March 25,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 13

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

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

public galleries today, Mr. Claude Jones, the Mayor of Jackson's Arm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know if it would be a point of order or not, but

there came to my attention today, a brochure that has been issued by Marine

Atlantic. I have a copy of it here. It shows Labrador as being a part of the

Province of Quebec.

On behalf of all members of this hon. House, I suggest, Sir,

that you write a letter to Marine Atlantic, advising them that Labrador is a

part of the Province of Newfoundland, and asking them to withdraw this brochure

from their publication circulation and have the proper brochure printed.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I want to notify the House that I

have written to the President of Marine Atlantic this morning. We, too, on this

side find it outrageous that anybody in this country could publish something

like that and not recognize the individualism of Newfoundland and Labrador. It

is strange that they would produce that, not reflecting the proper borders of

this Province. It is even more despicable when you see that a Crown corporation

run by the taxpayers of this country doesn't take the time to define the borders

properly.

The government has made its position very clear to the

President of Marine Atlantic. We thank the hon. member for pointing it out, as

well, and we concur with his suggestion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

think the hon. member realized that it is not a point of order, but I think all

hon. members agree as to the procedure that ought to be followed. There is just

one point for clarification of the Chair -the hon. member did ask that the

Speaker take action, the minister said he had done it - just to ask for

clarification for hon. members, whether the House -

Statements by Ministers

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

the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address questions that have arisen

regarding the release of the Hughes Inquiry report. I am making this statement

at this time to avoid confusion and speculation on the issue.

The trials of those charged in relation to events at Mount

Cashel Orphanage in the 1970s are about to come to an end.

The Attorney General is advised that the proceedings against

Mr. Edward French, earlier stayed by the Crown, will not be a cause to delay the

report's release. Mr. French has been convicted, by a jury, of several counts,

but the jury were unable to come to a verdict on the one charge in respect of

which the Stay has now been entered.

That being so, the Attorney General informs me he has asked

the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine if there now exists any legal

impediment to the release of the Hughes Inquiry report. This review will address

any problems posed by the recently announced investigation by the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary into complaints of incidents which allegedly occurred

at Mount Cashel in the 1940s and 1950s.

The Attorney General expects a reply from the Director by 15

April. The Cabinet will then be able to decide when the report is to be made

public.

Although the Hughes Inquiry report was presented to

government nearly a year ago, its circulation has been severely restricted. Only

eight men and women have had access to it. These are the Minister of Social

Services and his predecessor, Mr. Roberts and his predecessors, and three senior

officials.

The report will not be made available to any other members of

Cabinet, nor to any officials, until we have received and dealt with the

Director of Public Prosecution's report. The government will be unable to make

any substantive comment with respect to the report, or to address any of its

recommendations, for some time after the report is released publicly. That will

give us time to read and assess it, and take advice from our officials. We shall

also consult with those affected by the report, and any others with an interest

in the matters touched upon by it.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, we are smoking them out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous that the report

of the Hughes Royal Commission has been withheld from the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador for the ten months that the government has had it, and now, the

government is grasping at straws trying to come up with excuses to keep it from

people even longer.

Mr. Speaker, the CBC Morning Show recently spoke to Mr.

Justice Hughes at his home in Toronto, and Mr. Justice Hughes told the CBC that

if the government doesn't soon implement some of his recommendations, it will be

too late to achieve the desired goals.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Justice Hughes is a retired judge of the

High Court of Ontario. He is well aware of the requirements for a fair criminal

trial. His mandate, the mandate assigned him by this 'real change'

administration, endorsing the mandate originally set by the previous

administration while I was Minister of Justice, called for him to critique the

criminal justice and chid welfare systems, and to make recommendations about

criminal justice and child welfare laws, policies, procedures, personnel and

resources for the future. The mandate called on him to make recommendations

about the police and about the relationship between the police and the

Department of Justice, between the police and the government, recommendations

which perhaps, if implemented, could have avoided the so-called Kelland affair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

I have a question for the President of Treasury Board.

The minister promised on Friday of last week that he would

table documentation concerning Cabinet's decision to overrule decisions of its

officials and to award a $90 million contract to Trans City Holdings, who was

neither the lowest bidder nor the preferred bidder. Will the documents the

minister promised or intends to table, include the assessment done by officials,

who evaluated the bids to determine the preferred bidder, and will the documents

include the much-requested Hanscomb report?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the

summary that is now being put

together will not include copies of Cabinet papers. The hon. gentleman knows

that that is impossible, but it will include recommendations that we have

received with regard to these facilities and I would like to point out to the

hon. gentleman that the numbers he is using are totally incorrect.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will see about

the inaccuracies once we get the information. I have a supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

I would like to refer the minister to the December report of

the Public Tender Exceptions, which shows that government renewed a lease with

the Lundrigan Group of Corner Brook for office space in Corner Brook, and the

renewal is for five years at a cost of $1 million. I ask the minister, why

didn't the government call tenders for this space?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular reason why that

exception is entered into the record; there are a great many exceptions in those

particular volumes. I will look at that particular exception and report back to

the House.

As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, when we tabled those particular

exception reports, exceptions to the Public Tender Act with respect to leased

space were being done incorrectly, even under the previous administration. Since

I became minister, this matter has been corrected, and thirty-seven leases which

should have been reported have been reported. It is not the intention to cover

up any aspect of the exceptions in the report, and I will investigate that

particular matter and provide a full answer to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister tabled the report just a few days ago. It is his

report that he tabled, and he should have familiarised himself with the

exceptions to the Public Tender Act, Mr. Speaker. There is no reason here why

tenders were not invited. That is why I raised the question to the minister. I

say to him that five years is a long period of time and $1 million is a lot of

money to be just giving out without calling public tenders. Most lease renewals

are for one or two years. I ask the minister, is it not a fact that officials in

his department recommended that there not be a five-year extension, but that the

decision of his officials were overturned by Cabinet?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, those

allegations are completely unfounded.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Social Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago the minister

sought an additional $12 million for social assistance, bringing the total vote

for social assistance up to $153.3 million for the year, which is an increase of

nearly 50 per cent since the government was elected three years ago. Now, that

we are close to the end of the fiscal year, could he give us the present

caseload?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the present caseload is in the

vicinity of 28,000. In total, that would involve some 63,000 persons, give or

take a few, but certainly the caseload, itself is around the 28,000 mark.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port, on a

supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, with figures like that and with

our calculations, will the $12 million supplementary supply cover the additional

costs he has to meet this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: The extra $12 million is to cover the

existing situation up-to-date and the current fiscal year. I assume the hon.

member is asking about the future and the next fiscal year, and I would

anticipate that the caseload that we presently have will continue to be expanded

and increase and no doubt we will need extra dollars to accommodate that

increase.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, when the Government took office

the social assistance caseload was under 20,000. The Minister now admits that it

is over 28,000. In view of the cutbacks and restraints in hiring in the public

service, is the Department adequately staffed with qualified social workers to

deal professionally with the vastly increased caseload?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are presently planning

to make sure that our professional staff, which comprises some 70 to 75 per cent

of our staff - of the 1,100 staff some 70 to 75 per cent are professional people

- that we can do everything possible to help them with the increasing caseload

that they have. We have just announced computerization of the - just awarded a

tender for computerization of all fifty-seven of our district offices. That no

doubt will help us with the work load for the social workers and the other staff

in these offices. So we are doing everything possible to assist our professional

people and other staff with the caseload that they have to handle.

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

au Port.

MR. HODDER: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, from the Minister's

answer he does not intend to do anything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: But, Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell me

what his Department projects the caseload to be for the year 1992-1993? Could he

tell us, over and above computers and professional staff, which means that no

new social workers will be hired, what will he need to deal with the welfare

caseload, which I might point out now involves nearly 5 per cent of the

population of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as we all know it is very

difficult, if not impossible, to predict the future as far as the impact of the

economy, of the times that we live in, the very difficult economic times that we

are presently in, as to how the caseloads in Social Services will increase or

not in the future.

All I can say is we are monitoring it closely throughout the

Province - all regions of the Province, all fifty-two district offices, and the

five regional offices. We are constantly in touch with them. We are trying to

monitor the situation, looking at the economy in all the regions that we are

responsible for. No question. If the economy continues to worsen, if we see more

people displaced from the workforce and on the unemployment rolls and,

ultimately, clients of social service, we will have a difficult problem to deal

with. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that we are working with it constantly, in

contact with our district offices on a daily basis, and doing everything we can

to see that our professional and other staff are provided with the kind of

support services that are needed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: I want to follow up on the questions to the

Minister of Social Services with some questions to the Minister responsible for

Employment and Labour Relations in this Province.

The Minister of Social Services has just confirmed that the

caseload for social services has escalated dramatically. The Minister is

obviously aware that many of these people are able-bodied recipients who have

been unable to find work and have had to resort to social assistance.

Let me ask the Minister this: Why hasn't the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations presenting a plan to deal with this employment

crisis in the light of the fact that the Minister of Social Services just said

that he expected this would expand and increase in the months ahead? Why hasn't

the Minister presented a plan to deal with this crisis?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just before addressing the question so that the hon. Member

for Fogo does not misunderstand what my colleague said, he said, 'Should it be

that the economy were to continue to worsen and those things were to occur, then

there would obviously be an expectation that the caseloads might increase, if

that happens.'

At the present time both the Provincial Department of

Employment and Labour Relations in co-operation with federal officials from the

Canada Employment and Immigration Services are assessing the magnitude of the

difficulty that we have, and officials from both levels of government are trying

to develop, as accurately as possible, a statistical base to determine the scope

of the problem that we expect to have to deal with in the next few months.

We, as we demonstrated last year, tend to try to plan any

interventions that Government actually gets involved with in terms of assisting

people, whether it be through social assistance or whether it be through

employment opportunities. We are in the process of trying to identify the scope

and magnitude of the problem presently, and also have some fairly well-founded

predictions for the short-term future. When we have that information - the

people are already working on possible plans that could see governments at both

levels intervene with employment opportunities. But it's certainly too early,

Mr. Speaker, at this time for ourselves or the Federal Government to make any

announcements as to what we will do on the employment side.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, with a caseload of 28,000 I

don't know how it can be too early.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, while short-term jobs are not

the solution to our economic woes, presently there seems to be no other

solution.

Let me ask the Minister this, then. Has he determined the

cost to the Government of having these people collect social assistance as

opposed to putting them to work in meaningful, short-term make-work projects

similar to the ones you had last fall? Has the Minister determined the cost of

establishing these programs as opposed to taking the same people and making them

rely on social assistance?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. We do not have

definitive numbers as to the current situation. That kind of analysis was done

before we engaged in the emergency employment response program of last fall. It

shows that in certain circumstances and with certain categories, by putting the

people to work there can actually be a cost benefit as opposed to leaving them

as social assistance clients and recipients. That is part of the assessment that

is being done right now as to if money is directed from the different employment

pools - whether it be Employment and Labour Relations or in Social Services -

that we tend to try to use these monies in a combined fashion. That in fact

there can probably be savings and more cost effectiveness by using some of the

money to employ people in job development and job creation programs rather than

just leave them as clients of Social Services. That is all part of the

consideration that is ongoing right now for implementation at some future date.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In three years this

administration has failed to address the serious unemployment situation in the

Province. In fact, a former Minister of Labour and Employment said when we

questioned her on an employment strategy: they will just have to go on welfare.

Why has the Government adopted this attitude towards the

people of this Province? Why hasn't the increase in the social assistance

caseload from 24,000 to 28,000 - and 68,000 people now - convinced the Minister

of an immediate need for action today - not next month or two months time?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. We have been

looking at this closely as the hon. Member opposite indicates ever since the

Government, this group, took office. We have recognised fully that there is a

need in the Province for economic revitalisation so that people can work instead

of having to depend on any branch of government for assistance. That has not

been occurring in the current recessionary time. This Government, of and by

itself, cannot turn around the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador with its own

efforts. We showed last fall, for the first time, even though we have resisted,

and as the hon. Member opposite indicated in his

preamble, that short-term job

creation is not the answer. It is not the solution to the problem.

But we have recognised, and we indicated last fall, that we

are willing to participate in that, knowing the difficulty of the times. When

our assessment of the current situation is complete we will participate again in

a meaningful fashion with the Federal Government, when the situation dictates

that it is appropriate and proper to do so.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, some two years ago -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, some two years ago Project Haven

approved funding for the construction of a transition house for the Burin

Peninsula that was requested by the Burin Peninsula Committee Against Family

Violence. That time the Government refused to fund the operation of that home. I

am wondering, my question to the Minister would be: will Government this coming

year be prepared to fund the operations of such a home if the capital funding is

provided?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, obviously the question pertains

to an item that would or would not be included in the Budget and we would have

to wait for the Budget to be tabled tomorrow.

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

- Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to refer

everything to the Budget. I just want to ask the Minister once again: is

Government committed, does this Government have any commitment, to the Burin

Peninsula, in terms of supporting and financing a transition home?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Government's commitment, in

all areas, in all divisions of my Department and other departments is there if

the program is worthy of having support. I would say that we have the same

commitment for the Burin Peninsula as we do for all other areas of the Province.

We have to await the Budget to see whether or not this item is included.

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

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

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Back in December of 1990 the former

minister announced the new municipal operating grant structure saying at the

time that the existing system was most inequitable as monies paid through the

grant structure were paid on a formula basis having no regard for equalization

or need.

Would the Minister now explain to the House how the new

system is most equitable to municipalities, and explain to the House how it is

that you are sort of fixing up and straightening up all the disparities with

regards to municipalities in the Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The new grant system

and the new debt retirement system that was introduced last year is being met

with (inaudible) as all of us in this time of restraint and great difficulty,

and we are hoping that the weaknesses, if there are any in this particular new

system, are going to be addressed in co-operation with the municipal

administrators and the Federation of Municipalities, who have asked for

consultation in this regard. We are now reviewing the entire process, and at the

end of May if there are errors and if the system is not working the way it was

intended to, it will be addressed and reviewed.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: In view of the fact that municipalities in

the Province have to submit balanced budgets, and in view of the fact that

because of the new municipal operating grant structure and creating further

downloading on the municipalities in the Province, what action will the Minister

take when a municipality in the Province submits a deficit budget? Would he

dismiss the council and put in a commission, or would he accept a deficit

budget?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If a budget is

submitted to the Department with a deficit, there are mechanisms in place now,

Mr. Speaker, to address such situations. One is a consultation, and we have had

this year, to my knowledge anyway, a number of budgets that have been submitted

with deficits, and we have gone back to the drawing board and things have worked

out generally well with the councils concerned. There are other councils that

have encountered many difficulties. There is no denying that as the hon. Member

is well aware. There is also a mechanism in that to deal with operating deficits

where deficits can be addressed over a period of time, and increase taxation in

time, and hopefully a revisit to the operating grants can deplete the deficits

over a period of time. There are mechanisms in the act already to deal with

this.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, municipalities have been savaged by the

reduction in the road component of the municipal operating grants. Does the

Minister have any plans in particular to address this particular component of

the MOG program?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I guess any plan or any

formulas that are introduced have to be tried, and through trial and error, I

guess, to learn what the mistakes are. They are revisited and reviewed. I was

one who was with the municipalities for twenty years. I was used to having

formulas and grant systems reviewed, and I would like to carry on that way in

this particular portfolio and revisit items that are not working, if in fact

they are not working and try and re-address them.

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

MR. WOODFORD: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister, Mr. Speaker, has sort of admitted here this

evening that the new MOG system is not working. In view of the fact that the

former minister became known as Eric the Amalgamator, would the Minister now

take the opportunity to become known as Billy the Terminator and do away with

this MOG structure that is most unfair to municipalities in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, I will probably go down in history, Mr.

Speaker, as Billy the Kid, number two.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture. As the Minister will know, a former Liberal candidate for Humber

West I believe, Mr. Scott Simmons, was given a $56,000 a year appointment with

the Agricultural Products Marketing Board some time since they were elected. In

March of 1991 Mr. Simmons resigned that position. I wonder would the Minister

explain to the House why Mr. Simmons resigned that position in March of 1991?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance Mr.

Simmons did not necessarily resign. As the Member should know, it was an

appointment at the discretion of the Minister for a time specific. The

appointment of the Agricultural Products Marketing Board, including Mr. Simmons

who was Chairman, expired in March of 1990, I presume, or whatever the date was.

In the meantime, the real reason Mr. Simmons was prepared to

retire - or resign as he puts it - is that the hon. Member is right. We were

paying something in the vicinity in excess of $59,000 for the Chairman of the

Agricultural Products Marketing Board, a position that was filled before I came

along, by the ex-member - the ex-Tory member for Bonavista North, and later by

the ex-executive assistant for the then Minister of Mines and Energy - one Mr.

Leo Barry. Now, Mr. Speaker, it was a vacancy - it was a position that was being

used for obvious reasons.

I was not in the office as Minister very long before I

realized that there was not enough work - there may well not be enough work -

for a full-time Chairman of the Agricultural Products Marketing Board. Mr.

Simmons was not in the office very long because he wanted to feel that the money

he was being paid he was delivering good value for. He was not there very long

before we realized that the best way to go - and we looked at it and spent a

long time talking to Treasury Board - would be by eliminating the position as a

full-time chairman, and appointing the chairman as a member of the board on a

per diem basis, with nothing less, I would guess, than at least a 50 per cent

savings on that particular office to the Newfoundland Government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

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

March of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Retired.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He retired, I mean, in March of 1991. The

appointment came due on June 30, 1991, in case the Minister is not aware what is

going on in his Department. So Mr. Simmons did retire, and he had planned to

retire from active life.

Will the Minister confirm now that Mr. Simmons, some two or

three months ago, was re-appointed as Chairman of the Agricultural Products

Marketing Board?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: He is. You will confirm that he has been

re-appointed as Chairman, not for the $56,000 a year that he previously was

receiving - an average that would work out to about $220 a day had he kept

working - but would you confirm that he is re-appointed for a more lucrative

contract of $350 a day plus expenses?

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted!

AN HON. MEMBER: Way to go!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: I am delighted to confirm that, Mr. Speaker.

I am also delighted to confirm that he has been appointed on a per diem basis at

$350 a day. I would point out that if he only works ten days, it will only cost

the Province $3,500. If Mr. Simmons, in his capacity as Chairman of the Board,

sits for 100 days it will only cost the Province $35,000 approximately, with no

fringe benefits attached like the previous board was getting, other than

expenses. Yes, I confirm that, Mr. Speaker, and I would anticipate - and will

report to the House when the time comes - that Mr. Simmons will cost us probably

less than 50 per cent of what the Tory appointments cost us over the years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

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

A final supplementary to the Minister. That appointment was

costing around $35,000 to $40,000 when we were there, just in case the Minister

is not sure. You raised it $16,000 already.

It is a poorly kept secret that Mr. Simmons has semi-retired.

He is living in Florida for a good part of the year and now he is on a per diem

basis plus expenses. Is it the Minister's plan, in case of any emergency

meetings required by the Agricultural Products Marketing Board, to pay Mr.

Simmons' way back and forth from Florida while he is serving on this board, Mr.

Speaker? Or is it the Minister's plan to wait, and let the agricultural industry

wait, until Mr. Simmons comes back from his days in Florida to have the meetings

and delay whatever is necessary in the agricultural industry?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I could take that question under

advisement and when I table the answer also table the agenda of the previous

Chairmen of the Agricultural Marketing Board over the years.

Mr. Speaker, my information - and I know it for a fact - is

that Mr. Simmons, over the past few days I think, has been representing the

Province at what are very important meetings regarding some aspect of

agriculture in Ottawa. So, if Mr. Simmons is in Florida, Mr. Speaker, he is

earning no per diem. No, we are not paying any travel costs one way or the other

or picking up any costs that don't directly relate to Mr. Simmons'

responsibilities as Chairman of the Agricultural Marketing Board, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride, on a

supplementary.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that Mr. Simmons flew

from Florida to Ottawa to attend that meeting? And isn't the real reason why he

was put on per diem so that he could live in Florida for part of the year and

wouldn't have to spend his whole time in the office?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker. The real reason he was

appointed wasn't so he could go to Florida. I can confirm one thing, Mr.

Speaker, that Mr. Simmons is in Ottawa. Now, there are three ways you can get to

Ottawa from Florida, you can fly, you can drive or you can hitchhike. I presume

Mr. Simmons did not hitchhike and I presume he did not drive, Mr. Speaker. So,

yes, I would presume that Mr. Simmons flew to Ottawa from Florida for the

meeting. At this point in time, that is all I know.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation about the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway in the Humber

Valley between Corner Brook and Deer Lake. The Federal Government has committed

funding for the entire cost of the project over the next few years. I would like

to ask the Minister if he and the Government will make a

schedule for the entire

project and let people know what

section of the work will be done each year

until the entire corridor has been four-laned. I ask the Minister to do this so

that the people effected will know what to expect, in particular so that the

people who know that they will have to sell or part with their properties will

know when that will be required.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon. Member is referring to

the TCH portion of the Roads for Rail Agreement, which includes these various

projects with respect to the four-laning of the road. Now, whether it is the

provincial program or whether it is this particular program, the same procedure

is followed, which is that roads are ranked in priority and the highest priority

roads are done at any given time.

Now, I assume that this is under the Roads for Rail

Agreement, the TCH portion of that. The hon. Member asks: Why isn't there a

schedule? I would ask the hon. Member, when the Federal Government drew up this

agreement with the Province, with the previous administration - anyway, the

agreement runs from 1991 to 2003, the projects are listed, but the Federal

Government, when they negotiated the agreement and put in the money, never

insisted on a

schedule being drawn up, and they seem quite satisfied with the

process that -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) now. There is nothing (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to make a

schedule because priorities change year by year. A piece of road which may be in

a moderate condition this year may be in a terrible condition next year. To tie

the Government's hands in that way would be a violation of our commitment to do

these projects on a priority basis. And, Mr. Speaker, no, we will not tie our

hands to do these projects on a fixed schedule. We have to do them on the basis

of need, and needs shift from year to year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before proceeding to the next item of routine business, on

behalf of hon. members, the Chair welcomes to the public galleries, council

representation from Wabush in the persons of His Worship, Mayor Bill Kelly, the

Deputy Mayor, Mr. Mike Cole and the Town Manager, Mr. Ed Kent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

the following resolution:

WHEREAS under Sub-section 4 (1) of the Auditor General Act,

The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall, under the Great Seal of the Province,

appoint a qualified auditor to be the Auditor General of Newfoundland; and

WHEREAS The Lieutenant-Governor in Council has been pleased

to appoint Mrs. Elizabeth Marshall, C.A. to the position of Auditor General of

Newfoundland, effective April 1, 1992; and

WHEREAS under Sub-section 4 (2) of the Auditor General Act,

the person appointed to the position of Auditor General must be confirmed in

office by resolution of this hon. House of Assembly;

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House of Assembly confirm the

appointment of Mrs. Elizabeth Marshall, C.A. to the position of Auditor General

of Newfoundland, effective April 1, 1992; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that to ensure public confidence in

the independence of the Office of the Auditor General, and to ensure compliance

with the rules of professional conduct of the Institute of Chartered Accountants

of Newfoundland, requiring a member to hold himself or herself free of any

influence, interest or relationship which, in the view of an objective viewer

would impair the member's professional judgement or objectivity, the auditing or

examining of the records of a department of government relating to a period

during which the Auditor General held an executive position in that department,

shall be carried out by an independent firm of chartered accountants, appointed

as an agent by the Auditor General, under

Section 28 of the Auditor General Act,

and the report of the agent shall be tabled without amendment, in this hon.

House, together with the Auditor General's annual report.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the hon.

the Member for Harbour Main asked some questions about a conversation that I was

supposed to have had with the President of the Newfoundland Psychiatric

Association, and I undertook to pursue that because, as you can appreciate, I

get a lot of things going through my desk and I cannot remember all the

conversations I have had, so I wasn't sure if I had a memory lapse or not.

So, I have gone back and have had officials from the

Department of Health get in touch with the President of the Newfoundland

Psychiatric Association, and it has been verified that no such discussion ever

took place, and furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Newfoundland

Psychiatric Association said he would consider it very unethical to discuss with

a Minister of Health, a specific case which would come under his care. So, Mr.

Speaker, I believe if the hon. the Member for Harbour Main were in this House

today, he would be on his feet and would apologise to the President of the

Newfoundland Psychiatric Association.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should apologise. The Leader will

apologise.

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, also, the hon. member asked

for some details about a specific case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask hon. members, please, for order. We are in Answers to

Questions for which Notice has been Given, and I ask the hon. the minister to

please proceed with the answer to the question, and do it as quickly as

possible.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know under what order

the minister is doing this, because there was no notice yesterday, he didn't

take the question under notice that he would give answers. I mean, we have

checked Hansard. So I really think the minister is abusing the rules of the

House.

MR. SIMMS: He has a statement to make. It is under

Statements.

MR. MATTHEWS: He has a statement to make.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, do it under Statements.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: He didn't give us information, all he did was

attack us.

MR. DECKER: It is a cover-up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: It is not a cover-up, Mr. Speaker. If

anyone should be apologizing today, it should be the minister, after hearing the

father of the patient on the radio this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health, on a point

of order.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the member accused me

of discussing a specific case with the President of the Newfoundland Psychiatric

Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

MR. DECKER: I explained in Question Period that I could

not remember such a conversation taking place. I undertook to get that

information for the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. I am doing that today, and if hon.

members don't want that information, they are trying to cover up the truth.

MR. SIMMS: Do it under Statements by Ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A couple of times, members have run into problems in this

area of Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given. I want to tell

hon. members that, obviously, the Chair is not in a position to know whether the

hon. member gave notice or not. In this hon. House we have an obligation to

believe hon. members that such was said. The Chair will have to check. If the

minister says he did give notice, the Chair will undertake to find out from

Hansard whether or not notice was given, in which case we will have to hold the

minister responsible, or anybody else. The minister has said that he has given

notice and, at this point, we can only believe the minister and ask him to

continue with his question as briefly as possible.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, furthermore, I undertook to get

the details of this case for the hon. the Member for Harbour Main, if he wants

the truth. The hon. member talked about a specific case in Grand Falls, and the

intention I had was to get the details of this case, Mr. Speaker. If hon.

members now want to hear them, I will bring them forward.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister, please, to proceed to the answer

as quickly as possible. The same rules apply in Answers to Questions for which

Notice has been Given as in Oral Questions. The hon. member's question should be

brief, and if we were in Question Period I would also urge the hon. the minister

to get to the answer and be as brief as possible, please.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Department of Health was contacted late last week

concerning a teenage patient from Central Newfoundland who was waiting for

assessment at the Janeway Child Centre for a mental problem. Now, Mr. Speaker,

there is a policy in the Department of Health where we try to protect the

confidentiality of patients who phone in. There is a policy that those

discussions be confined, whenever possible, to medical people within the

department, so the issue was not discussed, specifically, with me. Officials in

the department, medical people, dealt directly with the Janeway.

The child had, indeed, been a patient at the Central

Newfoundland Regional Health Centre earlier in the winter on the paediatric ward

and then the psychiatric ward at the hospital. The patient was re-admitted to

the paediatric ward at the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Centre again

last week, this week past. The patient has been receiving care at the Central

Newfoundland Regional Health Centre from one of the staff psychiatrists, as well

as psychologists, social workers and nurses. The Central Newfoundland Regional

Health Centre -

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

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: We do want to hear, but we want to hear it

under the rules and conditions of this House, Mr. Speaker, that we all have to

abide by, and that should go for the hon. the Minister of Health, as well.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Opposition House Leader,

raised, in the point of order, a very valid point as it relates to the minister

not giving notice in this House, Your Honour. He didn't follow the rules of this

House. The Speaker, has given instruction to the Minister of Health, stating

that he must be brief, the same as in Question Period. The minister constantly

and consistently ignores the Speaker's ruling. I believe, Mr. Speaker, he should

be asked to clue-up.

MR. SIMMS: Table the answer, boy. Table it, if it's a

lengthy thing, that's all you have to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at least twice that I have been able to find

during the exchange yesterday, the minister indicated he would check into

something for the member because he could not, at that time, answer the

question. So I understand that is indicating that as soon as the answer is

available he will give it to the hon. member.

This is a very delicate matter, an extremely delicate matter.

Members opposite have now got into the habit of picking specific cases,

exaggerating them, making false statements about them -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

MR. BAKER: - and when we have a chance to check into it,

Mr. Speaker, now they don't want us to give the answer to indicate how false the

question was, and the incorrect statements that were made in this House. They

don't want to give us a chance to do it. Well, that's okay, Mr. Speaker, there

are other ways to deal with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, what the member says begs the

point. it doesn't make any difference. A member in the Opposition asks a

question and the minister answers it. Now, yesterday, the minister was asked a

number of questions from this side and he answered a number of times. Not one

time did he say: I will take it under advisement. Now, if the minister can get

up, and in the middle of a statement, say: Oh, I will give him the information

later, then he should give the information later. But we cannot rebut here so

the minister should have done it in Statements by Ministers.

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

The Chair has heard enough submissions on this. The Chair can

only again say there is no -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. members that when the Speaker stands to

make a ruling, there are not supposed to be comments from anywhere.

I am ruling that there is no point of order.

Again, I remind hon. members that, with respect to our

precedents in this House, on Answers to Questions for which Notice has been

Given, members have generally been given the same latitude - ministers,

particularly, because it is they who respond - as we do in the Oral Question

period. There is, obviously, no length of time that one can put on it, other

than for the Speaker to determine whether or not the question has been answered

and whether or not the particular minister is stalling or getting into

provocative matters.

With respect to whether notice has been given, the Chair will

have to check that out. I think, as hon. members know, the Chair doesn't check

Hansard every day to see whether notice has been given, but that rests with the

hon. the minister. The responsibility also rests with the member making the

charge, that he must know that notice wasn't given, inasmuch as the minister

also says that it was given. So it is shared equally on both sides. But the

Chair will check it out.

It is now 3:00 p.m. The Chair must call the Private Member's

resolution for today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

I haven't recognised the Opposition Leader yet because the

Chair is calling for order.

The Leader of the Opposition has stood on a point of order

and we will recognise him.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

We have no problem with the minister providing the information. That is not the

point of the argument at all. As a matter of fact, I say to the hon. minister,

we would be prepared to give leave to revert to Statements by Ministers and let

him make it under Statements by Ministers and we have a chance to respond to it,

which is the appropriate way, because it is a lengthy response. That is the only

point we are making. Answer to Questions must be brief. So if you want to revert

to Statements by Ministers, do so, and then we will give a response.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind hon. members that it is 3:00 p.m.

MR. SIMMS: I agree. By leave, whatever (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: If hon. members want to revert - the Chair

has called for the appropriate Order of the Day because it is 3:00 p.m., but

with the consent of the House then, of course, we can do what we want. Do hon.

members want to revert to Statements by Ministers? Is that the ruling of the

House?

I gather that the Government House Leader says no and I

cannot do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It is Private Member's Day and the

resolution is one presented by the Member for Trinity North. I ask the Member

for Trinity North to please present his resolution.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognised the hon. the Member for Trinity

North. We have now gone past the previous matter and we ask all hon. members,

please, to extend the appropriate courtesy to the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, I am pleased to stand today to expand and

elaborate on my Private Member's resolution, put forth because of what I see as

a crisis in the fishery in this Province. Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure

to visit my district these days and to stand on a street corner in Catalina or

to sit in a living room in Melrose and discuss the dilemma, the crisis, that we

face in the fishery in this Province. These are people on the Bonavista

Peninsula who have relied on the fishery for a living for a long, long time, and

working in the fishery or the in the fish plant in Port Union, Mr. Speaker, has

not been employment of last resort. It is not the ten/forty-two fishery that

some people would make it out to be.

Working in the plant in Port Union is a full-time, year

'round economic means to raise a family in a rural setting. It is full-time,

year 'round employment in the harvesting and the processing of groundfish. That

is the choice of life-style that the people in those communities accepted.

Never, in my forty-three years, have I seem such a level of worry, anguish or

dismay at what is happening to the traditional way of life on the Bonavista

Peninsula, the traditional means of supporting a rural life-style.

The people I have spoken to feel they are victims of

circumstance and they are powerless to act. Their fate is sealed by forces and

actions and decisions that are outside their sphere of influence. These workers

cannot fathom what their short and long-term futures hold. They are totally

disillusioned, Mr. Speaker.

Now, we have had downtime before in the fishery on the

Bonavista Peninsula, but it has been caused by environmental conditions, ice

conditions or water temperatures. We have even had good years where in short

periods of time the trawlers have gone out and caught their quota. But the

people in the industry knew that in a couple of months that plant would open

again and they would resume their employment.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I introduced this resolution on March 9 and

I had hoped that it would have been debated before today. We did have ample

opportunity, I think. On March 11, we had a Private Members' Day, and again on

March 18, but I am sure the 1200 unemployed plant workers and trawlermen in

Trinity and Bonavista Bay and the 600 unemployed workers in Arnold's Cove or the

1000 or so unemployed workers around the rest of this Province will forgive us

because we were debating more pressing issues.

There is another issue on which I want to touch. The Member

for Burin - Placentia West asked across the floor the other day if I agreed that

the plant in Catalina should be closed. As a lesson in Geography, the plant is

not in Catalina. It is in Port Union. I guess the question that he was asking

was: do I agree with the quota cuts, the quota reductions, that were put in

place by the Federal Government? I guess that is the question.

MR. TOBIN: Do you support what the Premier said? That is

(inaudible).

MR. OLDFORD: Obviously if the fish is not there, the fish

won't be caught, so the quota does not mean a lot. It is a paper quota.

Did the Federal Government make the right decision? Leslie

Harris will tell you they did. Aiden Maloney will tell us that they did. There

are fish plant workers in my district who say that the Federal Government had no

choice. There are trawlermen in my district who say that under the conditions

that exist today, the Federal Government had no choice. They had to look at the

long-term interests of the fishery in this Province versus the short-term

interests.

When you look at figures that tell you that the spawning

biomass, the spawning potential, in northern cod had dropped from 270,000 metric

tons down to 130,000 metric tons, or that there was a 40 per cent reduction in

the biomass of three years and older fish, then I agree that the Federal

Government had no choice. But because of the quota reductions, the directed cod

fishery in this Province has been basically closed down - eliminated - until at

least June of this year, and Fishery Products International will be fishing

under a by-catch agreement.

The cut in quotas to Fishery Products alone will mean a cut

in their production, or in their raw material supply, of between 10,000 and

15,000 metric tons - 20 million to 30 million pounds of fish. That will mean a

twenty to thirty week reduction in production in the fish plant in my district

in Port Union. That is twenty to thirty weeks of lost income for 1,200 fish

plant workers and trawlermen. The plant has a capacity to process a million

pounds of fish a week. I am told by Fishery Products that other plants on the

South Coast and Ramea will have problems this year. Even the plant in Gaultois,

the people in Gaultois might not get ten weeks of work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Ramea.

MR. OLDFORD: So the directed cod fishery has been

eliminated, and there is no longer any room for the Federal Government to

manoeuvre. The major problem is the lack of fish, which has brought about the

cuts in quotas; but there is a second problem, and that is the size of the fish

that is being caught. When you take -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member (inaudible) question.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member, in his

presentation (inaudible) and all that, but I am sure he would want it struck

from the record that he said that Gaultois may not get ten weeks. I think he is

probably talking about Ramea, because Gaultois is now ...

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. It was

Ramea - not Gaultois.

The size of the fish that is being caught is another problem.

It is uneconomical to process fish - codfish - that weigh one pound. It is

obvious, and it is proper to conclude that the northern cod stock in 2J+3KL is

at a point of extinction. I feel, and I agree with some other people who have

made statements on this, that it can only be protected by the actions taken by

the Federal Government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the decline in the fish stock did not

happen overnight. One of the problems we have is that the total management of

the fishery, the harvesting capacity, is under the control of the Federal

Government, but the Federal Government has had to deal with variables too. They

deal with a science that is not ideal when it comes to setting quotas. We have

had some negative environmental impacts and variables. We have ice conditions,

moving stocks, and fish, I suppose, are like human beings, they move to seek out

ideal environmental conditions, more ideal conditions in which to live or in

which to feed.

The real problem has been that the margin of error that the

Federal Government and the scientists have been using has been too small. Their

tolerance for error, their tolerance for mistakes never favoured conservation,

and the Federal Government had too many other outside influences, which I call

diplomatic influences. They had to consider what would cuts do, and how would

they affect international trade relations. How would it affect wheat sales to

Russia if there was a cut in the Russian quota, or how would it affect the sale

of manufactured goods to European countries or countries around the Pacific Rim

if we were to cut quotas to Spain, Portugal, Germany or to Japan? How would it

affect Brian Mulroney's stand or his seat at the francophone summit if we were

to cut French quotas? What would the French say?

This crisis, Mr. Speaker, has been brewing for some time. I

remember Brian Peckford when he stood one time with is coat off and his tie all

askew, and he made a very astute observation and a very emotional plea when he

said: they sold the shop. He was referring to actions taken by the Federal

Government. So it is quite obvious that conserving global trade relations took

precedent over conserving fish stocks for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

A fisherman down in Melrose made a very cute comment to me

the other day, a very cute observation. He said: Our problem is that we have

bureaucrats in Ottawa and we have politicians in Ottawa who reminds me of

kippers, my son. You know what a kipper is like, he is two faced with no guts.

That is the perception out there, that we have had gutless managers of the

resource, and that has lead us to the dilemma and the crisis that we face today,

and that is why this Province called on the Federal Government to put in place a

joint management regime, a Newfoundland/Canada management board. But the Federal

Government has insisted on a board that consists of the four Maritime Provinces,

Newfoundland and Quebec. The key goals of joint management laid out in this

document put out by the Provincial Government were to improve industry

efficiency and stability by integrating key policy responsibilities and making

decisions closer to the local level, to more effectively integrate economic and

social priorities with major fisheries management decisions, and thirdly, to

establish an open, predictable and accessible fisheries management process. That

type of management regime was recommended by the Harris Review Panel, and by the

Mahoney Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OLDFORD: Because I have been thinking about this, and

we can picture a scenario. What will happen when you have these six groups

sitting down - six jurisdictions sitting down talking about the fishery. We

could have a problem. Maybe there are ticks on the underbellies of lobsters or

crabs off the coast of PEI, and something like that would take precedence over

maybe a total collapse of the fishery in this Province and that is why we have

advocated a Newfoundland/Canada management board, one that recognizes our

historic right to fish the groundfish resource on the Continental Shelf in

Newfoundland waters, one that recognizes our historic right to conserve

groundfish stocks on the Continental Shelf in the long-term interest of the

people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, my resolution is similar to one brought forward

on November 13 last by my hon. colleague the Member for Port de Grave. I was

interested in a couple of comments that came out of that debate. One was by the

Member for Grand Bank who talked about the fact that some of the problems in the

fishery in this Province have been caused, or created, by our own fishermen and

our own fishing industry. Maybe he would elaborate on that if he gets up to

speak today.

He also talked about the need to put the foreigners outside

the 200 mile limit and then that resource could be utilized by our Newfoundland

and Labrador fishermen and fish companies. It is my personal view, Mr. Speaker,

that the Member for Grand Bank is correct in that statement, correct to a point.

These countries that fish inside the 200-mile limit are fishing what we call

underutilized species but they do have by-catch arrangements with the Federal

Government, by-catches of northern cod have been allowed and I wonder sometimes

if the reporting of these by-catches is really accurate, because northern cod do

not understand that the nets the foreigners are using are meant for turbot, for

redfish, or they are meant for silver hake, and I think we need to take a second

look at these arrangements. Maybe the time has come to send out collector boats

to take back the by-catch for use in plants here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We say they are underutilized species because no market exists. Well, my

question is: why are the foreigners coming over 2000 miles to fish within the

200-mile limit if no markets exist? In my opinion it is a catch-22 situation. As

long as the foreigners are supplying the market then there will be no market for

our Newfoundland fishermen and plant workers.

Mr. Speaker, my first twenty minutes are just about up. In

the next twenty minutes I will take a look at what the Federal Government can do

in the short-term and long-term to make atones to the people of this Province

who stand to be economically devastated by the Federal Government's management

decisions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to take a few minutes to respond to the hon. Member's

resolution. He spoke in a very reasonable and civil manner on a very serious

problem that is facing our Province. In his resolution he is calling upon,

mainly the Federal Government, to take certain actions and to recognize certain

responsibilities, and so on, but the thing that is continuously absent from

members opposite, regardless of whenever they rise in this Legislature to debate

a private member's resolution, they totally ignore that they are the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador, they are the Government closest to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government first responsible for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, but all they ever do is throw their arms in the air,

blame it on someone else, and say, there is nothing we can do.

Now, that is the record of this Government, Mr. Speaker, and

the people out and about this Province have very quickly come to recognize that

they are a do-nothing Government, particularly when it comes to the fishery,

particularly when it comes to the fishery. We have a Minister of Fisheries who

is not here today, but I am sure he is on Government business, and the biggest

thing he has done is move his offices from the west block to what was Exon House

and it cost him $2 or $3 million to do it. That is the most we have seen from

the Minister of Fisheries for this Province to date. He went to the Seafood

Show, that is fair enough, he should probably be up there with the industry

people, but there are far more important things which a Minister of Fishery

should be involved with in this Province today.

Now, the first

WHEREAS of the member's resolution:

WHEREAS

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are suffering because of recent cuts to the

total allowable catch of northern Cod made by the Federal Government: yes, he is

correct, and of course he referred to the people in his own area, the Port Union

- Catalina plant that is under a great cloud of uncertainty. I have two plants

in my own region, one in my district of Fortune, which, even though they are

still working are under a great cloud of uncertainty. It was only within the

last year or so we saw the fish plant in Grand Bank go down the tubes because of

what has happened to the fishery and right now, it looks like they may have a

new opportunity with a new fishery for Newfoundland and Labrador which we hope

is successful. But things are going well so far with that situation with the

scallops and hopefully soon with (inaudible) plants, so I know what uncertainty

the Member is talking about.

I know what the people in his area of the Province are going

through, the same as those in mine, there is no doubt - and the Member goes on

to talk about I guess to a degree, he questions what choice did we have? I want

to say to the Member, that if the Federal Government had accepted the

recommendation of his Government, of his Minister of Fisheries and his Premier,

then the situation would have been more drastic. Now there are those who will

argue that the cut should have been more significant, that it should have been

100,000 tons as opposed to 120,000, but I say to the Member, that he should

realize and keep in his mind, that his Minister of Fisheries and his Premier,

recommended to the Federal Minister that the total allowable catch be set at

100,000 metric tons, which would no doubt, if the Federal Minister had accepted

that, we would have more plants in this Province shut down; more people thrown

out of work, more trawlers tied up, so the Federal Minister was in a very

difficult situation. He knew that we had to come down on the side of

conservation, but at the same time he tried I guess, to exercise compassion, to

realize that the situation in Newfoundland was bad, that what it was going to do

was going to make it much worse and he still tried to keep people in his mind

when he made his decision, Mr. Speaker. So I say to the hon. Member, if he had

accepted his Government's recommendation the situation would have been worse.

There is no doubt that the Federal Government has

responsibility for the management of our fish stocks and must take consequences

for its decisions. No one in his right mind can argue that, this Province must

have more say over our most important industry and I hope we are successful in

accomplishing that, I really do -

MR. NOEL: If we get a Triple E Senate (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Don't be silly!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I cannot wait for the

morning when I wake up and hear the news that we have a Triple E Senate. How all

the people in Catalina will be back processing fish; how all the people in Grand

Bank will be processing fish and Marystown and Gaultois and Trepassey and they

will all be processing fish because we wake up some morning with the Triple E

Senate. How wonderful it will be, I say to the hon. Member. What balderdash, Mr.

Speaker, a Triple E Senate, for the love of God, Mr. Speaker -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Pleasantville, to restrain himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good ruling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: How do I proposed getting it, Mr. Speaker?

I propose that I hope we are going in the right direction with our fishery. I

hope we can keep Newfoundland body and soul together while we get through this

crisis, that we get some economic activity in this Province and how much of that

we get I say to the Member for Pleasantville, whether he wants to realize it or

not, will be totally dependent upon the success of our fishery, how much our

stocks rebuild, how much fish is caught by our fishermen and brought to

Newfoundland and Labrador to be processed. Everything else is only secondary I

say to the Member, only secondary.

The only other thing would be secondary processing - A Triple

E Senate, my God, Mr. Speaker, if only Newfoundlanders and Labradorians could

eat the Triple E Senate and the Constitution, we would not have people in

Catalina laid off today. When will you come to your senses, for the love of God?

But I know why you are like it, because you hear it day in and day out from your

leader, who feels more comfortable talking about the Constitution and Triple E

Senate and everything else than he does talking about the fishery in

Newfoundland and Labrador. It is only in the last three weeks that he has opened

his mouth about the fishery. And do you know why that is? Because he knows now

that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians realize how serious the fishery situation

is in this Province. So what choice does he have only to be a Johnny Come

Lately? What choice does he have? It's the Members in his own caucus and members

of the union who have embarrassed him into getting involved in the situation, I

say to the Member for Pleasantville.

MR. NOEL: How do you propose we get more say in Ottawa?

MR. PARSONS: We had it, boy, in Meech Lake, only for you

were so stupid.

MR. MATTHEWS: How do I propose we get more say?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Give him the flick, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, you could carry that argument

down to the levels of the provincial political system. How do I propose that the

Burin Peninsula get more say in the running of the Provincial Government? Create

six seats on the Burin Peninsula?

MR. NOEL: Then they would have more say.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, and then you will have thirty-six in

St. John's, so the difference will be just as great, I say to the Member. What

are you talking about, for God's sake? Talk about something that means something

to this Province?

MR. NOEL: What could mean more than to have more say

(inaudible)?

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

I remind the hon. Member for Pleasantville that if he wishes

to interject and to ask a question, he must stand on a point of order and only

then if the hon. the Member for Grand Bank accedes to that can he do it.

Otherwise, he must abide by the Standing Orders that there be no interjection

while any hon. member is addressing this House.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, foreign overfishing: The Federal Government, as

the Member says in his resolution, has recognized the affects it has, and it

says in the resolution it is partly responsible for the depletion of fish

stocks. It is certainly a significant reason, a significant part of the problem,

foreign overfishing which has to be addressed, Mr. Speaker. It has to be

addressed.

The demonstration that is taking place on Sunday will draw

attention from the media people that they have from around the world. I am

hoping that the word will get out and about Europe as to just how serious this

situation is. Of course, that is why those journalists are here, so that

hopefully they will take the proper message back home and those people who are

out there overfishing will realize just what damage they are doing. But that

will not be enough. The demonstration on the Grand Banks by the members of the

union and the companies will not be enough.

There is only going to be one thing, in my mind, that is

going to bring this to a head, Mr. Speaker, and that is for the Government of

Canada to have a Federal Government sponsored activity of putting Canadian

sponsored boats in the area where the Europeans are overfishing. We can talk, we

can go out and raise flags, which I support, drop anchors and get all the media

you want, which is good for the process, but there is only one thing that is

the financial resources, to put a Canadian presence out in that area. Everything

else will be for naught. It will raise the attention of the Europeans and the

media and so on, but it will not get the desired results unless the Government

of Canada, the only ones who can afford it, put the sponsored presence out

there.

Remember what happened in Iceland. We commend them for it.

But it was their coast guard, it was Government sponsored boats that fought the

cod wars of Iceland. It was not a group of fishermen getting together or the

union getting together, it was Government sponsored, and that is what we have to

have in this case.

MR. NOEL: What is your plan for making Ottawa do it?

MR. MATTHEWS: Go up and tell the Prime Minister to do it,

I say to the Member.

MR. NOEL: I have told him 1000 times.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, go up and tell him again.

MR. NOEL: Wouldn't it be better to have some real power

in Ottawa that you could use?

MR. MATTHEWS: Like what, I say, unless we get a Prime

Minister who is a Newfoundlander who understands and cares about the fishery,

let me say to the Member, we need, not one who talks about the fishery because

he has to because of pressure, but rather talk about things a little more aloof.

That is the only way, Mr. Speaker.

I wish the Member for Pleasantville would get realistic about

the real world, Mr. Speaker, not keep dreaming these wild dreams, because that

is what he is doing, dreaming these wild dreams.

Mr. Speaker, talking about diversification, which is an

important part of the Member for Trinity North's resolution, there is no doubt

there is need for diversification, efforts and so on to try and get

diversification. As I have said a number of times before in this Legislature,

Mr. Speaker, with rural Newfoundland and Labrador, any time you come up with a

means to diversify a town's economy it always comes back to the fishery. It will

always come back to the fishery. We know there are gold mines, coal mines,

forests resources in most rural Newfoundland communities, but any time you sit

down and try to plan how we can diversify the economy of our community, it all

comes back to the fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, empty minds. And I say to the Member

for Pleasantville that it is inappropriate now to call the minister who sits

down in the corner the Minister of Mines because there are no longer mines open

in this Province. The minister of mine, not mines, I say to him. But

Newfoundland and Labrador rural communities that are going to diversify are

going to diversify around the fishery. So if you have not got the resource, how

do you diversify?

AN HON. MEMBER: They are not going to (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Not going to diversify.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not to the extent necessary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Not to the extent necessary, okay. In order

to diversify you have to have a product that allows you to diversify. Not only

must you be willing to diversify, you must have a product for which to diversify

from. Most Newfoundland rural communities do not have it, I say to the Member.

They do not have it, if they do not make their living from the sea. That is the

reason they are there. That is why they went there and settled. Where else are

they going to get something to diversify? I could recommend a few more salt meat

factories, Mr. Speaker, on the list that his Government sent up a couple of

years ago to the Federal Government when the crisis was on. Salt meat plants.

How many salt meat plants do you think we could keep going in the Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: They will not recommend them to diversify

(inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the last:

BE IT RESOLVED that

the House of Assembly call on the Federal Government to take immediate action to

prevent foreign overfishing off our coast. I totally support that, and I hope

all this pressure by the Member for Port de Grave by the Fishermen's Union, by

the Premier, by everyone else, members of the Opposition, the Leader of the

Opposition that the Federal Government takes action pretty quickly to stop the

foreign overfishing off our coast. If they don't, I do not know what is going to

happen to Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not know what is going to happen to

us.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well I cannot go up and take him by the

scruff of the neck and take him over to Europe or take him out to the Grand

Banks. I cannot do that. I don't get close enough for him to do that, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well how long is that going to take? By

that time, I say to the Member for Pleasantville, we will all be residing on the

mainland. We will all be up in Nova Scotia, Ontario or Quebec. There will not be

a country left. If he pursues what he is going on with, Mr. Speaker, and some

others opposite including the Premier there will not be a country to go up to.

We will not have to worry about Canada sending the boats out on the Grand Banks

to stop foreign overfishing because we will not have a country to send a boat

out there, I say to him. That is part of the problem that we are into now, that

there is so much uncertainty created by his Premier and people like himself

about the unity in this country that we cannot get the proper attention from the

Prime Minister and others because they are trying to keep the country together.

And poor little Newfoundland depends solely on the fishery. Which is only 1 per

cent of the gross national product of Canada and doesn't mean shag all to them.

That is the problem, I say to the Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I did not say that, Mr. Speaker. I am

interested in giving Newfoundland and Labrador what it wants, and that is a

solid fishery, a good fishery. That is what we need more than anything else.

Everything else will come with it. A good solid fishery is what we need most in

this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your preoccupied with Quebec,

(inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to mention, Mr. Speaker, in the few

minutes I have left, about the Member's call for a response program that

includes measures to help affected individuals, and again encourage economic

diversification in the affected communities to ensure their long-term viability.

Mr. Speaker, I can support a response program, but I want to

say to the Member for Trinity North, and I hope he can hear me, when you talk

about a response program to address the needs and diversify, I want to say to

him that I strongly support the Federal Government being involved in a response

and a diversification program. But his Government, he as a member of the

Provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador must convince his Premier,

his Minister of Fisheries, his President of Treasury Board, his Minister of

Finance that his Government must come to the party. It is the people of

represents all the people of Canada. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

represents only the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we are going to have

a response program that is going to come anywhere close to getting us through

this crisis, I say to the Member for Trinity North and others opposite, that

this Provincial Government must participate financially in a response program -

must.

MR. NOEL: Higher taxes (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member - to say he exasperates me

is an understatement, because we heard him here in the amalgamation debate

ranting and roaring, and going on and making nonsensical statements. He made

just as much sense as he is making here today. He doesn't know - he knew more

about amalgamation than he knows about the fishery for sure, and that was not

much. That was not much, I say to him.

MR. NOEL: What do you believe in?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Put a tax burden on the City of St.

John's. That is all - a tax burden.

MR. MATTHEWS: I believe in Newfoundland and Labrador, I

say to the Member. I believe in Newfoundland and Labrador - Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: And the sooner we can revitalize our

fishery and get Newfoundlanders and Labradorians harvesting it; getting better

catches; providing more jobs on shore - either in primary or secondary

processing - the lesser number of times that we will have to stand in this

Legislature and listen to the kind of a Budget Speech that we are going to have

to listen to tomorrow, because then the bottom line of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador - the financial situation for Newfoundland and

Labrador - will be much better.

I have heard comments coming from the Premier up to two years

ago saying that he did not want to have any more say over the fishery because if

we had more say, what would we do with it? We could not afford it. He said that

up on the eleventh floor of the old Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes he did.

MR. MATTHEWS: Up on the floor of the old Legislature, and

I said to him at the time, we cannot afford not to have more say over our

fishery.

MR. NOEL: We have always wanted more say.

MR. MATTHEWS: No you didn't.

MR. NOEL: Not more responsibilities, but more to say.

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, more say!

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) more say in management.

MR. MATTHEWS: We are all having more say on a daily

basis.

It is an important resolution, I say to the Member for

Trinity North. It is an important resolution, similar to the one that I think

the Member for Port de Grave had last fall; a similar debate to what we had here

a week or two ago on the emergency debate. It is because, if there is one topic

and one item that deserves the attention of this Legislature, it is the

Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) do not want to do anything

about it.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, that is why I am standing up here

today, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to do anything about it. I do not want

to see it get better. I want to see it get worse. I want to see communities

close down and all have to move to the mainland where there are no longer any

more jobs. I tell you what I really want. I wait for that beautiful morning when

the Newfoundland fishery no longer means anything to us, and we have those ten,

twelve or fifteen Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that are up -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - members of the Triple E Senate. I can go

down in Fortune with my wife and my family, cock up my feet and say, we got her

knocked. We got the Triple E Senate. We don't have to worry any more; cheques

rolling in - everything wonderful.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, in concluding I want to go on

record to commend the Member for Trinity North for putting forward this

important resolution. I enjoyed his speech, and I look forward to other members

following through on the debate and taking it a little more seriously than the

Member for Pleasantville - taking it a little more seriously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to try to take the next approximately twenty minutes -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I would even like to have an hour and a

half to try to speak on this resolution, to pass my brief comments - the little

bit of knowledge that I have about the fishery in Newfoundland and what it means

- and I agree with my hon. friend over there, the comments he just made. It is

absolutely the truth what he spoke - what happens to Newfoundland and Labrador

if the fishery does not revive?

I want to commend my colleague from Trinity North for putting

this resolution to the House of Assembly. I started this last June in a very,

very serious way. I had an agenda given to me by a group of fishermen to do two

things last year. First of all, to try to get access to fish on the Grand Banks

so that they could at least survive the financial difficulty they were facing

last year. The second thing on the agenda was to try and bring not only

Provincial attention but national attention, and even worldwide attention, to

the fisheries crisis facing Newfoundland and Labrador today. That was the agenda

that I was given by a small group of fishermen.

I started out on that cause and that fight and with the good

fortune of being able to attract the press I think that we accomplished that

over several months, that we did bring some attention to the problem. I came to

a position last week realising that that agenda was completed to what I started

out in the beginning last year. The small task that I was asked to do by a group

of fishermen. I began to realise last weekend.... I sat down, I think

frustration was starting to set it, and understanding. Because I guess unlike a

lot of Members in this House of Assembly I live in a small fishing village. I

live in an area where the economics depends totally on the fishery. There are

eight fish plants in my district. I looked around my district last weekend,

compared it to Newfoundland and Labrador, and realised there was not one fish

plant in my district in operation. Not one fish plant in eight in operation. Not

one individual, not even the maintenance people, working in the fish plants.

All of a sudden it hit home that the agenda that I started

out last year is not enough. To bring attention worldwide, Provincially or

nationally is not enough. We have a major problem on our hands. I heard a

colleague make a comment this morning. It was never more closer to the truth.

That we have not reached the bottom yet. And we haven't. We have not reached the

bottom. It is fine to point out that the seals are causing it, that the

foreigners are causing it, that Newfoundlanders have played a role in causing

the problem. That is no good any more. Pointing the fingers at the foreigners,

at the seals and at politicians, Federally or Provincially, the present

Government, former governments or whatever, Federally or Provincially, is no

good any more. Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is facing total economic

collapse.

The question is: can we bring it back? I said all my life

that you cannot solve a problem until you first recognise there is a problem

there. I am saying to this House of Assembly now, evidence speaks for itself. We

have not yet recognised the seriousness of the problem. Look around us. Look in

the galleries, look in the House of Assembly. Look in the minds of individuals,

your own colleagues. Ask yourself the same question: do we yet realise the

seriousness of the problem? I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we don't, myself included.

I am no better than anyone else and I do not think I am any

worse than anyone else when it comes to dealing with this issue. I committed to

a group of individuals that I would do what I possibly could. But I am telling

you, we have reached that close to going over the edge of a total economic

collapse. You talk about budgets? You talk about cutbacks? You talk about wage

freezes? You talk about restraint? You talk about layoffs? How can you have any

other when the main pillar of this Province is on a 75 degree list?

I spoke to a group of students this week and I tried to get

them to understand how serious the situation really is. I said to them: think of

your school here now. Your school is up on one pillar and you pull that pillar

out and the school collapses. Your building totally collapses. You pull the

fishery out of Newfoundland and Labrador and the whole Province will collapse.

There is nothing else. We are so close to that edge it is frightening. In fact I

do not think I was ever any more frustrated in my life over any issue. And I

have been involved in a lot of troubles, as most everybody who knows me knows

full well. Sometimes I wonder if I was born with the word 'trouble' coming out

of my mouth the first time I drew a breath.

So I am used to trouble. I have been a survivor. In most

instances, most cases all my life, I have had the ability to survive in some

manner. Probably not the way some people would like to see it. Probably a little

bit of crudeness. But that was born into me in my bay bringing up out in Port de

Grave. Not the elitist way that some people carry. But that is another issue. We

all have our own style and we all do our own thing in our own way. As long as we

have a certain amount of credibility and respect.

But yesterday, and the last two or three days, I have felt a

frustration that I have never felt before in my life. When I see the people in

this Province - because I started out to bring attention around the world, and

national attention. The more I talk to people in this Province and the more I

see people in this Province, the more frightened I become. Because, Mr. Speaker,

there is where our problem lies. Here is where our problem lies.

More so than with the Federal Government, more so than with

the Provincial Government, more so than with the seals, more so than with the

foreigners. It lies right here with each and every citizen in this Province.

Because I am telling you, the people in this Province do not yet realise what is

happening to the fishing industry. I think there is a cause for that, an

explanation for it. Until it personally hits an individual, most individuals

until it personally hits them in their pocketbook, or slaps them right in the

face, and they feel some hurt from it, then that is the way it is going to be. I

think most of it is because of our social safety net. Because while we sit down

in our homes we have a social safety net that takes care of our general

essential concerns from day to day.

We have our UI benefits. We have our response programs. We

have our social services. It is a safety net. So people do not have to do what

they had to do three or four generations ago, and if they did not get a living

out of the sea or off the land they starved to death. There is a safety net

there to take people away from realising the troubles and what is happening

around them. What they do not realise is that safety net is about to collapse

too. It may not collapse tomorrow, it may not collapse next month, but let me

tell you this here now, it is going to collapse.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's unravelling.

MR. EFFORD: It is starting to unravel. Absolutely. I make

the next statements. I do not care what happens on the Grand Banks this week

when they go out and they sail around and they drop their balloon overboard. It

is just something bringing more attention to it. It has to be done. They will

bring more attention. There will be a few reporters if they do not get sick when

they leave the Narrows and they will be able to stand up once they get out

there. But somebody will get a shot of it. But it is not going to solve the

problem.

My hon. colleague made reference to the Federal Government.

Trade relations. The Federal Minister of Fisheries, the hon. John Crosbie, on

the end of Vanishing Point last Thursday night said very clearly, trade

relations is the problem. He admitted it, he said it. It is natural. If you are

trading so many million board feet of lumber from British Columbia, so many tons

of wheat from the prairie provinces, so many multi-million dollars worth of

manufactured goods from Ontario and Quebec, are they going to say: we are going

to give up all of that for Newfoundland? No. We are going to lose if we are

going to wait for the Federal Government to make that move. Because of trade

relations.

We have proven at the very least that if the Federal

Government took the step to put it into the world courts, for the world courts

to make a decision, that it would be ruled in Canada's favour to extend

jurisdiction out to 350 miles. Some of the bright legal minds, like the hon.

Minister of Fishery, who is a lawyer by trade, by profession, will tell you that

it is only for mineral rights. But that is nonsense.

Now let me put this before you. If we put that into the world

court, and we know very well that the Law of the Sea states very clearly that

the 350 miles gives you the right for the mineral rights, but let me put these

two reasons before you. Let's say there was a judge sitting in the chair. You

were advocating for the foreign fishing on the Grand Banks and I was advocating

for Canada's right to protect those stocks. I made the case that you people -

the foreigners - were destroying the environment out there, they are destroying

the bottom of the ocean. That every living substance that crawls on the bottom

of the ocean, you were destroying it. And I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt

that that was happening. And the second case I proved that all the foreign

fleets that are out there are destroying the stock. They are so close now to

depletion it is only a matter not of years but weeks, and months. Do you not

think that judge in the world court would rule in favour of Canada? Giving the

coastal state the right to protect and manage those stocks? I believe with every

ounce of blood that flows through my veins that the judge would in the world

court.

So the question remains, why don't they put it in the world

court? I am not a legal expert. It is common sense. I had it explained to me

clause by clause by some legal people and I do not yet understand the legal

terminology, but common sense prevails that they would rule in favour of Canada,

a coastal state, giving them the jurisdiction to protect it before the stocks

are depleted beyond return, but we do not have the political will Federally to

do it.

It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to be out

there crying and saying, a few of us: 550,000 people depend on the fishery in

this Province. If you called a rally in St. John's today and you called a rally

in western Newfoundland, if you called a rally just to bring it to the people's

attention you might get 200 out. If you phone 200 you might get them out, if you

beg them and send a bus to pick them up you might get them out.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that our problem lies here

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We still have not realized how

serious the situation is. Most politicians still do not have a gut feeling of

how serious the situation is. Most people in the Province do not realize that

six months down the road there may not be a fish landed in this Province. What

happens? The Minister of Social Services frightened me this morning and brought

awareness to my mind. How did it impact on everybody else when he said we have

63,000 people on social services today? That is 9000 more than when I was

Minister of Social Services a year ago. That is not the fault of any individual,

that is not the fault of Government, that is because of the collapse of the

fishing industry and if we go through this in 1992 in the same state we went

through 1991 we will add another 10,000 people to those lists. That is

frightening, Mr. Speaker. Over 10 per cent of the population are now on social

services and it is because of the main industry in this Province, the fishery,

and you still cannot wake people up and try to get them to make a move.

I see here that we are asking for response programs. I do not

want response programs. I seriously do not want to see a response program come

in this Province. I want to see people, as my colleague from Grand Bank said,

working in the fish plants. I want to see boats sailing out and coming in with

fish, and I want to see people in the spin-off industries working. I believe

every member of this House of Assembly would like to see the same thing. I am

sick and tired of handouts from Ottawa. Secondhand clothes is all we are getting

from Ottawa. They send us down a few make-work programs. It is not good enough

for a Province with the richest resource, the fish stocks, the richest resource

in this world.

I was reading a book here the other day that was given to me

by a friend of mine, a Newfoundland guide book, 1905, written by W.D. Prowse and

it is unbelievable what was happening in 1905. There was a reference made to the

foreign fishing fleets who were coming over here and saying that Newfoundland is

a goldmine. They took the fish off the Grand Banks, brought them back to their

countries, and made millions and million of dollars. It has been going on every

since, so much so that now we are almost at the complete end. Everybody in the

world have profited off our fish stocks except Newfoundland and Labrador. We

take the handouts and everybody else takes the riches. It is unbelievable.

It is only a very thin book but it is unbelievable, the

references to the situation that was going on then, the raping by the merchants

provincially and from England, and from other countries over there, compared to

what is happening today. It is unbelievable the significance you can get out of

that. It is frightening. The only thing is that today it is almost coming to a

complete end and there is only one thing that is going to save it, the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are going to have to take matters into their own

hands. You are going to say I am a rebel. Somebody had a stupid cartoon in the

Telegram last weekend calling me a rebel, or a webel. I get sick to my stomach.

They called me a webel. I get sick to my stomach when the best our editorialists

can do is make fun of the way a person speaks. I am not ashamed of the way I

speak. In fact I am proud of the way I speak and I will never change the way I

speak, but here we are facing one of the greatest crises that ever faced

Newfoundland and Labrador in its 400 and some-odd years of history, and the best

that our media people and our columnists and our editorialists can do is make

fun of the way a person pronounces his words. God, make no wonder we are in the

mess we are! Make no wonder we are in the mess we are!

Then, yesterday, to add insult to injury, we have the leader

of the largest union in this Province, the Fishermen's Union, Richard Cashin,

talk about going to clearing out the House of Commons, going to clear out the

Prime Minister's office, fists going everywhere, and clothes and coats going

everywhere. Come on in, let's tear it apart! And when he came out there was a

smile on his face, you wouldn't know but butter and angels were coming down from

Heaven and sitting on his face. Make no darn wonder, Mr. Speaker. Excuse the

language. Make no wonder. With a $45 million job sitting on top of my head, I

would smile, too. $45 million he has in the palm of his hands, and he is the

Chairman. What would his per diem be - $1,500 a day, $2,000 a day, $2,500 a day,

plus all expenses? Talk about a sell-out of your soul! How can a man who is

supposed to be representing the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

fighting for the very survival of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, sell

his soul?

MR. NOEL: What is he going to do, two jobs the one time?

MR. EFFORD: Two masters, Mr. Speaker. I said it a month

ago. I said it six months ago, and I will say it anywhere in this country and

anywhere in this Province. He has sold out the fishermen of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and every man, woman and child in this Province.

Can you imagine, running with the foxes and hunting with the

hounds? That is just how silly it is.

MR. NOEL: Running with the skunks.

MR. EFFORD: That is just how silly it is. The leader of

the union who is supposed to be advocating and fighting and bawling, and doing

everything in his power to bring the message to the foreign countries and to the

Prime Minister of this country, who has total control over doing something about

foreign overfishing, is now sitting down in a nice perked up chair and is going

to be serving on a commission for the next one, two, three or four years, raking

in the per diems.

There is no hope for this Province while we have people like

that. I cannot believe that a human being who is supposed to be so dedicated to

this Province, and getting paid a salary by the hard work and the sweat of the

brows of every fisherperson of this Province, to go and sell out to the federal

government as he did. This Province is doomed with people like that.

I saw it down in Harbour Grace last week. We called the owner

of the Harbour Grace Fisheries to come to two or three meetings to give us some

advice - we don't profess to know everything - but to give the fishermen some

advice from an industry leader as to what we could do to try to get back our

fishery; to join with us; to be all together as one voice. We had a phone call

back saying that he couldn't attend the meetings. Making no wonder he couldn't

attend the meetings, Mr. Speaker, after the announcement last Friday that they

got $3.5 million. I guess I wouldn't either, if somebody gave me $3.5 million to

stay home. That is what is going on in this Province. Joey George got $3.5

million last week. How many jobs will it create in the Harbour Grace district?

How many jobs were lost down there in the fish plant - 380 or 400 jobs? How many

permanent jobs will building a new freezer down there create? Not one more than

is down there now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Argentia (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Argentia will suffer because of it.

But it is being bought off and selling any chance that

Newfoundland has to survive. If we don't pull together as industry people,

politicians, fishermen, and leaders of unions, and we don't all focus on the one

area and put our attention on where the problem is and try to come up with a

solution, then the problem will never go away. If people don't start realizing

in their homes, and sitting down in their nice comfortable nests with their

unemployment cheques coming in, or their social services cheques coming in, or

their old age pension coming in, if they do not realize -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have to try to

bring to the attention of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian that they have to

forget that safety net, that it is not going to last forever, that it is going

to disappear, as surely as the fish is disappearing off the ocean floor. That

safety net is going to disappear. Then what, Mr. Speaker?

I feel sorry. I am one of the lucky people. I will survive

financially.

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

MR. EFFORD: But I have three children, and I would like

to see an opportunity for those people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador,

every young person and every other individual in this Province. The sooner we

realise the seriousness of the problem -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: - the sooner we can come up with a solution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't

sure whether you had recognised me or not in the great amount of applause that

the Member for Port de Grave was getting. I am not sure whether it is just the

desk thumping the member would like to get. He might like to see support in more

obvious ways.

However, let me first congratulate the Member for Trinity

North for putting the resolution on the Order Paper. There is absolutely no

doubt about it, that this issue is the most important one confronting the

Province. I will not go into any detail but repeat briefly what every member who

has spoken has said, that is that Newfoundland was built on the fishery, we have

survived on the fishery, and if we have a future,then it has to hinge on the

fishery.

We talk about the downturn in the economy and how we have had

such a rough year. The effect of the slowdown on Hibernia has put a damper on it

all, but the greatest effect on this Province has been what is happening in the

fishery. Those of us who represent rural districts, in particular, where most of

the people either fish or work at a fish processing plant or work in local

businesses which depend entirely on the dollars that come from the fishery and

the work in the plants, we realise what people are going through. It has been a

rough time and it looks as if it is going to be a lot rougher.

The resolution, itself, highlights the different areas of

involvement and areas of effect: "WHEREAS Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are

suffering because of the recent cuts to the Total Allowable Catch of Northern

Cod made by the federal government...." Are we suffering because of the cuts

made by the government? I don't think so. The wording has to be there for

effect, but it is not because the government said: We are going to cut the Total

Allowable Catch, it is because, basically, there is nothing there to catch,

anyway. It is because the amount has been cut by people and predators who have

decimated the stocks over the last number of years.

"AND

WHEREAS the quota reductions have effectively eliminated

the directed cod fishery" - the offshore, I guess, deep-sea cod fishery - "by

the Canadian offshore fishing fleet...." That is certainly true. The Member who

brought in the resolution from Trinity North, with his plant down in Port Union,

knows probably better than anybody, right now, the effect it has had on the

deep-sea fishing industry. The Catalina - Port Union plant, has been probably

the shining star in the Fishery Product chain. Especially this time of the year

when the Northern Cod would ordinarily be in abundance and Catalina would be

going full swing; the plant at Marystown affecting a lot of people on the south

coast is a close second; and then a number of others lumped in behind, including

the one that Fishery Products had at Trepassey, where right now 600 people in my

own district are sitting, waiting, wondering whether or not they will ever work

at a fish processing facility again. They know full well that the chances are

practically nil, that they will not work at a facility operated by Fishery

Products again. They also know that if they are going to work at a fish

processing plant, it will probably not be processing the type of product that

they are used to - cod and other groundfish, flounder and so on.

So that is a pretty hard state of affairs for someone to face

when we realise that perhaps it should never have occurred. Now, it is very easy

to point fingers. The next part of the resolution, the next 'whereas,' says:

"... the Federal Government has responsibility for the management of our fish

stocks and must take responsibility for the consequences of its management

decisions...." That is only true. Any manager is responsible for any decisions

taken.

The question we might ask though, in all fairness, and also

in light of the fact that the Government, the present Provincial Government, now

is requesting joint management even though for years when we talked about it

they were thoroughly against it. The Premier wanted absolutely nothing to do

with the fishery, but now it is -

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

MR. HEARN: It is not nonsense, it is on the record -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Exactly, it is on the record, just do your

research, but the point is, now it is a popular thing to ask for joint

management. But whether or not the Province had been involved with the Federal

Government, perhaps even if the Province had had total managerial control of the

fishery over the past x number of years, in retrospect, would we, or would we

jointly have made any different decisions? Maybe that is something we should ask

ourselves before we say: oh, they really goofed up on it.

Hopefully, we would say yes, we are nearer to what was

happening, we were much more aware of what was happening, consequently, we would

have made some decisions, but we must remember that the decisions were based

perhaps upon the best scientific advice that was available, and maybe there is a

lesson in that, and that is, not to worry too much about scientific advice, rely

more upon the advice from the fellow who is out there with his jigger and line

every day, hauling or trying to haul fish over the side of his punt.

The next

WHEREAS:

WHEREAS the Federal Government has

recognized foreign overfishing is partly responsible for the depletion of fish

stocks - and it goes on to say that the foreign fleets continue to fish, and I

will leave the next part, but:

BE IT RESOLVED that they take immediate action to

prevent foreign overfishing. Let me tie that in with the first remark here that

the foreign overfishing is partly responsible, but the member, in his

resolution, does not go on to say what else or who else is responsible for the

state of the fishery today besides foreign overfishing. Granted, foreign

overfishing is partly responsible; foreign overfishing might be the main reason,

but I doubt that, why the state of the stocks is as it is today. There is

absolutely no mention of the seal herds.

For years, going back to 1982, if somebody would research

Hansard, on many occasions when I spoke about the fishery, I would always

mention the effect that the seal herds were having on our stocks. Why isn't it

mentioned, why hasn't it been mentioned over the last few years? Any time I

mentioned it to the federal people, they would say, ssh, do not let anybody hear

you saying that. Why?... mainly because a lot of decisions I guess, were

coloured by the main players in the industry. The average little fishplant owner

and certainly the average little fisherman is not sitting down with the decision

makers over coffee, but the owners of the large corporations and the

shareholders are, and they know that if you talked about seal herds you bring on

Greenpeace and the other environmentalists and you know what they would do to

the market.

They talked about showing pictures of our cod fillets

infested with worms that will kill our market for cod; if we talked about

bringing the seal fishery back, and we were blackmailed. We just sat down and we

accepted it, but while they were threatening to destroy our markets by their

protests and by showing the effect seals were having on fillets, that is

something we cannot overlook either, not just the amount of fish generally that

seals destroy, not only the feeding fish for cod that seals destroy, but the

amount of product that is destroyed indirectly by the seals and the cost of

producing a pound of fish when you have to have expensive candling lights and

people on candling lines picking worms out of the product.

The cost that it has meant to the producer, the effect it has

on the price of fish to be paid to the fisherman, the loss at the marketplace

because of the indirect effect of the seal population, consequently, while we

were backing away from the environmentalists, while we were afraid to say a word

about the seal hunt, the seals were doing the job that they were going to do

anyway, and doing it in spades. All we have to do is look at the number of

seals. I won't go into that because we were sick of hearing it recently. The

number of seals multiplied by the number of pounds of fish a seal will eat

during the day, and surely God, we have to realise that the seal population has

had a tremendous affect on our fishery. It is about time we woke up and did

something about it. So we just cannot talk about foreign overfishing. That's

only part of it.

Maybe the biggest affect on the state of our cod stocks is

technology. If we want to think back to twenty-five, thirty years ago, when you

came into St. John's for your one or two trips a year, and you drove down the

waterfront. What was the most obvious thing that you saw? The White Fleet.

Numerous boats. Three-masters, four-masters, whatever, with their sails

sometimes flapping so that they would dry. One of the most beautiful scenes

anybody could picture. But not only did we have the Portuguese and the Spaniards

landing at our docks, we also had them in and out of all the stores downtown. We

saw the suppliers - firms like Campbell's, I remember, Pinto and Hann, and

others - backed into these ships loading supplies. We had water being taken on,

we had fuel being taken on, we had the dry dock busy because these boats were

there being serviced. Then when the foreign overfishing became a bit of an issue

what did the Federal Government do to solve the problem? They banned the White

Fleet and other foreign countries from using our ports.

Big deal. Great heroes. Who suffered? Did it stop the

overfishing? No. The overfishing still went on. Did it mean that: oh, now they

are so far away from their own home, they have no place to land, they cannot

come over any more? Not at all. They still came and they still fished. They

still overfished. They bypassed us and they went on to St. Pierre. I was in St.

Pierre a couple of weeks ago. There is some difference in St. Pierre's

waterfront now than there was ten or fifteen years ago. Mainly because of the

extra work that is brought there by the foreign fleets which land, which are not

allowed to land in St. John's any more. I won't say Canadian ports, because St.

John's was their main port of call.

So what did we do? What did we gain, number one? We gained

nothing. They still continued to fish, they still continued to overfish, and

they still continue to thumb their noses at us. Well, what did we lose? We lost

their business at the dry dock, we lost their business in the stores, we lost

their business in relation to water, oil and other supplies. We lost heavily.

But mainly we might have lost the chance by working with them and having them

involved in our ports to control some of the overfishing. So we goofed

thoroughly and who paid the price? Newfoundlanders in particular, and more

especially, perhaps, the business people in St. John's.

So was it a good idea to ban the foreign fleets from our

ports? No it certainly was not. There should have been a better way around it.

Because it looked good as far as the Federal Government went, and we paid the

price for it, and are still continuing to pay the price. So maybe it is

something we can look at as we talk to the foreigners and we get them back on

side and they understand what overfishing means. Maybe they will also realise

that they are going to have to play their part. Maybe we can work together on

increasing the fish stocks. Maybe they can come to our ports again. Maybe now

when our plants are closed, where many of these countries will tell you: we wish

we could process our product on your side of the ocean.

What would be wrong with Spanish, Portuguese or Australian

fish being processed in Catalina or Trepassey or anywhere else? As long as it is

their fish and it is caught legitimately by them, part of their quota that is

allocated to them inside or outside the 200-mile limit - mainly outside - what

is wrong with it being processed here? Does it matter to the fellow in Melrose

tomorrow if he goes to work at Catalina to cut fish that was brought in by a

Spanish trawler? No, it doesn't. What affect does it have on the Canadian

fishery? None, if it is part of their legitimate allocation.

We have just not handled the whole thing properly at all. We

have looked good by being the big bullies and saying: get out of here. But we

have destroyed a tremendous opportunity for our Province, and Newfoundlanders

are the ones who paid the price.

Our own technology of dragging.... Certainly compared to the

old hook-and-line - which those White Fleet boats used years ago as our own

banking schooners and Lunenburg boats and everybody else. Nobody heard anything

about the fish stocks going down because choice fish were caught, food was

distributed by the means of bait, the baited hook, et cetera. Our technology has

changed, and that has been responsible greatly for what has happened to cod

stocks, the raping of the spawning grounds, and we can go on and on. Gill nets:

I heard a trawler man from the south coast being interviewed a few weeks ago,

and at the end of the interview the interviewer asked him: how can we get rid of

the problem we have now? How can we get our stocks back? He said: four ways.

First of all you get rid of foreign overfishing, you get rid of seals - now he

is a trawler man - you get rid of gill nets, then you get rid of John Efford. So

I am not sure whether the Member for Port de Grave would agree with all four. He

probably would agree with two: foreign overfishing and seals. He may not agree

with gill nets. He might say get rid of trawlers and draggers and leave gill

nets alone. But both gill nets and dragging have had a disastrous effect on our

fishery. You just cannot throw hundreds and hundreds of nets, monofilament nets,

out on the ground and not recover them and expect them not to have an effect on

the fishing grounds and on our fishery generally.

So we are not lily white in all of this. We as Canadians, we

as Newfoundlanders, we have played a

part in the decimation of our cod stocks.

We have to realize that, and we have to change our means and methods too, but we

also have to address the other problems of the seal fishery and the foreign

overfishing.

Diversification - I wish I had more time. I think I have

about five minutes left or a little bit more.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: Four minutes. I wanted to talk about the

section on diversification: "WHEREAS there is need for diversification of

production efforts within the fishery." Absolutely no doubt about it.

Newfoundland, we bring in the raw product, we take off a few pounds of good

fillet and we throw away the rest. There should be possibilities there for more

jobs, and with the fillets that we cut, certainly in the secondary processing

and what have you, in all raw products there should be more jobs based here in

Newfoundland. Once again the decisions there have been made by the major

corporations who have their plants up in Danvers and other places, and it is

more beneficial to ship their product up there for further processing. Those are

the things that we have to look at to create jobs. This is where the jobs really

are in the Province, in secondary processing.

We also have to look at economic diversification. We have to

come up with 'an economic diversification plan to assist the individuals and

communities affected.' Now that is almost laughable because two years ago when

Trepassey and the other plants closed the Premier of this Province stood on the

stage and he said: We are giving you a years extended notice - some people might

say two years, FPI gave one and the Government gave another - so that we can

arrange to diversify. We are not prepared and you are not prepared to address

this problem right now. We need time to prepare for diversification. Let me ask:

how many jobs have been created in Trepassey in two years by the present

Provincial Government? The answer is up until a couple of weeks ago, three or

four now, there was one, one job in two years thanks to federal money. The feds

came in with money, but what is the good of money when you do not have anything

to diversify to - using bad language as it is, or incorrect grammar I should

say.

In Newfoundland - as others have said it today - once you get

away from the fishery you are on pretty thin ice. We have to hold a fishing base

to a large degree to keep Newfoundland alive, to keep