairman or President of the Fishermen's Union

seem to be at odds and don't seem to be going in the same direction to address

this very important issue. Then I went home last night flicking back and forth

between two channels and what did I see? anything but co-operation. There was

the Member for Port de Grave and the Secretary of the Fishermen's Union in

another spat over something else, so, it seems to me that they were sort of

hollow words that I heard from the Member for Port de Grave yesterday when he

talked about co-operation.

But he was right in his message that we all should

co-operate, because we are talking about the future of Newfoundland and Labrador

and we are talking about our fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure we will.

MR. MATTHEWS: Sorry? We will all co-operate? Well, I hope

we do, I say to the Government House Leader, but there is something about us as

a people that often times doesn't lend itself to us all co-operating with one

another, even though this is probably the most important issue to face

Newfoundland and Labrador. There is something about us as a people.

MR. NOEL: That's not correct. I don't think we are

different from other people.

MR. SIMMS: Well, we are talking about people (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, I am more familiar with my own

people, I say to the Member for Pleasantville, and how they behave and how they

react.

MR. SIMMS: You wouldn't understand. Go back and study the

Constitution, now.

MR. MATTHEWS: And it ties in with what the Member for

Port de Grave said, we tend to blame everyone else, blame this group and that

group. It is this one's fault and we had no part of it. But we all have played a

part in getting to the problem area that we have today, all of us, including the

foreigners who are still overfishing, including our own domestic fleets,

including the seals, governments. And the biggest problem with what is happening

inside the 200-mile economic zone, the 200-mile limit, Mr. Speaker, is all tied

to a treaty that was signed in 1972; that is the biggest problem that we are

caused inside the 200-mile limit, and because of that treaty -

MR. SIMMS: Walter opposed that, too.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, the minister probably did oppose it.

MR. SIMMS: You were not there, then?

MR. MATTHEWS: It was the Trudeau Government, I think,

entered into that agreement.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but wasn't Walter a Member of Parliament

then?

MR. MATTHEWS: He probably was a Member of Parliament and

probably did oppose it. That has caused severe problems for us, because to try

to get out of that treaty - of course, the countries who signed the treaty,

there are provisions for fish, and they want to hang on to that fish and,

indeed, when you try to break an arrangement, quite often they bargain for more,

and that is the predicament in which we found ourselves.

For members opposite or members on this side, for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, it would make interesting reading to go back

over the history of how other countries came about getting access to our fish

stocks. It goes way, way back to the time when we were controlled by Great

Britain, I say to members opposite. Once you read it and understand it, then the

issue is not as simple as some people in this Province would believe it is

today, because there are those amongst us and some, even, who sit in this House,

who think this is a simple problem. It cannot be corrected overnight. We are

dealing with other countries, it is an international problem, Mr. Speaker, and

it is very, very difficult to address.

I want to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker. As I said

yesterday, I think the Premier is a little bit late in going on his national

tour to try to develop or encourage public opinion in Canada our way. I think it

is important that he is doing it, but I think he is too late doing it. It should

have been done before, because, as I said yesterday, as important as the

Constitution is and as important as it is that this country remain united,

because the fallout for this Province will be devastating if the country breaks

up, there is no one issue as important to Newfoundland and Labrador as our

fishing industry. Nothing!

We can talk about diversification, Mr. Speaker. That is

important too, that we look at trying to get other industries. We thought we had

at least an industry in Hibernia, and I hope we still have one. But it just goes

to show that once you get a downturn in the fishery, everything else in this

Province is drastically affected. We look at it now with our unemployment rate,

we look at the number of bankruptcies in this Province, companies going bankrupt

daily, more and more and more, and the main reason for that is because of the

state of our fishery. That is the main reason.

I have small businesses in my own area that have been in

existence for years and years, some of them close to 100 years, and I don't know

if they are going to get through this spring. The main reason is the downturn

and the state of our fishery. I am sure that most hon. members find the

situation the same in their areas of the Province and in their districts.

So I want to speak for a moment about the importance of the

fishery, and co-operation. I want to speak for a moment about what is happening

inside the 200-mile limit, the problems that are inside there or the perceived

problems. I want to go on record again - I had hoped that I would have a

document with me today, because again people are making false statements about

what is happening inside the 200-mile limit. They are quoting figures that are

grossly exaggerated, again because they do not know.

It is a very popular thing to say to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, these great amounts of this species and that species are being

taken inside our 200-mile limit by foreigners. There is not as much being taken

as some people would like us to believe. There is too much being taken, I say to

members, because, certainly God, there must be some economic benefit for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Atlantic Canadians, that if others can come

to our waters and harvest these underutilized species, as you refer to them,

then certainly there must be some economic value for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. There must be.

Now, having said that, that some of the foreign arrangements

inside the 200-mile limit are creating economic benefits for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians and other Atlantic Canadians - and I think that is positive - it

would be preferable if we were catching and harvesting the fish, but with our

own capabilities and our own boats and our own crews to bring it to our ports

for processing. But when you look at the harvesting capability of the lack

thereof that we, as a people, have, then the few arrangements that we have

whereby we benefit, I think, has to be considered to be positive.

I just want to say to the Minister of Fisheries, before I go

on to another issue, that maybe he should consider, or the Government should

consider, and it is my understanding, that the underutilized species development

pool, by large measure, goes to (inaudible) countries because it is said

Canadians have no use for the species. I mean, that is basically the

understanding, that we cannot utilize those species. One of the main problems we

have is harvesting capability of a number of the species, like silver hake,

which has to be instantly frozen upon being taken out of the water or else they

waste away very quickly. I mean, we had 5,000 tons of silver hake for St.

Lawrence five or six years ago and we could not find the harvesting capability.

We knew there was no Canadian capability. We tried the Koreans and the Russians

but we just couldn't put the package together to do something in St. Lawrence.

In St. Lawrence we were thinking about secondary processing for silver hake. But

the reason we couldn't get it was that we did not have the harvesting

capability.

So I want to say to the Minister of Fisheries, maybe it is

something that he and his government should think about. Is there some way that

we can develop as a province, promote, encourage, whatever way, financially and

otherwise, a harvesting capability, so that at least we can harvest what is now

referred to as underutilized species and bring them to our ports for processing.

Because all I have heard over the years is talk about underutilized species and

that is where it has stopped.

I have been as guilty of that as anyone else. I am not

throwing blame around. But certainly, God, there must be value to those species

that we can bring to our ports and process, value add if we want, to make it

more attractive to consumers. But, certainly, there must be potential to do

that. Because with the downturn in our Northern Cod stocks, if we don' do

something like that,I honestly don't know how we are going to be able to survive

in this Province with anywhere near the number of people who are now living

here. I say that quite sincerely, I don't know. It has to be the fishery.

We had the Burin Peninsula Development Fund on the Burin

Peninsula a number of years ago when the whole restructuring in the fishery took

place - millions of dollars. A condition of the Burin Peninsula Development Fund

initially was that it would fund new industry, new job creation, if it was not

attached or tied to the fishery. There are communities all around the Burin

Peninsula, particularly my district, the toe and the boot, and we have spent

days asking: What can we come up with to try and access money from the Burin

Peninsula Development Fund?' And everything we came up with in a number of

communities - people, town managers, councillors, business groups, interest

groups - whenever we came up with an idea it was fishery-related. The only

exception was St. Lawrence fluorspar. We re-activated the St. Lawrence fluorspar

mine. That is the only exception. Everything else, including the secondary

processing plant in Burin -

MR. TOBIN: Cow Head.

MR. MATTHEWS: Cow Head, yes - was fishery-related. When I

talked about Fortune, which is now under the cloud of uncertainty because of

what is happening to Fishery Products International with the cut to the cod

stocks, everything we came up with was fishery-related. We have a quartz deposit

up in back of Fortune that is of no commercial value. Grand Bank - we have

racked our brains. What do we have in Grand Bank today? A new industry - a new

fishery that we hope will take off with the processing of scallops and clams,

and other things as it unfolds. But it is all fishery-related.

So, if we are going to stay here in this Province, we are

going to have to develop, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, the potential to

harvest and process the underutilized species.

Another thing I want to say to the Minister of Fisheries -

because I am talking predominantly fishery, I guess, as one would expect - is

that looking at what has happened to the people over the last few years in the

industry and what is going to happen in the next year or so again with the

trawlermen, plant workers, that if ever there was a time to look at income

support for fishermen, and so on, in this Province, it certainly must be now. In

the last general election there were promises made by the Liberal Party before

they became the government that they would move in that direction. We are three

years or so after that and there really has not been a concerted effort to look

at that problem, I say to the minister. There has been a lot of lip service paid

to it. But again, there has been nothing done on it. I would encourage the

minister to look at that, as well.

Seals. I want to spend a minute or so talking about seals. As

I said, I questioned the minister today on what plans he has to try to deal with

this problem. I very seriously considered this problem a number of weeks ago

when the announcement was made to reduce the Northern Cod stocks to 120,000

metric tons. Then with the comments that were made that day and days after about

seals, what we should do about the sealing problem. I became very, very

concerned. What I became concerned about, Mr. Speaker, was that we would either

by design or sort of accidentally find ourselves in a fight - we as a people,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - with the environmentalists over the sealing

issue, and the real issue that we are trying to address would be off here sort

of diplomatically attended to - I guess that is the best way I can put it -

which to date has not gotten any results, and I honestly do not think it is

going to get any results with the European community. I really became fearful

that we were going to be brought into this conflict, which I think we are, and I

think it has started really as a people, with us and the environmentalists

squaring off over the seals and the other issue sort of drifting off to the

side.

Now I am not convinced, by the way, that this has not been

skillfully done. I do not know, but there are times I wonder if there have been

people who thought this thing out and said: Well if we can get them in a big

conflict now, have a big racket with the environmentalists. I do not know if it

has been developed that way. Sometimes I wonder.

I say to the minister: having taken

part in Question Period

today and getting the way we do sometimes with one another, I mean we are all

coming from the same point of view, I hope at least, and the same concern. I

wonder if we can go and leave it unnoticed? This is really why I was questioning

the minister today. We know what has happened in the Globe and Mail today. What

is happening in the major newspapers of other countries today, I do not know, as

the campaign is spreading through the European countries. I do not know, maybe

it is. I would not be surprised. Can we afford as a people to let it go

unnoticed, to let the advertising campaign just go on and escalate, and we sit

back as a people? Meantime, people who we are trying to influence on two major

issues: one is the foreign overfishing, and the other one being the control of

the seal population. What is going to happen to public opinion with them? ... if

we sit back and say we cannot advertise to counter this, if we just sit back and

let it happen, because I guess that is the judgement call that, as a government,

as a minister, you have to make.

But my first reaction is that if we let it go unchecked, if

we let it just take place, it will not take those very skilled people who are

very good at what they do - they are obviously very influential - it will not

take them very long before they will be very successful at what they did once

before. So my question to the minister is: can we afford to take that chance of

saying we cannot afford to get into the counter-advertising campaign? That was

the reason for my question today, and it is one that needs a lot of

consideration. I really anticipated that this was going to happen, and about ten

days ago I sent out a press release flagging the concern and saying let's go

about it right, let's be reasonable because if not we will get sidetracked. I

think today that is what has happened, but I did it because I thought someone

should say it about two weeks ago because of the other comments that were being

made by certain influential people that I sort of anticipated what might come,

and I said let's just be careful. Let's put up the flag of caution and let's do

it right because if not, today I am convinced that is what we are going to see,

and I think it would be really sad if that happens.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the seal population has

to be controlled. It has to be controlled, whether the environmentalists or

other people agree that seals eat cod or not. It may not be their preferred

choice of food in the food chain, it is probably not their first choice of food.

That is probably caplin, shrimp or something else, but it is like us, if we get

hungry enough and we do not have a steak or a hamburger or whatever, we will eat

baloney, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will eat seal.

MR. MATTHEWS: We will ignore the diet and have a bit of

baloney and chips.

AN HON. MEMBER: And gravy.

MR. MATTHEWS: And gravy. I forgot the gravy. But really

that is what will happen. I cannot see seals being that much different. If they

are hungry they will eat whatever species they find, and no doubt looking at the

area where the seals are most plentiful, looking at where the cod stocks go to

spawn, there is no doubt that they are consuming a fair amount of cod. Something

has to be done to control that because everyone, I think, concurs that it has to

be a two or three pronged approach.

Foreign overfishing has to be reduced. We have to take a

reduction, to take it on the chin as we obviously as a people are willing to do.

I think we are very willing to do it, and the seal population has to be

controlled, and the foreigners and us. Now between us all if we could get that

type of a program going I think we have a chance; but if we do not I think we

are in for some very, very serious trouble in this Province with our fishery,

and then of course our whole economy. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we had better

watch what we do about this. We had better go carefully.

I want to wish the minister and the Government the best of

luck as they take off in the campaign to try and make the foreigners come to

their senses on the issue; as they go about their campaign to try and develop

public opinion within Canada; to put pressure on our federal politicians to take

actions that we feel are necessary - and maybe the only action that is going to

give us any results. It is not going to be easy to do, but I wish the Government

all the luck in the world with it, because without it - without these things

happening - we are going to be one sorry Province and one sorry place in which

to live, as I said earlier, unless we get our fishery back on a solid footing.

But when you see people who just a few years ago were not

content -twelve months work was all they wanted. You would have a job to get

them to take a week off in the summer. They worked twelve months a year. When

you see what has happened to them in the last seven to ten years, where they

have gone to ten months to eight months to six months if they are lucky, and now

everyone breathes a big sigh of relief if they can get twenty weeks. We have

them up in Ramea today that if FPI could give them ten weeks work they would be

a very happy people. That is what they have gone from - from twelve months a

year down to hoping they can get ten weeks work. We know what that has done to

the economy of the Province. The Minister of Finance, and all the ministers for

sure are very much aware what the results of that are. So unless we can get our

most important industry back on a very solid footing, and it is going to take

some sacrifices in the short-term to do that, then this is not going to be a

very pleasant Province in which to live, and there are going to be fewer of us

living here because we will have to go somewhere else to make a living. I hope

that does not happen.

In concluding I would like once again to wish the minister

and the other ministers and the Premier all the best of luck. They are going to

need a lot of help. I only hope that this issue can be resolved; that it will

only be short-term pain that we will experience; that we will have our industry

back, and with that we will have our Province back in a good economic mode, and

people working productively and making a good living. With that I conclude my

remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: I want first of all, Mr. Speaker, to

congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply. I think both young

men did an excellent job in laying out the needs of their respective districts.

I remember in my introduction to the House of Assembly, going back now more

years than I care to remember, that was my first chore.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it?

MR. CARTER: I will never forget how nervous I was, and I

believe at that time the House proceedings were televised live. I remember when

I was asked to do that important job by the then Premier, Mr. Smallwood, I had

mixed feelings about it, because I was not sure if I could carry it off, to

stand up in front of live television for half an hour -

AN HON. MEMBER: What district did you represent?

MR. CARTER: White Bay North - a fine historic district.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I did deem it to be an honour and I am

sure that the two gentlemen to whom I just referred will likewise deem it to be

a great honour that was bestowed upon them.

I would like as well to congratulate His Honour on his maiden

Throne Speech. I think, and I told him in person at Government House that night

in the course of a short conversation with him, that I thought he did an

excellent job and certainly brought honour and dignity to his office. I wish him

many more years of happiness and good health in the job which he now holds.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite made a fine speech -

the Member for Grand Bank - a reasonable speech and one that I enjoyed and could

find very little fault with. He touched on the current problem, that of the

seals, and he made reference to an ad that appeared today in Canada's so-called

national newspaper, the Globe and Mail. Seals appear to be plentiful, but having

looked at this ad I am not surprised that we are being eaten out of house and

home. There are so many seals around, everywhere you look there are seals. Of

course the ad reads, 'Who had cod for dinner?' and all the seals in unison were

saying, 'Not me.' There was one little fellow there who at least had a bit of

honesty about him and he said, 'I had some a couple of months ago.' Mr. Speaker,

it is obvious from looking at the pictures that they do not appear to be

starving and they do not eat hamburgers so I think we only have to assume they

were eating fish of a kind. Of course whatever it was, codfish, caplin, scrimp,

halibut, or turbot, it is all having an important impact on the food chain, and

ultimately, of course, on the cod itself.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite asked the question,

what do we intend to do about it? Well, I do not mind telling you that I, quite

frankly, do not know what to do about it. I do not think we can hope to counter

their argument by buying ads in the Globe and Main that cost, I suppose, $10,000

or $15,000 per ad.

AN HON. MEMBER: A lot of money.

MR. CARTER: I do not think that is the way to do it. I

suppose we can embark on a public relations campaign and try to give the lie to

what they are saying. I am not sure that will work because I recall, having been

engaged in that kind of an exercise some years ago when I held this job before,

when the Government of the day then facing a similar situation, mounted a very

aggressive, and I might say a very costly campaign that took people from this

Province to the continents of Europe and North America. I recall I was very much

involved in the campaign, along with an entourage of people who were expert in

the field. In my group we had Captain Morrissey Johnson, a well known

Newfoundland sealing captain. We had another gentleman who has since made a name

for himself as a person very much involved in the oceans. I forget his last name

now, and we had another chap from some university in southern Ontario. We had a

series of -

MR. BAKER: A Doctor Mercer went along with you, too.

MR. CARTER: Yes, a chap Mercer went as well from federal

fisheries, a Doctor Mercer. Anyway, we had press conferences, news briefings and

editorial board meetings right across Canada and the United States. I remember

very well we would get up at a large meeting and think we were scoring points,

and all of a sudden some little old lady in the back would suddenly get the urge

to take one of us on and in a second almost the entire effect was gone, because

how could we stand there and tackle some little old lady carrying a walking

stick who came at us with a vengeance because we were then painted by the

international community as being slaughterers of these cuddly little baby seals?

It did not only happen in the States and Europe, it happened in our own country.

For example, Captain Johnson and I held a press conference in

the Royal York Hotel in Toronto, a place where you would expect some

understanding and sympathy. Anyway, there were about seventy or eighty people

there and after we made our pitch and gave all the reasons why the seal harvest

should be allowed to continue, a little old lady decided to turn on us and it

was every man for himself. The last I saw of Captain Johnson he was going one

way in the lobby with a couple of ladies following, beating him on the back with

their umbrellas. I did not take much time to hang around because there were half

a dozen behind me doing the same thing. That was the story and the point I am

trying to make, I guess, is that it is a difficult issue to win on. If codfish

were as cuddly and maybe had fur on them rather than scales and skin then I

suspect we would be able to much more effectively do what needs to be done to

save the stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

Mr. Speaker, I was being interviewed by a CBC national

television reporter and she told me that the movie stars have now gotten in on

the act. Of course, in those days we had Brigitte Bardot and we had Senator

Ryan, who later got killed in Guyana, I think it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Pardon? I heard that 'Hot Lips Hoolihan' was

on last night. Hoolihan, is that what her name was? That is the part she played.

'Hot Lips Hoolihan,' Loretta Swit. Well, my advice to her is she should stick

with her acting because there is no place for her out playing footsy with a

bunch of old harps or old hoods. Anything can happen.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this sort of thing

has happened. I said to the reporter this afternoon that it is regrettable that

their energies and the money they are spending are not directed in a much better

way.

For example, we have a situation developing now on the Nose

and Tail of the Grand Banks where a very important food source is rapidly being

destroyed. On the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks we have a pot of protein,

something that can be there for the next 10,000 years, and that will feed many

millions of people during that period if it is properly managed. But these

environmentalists who sort of go to such lengths to save the rain forests or

baby seals or something else, they appear to have completely ignored the

environmental tragedy that is happening on the Nose and Tail of our Grand Banks.

That is regrettable.

The management plan that was announced by the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans a couple of weeks ago in our view was not adequate. I say

that because the new Total Allowable Catch that the Minister announced in our

view is much too high. Too high, because the minister did not make any allowance

whatever for one very important factor, and that is of course the presence of

foreign vessels fishing within the Canadian Continental Shelf.

Now the 120,000 ton TAC is only 7,000 tons less than the

total harvest for 1991. In 1991, notwithstanding a Total Allowable Catch of

190,000 tons, the total harvest, by virtue of the fact that the fish just were

not there, not because of a lessening of effort, but the fish were not there,

the total harvest for 1991 was 130,000 tons. A mere 7,000 tons higher than what

the Minister saw fit to announce as this year's Total Allowable Catch.

Now on top of that 130,000 tons that Canadians,

Newfoundlanders, harvested last year on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks,

foreign fishing effort, flying flags of convenience and other foreign flags,

that fished on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, are reported to have caught

another 47,000 tons. So it is fair to say I suppose that the total catch for

last year would have been 130,000 plus 47,000, which would be 177,000 metric

tons. Far too high.

Now then. What is happening this year is that the minister

went through the charade of trying to give the impression that he was reducing

the Total Allowable Catch but in fact he did not. He did very little to that

end. In that in setting the allowable catch at 120,000 tons he did not factor

in, for example, the 40,000, 50,000 or maybe even 60,000 tons that the

foreigners will no doubt catch on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. So in

effect this year, rather than having 120,000 ton TAC, we have what is more like

probably 170,000 or 160,000 TAC, which would include of course the foreign

effort just beyond the Two Hundred Mile limit. Fish, by the way, that is being

caught illegally. Because in that area NAFO saw fit to declare a moratorium on

the fishery. Notwithstanding that moratorium, certain member nations of NAFO -

principally Spain and Portugal - saw fit to ignore that moratorium and just kept

on fishing as if there was no tomorrow. So foreign overfishing is a very serious

matter and one that must be addressed within a very short time frame, otherwise

we will have nothing left to worry about.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you might ask: what do we intend to do to

focus some attention on the problem and to hopefully find some way of resolving

that problem? Some months ago the Advisory Council to the Minister of Fisheries

spent a full day deliberating on the problem of foreign overfishing. They got

together and spent their entire day discussing the problem and seeking ways of

addressing it. I should point out that the Advisory Council to the Minister of

Fisheries is made up of probably the most knowledgeable people in the fishing

industry in this Province. All sectors of the industry are involved. The men who

operate and own small vessels, large vessels, small plant operators, large plant

operators, scientists, men from the Marine Institute, men representing the two

fishermen's unions in the Province, and others. These people meet on a frequent

basis to discuss certain issues that are referred to them. I must say I respect

their advice, and more often than not I can depend on it entirely. It is good

advice.

Last year, last spring, they deliberated for a day on the

foreign overfishing problem and sent me back a five or six page report. One of

the recommendations in that report was that Newfoundland should embark on a

public relations campaign, one that hopefully would have the effect of focusing

the necessary attention on the problems of foreign overfishing and one that

would entice our national Government to do what needs to be done to bring that

problem to a successful conclusion.

Well, we are now about ready to launch that kind of an

initiative. We have engaged a major, internationally known public relations

firm, and that company, working with officials of my Department and of other

Departments of Government, are now putting together what I think will be an

extremely aggressive and I hope successful public relations campaign. Nothing

gimmicky. There will be nothing gimmicky like sailing our vessels up to the St.

Lawrence River and landing on the landscaped banks of the Rideau Canal. It will

be a campaign done with a lot of taste and a bit of class, and I believe it will

be effective. So within days now the Premier will be announcing from the

environmental conference in British Columbia to which he is attending the

details of our campaign.

Most of the ideas will originate in this Province. Because we

think that we are probably better able to come up with the ideas that will be

necessary to focus some attention on the problem. But this public relations

company will use their considerable expertise in dealing with the international

media and others that will help us do the job.

urgent need now for action on the part of the national Government. Ottawa is

going to have to face up to its responsibility to the people of this Province,

given the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the management of that resource, under all

headings, is the responsibility of the Federal Government. Now they guard that

responsibility very jealously and are hesitant indeed and sometimes I believe,

absolutely unwilling to sit down with the Province to discuss joint management

or doing anything that would weaken their total jurisdiction over the fishery.

So that being the case, Mr. Speaker, it must follow that the remedies for their

bad management must be provided by the Federal Government themselves and that is

what we are looking to. We all know now that the fishing industry in

Newfoundland is in very serious trouble. We know that the offshore harvest has

all but been brought to a complete stop -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: I cannot hear you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why (inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Yes, I will touch on that. So, Mr. Speaker,

something must be done and must be done very shortly, otherwise there is a

danger that we will not have a fishery to worry about in a few years. Canada

must be willing to take certain action, and if necessary, it must be willing to

back up that action. That is not to suggest that we send out gunboats or adopt

gunboat diplomacy, and I do not think anybody in his right mind would expect

that to happen. I do not think that will ever happen, quite frankly, if Canada

tomorrow, were to unilaterally extend jurisdiction. I cannot for the life of me

see or visualize a third war being started by European countries over any action

that Canada would see fit to take to protect for mankind, not just for

Newfoundlanders or Canada, but to protect for mankind a very important source of

food and protein. I do not think you will ever see a war start over that and I

think those who hold that threat over us are using it as a smoke screen or maybe

an excuse for not really being willing to take the kind of action that is

necessary.

The hon. gentleman opposite mentioned the salmon license

buy-back. Well, let me speak for a moment about the salmon license buy-back, Mr.

Speaker. I think most Newfoundlanders will agree that the salmon stocks are in

very serious trouble, I do not have the statistics here but, I believe that

landings have decreased considerably over the past four or five years to the

point where, now it is almost uneconomic to successfully prosecute a salmon

harvest.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Province was faced with the possibility

of the entire commercial salmon harvest being wiped out over a given period,

without the benefit of compensation. That was the threat that was hanging over

us, and has been hanging over us now for quite some time. I recall in my own

district of Twillingate, for example; the people of Twillingate had a very

lucrative fall salmon fishery, large salmon. The Americans objected because they

claimed that these salmon were bound for their rivers, that Newfoundlanders were

peace and quietness, destroyed that fall salmon fishery little by little, not in

one fell swoop, but they gradually whittled away at the season until eventually

the season became so short and so late in the year that it was not worth the

while of the fishermen to partake in that fishery.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I predict that the same thing would have

happened with respect to the entire commercial salmon fishery in Newfoundland if

we did not go along with what you saw happen last week. I can tell you now that

I got very little pleasure out of being part of a news conference where we were

putting the axe to an old Newfoundland tradition and I am referring, of course,

to the salmon fishery. The salmon fishery has been prosecuted by Newfoundlanders

now in rural parts of our Province, I suppose, for hundreds of years. My

forefathers prosecuted the salmon harvest from the time they settled in

Bonavista Bay, and I get very little pride out of seeing it being abolished, as

has been done. Again by the same token we had no choice in the matter, because

it was either do that or eventually we would have gotten nothing.

The Federal Government does have the authority to set quotas.

They have the authority to set the duration of the seasons, and what has been

happening in the past few years, of course, like I said a moment ago, they have

been depressing or shortening the seasons to the point where in many cases it

has not been worth their while to go fishing. In fact the landings for example

in the salmon fishery in the past four or five years have decreased from I

believe it is 1,700 tons, yes - in 1988, Mr. Speaker, the total Canadian

atlantic salmon harvest was 1,784 tons. Just five or six years later, in 1991,

the harvest was 679 tons - 679 tons against 1,784 tons just four years before. I

think it is clear to most people now that the commercial salmon fishery is on

the way out, and if we allowed it to just go by attrition then we would have

denied Newfoundland licence holders the opportunity to at least gain some

benefit from the abolition of the commercial salmon harvest. For that reason,

and for that reason alone, we found it necessary to support the actions of the

Federal Government. That is not to say, of course, that we do not have any

interest in seeing the salmon stocks rebuild. Of course we do. We realize too

that something had to be done; but again I repeat that we took little joy in

having to see it done.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what else I have to say here

except that the Province is now engaged in a number of fronts on behalf of the

fishing industry. We are now endeavouring to get some recognition from the

Federal Government for the need for joint management of our resource. As most

members will remember, a few weeks ago there were presentations - papers

released by both governments - having to do with joint management. Each

government set out their respective positions on joint management. The

Province's position, of course, was what we considered to be the very best

possible approach to the problem - that of setting up a Newfoundland/Canada

joint management board somewhat along the lines of the Offshore Petroleum Board;

a board on which Newfoundlanders would have a presence; where we would be in a

position to have some input into the decision-making process.

A federal board in our view was totally unacceptable, in that

it was a board that would have been comprised of representatives from all the

Atlantic Provinces. Newfoundland would have been one voice amongst many. Of

course that raises the question then, how effective would our voice be? For that

reason, Mr. Speaker, the Province certainly cannot, under any circumstances,

accept the proposal put forward by the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

with respect to his joint management proposal. Again for that reason the

Province intends to push forward and to try to win acceptance of the plan put

forward by the Province where Newfoundland, at least to some extent, would have

the opportunity to become the masters of our own destiny. As it stands now we do

not have that privilege. Every single decision that is made in the fishing

industry originates in most cases somewhere in central Canada. We all know, of

course, that it is not working out. In fact, a lot of the problems that we are

now encountering in the fishing industry, a lot of the problems that we have

encountered in recent months and years in the fishing industry, could have been

avoided had the Province been given the opportunity to have some input into the

decision making process. So we intend to press forward and hopefully at the end

of the day again common sense will prevail and we will have our brand of joint

management. Of course once we do that, then I believe we will have a much better

managed fishery.

The position that the Province is taking with respect to

overfishing again I think needs to be explained, in that the Province is not

suggesting that Canada be given the entire resource for its own use. I think

Newfoundland's position is that that resource out there can be managed properly

for the benefit of all countries that have an historic right to fish there, and

that Canada, being the coastal state of course, closest to the resource, is the

logical one to have the right to be the custodial managers of that resource.

As it is standing now with NAFO, of course, which is a

toothless ineffective organization, responsible for the management of the

resource, it is not working. In fact it is not working at all. The sooner we can

have NAFO replaced with a proper management regime, hopefully Canada, then I

think the sooner our stocks will be on the way back and the fishing industry in

this Province will once again be able to play an important

part in the social

and economic life of our Province.

So I repeat, Newfoundland is not being greedy. We are not

saying: give it all to Newfoundland or to the people of this Province. We are

saying: give Canada the right to be the custodial managers of that resource.

Somebody has to manage and police it. Canada is by far the best able to do it,

and we want our Government in Ottawa to recognize that fact and to take whatever

steps are necessary to insure that we bring that kind of a management regime

together. I do not believe there would be any objections at all. I think the

rest of the world would be quite willing in fact to go along with Canada under

those circumstances. In fact, they would probably praise Canada for having taken

that initiative. Because again, it is a resource that is there not only to serve

Newfoundland but to serve mankind. I believe that reasonable people everywhere

would be more than willing to laud Canada for taking that action.

But again, Mr. Speaker, until we can find a successful

resolution to that problem, cutting back on our own quotas, shortening of the

seasons, things of that nature will be of very little value. Because the main

cause of our problem is that of foreign overfishing beyond the 200 miles. Unless

and until that problem has been addressed and dealt with successfully, then

steps that we take within the Two Hundred Mile limit will be for nothing.

Thank you very much.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of

all I would like to congratulate His Honour for the magnificent job that he did

in reading the Speech from the Throne. Because it must be a hardship on His

Honour to be able to read that document for perhaps forty-five minutes when the

content was so drab. He did an excellent job, Mr. Speaker. Because again the

oratory aspect of it was something to behold, for a person to be able to sit

that long and read a document that said nothing. Not a thing that I could see.

And I am like a great many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, if that hon. gentleman had had a good speech, I

believe that it would be precedent setting and that we would all have to rise

and give him a standing ovation.

I also want to congratulate the mover and the seconder. The

seconder is here; the mover is not. The mover was a bit long-winded, but apart

from that he addressed the needs of his district very well. As I know, the hon.

Minister of Fisheries sort of brought back old memories. When I first came in

the House that was what I had to do also, and I felt awfully nervous. I got up

and tried to do my best and tell what was happening in my district. The hon.

Member for Eagle River did his best as well, and I think he did a fairly good

job. I suppose he was talking to the Premier as well I suppose with hopes and

aspirations that perhaps some day he might join the table. Now I do not know;

perhaps there is a possible chance. I also have to commend the Member for

Carbonear. He was more to the point, I think, and he addressed again the

problems of Carbonear, I suppose.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are lots out there.

MR. PARSONS: There are lots out there the same as

everywhere else in Newfoundland. I must say, you did a good job in telling this

House of the problems - not telling us of the problems - but bringing it to the

uppermost in our minds that there are problems right across this great Province.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Port de

Grave is not here today because I listened attentively to his speech the other

day and in many aspects of his speech I concur to some extent. There are areas

that I do have concern about, and some of them were addressed by the Minister of

Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Member

for Port de Grave advocates very strongly that we go out and take some decisive

action on the high seas, and I believe that he is speaking specifically about

gunboat diplomacy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for

Pleasantville slaps his desk, but I think it is only done in a frivolous manner

because I am sure that he, the same as I, believe that we cannot do that type of

thing. We just do not have the numbers; we do not have the strength, and I am

not sure if it is the right thing to do anyway.

MR. NOEL: We have to draw a line in the water.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I am not a fearful person, but

I think I am a realistic person in saying that it cannot be done that way.

Now if we are going to lay blame, and there is blame that can

be laid -

MR. NOEL: The Tory Government in Ottawa.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for

Pleasantville talks about the Tory Government in Ottawa. Yes, the Tory

Government in Ottawa does have to take some of the blame. The Tory Government in

Newfoundland of the past seventeen years before this Government came in have to

take some of the blame; but as far as I am concerned, and it certainly was

touched on by the hon. Member for Grand Bank, when he said there was so little

emphasis placed when in 1972 they gave France that quota in 2J+3KL.

If there is any document that should be torn up, I earnestly

believe that document should be destroyed. It should be destroyed. Here were our

own people - granted they were only able to take a percentage of what the catch

is - what the TAC is. I am not sure if it is the TAC. I think it is what

actually is caught. Last year there were 127,000 tons caught, and they were

allowed to take I think in the neighbourhood of 1,400 tons because the TAC was

down to that - the TAC was not down, but that was all we were able to catch. Mr.

Speaker, even 1,400 tons in 2J+3KL - in 2J where there isn't any fish; in 3K

where there isn't any fish; and if you were to listen to the president of one of

the largest fish companies, he says there is very little fish in any of the rest

of them, only small, immature fish, perhaps three and four-year-old fish.

Mr. Speaker, how can we give France 1,400 tons? I mean, that

treaty was signed by the Liberals in Ottawa in 1972. So don't point any fingers,

because fingers can be pointed right back, when very little emphasis was placed

on our fishery or the value of it. I remember, and there are a lot of people

here in this hon. House who will remember, when there was, even on the Avalon

Peninsula, so very little emphasis placed on our fishery.

Mr. Speaker, I asked some questions here perhaps a year ago

to the then Minister of Environment. It always worried me about what was

happening, not outside the 200-mile limit but inside the 200-mile limit, not by

the foreigners but by our own draggers; by our own draggers - let me say it

again. Now, I thought myself - not being an expert, but I certainly made a

presentation to the government in 1986 which I will table some day here if

anyone wants to see it. We told the government then that the TAC was inflated

and that they should give some consideration into curtailing the dragging in the

area of the spawning grounds.

I asked the question here in the House of the Minister of

Environment: Would he take up the cause with his counterpart in Ottawa to see if

damage has been done to the habitat of the codfish, of our Northern Cod? And,

Mr. Speaker, I saw people laugh when I asked the question. They are not laughing

now, because it is reality. We, ourselves, did grave damage to our own stocks. I

am not saying that damage hasn't been done by foreigners. Sure it has been done

by the foreigners. But we had better not start pointing fingers at the

foreigners and saying: You did it all. They played a role, there is no mistake

at all about it, and so did we.

And we let our own people do it because we could not see the

forest for a few trees in the way. It is only when it came home to roost on a

great number of people on the Northeast Coast who saw there was no fish, that

reality -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) offshore plants.

MR. PARSONS: No, the offshore plants would have been

alright if they had been curtailed. As far as I am concerned, there was room out

there to fish in the offshore plants, but not in the area of the spawning

grounds during the spawning time. I have thought myself that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, anyone who ever caught any fish,

anyone who ever went fishing, trouting, when you know yourself, when the fish

are spawning that you can go up and catch them out of the rivers in your hand.

They are stupid, stunned, just floating along. It is the same way with the cod.

When they congregate in certain areas they are there to spawn. They are fish

that are stupid. They should be left alone to spawn and if they had been left

alone to spawn then we would not have the problem that we have today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That's right, they are all together. Mr.

Speaker, the other part that has been, and again today.... We saw in our

national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, a two-page advertisement from the

International Fund for Animal Welfare. We can scoff at it if we like, but I

watched last night - I know many people did in this House - saw Loretta Swit -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Oh, I am going back to the draggermen. I

never said anything to the contrary. They are hard-working fishermen - most

Newfoundland fishermen are hard-working. But the point remains now, we have to

look at what is out there to work at.

I saw Loretta Swit last night, out cuddling a seal. Someone

said here today that it is too bad she doesn't cuddle the right kind of seal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. PARSONS: Loretta Swit. But I am saying, that little

whitecoat, she found it pleasurable. But I wish to God she would catch hold of

one of those old dog hoods and we would be minus one thorn in our side. Because

the Minister of Fisheries said today - and sometimes I agree with him and

sometimes I don't - it is all lies. But how do you counteract lies? How do you

do it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Try to (inaudible) with Clyde.

MR. PARSONS: You can't do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clyde tells bigger ones.

MR. PARSONS: Clyde tells bigger ones. Well, that might be

the case. Let me tell you something. I told hon. members in this House before

that I had the pleasure and the privilege - and I certainly feel good about it -

of going to the seal fishery. One of the things that these animal rights people

are talking about is killing live seals. You know, this is what they produced.

These are the pictures they showed with the seal going mad and a fellow out

there just - and the only moderator that we have here today said, 'cutting the

guts out of the seals'. Well boy, oh boy, oh boy! I mean, imagine the person!

I went to the ice on three occasions. I took pelts in the

thousands. I never saw an inside of a fish. I can honestly tell you today that I

cannot confirm or deny whether seals eat cod fish. I don't remember ever seeing

a codfish because we never cut the bellies of the seals. We never did. All we

took was the pelt. I never saw them. Perhaps they could have been eating them,

but you do not cut the seal, itself. You don't cut what the fellow said today on

open line: 'the gut out of the seal'. You take the pelt off the seal and you

take the flippers off and bring them in because they are valuable. But the

carcass, itself, didn't mean anything to you. You didn't want it. It was no good

to you.

The other thing that amazes me is when I hear people, grown

men and women say that the seal was alive when the pelt was taken off. Mr.

Speaker, we used to sharpen the knives, hone them, so that they could shave your

face. Now, Mr. Speaker, can you see a live seal going mad and you with that

knife coming down through that seal? Would you have any fingers left? Just

imagine. Just visualize it. The seal going mad and you with a knife, razor

sharp, going down through the seal, with it kicking, going mad, flicking around,

and you just standing there. It is the most ridiculous statement ever made. I

mean, some people here know what I am talking about. The gentleman down to the

far right will say the same thing I am saying.

Now granted, there might be movement, but any animal, be it a

calf, a pig, any animal that is killed, there is a certain time limitation on it

that the animal will move because of the nerve factor, and the muscle factor.

But, Mr. Speaker, to take a seal without hitting it or clubbing it and taking

the pelt off it is ridiculous. Only the likes of Loretta Swit or some of those

animal lovers who are taking in millions of dollars, who are packing their

pockets full of money out of it, they are the only people who would listen to

those kinds of ridiculous statements.

Mr. Speaker, it is funny how they attack Newfoundlanders and

Canadians because we are, I think, susceptible and will accept their behaviour.

I heard today that there were 5 million kangaroos killed in Australia.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

MR. PARSONS: A cull. Five - what was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Five hundred thousand.

MR. PARSONS: Is it? I thought it was 5 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five hundred thousand.

MR. PARSONS: Five hundred thousand. Okay. But the point -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: They are increasing the cull by a million.

But no matter what it is, it is a cull for the benefit of the species. It is a

cull.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the farmers' crops.

MR. PARSONS: Right, and the farmers' crops. Over here

where our livelihoods are dependent upon it -

AN HON. MEMBER: It seems, everything that is on the water

(inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, it seems like if it is on land you can

restrict it because you can throw them out of there, you can stop them from

coming into your country. But I have seen them when they strapped themselves

onto the boats, you know, 'Go ahead and kill us'. I hope someone has enough guts

- this time, if they come to St. John's and strap themselves onto the front and

sides of those boats that someone is going to cut the ropes, because that's what

Newfoundlanders have to do with that tribe, and that is what they are, a tribe

to themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the point remains, you can say all that and feel

it in your heart because you were a participant and you know how people survived

on it. I remember back then - but some of the young men don't remember - when

you looked forward to having a meal of seal in the spring when the men came from

the ice. It was a nutritious meal, not meal but meals. Mr. Speaker, the seal

fishery, to me, means a little bit more. I have stated in this House over and

over that Newfoundlanders - I was reminded that the offshore fishermen were good

fishermen. Yes, and the sealers were good men. I mean, how many houses in

Newfoundland haven't been struck in one way or the other by a catastrophe, by a

disaster in the fishery?

I had two uncles who were lost in the seal fishery here, off

St. John's, one sixteen and the other fourteen. So this fishery, to me, brings

back, not my memories but things I was told about by my father, who spent

twenty-seven springs at the ice, firing on the old boats.

When I see someone who can stop this, when I see someone who

can take away from us what is morally right, I am amazed, I am flabergasted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The minister is right. How do you react?

What do you do? If they have enough money - and let's face it