December

15, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 36

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to inform the

House that government intends to create a Literacy Development Council.

I have directed officials in the Department of Education to

immediately put in place an implementation plan, co-ordinate the drafting of

legislation to establish the Council, and to recommend a subsequent redirection

of the Literacy Policy Office. In the near future I will appoint an interim

chairperson and establish the selection process for the Executive Director of

the Council and members of the Implementation Committee.

The Literacy Policy Office, set up by the government in 1988,

advises the Department of Education on matters pertaining to adult basic

education/literacy and manages the federal/provincial partnership fund for

innovative literacy projects. During the past five years both federal and

provincial public awareness campaigns have been extremely successful in

elevating public interest in all aspects of literacy.

The new global economy and problems in the in the fishery

have also contributed to the rapid growth of literacy programs and services

being demanded in the Province. Many displaced workers have less than minimum

academic qualifications for further education, training, and possibly even

further employment.

In order to address the problem of basic functional literacy

education, a co-ordination group with special responsibilities is required. It

must have a focal thrust towards development and support of institutional

initiatives; government and its agencies, as well as the work place,

community-based and volunteer activities.

The chief function of the Literacy Development Council will

be to substantially increase the literacy rates of the population of

Newfoundland and Labrador, thus making our people better contributing members of

society.

The Council will be charged with two major areas of

responsibility: the operation and maintenance of a Literacy Foundation and

program co-ordination. The co-ordination will reduce the amount of funding and

effort which goes toward administering literacy initiatives and thus place more

resources at the client level. The Foundation will be an incorporated,

non-profit agency created to offset any anticipated increases in the cost of

establishing the Council and the increased provision of programs and services.

The literacy challenge is an enormous one in Newfoundland and requires the

co-ordinated efforts of all stakeholders. The foundation will allow the

contribution of all partners to literacy development.

It is proposed that an executive director and a thirteen

member council, including the Chairperson, be appointed by, and responsible to,

the office of the Minister of Education.

The Council will consist of members of the stakeholder groups

and service delivery agencies and, where possible, be senior officials and high

profile individuals.

Thank you.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the members on this side of the

House are delighted to support the government's decision to create a literacy

development council. The issue of literacy is of paramount importance to the

future of our Province. Many of the studies indicate that this Province has a

prolonged and consistent problem of illiteracy and this fact perhaps more than

any other is a persistent impediment to the workplace opportunities for many of

our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the initiative will need substantive funding

from both the provincial and the federal government, and will need to be

supported, as the minister said, by all sectors of society, by government, by

educational institutions, by private sector employers, unions, and other

agencies, all of which can have a positive impact on the councils mandate. I am

delighted to hear that these initiatives are community based and will access the

tremendous volunteer potential that we have in our Province and located in many

of the communities, who are aware this problem is of greatest need, I guess, or

where the need is greatest.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MS. VERGE: By leave.

MR. HODDER: I am pleased to see the Province restoring

funding to these kind of community based organizations, and I am also pleased to

note that they are placing the emphasis at the client level. This is, I think,

where the proper focus should be, and that they are involving all the

stakeholders upfront and that is the way we would like to have it. The goals are

very basic and very fundamental. The implementation strategies will need

commitment and focus from the government and from all other agencies.

Thank you, very much.

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

have leave to address the House?

No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to inform the hon. members of the House of

Assembly that contract negotiations between the Iron Ore Company of Canada,

Labrador City and the United Steelworkers of America, Locals 5795 and 6731 have

concluded with two tentative agreements that were approved by ratification vote

held by the employees this morning.

These new three year collective agreements are another

example of how parties can work together to reach a consensus, despite

competitive and economic challenges. The negotiations relate to approximately

1225 employees who, with the employer, are committed to continue to work

cooperatively for the benefit of all involved.

The parties are to be commended, Mr. Speaker, on their

commitment to reaching a successful conclusion to their negotiations. I

understand the process extended over a nine month period involving a great deal

of time and effort by everyone involved. The conciliation services of the

Department of Employment and Labour Relations were involved in the process on a

regular basis and I am pleased that these services and the preventive mediation

program of the department are well established and can offer assistance to both

employers and unions in the Province on a continuing basis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to

thank the minister for sending a copy of his statement over to our office prior

to the release here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is good news for the Province and tremendous

news for Western Labrador that both unions in at IOCC have gone through the

collective bargaining process and settled the contract for the next couple of

years which removed a tremendous amount of economic uncertainty in Western

Labrador, Mr. Speaker. But, Mr. Speaker, that should be a lesson to this

government. They did it without legislation. They did it by collective

bargaining.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. A. SNOW: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. TOBIN: A speech like that and no leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to return today

to the topic that I raised yesterday or that was raised yesterday, the

governments new BIS program as it is now affectionately known by some, the Basic

Income Support Program. I say that anybody who takes the time to read this

program would be struck by a number of things in it. One of the things that they

would be struck by would be the statement in there that says, `unemployment

insurance is a disincentive to work.' Now if there was somebody here from

another planet reading that particular document they would be left with the

impression that there are thousands of jobs out there just waiting for workers

who somehow refuse to take those jobs. Of course the fact of the matter is there

are no such jobs. If you just look at the fishery in particular, thousands of

jobs have been lost as a result of the collapse of the stocks over the last

couple of years and the prospect of course is that there will be thousands more

over the next year or two. So no one truly expects we will ever begin to recover

any of those jobs that will be lost before the next century, probably.

I want to ask the Premier, why then, does he and his

government propose to eliminate unemployment insurance for fishermen and, in

effect, for plant workers, to phase out the NCARP and other fisheries

compensation programs over the next five years or so? Do you really believe

there are going to be thousands of jobs out there for all these people, outside

the fishery, just waiting for them to jump onto those jobs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are two substantive

reasons why the government is following or proposing that we follow the course

that was developed by the Economic Recovery Commission. One is that if nothing

else happens, if there is no economic development at all, or no significant

economic development, and we continue along at the same level of economic

activity as has been carried on in the past, one thing is clear: Canada can no

longer afford to fund the system as it has been growing in recent years. So, if

we don't do something positive to deal with that problem, the system is likely

to collapse around our ears and people will be far more severely affected than

anybody who would be affected by this. That is one reason.

There is a second reason. We want to rebuild the economy of

this Province. That is part of our objective. That is why we are carrying out

the policies that have been identified in the Strategic Economic Plan to ensure

that we put in place a first-class structure, a first-class climate in this

Province in terms of regulation, in terms of taxation, in terms of labour

relations and so on, to ensure that we induce the greatest level of economic

activity. What is proposed here will aid in that and will, we hope, help make

this the best place in Canada for investors to invest and, in the process,

create a lot of job opportunities. Those are the two reasons for following this

course.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, remember my question was: Why

does the Premier propose to eliminate the U.I. for fishermen and plant workers?

I am not sure what the answer had to do with the question, nevertheless, we will

read Hansard I guess and see how it figures.

Now, according to the government's own figures used in this

document, fisheries compensation now pays nearly $600 million a year to

unemployed fishermen and plant workers. In fact, it is $586.6 million. Now, the

Premier's program proposes to reduce the total amount of benefits by about $75

million a year for each of the next five years or so, beginning next year in

1994, so that at the end of that period there will be about $150 million in

income paid to unemployed fishermen and plant workers.

So in other words, in a couple of years from now fishermen

and plant workers will get about half of what they are getting now, and in five

years their benefits are going to be reduced to about one-quarter. Now, probably

not even the Reform Party of Canada could have probably come up with such a

vicious nightmare. So, I want to ask the Premier, again: Why is he proposing, in

fact, to change this program so that unemployment insurance and those other

programs, fisheries programs like NCARP - why is he proposing to eliminate that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, we are not proposing to

eliminate that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If the Member for Grand Bank would stop

mumbling, maybe he would hear what somebody else has to say instead of listening

to his own mumbles. As long as he keeps listening to his own mumbles he will

have nothing but a mumbled mind and will keep repeating the kinds of words he is

saying now.

Mr. Speaker, when he is ready to stop I am quite prepared to

answer the question. If not, I will stand here and just rag the puck until he is

prepared to let the House function as it ought.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the objective or policy of the

government to cut out income support or unemployment insurance for fishermen.

The objective that is being followed is to rebuild the economy of this Province

- to rebuild it for fishermen, too -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - so that fishermen can earn an adequate

living and not have to rely on hand-outs from people. This is part of the

overall objective to achieve that.

Now, we do know that in the meantime there may well be need

for a transition. Dr. House talked about the need for a transition yesterday at

the press conference. There may well be a need for a transition to moderate that

effect over a period of time, but that is something that we can develop, in

discussion with the federal government, if the federal government is disposed to

move in this direction. If they are not, we can't implement this on our own. We

have stated that up front.

It is not the Province's policy to cut out income support or

unemployment insurance for fishermen or for others. It is the Province's policy

to develop an adequate level of income support, but so put it in place as not to

cause the adverse consequences on the economy that our present system does

cause.

In that, Mr. Speaker, we believe we share the views of at

least 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the people of this Province. We are

reflecting their views. There have been cries from all over this Province to

deal with the ineffective mess that has been built up over the last fifteen

years or so, and it is a monstrous mess. It created a financial burden that is

shaking this great nation to its foundation because of its inability to cope

with it. Well, we are doing our part and, Mr. Speaker, frankly, I believe we can

boast a little. We are leading the way for the rest of Canada again and giving

them an example to follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. My real fear

is what is happening to this Province, not what is happening to the nation. I'm

concerned with what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. This program that

the Premier is bringing in could devastate rural Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: So I will ask him, just very quickly, if his

objective, as he just said, is to rebuild the economy, to help fishermen and

others, why in the name of heavens would he ask the federal government to cut

compensation by 75 per cent for fishermen and plant workers who have been put

out of work because of the collapse of the fishery, through no fault of their

own? How is that going to help the fishermen and plant workers in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have a fear too, Mr. Speaker, and the

fear that I have is that as able as we are, we may not be able to correct the

mess that the other side created in the seventeen years that they were there!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It is a major fear. Because the problem is

massive, Mr. Speaker. We are trying our best to correct the utter chaos and the

economic mess that they created and put this Province in. We do believe that we

are on the way to addressing this problem. His representation of what is

proposed in this package is totally incorrect. We are not proposing to cut the

fishermen's income or income support by 75 per cent.

MR. SIMMS: It's on page 49 (inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

to continue forever the level of NCARP support that they started in the last few

years. If he thinks that this can be achieved he is dreaming in technicolour and

misleading the fishermen of this Province by saying so.

Mr. Speaker, we've had the honesty and integrity to deal with

it honestly, from a point of view of the fishermen and citizens of this

Province, but also from a point of view of the citizens of this nation who are

paying this bill. We have a responsibility to be honest and fair with them too.

We can't sit in this Province as the former government did for years and moan

and groan and hold out their hand and say; give us more, give us more, give us

more, and demean the people of this Province in this way. We are not prepared to

do that any longer.

We are prepared to take our responsibility as Canadians, and

to ask our fellow Canadians to share with us the responsibility for the burden

that had been placed on fishermen and fish plant workers as a result of actions

that were no fault of theirs - the mismanagement of the fishery by the federal

government over the years. We are prepared to do it, Mr. Speaker, on an honest,

straightforward basis, and not in the expectation that the people of this

Province can sit back and expect the rest of the nation to support them forever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Premier dares

lecture us on honesty and integrity? He likes to think he is full of honesty and

integrity but he has been found out too often on too many issues in this

Province.

A favourite tactic of his is that if he doesn't have an

answer and can't respond he will attack all the critics. Cy Abery is

irresponsible, we are irresponsible, we have concrete mind-sets, on whatever the

issues are. Don't throw that nonsense at us! Answer the questions directly for

the people of this Province. Yes, there have been several questions, but he

hasn't answered them. I will try one more, Mr. Speaker.

In this Province he would know - I would presume he would

know - that because of the nature of the fishing industry, most families engaged

in that industry are in fact families that have two or three workers who are

collecting unemployment insurance and other compensation programs, and each of

those workers is entitled to individual benefits. Under the Premier's program,

under his program, I say, you propose to replace those individual benefits with

a basic family benefit. That is true I'm sure, and he can confirm it. That is a

benefit from that new supplementation program. That will be the same for all

families, regardless of the number of workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never heard of it.

MR. SIMMS: Never heard of it, a member over there says.

I'm not surprised. Even though I've used the fishery as an example, there are

many other industries that the Premier would be aware of where there are two or

three workers involved, construction, forestry or whatever, and they rely on the

combination of UI and so on for their incomes, so it seems to me that that is a

disincentive to work. I want to ask the Premier, what incentive is there in his

program for two or three members of a family to work if their earnings will have

little or no bearing on the income of the family after the program? What

incentive is there for people to get out and work? Won't the real impact on this

program mean that in fact he will be creating single worker families and driving

women and young people and people like that out of the workforce, isn't that

what is going to happen with their program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. It is not the objective

of the program. The objective of the proposal that the ERC has put forward and

that has been approved in principle by the government; the objective of the

proposal that has been put forward and has been approved in principle by this

government, is to ensure that we use the limited resources that the two

governments together have for these purposes. To use those limited resources in

a way that treats people fairly and does not create a situation where some

people, merely because they cannot take advantage of fortuitous circumstances,

will get a level of family support from the public purse with the same level of

personal effort that is $11,000 or $12,000 and some other family gets $50,000

with the same level of effort and the same level of responsibility. That, Mr.

Speaker, is fundamentally unfair and what we have been struggling with for the

last five years is to try and correct the monstrous unfairness that the former

government introduced into the social structure and the economy of this

Province, and we are making slow progress at it. We have corrected it in the

school tax, one classic example where we have corrected it; we have corrected it

in a variety of other areas and, Mr. Speaker, we intend to pursue it.

Now, I believe, in this respect, Mr. Speaker, we have the

wholehearted support of the overwhelming majority of the people of this Province

because they to disagree with unfairness. Nobody likes to have a reduction,

whether you earn $10,000, $50,000, or $100,000 or $500,000, nobody likes to have

a reduction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Nobody likes to have a reduction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Nobody likes to have a reduction, Mr.

Speaker, but, Mr. Speaker, when the money is paid from the public purse, from

the taxpayers, we have an obligation to ensure that everybody is treated fairly

and this is a fundamental principle on which this government has operated and

developed its policy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier may be under the

illusion that the vast majority of people in this Province agree with this

proposal but I can assure him, as time goes by, that opinion will change, if

that is what he thinks. I can tell him that right now because the twelve people

who phoned me at my home last night from all over this Province, are worried to

death about this program. From Burgeo -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: - from Bishop Falls, from Seal Cove, places

all over the Province, are concerned about this program seriously and members

over there can laugh it off including the Premier who just laughed at it.

Now let me ask him this, were any groups or organizations

from outside this Province involved in preparing or assisting in the preparation

of the studies, or in the development of any aspect of the proposed income

supplementation plan? For example, was the Fraser Institute in British Colombia

involved in any way; can he tell us that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, just before I deal with the

question of, were any groups outside the Province involved, let me deal with the

preliminary comments.

I have no doubt that people who would see a reduction in

their income would call the hon. member, they will call me and they will call

other hon. members in this House to express their opinion, and I respect that

and I understand that, but I want to explain to them that the government's

responsibility is to try and act in a way that meets the concerns of all the

people in the Province on a fair and balanced basis. Now that is what the

objective is.

The government has no objective to hurt, specifically, any

one group or any one person. The objective is to deal responsibly with all of

the people of the Province within the limited resources we have. Now, Mr.

Speaker, to deal with the specific question, as to whether or not there were any

groups outside of the Province involved such as, I believe, he mentioned the

Fraser Institute, I do not know what groups, if any, the Economic Recovery

Commission may have consulted. They may very well have but I have no idea. I do

know that Dr. House told me that from time to time he spoke with federal

government officials in relation to this matter as he was developing this

proposal, both from a point of view of getting ideas and to ensure that the

federal government knew the general direction in which we were going, and those,

as far as I know, are the only people outside of the Province that may have been

consulted, but there may well have been the Fraser Institute or there may have

been others, I have no idea.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: I will ask Dr. House, yes.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs who is also responsible for housing. Sir, you know of my

concern earlier the year when we talked about a letter I wrote to the former

Tory minister in Ottawa regarding changes being made to social housing. I have

since written to the new minister and I was wondering if you could today

enlighten the House on the status of federal/provincial agreements regarding

social housing which is suppose to be scheduled to end, as currently agreed, by

the end of this year?

Thank you.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the social housing program in this

Province as well as in every other province across this country is probably one

of the most important economic stimulus as well as providing poor people of the

country with adequate housing. The previous Progressive Conservative government

in Ottawa last spring announced that all funding for social housing programs in

Canada would be cut as of January 1, 1994. That basically means that the RRAP

grants that we are so familiar with in the Province, social housing for low

income earners, apartments for the disabled, native housing, and it goes on and

on, there would be absolutely no work done in that area in this coming year.

Now, with that said the newly elected government in their Red

Book, or Red Paper during the election made comments to the extent that they

would look at reinstating the social housing program in the country. They did

not say at what levels they would reinstate them because they have been

diminishing now for the past three years. With that said, Mr. Speaker, my

counterparts in Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia wrote the newly

elected minister, Mr. Dingwall, and asked him for a meeting as soon as possible

to discuss social housing in our particular jurisdictions, and Mr. Dingwall is

meeting with us in Ottawa or Toronto on January 10. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, the

federal government will find the dollars necessary to reinstate the social

housing program as of January. I suppose, because the meeting is not on until

January, I guess the reinstatement would have to occur after that particular

point in time.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Minister, I do hope you will, in the

meetings in January. As you said social housing and RRAP give an economic

stimulus to this Island and helps low income bracket people caught up in

situations. It also helps seniors. There are cottages, etc., for seniors who are

all caught up in this situation. There are usually 75/25 agreements on monies.

If such an agreement is not reached between the feds and the Province, if the

new minister, Mr. Dingwall, continues in the same vein as his predecessor, Mr.

Dick, and the Province maintains its 25 per cent share, will they continue to

put their 25 per cent into social housing and other aspects to help the people

of this Province? Thank you.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I am surprised that my hon. friend from across

the way would make such derogatory comments about one time friends of his and

his party, like Mr. Dick. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, just maybe, if this country had

been managed better in the last ten years, we would have had some money to put

into a social program in Newfoundland and across this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I appreciated, Mr. Speaker, the fact that Mr.

Dick met with us ministers of housing, last year, and explained to us the

economic situation that this country was in. I, along with a lot of other

ministers and my hon. colleagues across, agreed that this country was in a

terrible financial mess. At that time we asked the then minister, Mr. Dick, to

reinstate at least 1993 levels, which would mean less money going into the

housing programs than in 1989.

I cannot say quite honestly to you, Sir, if we will be able

to maintain our 25 per cent share, but remember this, we have to maintain the

social housing units in this Province today, and each year this government puts

a tremendous amount of money into the social housing units to maintain them, as

does the federal government. In fact, in Canada today, over $2 billion is put

into social housing initiatives to maintain the infrastructure we have. So we

have to maintain what we have and that figure, I believe, Sir, next year will be

around the $200 million mark to maintain what we do have. Now, that money, of

course, comes through Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and not directly from

the Province, but I suppose, in all, it is part of the provincial purse.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: My question today, Mr. Speaker, is for the

hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands. On September 20, 1993, the minister

announced regulations to control the use of all-terrain vehicles, which are

causing damage in the Province. I would like to ask the minister today if she

will table in this House or make available to the general public the studies or

background information that led to these regulations?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: I don't see why I couldn't. I am just trying

to think of - I have a whole bunch of pictures in my handbag here that I carry

with me all around the Province and whip out whenever I am talking to people to

show them the impacts of ATVs. I guess that is still the teacher left in me. I

would be glad to share those with you, table them in the House or whatever. They

show outrageous damage. I will certainly go back and see what documentation is

available in the department. I can't see where it would be inappropriate - it is

an environmental problem that we have had. I don't think it needed mounds of

documentation, you just needed a good eye, but I will, indeed, Mr. Speaker, see

what there is available and be only to glad to share it with the gentleman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mary's -The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Minister. I welcome any

information to back up the recommendations. I am not against the

recommendations, I would just like to have some background.

Under the department's proposal, law enforcement agencies

such as the RCMP, the RNC, wildlife officers, etcetera, will be enforcing the

regulations. In recent discussions with the RCMP and others, I have learned that

they are having major problems enforcing the present laws as they relate to ATV

use in the Province. I ask the minister today does she realistically believe

that these regulations can be enforced, or is this just a public relations game

to show that the department is doing something to quiet the critics?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Indeed, we would not be bringing these

forward, Mr. Speaker, if we did not feel that they could be enforced. It is

absolute nonsense to think anything else. This is an extremely bad environmental

problem, it has to be addressed and this government is committed to addressing

it. We have hired additional staff to work in the Lands division, who will be

dedicated to that particular job and, of course, we will be enforcing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the past few

weeks I have held three information meetings in my district, which have

attracted approximately 200 people, to discuss the ATV regulations. I have

another scheduled for this Thursday night in Mount Carmel.

One major complaint I am receiving from the people at these

meetings - and may I add that every person thus far agrees with some form of

regulations. The major problem, I am hearing, is that once again there seems to

be no consultation with the public and no public input at all into the

regulations.

I want to ask the minister today: Before April 1, 1994, when

these regulations come into effect, would she entertain a suggestion by me that

a committee be structured to go out among the taxpayers of this Province and

allow them the opportunity to voice their concerns and suggestions on these

regulations?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether that is

necessary. We have listened to many, many people, and have had many, many

letters. What we do, as we listen to the people who call us, and as we read the

letters, is, we make note of the concerns that they have.

Now, we are the first Province in Canada to bring in ATV

regulations, and I think that is extremely positive; however, it does mean that

they may not be perfect, so we are only too willing to listen to what people are

saying, and make adjustments where we, in fact, may not have realized negative

or positive impacts on users or on the environment.

Recently, members of my staff spent three hours with Yamaha,

all those dealers who have to do with the selling of ATVs. They came down from

their head offices in Ontario. For three hours we dealt with their concerns.

They had some serious concerns when they came in. I must tell the House, they

went away feeling very positive about our ATV program, and are helping us now to

design appropriate corduroy roads which will make good trails for ATVs.

I don't, at this point, as the member suggested, see a need

for public consultation. I do see a need for public education, and as we make a

note of these questions we are going to be addressing them through a video we

are making, clips for TV advertising, question and answer sections for the

newspaper, and that type of thing.

Anything you get out of your public meetings, questions that

you take down, please pass them along to me and we would be only too pleased to

see how we could deal with those.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

The government's income supplementation program, in its

report, clearly outlines that the need for emergency employment response

programs would be eliminated over time. It says: Should the ISP be implemented,

the need for well-targeted employment programs would continue until the private

sector is strengthened in the Province.

Now I ask the minister - I am not sure which minister I

should ask, because the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations indicated

that he is not responsible for employment; it is the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology. So I ask either one of the two to stand up and respond to the

question: How long does the government feel it would continue emergency

employment programs; and at what date, and based upon what information, do they

feel that the economy would be strengthened to the point where they can

discontinue such programs?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We addressed that issue at the press conference yesterday, as

well. I made it clear to everybody present that this government, in the three

years, counting this year, that we have put in place emergency response

programs, we have indicated, in the introduction of them each time, that we

don't think at all that they are part of the overall solution. They were

developed out of a sense of desperation, to try to meet the needs of the

individuals. Even though the work needed to be done, it hadn't been planned and

would not normally have been done in the year, except to meet the needs of the

people - and not only that, but in meeting those needs, to tailor it into the

current system to make sure that they then, through that bit of work, accessed

an employment stream for the rest of the year.

As soon as this new proposal can be put into place, the need

for that kind of a program for those purposes would disappear immediately, and

as soon as that can happen we would like for it to happen. So, as quickly as we

can move towards implementation of this program, whenever that occurs, on that

date - it is not that job creation efforts of the federal and provincial

government will disappear altogether, but emergency programs designed, as ours

has been in the last three years, will become a redundancy and will not be

needed anymore in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

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

report of the Government Services Legislation Committee respecting Bill No. 49,

"An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act."

The committee recommends that the bill be enacted with -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. member.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the committee recommends that

the bill be enacted with just one amendment, that clause 1 be amended to reduce

the number of days elapsing between the receipt of an application for

certification and the taking of a vote. We recommend that those days be reduced

from ten to five. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

copies of an Order in Council relating to the pre-commitment of funds against

next year. There is a commitment in terms of federal money, the Trans-Canada

Highway agreement, regional trunk roads agreement. This is a pre-commitment for

next year so that early tendering can be carried out.

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 1,116

Pentecostal parents in the Exploits Valley region. There are signatures from

people in places like Botwood, Bishop's Falls, Point of Bay, Northern Arm in the

constituency of the Member for Exploits, the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. There are signatures from people in Badger and Windsor in the

constituency of my dear, dear friend the Member for Windsor - Buchans, the

Minister of Forestry, and signatures in the District of Grand Falls, in the Town

of Grand Falls - Windsor.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now, this will be going in Hansard, I say to

the Minister of Forestry, so he had better be careful what he shouts across the

House.

Mr. Speaker, these are 1,116 parents who see and have a lot

of concern with what the government is proposing to do in its document,

Adjusting the Course . The prayer of the petition says:

`We, the undersigned, are committed to quality education for

the fullest development of our children. We support and wish to retain

Pentecostal schools where academic excellence and the Pentecostal world view are

promoted. We ask you, as our representatives, not to tamper with the educational

rights that we and other classes of persons now hold under the Constitution of

Canada.'

Mr. Speaker, this petition, of course, reflects the views of

a growing number of concerned parents and individuals throughout this Province

who have similar concerns. I present the petition and I support the prayer of

the petition with my signature attached to it. At the same time, I want to take

advantage of the two or three minutes we have to reiterate our party's position,

because there was some question from the Minister of Education yesterday or the

day before. I want to make abundantly clear our party's position which has been

consistent over the last two years, nearly two years ago, when the Williams

Royal Commission report came down.

Our party's position on the issue, basically a two-part

position, has been in effect for a long time. It is in writing and has been sent

to many many people around this Province. That position is that the government

should not act unilaterally to change any of the constitutional rights that

adherents of certain religious denominations have in relation to denominational

schools. We should respect constitutional rights and not change them without the

consent of the people who hold those rights.

The other part of our position says that respect for

constitutional rights and the rights of choice does not mean that there are no

options for administrative and cost improvements to our school system. I say

that specifically for the Minister of Education because he tried to imply - I

guess he was of the opinion - that we didn't support reforms or changes. That is

not true. The Royal Commission, itself, makes many excellent proposals, as a

matter of fact, but a lot of them could be implemented without taking away

constitutional rights.

So, Mr. Speaker, in part, that is basically our position. I

want the minister to be aware of that. I want to assure him that our position

remains the same as it was last spring, it remains the same as it was back in

1992, it remains the same as it was during the last general election campaign.

So if he has any doubts or if there was any confusion in his mind, I want to

clear it up for him absolutely.

I will also point out to the minister, of course, and to the

petitioners that in this House two weeks ago when the private member's

resolution was presented by the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, to support in

principle this government's document, `Adjusting the Course', it was the members

on the Liberal side who supported that and it was the members on this side of

the House who voted against that motion - that resolution, so should there be

any doubt, I am sure there won't be any from now on.

The other thing that some of these petitioners have asked me

to ask the minister, presuming he speaks to this petition, is if he can explain

why his position appears to have changed from statements he made in the House,

March 16th, March 22nd and I believe March 23rd; statements such as: when we

first had discussions with the churches on this, they somehow had come to the

conclusion that government was bent on destroying the denominational education

system of this Province. I don't know how they could have ever reached such a

conclusion, I don't know how. Then he says: we are not in the business of

destroying a denominational education system and replacing it with a public

system; we are not in that business.

So I hope if the minister speaks to this petition, he will be

able to clarify that for those petitioners in this particular petition as well

as those growing number of parents and school children and so on. I will have

other petitions to present in the next day or two as well, Mr. Speaker, from

students in parts of my riding.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very glad to rise today in support of this petition. I

am sure there will be many coming in in the near future, but I would like to

make a few comments on that.

Being a former educator for a few years, a short career in

teaching, I was able in those short few years to teach at various levels. I

taught at the primary level, elementary level, junior high level, high school

level and as a matter of fact, I did teach for a short period at the adult

education level at the Community College in Baie Verte, so as far as being

involved with the education system, I know the concerns, I have heard it

discussed in staff rooms, I have discussed it with teachers during PTAs, I have

been talking to students and the concerns are there.

The one thing that I really want to bring up here today as

far as denominational education goes, is that there is no one with whom I have

talked who disagrees that there are reforms needed and that improvements are

needed; anybody in their right mind would not disagree with that. We are all

aware of that, we are all aware of the problems but in just saying that, just

before going anywhere else, there are also some positive things about our

educational system. I know there are faults and lots of them, and lots of reform

needed, but there have been successes throughout the years in our education

system.

We have had successes, we have had very many people who have

gone through our system who have made good livings for themselves and have risen

to high standards of living through a good educational system, so it is not a

total failure, I say to the minister. In fact there have been some good things

about our education system over the years and I think the minister would agree

with that. I do not think it is so much that we are all looking for reforms and

that people disagree with that, Mr. Speaker, I think the big question here is

the process.

First of all, we talked about how the minister and government

has talked to church leaders over the last months, well even years I guess,

concerning this change that would come to our system, and you know, I had to ask

the question: Have the teachers been involved, have the school board trustees

who were duly elected been involved in this process; how much say have they had?

Have the parents had a say in this and have they had their chance to have their

say, and the answers to all those questions is, no, because they are asking me

now: when are we going to have the chance to have our say on it?

Just recently, on Friday night past as a matter of fact, I

told the minister - there is a bit of irony to the story, but I mean, I was

standing in the school in Middle Arm, at the grand opening of a grand, new

Pentecostal school; standing there opening a school that had many achievements

and whose students and parents and people of the community are very proud of

what they have done there, and they stood there that night just in total

confusion, saying: where do we go from here? That is the question now, after

talking to teachers and parents, who said they never had their say, said this is

coming too quickly, too fast for them. A student said to me: How come we did not

have a say ourselves? I mean, what kind of credence are we giving to our

students, not just the students in the higher grade levels, but what about our

post-secondary students who just went through the system, shouldn't they have a

say? Aren't they the people with the freshest ideas in their minds? I think it

is about time we gave the people who just went through the system a chance to

have a say over the dramatic change that this will bring about, and that is my

whole idea behind this.

Now, as far as education goes, our main goal for everyone, I

am sure, is the better education of our children, so that in future years we

would have a better living, a better society in which to live, if that is the

main reason for the changes in education, I am all for it. If it is for the

betterment of my children, and I have some children who are just about going to

school now, if it is for a better education and a better way of living and a

better way of life for this Province, then I am all for it, 100 per cent, but if

there is an underlying threat here that the main reason for this is economics,

for dollars, then there is a problem with that.

I say to the minister that the suggestion that you involve

more people in this process, and do not take away a constitutional right, we

live in a free country, in a country that is democratic and envied by nations

all over the world.

One of our biggest advantages is that we are in a democracy

which gives you a choice, and do not forget - although I do not remember so

much, because I am not the age of so many of the members across the way here -

during Confederation, there are people who tell me, my grandparents and whoever,

that Newfoundland probably would never have joined Canada unless they had that

right entrenched in the constitution.

MR. SIMMS: That is one of the Terms of Union, Term 17.

MR. SHELLEY: Term 17 says that. Now we are going to take

away that right, that democratic right, by destroying a denominational system

that is enshrined in the constitution, and I think there is a problem with that.

So as long as we remember that unless there is a consensus by these

denominations for a change to that right than we have no right to (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

to this petition which was presented by the Leader of the Opposition from the

Pentecostal people in Central Newfoundland, as well as on behalf of his good

friend, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, and his good friend, the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I started to say this yesterday but my time ran

out. Traditionally when we talked about the wealth of a nation we looked to the

forests, and we looked to the oceans, and we looked to the mines, and we looked

to all our raw materials, and the nation who had gold mines and diamond mines

and iron ore and great fields of timber, and great fields of farmland, these

were the nations that were considered to be wealthy nations; but the nation of

the future will be depending upon the educational level of its people.

Our future as a Province, and our future toward playing an

important role in this nation, is the 120,000 people, the 120,000 children, who

are in our schools of Newfoundland and Labrador today. They are growing up in a

world which is substantially different from the world of their fathers and their

grandfathers, and we have to make sure that if we, as a Province, are going to

take our rightful place in the Dominion of Canada, we have to make sure that

these 120,000 children are exposed to the best possible education system that

they can get anywhere in this world, and that is what those reforms are all

about.

The hon. member is trying to walk on both sides of the fence.

I cannot blame him. I understand where he is coming from. He does it quite

often; but he must admit that our system of education is underachieving. Now

these are facts. We cannot deny that. Test after test after test... Tomorrow

there will be an announcement made by the nation of some tests which were done

in math and science, and I dread for tomorrow to come, when you see where

Newfoundland stands up, where Newfoundland ranks, in comparison to the rest of

the nation. We are not achieving.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot blame that solely on the

denominational system of education. Nobody is. As a matter of fact, our document

says, `restructuring the system' - `restructuring' referring to the

interdenominational system we are talking about. Restructuring is not an end in

itself. That is what the document says. The purpose of restructuring is to

streamline the system, to make it easier to achieve the basic goal of reforming

the system.

Then the principles go on: To provide for church control of

religious education and related matters, guarantee church access to the schools

for this purpose, and to give a church presence on school boards and provincial

bodies.

Mr. Speaker, some members would want to suggest that we are

talking about a public school system. Nothing could be further from the truth. I

have to keep saying it over and over because members do not want to hear it. We

are talking about an interdenominational system. That is why I stand by the

statement that I made in this House on March 16 or 17, whenever the hon. member

says I said it. I talked about not destroying the denominational system. I say

again and again and again, we are not destroying the denominational system. We

are bringing in an interdenominational system, Mr. Speaker, an

interdenominational system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: A system where Protestant and Catholic will

study side by side. A system where Jew and Moslem will study side by side. Where

Pentecostal and Anglican will sit down side by side and study math, philosophy,

geography and religion, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are talking about. That

right will be protected under Term 17, Mr. Speaker, which will stay written in

stone forever as long as the people of Newfoundland want it to stay written in

stone forever. As long as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want it, it will be

there.

So let the hon. member not concern himself by trying to

pretend that we are talking about a public system. In a public system there will

be no provision for the repeating of the Lord's Prayer. In the public system

there will be no provision for pre-communion classes or preparation for the

sacraments. That is not the kind of thing that you will find in a public system

but that is the kind of thing you will find in adjusting the course, Mr.

Speaker, we are talking about an interdenominational system of education. I will

say it over, I will write it out, an interdenominational system. We are not

talking about a public system, Mr. Speaker, and if you want to find the

strongest opponent of a public system in Newfoundland and Labrador, you have to

go no further than right here because no one opposes it more than I. I want

interdenominational.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: I can't help that, I can't help that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has one minute, does he wish

to have the next minute to present his petition before we go to private members

day?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Could I ask leave to get a couple of

minutes, Mr. Speaker? I just want two or three minutes. Would that be okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, no, I just have the one speaker to

this.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave of the House

to encroach on leave?

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

thank all hon. members for allowing me leave to present this petition today on

behalf of 122 people from my district. The prayer of the petition is:

Whereas, health care services, which are a provincial

government responsibility, are below the provincial standard in Labrador as

compared to health care services on the island. Labrador residents are

transported by air, at considerable expense, to health care facilities in St.

Anthony and St. John's for most surgery, specialist care and treatment.

Whereas, Labrador residents have only approximately 250 of

the approximate 800 positions under Grenfell and obviously are not receiving

their fair share of health care tax dollars from government.

Wherefore, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador begin

immediately to develop a regional health care centre for Labrador residents to

be located in Labrador, Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and government appoint a

health care board from amongst Labrador residents separate from the GRHS board.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support wholeheartedly the prayer of

the petition to the effect that we should have a separate health care board for

Labrador. I believe that we should give Labradorians a chance to control their

health care planning by virtue of dealing with the total Labrador cost factors

and certainly the kind of services that we want to see in place. I think, Mr.

Speaker, we have to acknowledge that the people of Labrador are unique and the

cost associated with Labrador right from Nain to Labrador City, Goose Bay or

L'Anse-au-Clair are all unique and I think that for proper planning we should

have our own board to deal with it, Mr. Speaker.

I might also point out that I don't believe that having a

separate board means that we should have a separate regional health care

facility in Goose Bay because I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the

Province and the people of Labrador want to see their tax dollars spent most

effectively. In my view we should be having our arrangements with Quebec, namely

using the facility on the Quebec North Shore and Blanc Sablon a lot more than we

are using it and also getting the agreement with the Province of Quebec to use

the facility in St. Anthony. Mr. Speaker, the people in Labrador West would also

have the opportunity to be able to get some agreement with the Province of

Quebec to make sure that we are getting - the bottom line here, Mr. Speaker, is

that we want to deliver the best health care to the people of Labrador and if

that means having agreements with the Province of Quebec, or if that means

having some things done in Labrador that would be different than in other parts

of the Island then certainly, Mr. Speaker, I think we should do it.

I want to endorse wholeheartedly the prayer of the petition

to that effect and I would hope that the government will give every

consideration to having a separate board to give the people of Labrador a chance

to do the planning for this very, very crucial area of their social policy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: My understanding was that the hon. Member

for Eagle River had leave of the House, and that we would then go to the hon.

Member for LaPoile.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we will grant leave if it comes

out of time from the member opposite just as members on that side make us take

time out of the member here. We are quite prepared to hear the gentleman for

Menihek but the time would come out of the time from an opposition speaker. Fair

is fair, Sir.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, very much, for leave.

I just want to speak in favour of this petition so ably

presented by my colleague for Eagle River. Health care is an important concern

of all the residents of Labrador and I am glad to see that he participated in

presenting this petition. A similar type of petition, a similarly worded

petition, was circulated all across Labrador. I do not know what happened to the

presentation for the North Coast. My understanding was that petitions were

collected on the North Coast, South Coast, and Central Labrador. The other two

have been submitted but one is missing and I do not know what happened to that

one, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the petition and I agree with the hon. member.

The residents of Labrador must have more of a say in the delivery of health

care, and the quality of health care to the residents of Labrador. One of the

ways of doing that, of course, would be to have representation on a Labrador

board. The facility should be located within Labrador. Even coming from Western

Labrador I agree that the government services, if you will, have been mostly

delivered in Central Labrador, in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and that has been

the government service centre since the late 70s. It has worked out well and I

can see Happy Valley - Goose Bay being a logical choice for a hospital care

facility for Labrador.

With regard to the sharing of health care facilities with the

Province of Quebec, we have done this for many, many years, since the mid-70s.

They have been utilizing the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in

Labrador City and it has worked out well. Until just recent years they have had

to improve - and I want the House to recognize this because I do not believe

they are fully aware of it, and it is unfortunate that the Minister of Health is

not here, but for many years there was an agreement with the Province of Quebec

to utilize the hospital in Labrador City, the Captain William Jackman Memorial

Hospital and because of the downgrading, a lot of people suggested, because of

the downgrading in the quality of health care in Western Labrador, because of

the budgetary cutbacks that this government made, Mr. Speaker, the Province of

Quebec had to establish a clinic in Fermont and now our hospital, the Captain

William Jackman Memorial Hospital, does not provide as much service to the

residents of Fermont because it is being delivered in their own town, Mr.

Speaker.

That used to be a revenue generator because of the agreement

between provinces. The Province of Quebec would pay for the patients from Quebec

that would get service. If they got service in our hospital the Province of

Quebec would give money for that to the local hospital, so it was a revenue

generator by delivering this service. Because of budgetary cutbacks, and I want

the Member for Eagle River to recognize this and remember it, because of his

government's budgetary cutbacks the Province of Quebec had to establish their

own health care facilities in Fermont.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. A. SNOW: It is true, Mr. Speaker. You can talk to

people on the hospital board in Western Labrador and they will tell you the same

thing.

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly agree with the prayer of this

petition, and the intent of improving the quality of health care in Labrador.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In terms of dealing with the time -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I understand - if I could have the attention of the two House

Leaders - I would deduct fifteen minutes from the time for the Member for

Lapoile and five minutes from the first speaker on the Opposition side?

AN HON. MEMBER: Five and five.

MR. SPEAKER: Five and five. The only question -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) designate one from five?

MR. SPEAKER: We would have to know which speaker. I'm

advised each took - I have about three to four minutes free, so perhaps four

minutes from each. My question is, which ones? The hon. the Member for LaPoile,

and the hon. the Opposition House Leader, fine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I think you need to designate which speaker

will have the time deducted, is my point.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House. I

offer the time for other matters with no reluctance, although the time for

others and the time for other things is possibly indicative of the situation in

which the people of my district, have suffered beyond that of people in other

areas of the Province.

The fishermen and the plant workers concerned on the

Southwest, the South Coast, and along the Northwest Coast, are, some would say,

the forgotten fishermen and plant workers in the Province. They are of an

opinion - if we look at the resolution as presented here, basically the last

Fisheries Resource Conservation Council report that came out previous to this

one was such that it did not recommend the closure of the Gulf cod fishery. They

stated that it be reduced, but also they did make recommendations that with

further indications of severity of the problems associated with the fishing

stocks that these cod stocks and other stocks would certainly be looked at as

requiring a reduction or even a closure. The Fisheries Resource Conservation

Council has now concluded that this recommendation of drastic quota cuts and

closure in some cases is a necessity.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here today is an issue

of equality. The issue of equality is one where our Province - because our

Province has been divided along the lines of the two districts for the fisheries

management, namely the Gulf region and the region called the Newfoundland

region. The Newfoundland region was created, along with the Gulf region, as

something to be run out of Moncton initially back when the hon. Romeo LeBlanc, a

minister from the Province of New Brunswick, made an effort at that time to

bring forth management for Atlantic Canada fisheries to Moncton.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. RAMSAY: At that time - yes, I'm going to get into

this in a few minutes and we will discuss that in -

MR. TOBIN: It wipes them out! It wipes out U.I. for

fishermen!

MR. RAMSAY: Just give me some time, I will get into that.

Anyway, the other thing I would like to discuss about this is the equality

issue.

Hon. members who have fishermen and plant workers in their

district who have been fortunate enough, I suppose, to be looked after with the

advent of the NCARP and the NCARP package, as it is known - it is a derogatory

term, I would think, for us to call it a package - but for those who have their

constituents who are so affected by the drastic quota reductions and the closure

of the cod fishery in the Northern cod area, those individuals are certainly

drastically affected throughout the rest of the Province. Also, one has to look

at: why did we leave out the people along the Northwest Coast as well as the

Southwest Coast?

Well, it is one in which, I think, the political will was

there. Because the zones had been identified as such with the different regions

of fisheries management, that the Northern cod was an entity in itself, and the

Gulf cod was an entity in itself. To use John Crosbie's statement at the time

about fish swimming, well, fish do swim, of course, and some of the fish are the

same. A lot of them aren't. A lot of them don't travel at all over the boundary

lines that are out there between the two fisheries regions.

Now, what do we look at in the Province, in respect of trying

to address this problem of the region that I represent being left out of the

equation when it comes to fisheries management and income security issues. They

dreamed up a program recently called the TFAA program, the Transitional

Fisheries Adjustment Allowance, which was a make-work scheme. Let there be

nothing said that it was anything other than a make-work scheme for the people

in our area of the Province.

In the meantime, the rest of the people of the Province were

being treated differently, albeit under a somewhat different set of

circumstances, but I think it was a set of circumstances that was dictated by

politics and not by a conscious decision that our people were any different from

the people in the rest of the Province. So a situation has arisen which is an

inequity for the people of the Southwest Coast, and which the hon. the Minister

of Fisheries, the current minister, the hon. Brian Tobin, has stated they will

address.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean, with the situation as we

now see it, and the present fiscal realities, that the current NCARP and future

programs that have to be developed will be able to continue as they are now

constituted. These programs may very well, for fiscal and other reasons, have to

change as people move away from the fishery, as people decide that they are

going to take up other aspects of the fishery, and these are the things that

certainly have to be looked at. When a federal government proves to the people

that its ability to manage the country's finances is such that they are out by

such a high percentage on the federal deficit, when we look at this year's

expenditures being around $44 billion when they were predicting a $35 billion

deficit, one sees the, I suppose, lack of fortitude on their part, and possibly

the reason why they are represented by only two members in the House of Commons.

So that is a case in point that ascribes us to the new

reality of the fiscal situation of the country and what we can do as the people

of this Province to approach that fiscal reality so that we can derive the

maximum benefit for the constituents that we represent.

In my case, I have a group of constituents - namely, fish

plant workers and fishermen - who have been left out. A lot of them at this

point in time have been brought down to the level of welfare. How could one

justify having a fisherman in a circumstance out in Bay Bulls or a fisherman in

a circumstance in the District of St. John's East Extern, how could you justify

them having one set of programs that deal with their situation, and a fisherman

from Rose Blanche on the South Coast in my district having to resort to welfare

for their family for the exact same reason, which was the mismanagement of the

fish stocks?

I know that the hon. members opposite may not argue that, but

one only has to look. Everyone is holding up the document that was released

yesterday. Of course, as an Opposition, well should - they are going to try to

twist this and make it seem that the people who are going to be getting less on

this new program will, of course, exceed the number that will do better. The

fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, possibly, if this kind of program had been

instituted by a government that they were a party to back before we took over,

maybe the situation with one group of fishermen and plant workers along the

Southwest Coast being treated one way, and one group of fishermen and plant

workers along the Northeast Coast and on the Avalon being treated another way,

would be covered off by a proposal such as this, whereby the individuals

concerned would be able to avail of the income security net that they should

certainly have.

Now, I have talked to a number of fish plant workers and

fishermen and as opposed to trying to scare anybody, or whatever - they have

concerns, of course. I took each individual enquiry to my office today. I spoke

to the Economic Recovery Commission, did the calculations and in nine out of ten

calls the individuals would receive more income assistance through this program

than they currently receive. We are not talking about someone on the package -

the package that is received in other areas of this Province where some families

have done very well. Granted, I don't say they shouldn't do very well as a

subsistence amount of income in comparison to what they would receive should

they be cut off completely, as the people in our district were. There are

numbers who have received the TFAA program and are now enjoying a benefit of

roughly $250 to $270 per week.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that enough?

MR. RAMSAY: Well, $250 to $270 per week is certainly not

enough in consideration of the fact that over the last two years a lot of these

people have been driven to welfare, and when a federal government allows that

situation to be created within a single province, then where is the justice in

that kind of situation? I say to you that when you try to balance the variety of

different monies that are coming through from the many different agencies and

benefit programs that are available for the people of this country, and you try

to balance it out in such a way so that you redistribute from those who are able

to utilize the system - it is not their fault that they happen to get ten good

weeks work and then draw U.I. for the rest of the year, but this kind of

program, the income supplementation program would allow these individuals to get

away from the underground economy. There would be a bigger incentive in

comparison to the way it has been for individuals to report income, for them not

to go into the underground economy. In the current situation, we all know, some

people don't want to take income, a little bit of work here and a little bit of

work there, because this said income will fool up their unemployment. I am sure,

as hon. members, you have heard of this. I hear it in my district often: `I

don't want to take a day's work and fool up my unemployment.' That is the kind

of situation that the current system allows to exist in this Province, mainly,

as we know it, and throughout the country. It is a disincentive for people to do

some work unless they are guaranteed that the work is of a certain duration and

of a certain monetary benefit. With the kind of new proposal - and this is the

kind of thing we have out in the district now, we have a little bit of make-work

from the provincial government for those who are not involved in the fishery. In

the fishery we have the TFAA program which is a bit of make-work for now, and

that has subsisted, but still on a scale individuals on the Southwest Coast and

the Northwest Coast have done a lot worse than their counterparts on the said

package.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Hold on now. There will be some private

sector employment. I am very proud of some initiatives we have made that will

work out very well. One of the key areas relates to the fabrication facility

that was built there with help from the federal government and the provincial

government, and that kind of initiative to diversify the economy is one place

where you can get private sector jobs. Currently, individuals from that company

are travelling to Syria - they have been in India, Oslo and Norway, doing a lot

of prospecting and working on potential contracts to employ people in the new

fabrication yard which exists in the location of the former railway. Not only

has my district lost the fishery as far as employment goes, we have suffered

from the problems associated with the containerization of a lot of the freight

traffic that normally came through Marine Atlantic. A lot of that we are getting

back now because of the delivery

schedule being that much better for

truck-driven freight coming through Port aux Basques. Secondly, we lost the

railway where ten years ago there were well over 1,000 people working and now

you currently have, with CN and Marine Atlantic in total, about 150 people

working from our given area. So there has been a huge decrease in employment.

The population has stayed relatively stable. We have lost probably about 500 or

600 people, but with new things going on and new employment being created, you

get some of that. Now, you speak of: Where is the private sector employment

going to come from to support this kind of income security proposal that the

government has proposed?

Mr. Speaker, the need for new private sector employment to

assist this program in working out for the betterment of the people of the

Province is one element and one element only. The underground economy that

currently exists, if you can have people and give them an incentive to report

the income from the underground economy - because if they get to a certain point

and then you say, after receiving twenty weeks' work, it would be more

beneficial to them financially to report a week's work here, a week's work

there, that they do under the table now, a bit of carpentry work which is often

- now these key things, where will we find a lot of this private sector

employment?

The private sector employment is currently ongoing throughout

much of the Province, and this private sector employment will then be reported,

so we have killed two birds with one stone, to use the terminology, because we

now have it reported, so these individuals then have income that they can

utilize for the income supplementation program and, as well, they have income

that down the road could be utilized for future Canada Pension benefits. Should

they become disabled in any way, shape or form, they have a higher income that

is then looked at from a standpoint of the CPP people and, as hon. members well

know, we are the ones who often end up dealing with people who may require

Canada Pension benefits in representing them on appeal, and the variety of

different functions that happen if they are having difficulty with income when

they get to the age of sixty or sixty-five, what have you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. RAMSAY: Just by leave, Mr. Speaker, if I may.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the member have leave?

MR. RAMSAY: Just a minute to clue up my remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, by leave.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to conclude with,

and I would ask for hon. members opposite - I don't think there will be much of

a problem for them to support this motion that we have placed on the Order

Paper, but I do want to put forward to them this. We are talking about a

discrepancy in federal government programs. The federal government has indicated

that they are willing to support this kind of initiative, but we do have to look

at the fiscal reality of the country.

I do say, in conclusion, that we have gotten an endorsement

which is very good, on this new income security proposal. It is an endorsement

from an individual named Patrick Johnston. He is the Executive Director of the

Canadian Council on Social Development, and I would like to quote Mr. Johnston.

He said: `The new incentives would be great, but it is really a moot point if

the jobs aren't there,' and that, again, is what the Opposition are saying and I

give them all due respect for that position. He said: There is a legitimate

question about whether this would just replace one kind of dependency with

another. He does say, though, that it is a concrete and constructive alternative

to the current system.

In looking at the motion that is on the Order Paper, I would

ask hon. members to consider that in light of this new kind of income

supplementation program which certainly would have prevented the people from my

district, and the districts along the West Coast of the Province, from the kind

of baulkanization that has occurred in the Province to this point.

Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat now and hon. members can

respond.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) going next, but you're speaking

next, are you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I would not be surprised if the hon. the Member for Eagle

River will be sitting quietly in his seat, as he has been all day, with his nose

touching his desk, and for good reason, I say to members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I want to have a few words on the resolution put

forward today by the Member for LaPoile. I guess it is quite ironic that we are

here debating this resolution today, calling upon the federal government, in

essence, to implement a fair and equitable compensation package for, I guess,

basically the people in the member's area - the Southwest and Northwest Coasts -

which I have no problem whatsoever supporting. I can support that quite readily.

With regard to the recommendations of the Fisheries Resource

Conservation Council, there is no doubt in my mind that they should be accepted,

that the Gulf cod fishery be closed and quotas for other stocks will be

substantially reduced; of course there is a bit of debate whether or not the

other stocks should only be substantially reduced or if it should be a closure

there as well, so I have no problems supporting the member's resolution

whatsoever, I think it is long overdue. But it is quite ironic, as I read the

resolution, I am looking at just what came down last week from Mr. Cashin,

`Charting a New Course', and the recommendations that he had in his report

dealing with fisherpersons and how he wanted to improve and build some

flexibility into the fishermen's UI system, a system that has been in place for

some thirty years, a little better than thirty years, and I was quite interested

in reading what Mr. Cashin had recommended, because we have all faced over the

years, the problems with fishermen's UI. They cannot get benefits until the

middle of November and then they are expired on the 15th of May, so he has built

some things in here which would make it better for fishermen and as well, he

made a recommendation that would give fishermen incentive to keep fishing rather

than cut off fishing, so I thought that was positive.

MR. RAMSAY: In our area (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know, sure, I know, but then, of

course yesterday, with the making public of this proposal for a new income

supplementation program -

MR. BAKER: A marvellous document.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Finance, if he

thinks that is a marvellous document then he is on a stronger serum than the

Premier is on because it is obvious that the Premier is on some kind of a

strange serum for the last little while because of what he is getting on with a

AN HON. MEMBER: A what sir?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Serum, s - e - r - u - m, a very strong

serum I say to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, something like the serum that comes

up my way, very powerful serum. But, Mr. Speaker, it is quite ironic because

basically, while I sympathize with the people from the South, Southwest Coast,

Northwest Coast and all along the South Coast, the Northeast Coast of the

Province, this document is going to really be devastating to most of them, I say

to the Member for LaPoile, and he shakes his head, no, it's not. It is, I say to

him, it is, it is going to be devastating for the people whom we represent I say

to him, and then I go back to six to eight weeks ago, when we had the now

federal fisheries minister campaigning in the federal election, and the now

re-elected Member of Parliament for Burin - St. Georges, went right along the

South Coast saying: we are second-class citizens, you are being treated like

second-class citizens. The package that Ross Reid has brought in for you is

second-class, it is not as good as the NCARP package and when we get to Ottawa,

we are going to get you the first-class package; that is what he campaigned on.

Now, what has happened since?

I have not heard a whimper from Simmons since. Every word I

have heard from Tobin since, has been backing off. The big question is now, will

the NCARP package now be reduced, brought down to the South and Southwest Coasts

package, or will there be a package at all, I say to the Member for LaPoile?

That is what he should be worried about. Of course when you hear the Premier in

Question Period today, he gave every indication, this Premier, that he has met

with the new Prime Minister, he has met with the new fisheries minister, he has

met with the human resources minister and when I hear the Premier stand in his

place today and say: we know this country cannot afford the level of benefits

being paid under the NCARP package, then how much clearer can it be for the

Member for LaPoile and the members opposite, because we are going to see a

substantial reduction -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not doing it right Bill.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am not doing it right?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am not doing it right?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh. But there is going to be a

substantial reduction in benefits paid to people all around the Province, I say

to the Member for La Poile; substantial reduction in benefits and that is why I

asked him the question when he referred to the people in his own area on the

TFFA Program, of getting $250, $270, I asked him, was it enough? Now there are

those who will argue that it is too much. There are those who would argue that

it should be equal to NCARP; now of course, the fallacy about NCARP, is that

people thing that everybody is getting $406 which they are not.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much are they getting?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is about an average of $300, that is

the NCARP, it averages to about $300 I think, I say to the Member for LaPoile

for the NCARP.

MR. RAMSAY: There is a lot under TFAA who are getting

less than $200.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh I know that. There are some big

problems with TFAA, I have had calls from along the South Coast, I say to the

Member for LaPoile, from more districts than just my own, from people who are a

bit frustrated, people who went out and fished, they really fished. They have

sort of fallen between the cracks because other people got topped up here, there

and somewhere else. Those who weren't as successful, maybe through no fault of

their own, of earnings and income but the real hard working fisherman, in a lot

of cases, has fallen through the cracks of any additional support. So that is a

problem that has not been addressed.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) what a mess.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, good God what a mess, I say to the

Member for Fogo, what a mess.

MR. TULK: Tory mess.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No it is not a Tory mess it is a -

MR. TULK: Oh, yes it is.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well if I confess today, Mr. Speaker,

that it is a Tory mess, if I confess that - if I am willing to confess that it

is a Tory mess, can you imagine what this government now with this and the

Member for Fogo's federal counterparts - what kind of a disaster and devastation

they are going to put on this Province? Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about

it, there were not too many people who said that the NCARP package was a mess, I

will tell you that. There was not too many people who thought that that was a

mess.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was heaven on earth.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not to many. There were people in other

regions of the Province who wanted the equivalent of NCARP, such as in my own

area, they wanted the equivalent of NCARP, I say to the Member for Fogo -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, but with this, Mr. Speaker, with

this - my God, when I read this document, Mr. Speaker, on page 24, when it talks

about the ISP program, it says it is going to revert to being, in short, more

difficult to access with shorter benefit periods, will require twenty weeks of

work, I say to the Member for Fogo, I can count them on my fingers and toes. I

can count them down in my district these days who can get twenty weeks or more

work a year from the shipyard to the fish plants - the mine in St. Lawrence is

closed and so it is all over the Province - top of page 4 - I say to the Member

for Fogo - Mr. Speaker, could you ask the Member for Fogo to be quiet because if

he wants to participate in debate I am sure he can get up after.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just want to say to him, is that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the

Member for Fogo, if that is all you've read - and I am not surprised that is all

you've read - now maybe someone else read that to you. Maybe someone else read

that for you. That would not surprise me that someone else read that paragraph

for him.

But this was dealt with by the Provincial Cabinet in August,

Mr. Speaker, by the Provincial Cabinet in August. They have passed in principle

the elimination of the fishermen's UI system. That is basically what they have

done - since August.

MR. TULK: Your some stunned (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I probably am stunned. I don't profess

to be a genius, I say to the Member for Fogo. I don't profess to be anything

like that. I am pretty honest with myself, I say to the Member for Fogo. I know

my limitations and I know my abilities. I wish some other members in this

Chamber would be like that, Mr. Speaker. I mean it is spelled out for members

here. I don't know why they don't read it and digest it. This is a disaster and

I just want to read it right for the Member for LaPoile again, that I have no

problem whatsoever in supporting his resolution calling for a fair, equitable

compensation package for those people, I support that. Of course I am sure now

with the influence that hon. members have with the new fisheries minister and

their federal cousins now that they will be able to get a package. Of course, I

am not so sure anymore.

I say again, to the Member for LaPoile, because it is his

resolution - really what the Premier is doing here, the Premier is giving his

now federal buddies a way out. He is giving them a way out to do away with all

the programs that are now in place. He is giving them a way out and the question

that has to be asked is: Why is Clyde K. Wells giving his federal buddies a way

out? When for the last four or five years he stood in his place here and ranted

and roared. He has belittled and berated John Crosbie, Mulroney and Campbell

along with other members over there including the Member for Eagle River, a

continuous barrage and criticized everything they did. Now, who is now giving

Prime Minister Chrtian, Brian Tobin, Lloyd Axworthy and all those a way out?

The Premier of this Province and this Cabinet are giving them the way out, Mr.

Speaker, and hon. members should never forget that. I don't know how in the name

of God members are going to be able to defend it. How are they going to be able

to defend it? Can anyone name a fish plant in this Province that will be open

for twenty weeks next year?

AN HON. MEMBER: Port aux Basques.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Port aux Basques. Well, that is great, I

say to the member, that is one. I don't know of another one. I say to the Member

for Fortune - Hermitage, I hope Harbour Breton gets twenty weeks next year, but

they might not. I don't know if Fortune is going to get it. Marystown is down.

All along the South Coast. So where are they going to get the work? So for any

member to think that this document doesn't have implications for the people in

their districts, you had better read it and start doing some research. It is

going to be a very serious situation for all of us.

Poor Danny, I don't know what to say about him. That said it

all. Where was Danny Dumaresque when? Of course the question will be asked

again, where is Danny now on this one? Because they covered it all off - this is

a great letter. I don't know this gentleman but I'm going to phone him. I will

phone the gentleman and tell him what a marvellous job he did. Up to his antics

again. Is there any wonder he doesn't have a Cabinet seat when he is shooting

off at the mouth like a loose cannon? It is unbelievable. Where was Danny this

fall when Walter Noel, a member of the same party, attacked fishermen and fish

plant workers?

MR. DUMARESQUE: He stood alone.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He stood alone. Where was he again on

the matter of the Fisheries Loan Board and its dealing with fishermen, we ask

one Daniel Dumaresque? Conspicuously quiet, Mr. Speaker. Where was he on the

issue of consolidation of processing plants? He has not spoken out against his

government's hands off policy to dealing with the only part of the industry in

which they have complete jurisdiction. One Daniel Dumaresque hasn't spoken a

word, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh my, it is unbelievable. The only one

he has attacked is the unions. The only ones left now for Danny to attack are

the unions. He attacks the unions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Write a book on it, who will search for

Danny?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who will search for Danny? Yes, that is

true, that is a book. Who will search for Danny? I'm sure the hon. member will

have a chance to peruse the document. I'm hoping over the next few weeks he will

have the courage to stand up in his place and tell the people of the Province

what he really thinks of it. I think I know what he thinks of it. Maybe one day

he will tell us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, he doesn't like this very much. I

watched him today in Question Period. Anytime the Member for Eagle River's nose

is down touching his desk you know things are not well with him. The Premier and

the government are doing things he doesn't like, I say. I've observed him over

the years and I think I know him pretty well, almost as well as I know the

Member for Port de Grave, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

All the while I've watched him and observed him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was his nose?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: All I can say is that is an interesting

question, that. For the Member for Port de Grave I would say that the Member for

Eagle River asked where the minister's nose was today. I was about to say to the

hon. member - no, hold on, I have the answer.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) no patronage here!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no patronage. I was going to say, I

don't know where the hon. minister's nose was today, but I happened to run into

him at lunch and I think I know where his nose would have liked to have been.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Members are reading it all wrong,

because when I saw him he was eating a dish of chocolate ice cream.

Anyway, I want to conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and say

to the Member for LaPoile that I support the resolution, no trouble whatsoever.

I just hope that there is a package put in place, an adequate package to deal

with the problem that is so illustrated in his resolution today.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): The hon. the Member for Eagle

River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to rise today

and support the Member for LaPoile and the resolution that he so ably put

forward. I didn't know that it was going to be a Danny Dumaresque day, but I am

happy to have the opportunity to say where I am, where I am going, and so forth,

because it was only just six short months ago that the people of Eagle River

said: We know where Danny Dumaresque is going to be when it comes down to May 3.

When there were fifty Tories in the Province looking for a place to run, not one

Tory would raise their head in the District of Eagle River because they knew

they never had a prayer of ever occupying that seat.

I am telling you, the people of Eagle River knew where I

stood on May 3, and the people of Eagle River know, when the writ comes down

again, where I stand. The Tories have never occupied that seat in this House

since 1949, and they never will occupy that seat!

The people of Eagle River know that when it comes to

protecting their interests, I am there loud and clear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Now I cannot help it if the FFAW is

getting really sore because the editorial board of The Evening Telegram

told them they should not be sending out letters for $250 union dues to the

people of Labrador just before Christmas. I cannot help it if Earle McCurdy

cannot get his jacuzzi to work because he cannot get the $250 from the people in

Black Tickle, Labrador, Mr. Speaker. I cannot help that.

If they are going to go now and give their $750 a week

employees, like they have done in the paper recently, to make sure they got the

words put in there for the editor, sure they could go ahead and do that, but I

can tell the hon. member that there has never been a time when I have shirked my

responsibilities to the people of Eagle River district, and indeed there will

not be a time when I will, and the people on the hon. member's side of the House

will certainly know that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say today that what we are

confronted with is a real challenge in this Province that we have not known

since the depression, and I want to say to the people of this Province, and

members on all sides of this House, that if you are not going to put your

shoulder to the wheel, if you are not going to confront this challenge head-on,

there will be no Newfoundland and Labrador as we know it today. There will be no

rural Newfoundland and Labrador as we know it today if we do not do something

about it, and we are going to challenge it. Yes, we are going to meet that

challenge head-on, and yes we are going to make reforms in different areas, and

there is no area that is more lacking in reform, there is no more area demanding

more accountability to the people than in fisheries management.

We have a situation today where I just got a NAFO circulation

letter dated December 10. December 10 this letter was sent out by NAFO to all of

their parent companies and to all the companies that are on the NAFO

organization, and the people of this Province would be horrified to know that

from January 1 to October 31 of this year there has now been 185 million pounds

of fish - 185 million pounds of fish - taken inside and outside of the 200-mile

limit, turbot, red fish and cod.

As we speak today, when all of our plants are closed down,

and our people are out of work, and we are so desperate to try to have some

security for our communities and for our people, we know right now that we have

15,000 to 20,000 jobs being taken from us as we sit here in the House of

Assembly today. Those are the facts, and the future of the fishery is a very,

very challenging one, and one we have to look at and make some radical changes

in, I submit to this House.

We have made our move for changes in the education system,

and indeed they are substantial, but they are necessary. We have made our

recommendations for a change in the income support programs for our people

because they are necessary. We are not saying that we are all perfect. We are

not saying we have all the answers. We have not said that this is the panacea

for it all, but what we have not done, at this point in time, and the federal

and provincial governments have to do, is to come to the table with their

responsibilities on the fisheries management of this Province, and be prepared

to bargain in good faith, negotiate in good faith, put all the species on the

table, take the power of allocation, take the power of quotas, take the power of

licensing to fishermen and to companies, and to deal that, then, out to the

areas of the Province that so depend on the fishery that brought us here some

400 and some odd years ago.

What we cannot do is do one without the other. We have a

recommendation from the Cashin task force that says we should set up some

industry renewal boards. There is no way in this world that anybody should

participate in an industry renewal board if the only mandate that that renewal

board is given is to be able to pluck a licence from here or from there. That is

exactly what Cashin has recommended. He said that these boards will cease to

function after they have rationalized our harvesting and processing capacity.

That is not right, that is not fair, and that is irresponsible to suggest,

especially coming from a man of Mr. Cashin's stature who is supposed to have an

understanding of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, we have got to do some very big things in the

fishery in this Province in order to be able to maintain our communities as we

know them. So what we have got to do is not unlike what has happened in other

provinces in the Maritimes, in particular Nova Scotia and New Brunswick: we have

to diversify within the fishery. We have to use all species that are adjacent to

our communities and give them the kind of security that they need. Now it can be

done, we know it can be done.

In Labrador we have done that to an extent and we know we

have more work to do, but we know that we can do it. We have seen the

diversification within the fishery and we have seen it occupy the planning of

our communities, in Cartwright and St. Lewis and Mary's Harbour in the crab

fishery, and the scallop fishery in the Labrador Straits and in the Williams

Harbour area. We have seen that work and we have given these communities a real

lifeline, a real good, solid, secure future. We have to do the same thing with

the other species that are out there being taken right now.

We have got to give the federal government time. We have got

to give Brian Tobin, our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, some time. We can't

expect -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: We can't expect, Mr. Speaker.... We came

into office here in 1989 to clean up seventeen years of total mismanagement and

now the Tories over there opposite think that we can do in one hour what it took

nine years for them to destroy!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. TOBIN: Where is Danny? What happened?

MR. HEWLETT: What happened to the real Danny?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: He is alive and well.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, he is not well.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, the members of the

Opposition -

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Rompkey's seat is not cold yet!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - have got to realize that it is no

secret, there has to be a profound strategy, to get at 6 per cent in the polls.

There has to be. You can't do it any other way unless you really plan for it.

One of the things that you really plan for is to show to the

people of the Province that you have a totally irresponsible view of the future,

to show to the people of the Province that you couldn't care less about what

happens to the people. To go out there and tell them now - the people are wiser.

They know that Brian Tobin can't solve every problem in the fishery overnight.

They've only been there four or five weeks, Mr. Speaker. I mean, how in heaven's

name do you think that the people of the Province would be able to demand that

kind of action.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can't be that smart.

MR. DUMARESQUE: They can't be that smart. No, Mr.

Speaker. Obviously they are not prepared to be honest with the people, they are

not prepared to play a constructive role when it comes to meeting the challenges

that we have before us today. There will be substantial difference. I understand

on December 17 now, on Friday, Mr. Tobin will be making an announcement

respecting the compensation program. I am very confident that the program that

he will put in place, the message that he and the government of the day are

sending out there, is that they will be there for the people of this Province

after May 15.

The people in the Gulf, in my area of the Labrador Straits

which is in the Gulf, the 4R area of the Gulf zone, are waiting to hear what is

going to happen on Friday. They are confident. They are confident because now

they have somebody in that department who understands them and who is committed

to them like we have not had before in this Province, I submit. We have had

Newfoundlanders, yes, in the Fisheries portfolio before, but we have never had a

Newfoundlander equal to Brian Tobin in that portfolio, never. History will

record that, Mr. Speaker.

I am very happy to be able here today to support the

resolution that has been put forward by the member because what we have is

something inherently unfair. In some cases, like in the Labrador Straits, in the

community of Red Bay, for instance, we have people on the Gulf and some people

went to Black Tickle and got under the Northern Cod Program and they are being

treated totally different. It is not right. They are both fishermen, they both

grew up in the fishery, they both went out and tried to do what they could, but

just because one never went on the other side of 2J they are now being given

dramatically different compensation programs than the people in the Gulf and

that is wrong. I believe Mr. Tobin will correct that. I believe he will see that

unfairness rectified, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly am encouraging him to do that, but at the same

time we have to realize that we have some formidable challenges facing the

people of this country and the people of this Province, namely in the financial

situation that we have. In the six months before the election the people of this

country were told there would be a deficit of $32 billion and the people were

very, very uneasy about having a deficit of that size. Then on October 26 when

the Liberals went in and looked into the cupboard and found exactly what was

there it was not $32 billion, Mr. Speaker, it was $46 billion. You talk about

spending like drunken sailors. It was absolutely abhorrent the kind of spending

and the kind of flagrant mismanagement they put into the system in Ottawa, so we

do have that very, very difficult situation to deal with. We will definitely

rise to the challenge.

We have provided the leadership in the past in this Province

through this government when it dealt with the other issues of the day and we

will do so when it comes to the fishery, and we will do so when it comes to

income support for our people. The program that we have seen with Mr. Cashin I

think has some very positive elements to it, I might say. I am not here to

totally condemn the Cashin Report. I think there are a number of very, very good

aspects to it. One of the other aspects, apart from the one I already mentioned,

is the fact that Mr. Cashin is recommending that the principle of historic use

be the principle upon which future resources are allocated, and that is wrong.

That is absolutely wrong, Mr. Speaker, because the only future we have, I

submit, in the near future, in the next ten years or so, is for us to access

these other species, this 185 million pounds of red fish, turbot, and cod out on

the Flemish Cap and in 3No.

The only prayer that we have is to be able to access that

fish and be able to bring it back to our adjacent plants. If we have a policy in

place that says: if you did not fish this fish before you will never fish it in

the future, then obviously we cannot have any hope of getting our communities

back and we can never reopen a number of these deep sea plants, Mr. Speaker, we

can never have the kind of security that we want for our people. We have not

fished the 100 million pounds of turbot in 3KNl, so obviously Mr. Cashin is

telling us to forget it, that we are going to abide by the principle of historic

use and because the foreigners have been in there doing it before us, or because

Nova Scotia has been there doing it before us, they are going to continue to

have that access and that will be very, very detrimental to our people.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the people of Eagle River and

the people of Labrador that we are going to have to make some very tough

decisions. We are saying today that the income support programs we have do not

work, and I absolutely agree. One of the first resolutions I put on the floor of

this House of Assembly was back in early 1990 when I submitted to the House that

there needed to be a guaranteed annual income to be able to give the people of

our communities some hope, some security, to be able to work out the problems in

the UI system. What we have before us is certainly the elements of that

particular philosophy and that particular program. We are going to give the

people of Coastal Labrador a guaranteed income if the federal government accepts

our proposal.

We are going to give the people of Labrador the knowledge

that the resources that are adjacent to them are going to be given to them so

that we can make those plants work like they are supposed to work, so we can

have them going for the twenty, twenty-five, thirty weeks, like we are going to

do this year in Williams Harbour with the scallop fishery and as we have done in

the Labrador Straits, but it is not going to be easy and that is why I am saying

that we cannot have one element alone, we must have the other elements working

there and I am not prepared to stand here and support one aspect of it unless we

are given the authority and given the allocations to be able to make the puzzle

work, to fit it together so that our communities know that we are being given

the security and we have been given the tools to plan, that I think is

absolutely essential.

So, Mr. Speaker, I know there is going to be a lot of debate

about the issues that we have raised; I know there is going to be considerable

debate about the income supplement program and the elements of it, and so there

should. I mean, people must ask questions, they must demand answers and they

must get accountability and we will do that. We will go there and meet with

them. I plan on meeting my people in the Labrador Straits and all along the

Labrador Coast in January, to fully outline the proposals that we have and to

hear their views. We want to know the challenges that they see before them and

the problems that they see and the elements of this program that they endorse

and the elements that obviously they dislike.

I am not about to stand here and say that what we have

proposed is absolutely the panacea for the future of this Province or for the

future of the people on the Coast of Labrador. I am not here to say that we have

all the answers, but what I am here to do, and why I am a proud member of this

government, is that at the end of the day, I will be able to go back to my

people and say: we had the political courage to take leadership to act

responsibly, meet the challenges and demand the accountability for the taxpayers

dollars.

That is something we have to do, we just cannot sit back and

wait until the federal government or the economy of the nation dictates that we

are going to have our benefits, our social safety nets stripped away from us

without any kind of recourse, without any kind of reasonable input, so I think

that what we have done is today, with this particular initiative, is continue on

with the kinds of initiatives that we have taken over the past few months and

the past four years to be able to meet the real challenges ahead for the people

of Eagle River district and throughout the Province, and I am very confident

that at the end of the day, the people will say that we sent you there to

provide leadership, we sent you there to give your ideas a chance to work and we

will have faith that you will be able to deliver for us and give us the

accountability that we deserve from our elected members and from a responsible

government.

So I am very happy today to see the Opposition endorse this

particular resolution because we have to get fairness into the program, we have

to get the security there for the people and indeed I know that on Friday, our

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Brian Tobin, will deliver one of the first of

many positive things for the people of this Province when he addresses this

particular issue in Quebec City on Friday.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy today to stand and support the resolution by the

Member for LaPoile, but I am amazed at some of the comments from the other side

of the House. What a flip-flop!

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MANNING: What a flip-flop, especially by the Member

for Eagle River. Oh Daniel Boy, Oh Daniel Boy.

A few months ago all I could hear as I watched this hon.

House, was the condemnation of the federal government, left, right and centre;

and now we have a new government and you asked, now we have a new federal

government and the member for Eagle River says give time. Well, you have fifty

days, as of today, since the election, forty more to go, to take over the Nose

and Tail of the Grand Banks, and I await that day - forty days; ninety days,

forty days left to go - and Newfoundland awaits as well as I await.

He said about 185 million pounds of cod caught inside and

outside the 200-mile limit. I agree this is wrong, but I await for forty more

days. I am like our Lord in the desert. I await to see what happens after forty

days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go up on the mountain.

MR. MANNING: No, I will never get up on the mountain you

are on, Sir.

I talk about the Member for LaPoile, who talked about the

forgotten fishermen and plant workers, and I agree that there are many forgotten

fishermen and plant workers in this Province, but I can guarantee you, Mr.

Speaker, and the Member for LaPoile, that if the government pursues this course

there will be many forgotten fishermen and plant workers in this Province.

The Member for LaPoile noted that if programs such as this

had to be brought in a few years ago we would not stand here today and worry

about a resolution such as this. No, I agree 100 per cent with the Member for

LaPoile. We would not be standing here today if a program like this had been

brought in, because there would be no fishermen and there would be no plant

workers anywhere in Newfoundland. This will replace the NCARP package. I agree.

The starvation package will replace the NCARP package, and that is what that

package is, a starvation package.

It amazes me that a Premier of a province like Newfoundland

and Labrador, the government supporting him on giving the federal Government of

Canada the opportunity to walk away from us, because this is what this program

will do. We are giving them the window of opportunity that they have looked for

to walk away. Instead of standing up and fighting for our rights, we are passing

it right into their hands. I am worried, Mr. Speaker, about what the Bonnie and

Clyde show will do to Newfoundland in the long run.

As far as I am concerned, this is the last nail in the coffin

of the resettlement program. This income supplementation program is the last

nail in the coffin of the 1993 resettlement program of the Wells' Liberal

government, as far as I am concerned.

The Cashin Report, which was endorsed by our Premier just a

few days ago, and he said that it was a good report and he believed the changes

that were coming from it would be good for Newfoundland. Then, a few days after,

he comes in with the income supplementation program. Therefore, it is another

flip-flop.

Somebody mentioned the fact that the new Minister of

Fisheries was a good minister. Well, he has been there fifty days - less than

fifty days since he was sworn in as minister - and I cannot comment on the new

minister as of yet - he is only new - but I can comment on what the former

minister, big John, did for my district, and I can guarantee you that the new

minister will have to have very big shoes to fill if he is to deliver to

Newfoundland and Labrador what the hon. John Crosbie delivered to Newfoundland

and Labrador over his years.

The Member for Eagle River visited my home town during the

election campaign. I remember dropping down to say hello. He did not come up to

my house. I had to go down to say hello. Anyway, he came along St. Bride's and

reiterated with the now Minister of Fisheries about the new Liberal government,

that they would make sure that the NCARP package would stay intact, and that

they -

MR. TOBIN: Say that again for the Member for Eagle River.

MR. MANNING: I remind the Member for Eagle River that he

visited my home town during the election campaign. I welcomed him, and I went

down and said hello. I did not hide. I went down and said hello, and he brought

forward a message that was reiterated a few days later by the hon. Brian Tobin

himself, when he visited my home town of St. Bride's. I went down again to say

hello, and he delivered a message to the people of my community that the NCARP

package would continue, come May - intact, as is. He delivered that on the soil

of St. Bride's, and in fifty days she has whistled around and she has turned

around. Now where are the lies and the deceit that were brought to the people

during the election, I ask, Mr. Speaker.

Now, I ask the Member for Eagle River: Why lead the people

down the garden path? Be truthful in the first place.

We wonder about the future. The member spoke about an

announcement forthcoming from the hon. Brian Tobin in the next few days about

the future of the NCARP package and about the future of the UI system in regard

to fishermen and everything else.

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to wait until December 17, for

the new ministers announcement, we got the announcement yesterday. We got the

announcement yesterday, right here, of what will happen to the UI and what will

happen to the NCARP and what will happen to the fishermen and plant workers of

this Province. We got the answer with the income supplementation program. We got

the resettlement program yesterday all over again.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned and worried about the future of

this Province. I am concerned and worried about the future of St. Mary's - The

Capes. St. Mary's - The Capes, the district I represent, depends 100 per cent

either directly or indirectly on the fishery of this Province - of the fishery

of our area. I worry about what is going to come around from that. I look at a

man now, who has made a decent living and raised his family in a small community

in my district, who will be brought down to his knees, Mr. Speaker, brought to

his knees under this new program. He will be brought to his knees to try to put

food on the table for his family.

Many members of the government opposite live in rural

Newfoundland or represent rural Newfoundland and how they can support this

program amazes me and I have been here only a couple of months. It amazes me how

members, who have been here for years, and understanding the problems of rural

Newfoundland and Labrador can stand and support this program. It is beyond my

understanding, Mr. Speaker. We don't want people treated differently. The basis

for the resolution being brought to the House today is that fishermen in one end

of our Province would not be treated differently than fishermen in the other end

of the Province. I agree wholeheartedly with the resolution - I have no problem

with it. I think every Newfoundlander and every Canadian should be treated alike

but we have to be concerned about the future, Mr. Speaker, and the future is

bleak even without the plans by this provincial government - even without those

plans the future is bleak for our Province as it is.

What we had in the past we understand that it will not be

like that in the future but we have a responsibility as members of the House of

Assembly to the people of this Province. It is not to sell out the people of

this Province, it is not to turn our backs on the people of this Province but it

is to stand up and fight for what is right for the people of this Province. The

only way we can do that is to come up with ideas that will improve the way of

life for the people of this Province and the ideas are not in the income

supplementation program report that was passed to us yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the fishermen and plant workers of this Province

have put their lives on hold over the past couple of years as governments try to

come to grips with the problems that we have faced in the past and the future of

the fishing industry of this Province. I ask the government that they begin a

consultation process with the fishermen and the plant workers because if the

fishermen and the plant workers of this Province had been consulted in years

past - because they knew what the problems were - if they had been consulted in

the years past the fishery would not be in the state that it is in today in this

Province. Wherever the blame is to be laid, lay it. It does not bother me

whether it is federal, provincial or on our own turf, that does not matter.

Wherever I say, Mr. Speaker, the blame is to be laid for what has happened to

this fishery i