Volume XLI W ednes day Province of Newfoundland FORTY- FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND First Session VERBATIM REPORT (Hansard} Speaker: Honourable Thomas Lush Number 4 31 M ay 1989

---"- The House met at 2:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order. please! 000 MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government Leader. Or Opposition Leader. I am sorry. MR. SIMMS: That is okay. Mr. Speaker. quite acceptable. House House It is Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a point of privilege for Your Honour's consideration. It is the earliest opportunity I have had to deal with the matter because I wanted to walt to get a copy of the Hansard of yesterday's proceedings. which I was able to attain late this morning. I want to say. first of all. Mr.

Speaker. that I realize that the Speaker cannot rule on a question of privilege. As Beauchesne's Sixth Edition clearly says in Paragraph 26 ( 3). "It follows that the Speaker can rule on a question of order. but he cannot rule on a question of privilege". as he knows. Your Honour's role. of course. for the beneCi t of members. t guess. ls to decide whether the matter that I am about to raise. and that I will raise. is of such a character as to allow a motion. which I am prepared to move. and give that motion priority over Orders of the Day. In othe.r words. whether a prima facie case is established.

Ll65 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI The matter I want to raise deals with a response given to this House yesterday by the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Flight) in debate. With Your Honour's indulgence. I will try to summarize it as quickly as I can and quote from yesterday's Hansard. Yesterday's Hansard pages 146. 147 and 148 are the appropriate references. Basically what transpired is that the Leader of the Opposition was responding ·to comments made by the Premier in response to questions concerning transportation projects.

They had asked for officials in the Department of Transportation to provide them with a list of priori ties and to put forth proposals for the government - not proposals. but actually what the projects would be. The Premier was commenting on how the government accepted the advice of those senior officials and the expertise. and the Leader of the Opposition made the point that he had no problem with that. of course. but he would have less trouble with it if the Minister of Forestry was able to say that he accepted the professional advice of his officials. That is what the issue was all about.

In essence. later on. on page 147. after rising on a second occasion. I asked the minister the question pointedly. The question is: 'Can he categorically deny that his off.icials did not recommend a program using both products.' ~eferring. of course. to the spray program? The minister's response. 'Yes.' So. Mr. Speaker. categorically that did not recommend against the looper and fenitrothion.' point. No. 4 he denied h.is officials the program using both Bt That is the Rl65

Now. Mr. Speaker. my whole argument is that I happen to know. obviously. as a minister in the former adminis t ra t:ion. exactly what the officials of the Department of Forestry prepared and recommended in a submission that was submit ted to Cabinet. to the Executive Council. I happen to know that. That was done just over a month ago.

I happen to also know what the views of the professional forestry people in the department are with respect to the program. what the views of the Federal Forestry scientists are. and what the views of people in the industry are. and I can inform this House that the officials• recommendation was that the department be authorized to carry out an aerial program in 1989 against both the budworm. incidentially. and the hemlock looper using. and these are the operative words •using the registered insect icidcs mataci 1. feni ~rothion. and Bt on up to a.ooo hectares. and. as I say. this can be documented.

So my point today. Mr. Speaker. is I want to know how. then. can the Minister categorically deny that no such recommendation was made to him. The paper is in the system. in the Executive Council. It would have had to have been withdrawn by the Minister and a new one ordered drafted. which I suspect is the case. telling the officials what to put forward. But that is not the point here. that is a matter for debate.

But it is pretty clear from the information and the evidence that I have presented and that I have. that either the Minister misled the House -either that is the case or the Minister did not mean to state so categorically his denial of yesterday. one or the other. I believe the Minister. Ll66 May 31. 1989 Vol xr...r owes the House an explanation and an apology. at the very least. and that could very well simplify the situation. However. if he persists. I think he wi 11 have to be brought to task by this hon.

House. without question. because the evidence can be presented and then he would have to be treated accordingly. References in Beauchesne. Mr. Speaker. page 27 of the new 6th Edition which you were kind enough to send us a copy of only a few days ago. clarify all of these matters. But the most important point on page 27 deals with the urgency and the importance and the seriousness of a question of privilege. I can assure you I would not raise it if I did not consider it a matter of extreme seriousness and importance. and it should be considered and dealt with seriously by this House.

If this kind of action is allowed to continue. Mr. Speaker. then the pr.ivi leges of all members of the House would be brought into question. That is the point of privilege I want to present. Mr. Speaker. without getting into a lot of debate. to give the Minister an opportunity to respond to it. Maybe he can clarify the situation. But I am certainly prepared to present the appropriate motion. suitable for debate. if Your Honour decides or should rule to allow that particular motion. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. Leader. MR. BAKER: the Government Thank you. Mr. Speaker. House First of all. to set the stage.

I am willing to accept that the Government House Leader met the No. 4 Rl66

- l. conditions with regards to the immediacy of raising what he considers to be a point of privilege. Also from Beauchesne. page 29. No. 117. I understand. as he pointed out. that the Speaker requires to be satisfied that privilege appears to be sufficiently involved to justify· giving such a procedure. In other words. that a prima facie case does exist. And I understand what Your Honour•s decision must be. Obviously. the first question we have to ask is what is privilege? What is meant by privilege? We refer Your Honour to Beauchesne. page 11. 6th Edition again. No. 24.

"Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by members of the House individually. without which they could not discharge their functions." So privilege is something that interferes with the proper discharge of the functions of the Government House Leader. and so on. and that is the matter on which you have to decide whether there is sufficient evidence that this should go to a parliamentary committee. So the matter of privilege is understood by both sides. Now. then. let us deal with the specific case in point.

Months ago. proposals were submitted to a previous government involving the projected spray program covering 8,000 hectares for both the hemlock looper and the spruce budworm. as admitted by the Minister. Since that time. conditions have changed not only politically but in the forest. The situation has now changed. The projected program for this year wlll be somewhere between 5. 000 and 6. 000 hectares. and the spray is to protect against the hemlock looper. not the combination of budworm and looper.

L167 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI Now. then. in the intervening time various discussions have been held between the Minister and officials. The exchange in the House. Mr. Speaker. that is being referred to. on Page L146. May 30. 1989. Vol XLI. I believe that is. No. 3. is that a comment was made that " ... if the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. who came into the House today. we .re able to say to us that he accepted the professional advice of his officials on the spray program." and the minister responded. 11 I did." Then the Government House I.eader responded.

"No. you did not." The r~eader of the Opposition went on to say that 11 The professionals in the Department of Forestry did not recommend to the minister the course of action that was taken ... • The Government House Leader said. 11 That is correct. 11 Then there was a point of order and the Government House Leader in speaking to that said. 11 Can the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture stand in his place today and categorically deny that his officials did not recommend a combined program using fenitrothion and Bt?

Can he categorically deny that they did not recommend that course of action?" The answer given was: 11 Mr. Chairman. I can categorically say that my officials placed in front of me various options. We looked at the options and my officials indica ted that given the scope of the program - which had since changed. since the previous government was .involved - given the level of infestation. that Bt was indeed as good an option as any." No. 4 Rl67

.. ···~ ~· .. -.'. .. .... Then further on: "'I'he question i.s can he categorically deny that his officials did not recommend a program using both products that we are talking about?" The minister responded, "Yes." Now. there are a number of things about that that I want to point · out. First of all. in the wording of the question. there are enough hon. members of the House who come from the teaching profession and some other professions who would recognize that when a question is asked.

"Can he categorically deny that a course of action was not recommended?" that that means that the course of action is recommended? The double negative there tends to reverse the understanding of the question. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! MR. BAKER: So. there is quite a lot of doubt as to the meaning of the question, and I would simply like to point that out. But .it is a minor point, Mr. Speaker. The major point here refers to ·- I refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, Page 151, No. 495 . the fact that statements by members, particularly within their own knowledge, must be accepted.

We must accept the fact, according to Parliamentary procedure. that it was within the minister's field of knowledge to describe the advice given to him by his officials over the last two weeks, and not in the area of knowledge of members opposite. These discussions were private discussions carried on between the minister and his officials and. in actua 1 fact, were not within the area of knowledge of members opposite, and we must accept, according to Ll68 May 31, 1.989 Vol XLI Parliamentary precedent. that the answer given by the minister was. in fact. correct. I believe it to be correct. I would suggest. Mr.

Speaker. that if we are to proceed in this House on the assumption that nothing has changed. if we ar.e to proceed on the assumption that the advice given previous ministers one month. two months. six months ago and. as time goes on. we may be talking about two years ago. if we are to assume that the advice given ministers years before is still operative within the department - in other words. that there are no changes, that circumstances do not change. that everything remains static - then we could get into an endless repetition of these types of spurious. even silly points of privilege that eat up the time of this House.

I submit. Mr. Speaker. that in this case Beauchesne. Page 13. No. 31 - "A dispute arising between two Members as to the allegation of facts does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." It is stated very. very clearly. I submit. Mr. Speaker.. that there is obviously no point of pr.ivilege. no prima facie case. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: -The hon. the Opposition. MR. RIDEOUT: Leader Thank you. Mr. Speaker. of the I would like to have a few brief words on the case put forward by my colleague. the Opposition House Leader. the member for Grand Falls. No. 4 Rl68

First of all let me say to the Government House Leader that there is one assumption that we on this side of the House are going to assume to be a fact forever and a day, as long as we are occupying benches on this side of the House -- MR. GILBERT: That will be forever and a day. MR. RIDEOUT: Maybe it will, sir. But if it is, as long as there is breath in our bodies, there is one assumption that we are going to assume to be a fact, and that is that when members, whether they are ministers or members, stand and say something in this House, it is factual. We have to assume that.

Therefore, the specious argument put forward by the Government House Leader defeats his own argument, really. We have to assume, we have no other choice but to assume, we have no othe.r choice but to accept that when a minister or a member speaks in this House, the information forthcoming from that person is correct. Now we have evidence to suggest, evidence which, in our view, proves conclusively - AN HON. MEMBER : It was months ago. MR. RIDEOUT: Not months ago, submitted to Executive Council April 17, I believe, something over a month ago.

We have evidence to suggest the industry in this Province has said clearly today - there is an uproar in this Province today in the industry, Mr. Speaker, extreme concern, and we have a responsibility as an Opposition to raise this matter, because we have irrefutable evidence in front of L169 May 31, 1989 Vol XLI us to suggest that the minister did not accept the advice of his officials. That was the clear unequivocal question put to that minister yesterday by the Opposition House Leader.

The clear unequivocal answer to the question was, yes. • Do you deny it? • 'Yes, I deny it. • In other words, • Did you accept the advice?• 'No, I did not.• That is the prima .facie case, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we will put down the app.ropria te motion on should Your Honour rule accordingly. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is just about ready to make a decision, but to make sure the decision is as proper as possible, I would like to recess the House just for a few moments, if han. members would agree. Recess MR.

SPEAKER: As a matter of introduction of this important matter, I. want to say that in these circumstances, where we have a change of administration, many rules and regulations will be unlike those where we had a continuation of the same administration, because there is a difference. Many quotations, or many authorities in Beauchesne, Erskin May, and others, support what happens with a change of administration. In this particular situation, I rule that there is no prima fac i.e case and hence no point of privilege, the situation being that with a change of administration the hon.

Opposition House Leader has in his possession certain documents dated at a certain time, and we can only, in No. 4 Rl69

this case, assume that the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture {Mr. Flight) had intervening conve.rsation. I think the Leader of the Opposition. himself, referred to the fact that we must believe the member, and the member indica ted that he had discussion with h'is officials and that he was offered many options. So we can only assume that the options discussed had to do with the statement that the hon. gentleman made.

The essence, I think. of the point of privilege was that the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture did not follow the advice of his experts and that he misled the House in saying that he did not follow the advice of his experts. As I have said. we have no proof otherwise but that the minister did carry on conversation and that what he delivered in the House was, indeed, the result of conversation with his experts. The only other concluding point that the Chair would make is that obviously with the change of administration the.re are going to be many proposals mada that are going to be changed.

Otherwise, a new administration would be completely hamstrung and would not be permitted to do anything. But, that is not the key point. The key point, again, is whether the minister, in answering the question, did not mislead the House. It is the ruling of the Speaker that in view of the information that is available to us. we have to believe the hon. minister in his remarks. that he did, indeed, carry on dialogue and discussion with the experts, and that, indeed, ~hat he presented was the result of that discussion and agreement with his officials. Ll70 May 31, 1989 Vol xr. I Oral Questions MR. SIMMS: Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader. MR. SIMMS: Opposition House Mr. Speaker, I will try it another way now. In view of the fact that the minister did not take the opportunity during the debate on the question of privilege to explain a 1 itt le further, clarify or elaborate a little further, I will give him another opportunity now in Question Period to do it. The minister has stated yesterday in Hansard, as I said, categorically denying his being given a recommendation by his officials for a combined program using both fenitrothion and Bt.

And I want to ask the minister today, does he still stand by that statement, number one? And in responding to that question, can he explain to the Hoose the reason for the very serious adverse reaction by industry spokesman yesterday and today with respect to his announced plans? MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. will know that the Minister of Agriculture the The hon. member when I became Forestry and department had ready for a program, using protection, a to prepare and get forest protection the means of that spray program. I No. 4 Rl70

spent many hours with my officials asking them their advice. and they have given me their advice. and in exchanging views with them. And my answer to the member is very simple: When I finally made a decision on the spray program that was announced in the House. It was a spray program. given the· scope of the program. given the size. the miniscule amount of forest to be sprayed. given the level of infestation. given that my officials and the forest industry agree. based on research. that we may well be looking at a collapse of the hemlock looper infestation next year.. given all those fac ·ts. M.r..

Speak.e .r.. then in conjunction and out of the dialogue and out of the conversations and out of the advice and my advice - their. advice - we decided that the spray program that T announced was the right spray program for this year. and that it will afford a reasonable and acceptable level of protection to the forest. And that is the decision that was made and that is the way the decision was made. MR. SIMMS: A supplementary. Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. Opposition House Leader. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. I noticed in response to my question the minister did not answer either. of the two questions I asked.

I asked him if he would categorically stand by his statement of yesterday - that is number one - and what is the reason for. the serious adverse reaction by the industry people? Particularly in view of his answer where he said that he had discussions and consul tat ions. that forest officials agree that Ll71 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI out of the dialogue came this dec is ion. and so on and so forth. can the minister. Mr.. Speaker. tell us why those professional forestry people in the industry are so adverse. so opposed to his decision. if. in fact. he did have consultations with them as he said?

And why is Newfoundland so different from. say. the Province of New Brunswick where last year they sprayed with Bt 50 per cent and the results were · devastating. and the infestation has seriously increased? This year New Brunswick are going to spray with 16 per cent Bt. the rest with chemical insecticides. Why is Newfoundland so different from New Brunswick? Can he explain why in Hansard on Monday the minister said he was consulting with the industry? What kind of consultation is this that he has described to us today? MR. FLlGH't': Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. MR.

FLIGHT: Mr.. Speaker. I can only say that for the previous spray program. last year's spray program. it was recommended. I think. that 25 per cent of the spray program would be Bt. We indeed went and sprayed 35 per cent. with relatively good success. with the kind of success that we would have hoped we . would have gotten from a Bt program. Given. again. the miniscule size of the spray program. the level of infestation. the decision was to go with Bt. because it was the right and proper decision. given the level. the scope. the size o( the spray program. Mr.. Speaker. The member. refers to an adverse No. 4 Rl71

reaction from the various industries. Maybe the member would want to elaborate. I am not aware of any adverse ~eaction from the industry at this point in time. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speake~. a final supplementary._ MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader.. Oppos i t.ion House MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speake~. all the minister has to do is listen to the news b~oadcasts. I mean.. industry spokesmen from both Kruger. Corner Pulp and Paper. and Abi tibi-P.rice have been on the airways yesterday evening and today severely criticizing the program. expressing considerable concern because of. their fear about the future. so.

I mean. all the minister has to do is listen and there are even PR people up in the Premier's Office to monitor those kinds of things. MR. SPEAKER: Orde~. please! The hon. gentleman is on a supplementary question. I would like for him to get to the question. MR. SIMMS: Certainly. Mr. Speaker. 1 was responding to the question the minister asked me.

Can I ask the minister if: he would advise the House why he did not announce in his statement yesterday the other recommendations of his officials with respect to the budworm infested areas that still exist in the Province. in excess of 1.200 hectares in a moderate to severe category located at South Branch. Codroy Pond. and Southwest L172 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI Brook on the Bay de Verde Peninsula? Was that an omission? Will there be a program? If so. what will the details be? Could the minister advise us of that? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the minister of Forestry and Agriculture. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker.

I thought I had met my obl.iga t.ion i:o the House when I stood and announced the spray program .for 1989. a spray program to combat the hemlock looper. There is no spray program. as he is aware. for this yea~ to combat the budworm. So. why would it have been necessary for me to include in a statement announcing our 1989 spray program something that we did not intend to do anyway? The level of budworm infestation in this Province is being moni tared. as he knows. When and if it is necessary for me to recommend to Cabinet. a spray program against the budworm.

I will recommend it to Cabinet and then I will come into this House and advise the House of the decision of Cabinet. It is that simple. I stood up. Mr. Speaker. and I announced the spray program for 1989. Bt only. I suspect. Mr. Speaker. and I want to say this. that I am surprised at the at t.i tude of the member for Grand Falls. and I suspect that he is a 1.itt1e envious to have this government. this minister. announce a program that he would dearly love to have announced in this Province over the years. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. No. 4 R172

... -·-· ... · .. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what we are envious about on this side of the House is jobs affecting thousands of people in dozens of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: And we have Speaker, who roulette with people in this a minister, Mr. is playing Russian the lives of the Province. MR. SIMMS: Right on. Right on. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. RIDEOUT: Now let me ask the minister this.

Did not the officials in his department advise him that the spray program in New Brunswick last year, using 50 percent Bt, was an abysmal disaster? Did they not advise him not to proceed to use 100 percent Bt in this Province? What advice did they give him in regards to the hemlock looper? Answer the questions? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture . MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty answering the questions. We were designing a spray program for Newfoundland, Mr.. Speaker, not New Brunswick. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! T,l73 May 31, 1989 Vol xr. I MR. FT ... IGHT: Mr..

Speaker, the hon. the T,eader of the Opposi. t ion wi 11 know that last year we sprayed in this Province with Bt 23,000 hectares of forest. The total spray program this year is 6,000 hectares. Quite possibly it may only be 5, 000 hectares because of evidence coming in day by day. Now, Mr. Speaker, if it was okay to spray 23,000 hectares of forest land with Bt last year, pray tell me why is it not alright to spray between 5,000 hectares to 6,000 hectares with Bt this year? SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. SIMMS: Ask your officials. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Opposition. MR.

RIDEOUT: r.eader of ·the Will the minister please get to his feet and tell the House the answer. to the question, was there advice from his officials this year to have a spray program against the budworm? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I have spent roughly two weeks as Minister of Forestry, and 90 percent of that time has been spent with my officials receiving advice fr.om every aspect of forestry in Newfoundland, among which wer.e the various ways and means available to us to protect forest industr. ·ies, to protect the No. 4 Rl73

trees. to guarantee to guarantee that will always have a yield of timber to mills going. that Kruger. Abitibi-Price sustainable keep those I will do that. Mr. Speaker. and I will use any means available. with Cabinet approval. whether it is chemical spray. whether it is Bt. Mr. Speaker. to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I have spent 90 percent of my time accepting advice from my officials and formulating policies based on that advice. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear. hear! MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Before recognizing the member for Humber Valley. may I advise hon. members. just in case everyone is not aware. that today is Wednesday and on Private Member's Day Question Period is to end at 3:00 p.m. I probably should have announced that before. The hon. the member. for Humber Valley. MR. WOODFORD: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. I would Cirst just like to ask the minister. what the status of the commission or task force on agriculture is right now? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of For.estr.y and Agriculture. MR. FLIGHT: Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

Ll74 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI What a relief. to get a question from a member who is concerned about the issue. Mr. Speaker. not necessarily concerned about the- MR. TOBIN: Tell the truth. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Answer the question. MR. FLIGHT: To the hon. the member for Humber Valley. the status of the recommendation on a task force is simply this: I am aware that his administration had proposed a task force. and representative of the industry have met with me since my assuming off ice and discussed the task force and its possibilities.

I personally agree. as a minister. that a task force may very well be a good idea and that is the advice that I am bringing to Cabinet for their consideration. MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. ·the member for Humber Valley. MR . WOODFORD: I can understand. Mr. Speaker. where the minister is coming from and I can appreciate that he has just gotten into the portfolio. One of the things I was concer.ned w.i th was a CBC radio broadcast on May 24. after. your meeting wi·th the President of the Feder.ation of Agriculture. There may not be any reason for concern. and I hope not.

It is a motherhood issue as far as I am concerned. and something that was r.ecommended by the Commission on Employment and Unemployment a few years ago. in conjunction with some of the things the administration has said in the past few months with regard No. 4 Rl74

to cr. eating this is one be looked always been the ladder. jobs in this Province. of the areas that can at. because it has on the bottom rung of and it has great room Cor expansion. The newscast said the minister said a task force had never been · appointed and that Flight hopes it will be different now. So do I. Also. the newscast said Mr. Flight said it is the first time he has heard of the task force. That is okay. That is fair enough. The newscast also said he said the high cost of setting it up will be a factor in deciding whether it will go ahead.

Could the minister clarify whether there has been anything new on that since that statement? MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. MR. FT.IGHT: M:r. Speaker. there ls nothing new. The member will obviously be aware that the cost of setting up anything i.n thi.s Province has got to be a major consideration. I simply stated to the industry that I am aware that the recommendation in the House Commission Report was to set up a task force. recommending that we get a map for agriculture fo.r the future.

I am considering all the advice from the various sectors with regard to setting up a task force on agriculture. When all that advice is available to me then. I say to the member. I will deal with it and I will make a recommendation one way or the other. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the I.l75 May 31: 1989 Vol xr. I Opposition. MR. RIDEOUT: I have a question for the hon. the Premier.

In view of the fact that one of the Province's most respected public affairs programs. and I suppose one of the most listened to programs i.n the Province. and certainly a program that is vital for the information of fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador. in view of the fact that that program has had an sos out for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Carter) for the last three consecutive days. could the Premier tell the House whether or not The Fishermen's Broadcast has been censored by this government and whether or not his minister has been ordered not to appear on the program? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WET .. LS: Mr. Speaker. a question that silly is not really deserving of an answer. I do not know of any SOS out. I do not know what the hon. r .. eader of the Opposl t i.on means. I assume he means they have been trying to contact the bon. minister. Well. I cannot imagine why they cannot contact him. Any news media that wants to can contact me. I do not know why they have difficulty contacting the minister. but I will certainly ask him to find out.

I have been listening to this tripe in the House from hon. members about ministers being prohibited from speaking. that I am the only one who can speak for the government. that only I will speak for the government. Mr. Speaker. the insanity or the stupidity or the deception. whatever the case is. of that is No. 4 Rl75

clear when you recognize that I have not been on my feet in this House. except for opening day. Except for opening day. I have not been on my feet in this House except to respond to a question asked. MR. WINDSOR: Has the Minister of Finance (Dr. Kitchen) got laryngitis? PREMIER WELLS: All the ministers have been asked. I have not been making any statements. I have answered only the questions asked. How is it that they can say. with a modicum of credi.bility. that T am the only one who can speak for the government? What a.re they talking about? It is silly shenanigans to try and make some kind oC a point.

Just how silly and stupid i.t is is obvious when you look at Hansard and see clearly. Mr. Speaker. that in the days the House has been open I have not been on my feet except to answer questions. MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Opposition. MR. RIDEOUT: Leader of the I could not care less whether the Premier. thinks it is tripe or whatever he thinks it is. We will ask the questions and it is up to the government whether they provide the answers. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear. hea.r I MR.

RIDEOUT: Now. let me ask the Premier this: Would the Premier not confi _rm to Ll76 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI ........ the House that the reason why the Minister of Fisheries for three days in a row. and the Premier for one day. have not responded to repeated public calls from The Fishermen's Broadcast to be interviewed on the Harris Report. a matter of vital interest to the fishery of this Province. is because The Fisherman's Broadcast has been censored by this government because that program stuck to its guns. reported the babbling of the Minister of Fisheries. reported the fi.ring of the former Deputy Minister of Fisheries before the Premier got a chance to do it. and that pr.ogram has been censored for sticking to its story?

Is that not the real fact? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Premier. PREMIER WELLS: I am not aware that the program has every contacted me. My number is listed in the book. They can contact me. All news media call me at home. and whenever they want to. No member of the news media who ever wants to contact me has ever had any difficulty. I have not failed to return one single call that T have received from the news media. Now. to the best of my knowledge nobody in my office has received a call that has not been returned. but that is more than I can say with certainty until T check.

But I will check. Mr. Speaker. Now. the second part of the question was was the program censored? Of course not. Any time The Fishermen's Broadcast wants to speak to me. or wants me to go on The Fishermen's No. 4 R176

Broadcast. all they have got to do is ask and I will gladly do it. There is no cause to censor any news media. as the former government used to do. and that will never be done. Never! MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you. Si:r. MR. SPEAKER: It now being three o'clock Wednesday. Private Member's Day. I call upon the member for St. Mary's - The Capes to int .roduce his resolution. The hon. the member for St. Mary's - The Capes. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear. hear! Private Member's Day MR. HEARN: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker. Befo.re I get into the resolution. let me take the opportunity to congratulate you.

Sir. on your election as Speaker. Already you have established yourself quite well. as we expected. and we look forward to a continuing good governance of this House. I would also like to congratulate the Deputy Speaker and Vice-Chairman of debates on thei:r election. and the Premier and his government upon their election to the House. and I welcome. particularly. the new members who. during the last two or three days. must be getting the feel of what really happens here as the world turns and the Province is governed.

I think you will find that even though there are many times when we disagree upon things. basically Ll77 May 31. 1989 Vol xr .. I there are many issues upon which we wi 11 ag .ree. and hopefully the resolution today is one. Because if you want to follow it a little fur.ther. to the second resolution which will be com.i. ng up next • one presented by the member. for carbonea.r (Mr. Reid}. you will find that both of them zero in in a pos.i ti ve way. hopefully. in dealing with a major crisis that affects our Province at the present time.

The resolution I am going to propose is dealing with things that can be done. over which we as a Province. or we as a country have some direct immediate control and say. The one that will be coming up next. perhaps we will get some argument from the federal government as to what control they have over the Nose and Tail. but the resolution is asking them to exert some control and press for it. and we will be supporting that resolution wholeheartedly. In relation to today's resolution. for Hansard t will go through it:

WHEREAS the present crisis in the Newfoundland fishery should now be recognized as a national disaster; and

WHEREAS a special Federal Cabinet committee has been put in place to deal with this problem; and

WHEREAS disaster workers. Province there is a for fishermen. pending plant the trawlermen. and generally; and

WHEREAS the total economy of the Province is going to be negatively affected; and

WHEREAS foreign concerns continue to fish non-surplus species; and No. 4 Rl77

WHEREAS the rapid growth of the seal herds is detrimental to our fish stocks: and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland fishremen have been expressing these concerns for years: and

WHEREAS there is a lack of capability at a provincial level to gather and assess pertinent information relating to the fishery; and

WHEREAS the former Government continuously sought more input in decision making relating to fishery issues: and

WHEREAS the present crisis transcends Party politics: BE IT THEREFORE RESOT.VED that an all-Party committee o( the House be struck to monitor and have direct liaison with the Federal Cabinet committee; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Hon.

House press for a proper compensation package for fishermen. plant workers. trawlermen. and communities affected: and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Federal Government be requested to review their licencing policies as they relate to foreign fishing interests; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that immediate action be taken to reduce and control the seal population; and BE IT FURTHER RESOT, VED t ha t the present Government develop within the Province the capabilities to gather and assess appropriate information related to the fishery that would be necessary for proper long-term planning; and Ll78 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the present Government develop the proper technologies to harvest and market under utilized species; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Province continue to seek involvement in the decision making processes that relate to the Newfoundland fishery.

Mr. Speaker. the rules of the House have changed slightly in relation to Private Member's Day. as we wi 11 probably have only one day to debate the resolution. which may be positive. because sometimes when you drag things out they become outdated. The issue is cu.rrent:. If we are all going to take our twenty minutes. it wi 11 give only a few a chance to speak. I will try to be very brief. Other membe.rs want to get on record. I am sure. as supporting the resolution and commenting on the state of the fishery. especially the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Car.ter). who.

I know. will want to follow up on this. as well as some of the new members. I saw my friend. the member for Exploits (Mr. Grimes). the great fisherman. who might want to get up and have a few words on it. One of the most serious crisis ever to face the Province is with us today. Over the years. if you lived in an outport in the Province. and perhaps if you did not. because the rna jor centers depended upon the business from the outports -St. John's grew because of the business that came from the outports. and actually as a fishing centre itself. and as a major supplier to the fishing areas around over the years.

You can look at Gander. in Central Newfoundland. which has grown No. 4 Rl78

tremendously because of the fishery on the Northeast Coast. and you can go on and on. Corner Brook. and what have you. But all of the Province is greatly affected. There was no one who ever thought. as we grew up in the outports. that there would ever be a scarcity of fish. from the days when Cabot is purported to have dropped baskets over. the side and collected fish. whether it be caplin. cod. or watever. Many of us remember being down on the beaches during the capl in schools and seeing the cod fish running ashore in the harbours. in the different inlets around the Province.

And when trap fish season came around and you went out and set your cod traps. if you did not haul it and fill at least your own skiff. and a few of the smaller boats that were around. it was considered a poor day. There were bad years. yes. If you talk to some of the older fishermen they will tell you of years when the fishery was bad.

And perhaps the scientists have something when they talk about water. tempera tur.es. and what have you. but you will find that the existence of such years will be the exception rather. than the .rule. and if you had a failure in one part of the Province. several other areas had glut situations.

However. in recent years such is not the case. and despite the fact that we heard about water tempertures. plankton. and what have you. fishermen themselves were saying there was one major reason why there is not as much fish around: the fish are being caught offshore. mainly; it is being destroyed; the breeding grounds are being raped. spawny fish are being caught; the food stocks for the fish are being Ll79 May 31. 1989 Vol. xr.I o: . eaten up. destroyed. or caught. and consequently the fish are not there. When we had lots. and lots of fish. the fish came to shore despite the great offshore capl in stocks.

The fish stock itself. and when I say fish I am talking codfish. when you say fish in Newfound land I guess your. are talking codfish. The codfish came to shor.e because they were pressed to shore looking f.or food. following the caplin schools because of the great amount of fish outside. Now. because the stocks are so small that pressure is not there and the fish are not coming inshore.

When we talk about the inshore allocation not being caught in recent years it is certainly not because of the effort by the inshore fishermen. it is simply because day after day they are casting out their nets. as they were. and coming up empty handed. What are some of the reasons? Well. finally. last year. the major scientific report said. We have miscalculated the fish stocks. The fishermen. as I said. have been saying that for years. and other qualified people in the fishery have been saying it for years.

The fish stocks have been raped by foreign concerns on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank. within our 200 mile limit. They have been raped by our own people. There has been no real regard for management of the stocks. It is only in the last two or three years that. with a lot of pressure. we have seen observers put on boats. We have heard about large by-catches being taken. We have heard about species being caught and thrown away. And you question that. regardless of whether they are. you know. supposed to catch them or not. Once you catch fish and No. 4 Rl79

it is dead and you throw it overboard. it seems to be a tremendous waste. Surely there should be a better way of monitoring and handling the situation than that. We hear about the tremendous growth of the seal herds. A lot· of people take it very lightly. We have our Greenpeacers and other groups who advocate looking after the herds and not harvesting them in any way. whether it be a cull. whether it be a hunt or whatevet'. But when we look at the tremendous growth. and somebody mentioned yesterday in the House about the amount of food. seal eats ·· I understand approximat~ly forty pounds a day.

Whether it be codfish or the food that codfish eat. pet"haps it is incidental. It would be one Ot' the other. And even at half that amount. estimating that a seal only cats twenty pounds of fish a day. the amount of fish eaten by the seal herds pt'esently comes out to something like fifty times as much as the total allocation to the Province of Newfoundland this year.

That is a tremendous amount of product. so. if the seals continue to grow and not only eat the codfish or the food that codfish eat. but also continue to infest the fish. and I can say fish generally here -it was thought that the parasites coming indirectly from the seals affected maybe only codfish. Today we hear of people telling us that you will find them in lobster. you will find them i ncr.easingly in flounder. and even. now. some of the hunters in the Wintertime will tell you many of the salt-water ducks are affected by the parasites that come indirectly from seals. So this is an extremely serious matter.

Ll80 May 31. 1989 Vol xr .. I What are some of the things we can do once we move off the beach? The control of the Government of Newfoundland is very. very little. What we can do is continue to pressure. hopefully. the common sense that the Province of Newfoundland. irrespective of parties. has raised. The Province. generally. has tried to have an input into decision making. has tried to. I suppose. implant upon the minds of the decision makers that thet'e is a serious problem. that there was one on the horizon sever a 1 years ago that nothing was done about.

Now it is crisis time. and hopefully we are 1 is tened to. When I say •we'. hopefully I am talking about we collective~y. members of the House. government and Opposition. industt'y. fishermen. trawler.men and the Province generally. because all of us are affected.

Fewer fish for the fishermen to catch means less work for the plant workers. it means fewer trawlers needed to harvest the stocks on the offshot'e. it means fewer boats going to make a living. fewer crews on the inshore. it means fewer trawlermen. it means fewer plant workers. it means fewer dollars going around the communities. from the small ones where the fish is landed to the larget' centres where they will be spent. So the whole Province is being affected.

And when we . talk about compensation. we ar~ saying the government should pt"ess. and we know they will and we will C(Htainly support them. for an adequate compensation package. not a continuation of: r .. IP pr.ogr.ams to say we are going to bring in a progt'am and give you tht'ee weeks work .fixing up your. wharf. That is not what we are talking about. No. 4 Rl80

We are talking about direct compensation to the fishermen. to the plant workers. to trawlermen. and the communi ties generally who are affected because of the lack of income caused by a lack of proper management by the federal government over. the last number of years. we. ourselves. have to get more directly involved. Hopefully the RESOLVES here are not considered to be there in a negative sense. such as 'the P.r.ov:i nee develop the capability to gather and assess appropriate information. 1 Up on the hill we have the Marine Institute. a world-class institution that has come a tremendously long way.

We have a university that has done worldwide-recognized work in relation to the offshore and the fishery. and so on. Certainly we have within the Province. if we put the expertise together. the capability to zero in on the type of information that we can use.

If we had been given the flexibility. perhaps. to do it in the past. and if the Province had been consulted more by federal authorities. maybe some of the information that they now have. if they had opened up the.i.r. eyes and said. 'Yes. it is there. 1 they would have seen it quite some time ago and the drastic steps that are taken today and the more drastic ones that undoubtedly will occur next year. would have been averted somewhat. So hopefully we can start building there and using our. own expertise. and hopefully we will be listened to.

Rut I think we will only be listened to if the Province presses Cor a greater say in decision making at the federal level. We have been pressing in this hon. House over the last few years for more say. the Opposition LlBl May 31. 1989 Vol xr.r then and the government now. I heard the Minister of Fisheries. a few days ago. commenting on a few things that I had said. and saying that the government cannot patrol the 200-mile limit. we cannot take over the jurisdiction. We never asked for that.

All we asked for. and all we ask you to look for. is a say. so that you can have some effect upon the decisions that are made at the federal leve 1.. surely. God. no. we cannot. with :22s and dories. patrol the 200-mile limit. But we can have input. The Minister of Fisheries is an experienced gentleman who not only served as Minister of Fisheries before. he served as a federal MP in Ottawa and I worked hard to get him there.

He has familiarity with the federal system. and certainly his expertise and experience can have an effect upon some of the decisions that are made at the federal level. if they will listen to us and if they let the Province have some inpu ·t. That is what we are asking for in the resolution. Mr. Speaker. So. hopefully. number one. we will press for greater say. we will press to go on. and ourselves. as a Province. try to develop expertise which will be accepted by those who make the decisions. where we cannot make them ourselves.

We will press for a control of the seal herds. we will press for a greater compensation package for those who are affected by the fishery. and we wi 11 do it collectively. That is why the first part of the resolution says that a committee should be set up involving the whole House. so that we could go to Ottawa as a unit representing No. 4 RlBl

the Province the people of great .issue. Speaker. and the concerns of: Newfoundland on this Thank you. Mr. SOME HON. MEMBE.RS: Hear. hear! MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Premier. PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker. I just have a few comments that I want to make with respect to the resolution. most of which we support. some of which we cannot support. Now. Mr..

Speaker. in the last couple of sessions of the House. when I sat on the Opposition side. it always bothered me that when the Opposition put forward a resolution the government would move an amendment to it and so alter it as to change the character. sometimes diametrically the opposite of that which was intended.

Now. while a motion to amend a resolution may well be in order. i. t has always occurred to me that this kind of a resolution on Private Member's Day is the Opposition's resolution and the government should allow the Opposition to let it stand without emasculating it to try and score some political points. So I will say to the bon. member that we are happy to support most of what is in his resolution. but there are a couple of things that we cannot support. If he agrees to change those couple of things. then we would be happy to have it changed and happy to have the resolution voted on in its changed form.

But we will not move an amendment to change the i. ntention of his resolution. We will let it stand and if we cannot vote for it. then we will have to vote Ll82 May 31. 1989 Vol xr. I against i.t. R11t. in fairness to him. I will tell him what changes we would require. If he agrees he can do Lt. and if he does not agree. that is fine. There will be no criticism from us. but he will understand if we vote against it. The first recital causes me no real problem. I think that that accurately states the situation. So does the second recital. There is a Cabinet committee put in place.

And there is a pending disaster for fishermen. fish plant workers. trawlermen. and the Province generally: That is an accurate statement and we agree with it. The to ta 1 economy is going to effected: Ve.ry of the Province be negatively substantially and we agree negatively effected. with it. Foreign concerns continue to fish non-surplus species: To the best of my knowledge that is in fact so. We are prepared to lc~t that stand. The rapid growth in seal herds ls detrimental to our fish stocks: You do not have to be a genius or an expert to readily agree that that is so.

That is obvious and that ought to be attended to. Newfoundland fisherman have been expressing these concerns for years: That is true too. The next one: There is a lack of capability at a provincial level to gather and assess pertinent information relating to the fishery. I am not sure that that .ls entirely accurate. There is a lack of capab.il i ty and a lack of resources that would be sufficient No. 4 Rl82

to enable us to gather information to a level that would enable us to fully manage the fishery. I think that is probably accurate. But. in fact. if we do not have responsibility for the management. or the jurisdiction to manage. I do not see that it would be a good expenditure of public funds to· duplicate that assessing capability. Obviously. we should maintain a capability to assess the situation and monito .r to the maximum of our limited financial ability. at least to the extent that is necessary to enables us to comment on the way in which it has been managed and what is being done fr.om time to ·time.

But. really. I do not know where that would lead us. where he intends this to go. The wor.d •pertinent' is a subjective measure; what is or is not • pertinent' to the Province's role and responsibility in the fishery is the question. That leaves a little bit of uncertainty. but I will not haggle over that recital. I just indicate my concern about that. recital: "WHEREAS the Government continuously The next former sought making more input in decision r.elating to fishery issues." Well. I will not quarrel with that. But I will let it be known that what they sought was legislative jurisdiction.

I have four statements issued by the former Premier.. Mr. Peckfor.d. where he specifically asked for and stated the government's position to be that they wanted more legislative jurisdiction. That is clearly a wrong approach for this Province. We do not have the ability to exercise the legislative jurisdiction we have now in other. fields. such as health and education. let alone seeking legislative jurisdiction Ll83 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI over 400.000 square miles of the North Atlantic Ocean.

On the understanding that I agree that by 'more input• what the former government sought was in fact legislative jurisdiction. I do not mind leaving that as it is. The present Party politics: crisis transcends I agree. Then comes the resolution: "BE IT THEREFORE RESOf.VED that an all-Party Committee of the House be struck to monitor and have direct liaison with the Federal Cabinet committee." The answer to that. Mr. Speaker. is no. We object to that and we ·will not have an all-Party Committee of this House take over the responsibilities of government.

It is the Liberal Party that has been elected to govern this Province and it is the Liberal Party that will do it. A Committee of Cabinet has been struck to carry out this direct liaison with the Federal Cabinet Committee and it wi 11 not be an all-Party Committee of this House. So if the hon. member is prepared to remove that first resolution. that would go a long way toward solving our problem in terms of supporting the resolution.

The second one: "RE this IT FURTHER Honourable RESOLVED that House press for a proper package for plant workers. and communities compensation fishermen. tr.awlermen. affected." are happy precedent. We endorse that. We to participate in that The third one: "BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Federal Government be requested '· to review their licencing policies as they relate to foreign fishing No. 4 Rl83

interests." We heartily endorse that as well. "BE I'l' FUR'l'HER RESOLVED that immediate action be taken to reduce and control the seal population." We heartily endorse that as well. 'l'ha t is consistent with a resolution that I believe we introduced and put forward in the last session of the House. or at least a resolution that we supported. I do not remember which now.

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the present Government develop within the Province the capabilities to gather and assess appropriate information related to the fishery that would be necessary for proper long-term planning." I have to say yes to that. on the understanding that the word 'appropriate' is. again. a subjective test and what I have in mind is capabilities within the limits of our financial resources and capabilities designed to place us in a position to play the proper role that the Province should play.

So I would endorse that on that basis. 'l'he next one "RE I'l' FURTHER RESOLVED that the Government develop the proper technologies to harvest and market under. utilized species." While I can sympathize with the intent of it. the wording of it is too all-encompassing. Will it cost $20 million? $200 million? $500 million? I do not know. I am not prepared to give a blanket endorsement to it without that kind of knowledge. I would be prepared to make it somewhat more limited and if the hon. member were p.repared to change it to

BE IT RESOLVED that the present Government promote or. do all within its means to promote the harvesting and marketing of Ll84 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI .... "\. ~ ........ underutill~ed species. have no problem with it. I would 'l'he final recital: " BE I'l' FURTHER RESOT.VED that the Province continue to seek involvement in the decision making processes that relate to the Newfoundland fishery. ' We endorse that. 'l'hat is consistent with our position that this Province should have a greater say in the management of the fisheries.

We should have a g.reater say. and we can achieve that by working toward a joint federal/provincial management program that would manage the entire fishery in the waters off Newfoundland. But I canna t. Mr. Speake.r. agree to endorse the first resolution. That cannot be. And I would like that change in the second last resolution. Now. in general. just to demonstrate the position that I have taken with respect to the recital relating to more input. here is what the former. government saw. Here is there program. Managing all our Resources. that was produced by the former government and here is what it says.

"The objective towards which this Government will work over the next five years is to achieve provincial legislative and regulatory control in the following areas of fisheries management: * Determination of specific fleet and area quotas within federally established global quote. * Division of quotas among fleet components. * Harvesting plans. * Licencing of fishing efforts." No. II Rl84

Then they go on to spell out the targets associated with this objective. You cannot do that unless you are prepared to pay the policing cost. And when you think about legislative jurisdiction we can only thank our lucky stars. Mr. Speaker. that we were not the ones that had the legislative­ jurisdiction sought in this document when this disaster hit.

Because. you see. the reason why the federal government is moving so quickly to acknowledge its responsibility and to put in place a compensation package is they recognize that it was their­ jurisdiction and their responsibility. and it was the federal government that failed to do it properly and they have responsibility for the consequences. If it had been our legislative jurisdiction and our responsibility. we would probably have taken precisely the same advice that the federal government took from the same scientists and made the same mistake. and we would have financial responsibility for the consequences.

And that responsibi 1 i ty we are not able to meet. So we are fortunate. Mr. Speaker. that we did not have what the former government was seeking when this disaster struck. because with those rights would have gone responsibility for the consequences of the bad management or the mismanagement or the negligent management or the bad luck. or whatevar it was. that caused the disaster that presently exists. So without keeping the House further. and making sure I allow as much time as possible for other speakers. Mr. Speaker.

I say if the hon. member is prepared to Ll85 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI make those adjustments we will be happy to support the resolution. We do not. however. think it right for government to alter the resolutions put forward by the Opposition on Private Member's Day. and for that reason we are not making the proposed amendment ourselves. But if they will agree with it. we will gladly support the resolution as changed. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hea .r. hear I MR. SPEAKER: The hon. tha Opposition. MR. RIDEOUT: r.eader Thank you. Mr.

Speaker. of ·the I would like to take the opportunity to have a few remarks on this resolution as well. I certainly agree with the Premier and the mover of this resolution. that this is a very. very important resolution. I believe. without being picky or partisan. if we can find some common ground. the more common ground we can find the better in dealing with what in anybody's view. I think. without being alarmist. is a very. very difficult time facing the Newfoundland fishery certainly for the next five or six years for sure. I think all of us who have some insight into the fishery would recognize that.

First of all. Mr. Speaker. let me say that if we were to follow the Premier's argument ln terms of concocting a reason to be against further jurisdiction for. the Province then. of course. the same argument that the Premier. just articulated would apply in agriculture. The same argument No. 4 Rl85

would apply in transfer payments for education. The same argument would apply for any number of areas where there is exclusive provincial jurisdiction yet a significant amount of federal financial participation.

T am not going to spend a gr.eat dea 1 of time today arguing who is r.ight or who .is wrong. whether we should have more jurisdiction or less jurisdiction. but I simply want to say that in years past. in the agricultural industry in canada. and anybody who knows anything about the Constitution at all knows agriculture is strictly within the provincial domain. yet year after year. after year. more specifically over the last two or three years. years of great crisis in the agricultural industry in Weste-rn canada. there have been significant amounts of federal financial assistance to overcome what is a national problem in an industry that is so basic and so impo.rtant to a large part of. the country.

That is the polnt. T guess. ·that we want to make here. teaving aside legislative jurisdiction for. the moment. we are facing in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. a crisis that has national overtones. It is true to say. and it is in fact true. that the mismanagement. management. good management. bad management. whatever it might be. has to come back to the doorstep of the Government of Canada. They are the managers of the resource. That is true. That is not agruable. You cannot argue against that. But. having said that. it is also true to say. Mr.

Speaker. that this problem is so important for Newfoundland in particular. and Atlantic Canada in general. that Ll86 May 31.. 1.989 Vol xr.I in order for it to be attacked it has to be attacked with a national determination. Therefore .it is incumbent upon this government to ensure that the Government of Canada. and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador co-operate. The Government of Canada. I suppose. could take the a·ttitude. but t hope they will not.

I certainly would not advise them to. but t suppose they could take the attitude that. yes. we are responsible for. the management and we will continue to improve our management techniques. rebuild the resource .nd all that kind of thing. but the economic destiny of Newfoundland and Labrador is your problem and you solve it. I hope that that is not the attitude. I hope that the attitude is one of co--operation. We have a problem here that affects tens of thousands of people. It will. over the next f.i ve or six years. af.fect the livelihoods or tens of thousands of people.

It will. over the ne.xt five or. si. x years. Mr. Speaker.. affect hundreds of communities. It wi 11. over the next five or siK years. affect dozens and dozens of processing operations in this Province. It will affect hundreds and thousands of f·ishermen. tt will affec ·t hundreds of plant workers. So the magnitude of this problem is one that is unique in Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is a pr.oblem. of course. in other parts of Atlantic Canada. but by far the most significant economic impact is going to be in this Province. and. therefore. it is absolutely essential. ln my view. that this Province have its act together. I believe. Mr.Speaker. that that is really. in essence. the spirit of this resolution. No. 4 Rl86

We are ordinary. sensible. sane individuals. and we know we ar.e not the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that we do not have the right. as a government does. to liaise with the Government of Canada. We are not that stupid. We know that. But we do also know. Mr.

Speaket:. that as concerned Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. as elected representatives of people in twenty-one constituencies in this Province and. collectively here in this House. elected representatives of fifty-two constituencies in this Province. that this pt:oblem is of such a magnitude that it is incumbent upon all of us to work together to try to lessen the burden as much as possible for this particular indus try for the sake of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the intention o( this resolution.

Now. if there are some words that just do not happen to fit. then we are prepared to look at that. but we are not prepared. Mr. Speaker. to have the substance of the resolution watered down to a point where it means nothing just for the sake of having it accepted. That is not the purpose of this resolution. It is not the purpose of generating this debate. If the only purpose were to have the resolution accepted and then gather dust here or in Ottawa or in somebody's office. that does not serve any of out: purposes any good. The debate.

I hope. will. but to hav-e it accepted just for the case of being accepted is no1: the point. We are prepared to look at a couple of those

preambles and other parts of the resolution that might cause the government some difficulty. Ll87 May 31. 1989 Vol xr. I For e.xample. in the first "BE IT THEREFORE RESOf,VED". where we indicate the desire to have an all-pat:ty committee to liaise with the federal Cabinet committee. what about if an all-party committee of this Legislature were struck on fisheries? I do not believe that that is a bad idea. by the way. to have a Standing Committee of this Legislature that is responsible for. monitoring. on a day-to-day. month-to-month. yeat:-to-year. basis the development in our. most important industry.

There are many other. legislative jurisdictions which have far more Standing Committees of the Legislature than we have. I believe. in the sense of Parliamentary reform that the Premier talked about in the Throne Speech. it might well be that we could have a number of Standing Committees of this T.egislatur.e. obviously on which members from both sides sit. because it is not a Committee of the Legislature if it is all from one side that has any input or any significance. but we could have a numbet: of Standing Committees of this Legislature that would be wot:ki ng commit tees.

Not just committees to be struck. again. for the sake of being struck. but would have a mandate similar. but different obviously. to the mandate of the Public Accounts Committee. that would have a mandate from this Legislature to oversee and to have input into and to monitot: various areas and issues and sectors of the Newfoundland and Labradot: economy that ar.e vital and important. Certainly no one can think of anything that is more important. more vital to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador.. than the prosperity. or lack thereof. of the fishery. No. 4 Rl87

So we could have. in my view. a substantive working Standing Committee of this r.egi.slatu .r.e on the fisheries. We could have them. perhaps. on other matters as well. but certainly on the fish~ry.

If the Premier and the government would concur. that Standing Committee on Fisheries would be what could be substituted here in this particular "RE IT THEREFORE RESOT.VED". and it could be a committee that from time to time would be asked by the government. by the House. but particularly by the government. to look at various issues that the government and the House wants it to look at. to study various issues that the government and the House might want it to study. and to make recommendations.

Obviously the recommendations of a committee are never binding on the government. but it would be a way to utilize the productivity and the innovativeness and the hard work of members of this Legislature on behalf of the people who sent them here. Therefore. Mr. Speaker. I believe that we should perhaps look at that. As this particular crisis i.s on the hori~on. one of the new and innovative and productive approaches we can take is striking an all-party committee of this Legislature. a Standing Committee of this r.egislature. on fisheries. something that. as far as I know. we have never had before.

Certainly we have never had it in the time that I have been here. I believe that would be a good signal. It would not be the 'be a 11 and the end all' and it would not be expected that this group would provide all of the answers. but it would be a goC'd signal. I believe. from this Legislature to the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador that Ll88 May Jl. 1989 Vol XLI their elected representatives are genuinely concerned about the most important resource industry we have in this Province.

It would be a signal to fisherman and plant workers and communi ties. to Newfoundland and r.abrador society at large. that we are p.repared to be working. productive legislators. that we are prepared to roll up our sleeves and. if there is a particular. area of the economy that this year or next year or the year after is facing a particular. crisis. that we are prepared as a group to act.

Sure. there wi 11 be a partisan split in the Committee. obviously there is. we are a partisan Chambec. but we can work together. we can co-operate together. we can be productive together and. hopefully. being forward some solutions together that just might be sensible. that just might be sane. that just might be implementable and just might make the fishing industry in this Province a little bit better. If we can do that. Mr. Speaker. then this resolution will have achieved something. If. we do nothing other than the debate.

I suppose the resolution will have achieved something. but with a resolution of this magnitude. it would be sad. in my view. if. ·it were to be a two or three hour deba ·te today and that would be the end of it. So we would be prepared to look at that. if the government were intecested. The other recital that the han. the Premier referred to. that he appeared to have not a lot of difficulty with. but some difficulty. was the business of the Province lacking a capability to gather and assess pertinent information relating to the fishery. No. 4 Rl88

Now, Mr.. Speake.r, it seems to me that it is absolutely elementary and it is fundamental jurisdiction aside, contr.ol aside, shared jurisdiction aside, Fisheries Management Boar.d aside - it is absolutely fundamental that there be a group to reassess and to look at all over again the facts that the scientists placed before the federal government.

I do not believe for one minute that we would be facing the present crisis we are facing in the fishery of this Province today if we had decided ten or. fifteen or twenty years ago to have our own, not separate assessment capabi 1 i ty, but to have a capability to be able to technically assess what the scientific community puts before the decisionmakers. T mean, as Minister. of Fi.she.ries for four or five year.s, and I am sure the present minister would have had the same experience in his day, you go to -the Atlantic Council of Minister.s meetings and here are the CAFSAC documents, that thick.

And you have no scientific capability in the Province in the provincial Department of Fisheries, other. than your own ability to digest it and the ability of your senior good advisers, who are not scientists in Newfoundland and Labrador at the moment. You have no alternative but to accept the advice of the experts. The Minister of Fisher.ies and Oceans himself normally is not a scientific expert. Certainly, the ministers provincially ar.e not. And the odds are, Mr. Speaker, that you will be overcome by all of this data and all of those statistics that those experts will place in front of you.

You might be able to :t.ero in her.e and there and say, well, •r.ook, the fishermen down in Twillingate tell 1.189 May 31, 1989 Vol XLI me that this does not make any sense' and the person over. in Harbour Deep tells me, 'You are full of you-know-what when you come on about this water temperature and all that', but you cannot argue against it. You cannot sustain a technical defensible argument against whatever their position is. And I believe that we should have in this Province, in this industry in particular, not a huge empire, but thE! ability to be able to assess what the scientific community is telling us.

If we had had that for the last ten year.s or so, if we had had that before the Alverson Report, t believe that we would have been in a position of strength to be able to go to the Council of Ministers meetings or the CAFSAC meetings o.r. the AGAC meetings or to whatever. meetings there are where the management decisions are made on the fishery and argue from a position of strength that, yes, this makes scient i. fie sense. No. it does not. Her.e is why it does not. And here is whe .re you should be going. I beli~ve it is vital that we have that.

And t do not think that that would take the building of a huge expensive empire. It might take the hi ring, perhaps. of two or three or four scientific experts in assessing biology and fish migration patterns and fish growth and what water temperature does to Northern cod, vis-i-vis what water temperature does to the growth rates of 3NO cod, those kinds of things. It might take an exper.tise in that area. but I do not think it takes reinventing the federal scientific wheel. That is not what t am talking about.

T am talking about the ability for this Province to be able to have some kind of an independent: assessment No. 4 Rl89

for its government. for its minister. for its people. for its industry. That. in many respects. Mr. Speaker. is the position taken by NIFA two or three years ago. for example. that we cannot afford forever and a day to be in a position where somebody else granted. they may be right sometimes. but they can be wrong sometimes too. as we now see where somebody else is always telling us that this is what is happening. here is what you can do. here is the way you should go. and have no technical expert capability of being able to assess that advice. That.

I believe. is the real crux of what the bon. gentleman who put down the resolution is talking about when he says that we should have a greater ability at the provincial level to be able to garner and assess pertinent scientific information. I think that is absolute vi tal for this Province. I really do think it is absolutely vital. The other area where the Premier. had some minor concerns. and I think it can be erased very quickly. was with calling upon the government to develop proper techonologies to harvest and market under.uti.lized species. For. the next five or six years. Mr.

Speaker. and then once it is done. of course. it is her.e forever. but it absolutely vital for the next five or six years that there be a diversification of usage of fish species. Absolutely vital! And there ar.e presently species like Greenland halibut. grenadier and redfish and 2GH cod and so on. that are not being utilized. for whatever reason; the fact of the matter. the reality of the rna t ter is that there are certain species of fish left in the water.

Ll90 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI And the present international set up. of course. is such that if you have a species that you are not utilizing and therefore are determined to be surplus to your needs. under. the International Law of the Sea Convent ion you have no choice. you cannot take a dog in a manger. attitude. you have no choice but share that r.esour.ce with the international community. But we have another choice. Mr. Speaker. and that is the choice to uti li7.e the species. That is the choice we have.

We do not have the choice to tell somebody else they cannot touch it. we do not have the choice to be dogs in the mangers about it. The choice is simply in our lap to do something about utilizing the resource. That is our choice. If we do not do it. if we do not have the will and the commitment and the finance commitment to back up that. then we fail and we can only blame ourselves for that failure. Now what more opportune moment. Mr. Speaker. I say to you and say to this House. to break out of that mode once and for all?

We have a crisis facing us because of the cutback in total allowable catches for that great commer.ical species. cod. And it is incumbent and desirable that that species be built back to a sustainable renewable resource and properly managed forever more. That is all our goal.

Rut in that period of time. what a great opportunity perhaps for the first time in our history. certainly for the first time in a long time - when we can encourage. financially and otherwise with incentives. the development of technologies in using other species that for centuries and centuries upon until now have been left in the ocean. or left to others to catch. And if we do ·it now. if we are No. 4 Rl90

successful in attracting that technology. developing that technology if we have to. if we are successful in diversifying our effort into what are presently underutilized species, then we will have that capability forevermore. And when the Northern cod stocks rebuild. as they will. - I am confident of that - instead of going back to that great dependency on the one species. as we have been for 400 or sao years. he can have a diversified fishing economy in all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador . While the problem that races this Province in the fishery is great there is also an opportunity. MR.

SPEAKER: Order. please! I do not like to stop the hon. membe .r in high flight, but I have to remind him that his time is up With consent o( the House if you need a few mi.nutes or so to clue up, that is fine. MR. RIDEOU't': I will only be a minute or so. Mr. Speaker. if the hon. gentlemen do not mind I will clue up. MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the Opposition. MR . RIDEOUT: Leader of the In conclusion. Mr.

Speaker. just let me say while the economic picture on the horizon for the fishery in the Province at the moment is not good. and there is going to be a lot of howling and screaming because there is going to be a lot of belt tightening, there is no doubt about that. There is a silver. lining. There is an opportunity for. us to expand and diversify the fish resource r~ 191 May 3.1. 1989 Vol XLI space of this province. If we lose that and concentrate totally on solving the other. problem. then this Province will be worse off for it and we will have learned nothing for the experience. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The bon. the member for Carbonear. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker. let me first of all say how honoured I am to sit in the House and represent the historic district of Carbonear. I think I have already gotten my feet well wet somewhat in the last couple of days. and hopefully in the next three to four years I will not drown. - but anyway. Lei me say first of all. Mr. Speaker. that I commend the hon. member for St. Mary's - The Capes for his resolution. and the fact that my resolution that follows his is basically the same with the few eKceptions that the Premier has outlined.

I want to make a few brief comments today on the resolution and on the state of the fisheries. Mr. Speaker. I am a little perplexed at the comments that are coming from the Opposition. The problem on the Tail and Nose of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and the whole overfishing question. is certainly not something that has been created since April 21. Th.is problem has been with us. we have been debating the problem. the previous government has debated the pr.oblem. and we have talked about it for. years.

By the way I thank the hon. member. for making the comment and suggesting maybe this new t.iberal government may be able No. 4 Rl91

to succeed in getting some negotiated package with the federal government to solve this problem, because this other government, previous to this one, had seventeen years to do it and they could not succeed. So thank you very much gentlemen and ladies. Just let me back up what I am saying here with some information her.e that t received ·this morning. MR. RAMSAY: Is it backable? MR. REID: It is not backupable, no. I have the figures here for 1985 to 1989, Mr. Speaker, on NAFO allocations, EC unilateral quotas, the actual catch, and the amount of overf ishing: And let us go. back to 1986.

In 2J +3KL in 1986 the NAFO allocation, which by the way, Mr. Speaker, Canada is a member of, was 9500 metric tons. The EC unilateral quotas which they set for themselves was 68,500 tons. The actual catch that year was 59,336 tons. The overfishing in that particular area of the Grand Banks, on the codfishery for that one year, just in one area codfish alone, was 49,000 metric tons. That, Mr.. Speaker, was back in 1986. In 1987 basically the same thing happened again. We set the quotas, being a member. of this international committee, we set the quotas for 9, 500. The quo·tas were then set unilaterally at 84,000.

The actual catch was 19,000 which was an over.fishing at 19,000. I have the in format ion here, M.r. Speaker, that shows that the EC overfishing from 1985 to the present time. The actual catch has been diminishing substantially even though the quotas that they L192 May 31, 1989 Vol XLI are setting for themselves are higher, higher and higher. That says to me, Mr. Speaker, that the problem we are faced with today is not a problem, like I said, that was created on April 21. It is something that Newfoundlanders and the previous government had to deal with, and apparently have not been able to deal with.

Let me go back to a government document, Mr.. Chai.r.man. I did some research on this in the last couple of days. T do not know if T have enough or not, but I am assuming that some of the material that I have in front of me is authentic. The problem of foreign overfishing of Canada's Atlantic Coast The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, August 1986. The previous, previous Premier. agreed, when he made this statement, that "The solution to the foreign overfishing problem requires a strong expression of national political will in the international community." This government, Mr.

Speaker, believes in that, believes strongly in that. It has to be done in the international community. The Fisheries Council of Canada also published, just last year, a statement on the same thing, overfishing on the Grand Banks. 'We believe that the full concerted action plan ts r.equi. red involving the direct participation of the Prime Minister. and other senior. Cabinet Ministers.' My leader, the Premier. of this Province, has suggested that the right route to take on this particular issue is to ask and request the Prime Minister. of Canada to get involved in the question of overfishing. No. 4 R192

The second r~solution. Mr. Speaker. that we will debate later on. basically calls for that. even though the bon. member's resolution as submitted. has part of the guts of what we are trying to discuss here. I do not agree. by the way. Mr. Speaker. in what the hon. r.eader. of the Opposition suggested in setting up a House committee to deal with the question. Where was the House committee last year? Where was the House commit tee for the last seventeen years? Where was the Opposition? Were they asked to sit on a House commit tee to discuss the problems of the fishery? No. Mr. Speaker.

It is being ludicrous as far as I am concerned. The only way that we. as a government of this Province. can negotiate with the Prime Minister of Canada and with the Canadian Government on the fisheries is to do it in a gentleman- like manner. and persuade the Prime Minister. of Canada to get involved. I do no ·t know. maybe it is just by luck. or fluke. or whatever. it was. Mr..

Speaker.. but I got up in the House last Thursday and moved a resolution that the Prime Minister. immediately get involved with negotiating on foreign overfishing. and he must have heard me because on Saturday morning he met wi t.h the President of Spain to discuss the question. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! MR. REID: Mr. Speaker. I do not know if the problem of overfishing is a political one or not. We have reached a crisis in Newfoundland right now. Basically. if the Prime Minister of Canada and the Government of Canada do not take T.l93 May 3l. 1.9B9 Vol xr.

I fishing in general. not necessarily the problems of the fishing industry but the fishing industry in general more seriously at the Cabinet table. if we do not get recognition from the Prime Minister. of Canada and from the G~vernment of Canada that we down here in Eastern Canada live. we survive. on the fishery - SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! MR. REID: - we do not get that recognition. Mr. Speaker. we are doomed.

To get the Prime Minister of Canada to recognize our plight in Eastern Canada. argumentation, pressure and the other things that some people have been suggesting to us. as a government in recent weeks. is the right method. We have to make it known to the Prime Minister of Canada. and to the Government of Canada. that. look. we need your help. And it has to be negotiated in such a way that we do not alienate them. Even though the Government of Canada represents the opposite party. or a party other than ours. we cannot go after them.

We have to wine and dine. and encourage people to understand that we are part of Canada and we must remain a part of Canada. ~he Government of Canada has a major problem. and I understand it. Believe it or not. I understand why the Government of Canada has got this problem. It is not only this government in Ottawa that had the problem but the previous government had the problem. and the previous government before that. How does a government in Ottawa deal with this problem? ~he Japanese. Mr. Speaker. are taking excessive amounts of caplin around the Grand No. 4 Rl93

·. Banks area of Newfoundland. without licenses. without proper permission from the various authorities and we are complaining about it. But at the same time. Mr. Speaker. last year. in the ports and harbours around this great Province of ours. Japanese boats came in and picked up 34.000. tons of capl in and brought a revenue of $70 million into this Province. So. how do you. on one hand. tie the arms or the hands of a country which is taking from you. stealing' from you. and then on the other hand coming and giving you $70 million? It is a dilemma. The same thing applies. Mr.. Speaker. to the United States.

The United States this year. illegally as far as we are concerned as Canadians. wi 11 take approximately 30.000 metric tons off the Nose and ·the Ta i 1 of the Grand Bank. They wi 11 take it. and they wi 11 go on with it. and we will complain about it. We will complain about it and then 75 percent to 80 percent of every bit of fish that is processed or caught in this Province will be shipped out of here by tractor-trailor or by ships and sold in the United States. How do we win? It is the dilemma. Mr.

Speaker. that T certainly am not able to solve. and I doubt very much if there a.re too many of us in this House or any of us in Ottawa who are able to solve it either. 1 heard some comments a few minutes ago from the hon. member for St. Mary's -The Capes about how a few years ago we could go and haul our traps and fill our boats and maybe fill someone else's. Ll94 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI ' I Mr. Speaker. I was born in Carbonear. Carbonear is not considered a fishing village by any means. but there are a few fishermen there. There have been a number of fishermen living there who did not fish out of Carbonear.

T had a gentleman say to me just a couple of days ago. "Mr. Reid. do not think for one minute that the overfishing on the Grand Banks is having a drastic effect on the fish in Conception Bay that we are catching." And I said. "Why. S.ir?" He said. "Why would thousands of us have to make the annual treck for the last one hundred and fifty years to the Labrador Coast?" An interesting statement: maybe he is right. I do not know. Mr. Speaker. the answer to our problem. as I see it and T -do not by any means claim to be an expert. is that we have to negotiate. convince the Prime Minister of Canada. and Mr.

Clark. too -by the way. in the last few days. gentlemen. you heard what Mr. Clark has done. and T think we all appreciate that he has done as well -we have to try to convince the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to negotiate reasonably and responsibly with the various heads of government that are involved in fishing on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and around our Coast. That is the only way that we are going to succeed.

What the hon. the Prime Minister said the other day to the Spaniards basically was true. that if they do not stop overfishing on the Grand Ranks. then there i.s not going to be any fish left there for them to catch. The .idea. extend our No. 4 Mr. Speaker. jurisdiction is to to the R194

Nose and Tail of the Gr. and Banks. Mr. Speake.r. it has only been the last thr.ee or four days that I actually had a chance to sit down and look at the maps of the Grand Banks area and see where the division is. because I did not know where the Nose and Tail of_ the Grand Banks was. but now I know. T think there are a lot of hon. gentlemen and ladies in this House. Mr. Speaker. who know little about it as well. I think. Mr.

Speaker. the answer to i t is that we • as Newfoundlanders. and we as elected representatives. have to make ourselves more knowledgeable. have to undertake the idea of fishing on the Grand Banks and what exactly constitutes the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. what is it. where is it. where does it lie off our coast and what affect is it going to have on it. It is not very much · either. Mr. Speaker.. When you look at the maps you are not talking about a very big area. I am not talking about the federal government going. Mr. Speaker. and taking Cull control over it and not letting anyone fish it.

But if we were allowed to manage it. Mr.. Speaker. and we had some control over it. I think then that we could regulate the supply of cod and the fish that is in our Province. Let me finish off. Mr. Speaker. by making a few brief comments about the Harris Report. if you will allow me. The hon. Leader of the Opposition called for more investigation and more input into scientific proof and data as it relates to the overfishing. I thought. M.r. Speaker. that the Harris Report was a creation to look a second time at what the r.I95 May 3 1. 1. 9 8 9 Vol xr.r scientists were saying.

Now. maybe T misunderstood the hon. leader, but T am of the opinion that the Har.r.is Report was basically what he had suggested. to create again. Now. T am not sure if he meant to create something else now that · would investigate the Harris Report. but T am lost on that one in pa r.ticu la r. T will say. Me. Speaker. that the body of the motion that the hon. member for St. Mary's - The Capes put forward is certainly commendable and I do not have any problems with it personally.

I concur with my leader. the Premier. as well as other members. hopefully. who will probably speak on this. and I concur with the idea of making this resolution one that is acceptable to both the government and the Opposition. being it is an Opposition motion. r .. e t me fin ish by saying also. Mr. Speaker.. that for. me to stand here as the member for Carbonear and have you. as Speaker. an adjacent member. and a good friend of.

I guess. a lot of people in Carbonear. and t think in the beginning fr.om the district of Carbonear. it is certainly an honou .r. for me today to be able to get up and make what I would call my maiden speech. and having you. Sir. sitting in the Chair as Speaker. t thank you very much. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! MR. SPEAKER : The hon. the member for Burin Placentia West. MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker. t am delighted _to have the No. 4 Rl95

opportunity to say a few words in the next twenty minutes. May I take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to you on your election as Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the way you have handled the Chair. Mr. Speaker. in the past few days is a clear indication of the type of· commitment that you are going to be making to this Chamber. I want to. as well. avail of the opportunity. in his absence. to congra·tulate the Speaker.. I have had the opportunity now to serve in this bon.

House with him for the past seven yea.rs and I have always found him. as I think most people did. to be a very honourable gentleman. who will bring a lot to this House in his position as Speaker. No doubt he will certainly leave a very distinguished mark. We all hope he will have the honour. to be the last Speaker to be hung in this Assembly. and :the new Speaker to be hung in the next Assembly. when we move to the new House of Assembly. That is quite an honour for that distinguished gentleman. and I feel very proud for him. As well. I would like to commend the member for Bellevue (Mr.

Barrett). who is not in his seat right now. on his election. I have known him personally for the past several years. He is a very fine gentleman. Mr. Speaker. As a mat·ter of fact. his brothers make gr.eat poll captains in my district during election time. So he is a great fellow. MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible). MR. TOBIN: I will get to the Placentia (Mr.. Hogan) later. Mr. Speaker.. Ll96 May 31. 1989 member. for a little Vol xr.I Now. let me say to the member who just spoke in this House. it was his maiden speech. I. too. had the honour of making my maiden speech on the fisheries on November 17. 1982.

Much of what I said at that particular point in time. Mr. Speaker. I provided a copy of to the member for Placentia. as a matter of fact. He was not overly knowledgeable on the fisheries. and I understand that. as well. so I provided him with this so he could take some notes when he is allowed to get up and speak in the debate. Mr.. Speaker. having said all that. I want to commend the member for Car.bonear (Mr. Reid) for getting up today and speaking in this debate. I think it was very genuine on his part; he firmly beLieved in what he was saying as it relates to the fisheries.

He made a lot of reference to the past seventeen years. and I would suspect that while he was talking about the past seventeen years. somehow he was trying to look at the Government of Newfoundland that was in power for the past seventeen years. But I am sure. as all bon. gentlemen and ladies in this House will understand. that the biggest problem in the fishing industry in Canada today is jurisdiction. which presently 1 ies within the court of the federal government. I. too. as I said. Mr. Speaker. said in 1982 basically what he said today. He said.

In the postwar period. after Newfoundland's entry into Confederation with Canada. control of the fishery was transferred from St. John's to Ottawa and. unfortunately. the s i.gn i ficance of this industry was not recognized by the Canadian government and the fishery was totally neglected. It No. 4 R196

was not long until hordes of vessels. Russian. German. Polish. Japan~se. Spanish. Portuguese. British and others. swarmed onto our traditional fishing grounds and began to rape the fish stock. I believe. Mr. Speaker. that that is what 1 said on November 17. 1982 in this hon. House. and that · is exactly what we are all saying is happening her.e today. And when we went on and got the 200 mile 1 imi t. Mr.. Speaker. a lot of things still remained to be done. There are those of us who grew up and lived in fishing districts. I grew up. Mr. Speaker. in a community.

Trepassey. that depended totally on the fishing industry. and I know how important it was for the people there. After I got out and became a social worker. working in Marystown for ten years and throughout the entire Burin Peninsula. with all the fishing communities. I. like all people. I am sure. in this House. realized that there is no other industry that means as much to this Province as the fishing industry. I say that very sincerely. Mr. Speaker. like the member for Bellevue. my forefathers came fr.om the islands of Placentia Bay. where they grew and did not know anything else.

My people came from the lower end of Merasheen Island and from Port Elizabeth. as did the forefathers of other people. and athey depended totally on the fishing industry. They did not know anything else. my grandfather and my family. Mr. Speaker. my uncle was a fish'ing captain for years. and my first cousin is right now. I have brothers. and my father. who were for many years involved in the fishing industry. And the importance of that industry was what put bread and butter on our. Ll97 May 31. 1989 Vol xr~r table. Mr. Speaker. and bread and butter on the tables.

I am sure. of many distinguished people who sit in this House today. and it has to be looked at as a st r. ict ly non-partisan issue. It has to be done like that. We have responsibilities. I have to say. Mr. Speaker.. while we were debating this today. and whi l.e I heard the Premier up speaking on it from the government side. and I heard the member for Carbonear up speaking - is the debate on this issue going to be clued up today? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes. MR. TOBIN: If that is the case. I must say that I am a little disappointed that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. w. Carter) has not been on his feet yet. AN HON.

MEMBER : You got up. MR. TOBIN: No. no. The member for Carbonear went fir.st. It was our. turn. Mr. Speaker. with that being the case. the Minister of Fisheries will only have about five minutes to speak on this resolution. AN HON. MEMBER : The member for. St. Mary's - The Capes (inaudible). MR. TOBIN: The member for St. Mary's - The Capes has twenty minutes to clue it up. Is that the situation? If that is the case. M.r. Speaker. I do not know. That used to be the rule. Probably they have changed. If that is the case. Mr. Speaker - No. 4 Rl97

MR. RAMSEY: Do not be wasting time. MR. TOBIN: Now. Mr. Speaker. we have the member for LaPoile. He finally spoke. and I give him c.redi t for that. It was a good speech._ Probably the best one he will ever make. Having said that. I am a little disappointed that the Minister of Fisheries has not been involved in this very important issue and will probably only be allocated five minutes. That causes me some concern. As I have said. T have in front of me the campaign pol icy manual for the Liberal Party. 1989. 'A Real Change. ' As I read this. Mr. Speaker.

I have to say that it is not all new. some things there have been said before. 'When a Liberal Government would r.ecogni:1.e the Depar.tment o( Fisher.ies as a key industrial division of government with incr.eased budgetary r.esources.' So we can assume that there are going to be increased budgetary resources. Mr. Speaker. in the upcoming provincial budget to address that. I commend the government for that. Mr.

Speaker. commend them very highly. 'The Liberal Government will greatly increase research and development efforts in aquaculture and provide assistance and encouragement to inshore fishermen to enable them to take advantage of the many opportunities.' So we can look forward to seeing that as well. Mr. Speaker. Probably that gets back to what the Leader of the Opposition was saying today. that we could have someone to deal with the per'inent information. So probably we should look at researching that. as well.

Ll98 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI ,• ·, .... 'The Liberal Government would work to develop and implement a workable catch failure assistance program to relieve the hardships suffered by those who -work full time in the inshore fishery that experience poor seasons and substantial reductions of income and. sometimes. even the total loss of income. ' And. Mr. Speaker. 'The Liberal Party would establish holding facilities in various regions of the Province whe .re fish from the glut area can be stored.' That is good. Mr. Speake. and I commend the government for that. But I happen to have another document in front of me. Mr.

Speaker. a document written in 1985 called Fish Is The Future. written by the present Minister of Fisheries who was then Minister of Fisheries. and I can say that some of that stuff was said then. It is basically the same thing. You know. -we can talk about it. Mr. Speaker.. we can go into this document. the str.ategies on what is happening. the inshore/offshore balance. It is very interesting. Mr. Speaker. The near-shore fleet. again another very interesting thing. The longliner fleet. I wonder what happened to all the longl i ners that were going to be constructed. according to this here?

The middle distance fleet. Mr. Speaker. That is a very interesting one. I heard some comments on that during the past few weeks. The middle distance fleet: The then Minister. of Fisheries and the pr.esent Minister of fisheries said. 'A major opportunity exists to expand middle distance fishery operations in Newfoundland and Labrador waters. The Pr.ov:i nee wi 11 be No. 4 Rl98

actively promoting the evolution of the harv~sting sector component concurrent with the .revitalization of the fishe.ry as a whole. This fleet component will enable the adoption of many promising harvesting technologies which will further promote harvesting sector efficiency. • Mr. Speaker.~ we have a couple of middle distance vessels which are already involved in it. T do not know iC the government still supports the middle distance fishery. T am sure the present Minister of Fisheries does~ Mr.. Speaker. If not~ this would not be here. So T think he should check with some or his colleagues.

We can go on to fleet support~ processing~ marketing~ infrastructure~ . social development~ and the role of the government. All good stuff. Mr. Speaker. all excellent stuff. The harvesting. Mr. Speaker: The Liberal Party. the same Minister of Fisheries. 'Will establish holding facilities in various regions of the Province.' Mr. Speaker. let me say that here they are establishing a primary landing and dis tribu t·ion centre. There is a big picture of it there. 'The primary landing and distribution center wl ll revital i:'.e fish plant operations on the Avalon. East and Northeast Coasts. Yes. Mr.

Speaker. there was a big study done. 'Harbour Grace is a deep-water. ice-free port which is strategically located to serve fish plants along the Northeast Coast.' Probably the member can tell us when the official opening took place. Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of it. but the Minister of Fisheries was certainly building it.

Ll99 May 31, 1989 Vol XLI Fish procurement and distribution corporation: 'The new primary landing and distribution center will operate as a provincial Crown Corporation and will be responsible for the procurement of offshore landings. their distribution primarily to plants with available production capacity but lacking in offshore harvesting capacity.

Activities of the corporation will include: Acquiring fishing · vessels by charter. purchase or construction; chartering vessels to fishing companies; buying fish under both short and long-term contracts; selling fish to processing plants; arranging for unloading~ handling. s·torage and d ist r ibut ion of fish operations. and primary landing and distribution center.' Mr. Speaker. I do not know where that is right now. We could go on. There is some great stuff. T t says a lot about the foresight of the minister. and the marine service center improvements which were done this year.

I believe. under the inshore restructuring agreement. Working capital for fishermen: 'Tf career fishermen are to have the independence and business stature that they deserve. every effort must be made to end the practice of fishermen becoming fi nanc ia lly indebted to firms who buy their. catches.' So. they were going to do all that. Mr. Speaker. T do not know what was done there.

Assessment of fishing ports: 'In addition to the central port concept. the Department of Fisheries determined that serious studies should be given to the present status of the Province's fishing ports and their requirements for improving fishing No. 4 Rl99

operations. • Mr. Speaker. It was never done, The gear insurance plan that the provincial government is going to bring in. That is a good question, Mr. Speaker. Will the provincial government have in their budget this year a gear insurance program? 'Every businessman needs insurance protection for his equipment and supplies. and a fisherman is no exception.' Now, Mr. Speaker. that was never brought in and I call upon the government today, if they are sincere, honest. and committed to the fishing industry of this Province~ to include in their budget this year a gear insurance program. It is right.

The former Minister of Fisheries, who is the present Minister of Fisheries.. was right. He was right. Mr. Speaker. and now. hopefully, he will be able to fulfill that commitment that he had made there. We can go on, Mr. Speaker. The .re are several pages here stating what the Minister. of Fisheries was going to do. Nothing was done. but that is beside the point. But we can go on through that. and we can look at it. I read this, by the way. not in a derogatory sense. I think the concept and the wishes and the foresight of the Minister of Fisheries is to be commended.

I hope now that he is starting off in a new term that this will be something that he wi 11 keep close and that he wi 11 have a sincere, hardworking look at it. honest. I do, as well. Mr.. Speaker, know him quite well. I probably worked closer with the Minister of Fisheries than most people in this House. As a matter of fact, if there is anyone responsible for L200 May 31, 1989 Vol xr .. I getting me into politics, the Minister of Fisheries. back a long way. Mr.. Speaker. AN HON. MEMBER : What did you do? AN HON. MEMBER: it is We go Do you know what you have done? MR.

TOBIN: As a matter of fact, he called me to express his delight that I had finally decided to enter provincial politics; he has commended me several times on my performance in the House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear.. hear! MR. TOBIN: I thank the minister for. that, Mr. Speaker. MR. WINDSOR: He cannot be all bad. MR. TOBIN: No. I worked on several campaigns for. him. I worked on every campaign he ever ran in St. John's West, when I was living in Trepassey. I was his poll captain. Mr. Speaker. I say he was a good member. when he was the Member for St. John's West. AN HON. MEMBER : He ran up there (inaudible}. MR.

TOBIN: Yes. I worked for him when he ran in Bur in - St. George's. at the time. And, Mr. Speaker. I was a civil servant. But that was before civil servants got fired for their political affiliation. In any case, we have to deal with an .important issue here. As has been said today by the member for St. Ma.r.y' s The Capes. who No. 4 R200

introduced the resolution. as has been said by the Leader of the Opposition. by the Premier. by the member for Carbonear and now by myself. and I am sure by whomever else may speak. this issue has to be addressed and it has to be addressed now. It is an issue. Mr. Speaker.. where the federal government has to play the lead role. there .is no question. The federal government has to get involved and treat this as a national disaster. There is no other way for them to treat it.

There .is no other way for this issue to be dealt wi.th and dealt with in an effective way but as a national disaster. with the federal government getting actively involved i.n protecting the fish stocks that are there and telling the foreigners who are overfishing to fly straight to hell. Let them go. Mr. Speake .r.. The federal government is going to have to get tough. tougher than they have been. For too long now this Province has sat by. We sat by when the Liberals were in power and we can go through it again. Now that the Conservatives ar.e in power. exactly the same thing is happening.

I will tell you what I said in 1982 about that. and it is still happening today. 'Having declared the 200 mile limit. the government immediately allocated substantial quanti tics of (-ish to foreign nat ions. This was a t r.ade-off to ensure markets for wester.n grain and Ontat"io and Quebec industrial pt'oducts. The traditi.onal Gulf of St. r.aw .r.ence' I cannot say this. Mr. Speaker.. because I was a making a comment to the member for. Port au Port (Mr..

Hodde .r:). who was on the other. side at the time. 'The fishing trawler fleet grounds and the L201 May 31. 1989 for the Southwest Vol XLI coast of Newfoundland. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were placed out of bounds. The consequences of this action was all the vessels gathered on the Grand Banks where the quota became exhausted very quickly. Even before the advent of the worldwide recession two years ago. fishing companies were finding it difficult to make ends meet.' That is exactly what is happening today. Mt'. Speaker. our. stocks are being traded off. But. Mr.

Speaker. we can look at that and we can address it. and we can talk about it here in this Assembly. I am sure everyone here is committed to seeing the fishing industry in this Province improve and become. once again. a very strong. vibrant way of life for the people who work in the fishing industrty. and the entire economy of Newfoundland and Labrador which depends on that fishing industry. Now. I had the oppot'tunity. and it is an opportunity that I do not look on very favourably. Mr. Speaker. but back a few years ago. the fishing .industry in this Province had to be restructured. and that was something. Mr.

Speaket'. most of us were i.nvol ved in. people 1 ike myself who represented a fishing district that was dying. Burin. Mr. Speaker.. was the first frozen fresh fish plant operation in Newfoundland. in the 1940's. That is where it ·started. in Burin. And the feder.a 1 government of the day. and I will never f.or.gi. ve. as long as I live. Mike Kirby. for the callous. arrogant attitude that he displayed toward Newfoundlanders. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! No. 4 R201

MR. TOBIN: The man should never. aver. ever be forgiven Cor the way he treated Newfoundlanders. no matter what your political persuasion is. That man did a .report - and I do not think the Minister of Fisheries supports the way Mike Kirby treated Newfoundlanders either.. But the federal government of the day came down here. the Minister of Fisheries was Romeo Leblanc no. it was DeBane. and he held a press conference. here is St. John's. and announced their policy for the fishing industry. which was to close Burin. lock stock and barrel. forever. close Grand Bank. Ramea. Gaul to is. four or five places.

But this government. Mr. Speaker. at the time the Conservative government. took it upon themselves to address the needs and had put in place the Burin Peninsula Development fund. a fund that did an awful lot. Mr. Spaaker to improve the way of 1 ire. a fund the money came from to construct a secondary processing plant in Burin. That is where most of that money came from. and my colleague and friend from St. John's South (Mr. Murphy). the man with the biggest victory here - MR. WARREN: Short lived. though. Short lived. MR. TOBIN: He is here. Mr. Speaker. here.

He is - he can attest to that. being a former employee of FPI. I would suspect. Mr. Speaker. one of the bright spots in operation of FPI today is secondary processing plant Burin. And that is where that the that in that f,207. May 31. l989 Vol xr.r came from. as a result of funding that was put in place for the Burin Peninsula Development Fund. We can go on to other projects: The St. Lawrence mine. tha major development in Cowhead. where we will see great activities when we get on with further (~xpansion the.re in the next few months . I am sure goverment will not change that commitment that has been made.

That money was put in place so that government could get on and do what needed to be done for the people of this Province. AN HON. MEMBER : (Inaudible). MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker. he is a friend. but he is not in the Chair. That is the reason why it is so important that the federal government address this in a maaningful way. so we can put in place not just a pr.ogram of make work. nobody wants that. That is no good to the fishermen. That is no good in this situation. There has to be some sort of system struck whereby the best economic development can take place to ensure. Mr.

Speaker. that we get on and do what needs to be done for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I have had the opportunity to be involved. The other day t heard the Pr ·emier make reference to getting involved in fishing gear and having it manufactured here in the Province. That is great. but. let me say to han. members opposite. we tried that some years ago. when the fishery was being restructured. but the major offshore companies in this Pr.ovi nee. who would be the gr.eatest purchaser.. the people who No. 4 R202

depended on that equipment said. We have our markets. friends. We can get it a lot cheaper offshore and we are going to have it. So. I think you will be faced with the same situation in that regard. But I think it is very important that we take a lead. Mr. Speaker._ in ensut'ing that the workers who are involved in the fishing industry in this Pt'ovince are protected. and that the economy of Newfoundland and T.abr.ador is never permitted to er.ode any further. than it has. and that we get on with doing what has to be done. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed. MR. TOBIN: I thank you. Mr.

Speaker. for the opportunity to speak. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. W. CARTER: I want to. first of all. thank the hon. member for the confidence that he has shown in me. I must say I appreciate his choice of reading material. He takes some credit. I think. for getting me in politics. and T believe he gives me some credit for getting him in politics. I suppose I have to take some of that credit. Mr. Speaker. but T do not know what kind of effect that is going to have on me in my future relations with my colleagues on this side.

I suppose when you start somebody off in the right way you try to keep them on the straight and narr.ow and teach them the right things. but when they get i.n with bad company. then. of course. you cannot be held responsible. L203 May 31. 1989 Vol XLI SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear. hear! MR. W. CARTER: I have had the honour of raising eight children. and I did the same thing there. I tried to teach them ·the right things: to be courteous to their elders. to say thank you. and to be very charitable. sometimes. when dealing with cases where charity is needed.

Luckily. my children have stayed on the straight and na r.r.ow. but T cannot say the same for. my political child. Mr. Speaker. I have known him for a long time and I can say that he comes from an outstanding Newfoundland family. His father and I are very. very close friends~ I had a very good relationship with his parents. and with a deceased uncle who was a great Newfoundlander: he was one of the f. inest fishing skippers. I suppose. who ever sailed out of a Newfoundland port.

It gives me some pride being associated with the hon. member and his family for a number of years. but I take no responsibility for what happened when he left my care. Before I get into the meat of my few remarks. T should. maybe. make a comment on the statement made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition during Quest ion Period. when he posed a question to the Premier with regard to my not being available to appear on The Fishermen's Broadcast. Mr. Speaker. T do recall having gotten. I believe. one or. maybe. two messages from tba t gentleman. Mr..

Wellman. and in both cases it was not possible for me to call him back. I can tell you now. as hon. members in the press gallery know. and as their. directors know. that there is nobody on this side of the House more accessible to No. 4 R203

the press than t am. Tn fact. t can tell you now. that the day after I became Minister of Fisheries. l took the trouble to w.r.i.te. personally. every single news director in this city advising them that t would set aside two hours every Friday afternoon to enable them to come to my off ice to ques ·tion me on any matters pertaining to my department. t must say that they have taken me up on that offer. and I look forward to a continuation of that kind of relationship with the press. Press members will have to understand that these are busy times. especially in the Department of Fisheries.

My working day. as those who watch my parking lot in front of our building will tell you. starts at about 7:00 a.m. Ne~er later than 7:30 a.m. they will see my car parked there. and it never leaves there before 6 or. 7 o'clock in the evening. and I do not go home to lunch. So it is not a normal time. And if we cannot respond to all the calls we get immediately. then. t think. they will have to understand. It is not that we do not want to. and it is certainly not because there is a muzzle put on me by the Premier. The fact of the matter is. the days are only so long.

I would remind hon. members opposite. by the way. seeing that they raised the matter. that T have been sitting here now since Monday and there has not been one question asked of the Minister of Fisheries. MR. WARREN: You are not allowed to answer. MR. W. CARTER: No. no. There has not been one T.204 May 31. 1989 Vol xr.r question given a question. maybe now asked. t have not been chance to answer a As a matter of f.act. what t should do - MR. TOBIN: You answer {inaudible). MR. W. CARTER: Well. that is not my .fault. I am prepared. In fact. I enjoy questions. As a matter of fact. I am feeling rather let down.

I have almost been tempted to maybe get one of my colleagues here ask me a question just to get me in practice. I am becoming rusty. I think. MR. WARREN: Yes. it is a pity {inaudible}. MR. W. CARTER: It has been ten years since I had the opportunity to answer questions on fisheries. and I am itching for the opportunity. But let me now members opposite a maybe. tomorrow. MR. WARREN: A few questions? MR. W. CARTER: give the few ideas bon. for. A few questions - a few suggestions for. questions. AN HON. MEMBER: Write them for them. MR. W. CARTER: No. I do not have to write them. I think they are able to do that.

Why not get up tomorrow. one of you gentleman who has a fishing district. and ask me. for example. what the situation is now on the caplin fishery: Have prices been negotiated? Have quotas been established? No. 4 R204 . . . ...

AN HON. MEMBER : Have they? MR. W. CARTER: At what time open? What are a good fishery? AN HON. MEMBER : will the fishery the prospects for {Inaudible) buy them {inaudible). MR. W. CARTER: I can give you another question. Get up tomorrow. if you wi 11. and ask me a question on the Province's posit ion on overf ishing on the Nose and Tall of the Grand Banks. A good question. a very important one. Ask me tomorrow. maybe. a question on the Province's position on the har:vesting. and hopefully p.rocessing. of underuti 1 i:.~ed species. The