November

4, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 57

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: It is good of them to clap in advance, Mr.

Speaker. I hope they will at the end.

May I make a short ministerial statement and let me say that,

in accordance with what I understand to be a well-established practice of the

present Administration, I have provided my learned and honourable friend, the

Member for Humber East, with a copy of it - in this case, on twenty-four hours

notice, but she shouldn't take that as a precedent. Nonetheless, I think it is,

if I may Mr. Speaker, a commendable change from my first trip through when the

hon. member and her predecessors gave us exactly zero notice of Ministerial

Statements, as she will recall.

Mr. Speaker, on May 7, my colleague, the Minister of Social

Services, provided the House with a progress report about the review, analysis

and implementation of the recommendations contained in the Hughes Commission

Report. Government are committed to dealing with the report on a priority basis,

and I rise now to report what we have done since May.

When the Hughes Report was made public in April, Mr. Speaker,

the portion of

Chapter 6, Volume 1, entitled: "Mount Pearl: A Decade of Foster

Care" had been removed because it contained material which was the subject of a

pending criminal prosecution, the Mary Dinn trial. In the intervening period,

this prosecution has been brought to a completion. I should add that Mrs. Dinn

has appealed against the sentence that was imposed on her, but the trial portion

of the trial level proceedings have been brought to an end. The excised pages,

the entire

chapter that was excised, were made available on August 7 with the

result that as of that date the entire Hughes Commission Report became a matter

of public record.

At the same time, I announced that the conclusion of the Mary

Dinn trial meant, as well, that the Crown had no further concerns with the

unrestricted circulation of "Suffer Little Children", a book written by Mr.

Derek O'Brien. It will be recalled, Sir, that the Supreme Court - not the

government, the Supreme Court - at the Crown's request, had prevented the sale

or distribution of that book on the Avalon Peninsula.

My colleague advised the House that the Deputy Minsters of

Justice and Social Services, in consultation with the relevant officials, had

been charged by the ministry with ongoing review of all the recommendations

contained in the Hughes Commission Report. I am pleased to announce that this

work is nearing completion.

The House will be asked, during this session, Mr. Speaker, to

consider legislation to implement two of Judge Hughes' recommendations:

(1) New legislation will be brought forward to establish a

Police Complaints Commission; and

(2) Legislation will be introduced to revise the reporting

provisions of the Child Welfare Act to remove impediments to laying and

prosecuting charges under the Act for failure to report suspected cases of child

abuse.

Mr. Speaker, the government, on many occasions, have voiced

our commitment to a Complaints Commission. It is entirely proper and in

accordance with universally recognized standards and with the appropriate checks

and balances that those charged with the maintenance and enforcement of public

order be subject themselves to reasonable controls. The age-old question: 'Who

guards the guards?' puts the matter pointedly. We shall honour our commitment,

Sir. The necessary budgetary provisions, I would add, have already been made in

the current fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Social Services,

also indicated in his report to the House in May that a comprehensive report of

The Child Welfare Act was under way and that, as part of that review,

section 38

of the Act, which deals with reporting of child abuse, would be reformed. The

section, as presently worded, Sir, gives rise to two difficulties, both of which

were identified by Judge Hughes. The first of these is uncertainty as to the

time limit for prosecution, for the laying of prosecution for failure to report

abuse, and secondly, uncertainties as to when and by whom reporting is required.

Because these provisions play a crucial role in the fight against child abuse,

Government has decided that rather than wait for the comprehensive review of The

Child Welfare Act, these difficulties should be addressed immediately with

specific remedial legislation. We shall introduce amending legislation during

this sitting to deal with the issue.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague also referred to joint training in

the area of child abuse by the RNC and the Social Services officials. A

specialized in-service training module has been developed and delivered in St.

John's, Corner Brook and Labrador. These are the three detachments, of course,

Sir, where the RNC has direct responsibility for policing. Efforts are currently

under way, in conjunction with an approach that has been made to Memorial

University, to further enhance this training module by making it more systematic

and more comprehensive. The opportunity exists for the Province to break new

ground in the development of these kinds of programs.

Co-operative efforts are also underway to deal with the

issues of record storage and retrieval and information sharing that were

identified by Mr. Justice Hughes. An expeditious and open-flow of information

from the police to the Child Welfare Division and from the Child Welfare

Division to the police is essential in cases of physical and sexual abuse of

children. Procedures, mechanisms and protocols to facilitate and to control

information flow, subject to the requirements of security necessary to ensure

effective prosecution of offenders, are already in place. These are being

monitored to ensure continuing effectiveness.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the lines of communication would open

with both the Law Society and the Judiciary to address the problems of court

delays. As well, we remain committed to the Victim Assistance Program which

offers support services to all victims who face the prospect of wending their

way through the court system.

Mr. Speaker, all of these initiatives evidence in a tangible

and concrete way Government's commitment to addressing in a rational and timely

fashion the issues that come out of the Hughes Inquiry. More remains to be done,

of course, and I have already said that the work of the work of the deputy

ministers and their officials is nearing completion. I will report further to

the House as soon as this has been done. That will be soon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the

minister for giving me a copy of this statement yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the plans the minister announced in the

statement could have and should have been implemented two years ago or more.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, this government has had the report of the Hughes

Commission for a year-and-a-half. The government kept it under wraps for a year,

but the key ministers responsible have had that document for a year-and-a-half.

Mr. Speaker, long before the government received the Hughes

Report, the government knew or certainly ought to have known that the Child

Welfare Act needed to be reformed. Indeed, work on the revision of the Act had

started years before.

Mr. Speaker, the government repeatedly turned down offers of

co-operation from the Opposition to have the House of Assembly speedily pass the

amendment cited by the minister, as well as another amendment to close the gap

in services for young people between the ages of sixteen and eighteen.

Mr. Speaker, as for a police commission, just as the need for

an effective commission for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary became apparent,

the government disbanded the office of the Ombudsman, an institution empowered

to deal impartially with complaints against the police.

For two years there has been no independent agency in this

Province with the mandate of dealing with complaints against the Royal

Newfoundland Constabulary. Shame! This government has brought upon the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador the dubious distinction of being the first

jurisdiction in the whole world to eliminate an Ombudsman's office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the government, on taking office

in May of 1989, scrapped the plan to have a province-wide victim services

program. Two years later the government implemented, with the benefit of

Criminal Code fine surcharge revenue, a partial victim service program. Now

there are victim services workers in only a few urban centres. Most of

Newfoundland and Labrador is not being served by victim services workers. Worse

than that, Mr. Speaker, the government scrapped entirely the financial criminal

injuries compensation program. Now there is no public funding to reimburse

victims of crime for their out-of-pocket expenses and losses resulting from

crime, or to pay for needed counselling. As for counselling, it is woefully

inadequate. The government's Anderson Centre in St. John's is greatly

overburdened. The Minister of Health gave me a letter yesterday indicating the

government hasn't even tried to recruit new personnel for the Anderson Centre

since November of 1989.

Comparable children's mental health services have not been

set up in other parts of the Province. People in the Bay St. George area who

were promised by three ministers of the Crown four months ago that they would

have a community-based counselling service are still waiting.

In recent years many people in this Province have disclosed

crimes of sexual assault against them. Many of those people were motivated in

part by the hope that their disclosures, as painful as it was for them to

report, would result in reforms of the criminal justice and social welfare,

child welfare, systems. Mr. Speaker, those people have been badly let down by

this Wells' administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

point of order.

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

leave of the House to speak to this ministerial statement which the minister so

kindly provided me with.

MS. VERGE: By leave.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we'd be more than happy to hear

from him.

I would say to my hon. friend for Humber East, if she took

twenty-four hours to prepare that, we should have given her a week's notice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the

minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair has recognised the Member for St. John's East.

The hon. the Member for St. John's east.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister

for providing me with a copy of this ministerial statement on such an important

matter. I have no hesitation in supporting the two moves that are being made,

particularly with respect to legislation regarding the Police Complaints

Commission and the changes in the Child Welfare Act.

I do have to say, however, that the need for these is now so

obvious to all that it really points out a failure of leadership on the part of

the government in not introducing these measures when it became apparent to

those who knew what was wrong with the social welfare system and with the

justice system in that regard. There needs to be leadership from government, not

following public opinion after it's been jostled about for two or three years.

The necessity for the legislation to change the Child Welfare

Act on reporting has been obvious for many year to Crown prosecutors who have

not brought one single successful prosecution under the existing legislation for

failing to report the abuse of children to the Director of Child Welfare or to a

social worker.

The second problem, Mr. Speaker, which is not addressed in

this Ministerial Statement, which I ask the minister to consider, is what

happens when abuse is reported. The failure that the Hughes Commission

uncovered, not only in respect to the Mount Cashel situation but also with

respect to child welfare foster homes throughout the Province, was what happened

when people did complain. We still have complaints now. There are still cases

before the criminal courts of people who had complained some fifteen, sixteen or

seventeen years ago who are only now being prosecuted.

So, Mr. Speaker, the second half of that is: What happens

when somebody does complain? Do social workers have an independent duty or

obligation or right to do something about it, if their supervisors do not intend

to follow up? So that is a very important question that I think has to be dealt

with. It is not simply a matter of prosecuting somebody who fails to report, it

is what happens when they do. Are there enough social workers to deal with it. I

invite the minister to respond to that at a later time.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

I have called for Oral Questions. I notice there is another

minister who did not stand. That has always caused confusion. I waited some time

before proceeding to the next item. If hon. members will allow me, I will revert

to Statements by Ministers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers, the hon. the

Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the

opportunity to rise. I don't have a statement but I want an opportunity to say

this. So, please, if I am out of order, give me your direction.

I would like to ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to place

some blue boxes in the vicinity of this Assembly so that we can start to be more

responsible about our scrap paper and so on. The Hon. Aubrey Gover, Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation and I will arrange how to get it away from

here and into a recycling depot. If it is possible, I certainly would like to do

that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. COWAN: I can't understand the Opposition's attitude.

Are they against recycling?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not at all.

MS. COWAN: No? Good!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Yes, we would be happy to agree with that as

long as the boxes are blue - that fits in very well - assuming these blue boxes

are going to be placed throughout the entire government bureaucracy as well. I

presume that is going to be done as well, not just for the House of Assembly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I have no problem with having blue boxes in

this House, but I wouldn't want to see us just have a show in this House for the

public and not have a program implemented throughout Confederation Building and

government offices. We have already asked the minister for this. The minister

was asked for this in the Estimates Committee last spring and we haven't had an

answer yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions I would

like to put to the Premier today, fisheries related, constitutionally related.

These are questions being asked out around the province by people from time to

time. I unfortunately can't provide the direct answers so I offered to bring the

questions to the Legislature in the hope that the Premier could respond to the

public through the House.

The Premier, no doubt, has read the book written by his

former constitutional adviser, Deborah Coyne. Certainly he has heard about it if

he hasn't read it. I have the excerpt for him if he would like to have a look at

it. She says in that book, her book 'The Roll of the Dice,' that during the

Meech Lake talks a couple of years ago the Prime Minister of Canada offered to

establish a joint federal/provincial fisheries management board and that the

Premier turned the offer down. I would like to ask the Premier, is Ms. Coyne

right in what she says in her book? Was the offer made, and did the Premier

reject it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If that is in fact what Ms. Coyne said,

she is dead wrong. I don't recall that that is what she said, but if that is in

fact what she said, she is dead wrong. I can tell the House if they want me to

take the four or five minutes that it will take to explain what happened, I am

quite prepared to do it. But this is Question Period - if you want it I am quite

prepared to explain.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

PREMIER WELLS: Okay. Members may recall -

AN HON. MEMBER: Will it take four or five minutes?

PREMIER WELLS: Well it will take time. I can answer the

question and provide the answer, but I tell the Speaker, it will take four or

five minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: But if that is what she said, no, she is

dead wrong. That is the only answer.

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

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is fine. The Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) explain why she was wrong.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Maybe members should leave the question to the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has

answered the question and that is fine with me. I wanted to know whether in

fact, where she had implied or she had said that the Prime Minister had offered

to establish a joint federal/provincial fisheries management board or program of

some sort and he refused it, I take his word for it. He says: no, she is dead

wrong. He did not.

Can I turn to the current negotiations or the most recent

negotiations leading up to the Charlottetown Accord then which was Canada's

round where every province in the country, I guess, put various issues on the

table to be dealt with? I want to first of all point out, of course, that when

the Premier went to Charlottetown to negotiate the new constitutional deal he

had at his fingertips, no doubt, the interim report of our own Provincial

Constitutional Committee which was chaired, I guess, by his chief lieutenant

there, the Government House Leader. In that interim report the Provincial

Constitutional Committee recommended that a fisheries agreement should be sought

and indeed constitutionalized. That is their recommendation, and I have the

excerpt from the interim report here as well which indicates that is the case.

I want to ask the Premier then: why did he not take the

advice of his own constitutional committee, the province's constitutional

committee, and push to have fisheries included on the agenda during those

negotiations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, those negotiations didn't

deal with jurisdiction and we were not seeking jurisdiction in the fisheries.

Now the former government sought jurisdiction and they would,

Mr. Speaker, have been like a dog chasing an eighteen wheeler truck. What would

they have done with it if they had gotten it? They wouldn't have known what to

do with it. They had no competence to deal with it. Jurisdiction is wrong for a

variety of reasons because there is a great international element involved;

because there are other provinces involved; and because this province has

difficulty raising adequate revenue to deal with the jurisdiction it has, let

alone jurisdiction over 400,000 sq. miles of the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, we did not say to the Prime Minister and the

other premiers: We will agree with a distinct society for Quebec, or a reformed

Senate, or aboriginal self-government, if you will enter into a

federal/provincial joint management agreement. We are not prepared to turn the

people of this province into blackmailers of their fellow Canadians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, maybe that is their approach,

but we recognize that we are Canadian citizens and we have a responsibility to

be and act like Canadian citizens, not political blackmailers; and we have no

intention ever of performing as such.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you one other thing that flows out

of that. Where would we be today had we made that part of the Charlottetown deal

and it failed? We could never get it back on the agenda, except in a

constitutional context, again. Now if anybody wants to know just how wrong that

approach is, think about that.

There is one person stopping joint management. His name is

the Honourable John C. Crosbie. He could start it tomorrow. He could cause it to

happen tomorrow; yet they stand there day after day, pressuring the government

to cause it, and work with him to prevent it from happening - work hand in glove

with him to prevent it from happening, solely for their own political benefit.

What crass political behaviour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of points that the Premier tried to make

that are very, very weak points. First of all, we have never suggested control

and jurisdiction over the fishery. That is untrue - totally untrue. If he read

the presentation we made to his own provincial constitutional committee, he

would see we have asked for shared fisheries jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker, -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - shared fisheries jurisdiction.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I bring to hon. members' attention again, as I did yesterday,

that Question Period is not a period for debate. It is a period for asking

questions, and I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to get on with the

question.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Premier not aware of the presentation that our party

made to his own constitutional committee? It puts what he had to say a moment

ago outdoors, because it is not true. We have never looked for total control and

jurisdiction. That is a falsehood which he is trying to perpetrate.

I want to ask this question: Which is more important, the

Premier's own personal principles or the interests of the people of this

Province? They are the ones who deserve to be treated properly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now he also says -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I take it that the Leader of the Opposition has asked the

question?

AN HON. MEMBER: He has asked two now.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Well the question has been asked. I

distinctly heard two questions. The Leader of the Opposition is into

supplementary questions now. Is he finished or was it a series of questions?

MR. SIMMS: I was not finished.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members should realize when we are into supplementary

questions we are not into a series of four or five questions. The Chair can only

determine when a question has been asked, so I ask the Leader of the Opposition

to quickly clue up his question please.

The question has been asked?

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I was just making a note because I was

losing track. There were two questions, as I recall. Were we aware of his

party's stand? Yes, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of their position is they have

been asking for jurisdiction constantly. This has been their basic position. Now

it may have changed recently. It may well have changed recently since they have

been brought to their senses, but that was the basic position that we have been

dealing with all along.

The second is: Do we put my personal interests or the

interests of the people of the province first? Unquestionably it is the

interests of the people of the province, and thank heavens that is what we did

instead of grandstanding on a political basis as they would have done. We put

the interests of the province first, and we will seek to have that done on the

basis of it being the right thing to do, as the Prime Minister said to me two

years ago; and when I explain for the public outside this House, as I will,

exactly what happened two years ago, I will explain precisely what the Prime

Minister said. I expect that very shortly the Prime Minister will honour his

word and see that it is done, because it is the right thing to do - not because

the Newfoundland people blackmailed their fellow Canadians into agreeing to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's all fine and

dandy for the Premier to make these great speeches and use these flowery words.

The fact of the matter is, the question was: why did he not use the opportunity

leading up to the negotiations? And he came back and said it was because it was

blackmail, and that would be blackmail.

I want to ask him this: In view of the fact that there were

in fact issues dealt with during those constitutional discussions that dealt

with specific interests of provinces - like PEI and other provinces who got

certain things in there - sixteen of the items agreed to in Charlottetown were

to have been put through on political accords in the future, the question still

remains that he obviously didn't have any trouble accepting those kinds of

things, because he signed on to those kinds of things. Were they all blackmail

too? Is that what he's trying to suggest here today? The question is: why did he

not more aggressively try to attain some agreement on fisheries management

during these negotiations? That's the question that he has not yet answered.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is fairly simple, Mr. Speaker.

I have been trying now for two years - three and a half years, in fact. My big

obstacle is the Newfoundland minister in the federal cabinet. He resisted

tooth-and-nail. Now if there's no political will to do it, are we going to

achieve it by constitutional blackmail? Is that the name of the game? If John

Crosbie and Brian Mulroney are not prepared to do it politically, are we going

to hold them up by the throat and say: if you don't do this we won't agree to

constitutional change for Canada? Is that what he's proposing? Is that the lack

of dignity and self-respect he expects of the Newfoundland people, or those who

speak for the Newfoundland people? It's a good thing they weren't sitting there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what he's

talking about when he talks about the things for PEI in the agreement. It's

obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about either.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, is that right?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes. You'd better tell us what it is.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That's right. Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) don't know!

PREMIER WELLS: - we've taken the high road -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) unlike the hon. gentleman

opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have taken the high road

throughout all of these negotiations. I'm confident that the people of Canada

will bring pressure to bear on their government to do what's right, what I know

the Prime Minister will acknowledge to be right, if we can put enough pressure

on Newfoundland's minister in the federal cabinet to cause it to happen. Instead

of berating the government, if only they would put some pressure on their cohort

in Ottawa with whom they work, hand-in-glove, on a daily basis -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - to cause pressure to be brought on the

Province at the same time that they conspire in Ottawa to prevent it from

happening. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be more despicable than that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognised the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to put a

question to the Minister of Finance. The former minister - thank God he is the

former minister - but the former minister in his Budget last year predicted a

deficit on current account this year of some $29 million. Recently the present

minister indicated publicly that that figure may well double in fact by the end

of the year, and that by the end of October he should have the six-month figures

which will give us a better idea of where we're heading. We can't blame the

minister for what the former minister did. Can he tell us: does he have the

numbers now, and what does he propose to do to deal with it?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, we don't have the six-month

figures yet. It seems to me that it'll probably be some time next week before we

get the mid-year figures. All provinces of course are waiting with great concern

for these figures.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we look forward to those

numbers next week. But assuming the minister was accurate in his projections of

a few weeks ago, and that we are in fact looking at somewhere in the range of a

$60 million deficit, can the minister tell us if he proposes to follow previous

examples? Are we looking at tax increases and spending cuts in order to deal

with that tremendous deficit?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we indicated to the people of

this province that there was a shortfall in terms of provincial revenues to a

certain extent, that the economy of Canada was not performing to the level that

we had expected, therefore there'd be as well a shortfall in federal revenues.

That combined with the extra $11 million that we spent in an emergency program

for job creation meant that our deficit, because of these extra expenditures,

and because of a drop in our revenues, would be higher than expected. This

projection was based on that information and that information alone. At the time

I said that we were going to be particularly prudent for the remainder of the

year to ensure that any monies spent were monies that, indeed, had to be spent,

and that, where possible, some expenditures would be delayed, and that it would

be particularly prudent to try to bring our deficit back in the range that we

predicted in the budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I say to the minister, we heard on Monday about his $11

million program that fulfilled commitments ministers had made in their own

districts but did not create any jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the minister was kind enough yesterday, on

behalf of the Premier, to table some information that resulted from questions

from the hon. Leader of the Opposition to the Premier as it related to the

payroll tax. A little later in the day the Minister of Finance tabled the

information on behalf of the Premier. It forecast that, of a total of $67

million in payroll tax to be collected this year, $35.7 million of that is

coming from the private sector.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier had indicated in questions that

the payroll tax simply replaces revenue from the school tax. That is what the

Premier had simply said. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the business portion of

the school tax never collected more than $12 million. Now we find the payroll

tax is, in fact, collecting $36 million.

Will the Minister of Finance confirm that, and confirm that

at least the Leader of the Opposition was two-thirds right when the Premier said

he was saying half-truths?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will confirm the following: That the increase in payroll

tax brought in in the last Budget was to replace the school tax revenue that was

previously collected. That I will confirm. That is exactly true. I will, on

second thought, get for the finance critic of the Opposition the figures for the

increase in the payroll tax which would equate to the revenues lost from the

school tax. He will see that the increase in the payroll tax actually did not

even replace the revenue from the school tax that business was paying. In fact,

in that process business got a break of several million dollars. So I will get

those figures and pass them along to the hon. gentleman a little later.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we had the figures. The

original payroll tax projection was $25 million. We now see it is collecting $67

million. So there is $42 million that had been collected over and above the

original intent of the payroll tax, under the excuse of eliminating the school

tax which, in total, never collected more than $30 million and, of that, only

$12 million from the business sector, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the minister's statement, when he talked about

this increase of $30 million in the deficit, and he said: Well, this is not a

serious matter at this time. If $30 million is not a serious matter, will he now

use $30 million to eliminate the payroll tax or at least reduce the payroll tax

on business so that, in fact, he will follow the Premier's great strategic

economic plan which says: we will reduce taxation on business in order to

stimulate the economy?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, some numbers. The total amount that you see

collected here on the information that I have provided to the hon. gentleman,

included the provincial administration amount which, in fact, is money we are

paying ourselves. So the net increase in taxation, in total due to the payroll

tax, the original payroll tax plus the increase in the payroll tax, was not the

huge amount that the hon. gentleman mentions.

Also, I would like to point out to him, that I am not given

to overstatement. I suppose, because I didn't rant and rave and shout and

scream, he got the impression that I did not consider that the $30 million

overrun, or what looks like a $30 million overrun, is not serious. I say to the

hon. gentleman that it is a very serious situation and we are trying to correct

it and we are taking steps to try to live at least in the vicinity of our

budgeted deficit. These things are underway. It is a very, very serious

situation, a very, very serious situation, and one that we find very difficult

to live with, but we will try to correct it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services and

concerns the emergency housing repairs for social services recipients. Would the

minister confirm that the administration of the emergency housing repairs

program has been, in fact, moved out of his department into Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing Corporation, and can he also confirm that the monies allocated

to the project for social services recipients, for this program, have expired as

of the end of August, leaving people with desperate housing conditions, unable

to get assistance from the government for emergency housing repairs, who are

living in deplorable conditions, in fact, in inhabitable housing with no heat?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, the program, which was administered under the

Department of Social Services, is now being administered under Newfoundland and

Labrador Housing because they have the staff available to administer that

program and we have an agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to do

just that. That program is under full evaluation right now - because it has been

in effect for a year or so - to see how it is going, with the comparison between

using the resources in communities throughout the Province, and the staff of the

Housing Corporation. So it is under evaluation.

As far as the dollars are concerned, Mr. Speaker, we have

expanded the amount of money available in that program and we will continue to

monitor it and continue to effect repairs to properties and upgrade properties

as the need arises. It is, in fact, an emergency repair program and, of course,

if an emergency exists where repairs have to be carried out, we will continue to

do so, and money is available to do that.

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister confirm that in the course of this

development, we have had contracts for the repair of houses, for example, in

Bellevue district, where two brothers, living in a house with no electricity and

no heat for two months had a contract cancelled at the last minute because of

the lack of funds from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing? Can he confirm that? -

and that this is the kind of situation that Newfoundlanders who cannot take

advantage of this emergency housing program are left with? Is he going to do

something about that? Can he tell us what he plans to do and when?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check that

specific case. I am obviously not aware of every case throughout the Province. I

will check that out in Bellevue district and see exactly what has happened. But,

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, no case of emergency, a need for emergency

repairs or rehab or furnace repairs or boiler repairs, whatever it happens to

be, is delayed unnecessarily. As soon as the approvals can be given and the

inspection carried out, the work is done, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about his government's

proposal made in July, 1989, forty months ago, and still not resolved, to

amalgamate the municipalities of Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah. Is

the Premier aware that a study done this summer by Doane Raymond, paid for by

his government, found that amalgamation would result in a substantial increase

in overall municipal operating cost and necessitate a general tax increase of

1.4 mils?

Does the Premier realize no one in Corner Brook, Massey Drive

or Mount Moriah wants to pay higher municipal taxes and virtually everyone is

dead set against the amalgamation proposal? Will the Premier, at long last,

admit, as the government's only independent commissioner, Hubert Harnett,

concluded, that in the instance of Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah,

a case has not been made for amalgamation benefitting the whole?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the

Doane Raymond Report, and what the Doane Raymond Report said was, if you build

an extra fire hall here and an extra fire hall there and if you do something

else, then you would run in all these expenses, but if you don't, there would be

a negligible increase - and they went over it in detail. So that is a gross

misrepresentation of what is in the Doane Raymond Report.

I have since talked to Mayor Pollett and to others in Corner

Brook about it. I don't think they are at all concerned that it would result in

any significant increase in taxes, but I say again, Mr. Speaker, the government

is anxious to achieve amalgamation where amalgamation makes sense and where

amalgamation is reasonably accepted.

MR. WINDSOR: It didn't make sense in Mount Pearl, did it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have told the people of

Massey Drive, I have told the people of Corner Brook and I have told the people

of Mount Moriah that if the people of those three areas collectively, not each

area individually, but if those three areas collectively want to amalgamate, the

government will facilitate it. Not only that, the government encourages them to

do so because we think it is the most sensible thing to do. The government will

not force it on them if they don't want it.

Secondly, what the government will not do - we will not give

the people in that area an unfair extra benefit through government grants and so

on because of the fact they have divided themselves up into three groups. We may

well have to treat them as though they are a single group - and if they still

want to remain that way, that is okay as long as they are not putting an unfair

burden on the rest of the taxpayers in the Province. The government doesn't

mind. That will be for them to decide for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, if the City of Corner Brook and Mount Moriah and

Massey Drive want amalgamation, I can assure you they will find a very, very,

receptive government. We are waiting to hear from them.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, this has gone on for forty

months. How will the Premier determine what the people in Corner Brook, Massey

Drive, and Mount Moriah want? Have the representations made through letters and

petitions by hundreds of citizens of those three municipalities not been enough

for him? Have the recommendations of the independent commissioner, Hubert

Harnett, not been enough for him? Have the findings of the Doane Raymond report

showing a minimum net overall cost increase of $115,000 not been enough for him?

When will the Premier finally bring a democratic, fair, and just end to this

long festering proposal of his?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if we are told by the City

Council of Corner Brook, by the Town Council of Mount Moriah, by the Town

Council of Massey Drive, that they do not want amalgamation, the government is

not going to force it down their throats. That is okay. There is no problem with

that. Let's not have any problem.

What we are not going to do, Mr. Speaker, is have the City of

Corner Brook bleat to us constantly about how unfairly the former government

treated them by reason of giving everything to Massey Drive, attracting the

taxpayers out of Corner Brook because Massey Drive got such subsidized land

assembly projects - for which the hon. member opposite is largely personally

responsible. We are not going to accept these complaints from the City of Corner

Brook if they are not prepared to do something about it. The avenue is there. If

the City of Corner Brook wants to redress that difficulty, the government will

facilitate it for the City of Corner Brook, and for Mount Moriah, and for Massey

Drive, in order to treat all citizens fairly.

I have not heard these overwhelming positions from the people

of Corner Brook, that they don't want amalgamation. I have heard it from a

community in my own district, in Mount Moriah. I have heard it from a portion of

Massey Drive, as well. I have also heard the opposite from people in Massey

Drive and Mount Moriah, but the majority in those two communities have clearly

indicated they would prefer not to have amalgamation. That is because they get

substantial benefit at the expense of the taxpayers of Corner Brook, largely

promoted by the policies of the former government, and caused by the member who

just asked the question, in the case of Massey Drive.

Mr. Speaker, if the people of Corner Brook don't want to use

this as a solution to that problem, well, that is up to them. All the City

Council and the Town Councils of Massey Drive and Mount Moriah have to tell us

is that they don't want it, and it won't be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final supplementary.

A simple question to the Premier: How much longer is he going

to keep the councils and the citizens of Corner Brook, Massey Drive, and Mount

Moriah waiting? Is he going to allow the councils to prepare their budgets for

the 1993 budget year, not knowing for certain whether the government will allow

them to remain autonomous?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If the councils answer the question next

week, they will have their answer next week. If they don't answer until next

year, they won't have their answer until next year, and it may be another forty

months that the issue is still outstanding. It is up to the councils - not the

government. They can provide the answer immediately.

If the City Council in Corner Brook tell the government they

don't want amalgamation, the Town Council in Massey Drive say they don't want

amalgamation, the Town Council in Mount Moriah say they don't want amalgamation,

there won't be amalgamation. But if it is otherwise, there may well be

amalgamation. If, for example, the people of Corner Brook - the vast majority of

people paying most of the additional cost imposed as a result of it - decide

they want amalgamation, and Massey Drive and Mount Moriah do not, the government

will have to consider the issue. And I assure you that as soon as we know the

precise position, we won't delay any longer, we will make a decision very

quickly.

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

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

question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I am sure the

minister is aware of a situation that has developed in Bonavista over the past

few days, where we have some nineteen or twenty workers who have staged a sit-in

demonstration at the town hall, as I understand it, who fall in between the

cracks of the Northern cod moratorium package. They don't qualify there. They

don't have enough insurable weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance

benefits. The minister just recently announced an Emergency Employment Response

program, some $11 million from his own department.

I am wondering if the minister has considered, or will he

consider immediately, finding enough money to take care of those nineteen or

twenty people at Bonavista so that they can go to work and be qualified at least

for unemployment insurance benefits to get them through the fall and winter?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the

question, because it has been an issue that has been raised publicly in the

Province, not only in this particular instance in Bonavista but in a number of

instances since we announced our Emergency Employment Response program on

September 18.

The difficulty is not in trying to deal with the eighteen or

nineteen or twenty people currently in Bonavista, but with the hundreds of other

people in similar circumstances in other communities, both in the geographic

area covered by the moratorium and then in the rest of the Island and Labrador.

What we have clearly is that we have already taken positions on behalf of those

people, first of all to try to convince, as they wanted us to, the federal

government to make sure that the criteria could allow them to be qualified for

compensation under the Northern cod moratorium. That wasn't successful.

We have now gone, at their urging, and with the support of

the union that represents them, to try, as well, to make sure that the federal

government takes care of its responsibility in terms of making sure, like the

federal government did in every other year, and as Mr. Crosbie has said they are

now considering, to put response programs in place for people in the fishery.

Then, in fact, when those things come to pass, whether or not there will be any

kind of federal response for people in the fishery - which they have received

every year in the past, and they are only now impatient, and understandably so,

because the federal minister again has been so late this year in making a

decision.

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

MR. GRIMES: There is nothing, as we announced from the

very beginning, that this particular program can do to deal with people in the

fishery. We are making sure that the responsibility is placed exactly where it

belongs, with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the federal government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I was trying to give the minister a chance to shorten up his

answer there, but we have exceeded the time period in any event.

Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

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

the exceptions to the Public Tender Act for May, June, July, August and

September, 1992.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I believe it was,

the Leader of the Opposition asked if I would table the correspondence and

positions exchanged between the government and different industrial sectors

relating to the Atlantic Procurement Agreement, and I am happy to do so. I have

two copies to be tabled, so that anybody who wants it can get copies and I have

one copy for the Leader of the Opposition, who asked the question. I didn't make

copies for everybody. It is extensive and most people probably wouldn't read it,

anyway, but anybody who wants it can get copies. There are one to the Leader of

the Opposition and two for the Clerk.

I will also table, Mr. Speaker, at the same time, the answer

to questions raised as to the numbers of people unemployed and the numbers of

people receiving social assistance, as a result of the economic circumstances. I

have provided, Mr. Speaker, the numbers for the years 1980 to 1991 and they are

available for anybody who wants them. There are some extra copies here, as well.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday and there are no

petitions, we go to Orders of the Day. I believe it is the resolution submitted

by the hon. the Member for Ferryland. Am I correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS it is evident that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador has not addressed the impact of the moratorium on the fishing industry;

THEREFORE

be it resolved that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador address its responsibility to those directly affected by the

moratorium.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to recognize many

constituents from my district and surrounding districts in the gallery today,

fisherpersons who are very concerned about the future and the direction in which

our fishing industry is headed.

On July 2, we heard the most devastating news ever to be

inflicted upon this Province, the shutdown of the Northern cod fishery. With

that announcement, there were 25,000 people thrown out of work, fishermen,

fisherwomen and plant workers. In addition to that, numerous indirect jobs,

thousands of them, were lost.

This Province grew and developed around the fishery, and all

around this Province, hundreds of communities grew and the fishery became a part

of their livelihood and their lives.

If we are to take responsibility in this government, we must

look forward and address the future of the fishery. And, if we are to do that,

steps must be put in place today. This government is afraid to support the

fishing industry because of backlash from other industries. The shutdown of this

fishing industry is unprecedented in this Province's history. In fact, it is the

largest single layoff in the history of this country.

While the federal Minister of Fisheries, John Crosbie, was at

the Radisson Hotel on July 2 announcing this devastating news, the Premier was

in Calgary talking Triple E Senate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Did he jump on a plane the next morning and

come back to address the problems at home? No, he went to Toronto and he

discussed Triple E Senate in Toronto. Mr. Speaker, not only on July 2, but for

the last four months, he hopped and skipped across this country in pursuit of

constitutional solace, dodging bullets on fishery and economic issues every step

of the way.

Mr. Speaker, if we are to solve these problems in this

government, we must make plans now. It is no secret that the majority of cod

swimming in our oceans today are five and six years old and do not reach

spawning potential until they are seven. If we think that in two years time our

problems are going to be solved is far from fact. In fact it will be another

seven years before these young fish that hatch will reach spawning age. So we

are talking about nine years before we can develop a highly sustainable fishery

for the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Provincial Minister of Fisheries on

July 2nd said at the Radisson: The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will

fully discharge its responsibilities in dealing with the moratorium's impact. We

people who have been victims of federal mismanagement of our most basic and

vital industry. And, Mr. Speaker, he went on to say on July 17th that he is

happy with the federal response. He said: It is unfortunate but essential that

there is a moratorium on the harvest of northern cod to ensure the rebuilding

and the long-term survival of the stock. Now that an adequate compensation

package has been put in place by the federal government for the duration of this

moratorium, governments and industries must use the two year period to develop a

blueprint for the future direction of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, one of the major areas - and I hope to address

several areas today - is the processing sector of this province. The Premier in

his campaign for 'Real Change' said: A Liberal government would be committed to

the expansion of secondary processing of fish in this province, particularly the

introduction of new products with appropriate support in technology and

marketing, particular emphasis would be given to efforts to develop markets for

presently underutilized species.

Today with a harvesting and a processing total of 25,000

people it is not unrealistic to assume that 10,000 of these would be displaced

from the fishing industry if and when it re-opens within a two year period. This

province has a moral obligation to those displaced fisherpersons and plant

workers to make plans today for their future tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Maybe the government wants to sent another

10,000 mothers' sons off to Ontario, Yellowknife and British Columbia to find

jobs, the expanded social services has increased by 50 per cent the hon.

minister said, maybe they want another 10,000 people on the social assistance

payroll.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we, and you as a government

have an obligation to identify in the processing sector the plants that are

going to close and take this fishery seriously. This government has thrown up

their hands and said: Blame the feds! Blame the feds! They were going to

diversify the fishing industry in 1989. What have they done to diversify it?

Yes, we have been dozens of years exporting a resource, not

exporting the product of our resource. We have been exporting our resource. It

is about time that we give incentives to get into value added and secondary

processing. Who is to say that the United States and the UK have a monopoly on

fish sticks and breading processes on breading fillets in the UK? It is about

time that incentives were put in place by this government to employ those

displaced workers from the fishing industry, and that is a real thing. If you

think they have a problem today, there will be a massive problem on our hands in

two years time.

Mr. Speaker, another area of vital concern that this province

has ignored is in loans to fishermen and fisherwomen. Of the fishermen and

fisherwomen of this province not all have received assistance. In fact the

minister on September 25th in his special assistance program said that fishermen

who have no landings in 1992 and 1993 will receive 100 per cent forgiveness of

interest charged in these two years, provided they have demonstrated that they

have made serious efforts to meet their obligations to the loan board. In other

words we will pay your interest if you pay your principal. There is no

commitment not to demand principal. Even though he responded in the House

yesterday to this, there is no definitive statement that principal will be paid.

Also, he said fishermen who continue to have landings will

have the amount of assistance reduced by an amount equal to 20 per cent of the

value of their catch. Fishermen who continue to fish and get one fifth of their

gross dollar value are going to have to pay. In other words government is

inflicting a tie-up, encouraging the industry to tie up. If you fish it's going

to cost you money. If you stay home we'll pay your interest and possibly - but

no guarantee - freeze the principle. I think that's a very callous and uncaring

response to the fisherpeople of this Province. I think it's about time that this

government got serious and addressed this issue.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there are people in the gallery today who

are in the category where they were very eager and ambitious fishermen who

didn't go to the Loan Board or get government-guaranteed loans. They themselves

went to chartered banks. I went to great lengths to identify numbers, and the

number is very small. There are seven in my district, and actually beyond my

district. From St. Shotts into Petty Harbour we just identified seven fishermen

who went to chartered banks and obtained loans on their own initiative. They

wrote the minister and I received a response. He said: unfortunately the loan to

which you referred was not provided through the Fisheries Loan Board and you're

not eligible for assistance in respect to this loan.

In other words, if a fisherperson develops equity in the

industry, they go to a bank and make down payments of $5,000, $10,000, $15,000,

$20,000 or $30,000, they mortgage their boat, their house, and everything they

own, some of the most sea-faring and hardest working fishermen in this Province,

and they have the catches and their records to show for it, are being told by

this government : we're not responsible, we're not going to give incentives or

promote people to go out and work, we're going to promote and help people to tie

up their boats. There's something drastically wrong with the policies and

direction this government is taking. It is a disincentive to work.

On this topic I'd like to just address - and there are three

to my knowledge in this category, three fishermen in this category, and I doubt

if there are any more in this entire Province - who went out and purchased boats

ranging from $75,000 in one case up to $150,000. I'll use the $150,000 example.

Used a down payment of $30,000 on a lease-purchase agreement and agreed to pay

over a three-year period $40,000 per year, and they would own that boat. They

paid their $30,000 down payment; some have paid over half the first year's

agreement under the lease-purchase; and some have paid just slightly less than

half. These people too are going to be told by this Province that: because

you've spent up to now forty-some thousand of your own money on a boat that cost

$150,000 in one year, we're going to ignore you and we're not going to give any

funding to enable you to continue in the fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only three?

MR. SULLIVAN: Only three people in this category. People

whose families have grown and developed around the fishery, whose incomes are

dependent on it, who are now being harassed for payments that they cannot pay.

They gave their life savings and investments to pay down on these boats, and now

the government is going to do nothing about it because they didn't get a loan

through the Fisheries Loan Board or a guaranteed loan at a chartered bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. SULLIVAN: I think it's criminal, not just shameful,

that they're turning a deaf ear to it. I hope today that the hon. minister is

going to have some solutions to these problems. Because these problems are real.

MR. SIMMS: Blame the feds, that'll be their solution.

MR. SULLIVAN: That has been their solution. Yes, 'real

change.' We'll blame the feds. That's the 'real change,' we've seen. The hon.

minister acknowledged that the feds have lived up to their responsibilities.

He's happy with their response.

In reference to another area I'd just like to address, early

retirement. The PWAP program. It has been traditional and precedent setting that

fifty-five to sixty-five year olds can retire from the fishery on 70 per cent of

basically their UI income. I believe the Province certainly will be shamed into

going ahead with that aspect. They have no other choice. They've done it before.

I haven't seen anything in writing to that affect. Maybe they haven't done it as

of yet. What I find very annoying is that the federal government has been

convinced, yes by the provincial governments, maybe not this one but previous

governments and by the FFAW and by the union people, they have been convinced,

the feds, that we have been crying that they have not been listening, and they

have come back and said we will provide a retirement program for people fifty to

fifty-four years of age. In fact there are only an estimated 1,000 people under

this entire Northern Cod and Adjustment Recovery Program who fit into this

category, 1,000 people, and it has been estimated by very informed sources that

it will only cost this Province fifteen cents on the dollar, a maximum of

fifteen cents, and as low as probably ten cents on the dollar.

Whenever again, in the history of this province or this

country, is the province going to get an opportunity to get a ten or a fifteen

cent dollar and to retire with dignity 1,000 people who may wish to leave the

fishery, which now has an overcapacity and has an oversupply of people in the

harvesting sector? Ten to fifteen cents, it will never happen, you can be

assured of that and as sure as I say it today and take note that never again in

our lifetime, and I would certainly stand any time in the future to be

corrected, will we have an opportunity to deal with this, and never, it has

never been offered before, been successful in convincing the federal

counterparts that the fishery in Newfoundland is a unique fishery. We have

permitted it to go beyond in terms of harvesting, we have permitted it to go

beyond in terms of processing.

The federal government has taken its responsibility to

address the over harvesting aspect but the provincial government has not taken

any responsibility, has done nothing to address their areas of responsibility.

To the Member for St. John's South, this resolution here, in case he is not

informed, is dealing with the provincial government responsibilities and that is

the wording of the resolution. If he wants to debate the federal issues, it is

outside the realms of this resolution, and I will debate them at any time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and this

government have taken an uncaring and a nonresponse response to the fishery

problems, the same Premier who said that balance sheets will never come before

people. He said: balance sheets will never come before people. We have in a

priority ranking, constitution, balance sheets and everything else and then

people, that seems to be the approach, and fishery is at the very bottom of that

heap. What have they done in processing? Nothing. What have they done in

addressing people on their own initiative who try to obtain loans? They have

done nothing. What have they done on early retirement? I do not think they have

responded to the federal request even in the training component, and it is my

understanding that the federal government has offered a $200 million training

component in an area here, in provincial jurisdiction, training and the

provision of facilities and I believe there is a 70/30 offer for a $200 million

expenditure. In fact, it has been estimated that the spin-off effects in

revenues and other related things, that the cost to this Province is almost no

cost in net, real figures, and up to now we have not even got a response; up to

this point.

After three and a half years and four months now with a

fishery moratorium we have not heard one squeak out of the government and

everything we do hear is negative, it is a clawback and basically, maybe they do

not realize the impact that this is having on this Province. I heard on the news

just a while back that the coal miners in Britain and anticipated layoffs in

terms of our population and the coal mines in Great Britain, the effects would

be 100 times here in this Province, the shut down of the fishery compared to

that, and it was heard all around the world. The government sat up and listened

and it almost resulted in the downfall of a government and here in this

Province, 100 times the impact and they go on doing things as if the fishery in

this Province never shut down at all and as if they do not care if it ever

opened up again.

There are numerous areas I will address later in closing, but

my time is running short on my opening comments and I will address some aspects

of vessel support and requests and also one other specific area is with

reference to the 20 per cent deduction to the Fisheries Loan Board.

I would like to just briefly refer to a typical example of

the hardships that people are facing today because of this shutdown, and the

lack of response that this Province is giving.

Many people have moved from an inshore-fishery out into a

mid-distance fishery, and many forty-five foot boats could bring in catches of

$25,000. That was prior to the moratorium. As a result, normally with a 60/40

split between crew and boat, the crew would receive out of twenty-five, $15,000.

There would be 20 per cent to the Loan Board - that is $5,000 - with five to be

split in direct fishing costs and income for the head of the enterprise -

roughly $2,500 each as an example. Mr. McCurdy, the union I think, and Mr.

Broderick, have made reference to some figures pertaining to this, and ones to

which I will now refer.

As a result of what the Fisheries Loan Board is doing, a crew

now would be lucky to come in with any catch. They may spend ten or twelve days

chasing tuna fish and get no catch. They may come in with an underutilized catch

of maybe $10,000 of which the crew takes probably $6,000. The Loan Board takes

$2,000; direct fishing costs $2,500 or more, and there is a net loss of $500

before you even talk about clawback.

So people today are tying up their boats because this

government wanted clawback and then they did not want clawback. Now I think they

want some clawback. I am not sure what they want, they have changed their minds

so often on it.

Mr. Speaker, this government has taken away any real pride or

dignity in people. They are asking people to tie up their boats and stop

fishing. They are saying: We are not going to help anybody related to the

fishery, because the resource is a federal responsibility. The hon. minister

indicates he is happy with the federal response, but what does this Province

have to do, and what are they going to do on these issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to stand in this debate today and have a

few words about this resolution. From the outset I would have to say that I

fundamentally disagree with the resolution, and certainly will be voting against

it. I will leave the immediate response up to the Minister of Fisheries here to

annunciate the provincial government's response.

In the next few minutes I would like to focus on fisheries

management, the principles upon which fisheries management is based, and also

the record of the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Crosbie.

For the benefit of the hon. member and the other hon. members

opposite, I would just like to review that in 1949 when we joined Confederation,

under Term 22 we relinquished the Newfoundland Fisheries Board. Now whether we

agree with that or not, at the time that is exactly what happened. I will go

back to the Newfoundland Fisheries Board a little bit later, but that was there

up to 1949. Under Term 22 it was passed over to the federal government.

I would like to talk about two areas of fisheries management,

particulary resource allocation and licensing. I would also like to talk about

how it relates to the 200-mile limit. For hon. members opposite, the 200-mile

limit was brought in in 1977. The principles of management that accompanied that

particular initiative have been very, very clear. Apart from the overriding

principle of conservation of the fish stocks, the other principle that was

applied is the principle of adjacency, and that is the people, the communities,

the areas closest to the resource must receive the greatest benefit.

Mr. Speaker, in the next little while I want to outline how

this principle of adjacency has not been applied on an international basis; nor

has it been applied on a domestic basis. I want to outline for the hon. member

how it has affected the communities in his riding as well as the ones in mine

and all of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to tell him exactly how this

principle and how fishery management is impacting today upon his communities and

upon mine. Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years and even today there are

10,000 jobs being lost to Newfoundland and Labrador and the reason is because

the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa will not take the initiative to

correct the wrongs of the present groundfish management plan and other

international fisheries agreements.

On the international agreements, I would just like to point

out that at the present time there are agreements with ten countries in the

world, between Canada and these other nations, for a total of 100,000 metric

tons of fish. We are talking about 6,000 jobs here, 6,000 jobs being lost to

this Province as a result of the international fisheries agreements that we

have, Mr. Speaker, and they are renewed annually. Every year they go down to the

White Hills and pick up their licenses, Mr. Speaker, to be allowed to fish.

I would just like to talk about a couple of them, the species

and the quotas I am talking about. Twelve thousand, four hundred metric tons of

redfish in 2J, 3KL: This is an agreement that we have with France, Cuba, Norway,

Bulgaria and with Russia, the EEC, all of these countries we have these

agreements with. We have 12,400 metric tons of squid that we give away while we

won't even give our own people a license to be able to get one, Mr. Speaker.

Here we have a situation that I would like to be able to

relate to the member's own district. Just a little while ago the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans stood up in this Province and said, `I am going to impose a

unilateral deal on the French. They will not agree with the quotas that we

proposed to them, so we are going to bring in a unilateral deal.' Now, when he

was talking about the unilateral deal, did he think about Fermeuse, did he think

about Bay Bulls, did he think about Witless Bay? Did he think about it when he

said, `I am going to give you, in perpetuity, 15 million pounds of Gulf cod in

4R, 3PN and 3PS, next door to his district? No, he did not. And that was at the

hand of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, John C. Crosbie. That was him, Mr.

Speaker. That was enough to keep Fermeuse, Bay Bulls, Cape Broyle and Witless

Bay going all year around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: So, don't talk about having people thrown

out of work. I am talking about a specific example here that could have kept

hundreds of your people going just by a simple flick of the pen of that hon.

minister, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that right?

MR. DUMARESQUE: That is exactly right. What is even worse

is it is there now in perpetuity. Ten million pounds of grenadier, 15 million

pounds of caplin, all of this going to Russia, Mr. Speaker. Before we had the

agreement with France there were 26 million pounds of cod on the table. Now

under this unilateral deal there are only 24 million.

Mr. Speaker, this is the essence of the debate. John Crosbie

has the right to allocate those resources, and nobody else. He has the right to

license these people, and nobody else. It is not this Province, it is not this

Premier, it is not this government. If you are talking about jobs, Mr. Speaker,

those are real jobs, that is real input into the local economy of our

communities.

Now, I want to talk about the domestic situation that we have

here within Canada, our own Atlantic groundfish management plan and our Northern

shrimp plan and our mackerel plan and others. I talk about the Atlantic

groundfish management plan, in particular. Here we have a situation, Mr.

Speaker, that in 1977 and for a number of years after we were allocating fish to

various communities in this Province through the companies and also, at the

time, we were having surplus stocks. We had surplus fish to our needs. So at the

time we were being good Canadians and we advocated that some of that be given

over to other provinces. So it was and so it should be, if we had surplus fish

to our needs. At the time, certainly National Sea Products and other companies -

Clearwater Fisheries in Nova Scotia - got access to our resources. Because at

the prevailing time, we had enough fish adjacent to our shores to take care of

our needs.

At the present time, we do not have that. Before July 2 this

year do you know that 25 per cent of the Northern cod was allocated to Nova

Scotia companies? Do you know that 11,000 metric tons of redfish was given to

National Sea and still is in the hands of National Sea Products, at a time when

La Scie and the Baie Verte - White Bay area, are closed down. National Sea says:

We are going to close it down. They are going to close down Arnold's Cove. But

at the same time, Mr. Speaker, that Minister of Fisheries is allowing 24 million

pounds of redfish to be caught in 2J-3KL and taken 1,000 miles back to Nova

Scotia to keep their plants open twelve months around.

Now those are jobs! Those are real jobs. Two thousand tons of

turbot up in 2J-3KL, they give to Nova Scotia companies, Two thousand tons of

Northern turbot that could keep Black Tickle plant in my riding, with 130

workers, going for seven months. Fifty miles from the point in Black Tickle and

Domino Run, the companies and the boats are taking it from there back 1,000,

1,500 miles, to Nova Scotia, under the explicit direction and clear permission

of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa, the hon. John C. Crosbie.

MR. MURPHY: Shame!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Now, that's what is happening out there,

Mr. Speaker. Two thousand tons of flounder, 5 million pounds of which, and other

types -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are wrong again.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I am not wrong, Mr. Speaker. I would

challenge him to look in the Atlantic groundfish management plan. I have those

figures there. I can show him the thirty-one instances where we have the zones

and the species all lined up and I can tell you exactly what we are doing. We

are losing, as we sit here today, 75,000 metric tons of fish. I remind hon.

members that there's not only cod in the waters, and it is not only cod that can

keep our plants growing. It is no different to have 10,000 tons of redfish go

through Arnold's Cove and keep 500 people working than it is to have 10,000 tons

of cod and keep the same number of people working.

The same thing applies to the Northern shrimp fishery. At the

time when the Northern shrimp fishery is being exploited for the benefit of the

people. The northern shrimp fishery, for those who don't know, runs from the top

of Cape Chidley up in the Ungava Bay area, down through to 2J, in the Hopedale

channel, the Cartwright channel, the Hock channel, and down into the St. Anthony

basin. Not one shrimp is caught north of Fogo Island. Yet, at the same time, let

me tell you what the hon. Minister of Fisheries is allowing to happen. He is

allowing and giving away directly 53 per cent of that shrimp to Nova Scotia,

Quebec and New Brunswick companies. Four hundred and fifty jobs at $40,000 a

year. They are coming from Nova Scotia, from Lunenburg, from North Sydney. They

are going on to these boats, not Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That's what

is happening here today.

Can't we use them? I say to the hon. member: Can't we use

these 450 jobs at $40,000 a year, long-term, meaningful jobs? But what we have

seen is that the hon. John C. Crosbie in Ottawa is more concerned about the

political salvation of the Tory Party in Ottawa than he is about his own people

in Newfoundland and Labrador! That's what is happening. He is putting his pure,

partisan interest before the welfare of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

- ten thousand jobs being lost now as a result, at the stroke of a pen, by that

hon. minister.

I would say to the hon. member, let's be honest. If you're

coming into this House for the first time and you want to make a point, then

let's be honest about making that point. Let's be honest and look at the real

problem, and say that we're going to zero in on where the real problem is, not

trying to be propping up a disreputable government in Ottawa and trying to hide

behind the Tory flag, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of doing that particular thing.

I say to hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that our own native son

is doing the gravest injustice to this Province that any man could ever do

because we are not going to get too many opportunities to have a Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans from Newfoundland. I had great hopes and great aspirations

that he would undo and correct the injustices that were done, not only those of

the last eight years, but of the last thirty-five or forty years. I know that

the hon. members in the previous Liberal government advocated the same things

and created the same kind of mess. I am not saying that it was only the last

eight years that it was done, but what we have here is a situation today where

we have 20,000 people in this Province who have been thrown out of work,

families in turmoil, communities are going to die, and at a time when we could

say, we are going to correct this injustice, saying to La Scie that Nova Scotia

has to come second, and to Nova Scotia: You cannot take the turbot from 2J-3KL

back to your plants, you have to land it in La Scie or in Arnold's Cove. That is

where the priority has to be, Mr. Speaker. We have had a fisheries board in the

past. The precedent is there, as I said.

The hon. John C. Crosbie says no - no, Mr. Wells, no to the

people of this Province - when we advocate joint management of our adjacent

resources. He will not entertain the idea. He said: No, you don't deserve it.

You can't have it. Well, why can't we have it? The reason, my friends, we can't

have it is because the hon. Minister of Public Works, the Elmer MacKays of the

world in Nova Scotia and the Gerry Merrithews of the world in New Brunswick and

the Benot Bouchards of the world in Quebec are saying to Crosbie: Let's get

your priorities straight, Mr. Crosbie. Take care of the Tories in Nova Scotia,

New Brunswick and Quebec and forget that your first and foremost obligation is

to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Also, what is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that Barbara

McDougall is playing the biggest part of fisheries management in this country.

Barbara McDougall tells John Crosbie when she is going to give more fish to Cuba

or to the Faroese or to France or to Russia or the EEC. That's who is running

it, and it is about time, Mr. Speaker, that we had the international fisheries

(inaudible) eliminated, because until we do, Mr. Speaker, we are never going to

have anything more than fish being bartered for other trade priorities of the

national government. I say to the hon. member, it is about time that we look at

our fishery honestly, openly and clearly and say: Let's take back what we had

before. Let's bring back the Fisheries Board for Newfoundland and Labrador that

was there in 1949. Let's take back what is justifiably ours because we have the

people - the hon. member mentioned the able-bodied people in his riding. I have

the same in my riding, and I am sure all hon. members do. All they want to do is

fish. All they want to do is work. All they want is to see their communities

survive and prosper. But what they have to do, Mr. Speaker, is get permission

and be allocated the proper resource to make that a reality. And who is standing

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: How ironic, Mr. Speaker! How ironic! At a

time of worst need - at no time since the 1930s, have we seen this kind of

crisis - a time when we are on bended knee and begging for an opportunity to do

something for our communities and ourselves, we have none other than our own

patriot son standing in our way and saying: No! You are not going to get what is

justifiably yours. That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of situation that prevails

right now in fisheries management in this Province and, indeed, in this country.

I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying of fisheries

management resource allocation and licensing, if you want to get up and argue

that that is not totally within federal jurisdiction, and argue that it is not

the fact that you can allocate 7,000 tons of turbot or 7,000 tons of redfish to

the La Scies, Port au Ports, Port Blandfords or some other parts of the world,

if you want to argue that, then go ahead, but you are obviously perpetrating an

untruth. Because everybody knows that these aspects of fisheries management are

totally within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and presently under

the direct pen of the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

If you want to do something, I say to the Member for

Ferryland district, if you want to do something for Calvert, for Bay Bulls, for

Witless Bay, ask Mr. Crosbie will he put your communities before the interests

of St. Malo, France. Ask him if he will bring back the 15 million pounds of cod

that he just gave them in perpetuity. Ask him that direct question and let him

answer, because I can tell you that what he is going to have to answer is: I am

sorry - I have to take care of the PC Party first.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough for your riding,

and it is not good enough for this Province, and we will not stand for it. We

will do whatever we have to do to see that that minister and that government in

Ottawa are taken to full account, and we are getting back the ownership of what

is rightfully ours for the future of our communities and the future of our

people.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

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

First of all, I want to commend the Member for Ferryland on

what I consider to be an excellent speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member for Ferryland, I say to the

Member for Port de Grave. Now, old Matlock should be quiet, because he wrestled

this case before and lost, I say to him.

The Member for Ferryland gave an excellent speech, and he

covered his points very, very well. As matter of fact, I would suggest that the

Member for Ferryland covered the fisheries issues affecting this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder could I interrupt the hon. member? I was supposed to

introduce some students before you started to speak.

MR. MATTHEWS: Go right ahead, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to welcome to the public

galleries today, on behalf of hon. members, students from the Strait of Belle

Isle district, forty-one students from Mary Simms All Grade School, Main Brook,

and H.G. Fillier Academy in Englee, accompanied by their teachers, Susan Smith,

Carl George, and Oliver Arthur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am more than glad to give time to welcome visitors to the

galleries. I hope they are enjoying what they are seeing and hearing today. I am

sure, if you were to ask them afterwards who they feel has the best grasp of

fisheries issues in this Province, there would be no doubt about their answer.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Member for Eagle River that

we are here today debating the resolution which says: THEREFORE

be it resolved

that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador - and I want them to listen to

this - that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador address its

responsibility to those directly affected by the moratorium.

Now, if I didn't know the difference, I could have sworn that

there was a federal election and that the Member for Eagle River was up

representing Labrador and I was up representing Burin - St. George's. I want to

say to him that we are not in the House of Commons, we are in the House of

Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, the provincial Legislature, and this

government that was elected three-and-a-half years ago have responsibilities to

the Newfoundland fishery. Now, you would never know that by listening to any of

them speak, from the Premier down. He has blamed Mr. Crosbie, blamed the

processors, blamed the union, blamed the media.

MR. TOBIN: Blamed the fishermen.

MR. MATTHEWS: Blamed the fishermen, blamed everyone; but

don't expect me to do anything for you.

MR. EFFORD: Speak for yourself, don't speak for this

fellow!

MR. MATTHEWS: I would never dare entertain the thought of

trying to speak for you, because I am afraid I would find myself in too much

trouble, I say to the hon. member. If the hon. member wants to take

part in

debate, he can speak afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing! John Crosbie - I know we have all

had our differences with him. We have agreed with some things he has done, we

have disagreed with others. But how one human being could create so much

devastation, so much hardship in the Newfoundland fishery in that great big,

vast, Atlantic Ocean, since October of 1991, I would like to be able to

understand. Even John Crosbie could not be that destructive. The man only became

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans last October I believe it was, about a year or

little more ago, but can you imagine that this bad, bad John Crosbie has

decimated the Newfoundland fishery in just twelve months, and the Member for

Eagle River to stand in his place and for people who did not know the

difference, who did not understand the fishery, who did not understand the

history of the Newfoundland fishery and the problems, and I hope the students in

the gallery have followed the history of the Newfoundland fishery because what

the hon. member has referred to, the problems with Canada/France, started in

1972, the infamous 1972 treaty that was signed between the Trudeau government

and the government of France, and that treaty is binding upon all Government's

that treaty has to allocate fish to France, as much as I detest it, as much as

the hon. member detests it, as much as the fishermen detest it and particularly

as much as the people in my district, who fish 3Ps detest it. It was Pierre

Trudeau, and your George Bakers and your Pierre De Bane and your Romeo LeBlancs

who caused the problems in 1972. It is unfair to blame that problem on John

Crosbie.

AN HON. MEMBER: He did not have to give them (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: It is very unfair and we saw what happened

just a few months ago, when the world court ruled on the dispute, and a big

factor in the world court decision was the 1972 treaty that even the world court

could not ignore and we saw what happened. The boundary came down. France has to

have access to groundfish stocks and unfortunately the new scallop industry is

in jeopardy down my way because most of the scallop resources land inside the

boundary.

MR. TOBIN: Thanks to Trudeau.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thanks to Trudeau, and all his cohorts, so

do not blame that on John Crosbie. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ferryland covered

some very good points. He talked about the Minister of Fisheries 20 per cent

requirement of payment of value of cash landings. The President of the

Fishermen's Union called it a disincentive to work and he is correct. It

certainly is a disincentive to work. Yesterday I asked the minister to

reconsider that but I do not think the minister is willing to reconsider that,

which I think is a shame because we have people who are trying to make a dollar,

fishing species other than cod, and because of their own initiative they are out

and about trying to make a living, trying to maintain an attachment to the

fishery, and they are penalized for doing so.

As the Member for Ferryland said when he talked about those

people who went and took the risk through their own means and got loans for

boats. Things went bad, which they did not know when they borrowed the money.

Processors were making all kinds of plans in this province, they did not know

the moratorium was going to be announced, and if it was they thought they had

more time. So there has been a request to the Minister of Fisheries, to the

Fisheries Loan Board to help those people who went out on their own initiative,

and again they are being penalized by this government. They should not be

penalized because they got up and did something themselves, because they were

willing to take the risk, these are the kind of people who should be rewarded.

They should be rewarded, these people who go out and take chances and use some

initiative to keep working and keep earning, why penalize those, particularly in

light of what the member brought forward today that we are talking about so few

fishermen in that category. Why would not the Minister of Fisheries reconsider

it, and I say to the Member for Eagle River, that the Fisheries Loan Board is a

responsibility of the provincial government. Processing is a responsibility of

the provincial government.

There are some responsibilities that are provincial. Now when

you look at the record of this government in the fishery in the last three and a

half years, you would wonder why they would want any more responsibility. If I

were John Crosbie in Ottawa, I would have to question myself and say: well, what

would they do if I gave them more? What have they done with what they now have,

what would they do with more, when all they ever do, the Premier, the Minister

of Fisheries and every other minister and member, when every time they stand to

their feet: it is not my responsibility. They blame someone else. It is a

government that thrives on blame. It is not a government that takes any

responsibility for anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Honesty.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, you are not an honest government, you

are a very dishonest government I say to the Member for Eagle River, very

dishonest. Just as dishonest as when the Premier stood in his place today and

re-acted to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, talking about what our

position was on fisheries management, and, Mr. Speaker, if people did not know

the difference, they would have believed the Premier, but what we have

consistently called for is shared jurisdiction - shared. It goes back to 1980, I

say to the Member for Eagle River and the Premier, 1980, then again in 1985 in a

document - Managing All Our Resources. The Leader of the Opposition put that

position in front of the provincial constitution committee again. But what does

the Premier try to do today? Tries to make everyone believe that the position is

different. That's what we've called for since 1980, that's twelve years ago.

MR. TOBIN: He's a pathetic (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: We have been consistent as a party in what

we wanted in fisheries management.

I want to go back to what the Premier said again today, Mr.

Speaker. The Premier was frightened to death that there was an opportunity that

Newfoundland and Labrador would get more say over its fisheries. That's obvious.

He was frightened to death. What was the Premier preoccupied with during Meech

Lake and the latest round of constitutional talks?... appointments to the

Supreme Court of Canada.

MR. TOBIN: What fisherman wants that?

MR. MATTHEWS: Do the fishermen and the fish plant

workers, and the loggers and the miners, and the nurses and the teachers in this

Province, give two hoots about who gets appointed to the Supreme Court of

Canada? Is that going to put bread and butter on the table of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians? But that's Clyde's high principles.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Because he wanted to get there himself.

MR. MATTHEWS: It made some difference to Newfoundland who

got appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was not going to make a lot of

difference to the people of Newfoundland whether we had a Triple E Senate. I

said to the Premier in debate in the old Legislature, on the Meech lake debate:

if you can show me how a Triple E Senate will make life better for the people in

Lourdes Cove and Point May and Lamaline I will publicly support your position,

and I would have. But what was a Triple E Senate going to do for them?

It was Clyde's principles. All our eggs were in the Triple E

basket. What a farce, Mr. Speaker: No, I don't have time, I wasn't going to

blackmail Canadians and blackmail the other First Ministers by asking for some

compromise on Newfoundland's most important and traditional industry, the

fishery. I couldn't bother myself with that. The Supreme Court and the Triple E

Senate are what I want.

Clyde Wells doesn't have time to be concerned about the

tables and the kitchens of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the basic problem.

He doesn't understand what the fishery means to the future of the people on this

side of the gallery today and here, because as I said from Day 1, Clyde Wells,

to me - I think he's so far removed from the fishery, he doesn't want to get

near it. He doesn't think it's an honourable profession. That's his problem. He

thinks we should all be lawyers, premiers, constitutional lawyers. We can't all

be that. The future of this Province still, for the most part, relies and will

rely on the Newfoundland fishery. Anyone who thinks any differently - you can

talk diversification till you turn blue in the face. What are you going to

diversify to in most of Newfoundland's rural communities, if it's not something

related to the fishery?

That's what we're talking about here. This minister and this

government have provincial responsibilities in the fishery, and they are not

exercising them, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. You are not exercising your

responsibilities. If you don't want to exercise your responsibilities, and are

not willing to, then let someone else do it. But if there was ever a time for

strong leadership in our fishery it's now.

What do we get from this government? We've seen it here all

day. The Premier started in Question Period. The Member for Eagle River has

continued. Blaming someone else. Blame is not going to feed the thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are looking for a job. Blame is not going

to feed them. Blame is not going to put them to work. If only we could have

employed them all on the Constitution, or fed them Constitution, they would have

all been working and very well fed. When it comes down to dealing with economic

issues in this Province, the most important one being our fishery, we're not

getting any leadership from our premier and from our Minister of Fisheries. That

is the bottom line in all this.

The Member for Eagle River talked about adjacency. We've all

fought the adjacency issue for years. He talked about licensing, he talked about

the two-hundred mile limit back in 1977, we all know those battles and most of

them were twenty years ago. We're talking about 1992, and we have a very serious

situation in our province. Again I want to say to the Member for Ferryland that

he was spot on when he said that this Premier and this provincial government are

not willing to roll up their sleeves and do anything for fisherpersons and fish

plant workers in this Province, because they are afraid of the backlash from

other sectors.

Over the next number of days we will demonstrate that. We

will demonstrate that one of the main reasons why this provincial government is

not out assisting fishermen, fish plant workers, processors who have their life

savings on the line, the reason the Premier and the government is not doing

anything is because they are saying we cannot make a special class - those are

the words - a special class, a priority class out of fishermen and fish plant

workers in this Province. That is what Clyde Wells and his government are

saying. I assure you that over the next number of days we will demonstrate to

the people of the province that what I am saying today is indeed a fact. That is

their problem.

Can you imagine? It is like representing a district and

saying: well I can't go and try to get your water and sewer program going for

you because I have five or six more over there and I can't make them special, so

you do without a water and sewer system forever and they will do without one

forever. That is the way that argument goes. I mean you can't think that way as

a government. You can't think that way as a member. You have to go out, make

decisions and help people. If the loggers need help, help the loggers. If the

miners need help, help the miners, but there is no one in this province today

that can argue that fishermen and fish plant workers don't need help.

MR. TOBIN: Too many meetings going on (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Now maybe there is some members opposite

here who think that fishermen and fish plant workers don't need help. Maybe

there are members opposite who think that processors don't need help. I don't

happen to be one of them. I think they need a lot of help, and I think it is

time that the provincial government honour this responsibility, particularly at

the loan board level with assisting the processors, trying to get them through

this very rough period of time, the moratorium. They need help. I say to the

Minister of Fisheries and members opposite that the resolution that has been

brought forward by my colleague from Ferryland today is an excellent resolution,

and he worded it in such a way that it talked about provincial responsibilities

- the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador's responsibilities. Not Ottawa's

responsibilities.

Ottawa can do more. There is no question. But to be very

brutally honest, Mr. Speaker, I don't think $800 million is too bad. I don't

think $800 million for the northern cod moratorium package is too bad. If only

we had another $150 million or $200 million to put with it we could probably get

through the moratorium pretty good. But when you have a government here that has

not yet put in one nickel, not one nickel, into this very serious problem, it

makes you wonder. What do they get up and talk about today? They bash John

Crosbie. They curse John Crosbie. For what, $800 million? If it wasn't for John

Crosbie, Mr. Speaker, - and as I have said, I have had my differences with

Crosbie and I will continue to have them, but I will guarantee you one thing

that if it wasn't for the few federal dollars that John Crosbie brings out of

Ottawa I don't know what the people in the District of Grand Bank would be doing

today because there hasn't been a nickel from Clyde Wells and his government.

Not a nickel. All they have done in three and a half years is shut down the

works from hospitals to schools to fish plants. That is what they have done, Mr.

Speaker. That is what they have done.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be honest.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am honest, I say to the Member for

Harbour Grace.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not honest.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am honest! I am grateful to John Crosbie

for $800 million. I am very grateful for it.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am grateful for every federal dollar that

he puts into federal/provincial agreements. And I say to the Member for Harbour

Grace that if it wasn't for John Crosbie a lot more of his people would be going

hungry this winter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: The people in your district can't thank

Clyde Wells and Water Carter for not being hungry this winter, as well as all

the people along the northeast coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nail him.

MR. MATTHEWS: So I say to the member, he can have a

chance to debate this as well, but when I stand in this Legislature the one

thing I do is tell the truth, and no one here can deny that John Crosbie has put

at least $800 million into the moratorium package.

MR. TOBIN: Stand up and debate it like a man.

MR. MATTHEWS: Clyde Wells has put zero dollars in. Now is

there anyone who can refute that? Show me what he has put in I say to the Member

for Harbour Grace. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Member for Harbour Grace has

been here long enough to know that if he wants to take

part in debate that at

least he should have the energy to stand up. He should at least have the energy

to rise.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: He should at least stand up and speak, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I mean it is sad when someone else has to

come in here and speak for the member's constituents. Someone else has to come

and ask questions for his constituents and for towns in trouble. Why? Because

they are muzzled by the emperor, but they support him on supreme court judges

and Triple E Senates. They support him on that because that is going to make a

big difference to rural Harbour Grace, I say to the member. They are going to be

eating that all winter, Triple E Senate and supreme court judges. They are going

to be eating it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying to the

Minister of Fisheries before he rises in his place, that I hope today when he

rises he will announce that he is going to reconsider the 20 per cent

requirement, that he will look at those fishermen, who of their own initiative

went and borrowed and put their signature on the line, who want to stay involved

in the fishery. I hope he does something for them. I hope as well, Mr. Speaker,

when the minister rises in debate he will respond to my colleague's resolution

and he will tell processors in this province that he is going to have a package

to help get them through the moratorium as well, because that is what is needed

in this province, Mr. Speaker. That is provincial responsibility, I say to

members opposite. It is a provincial responsibility. So I hope the Minister of

Fisheries, when he rises in his place, has the concurrence from his colleague,

his seatmate, the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury, to at least

give a few paltry dollars to help get Newfoundlanders and Labradorians through

this very serious crisis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is not difficult to understand why the province is finding

it so difficult to get the federal government to accept its responsibilities to

the Province of Newfoundland and to the fishermen of Newfoundland, given the

type of statement and speech that the hon. Member for the District of Grand

Bank, a fishing district by the way, has just made.

Mr. Speaker, how they can stand in their places in this House

of Assembly, people representing fishing districts, and go to such lengths to

try and shift the blame from where it really belongs, with the federal

government and their federal soulmates, Mr. Crosbie and others, onto the

Province is beyond me. It is just incredible! Like I say, it is no wonder the

Province is finding it so difficult, Mr. Speaker, to get justice for our

fishermen and fish plant workers.

He talks about this grandiose plan, this great scheme that

Mr. Crosbie announced, $800 million. Let me tell him, Mr. Speaker, that

Newfoundlanders should not feel as though they have to get on their knees and

give Mr. Crosbie thanks.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, that is what they are saying.

MR. CARTER: That is what, in effect, they are saying: Get

on your knees, Newfoundlanders, and give thanks to Mr. John in Ottawa for this

great gift that he is giving Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, if Newfoundlanders were

to get justice, given the fact that the federal government, of which Mr. Crosbie

is a part, destroyed our most important industry, yes, I suppose, probably $8

billion would be closer to what we should get, and not $800 million.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the

hon. gentleman from Ferryland district, his maiden speech. It is regrettable

that a member who represents a fishing community and whose family connection in

the fisheries is well known to most members in this House, would see fit to rise

in his place for his first time, his maiden speech, and make that kind of a

speech, to try again to shift responsibility from his friend, John, and to try

to blame it on the province. It is just incredible, Mr. Speaker, that a new

member in his maiden speech would see fit to do that. It is the hand of Loyola

but the voice of John, I think we just witnessed.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the problems that

Newfoundlanders are now experiencing, especially people in the -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder could the hon.

gentleman for Burin - Placentia West be asked to remain quiet. I did not

interrupt the hon. gentleman from Grand Bank or from Ferryland and I expect to

be shown the same courtesy.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) of the Province is your problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked for quiet.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, sometimes you have to listen to

thunder but it is not pleasant.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the problems that we

are now experiencing in this province in connection with the fishery and the

need for the moratorium that was imposed on the northern cod fishery just

recently is a direct result of years of mismanagement on the part of the federal

government. No ifs, ands or buts about it, Mr. Speaker. The federal government

has badly mismanaged our fishery. They have ignored the advice of the Province

and others, people in the industry who, for years now, have been telling them to

take a more cautious approach to their management plans and their setting of the

TACs.

I recall back, I believe it was in 1989, when the then

minister, Mr. Valcourt, came to the Province and announced a total allowable

catch. I think it was in the order of two hundred and some-odd thousand metric

tons. The Province then, based on the best scientific advice we could get, had

some - in fact we had strong reservations, as to the wisdom of setting that

large a total allowable catch.

We expressed that concern to the minister publicly and

privately. I recall in a telephone conversation with him - as usual the advance

notice we got of that management plan and that total allowable catch

announcement was by way of a conference telephone call about an hour or two

before the announcement was made. I recall very well telling him that the

Province could not agree to that large a TAC - that we had certain reservations

as to the wisdom of setting the TAC that high. I recall the minister saying to

me privately what he subsequently said publicly, that he was the minister for

fishermen, not the minister for fish, and that he had more concern about people

than he had in protecting our fish stocks. Of course, time has proven that Mr.

Valcourt was wrong in his approach. Now we are paying a price for it.

I recall very well Mr. Crosbie, the present Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans, criticizing the Province because we dared suggest that

maybe the total allowable catch being announced by him in the management plan -

I believe it was 1991, or it might have been the fall of 1990 - when we said

that the allowable catch was too high and would probably cause problems. He came

back and criticized the Province for daring to suggest that he was doing

anything wrong. Now we are paying a price for it, and we are paying a very dear

price.

For the members opposite to suggest that Newfoundlanders

should be forever grateful to this great federal government for coming forward

with a compensation package, I think is not worthy of the people who sit in this

House or who represent fishing districts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Yes, I recall very well my comments in the

Radisson Hotel, the press conference I had and the statements I made concerning

the compensation package, given the fact that Mr. Crosbie came down here just a

few weeks prior to that time and announced a package that was, in fact, an

insult to Newfoundlanders - an across the board compensation package of $225 a

week, I think it was. Then, of course, it was received with such concern and

alarm on the part of most Newfoundlanders, especially our fishermen, that he

went back to Ottawa and returned with a better package. I said then and I say

now that it was a vast improvement. The second package that he announced was a

vast improvement over that which he announced at the beginning.

AN HON. MEMBER: The first one was an insult.

MR. CARTER: The first one was an insult; of course it

was. So I make no apology for what I said, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that Mr. Crosbie has acknowledged

responsibility for the problem, in a way, by virtue of the fact that he has come

up with a compensation package for fishermen. Now, that, in my view, is an

acknowledgement that the federal government is responsible for what has happened

to our fish stocks. Mr. Crosbie or his federal colleagues and associates are not

in the habit of handing out eight or nine hundred million dollars to a Province

where they have no responsibility. So I think the fact that they are paying that

compensation is an acknowledgement that it is their responsibility.

Where does their responsibility end then, Mr. Speaker? It

does not end just with fishermen. It must follow that if, by virtue of their bad

management, they feel obligated to provide compensation to fishermen affected,

it must follow for people who are in the processing sector, who are suffering

the same fate, that surely then, they have some responsibility to them.

Mr. Crosbie, of course, has very skilfully tried to

manipulate the Province into the position of having to accept full

responsibility for propping up, bailing out - call it what you want - the

processing sector. That is not a simple matter to deal with, as you can imagine.

I contend - and I have said this to him publicly, and I have supported the

efforts of the Fish Trades Association in the Province; I have supported their

efforts to get the federal government to acknowledge its responsibility to them.

I am hoping that eventually he will do that.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, and as the hon. gentleman from

Eagle River has so well put it, the management of our fish stocks by the federal

government, whose responsibility it is to manage that resource, has been nothing

short of disgraceful over the years. The federal government has full

responsibility. For the benefit of those in the galleries, including the young

people, I should point out that the federal government and Mr. Crosbie have full

responsibility to manage and control our fishery - full responsibility.

Mr. Crosbie and his officials and associates determine what

the allowable catch will be. They determine if the allowable catch is going to

be 100,000 tons or 200,000 tons. That is their responsibility. They have

complete power. They don't come down and consult the Province and ask: What do

you think? Should the TAC be lower or what? They have complete power to set the

total allowable catch. Having done that, then, of course, they have full

responsibility, complete power, over who gets a licence to catch that fish. It

is they who determine who will get a licence to catch that fish.

The federal minister and his colleagues in the federal

Cabinet, and his associates and his officials, will determine how much of that

fish they will be allowed to catch. They will determine the species, what type

of fish they are going to catch, whether it is going to be cod, redfish, turbot,

caplin or what. They are the ones who licence fishermen; they determine how many

fishermen there will be in Newfoundland. The Province has never issued a licence

to a fisherman. We have no authority to do that.

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: The hon. gentleman from Fogo says: Oh, no. If

he thinks otherwise it shows just how misled he has been.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's gone next election.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that

the Province does not have the authority -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) I said!

MR. CARTER: - to issue licences to fishermen.

AN HON. MEMBER: 'Oh, no,' you said. You said, 'Oh, no.'

MR. CARTER: That is the sole prerogative of the federal

government.

So all areas of responsibility that have caused the problem

and the difficulties through which we are now going have been caused by the

federal government - not by the Province, not by the union, not by the industry

or the fishermen, but by the federal government. They call all of the shots.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CARTER: Now, I know they don't like to hear this,

because, Mr. Crosbie, I am sure, will be getting a report later on what happened

during this debate today, and I'm sure they're not going to want to tell him

that this point was made.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll get their instructions then.

MR. CARTER: They have already gotten their instructions.

So, Mr. Speaker, full responsibility for what has happened

rests squarely on the shoulders of the federal government, and now, on the

shoulders of the federal minister who happens to be a Newfoundlander, Mr. John

Crosbie.

So, Mr. Speaker, it must follow then, that any compensation

needed to offset some of the problems caused by their mismanagement and the need

for a moratorium, surely, that must rest, as well, on the shoulders of the

federal government and on Mr. Crosbie. And for a member of this House to get up

and to suggest that:

WHEREAS it is evident that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador has not addressed the impact of the moratorium on the fishing industry;

THEREFORE

be it resolved that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador address its responsibility to those directly affected by the

moratorium.

That, Mr. Speaker, is utter and absolute nonsense. It is

hardly worthy of debate or comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CARTER: Because that resolution - I am not going to

amend the resolution. We will let the resolution stand and we will vote on it.

But if I were allowed to amend it - I know what I'm going to suggest would not

get past Your Honour - the resolution should more appropriately read:

Whereas,

it is evident that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has addressed the

impact of the moratorium of the fishing industry; therefore,

be it resolved that

by the moratorium. That would be a more appropriate resolution, but I am not

going to bring forward an amendment because he has a right to have his motion

voted on as it is presented.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen opposite, have talked about what

the Province has not been doing and I think the gentleman from Grand Bank said

the Province has not done anything at all to help alleviate the problems caused

by the moratorium. Mr. Speaker, that is not correct, and he knows it is not

correct. I might point out by the way, that the Province has not only tried to

help people affected in the moratorium area by recognizing certain problems with

respect to their Fishery Loan Board loans, but we have also extended that

assistance, Mr. Speaker, to the entire Province.

Now, we have a situation developing in the Province on the

West Coast, where the fish stocks are probably worse off than what they are, if

that is possible, on the Northeast Coast. We have consistently asked Mr. Crosbie

to address that problem and to do the right thing, to impose a moratorium on

that area, to pay the fishermen compensation and give the fish stocks there a

chance to rebuild, but Mr. Speaker, the minister is not prepared to do that. He

is resisting doing what needs to be done and what should be done, and I fear

that within a couple of years, conditions in the Gulf area will have

deteriorated to a point where it might be too late, Mr. Speaker, to start the

process of rebuilding those stocks.

So what we see happening on the West Coast is a repeat of

what we have seen happen on the Northeast Coast, where the federal government

stubbornly refused to do anything until it was almost too late, until the fish

stocks had all but collapsed.

Mr. Speaker, this problem has been caused by many things, not

the least of which, of course, is another problem that Mr. Crosbie and his

federal colleagues are refusing to address, that of foreign overfishing. We all

know the impact that has had on the fish stocks and on the fishing industry of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is no secret that the Province has been very

actively engaged in trying to focus public attention on that problem and trying

to get some action. But again, Mr. Crosbie and his federal associates and

colleagues have stubbornly refused to do anything about that. They are now

trying to go about it the diplomatic way, but we all know that is not working,

and we all know that while they are now trying to lull Newfoundlanders into a

state of complacency by saying that the EC and others are about to take certain

action or about to do certain things that would indicate that they are prepared

to cut back on fishing, we all know that Mr. Speaker, is not the way it is going

to work.

We have a feeling that once the fish stocks are rebuilt, as

they will be in time, then we expect to see the European Community and others

back there in full force. But what has happened is that by virtue of their

announcements we are being lulled into a state of complacency, and that, Mr.

Speaker, is very, very unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to what the Province has done for

the