March 5,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 3

The House met at 2.00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding to the routine orders of the day I would

like, on behalf of hon. Members, to extend a special welcome to a special guest

in the Speaker's Galleries, the Consul General of Israel and Montreal, Mr.

Itzhak Levanon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, I would like to welcome to the

visitors gallery thirty-seven students and members of the Buchans Public High

School and the James Hornell Boys and Girls Club and chaperons, Gary Noftle,

David King, Tracey Poole, Glenda Noftle and Josephine Head from the Central

Newfoundland area and from the historic district of Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, we have another delegation of students

from the Leo Burke Academy School, Bishop's Falls, accompanied by their teacher,

Mr. Reg Ploughman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to offer, on a

point of privilege, an apology to a Member of the House; it does go back some

ways I admit, but it is the first real opportunity I have had to raise it and

mention it to him.

Back in October, the 30th day of October, I believe it was in

debate or speaking to a petition or something, in any event, I made a statement

in the House that was not correct. I said, and I quote from Hansard of that day,

that I had had a phone call in our office before we came up to the House from

the Lewisporte Branch of the NTA and I said that the person who called said,

`Please mention to the President of Treasury Board that the President of the

Notre Dame Lewisporte Branch of the NTA called the Opposition Office today to

express her extreme disappointment in their Member, Mr. Penney'.

Subsequent to that, it was brought to my attention, Mr.

Speaker, by the NTA Branch President in Lewisporte that that was not accurate,

that in fact the call to our office was more to express concern over the problem

surrounding their negotiations with the Government and that more appropriately

their disappointment was with the Government as opposed to being with the

individual Member. So I may have taken liberties that day, and I apologize for

that and I want to clarify the record.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon.

colleague for having corrected that misunderstanding. There was never any doubt

in my mind of course, because there is nobody in the Lewisporte District who is

at all disgruntled with the hon. Member representing them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PENNEY: But I do accept the apology, Mr. Speaker, and

I thank the hon. Member for correcting it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There was no point of privilege and I probably let it go on a

little too long, but the hon. Member took advantage of an opportunity to clarify

a statement, and that is under our rules permissible, with a little bit of

flexibility.

Statements by Ministers

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I wish to advise

this House today that North West River, Labrador, will be the site of a new $1.2

million Forestry Protection Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

A good job! A good job!

MR. FLIGHT: Funding for this facility is being provided

under the Comprehensive Labrador Co-operation Agreement, with the expenditure

begin cost-shared between the Federal and the Provincial Governments on a 30/70

basis. The hon. John Crosbie and I made a joint press release on this earlier

today.

Mr. Speaker, the building will house fire fighting equipment,

a repair facility, a state of the art lightning detection system and computer

facilities. The facility will be the base of operations for twenty to thirty

departmental seasonal forest protection staff and forest management personnel.

Mr. Speaker, this project is just the first phase of a plan

to consolidate the Labrador operations of my Department in North West River. The

consolidation will occur as funds become available.

Mr. Speaker, North West River in particular and the Lake

Melville area in general will feel the positive impact of this construction

project, and once in operation the centre will provide new employment

opportunities in that community.

A consultant has been engaged in Goose Bay to supervise

construction and tenders will be called as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the co-operation I

have received from the Federal Government and my colleague, the hon. Jim

Kelland, the Member for Naskaupi. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

first of all, thank the Minister for giving me a copy of his statement previous

to our coming into the House, and say from the outset that it is a very positive

statement. It is much the same as the statement made yesterday concerning

forestry in the Province, and I would echo the comments made by other Members.

Having said that, I would also like to draw attention, as I

did with the agreement yesterday, to the fact that the Federal Government will

be putting some 70 per cent of the monies into this new Forestry Protection

Centre in Labrador, because I think it should be noted, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it will house forest fire equipment, as the

Minister has stated in his statement, and the repair facility and the state of

the art lightning detection system, which is very important, Mr. Speaker,

especially in Labrador, and something that has been lobbied for for years. And

it is very important because of the fact, as far as I am concerned, that the

Labrador area holds some of the wood supply, the products and the resource for

the mills in the Province; if not for the mills, directly then for the sawmills,

a good sawmill industry for the Province as a whole, and the twenty to thirty

jobs. To consolidate the whole Labrador unit into one forest protection centre,

I think, is a good thing. Overall, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say it is a

positive step for forestry in the Province. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had intended to ask a series of questions of the Minister

of Finance, flowing out of the Federal/Provincial Finance Ministers' meetings

which took place in Montreal, I believe it was, on Sunday evening of the week

just passed. At those meetings it has been reported by the Canadian press that a

meeting will be held again in June to `negotiate wide-ranging changes in the

financial ties that bind the country together.' It has been reported that

another meeting will take place in June of Federal/Provincial Finance Ministers

to begin negotiating new fiscal arrangements that bind Canada together. Now in

the absence of the Minister of Finance perhaps I could ask his colleague, the

President of Treasury Board, whether or not he can confirm for the House that a

decision has been taken by Federal/Provincial Finance Ministers to meet again in

June and to begin negotiating new Federal/Provincial fiscal relations?

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

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

will try to get further information to pass along to the hon. Member.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I could direct the supplementary to the Premier. Can

the Premier confirm on behalf of the Government that Federal/Provincial Finance

Ministers have made that decision, to meet again in June and to begin

negotiating in June, again to quote the Canadian press story, `wide-ranging

changes to financial ties that bind the country together.' To renegotiate the

financial transfer payments and so on, I guess, is what it means. Is the Premier

aware of that decision, or has that decision been made by the Ministers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am aware that the matter is under

discussion and that most provinces, I would think, would want to work

co-operatively with the Federal Government to try and put in place workable

fiscal arrangements that are fair to all the provinces and are within the

Federal Government's means. So, I would expect that they will have such

meetings, if not in June, maybe July or August, but I cannot confirm absolutely

that the meeting will take place in June, but I would expect that they will have

further discussions.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not really important whether it is June, July or

August. I guess what is important is the subject matter here. So, I would like

to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, this question. Can the Premier tell the House

whether or not the Federal-Provincial Finance Ministers meeting in Montreal on

Sunday identify specific items for discussion that will take place at that

meeting. Whether the meeting is in June, July or August, is not important. Have

specific items of negotiation, financial fiscal relations, been identified for

the next round of meetings?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know the detail, and the Minister

of Finance is unavoidably away from the House. He will be back later this

afternoon, and I am sure, with the permission of the House, he would probably

provide the answers to these questions today. If it is not urgent he could

certainly provide the answers tomorrow. I do know that the Minister of Finance

has spoken to the Federal Minister of Finance about certain matters that are a

particular concern to this Province, and I would hope that those matters will be

addressed.

MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, with almost 50 per cent of this

Province's Budget coming from transfer payments in one form or another, I cannot

think of any subject that would be any more important to this Province than the

gist of the questions that I am asking here today.

Now, let me ask the Premier this: given the importance of

Federal-Provincial fiscal arrangements for this Province - for all provinces,

but for this Province in particular - would the Government undertake to publish

some kind of a discussion paper or a white paper - whatever the government wants

to call it - early in the spring, so that the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador can have some input into any changes that may be negotiated by this

Government with the Federal Government and other provincial governments on

fiscal transfers in Canada?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. I will not undertake to

publish any such document. We will probably be having continuing discussions

along with all the other provinces. I have no doubt that we will provide for an

adequate level of public discussion of anything that the Government proposes to

do that will affect the Province's future revenue. I will not undertake to

proceed by the particular route that the Leader of the Opposition wants, but we

will do whatever is appropriate in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes.

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

Minister of Education. I want to ask him about his rationalization plans within

the post-secondary education system. In the Throne Speech the Government said it

will support rationalization within the education system as one source of funds

for undertaking long term education improvements. I want to ask the Minister

particular, does the Minister believe that university students should pay more

of the cost of their university education? Does he think that tuition fees in

Newfoundland should be raised to the average of Atlantic Canada?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, there were two questions in the

hon. Member's one question. He asked about the rationalization of the

post-secondary system: that is ongoing in accordance with the White Paper. And

further details concerning that will be announced in the budget process, Mr.

Speaker.

On the question of fees, I think I can say that our fees have

been relatively low. The Government is pleased that tuition fees in this

Province have been low over the years, because we have a relatively low

participation rate in post-secondary education. We have many students who can't

find employment to raise additional monies themselves, so we are pleased that

they are low. As far as what is going to happen in the future, Mr. Speaker, of

course the University - Boards of Governors and the Boards of Regents themselves

- decide on any increases in tuition fees, and we will have to await their

decision in this regard.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that they

decide upon those based upon Government's commitment to them, and that the fees

were kept low by a caring Government in the past. I ask the Minister: will

Government's rationalization plan affect course offerings and programmes at the

Cabot Institute, and other Provincial institutes and community colleges? And

will students now registered in the first year of two- and three-year programmes

be able to complete the remaining courses required for graduation at these

institutions?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, any decisions about what will

happen next year would have to await the Budget, the hon. Member is aware of

that. I will say though, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is concerned about

some of the statements that have been made in the past few weeks about cuts that

would restrict students' ability to complete programmes. This Government is not

going to treat students like that. We are going to see that students are treated

fairly in the process of any downsizing or any cuts that will be made after the

Budget.

MR. SIMMS: In what way?

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister: does the

Government's rationalization plan for post-secondary include the closure of

community college campuses in areas with low student enrolment?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I could say ditto to that. Mr.

Speaker, the hon. Member must be fully aware that any decisions about

expenditures for next year, any major decisions, have to await the budgetary

process. I mean the hon. Member must be aware of that - or where has he been? I

found out where he has been, Mr. Speaker. I have some quotations of what the

hon. Member said in the past about student fees and substitute teachers in rural

Newfoundland. And one day I will quote them in the House.

But, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the question: certainly we

have to await the Budget before any decisions are made with respect to closures

of campuses or reductions in programmes or rationalizations in the

administration of education. And one other thing, let me tell the hon. Member,

he should talk with his friend, the former Minister of Career Development. The

Government does not make these decisions. The Government makes the decisions in

consultation with the Boards of Governors. The Boards of Governors make the

decisions, Mr. Speaker, and we are going to do it right. We like to do things

right on this side of the House, and we are going to do it right, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: My question is for the Premier. Since the

failure of the Meech Lake Accord eight months ago, Canada has been in a period

of constitutional uncertainty, and we may be on the brink of major change. Has

the Premier reconsidered his refusal to strike a select committee of this House

of Assembly or institute some other process to hear the views of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians about constitutional reform?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, I have not reconsidered it. I have

explained in the public media a number of times the reason for the position the

Government has taken, and there is no reason to alter that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, are we to believe that father

knows best, the Premier knows best?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Absolutely.

MS. VERGE: Why has the Premier changed his approach to a

democratic process of Constitutional reform which he advocated when he was

denouncing the Meech Lake Accord? Will the Premier explain that inconsistency in

his stand?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are two questions. The first one

was, are we to believe that father knows best? I can only assume the father was

a reference either to the Government or to myself. If you assume it was to

myself then I could only suggest that she look at the reports of the polls that

support our respective positions on Meech Lake and then you would have to

conclude, yes, that father knows best.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: The quality of the head, I guess, makes

the difference. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the second question, as I understood

it, was why the Government was taking a position now that appeared to be at odds

with its former position? It is not. It is completely and totally consistent

with the position we took during the Meech Lake debate. The Government's

position, in case the hon. Member has missed it - and it has been discussed a

number of times in the last few months - is very simple. The people must have

the ultimate say, and I see no value putting together a charade that would

traipse around this Province hearing views expressed here and there and people

taking hard line fixed positions - do not do this, do not agree to that, agree

to something else, and nothing is achieved by doing that. If, as, and when, a

proposal is put forward the people of this Province will have an opportunity to

have a real say in a referendum. That is real democracy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Premier

that he is underestimating the intelligence -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary and I want to hear the

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Does the Premier not think that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the intelligence and the ability to

contribute in a useful way to the choice of process and the choice of proposals

upon which decisions will be made ultimately?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have great confidence

and faith in the sound judgement of the people of this Province, and good reason

to have confidence and faith in their sound judgement.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at it, in this country, nothing is

gained by having a commission in New Brunswick taking a rigid, hard and fast New

Brunswick position, one in Alberta saying: this is going to be Alberta's rigid

position, and one in Quebec taking a Quebec position. The proper forum is a

national forum where the whole issue can be discussed in an national context,

and there will be an opportunity for an exchange of ideas and a give and take,

and alternate proposals and counter proposals, and adjustment of positions.

Nothing is to be achieved in this country by having individual committees, or

commissions, standing in each province shouting at the rest of the country their

fixed rigid positions. Nothing will be gained by doing that. The proper thing to

do - if she has any influence with her Federal counterparts - is to persuade

them to put in place a national constitutional convention that could provide for

full and proper debate, and the people of this Province, along with the people

of every other province of Canada, could have full opportunity for complete

input and exchange of views and ideas.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question could have been for the Minister of Finance but

as he is not in the House today I will ask my question of the Minister of

Health. One of the rigid positions taken on a very serious issue in the election

campaign which people in this Province had a chance to voice their opinion on in

1989, was health care. The rigid position of the Liberal Party in 1989 on a

major issue of concern to a lot of residents in Newfoundland was outlined in

this statement, 'Liberal health policy dictates that as long as the demand

exists hospital beds must be kept open. Institutions must not be understaffed

and compassion must always take precedence over business administration. If we

cannot adequately care for the sick, the disabled, and the aged among us, we

have failed as a society and we can take cold comfort in cutting costs and

improving balance sheets. I would like the Minister of Health to now confirm

that this is no longer the policy of the Liberal Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and that in effect this Government in little less than two years has

failed in their commitment to society?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this Government stands behind

the position we had when we were in Opposition, and it is still our position.

Health is one of the main areas we are concerned with. It is too bad the hon.

Member did not continue to read from our policy manual because farther down the

same page it said that we believe the health care system can be - and I am not

quoting verbatim, but this is the gist of it - we believe the health care system

in this Province can be carried out in a more efficient manner and we need not

have as much money going into the system necessarily as there was going into it.

Mr. Speaker, when we took over this job in l989 I was amazed at the lack of

organization that the previous administration had allowed to develop in the

health care system. I began immediately to restructure the health care system.

The first evidence was on the Burin Peninsula where we actually improved the

health care system by restructuring. We opened seventy-five beds that had never

been opened before in the history of this Province. Over the next number of

years, Mr. Speaker, be it five, ten or fifty, however long we are here we will

continue to restructure the health care system so that we have a system which is

the best possible that we, as a Province, can afford. That is not very easy

because we are not getting much co-operation from the hon. Member's colleagues

in Ottawa, but within our own means we are trying to restructure this system so

that we can get the best possible health care, Mr. Speaker, and that is the

commitment we made to our people in '89 and that is the commitment we stand by

today, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister.

In the Throne Speech he talks about rationalizing the health care system based

on - not on demand as it was in his 1989 policy statement, but in the current

demographic and technological developments. Can he expand on what he meant by

rationalize, and can he confirm that what the government really means by

rationalize is to close hospital beds to reduce services to senior citizens and

to, in effect, penalize the rural areas of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had explained that

in the first answer to the question. Restructuring means, Mr. Speaker, that we

deliver the best health care system that we, as a people, can afford, that we do

away with duplication wherever it is necessary, but that we maintain the system,

Mr. Speaker. We started that in 1989; we are continuing that and we will

continue it over the next number of years that we are in power.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland on a final

supplementary.

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

Can the Minister provide assurances to the people, and in

particular the health care workers, in the rural areas of this Province, in such

areas as Baie Verte, in Brookfield, in Springdale and Old Perlican that they

will not lose their jobs, that there will not be closures - and in

Come-By-Chance - and that these people of Newfoundland will continue to be

served, not in simply a restructure, but in this new rationalized way, they will

continue to receive the same level of services based on the demand and the needs

of the citizens in those areas?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot go into any details

which may or may not be in the Budget. The hon. Member should know that. I can,

however, assure the people of this Province that over the next number of years

while there is a Liberal Administration in place that we will deliver a health

care system which is far, far superior than the one which we inherited in 1989,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

responsible for Forestry and Agriculture. Back in late Spring or early Summer of

1989 the Minister instituted the Task Force on Agrifoods. The report at that

time was supposed to be released at the end of September or the early part of

October, if I am not mistaken, and after that when it was not released the

latest date was February 14. Those were the times given and the dates given by

the Minister and the Chairman of the Task Force. February 14, or better known as

Valentine's Day, I guess, Mr. Speaker, came and went and still no report from

the Task Force. Could the Minister now confirm to the House that he has received

a copy of the Task Force from the Chairman, and if he did why it is not released

to the public.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Most of the information provided in the hon. Member's

question is factual, some of it is not, but most of it is. I have had now the

Task Force report approximately - I cannot be specific - I think about two

weeks. The industry is aware that I have received the Task Force report. Right

now the Cabinet, myself and a group of officials are analyzing the report, and

hopefully as quickly as possible they will brief me anyway and Cabinet on the

report, and when this happens we will make the report public, Mr. Speaker. I

have made that commitment to the various sectors in the industry, the Federation

of Agriculture, and I intend to keep my commitment to them and release the

report publicly as soon as possible, sooner rather than later. But I might add,

Mr. Speaker, one of the things in discussing the release of the report by the

various commodity boards in the industry was that always the plea was: "Mr.

Minister, please don't do what the other previous administration done and sit on

that report and let it gather dust.

That report is for the industry, and, Mr. Speaker, I intend

to make sure that the report will not gather dust, will not be treated the way

other reports were treated, and I make a commitment to the industry that in a

very short while they will have the report.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Now, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In view

of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this task force has spent the last eighteen

months studying a long term plan for agrifood and agriculture in the Province,

would the Minister confirm to the House that he has established a so-called

Cabinet Review Committee to study the task force before it is released and the

reasons for doing that?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member should be aware

that the industry, the Federation of Agriculture, the various sectors of

agriculture are very pleased with the speed with which the report was done. He

says eighteen months. It was little over a year at the cost of the task force

and what they perceived to be a thorough job being done by the Chairman, and

they are very supportive and very pleased and they are very understanding of the

fact that I intend to have the report released as fast as possible.

Now his reference to Cabinet Committee. Mr. Speaker, each

Member of Cabinet, that is the way the process works, I took the report as soon

as I was ready to Cabinet. Cabinet now has the report. Officials are reviewing

the report with directions to report as quickly as possible, brief the Minister

so we can deal with the report in public when it is made public.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

of the fact that the report obviously now will not be released until after

Thursday's Budget, and in view of the fact that this will be the third year, the

third Budget with no extra monies put into the agricultural industry in the

Province, could the Minister now tell the House if he will be allocating any

funding in Thursday's Budget to implement some of the recommendations of the

task force?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, you talk about a contradictory

statement. I just announced that this Government spent $700,000 in agriculture.

That is new dollars in looking at agriculture and having a task force to advise

the Government as to the approach we should be taking in developing that

particular industry. That is $700,000 that was not spent by previous

administrations, directly assisting agriculture.

And, Mr. Speaker, in as far, Mr. Speaker, as expenditures or

anything relevant to the Budget for the Department of Agriculture, the hon.

Member will have to wait with the rest to see exactly what is said in the Budget

with reference to agriculture. And I might remind him he has only got to wait

until Thursday and he will get his answer.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Mr. Speaker, I wonder would the

Minister explain to this House the provisions of

Section 10 of The Public

Tendering Act, 1984, relating to the tabling of Public Tender Act exemptions?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I know that I am responsible to

report the exemptions to The Public Tendering Act within thirty days after the

House is opened. I explained to the Member, and the Member asked me a question

about The Public Tendering Act back in the last day the House was open. He wrote

me and asked why we did not have the exemptions to The Public Tendering Act for

September published before the House was closed. I wrote him back and told him.

And yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I tabled the exemptions to The Public Tendering Act

so I would like to table the letter I wrote to the hon. Member on January 17,

now, and outline exactly what happened so that everybody is aware of it.

I told the Member and he has it in a letter, so I will table

the letter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. GILBERT: Would you like for me to read the letter!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

We do not want any reading of letters in the Question Period.

I ask the hon. Minister to take his place, please. I would remind hon. Members

there will be no reading of documents during Question Period - letters,

newspaper extracts - even though hon. Members might make the request. It is not

permissible.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will

tell you briefly what was in the letter. It was an oversight, is what he said,

Mr. Speaker. An oversight on the Ossokmanuan Bridge which cost us $1.3 million.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: We have another oversight, Mr. Speaker,

in tabling documents -

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

The hon. Member is up on a supplementary and he is not

supposed to suggest that he knows what is in the letter. He can make no

suggestions other than by a question.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. Minister agree

that his answer to me one time in this House before, was that there was an

oversight in a contract in a Labrador bridge which cost $1.3 million? And does

he agree that in his letter he suggested to me that there is an oversight in

tabling documents as required by law in this Province last September and

October? And does the Minister agree that he has broken the law of this

Province?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, when the House opened in

October last year I tabled the exemptions to the Public Tendering Act that were

completed at the time, and that was around the end of October I tabled the

exemptions to the Public Tendering Act up until August. As I explained to the

hon. gentleman on January 17 there was an oversight by an employee in my

Department and the September statement which should have been tabled by the end

of November was not presented to me for tabling. It was not. But the first

opportunity that I had when the House opened yesterday, I tabled the one for

September, October, November, December and January. So the one that should have

been tabled at the end of November for September was not tabled due to an

administrative error on the part of an employee in my Department.

I find it extremely difficult and strange to hear the man who

was the Minister of the Department that spent $22 million on Sprung to stand up

and talk about someone being less than diligent in (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I ask hon. Ministers when they are responding to questions to

please try - I know sometimes it is difficult - to stay specifically to the

point but to try and refrain from getting into areas of debate.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride, final question.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I say

to the hon. Minister, there is a judicial enquiry into what happened in Sprung,

Mr. Speaker -

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

I again remind the hon. Member that the Chair is cognizant of

the fact that Members would like to respond but I am afraid that they can't

respond on supplementaries, they have to get directly into the supplementary.

I have to tell the hon. Member that Question Period has

expired as well.

Petitions

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

Capes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My petition

is to the House of Assembly, Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We, the

undersigned, request that the Provincial Government reconsider their proposals

to impose any financial constraints on the operating budget of Cabot Institute,

and we could add Gander Community College, Carbonear Community College, Bell

Island Community College as well as the Cabot Institute.

I have petitions here from all these post-secondary

institutions asking that Government handle their upcoming deliberations in

relation to educational funding in a sensitive manner. The students, mainly

because of remarks by ministers in the Government, including the Minister of

Education, feel that when the Budget is brought down on Thursday, one area that

will be hindered severely - rationalized is the operable word - will be the

education system of this Province.

The students suggest that cutbacks, restraints, for want of a

word - the Minister might say there is not a cutback. If the same amount of

money is provided as last year, he says that is not a cutback.

MR. WINDSOR: It certainly is.

MR. HEARN: Yet when Ottawa provides the same amount of

money as they did last year, it is a cutback. What it means is that in light of

escalating costs, post-secondary institutions will have fewer dollars to operate

next year than they have presently; that means the same amount of services

cannot be provided and, consequently, the students are the big losers.

The students feel that the resulting decisions will mean the

loss of courses presently offered, reduced staff levels that will certainly

affect the quantity and quality of course offerings, increased tuition fees and

user fees. We already see hints that these things are being considered, and

perhaps have already been put in as part of the Budget.

The Minister today in answering questions, and it is

unfortunate that some of the students who are here now were not here a little

earlier, during Question Period, when the Minister skirted around the question,

Did the Government plan to encourage an increase in fees? The Minister, of

course, instead of giving a direct answer tried to slough it off on the

universities or the post-secondary institutions boards saying, well, we are not

the ones to increase fees, the boards and the President of the University and so

on make these decisions. And perhaps that is technically right, but these

institutions and the boards which govern them have to make a decision to

increase fees if the money is not forthcoming from Government.

If Government takes away, somebody has to fill the vacuum to

make sure that the courses are offered and that the instructors are available,

that your services, cafeteria, libraries and everything else stay in place. And

if they do not get the money from Government, then they have to collect it from

the taxpayers. Quite often they have to collect it directly from students,

because that is their only real means of getting any extra dollars. So the

Minister in his answers today made it quite clear that there are decisions being

made that will greatly affect the outcome of decision-making at the

post-secondary levels, as it relates to the provision of services dependent upon

the amount of money made available to the institutions.

So, Mr. Speaker, over the last x number of days and weeks the

students, not willing to sit by and let Government make a decision without

input, and then they can always say, oh well, you know, nobody complained, the

students have made quite clear to Government the effect of these decisions. Now

we know that the Minister and Government, these people do not listen to the

people in the field who are affected, they do not even listen to the people who

are concerned with education within their Departments. They will listen to the

people who control the finances, the people who look at black and white or red

and white. And, of course, you cannot make decisions as they affect education

strictly on a dollar and cent basis, you make them based upon what is right for

the students.

So the students have gathered up petitions and they have

gathered up cards which they have sent in to us to table, Mr. Speaker, and we

will. Thousands of students are expressing an interest in their future and we

ask the Minister and Government, when they make the final decisions on the

Budget, to consider the future of the young people of our Province, because the

future of this Province lies in the hands of these young people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table petitions from Cabot, from

the Gander Community College, Carbonear Community College, Bell Island Community

College and cards from thousands of students throughout the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have

the opportunity to stand today and say a few further words in support of this

petition presented by my colleague, our education critic and Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Education

intends to rise and say a few words on this petition, as well. It would be the

normal situation in a petition in this House, that a Member would present it and

the Minister of the department to which it relates, were he or she in his or her

seat, or the Government House Leader, somebody on their behalf, would respond to

the petition. But what we have seen develop in this House, Mr. Speaker, over the

last several months, as we have been talking about education cuts or health care

cuts, is that Ministers have been staying glued to their seats; they have not

been rising to respond to petitions. Or if they do in fact rise at all, it will

be after the two Members who are permitted to speak from this side of the House

have spoken, and then they will get up and they will go into a tirade and a

gyrate of everything except as it relates to the prayer of the petition that was

presented.

Mr. Speaker, we have here today a petition presented on

behalf of students in a number of post-secondary institutions in this Province:

the Cabot Institute, just up the street from this building, the Marine

Institute, the Carbonear campus, I believe, of the community college, the Bell

Island campus, the Gander campus. A number of students in post-secondary

institutions in this Province are concerned, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, why

are they concerned? Are they concerned because of something that somebody on

this side of the House may have said about proposed government cutbacks pending

over the last several months, or are they concerned for some other reason? They

are concerned, Mr. Speaker, because of the people who run the system. We saw

just a couple of weeks ago the President of the Cabot Institute in the media of

this Province saying that she had had the truthfulness and the forthrightfulness

to tell her faculty and to tell her students that if the government imposes a

freeze, this is what it means. It did not come from a some fearmongering

politician on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Or that side.

MR. RIDEOUT: Or that side. It came from a responsible

leader of an institution in this Province. That is normally what the government

says, by the way, when those things come up: it is the Oppositions

fearmongering, or somebody on the Opposition side fearmongering. But those

statements, Mr. Speaker, came from a responsible leader of an institution, one

of the major institutions in this Province. Some of them told their students

that in case of multi-year courses, even though you might be into year one or

year two, if the government proceeds with this cutback that they are talking

about, it is quite possible that at this particular institution you will not be

able to complete year two or year three. That was told to students in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, so why wouldn't they be concerned? Why wouldn't they

present themselves, to have their voice heard by their government at the

people's House the day that it opened? And not one person, Mr. Speaker, least of

all the Leader of the Government, had the audacity and the strength and the

courage of the government's convictions to go meet those citizens of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

There were more people that day -

MR. SIMMS: You offered to meet them privately, two or

three (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, two or three.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I just want to remind people in the gallery that they are not

supposed to respond to speeches in anyway by applauding. I just wanted to remind

the people in the gallery of that very important rule.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there were more people that day, when those

citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador where here to present their cause,

scurrying around looking for stairwells, going up the back ways to offices,

finding their way into this Chamber by going up back stairways and everything

else, and that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. That is not good enough! If the

people of this Province have something to say to the elected government, then

the government should have the courage and the fortitude to stand up to them and

to listen to them and to respond to them, Mr. Speaker. That is what democracy is

all about.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we went out and we grabbed the megaphone

and spoke to them. The Member for St. John's East did the same thing, and Mr.

Speaker, if there was courage on the government benches, the government would do

the same thing. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

AN HON. MEMBER:

(Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You snuck out at the last minute and they

would not let you speak.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much commotion on both sides of the House. The

Leader of the Opposition, as a matter of fact, his time is just about up. I will

allow him to continue for a few more seconds.

MR. RIDEOUT: In thirty seconds, Mr. Speaker, the Minister

of Education has the opportunity to stand. He did not have the fortitude to do

it when he should have done it, but if he wants to stand now, he can stand, the

floor is his, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I feel an obligation to put the

record straight on this. I want to tell it as it was. Before I came into the

House I went up and offered to speak to the students. `I want Phil. I want

Phil.' Phil went up to speak, but what a letdown he got. I went up and took the

mike but what did they say? `We want Clyde.' Now that was quite a personal

letdown for me, I must admit. But, Mr. Speaker, being serious, I did go out and

offer to speak to the students but they preferred to have the Premier speak to

them. I offered to meet them in a delegation and I did meet a delegation. The

press reported that I did not meet later in the afternoon, but I spent two

excellent hours with about eight or ten students. And I can assure you, Mr.

Speaker, that I have met delegation after delegation, I have met delegations of

parents and students, and I appreciate their concerns. I understand where they

are coming from. This Government, by doing it the way we did, going out and

opening up debate, we did give people a chance to be heard. And, in addition,

they made some very positive suggestions. One of these days I will indicate to

my colleagues, and to the House perhaps, some of the suggestions we got during

the discussion period about how we might improve education in the Province. We

got quite a number of suggestions, Mr. Speaker.

I have met with delegations, I have heard them, and I do

appreciate their concerns. And I will continue to meet with people anywhere in

this Province. I have been in more schools in eighteen months than some

Ministers were in ten years, and I can document that, Mr. Speaker.

Anyhow, on a serious note again, I want to pick up on

something the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes said. He made a very

important point about federal cutbacks. The Federal Government through its

extended freeze announced in the Federal Budget is withdrawing its support. It

is a strong signal. Let me put it this way: that decision in the Federal Budget

is a strong signal that the Federal Government is going to withdraw its support

for post-secondary education in this country. That initiative in the Federal

Budget threatens Canadian unity, it threatens this country's ability to compete

with the world. It is very bad timing for the Federal Government to do that. The

Federal Government in its Budget, I think, forfeited its opportunity to give

leadership in the area of post-secondary education. We cannot have a world-class

economy without a world-class educational system; we cannot have a world-class

education system without the funds that are needed throughout this country from

the Federal Government. We have to have a federal commitment to post-secondary

education and I would urge the Member, in addition to taking his position to the

Federal Government, to ensure that they do not continue on the road to

destroying post-secondary education in this Province.

MR. RIDEOUT: This House has a provincial responsibility.

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

further petition?

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a

petition on behalf of some 450 people in the Grand Falls - Windsor area, a

petition circulated by the PTA, the Parent Teachers Association of Notre Dame

Academy in that area. They sent the original petition to the Minister, and I

have discussed this with him privately, but the covering letter clearly

indicates they would appreciate it if "you would bring our petition to the floor

of the House of Assembly as well."

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I want to make reference to

another petition which was sent directly to the Minister, a copy of which was

sent to me, containing another 180 names from parents and teachers in Windsor,

again in the district of Windsor - Buchans, represented by the Minister of

Forestry, and sent to me by the principals of Windsor Academy and Windsor

Collegiate, as well as the PTAs for both those institutions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I need not, I suppose, go into great detail

about the complaints contained in the petitions. Surely anybody who is astute at

all would have heard over the last five or six months the concerns expressed by

parents, teachers and students, such as the concerns we just heard expressed by

the students of some of the post-secondary institutions in our Province. It was

rather interesting to hear the Minister's response and defense of his actions a

few days ago, when there was a large, large group of students who, by the way,

did a fantastic job I think of organizing that particular demonstration. They

had a tremendous turnout and did a very good job of it. It was interesting to

hear the Minister defend his actions on that particular day. He said just before

the House opened at 2:00 p.m. he went out to offer to speak to them.

Well, as I recall, I believe they were out there for quite

some time prior to 2:00 p.m.

MS. VERGE: Quite a long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: About two hours.

MR. SIMMS: Well, certainly, I think an hour, 1:00 p.m. or

so. So I think that is a very weak defense.

And the other thing that this Minister and other Ministers in

this Government are very prone to do is blame all of their woes and problems on

somebody else. In this case, the Federal Government again has taken all the heat

and flak for it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Minister of Education -

or let me ask him the question: I always understood that education was a

Provincial responsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Completely and absolutely.

MR. SIMMS: If that is accurate, and correct me if I am

wrong, but if that is correct, then perhaps the Minister could tell me what

responsibilities he is going to exercise as the Minister of the Department

responsible for providing all those services which are desperately needed by the

students in our Province. Maybe he can comment on that. I would like to hear him

comment for once on what he is going to do, and what his Government is going to

do, rather than blaming all their woes on other people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the petition, specifically

from Windsor Collegiate and Windsor Academy and the parents and teachers in

those areas, I want to make two or three points which they have raised

themselves, and maybe the Minister can respond to it.

First of all they understand, I guess, from talking to their

superintendent, that they may lose twenty-six teachers in that particular

district. That is if the 2 per cent factor is removed, about which we have all

heard lots of talk. It may be all rumour. I do not know. But most likely they

feel that that might result in school closures, multi-grade classrooms, reduced

services, and so on.

Secondly, the loss of operational funds could mean as much as

$200,000 to that particular board, and that would seriously affect, in their

minds, the quality of education. And I think in everybody else's minds,

probably. The increase in the length of the school day which has been much

talked about, they think that would cause a number of problems, not the least of

which is it would severely limit the time that students might have to obtain

part-time positions, part-time jobs, therefore adding more expense to parents

and all the rest of those kinds of things.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, the introduction of bus fees, text

book fees, increased school fund raising and so on will be an additional

financial burden on the people and parents and children and so on, the students.

These are the concerns. He is aware of them, because the

letter went directly to the Minister. I did not get a copy of the response, but

maybe in response to this petition, 450 names, 180 names, another 700 - what is

that? - 580, six hundred and-some-odd. Yesterday another petition, nearly 500

hundred names. So they are coming fast and furious.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of

the petition concerning education in this Province. Of course we know that this

Government has indicated that it supports education, and that is a great

motherhood issue, everybody is in favour of education. What we have failed to

see, Mr. Speaker, is action by this Government to prevent the deterioration of

this Government's ability to fund education in this Province. And we have seen

the failure of this Government, and not only this Government but both sides of

this House, to protect the established programme financing of the Federal

Government.

(Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, introduced into the Federal House a

Bill, Bill C-69, which this Government ignored. And not only did this Government

ignore it, but this side of the House ignored it. They finally discovered it in

October, Mr. Speaker, and then they had a Private Member's Motion by someone on

the Government side to condemn the bill while it was before the Senate.

MR. SIMMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I know the Member feels he is a

bit of a veteran, having spent a year or a few months up in Ottawa, but I want

to suggest to him that the rules up there are not quite the same as here. The

rules here are very specific, that when a Member speaks to a petition he must

stick to the prayer of the petition and the numbers of names contained on the

petition, not talk about Bill C-69 and all these other little things he wants to

talk about. So the hon. Member is purely out of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. From

listening to the speeches

MR. SPEAKER: I assume the Member is speaking to the point

of order.

MR. SIMMS: Are you speaking to the point of order?

MR. HARRIS: I am speaking to the point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have heard many

speeches made in the last couple of days on the petitions which have been

presented to the House, and I have heard very wide-ranging comments from the

people presenting the petitions, as well as from those responding to them, and I

feel that that is consistent. My comments concerning education in this Province

are consistent with all those comments.

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

raise a valid point of order, and I referred hon. Members to it again yesterday.

Sometimes it is difficult for the Chair to be following all the points Members

are raising, but our rules are clear that a Member must speak to the material

allegations of the petition and refrain as much as possible from bringing in

extraneous matters. I would ask the hon. the Member for St. John's East to

continue, bearing the ruling in mind.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The concern, of

course, of the petitioners is a concern that we all share, concerning the plans

of this Government and the concerns expressed therein that there will be less

money available to support the programs of education in this Province. That, of

course, is a function of the financial ability of this Government, which is a

concern that we share as Newfoundlanders because of the tax base we have in this

Province and because of our needs for support from the Federal programs which we

know have been cut back and that this Government has not responded to. I think,

Mr. Speaker, that we expect more from this Government than we have seen, and we

expect more leadership from them in making sure that they are able to respond to

the petitioners and to all Newfoundlanders who deserve a first rate system of

education, not one that is continuously deteriorating.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the hon. the

Member for Grand Falls' letter to me some weeks ago about a meeting that was

held in Grand Falls. I could not attend. I promised to go to a future meeting,

wherever possible. But he did write a letter to me outlining the concerns of

parents, and I appreciate that.

Secondly, as far as education being a provincial

responsibility, I am sure the hon. Member is aware that education is a

provincial responsibility but it is a national obligation, it is a national

concern. And EPF, as the Member for St. John's East has indicated, the

Established Program Funding, has been vital to the development of post-secondary

education throughout this country.

Thirdly, the Member for Grand Falls asked if I would comment

on what we have done in post-secondary education? I would like to list all the

things we have done in the last year, but the one, perhaps, that is most

appreciated by students is the reform of student aid and the scholarships -

outstanding support for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: We have received overwhelming support, Mr.

Speaker. And

whereas there may have been 300 or 400 students here the other day,

there were not 4,000 like turned out in 1983, when the Member over here, from

Humber East, was the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Four thousand, Mr. Speaker, turned out to

protest the cut in student aid in 1983, if I recall.

MR. MURPHY: Tell the truth now, Phil. They are getting

mad.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the students in this Province

appreciate what this Government has done to provide more student aid and more

scholarships so that more of our people can get an opportunity to do

post-secondary education.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a

petition on behalf of approximately 170 concerned parents of the community of

Jackson's Arm and area. The prayer of the petition, I am sure it will be

accepted. If not, you can make a judgement on it. Anyway, this petition is a

response objecting to the recent announcements regarding possible educational

cutbacks. Giving our children a good education should be top priority. They are

our future leaders and we ask that you, the Government, look elsewhere for your

cutbacks. There is a covering letter with that which you can refer to when you

get the copy of the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to again remind hon. Members about petitions. We do

have a specific format. Again we allow the House to make a judgement on it, but

I do believe that it is incumbent upon us to get reasonably strict about the

format. But I want to remind hon Members that we do have a specific format and

we ought to follow it. The hon. Member alludes to the fact that it is not, and I

can only ask the House again whether he has permission to present this petition?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has always been our

position that if the intent is to present a petition to the House of Assembly,

then we have always agreed that it is acceptable. I have not seen the format, so

I find it difficult to make judgement on it. If indeed its intent is that it be

brought before the House, then we agree it should be brought before the House.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few short

comments on the petition. I would like to refer to last year's announcements by

the Department of Education, specifically with regard to the cutback in

substitute teaching days and a few other decisions that were made at that time.

This one in particular, Mr. Speaker, was very significant, especially with

regard to the Deer Lake Integrated School Board which the Jackson's Arm School

Board comes under in that area. For instance, I have to refer back to the cut in

professional development days. That was very significant to the people down in

Jackson's Arm. Because they are so far down in the bottom of the bay, with no

substitute days available, if a teacher had to leave and a substitute provided,

it would have to be taken out of operating. Now, Mr. Speaker, that, to me, is

wrong. Operating today, just in the integrated system in Deer Lake alone, last

year lost 125 students because of declining enrolment. That is a significant

number of students when you look at the total amount of money that is allocated

per student per year for each school board. To have to take any money at all out

of operating is very hard. Each school board finds it very, very hard to operate

as it is, and in this particular case the Deer Lake Integrated system, under

which Jackson's Arm comes, found it very hard to operate since October or

November of last year, 1990.

To add to that, Mr. Speaker, as to the distances travelled

the costs are the same. That is one thing I am sure the Minister is aware of,

the costs are the same; the school busing is the same, the lighting is the same.

In fact, it was more last year because of the very heavy increases passed onto

the school boards by Newfoundland Hydro. They have no way to recuperate that.

Absolutely none! The school tax is set, the amount of operating per student for

a school year is set, and they have no way to recuperate that funding. I would

like to caution the Minister, and more particularly the Cabinet, before the

announcement on Thursday's Budget, not to cut the allocation for capital funding

for schools in the Province.

I am fairly sure and certain that the community of Jackson's

Arm, down in White Bay, is fairly high on the priority list for a new school. It

is much needed. The building they have there now is a dilapidated building, and

I think if the capital funding for school boards in the Province is not cut,

they will probably get their school this year, or at the latest, next year. I

would like caution the Minister and his colleagues who are listening to make

sure when it does come up that that particular area is not cut, it is an area

for which funding is much needed. And if you add to that the possible cuts in

operating funding and so on, it would be detrimental to an area such as

Jackson's Arm. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: I wish to support the petition so well

presented by the Member for Humber Valley, my colleague and my neighbour on the

west coast. I join with the people of Jackson's Arm in calling on the Government

not to cut funding for primary, elementary and high school education. These

people took up the petition after suffering the brunt of cutbacks in education

funding already imposed by the Government. The Member for Humber Valley talked

about the reduction in funding for substitute teachers and the detrimental

effect on teachers professional development, an effect that was worst of all in

isolated rural communities, communities some distance away from school board

central offices.

The people who signed that petition have been contributing to

the cost of education in Jackson's Arm; they have been paying school tax, and

they have been involved as members of home and school associations and as

parents in fund raising activities and in giving their children money to go to

school and buy consumable materials and other materials needed for today's

school programming.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that this Minister of

Education, who has been in office for two years now, was one of the authors of a

report on education financing appointed by the previous Government, and in that

capacity, wearing that other hat, pointed out the need for significant increases

in funding for kindergarten through grade twelve education. Instead, now that he

has the power of the office of Minister of Education, he is talking about

proposals for cutbacks, for freezing budgets, for taking up to $30 million out

of funding for primary, elementary and high school education this year.

Yesterday when I spoke I talked about the attitude problem of

this Government. Last year, when the Minister and his colleagues were expecting

to have a current account surplus, they slashed funding for substitute teachers

and put in jeopardy teachers' professional development programs. God help us

this year when they do have a money problem that has been triggered by the

national recession. With the kind of attitude that lead to a reduction in

funding for teachers when there was a current account surplus, what are they

going to do this year? What are they going to do this year?

So really all the people of Jackson's Arm are asking is that

this Minister be consistent and carry out the objectives and the ideas that he

advocated just two years ago, before he was elected. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, last year, we did many things to

improve education in this Province. We did cut substitute teachers, in fact, I

got the idea from the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. I found the

article Christmas time when I was cleaning out some of my files at home and

going through the records of the task force on school funding and all that. I

found an

article in which the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, said this

on the topic of substitute teachers, and I thought I would bring it in, and I am

glad we raised it today because I think it is important: he said he was very

concerned over the burgeoning cost of substitute teachers; we spend $11 million

a year. Now this is the hon. Member, the former Minister of Education saying

this-

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no (inaudible).

DR. WARREN: - he said millions-

AN HON. MEMBER: No it cannot be.

DR. WARREN: - just on substitute teachers: I think that

with some co-ordination we can save dollars there without hurting the system.

Now, listen to what he said; he went on to say, why is it so high?... someone

asked him, and he said: well, that is a good question. I wonder if we are

getting any real benefit, he said-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. WARREN: - and then he went on to say, perhaps we

could save $2 million; perhaps we could save $2 million in substitute teachers.

Mr. Speaker, this is the hon. Member, this is the former

Minister of Education-

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no. It cannot be.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, last year we did try to save a

few dollars on substitute teachers; it caused great concern throughout the

Province. We feel however, that teachers have had in-service programs- you know,

Mr. Speaker, yesterday as I arrived in the House on a digression - the President

of Treasury Board was saying we had the best qualified teaching force in Canada;

now I do not know if we have got the best, but we are one of the best.

You know, twenty-five years ago only 15 per cent of our

teachers had a degree or more, today, 98 per cent of the teachers in this

Province have a degree or the equivalent and they have done an outstanding job

in the past year. Maybe there was a cutback in substitute teachers in some areas

but our teachers are among the best qualified and the most creative in this

country and they have carried on this year, even with some slight reductions,

not as much as the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, would like, not as

much of a reduction as he but a slight reduction.

Mr. Speaker, I pray attention to the petition. Certainly the

Government considers all these petitions and any decisions will be announced in

the budgetary process.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not know even where the

(inaudible).

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 16, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 16. The hon. The Minister of

Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the resolution that we are about

to debate has been made necessary by virtue of some changes that have been

announced in the Federal Government's Underutilized Ground Fish Management Plan,

changes that in our view, and a view that is shared by most people in the

fishing industry, will have very serious impact on the Newfoundland Fishing

Industry.

Mr. Speaker, the -

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. Minister of Fisheries

would just permit an interruption. I understand this is a special debate that we

talked of yesterday where it was agreed that the time limits would be fifteen

minutes, is that correct? Okay, I just want to make sure honourable Members

understand that.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: For a second, Mr. Speaker, it is a special

debate in the sense that we have agreed to fifteen minutes, it is not special in

terms of the order, it is a Government order that was called.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: I take it we have a fifteen minute time

period in which we, four members I believe, two from each side will be able to

take

part in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, the Underutilized Fish Management Plan was an

important part of the new Atlantic Fish Adjustment Program that was announced by

the Federal Government on May 7, I believe it was, 1990, as part of their

response to the crises that was upon us in the fishing industry, and a part of

that program of course entailed many new initiatives, not the least of which was

the need to diversify the fishing industry.

In the 1990 Groundfish Management Plan, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was very careful to provide access to that

so-called underutilized fish pool to companies and vessels who were operating in

waters adjacent to the resource, operating and landing their catches in

communities where fish plants were about to close. That the Province welcomed,

as we were then just getting involved in what has since become a very serious

problem in terms of plant closures. We looked upon this programme as a means of

extending to some extent, maybe, the life of some of these plants, and for that

reason we welcomed the criteria that the Federal Minister had established, and

we in fact congratulated him for it.

But lo and behold, earlier this year, at a meeting that was

held in Halifax, I believe it was, on January 16, a meeting of the Groundfish

Advisory Committee - a special meeting, I should add, that was convened for the

purpose of discussing - I believe my hon. friend and Member for Grand Bank

attended that meeting, but upon learning that the draft guidelines, which were

tabled at the January 16 Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee meeting in

Halifax, would seriously compromise Newfoundland's access to fish stocks in

waters adjacent to our shores, I immediately wrote the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans, the hon. Bernard Valcourt, and objected to the changes that were

proposed in the 1991 guidelines.

I subsequently arranged to meet with the Minister in Ottawa

with him and his officials on January 30 at which time I again objected to the

proposed programme. Mr. Speaker, I would be quite willing, in fact, anxious, to

table the letter that I wrote the Minister and to which I just referred, dated

January 21, in which I in fact objected very strenuously to the new guidelines

that were being proposed for the disposition or the allocation of the

underutilized fish.

I was assured by the Minister at the time that - maybe I

should not say I was assured by him - but certainly given to understand, I

guess, by the Minister, that it was a bit of a mistake what had happened, and

that given time he would correct the problem, correct the mistake, and that the

fears that I went there to address would be looked after.

I was quite surprised when the Minister released his

programme some time later, in which no changes were made. In fact, the terms and

conditions that were contained in the draft document to which I objected

earlier, and discussed with him in his office in January, were still the same.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that being the case, then I believe that it is up to us as a

Province, and I have talked to members of the industry, and I can say that

rarely will you see it where all sectors of the fishing industry will speak with

one voice. Usually we have people going off in tangents, each going his or her

own way, supporting one proposition or the other, but in this case I am very

happy to tell the House that there does not appear to be any dissenting voices

at all within the industry with respect to how they feel about this new 1991

underutilized groundfish management programme.

In fact, my Deputy Minister this morning had a lengthy

conversation with Mr. Victor Young, as we all know, President and Chief

Executive Officer of Fishery Products International, who spent an hour last

night on the telephone talking to the Federal Minister, Mr. Valcourt, hoping to

extract from him some kind of an undertaking that maybe the criteria that was

stated in his announcements would be changed and that all would be well. But I

have been told that no such commitment could be extracted from the Federal

Minister, and consequently now we are back to square one.

But, Mr. Speaker, the principles of adjacency, the principles

of community dependency and economic efficiency and historic usage, are the

principles which Canada used to convince the other fishing nations of the world

the need for the coastal state to extend its jurisdiction over the living

resources on its respective continental shelf. These of course are the

principles as well that are embodied in the management plans of the Federal

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. But for whatever reasons they appear now to

be willing to set aside those principles and to ignore the fact that communities

that are situated adjacent to the waters in which this fish is being caught, and

communities that, by virtue of plant closures have a greater need for having

access to that fish than any other community, these principles now appear to be

set aside and the result of course will be - catastrophic, I suppose, is not too

strong a word to use in certain cases.

I can think of Gaultois, for example, where we have a fish

plant up there that has been used for the processing of redfish now almost since

it was first established. It is a redfish plant. We all know that plant now is

about to close. And I am told that there are companies out there that are

willing and anxious to take over that plant and to operate it. However, the

plant at Gaultois which is a redfish processing plant on the South Coast: that

plant is due to close soon because of the shortage of fish. There are at least

two companies that I know of that are anxious to take over that plant and

operate it, and I have every confidence in the two companies to know that they

can in fact operate it as a successful operation were it not for the fact that

they can't get access to the required so many - I think it is 8,000 or 10,000

tons of redfish that it will take to make the plant a viable operation.

But I have had several meetings with the Minister on this,

and we have had an exchange of letters and telephone calls pleading with him to

make some redfish available to that plant. Of course, the end result will be

that if that fish were made available then of course the community of Gaultois

will be saved and hopefully will remain there for a long time as a viable

Newfoundland community. But under these new guidelines it certainly makes it

difficult now for the two companies concerned to be able to access the necessary

redfish to keep that plant operating.

I was looking at several other plants as well, Mr. Speaker,

in the hon. Member's own district of Grand Bank, although there are some

prospects on the horizon now, where maybe that plant will be a little bit more

fortunate, and hopefully it will in time have a scallop and (Inaudible) clam

operation in the plant, employing many hundreds of people, I suppose. But I am

afraid that the plants in Trepassey and Gaultois are not so fortunate, and that

is the reason why these new guidelines, we feel, must be changed.

Mr. Speaker, we have many objections to the management plan.

Another objection, of course, is the fact that the Federal Government has seen

fit to designate turbot as an under-utilized species. Now, I do not think any

Newfoundland fish plant owner or any fishing vessel owner in Newfoundland will

tell you that turbot is a surplus stock. In fact, many say that what we have now

is a paper quota. Which means that we have a quota on paper but the fish are not

there, and consequently it can't be caught. Now add to that of course the fact

of the news that came out recently where it was found that a foreign company,

foreign ships, were responsible for harvesting 35,000 metric tons of turbot on

the edge of the Canadian continental shelf, a stock that is certainly not

surplus. In fact, probably at this point in time, over-utilized. For the Federal

Government to include that as part of an underutilized pool, is absolutely

ridiculous, and it makes one wonder just how much thinking goes into the

formulation of some of these plans and how much scientific advice they get.

Mr. Speaker, I had a longer speech prepared, but I am now

running out of time by virtue of the fifteen minute time limit on our speeches.

I can only say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I think this is one

time when Newfoundlanders must speak with one voice, and let Ottawa know that we

are not happy with the way things are going, that we are not prepared to allow

this fish that is being harvested literally on our doorsteps, in waters that are

adjacent to our Province, near communities that are desperately in need of that

fish, where plants are closing and those that are not closing are very much

underutilized. For example, we talk about the turbot. In the underutilized

groundfish pool, Mr. Speaker, there are 57,000 tons of fish, of that 29,000 tons

consist of turbot, redfish, and cod; the remaining 28,000 tons consist of silver

hake.

Let me say to the House, just to tell you how important this

is to this Province and the impact it could have on the economy of the fishery -

if that 64 million pounds of turbot, redfish and cod were harvested and

processed in Atlantic Canada, it would result in 525 person years of full-time

employment in the processing sector alone, not to mention the jobs that would be

provided on the vessels that would be catching that fish. If it were available

to both inshore and offshore plants in Newfoundland for processing, given the

fact that a lot of the inshore plants operate on a seasonal basis, we are

looking at 870 direct processing jobs in this Province. Now we all know what

that would mean in a Province like Newfoundland where unemployment is so high.

Mr. Speaker, before I take my seat I should as well inform

the House of news that recently came out of Ottawa to the effect that foreign

overfishing on the Nose and Tail of our Grand Banks is getting much, much worse.

In fact, it is far worse than we thought it was. In fact, the scientists are now

telling us that foreign vessels fishing on the Nose and Tail, fishing illegally,

nothing less than high seas piracy are responsible for harvesting in excess of

100,000 metric tons of fish. In fact, an amount that is five times higher than

what their own quota is. Now again, I suppose it can be said that that fish

should not be caught, because the biologists will tell us and the scientists

that the fish should not be caught. But the fact of the matter is that it was

caught. And one can only imagine how many jobs that would provide on the South

Coast of our Province, -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. CARTER: - if that fish were caught and landed for

example in plants like Grand Bank and Trepassey and Gaultois.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I take pleasure today to rise to take

part in debate

pertaining to the resolution put forward by the hon. the Minister of Fisheries,

and I will try to deal with the resolution as written. I would like to say to

the Minister that he was correct and I did attend the meeting in Halifax of the

Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Council, and particularly I attended on the day

where the underutilized pool or the development program for underutilized

species was discussed with the major players in the fishing industry in Atlantic

Canada.

I want to say to the Minister at the start that there is no

way you can argue about the importance of maintaining adjacency for fish stocks

off our shores and the rights of our people to access fish stocks off our

shores.

I just want to say to him that I am a little bit confused

after looking at his resolution yesterday where he talks about the Federal

Government's recently announced criteria for the '91 groundfish development

program that would seriously compromise this Province's access to fish stocks in

waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador. And why I am a little bit confused

about that is because I look at the Backgrounder information sent out by federal

fisheries on the issue and I look at the news release, and in both those it is

pointed out very clearly that - and I would like to just go on record as saying

that in the Backgrounder it says: allocation of fishery resources will be on the

basis of equity, taking into account adjacency to the resource, the relative

dependence of coastal communities and the various fleet sectors upon a given

resource, and economic efficiency and fleet mobility. So, that is the same as it

was in 1990, in the Backgrounder. I am sure the Member for Carbonear who I have

seen waving something is probably there.

When I look upon the basic principals for the '91 groundfish

management plan: the first principal is conservation and restoration of the

fisheries resources, which no one can argue against. But basic principal number

two, again, is the same I just read: that allocation of fishery resources will

be on the basis of equity taking into account adjacency to the resource. So, I

am a little bit confused in the Minister's resolution why he somehow has

incorporated into his resolution the concerns about adjacency. I want to go on

record, Mr. Speaker, as saying that while it is all important, we can never

overemphasize the importance of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador having

access to their fish resources off our coast; that is of vital importance. I

just wanted to say that based upon the information that I have read on the '91

groundfish development pool plan is that principal of adjacency is still there.

It is still in the '91 plan as it was in the 1990.

Now, in the second 'whereas' of the Minister's resolution he

talks about the criteria of the '90 underutilized groundfish program, giving

priority to fisheries related companies or vessels for adjacency - that is fair

enough. But the third 'whereas' is very important, and I think really this is

the basis for the Minister bringing forward the resolution, and why there are

some concerns out and about the Province particularly in those communities, the

three communities that last year had their fish plants slated for closure,

concurrence by both the Provincial and Federal Governments to close their fish

plants. Then it says:

whereas the 1990 program criteria also gave special

priority to the needs of those fish plants that would otherwise close. And I

think that the Minister here is very right and very proper in bringing this to

the attention of the Members of this legislature, because at the meeting of

January 16 that the Minister eluded to, Mr. Les Dean, one of the Assistant

Deputy Ministers in the Minister of Fisheries Department represented the

Province, and I must say, I want to go on record again today as complementing

Mr. Dean for doing a very, very good job. He picked up very strongly on some of

these points and he made it clear to the DFO officials there that he was not

satisfied and that the Province would not agree with some of those points, and I

want to go on record to complement him, and I am sure the Minister, as we found

when we were in Government and particularly some former Ministers of Fisheries

here found, that Mr. Dean is indeed a very diligent person and very capable of

speaking on behalf of this Province at such meetings. And that raises a big

concern from the Bellevue district. I am sure that is why he is so capable and

competent, I say to the Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, well whatever.

When the Federal Minister of Fisheries came to the Province

and announced the fisheries adjustment program of some $584 million a very

important part of that package in addition to the $584 million was some - at the

time, I believe, the Minister can recall, I think there was a pool established

of approximately 100,000 tonnes, I believe, of underutilized fish as they

referred to it. A lot of it was red fish, and the Minister already read the

other fish and the zones that the fish are located in. But this has been a sore

point for those communities particularly, and all three communities, Grand Bank,

Gaultois and Trepassey were represented at the meetings in Halifax, and they

were very, very concerned when they saw this thing happening, that the priority

for their particular community, because their plants were slated for closure,

that this was being taken off the priority list by the Department of Federal

Fisheries, and some of the communities made it know at the meeting as well. As I

already said Mr. Dean did on behalf of the Province, and rightfully so, because

this was a part and parcel of - these communities saw a potential for their

future, of being able to stay in their community working in some way in the

fishery, even though it might be different from what they had always been used

to. Of course there is some potential there. The Minister has again alluded to

the Gaultois situation where there is some fish available to Gaultois but the

problem for Gaultois is there is not enough fish available and even though they

have operators interested, the amount of fish they can access to process in

Gaultois does not make the venture viable. For the Trepassey situation, which

the Minister has alluded to, and in Grand Bank which the Minister has also

alluded to, there is some hope, and hopefully before too long that package will

come together and we will see Clearwater Fine Foods processing scallops and surf

clams, and hopefully, in Grand Bank, some other species, which will employ

hopefully over 200 people. For the most part the concentration of the 57,396

tonnes that the Minister refers is mainly red fish and turbot and there is a big

concern about the turbot situation, which the Minister referred to again. A lot

of people do not figure it is an underutilized species. They do not figure there

is anything underutilized about turbot. As a matter of fact most people in the

industry think that it is just the opposite and they are concerned about the

turbot stocks. Again, there is confusion, I say to the Minister, because if you

look at the information memo that is sent out by DFO on Greenland halibut in the

Northwest Atlantic there is again some conflicting scientific evidence. Of

course we all know the record and the concerns we have had with scientific

evidence, scientific data, and research on the fishery and our stocks off our

shores. Really, this is another one that causes great concern, but really what

DFO is saying, and the scientific people are saying, the scientists, is that

even though they are taking about 35,000 metric tons out in the 3L area in some

depths of 1500 meters, they are saying that that additional 35,000 tons still

only raises the total catch to the FO.1 level advised for the biomass in depths

of around 1000 meters.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Do you agree with that?

MR. MATTHEWS: I am not saying I agree with it. What I am

saying is, I would say to the Member for Eagle River, is that again we have

scientists who are saying that - and the Minister has raised a legitimate

concern, it is a concern raised by fishermen throughout the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to draw to the attention of all hon. Members that if

they need to meet with visitors in the gallery then the meeting must be convened

outside the House, outside the Chamber, so I draw that point to the attention of

hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I am saying is that scientists are telling us this is

acceptable. There are so many arguments in the industry that the species is in

trouble but here we have the scientific arm of the DFO saying that it still only

brings it up to the acceptable level of FO.1. Now, I want to say before I run

out of time, and fifteen minutes, even though we agreed, is not much time to

talk on an issue as important and significant as this. When I sat in the Halifax

meeting with all the industry reps here, the major fish companies, and some not

as major from around this region, talking about the underutilized pool, the

development plan for the underutilized pool, there was one thing that very

quickly struck me, and that is that the same companies, the very same fish

companies that did not have any future for Grand Bank, did not have any future

for Gaultois, did not have any future for Trepassey, did not have any future for

Canso, did not have any future for Burgeo, these very same companies that in

essence have an monopoly on the groundfish stocks off our coasts, I suddenly

realized as I sat there that these very same companies were suddenly very, very

interested in monopolizing the underutilized pool - the very same people. So the

communities that saw some hope for the future in the developmental program of

underutilized species, it suddenly struck them in the pit of their stomachs and

they got half sick like myself, then the future may not be there even in the

underutilized species, because those same companies that do not want anything to

do with us now want to get the underutilized pool and they are not going to

process it in Gaultois, Grand Bank, Trepassey, Canso, or Burgeo.

MR. CARTER: (Inaudible)

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, all I want to say to the Minister,

having said that, is that except for his official and some from some other

Atlantic province's governments, that for the most part the people who carried

the weight in the meetings were the industry people, they were the people who

were setting the tone for the meeting and giving advice to DFO and some top

heavy people as we all know. We know who I am talking about, from all throughout

Atlantic Canada, and if there is protection that needs to be built into this

program, it is for those communities and those people and others like them, and

there may be more of them by the way in the next twelve to twenty-four months in

this Province. All is not well in the deep sea industry and there just may be

other communities such as the ones that we have named who will fall victim and

would need some underutilized species if they are going to have a future in the

fishery.

So in recapping, Mr. Speaker, I want to say the adjacency

issue we totally support, you cannot support it enough, but having said that, I

think from what I have read it is there. For the communities which thought this

might be the saviour, I agree, it should be re-instated and pretty high on the

priority list because that is what it is all about.

With the Turbot: again, there are mixed messages on the

Turbot; it depends on what company you talk to, it depends on what company you

talk to. Some will tell you it is underutilized, some will tell you it is not;

fishermen throughout the Province believe it is underutilized and that there are

real serious problems with it, and like everything else, I say, the people who

are most involved in any aspect of the industry I tend to listen to moreso, than

I do those who do some type of scientific research a few times a year.

So having said that, Mr. Speaker, I commend the Minister on

bringing forward the resolution, I think it is a good resolution-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: - it is a good resolution, there are things

that need to be brought out but I do not think the resolution- all the WHEREASES

in the resolution are justified, I have to say that. There are some things in

the plan that were there in 1990 and are still there in 1991 to which the

Minister has alluded, are not there in 1991. But there are some things which

need to be brought forward on this issue and I commend him for bringing forward

that, and I want to say that for the most part of his resolution I certainly

commend him for it, but just before concluding I want to say one thing, the

Minister put out a press release a few days ago on this issue and he made

reference to the Sea Freeze deal and he highlighted Canso, Nova Scotia. I just

want to say to the Minister in all fairness, that it should not have been only

Canso, Nova Scotia that was highlighted, it should also have been Burgeo,

Newfoundland that was highlighted-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - because without the Sea Freeze deal, let

no one be mistaken in this Chamber, that without the Sea Freeze deal and all the

misgivings that a lot of us had about it, there would not have been a future for

Burgeo. No one had anything else to offer to Burgeo outside the Sea Freeze deal,

and National Sea Products today would have had to shut down. That was that

underutilized species as we know it and some arrangement have enabled the people

of Burgeo to be working today and I might say, having talked to a number of them

as I do because they call me, because I showed some interest in them during this

process that they are relatively pleased-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: - with the situation, but I say to the

Minister- in concluding, Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence - keep up the work.

These communities-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - should certainly be placed back on the

priority list, because in my opinion, having been at the press conference with

Mr. Valcourt and others, that is what it is all about.

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Send the Minister

of Social Services down, Mr. Speaker, he will not have to put so many on social

services to get the fish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Carbonear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I tend to agree with my hon. colleague from

Grand Bank on a couple of points and I think we probably do over here, but I am

remiss to understand his reasoning when he looks at the 1990 proposal as

compared to the 1991 proposal as it relates to the development program.

In the 1991, it specifically spells out three individual - in

bold letters - criteria. Then down on the bottom it makes reference to what you

suggested as being last year's criteria, 1990's criteria, as it relates to

equality and the adjacency of the resource. In the 1990 release all those things

concerning adjacency and priorities as it relates to communities and plant

closures and so on, are spelled out the same as in 1991. So there is something

wrong here. I think that maybe we are agreeing here that the priorities that are

stated in the 1991s should have been a footnote, and the 1990 priorities should

have stayed where they were and they should have been changed around. Maybe that

is what you are saying. If that is the case I agree with you. But I certainly

cannot see your reasoning in thinking or believing that there is not something

going on here, because why would they bring in three new proposals in this

year's plan when last year's plan was created and adopted and there was

absolutely no problems.

The Minister mentioned a few minutes ago about piracy out on

the Grand Banks, and the amount of fish that is being taken by foreign

overfishing. I am beginning to wonder if Mr. Valcourt is not spending a lot of

his time out there with those people because we had Siddon, and you over on the

other side had Siddon, I believe, as Minister of Fisheries for a while, now we

have Valcourt, and I am going to tell you Siddon looks like an angel compared to

Valcourt, because where he is coming from I am lost. To think that he is not

listening to my hon. colleague or friend from Grand Bank or my hon. friend from

Baie Verte. I do not know who he is listening to. Because whatever he is doing,

whatever he is trying to do in Newfoundland I am lost to think what he is up to.

And I am sure some of you over there are scratching your head and asking

yourself the same thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Somebody was laughed at a few days ago for

calling somebody the mother of something. Well Mr. Valcourt, to my mind is the

mother of all Fisheries Ministers that this country has had since 1867. He has

to be. I have a feeling that the man is out on a course to destroy the

Newfoundland fishery. I am hearing it every day from fishermen, that Government

is out to destroy us, and I am starting to believe it, because every day it

seems like he is doing more and more all the time, the Federal Government doing

more and more to torment us and to make our lives that much harder.

I have a little story to tell you about something that

happened last week, most of you are familiar with it. I am sure my hon. friend

for Grand Bank is familiar with it. Last week there was 1,200,000 pounds of fish

landed in Harbour Grace.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. REID: One million, two hundred thousand pounds of

fish landed in Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: The fish was part of an allocation that was

given to a Nova Scotian firm and it happened to be landed in Harbour Grace, and

if I remember correctly, and I am sure some of you remember, the owner of the

company asked our Minister of Fisheries would he release the fish, because for

some reason or another our Minister of Fisheries thought that fish could not be

released out of Newfoundland under this processing law that we have here, and it

should not be sent out of the Province. Well anyway what happened as far as I

know, and I have gotten a lot of my information from The Fisheries Broadcast

yesterday afternoon, or not from the broadcast, but from Jim Wellman at CBC, he

told me all about it and with the fisheries help and so on.

Apparently what happened is that they asked our Minister, to

release the fish so that it could be taken to New Brunswick for processing. Now

I do not know if some of my hon. friends realize what 1,200,000 pounds of fish

means. Well it was landed in Joey Georges plant in Harbour Grace and it would

have meant three weeks of work for at least 250 people or more.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I think it was the M.V Osprey company asked the

Minister here to let them shift the fish to New Brunswick for processing. So in

the situation that we are in regarding Canadian rules, and some of the rules

that we have to abide by with the laws I suppose as it relates to the Fishery

Department, apparently our Minister felt that well, Newfoundland is not greedy

to that extent, if they are going to bring it up to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick

and process it, why not?... Canso, Nova Scotia is in as much trouble as we are

in an awful lot of cases, so he released it on the condition that it would be

processed. I watched eighteen tractor trailers leave Harbour Grace last week,

eighteen tractor trailers leave Harbour Grace, drive across the Island and go

into Nova Scotia. I did not watch this, but I was told it and I can believe it,

went into Nova Scotia pulled off on a wharf in Nova Scotia -

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

MR. REID: - loaded that -

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

I ask the hon. Member to withdraw that remark.

MR. REID: I withdraw. I am sorry. I did not realize I

could not say abuse - I am sorry.

Loaded that fish, loaded that fish, Mr. Speaker, put it

aboard a freighter and shipped it off to Greenland. Loaded it aboard a boat in

Nova Scotia and shipped it off to Greenland to be sold unprocessed. And I do not

disagree with letting fish go out of Newfoundland that is part of a quota that

belongs to Nova Scotia to go back to Nova Scotia. I have no problem with that. I

do not think we should, really. I suppose if there is a quota the Federal

Government will give a plant in Nova Scotia a quota, then sure, good, so they

take the fish back to Nova Scotia and they process it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: No, sir, that was cod; the biggest kind of cod.

AN HON. MEMBER: Steak cod.

MR. REID: I have no problems with that. The problem I

have is with the fact that we were hoodwinked, I suppose, to a certain extent,

and it left Newfoundland and it went over to Greenland, and I suppose they

picked up about $1 a pound for it or $1.50 a pound, whatever it is.

The point I am trying to make is that I really do not think

there is a need to do that sort of thing. As far as I am concerned, the new

development program we have set for 1991 is only going to encourage doing that

sort of thing, because one of the criteria mentioned in the 1991 list is that if

there is 30 per cent or in excess of 30 per cent aboard one of these boats which

are fishing off the Grand Banks or fishing off Newfoundland, if the crew is 30

per cent Canadian, then they do not even have to land that fish, they can take

it and go directly to wherever they want to go with it, to Europe, Iceland or

Greenland, wherever.

Our hon. friend in Ottawa, the Minister of Fisheries, has in

recent years, I guess last year, done away with the resource short plant. He is

going to do away with the Saltfish Corporation, and I have no doubt in my mind

that the reason he is doing away with the Saltfish Corporation is so that Nat.

Sea, in Nova Scotia, can move up along the Labrador coast to avail of the salt

fish industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, that is the purpose.

MR. REID: He did away with the mid-distance fleet. We are

talking about the seal hunt again in Newfoundland, and we all know that the feds

are not going to let us do anything with seals in Newfoundland. The latest

problem with it, of course, they cannot find anyone to even insure our boats to

go out and catch a few seals.

Then, of course, there is the problem we have in Gaultois, in

Grand Bank, Trepassey and (inaudible). I wonder what is going to happen to my

hon. colleague from Grand Bank when, next summer, in the middle of the summer,

there is not a fish going into the Gaultois plant, and there is not a fish going

into the Gaultois plant because of the under-utilized species program that we

have? And the chance Gaultois had to probably develop an industry that handles

under-utilized species is gone, because the fish that would normally go in

there, because of rules and regulations set down by the Federal Minister that

were in place last year are not in place this year. So, now, instead of sending

it into Gaultois it is going, in the case of a 30 per cent Canadian crew, to

Iceland, Greenland or Europe, or it is going back to Nova Scotian firms, like

the M/V Osprey. And I believe I am right on this. Because I am sure there are a

couple of companies in Nova Scotia which I have heard about lately that do not

even have a fish plant or a boat and have quotas in Nova Scotia, which can come

down here and take what fish they want, I suppose within their quota, ship it

back to Nova Scotia and not have it processed either in Newfoundland or Nova

Scotia. Mr. Speaker, I really

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) blame your own government.

MR. REID: Look, when it comes to the fishing industry in

Newfoundland, if I have to blame my own Government I will blame my own

Government. I have no problems with that.

I really and truly do not believe that our hon. friend in -

if he is honourable or not, I do not know - Ottawa, Mr. Valcourt, has any

conscience whatsoever when it comes to the Newfoundland fishery. And I cannot

see how any of you on the other side or anyone in this House can actually say

that Mr. Valcourt is concerned about what happens in Newfoundland. Because he is

not and that is a proven fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is more worried about tuning up his

motorcycle.

MR. REID: By the way, if you look at who is qualified to

apply under these three new headings, there are only three companies in

Newfoundland which are qualified to apply. Am I right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, and they are.

MR. REID: And my friend from Grand Bank, I think he

mentioned that a few minutes ago. It is ironic, isn't it? There are only three

companies in this Province that will qualify under groundfish licence holders

utilizing Canadian vessels, licence holders in Atlantic species other than

groundfish, and those are: FPI, NatSea, and Harbour Grace Fishing Company. And

if I am not mistaken, FPI is trying to get out of Gaultois right now, aren't

they?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Yes, trying to get out. So we only have two

companies left that are able to qualify. How many companies do we have in Nova

Scotia that are able to qualify? And New Brunswick? Ten? Twenty? What is going

to happen, Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen, to our under-utilized species

that the Government last year encouraged us - they came down here and they

encouraged us, they said, look, our stocks are depleting. Our groundfish stock

is depleting, cod is depleting. Let's go into secondary processing, and let's go

into under-utilized species and let's try to change the industry. They came down

and they tried to spend millions of dollars in ACOA money and they encouraged us

to do it. And they went down and they told people in Grand Bank and they told

people in Gaultois that this is what you have to do: apply for a licence so that

you can process under-utilized species.

And what is he doing to us now? He is taking the right away

from us to be able to do it! Because what is out there is going to be caught by

foreign companies, and by people and processors or licence holders in Nova

Scotia and New Brunswick, and Newfoundland is going to be left out again.

I am afraid, my friend from Grand Bank, that we are not going

to have any fish to go into Gaultois, because it is going to end up somewhere in

Nova Scotia. And ultimately, because of what happened the other day, I suppose

it could end up in Greenland. The fish that is off our coast - our fish! my

fish! It's mine! The Law of the Sea conference in 1972 stated (inaudible)

principles when we accepted the 200 mile limit, and the first one was adjacency.

The Law of the Sea Conference. That was our Government went through that.

Economic dependence on coastal communities, economic efficiency, fleet mobility

- all basic principles, the reasons why Canada got its 200 mile limit. They went

to the nations of the world with that and argued and won, and now our own

Federal Minister and own Federal Government -

AN HON. MEMBER: Guts it.

MR. REID: - are taking it and saying, to hell with that!

It is not fair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trudeau.

MR. REID: Be it Trudeau, be it Mulroney, I do not care

who it is. It has nothing to do with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen seventy-two, boy!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to

make these few comments. The reason I made the comments and the reason I

submitted the resolution yesterday, prior to the Minister submitting it, was the

fact that I watched all that fish, 1,200,000 pounds of fish, and I am out there

now in Harbour Grace and Carbonear and down the north shore of my district and

people are starting to bawl already about not having enough stamps and not being

able to get enough stamps to get unemployment insurance. And I am telling you,

we are going to be in for a rough year this year in Newfoundland if something is

not changed in the fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: And in Labrador.

MR. REID: And in Labrador as well, I agree. Thank you

very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the agreement yesterday was

that two people from each group would take

part in this debate. Now the Minister

and the Member for Carbonear and the official critic for the Opposition have

already spoken, so I want to take the opportunity to say a few words on the

resolution before we are finished with it.

I want to say first of all, Mr. Speaker, that despite some

concerns still unexplained by both gentlemen who have spoken from the other

side, we will support the resolution. Why, Mr. Speaker, even though there may be

concerns? We will support it in the off chance, if there is any slight

possibility of a chance that everything the Government said is right, despite

the fact that we have been told that some of it is not. If I am going to err, I

will err on the side of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: So the politics are out of it, the Parties

are out of it, the personalities are out of it, it is a question of Newfoundland

and Labrador, and if I am going to make a mistake and err, then I will err on

the side of what I think is right for this Province.

It has been suggested in this resolution that the principle

of adjacency as far as under-utilized species goes has been abandoned. Well, I

can only say from the documentation that we have, provided publicly by the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not from any clandestine source or inside

source, but publicly provided, that is available to all Members, to me does not

suggest that. It states clearly, that the principles of the 1991 groundfish

management plan, that allocations will be based on equity, taking into account

adjacency to the resource. Now the Member for Carbonear made some reference

about the difference between 1990 and 1991, and then seemed to conclude that

there was no difference at all except that perhaps there should have been

interchange with a footnote.

That may be. I do not care. And that is why we are going to

support the resolution, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want there to be the

slightest possibility that any Federal Government or any Federal Minister or any

Federal official could see that there is any difference of opinion in this

House, because the issue is too important. So we are going to support it, even

though we think from everything we can see that the principle of adjacency is

covered in 1991 just the same as it was covered in 1990.

But that is immaterial. That is not important. What are we

going to quibble over that for, Mr. Speaker? If there is a possibility that it

is not covered, then let us unite - let us unite as Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, representing the people of this Province, and demand that if it is

not covered accurately enough or adequately enough, that it be covered.

The one area where I think the Government is right, Mr.

Speaker, is the lack of mention in the 1991 under-utilized pool guidelines, the

three communities that were specifically mentioned last year. That was Gaultois

as I recall, Grand Bank and Trepassey. I think the Government is absolutely

right, having gone through the guidelines and the news releases issued by DFO,

that those communities are not specifically referenced in the set of guidelines

that were issued this year. And that can give rise and should give rise to

concern by people in those communities as to their priority: their priority of

assessing what might be or what is available, 58,000 tons or whatever it is,

under the under-utilized pool.

Now that is a legitimate concern and a legitimate point and

the Government is right and doing their jobs as a Government, and the Minister

and his officials are doing their jobs, in bringing that to the attention of the

people of this Province, the people of those communities, and I think it is

incumbent on us, Mr. Speaker, to support that and we shall support it.

The other argument on adjacency, I really do not know if the

Government has a point or not. But just in case they do - just in case they do -

I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and make the support for the

resolution unanimous. There is nothing else in the resolution, Mr. Speaker, with

one more exception, that we have any disagreement on. All of the recitals about

Newfoundland's dependency on the fishery and all of that, we are 100 per cent

completely in agreement with.

The matter of 2J+3KL turbot, again, Mr. Speaker, I have to

fall on the side of those who say, and have said for years in many cases,

without anybody listening to them, that 2J+3KL turbot has for some time been

nothing more or nothing less than paper fish. I believe that is so. The turbot

which was in the bays, Mr. Speaker, along the northeast coast and most of

Labrador, is gone. They have chased it offshore with some limited success. There

are those in the industry who argue that it is in deeper water and we do not

have the technology to catch it. I do not know that is true. I am prepared to

fall on the side of those who say that turbot is no longer an under-utilized

species, that the quota the scientific community tells us is there is not

necessarily there. So, therefore, I am prepared to support the material

allegation part of this resolution dealing with turbot as far as it relates to

2J+3KL.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that, in essence, would conclude my remarks

on this particular resolution - that in essence would. Because that is all the

resolution is asking us to do, to support the Government, to speak as one voice

in this House in sending a message that we think there is something wrong with

the 1991 plan vis--vis the 1990 plan, point out what that something is and

having said that, take my seat and sit down.

But I do have a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and in this

debate today there have been some curious statements made by the Member for

Carbonear in particular, but they could have equally been made by his colleague,

the Minister of Fisheries. The Member for Carbonear stands up and wails

eloquently about fish going out of Newfoundland and Labrador to be processed

somewhere else, either in Canada or somewhere else in the world. Now, Mr.

Speaker, let me make the situation absolutely and abundantly clear. There has

been much discussion in this Province over the years, when we were the

government and now since this hon. crowd became the Government, about

Newfoundland jurisdiction in the fishery, that we do not have enough

jurisdiction. The Premier likes to call it more of an administrative management

structure instead of using the word `jurisdiction', because that has other

connotations, he says.

But be that as it may, the one thing, Mr. Speaker, there has

never been any disagreement on in terms of the jurisdiction this Province has,

is that once the nose of the fish is placed on a wharf or a plant in

Newfoundland and Labrador, it is under the jurisdiction of the Province!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: There has never been any question about

that! As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when I was Minister of Fisheries we took

people to court who tried to transfer fish out of Newfoundland through Port aux

Basques to Nova Scotia for processing, and, Mr. Speaker, the courts sided with

us.

MR. SIMMS: Right on.

MR. RIDEOUT: There is legal precedent that the court

sided with us in confiscating the fish, in putting the money, when we sold it to

Newfoundland processors, in trust accounts, and paying off the processor when

the court decision was made. Now where this Minister went wrong on the fish my

friend from Carbonear talks about is that when it went into the fish plant, when

it came on the wharf in Harbour Grace, he should have told whoever it was to

take a flying kite, that he had no intention of letting that fish go out of

Newfoundland and Labrador!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame, shame!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now that is not Bernard Valcourt's

responsibility or Brian Mulroney's responsibility; that is Walter Carter's

responsibility, Mr. Speaker, the Member's colleague!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: And what did his colleague the Minister do?

Wrote or faxed or picked up the phone or something and phoned the Minister in

Ottawa and said, what am I going to do with this 1.7 million pounds of fish that

is out in Harbour Grace?

MR. SIMMS: That is what was said. That is what was said

in the press.

MR. RIDEOUT: I would not call the Minister in Ottawa. The

buck stopped on that Minister's desk, Mr. Speaker, and the jurisdiction has been

upheld by legal precedent in this Province. In fact, I suspect that the

Minister's actions have eroded the legal responsibility of this Province to

ensure when, where and how processing takes place. Mr. Speaker, what about the

seven million pounds of fish that went out of Southern Labrador this year to be

processed in plants in Quebec, and I understand New Brunswick? For the first

time in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, it went out under

authority of a buying permit issued by the Minister. It went out before, Mr.

Speaker, but it was