April 5,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 13

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. Does the minister know or can he inform this House, on average how

long does it take for a review commissioner to prepare for a hearing, hear the

hearing and actually write up the decision? Does he have any information on the

number of hours? Is it two hours, ten hours, twelve hours? Is the minister aware

of how long it takes?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: I suppose the member might ask how long does

it take to get to Holyrood? I suppose it depends if you are in a car, on a bike,

on a slide or a skidoo or whatever the case might be. Let me say, Mr. Speaker,

that I have absolutely no idea. As the member should know, it would vary

depending on the circumstances surrounding the appeal. It could take I suppose,

and I say this in a broad sense, it could take anywhere from a day-and-a-half to

two days to two or three hours.

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

Kilbride.

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

On Friday of last week on CBC Here and Now the chief

review commissioner said that it takes between five and six hours on average to

prepare for a hearing, be present at the hearing and write up the decision. Then

on Monday on an open line show he said that my allegations demonstrate that my

knowledge of what is taking place is very limited because I really don't

understand, he said, how much time it takes or how much time commissioners put

into the system. Mr. Speaker, maybe I don't but then again maybe I do. Taking

Mr. Gullage's own information, the chief review commissioner, in the month of

December he rendered seventy-eight cases, seventy-eight decisions billing out

$39,000 for one months work and by his own admission, if you take those number

of cases by the number of hours he says it takes to prepare he would have had to

work sixteen hours a day for the entire thirty-one days of December. This is

unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, does he find this acceptable?

What will he do about it?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you very much.

In listening to the hon. member over the last week there is

no reason for me or any other hon. member to trust his scenario either, I

suggest to him. However, let me say this in all fairness, Mr. Speaker, the

Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board on Monday, made his

statement in the House regarding this situation and the investigating process is

starting to take place in dialogue with the minister and of course, the member

knows that we will inform him as promised by the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board when that investigation is completed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my information comes from the

mouth of the chief review commissioner and from the Review Division in terms of

the statistics that were rendered in December. This comes from the Review

Division, not something that's fabricated, made up or concocted. These are

actual figures, actual numbers.

Let me ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board this

question: How is the investigation going and when can we expect some information

from him to be tabled in this House on that investigation?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with that in

a statement to the House. As soon as it's completed, then the information will

be made available to the House. I can't comment on the accuracy of the hon.

member's information and I will have to wait until I get that back; I am not

doing it myself this is being done by someone else.

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

supplementary.

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

As I said in the House, or through the media to the public

some days ago, I will be conducting my own investigation of the fifty-four or

fifty-nine cases and let me see if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board -

and I will table this so he can have a look at it and see if he can comment on

the accuracy of this - to date, from September 28, my research is not complete,

but I have fifty-four cases done, from September 12, '94 to December 7, '94. I

have examples here of fifty-four cases that were heard, postponed and then heard

again, double billed, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to table this for the

minister and ask him again: Will he look into when the investigation will be

completed and have it done before this House leaves for Easter?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kilbride has

talked about he himself doing an investigation; I am sure it is going to be an

impartial investigation he is doing.

Mr. Speaker, I am taking a different approach. I am having

this done at arm's length; I am having people look into it. I believe in total

there were fifty-nine postponed cases, not fifty-four -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: - so I am sure that the information will be

used in the process.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier pertaining to the continued

blatant overfishing by the Spanish on the Grand Banks.

We had the arrest of the Estai ; we had another Spanish

vessel where the federal authorities cut its nets; we've been negotiating now

for a couple of weeks, and still today there are fourteen Spanish trawlers

flagrantly, blatantly overfishing a fragile stock, taking juvenile turbot.

Can the Premier explain for the House, as I'm sure he has had

continued discussions with the federal minister, and maybe even with the Prime

Minister, why is the Federal Government tolerating this situation with fourteen

Spanish vessels today still flagrantly overfishing that juvenile turbot stock?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I'm sure the member appreciates the

difficulty of trying to achieve the objectives that both the Government of

Canada and the Government of Newfoundland have at this matter. Spain sees the

situation through its own coloured glasses. They don't consider their actions to

be flagrant overfishing; they consider their actions to be quite acceptable.

They are totally unacceptable by any measure of judgement. Any aspect of

humanity on this planet who would look at what they are doing, would never give

it anybody's blessing. So we have to try to deal with the difficult situation

with Spain as a member of the European Community. The discussions are going on

with representatives of the European Community and I've no doubt that they have

their difficulties trying to bring Spain onside. I don't want to say anything

that doesn't acknowledge for all, the degree of difficulty involved in achieving

success.

My most recent discussions with the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans indicate that he is hopeful of reaching an agreement with the European

Community. Once that is done, we are hopeful that it will provide overall good

results, not just for the turbot stock, because what we want to achieve is

full-time 100 per cent observer coverage on every single vessel. They would be

observers who are not residents of the Iberian Peninsula, neither Spain nor

Portugal, so that we could have a higher level of confidence in the reporting

that would be done.

If we do that it will be beneficial to all of the fishing

that is taking place out there. Frankly, as nearly as I can judge from all the

information that I have, if we have that, fishing will stop period. Because you

can't catch enough fish to pay a fraction of the cost of the fuel if you use

legal size mesh. So economics is going to stop the fishing, rather than laws

enforcing it. So long as the basic rules of NAFO are followed and obeyed in

terms of mesh size, I don't think anybody fishing out there can catch enough

fish to pay a fraction of their fuel cost, let alone make any profit by it.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

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

I agree with that. I said a few weeks ago that the only

reason this Spanish effort could be viable was because they were using the

liners to catch the juvenile turbot; otherwise, they wouldn't make enough money

to pay for the fuel.

Hopefully, Spain will come to their senses, but apparently

the Prime Minister of Spain has indicated to our Prime Minister that there will

be no agreement. I am just wondering: Has the Federal Government given any

indication whatsoever - because if we don't stop the Spanish before long, there

will not be any turbot left, so there will be nothing to talk about; there will

be no turbot to divide up. Has the Premier had any indication at all if they are

just going to let the Spanish fish until they fill up their boats and go back

home, or if there may be some target date set by the Federal Government and

officials to move in and get them out of the zone?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No doubt, the Federal Government has a

time frame within which it wants to see conclusion of these discussions, and

provisions put in place to protect what is left of the turbot stocks.

I ask hon. members to remember that the Federal Government

has performed very, very well in relation to this whole matter -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - first, in bringing the legislation to

the House of Commons last year, in getting it there, and then finally in

actually implementing it against the European Community, which many people in

this Province argued they would never do; so I give them the full credit for

doing that. That doesn't make it an easy task, and while we would all like to

see the Spanish out of it yesterday, that is probably not a realistic

expectation. They are pursuing their discussions and, as nearly as I know, they

are close to an agreement. I have no reason to believe that there will not be an

agreement, although I must frankly admit that is a possibility. I cannot deny

that failure to reach an agreement is a possibility.

Everything that I have heard from the Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans leaves me to believe that he expects there will be an agreement with

the European Community, and it will then be up to the European Community to

ensure that Spain complies with it. If it does not, we will have to face that

circumstance if, as, and when it arises.

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

supplementary.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, as well, have applauded the actions of the federal

minister and the Federal Government in what they have done in the last few

weeks. I realize it is a very complex situation, as I realize that a number of

years ago it was very complex, and I knew the players we were dealing with,

particularly Spain and Portugal; they are not very easy people to deal with. The

situation is, I am not optimistic that there will be an agreement, particularly

with Spain. They seem to be just determined to overfish and wipe out the stock.

If they continue to overfish, and we don't reach an

agreement, what recommendations will the Province be making to the Prime

Minister and the federal government to deal with this situation? Can the Premier

inform us of that and what actions really does he anticipate the federal

government will take if Spain continues to overfish as they are now doing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is a hypothetical situation and I don't

want to be speculating on what advice I will give in a circumstance that does

not now exist and may or may not exist. I would remind the hon. member that the

advice that I have been giving the federal government now for some six years is

to seek custodial management of those stocks out beyond the 200-mile limit on

the Grand Banks, my advice has been no different. What they did with respect to

this legislation comes as close I guess as we can get to custodial management

without having it totally in place. It comes pretty close to it. My advice to

them has been clear all along. I don't see any reason why my advice would change

if the Spaniards continue to fish in the way in which they have fished in the

past. That has to be stopped and if it cannot be stopped by international

agreement, achieved through the United Nations or by bipartisan agreement

achieved between Canada and the European Union, then it has to be stopped by

Canada unilaterally and thus far the federal government has indicated its

willingness to do just that if it becomes necessary.

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

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

the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in Gander the Road Builders

Association and construction association members met to discuss their grave

concerns with the fact that government has no capital program this year.

Construction companies, engineering companies and consultant companies, Mr.

Speaker, say that there will be thousands of seasonal jobs gone. In fact, some

of the members of the association have stated already that they have started to

lay off some of their more permanent employees because of the bleak outlook for

construction jobs this summer. Could the minister tell the House if his

department or any other government department has done a study or a review to

determine how many seasonal or permanent jobs will be lost this construction

season?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for his question because it is going to

give me the opportunity today to tell you exactly how much we are spending this

year in capital construction as compared to previous years. My hon. colleague,

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will be spending $70 million

in construction in agreements between the federal government and the provincial

government, $70 million this year in Newfoundland as a follow through from last

years infrastructure program. We will be spending, municipal and Provincial

Affairs, $50 million. Plus if we can get the agreement with the federal

government in regards to the $15 million I referred to yesterday, that will be

an extra $25 million, $27 million. So my department alone will be spending some

$75 million in the Province.

In regards to figures, last year the staff did an analysis on

the infrastructure program and they predicted that there would be approximately

2,200 people employed last year. That figure went to approximately 2,400. I'm

expecting this year to be the boom year in the Province for construction, so I'm

hoping it is going to create at least 3,000 jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Make no wonder

then the construction associations figure they are going to be in trouble when

the minister figures that this is going to be the boom year in construction.

The figures that the hon. minister just quoted, especially as

it pertains to transportation, it is mostly all federal money, all tendered, all

out since early January. Nothing from the Province only a measly $5 million. The

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs Department has $13.5 million left

over form last year. The federal infrastructure program has been cut back by

one-third this year, $15 million. He doesn't know yet whether they are going to

get the other $25 million off the feds. He doesn't know how many municipalities

will take the $20 million or $25 million, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister now rise in his place and let the House

know and let the members know, and the people of the Province, especially the

construction associations' members know, how many municipalities do you really

think - if you come out with, say for instance, a $25 million program - will

really avail of that opportunity this year to take some funding?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the first question,

and the question I believe was: How much money is the government actually

putting into capital expenditure for this year, and will there be a capital

works project budget. The hon. member, and I think most members in the House

realize, that when the federal government announced a $150 million or

thereabouts program, when they announced that, the hon. member understands that

within that $150 million, which was divided on a one-third, one-third, one-third

basis, we as a provincial government will pick up almost $100 million of that

$150 million. Which will be about two-thirds. Last year we put out $127 million

in contracts. Out of that $127 million in contracts there was approximately $70

million spent last year, which leaves about $50 million for this year. So I

don't know what the hon. member is referring to.

I also think the hon. member is probably misinterpreting some

of the questions and some of the comments that came out of Gander yesterday from

what he referred to as an association meeting. They were more concerned about

what was going to happen next year. I spoke to a number of them yesterday and

the day before, and they are more concerned about what is going to happen next

year. As the hon. member and every member of this House realizes, who can

predict what is going to happen next year. When we get into budgetary processes

next year we will determine then at that particular time how much money will be

spent on capital works and the creation of jobs in the Province. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The

minister stated in his answer that I asked how many municipalities would partake

of this program this year if they were offered. He really didn't answer the

question. In any case, he said that they spent - $100 million of that $150

million will be financed by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

through the Municipal Financing Corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, the Province. But the municipalities,

Mr. Speaker, whatever is there with regards to roads will be a 60-40 program the

same as the other. The only one where there will be 100 per cent financing

through the Municipal Financing Corporation would be anything to do with water

and sewer.

I ask the minister again: How many municipalities in the

Province will be able to take

part in any construction jobs this summer, or

anything that his department offers with regards to a capital program, after

just saying in the House yesterday that approximately 237 or 247 municipalities

in the Province out of the 287 would not be able to take any money? Could the

minister stand in his place today and tell that?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not making myself

clear yesterday, apparently. When I made that comment in the House yesterday

about municipalities not being able to avail of funding, I meant any capital

works funding or other funding other than - other than - the infrastructure

program. There are some 180 communities out there that would be eligible this

year for the infrastructure funding, which amounts to $25 million or $27

million.

The funding that we are providing in the Budget and in the

Budget Speech for capital projects, we don't know yet how much that total would

be, but the funding that we are providing there we are providing to the

communities such as St. John's and Mount Pearl and Corner Brook, mostly the

larger communities who are paying their own way, though, 100 per cent of the

funding. Basically, what we are doing to them is saying: Yes, you can go and

borrow what money you need to complete the jobs you do as if it was a normal

capital works year.

I am sticking to water and sewerage on that because the

Province cannot, at this particular point in time, because of the amount of

money we have put into the infrastructure, go into deals on 60/40 arrangements

because the Province, then, would have to pick up the cost.

Now I hope that makes the thing clear. The majority of

communities in the Province, with the exception of about fifty, every single one

of them can qualify for either infrastructure money or capital works money.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

The night before last, at the Estimates Committee Meeting, I

asked the minister for details of a trip to Gaeta, Italy, the birthplace of John

Cabot, by members of the Cabot 500 Corporation. I was informed that the Chairman

of the Board, the Mayor of St. John's, and the Mayor of Bonavista took the trip.

I have learned over the past couple of days that several other members of the

committee also travelled to Gaeta. I would like to ask the minister: How many

persons took this trip to Gaeta, and at what cost was it to the taxpayers of the

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gave the information at the Estimates in some detail to the

hon. member a couple of nights ago at the Colonial Building. We were exploring

further questions that the hon. member had raised in the House on Monday where

he suggested that all kinds of money had been spent on dinner meetings and

travel. As a matter of fact, one of his phrases was that that's the way the

group have been utilizing the majority portion of the committee's budget.

I think the review has shown since then that less than 3 per

cent of the budget of this particular corporation, with its nineteen board

members from around the Province who are trying to do their very best to do

something good for the Province in 1997, has been spent on the running of the

board and travel, the meetings, including the one in Gaeta, and meetings in

Bristol to finalize a deal for the travel of the Matthew to Newfoundland

and Labrador.

I answered the questions at the committee because those are

the only travel for which any charge was made to the Cabot Corporation. If there

was anyone else who travelled to Gaeta on that particular visit, a joint visit

of the Cabot 500 Corporation meeting of the committee in Newfoundland and

Labrador with its parallel partner committee in Gaeta, which is the birthplace

of John Cabot, then they didn't make any charges to the Cabot Corporation.

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

Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, at our Estimates meeting I

asked the minister and his staff about the public accountability of the Cabot

500 Corporation. After all, they spent $3.8 million last year, and are looking

for the same amount again this year. The minister informed me that audited

statements were available, but the chairperson of the committee took exception

to detailed accounts of travel and meals, et cetera, because the committee was

made up of volunteers. My opinion is that taxpayers' dollars should be publicly

accounted for, whether they are spent by government people or volunteers. I

would like to ask the minister: Does he agree with the chairperson of the

committee or myself on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Myself, on behalf of the government, the Premier, and

everybody else on this side of the House, has repeatedly stated that if the

members opposite, or anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, has specific

questions about the expenditures relating to the John Cabot 500th. Anniversary

Corporation, we would be delighted to give the answers.

The answer to the previous question with respect to travel to

Gaeta, whoever else - if there was anybody, and I am not sure because the kind

of suggestions that were made here on Monday certainly weren't accurate in terms

of what was presented by the hon. member opposite - but if there were other

people, they did not make any charges to the Cabot 500 Corporation. They did not

spend money that was paid through this particular corporation, and when and if

there are any kinds of questions that people want answers to, we will provide

the answers.

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

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, there were other members of the committee who

travelled to Gaeta, I will have him know.

I would like to ask the minister for a detailed breakdown of

the staff positions and the salaries of the Cabot 500 Corporation, from the CEO

on down the line.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly we will provide that particular information if he

wants to break out all the staff positions. As I indicated in answer to the

previous one, if he has questions specifically about the government approving

expenditures for the Cabot 500 Corporation, ask the questions, we will provide

the answers.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health, and concerns the

decision by the Red Cross to stop accepting blood from residents of Conception

Bay North.

Mr. Speaker, thousands and thousands of Newfoundlanders are

insulted by this policy and I want to ask the minister why his government is

tolerating this kind of blatant discrimination against people on the basis of

where they live and ignoring any other risk factors.

Is the minister prepared to tolerate further discrimination

by the Red Cross against MUN students for example, there is a blood donor clinic

at Memorial, to knock out people who happen to be from Conception Bay North or,

if there is a blood donor clinic at Confederation Building, to single out those

people who happen to live in Conception Bay North or have summer cabins in

Conception Bay North, is the minister and his government prepared to tolerate

that kind of discrimination without, in the face of criticism by local doctors

and by the Red Cross medical people themselves, that this is not going to stop

HIV getting into the blood system?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question of the acceptance of recommendation 10, of the

Krever Commission by the Canadian Red Cross has caused some concern inasmuch as

they have applied it to a particular area within this Province where they have

made a decision not to go in and hold blood donor clinics. I think the whole

situation has to be put into perspective.

First of all, we have to understand that the Canadian Red

Cross is in and of itself an independent agency or body out there, that is not

directly or indirectly, I would suggest, controlled by this government or any

other government. They are out there, they have had for many years of

long-standing, a record of collecting blood and blood products within the

country, we rely on them as a government at this point in time to be the

resource from which we purchase blood products for use in the health care system

and in that context, the Red Cross, as an organization, has a responsibility to

develop policies such that they feel are appropriate to ensure to the maximum of

extent possibly, that they can deliver blood products to the Province and to the

country generally, in as safe a manner as possible.

We, as a government, have not yet reflected officially on the

forty-three recommendations in the Krever Commission, but I can tell the hon.

member this, that we would be hard-pressed to question the judgement of the Red

Cross given the fact that they are the ones who have responsibility to develop

the policies under which they operate and we cannot, at this point, say their

policy is incorrect. We can say this, that they are the ones who made it, they

are the ones who will have to answer and justify the reasonableness of it, but

we rely on them as a resource for blood products and if we are not confident

that they have made the right decision, in effect, we are saying that we are not

confident of the supplier that we have for blood products and that would be a

consideration -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the minister to finish the answer.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: The Department of Health and the government

are in involved because, as the minister says, it is a supply of blood that is

used in hospitals in this Province and throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, there are people who have given blood to the Red

Cross for decades from Conception Bay North, who are insulted by this policy,

and what level of confidence can the government have in the blood supply if they

are going to accept that you cannot collect blood from Conception Bay North but

you can collect blood from people from there at Memorial University in the City

of St. John's, at Confederation Building or anywhere else. It is a policy, Mr.

Speaker, that doesn't make any sense in the context of Conception Bay North in

this Province and the government should not be supporting it and I want to ask

the minister: Is he prepared to ask the Red Cross to reconsider that decision

and develop a different policy that really recognizes the risk factors that may

be involved and doesn't go on insulting people in this Province?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government is not unmindful of the sensitivity of the

matter. We are not unmindful of the feelings that have been generated, not only

as a result of this incident but as a result generally of being highlighted in

Newfoundland as having a circumstance of high incidence of HIV in a particular

area. We are more than sympathetic, we all are I am sure, to people who live in

Conception Bay North and any other area of the Province which is so identified.

We have great feeling for the anxieties and the probably inappropriate statement

in a big picture that it is making but it is a circumstance that is there. We

will as a government make an appropriate commentary on the decision, if, as and

when we feel the decision is deemed to be inappropriate, until such time as that

I will not comment further on it, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

House of Assembly eight Scouts from First Vanier Troups, accompanied by their

leader Mr. Keith Bowden.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question

about staffing for the Employment Creation Program and I table that today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Petitions

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

Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today and present a petition on behalf

of just over 200 residents of the community of Shoe Cove on the Baie Verte

Peninsula:

We, the people of Shoe Cove, do petition this hon. House of

Assembly and ask the provincial Department of Works, Services and Transportation

and the Provincial Government to do immediate repairs and upgrading to our

community road and the road connecting us to Highway 414. Over the past month,

this road has become deplorable, causing damage to automobiles, and much

sickness, especially for children travelling on the school bus. We find it

unacceptable to live with this situation and request that an urgent decision be

made regarding these road conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here of over 200 names. This

morning I had numerous calls from that community, and also from the communities

of Middle Arm and Burlington. As we look at the numbers that unfold here in the

House of Assembly, the real numbers, we find the truth is that this Provincial

Government, under the minister, will be allowing for approximately $15 million

in provincial roads upgrading this year. Let's just compare that to 1989 when it

was $48 million.

The minister knows. If he stands in his place he will tell

you that $15 million will not come near what is needed to be done in this

Province this year. We are talking about a road here, which, time after time,

these students travel over. We are talking about three kilometres of road, not

about a causeway to Prince Edward Island. We are talking about three kilometres

of road that takes them twenty minutes to half-an-hour to go over on the bus. I

have also letters here that I received this morning right after the petition

came in, from students who wrote me.

One of the students: `Mr. Shelley, we have a serious matter

here that needs to be solved. I feel, along with many others, that our roads

need to be upgraded as soon as possible. Please do what you can to help.' From

Rene Mitchell, Grade VIII student in Burlington.

Here we have: `Dear Member: I am a Grade VIII student at the

St. John Thomas Pentecostal School in Middle Arm. I'm wanting you to help us, in

the fact that our road is full of potholes and is driving us crazy. This is a

serious matter. Please take it into consideration to do something about this

matter. I gotta go now, write later.'

Mr. Speaker, these are students who have phoned me themselves

this morning. Of course, no teachers or parents want to have their children out

of school, but the truth is, they told me they are sick and tired of every

morning getting up to travel over three kilometres of road that is going to take

them anywhere from twenty minutes to half-an-hour, depending how fast the bus

can weave across this road. They described it. One of the descriptions was, it

is like one of those old-fashioned scrub boards, and the last few days it has

gotten worse and worse.

The minister knows - I've met with him on many occasions with

people from my district. We have talked about that Shoe Cove road, and about the

Middle Arm road, and at one meeting with him and his officials, the officials

agreed that the situation on the Baie Verte Peninsula - we have thirteen

communities out of twenty-one in which people still drive over gravel road. And

here it is, 1995, Mr. Speaker. It is just unacceptable to see the amounts of

money that are going to be spent again this year.

The point to be made here is that these people are not even,

at this point, looking for the pavement. What they say is that the graders go

back over it - with all deference to the depot there in the district. They do as

much as they can with what they have, and I don't put any blame on them. What I

am saying to them, and the truth is, and the minister has agreed with me, is

that it is no good to grade this road again. What they do is grade the same

thing over and over.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Now, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation is telling these 200 people on this petition that there is no

need to grade it either. You are going to stop the grading, is that what you are

telling them? Is that what you want me to bring back to them? Is that what you

are saying, as the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation? I hope you

are not. I hope he is not, Mr. Speaker.

This is a serious matter. It is okay to joke about it right

here, but we have people going every morning and then every evening coming back

over that same bloody road and they are getting sick and tired of it. Three

kilometres there, another five kilometres in Middle Arm. What I would ask the

minister here is that consideration be given for at least upgrading, so that a

grader that is commissioned from the depot on the Baie Verte Peninsula be sent

back and at least be able to grade something there.

Because, as many of the residents in the community say, it is

no good for the grader to come there and grade something that is not there to

grade. They are just down to bald rock. All they are looking for is an upgrade

on the road.

Mr. Speaker, I will also read a letter here from one of the

teachers. It says: `Dear Member: I am writing on behalf of the staff of John

Thomas Pentecostal School to express our disgust and disappointment with the

roads in the communities of Middle Arm, Burlington and Smith's Harbour. In this

day and age, there is no need for roads to be devoid of gravel, let alone

unpaved. Graders no longer gravel gravel, just ballast rock.' And that's the

point I was making. It's no good to send the graders back on something that is

not there to grade.

`Several students have come to school complaining of

headaches and various other ailments. We talk about improving the education of

our children, yet we fail to consider their trips to and from school. Is this

not part of their daily schooling? Please do something about these roads.'

I ask the minister here today to give this petition some

serious consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted today to rise in support of my colleague, the

Member for Baie Verte, about a situation that is happening in his district.

Before long, we are going to hear the likes of this echoing throughout other

districts of this Province; it doesn't matter whether it involves government

side members or Opposition side members. The roads in this Province are

atrocious, and getting worse.

These 200 names on this petition today cry out for help. The

roads are down to bedrock, and these are gravel roads. A grader is not going to

do anything with the situation there. Maintenance, road construction, we are

down to a diminished amount of money, moreso than we ever were before, just so

the books could be cooked a little bit better, that the Premier probably could

ride off into the sunset and say it is the first time there has been a balance

here since 1949.

Is that the way to run a business? No, but that is the way

they are running the government, and that is the way they are running the people

of this Province.

There are road hazards out there, and the biggest road hazard

is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He is a hazard to the

driving public of this Province. With the little amount of money that he could

successfully get through Cabinet this year -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, I didn't stand much of a chance last

year.

MR. EFFORD: No, nor next year.

MR. CAREEN: No, nor next year, but you will be gone

before long.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: You'll be gone - and when they read this

tribute to the voting boundaries, the people of Island Cove and Spaniard's Bay

will be waiting for you, Sir.

In the meantime, these people from Shoe Cove need help, and

they need help today, and those students - not only the students, the other

driving public. What about ambulances? With ambulances, a minute or two could

make the difference in a person's life. They are not airborne. They have to

drive over our roads, and the roads in this Province are bad and getting worse,

and the minister should do the proper thing now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MR. CAREEN: Resign.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the two hon.

members over there standing on their feet complaining about the gravel roads and

the lack of interest by this government in building and maintaining roads.

The Member for Baie Verte said, number one, it is no good to

grade the roads. Then, when I said, `Okay, I won't grade them', he got all upset

about it. It is quite obvious that the hon. member can't make up his mind.

Now, let me tell you, one time the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation did have a $40 million budget every year, but when

this government came into power, the first thing we had to do was deal with a $7

billion deficit, where we pay out $585 million a year in interest payments. You

give me 5 per cent of that $585 million and I can do a lot of paving and

building of roads in this Province, but unfortunately, seventeen years of

mismanagement by this crowd over there caused me not to have any money in my

budget this year to spend in the area over there, and there lies the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I spent four

years in Opposition, and the district of Port de Grave never got one penny for

roads in four years. There was no concern over there then about the bad roads in

somebody else's district. Mr. Speaker, we will take care of the roads when it is

right to take care of the roads and not by the dictation of that crowd opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the comment that just came from

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, that the work would only be

done in a Liberal district - I am not so sure if he is speaking on behalf of the

government or if he is speaking on behalf of himself, but I would say to the

Government House Leader who was here today, that if that is the policy of the

Liberal Government, that they will only do what the minister just stated they

would do, that is, do roads in Liberal districts, then I think the hon. thing

for this government to do, Mr. Speaker, is go public and tell the people of the

Province what the Minister of Justice said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will give the Government House Leader -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Burin -

Placentia West is the last person in the world to lecture anybody on decorum. He

has done more to lower the decorum of this House in the three or four years that

I have been here than all the other fifty-one members put together. I heard no

improper comment from my friend, the Member for Port de Grave. I heard nothing

like the twisted, distorted version of remarks attributed to him by the Member

for Burin - Placentia West. I would say to my friend, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, the mote is in his own eye.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I didn't hear what the hon. minister said, as alleged by the

Member for Burin - Placentia West. I don't know if I need to check the - I say,

I didn't hear it. I didn't say that I doubted the member; but I would say that

had the minister said what the hon. member says, is not a question of order for

the House, although it may or may not be a question of government practice. In

any event, even if it were said, it is not a point of order. So it is not

something that I need to make a formal ruling on in that sense.

Are there any further petitions?

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

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

MR. LUSH: I probably should have raised this earlier, Mr.

Speaker, but I thought to do it before we get to Orders of the Day. In relation

to Question Period, the hon. Member for Kilbride tabled a document and I think

that the House should make a ruling on this and get it straight. We do have

rules to follow and tabling of documents is a rather important item. Documents

can be injurious to the public, damaging to an individual and that is why there

are some pretty clear rules made regarding the citing of documents. I refer hon.

members to Beauchesne, 6th Edition, page 151, clause 495. Clause 495 deals with

documents cited and hon. members can read them. The major one for this

particular discussion is 495, subsection (6) which says, "A private member has

neither the right nor the obligation to table an official, or any other,

document." Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear and Erskine May states the

same thing equally as clear. I am not able to give the exact quote, but Sir

Erskine May does make an equally clear assertion when talking about documents

cited. I would suggest that Your Honour take a look at it and -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did Maingot say about it?

MR. LUSH: I don't think Maingot said anything in

particular about this particular item, but clearly, Beauchesne does, as does Sir

Erskine May, and I point out to hon. members that it is an important item. I am

not debating what the hon. member did today, but there could be a time when

there would be a document that would be injurious to the public and hon.

members, we cannot have it both ways, we have to be firm to say that Private

Members do not have the right to table a document or that a Private Member does.

I clearly point out what Beauchesne says and ask the Speaker to look at it in

view of the importance. There was a member in this House, I would say to the

hon. member, who at one time tabled just about anything and, it did get us in

trouble from time to time, so I point out that particular ruling to hon.

members.

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

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

Just to the member's point of order, yes indeed, I think a

former Leader of the Liberal Party at one time tabled a codfish or something in

the House, I say to the Member for Bonavista North and he was probably a member

of the caucus who probably supported it at the time, it wouldn't surprise me.

The member is right when he references Beauchesne, paragraph 495, but as well,

in 495 (2), it goes on to say that: It has been admitted that a document which

has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done

without injury to the public interest. Now I think that reference is to a

minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I will say to the hon. member

that, members here read -

MR. LUSH: I was talking about Ministers.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry, Efford? Efford tried to

table a bucket of water.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, a big bucket of water.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he tried to table a bucket of

water. We would all have been better off if he had drunk the bucket of water, I

say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, but it has become a fairly common practise here,

Mr. Speaker, is the point I want to make, for members who are up and referring

to documents and quite often, members on the opposite side, depending on the

member who is on his feet, would shout: `table it, table it'! I mean, they get

annoyed and upset if you are reading from something and they say well, table it.

Of course, the reason they do that is that they are not quite sure that you

really have anything there, I would suggest to members. They are really not sure

if I quote from this piece of paper that there is really anything on it or, that

on this paper what I am saying is on it. You can't have it both ways, I say to

Member for Bonavista North and he is here long enough to know that.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am not referring to this member, I

am referring to members opposite, but the Member for Kilbride today, certainly

had a very legitimate reference, taken directly from the appropriate division of

Workers' Compensation, which showed the list of cases, the case numbers and the

dates and so on and so forth, so I say to the Member for Bonavista North, while

I appreciate his concern about the tabling of documents, I think it is a little

bit late. I say it is several or perhaps, ten or twenty or thirty or forty years

late for the hon. member to get in his place now and today argue against a

practice that has been so widely accepted in this House and for most parts that

is requested by members when they ask an hon. member to table whatever they are

referring to so with that I just conclude my submission.

MR. TOBIN: If I could?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: I could make a brief comment on that. If my

memory serves me correctly, Mr. Speaker, it was probably the Member for

Bonavista North, when he sat in the Speaker's Chair, if not, it was the Speaker

prior to him who made a ruling in this House at one time, that a Private Member

who was reading notes, reading his speech, I remember distinctly who it was, he

was reading his speech, Mr. Speaker, and he was advised by the Speaker at the

time, and I am not sure, but I believe it was probably the Member for Bonavista

North, who told the member that if he continued to read his speech he would have

to table it, so I don't know where people are coming from in this Legislature,

but I remember the member, a new member in this House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I don't know what to say, but I am saying that

there was a member in this House who was reading his speech and he was reminded

by one of the hon. gentlemen opposite that he was not allowed to read his speech

in the Legislature, and the Speaker at the time did not instruct him to table it

but told him he was not allowed to continue to read his speech; if he did so, he

would have to lay it upon the Table of the House. I remember that but I don't

know which Speaker it was, but I remember it distinctly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, no, I don't know if the hon.

member was referring to me, but I can assure him that I made no such ruling,

that I never -

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't remember that.

MR. LUSH: Oh yes, I can surely remember. I wouldn't make

such a ruling Sir and I can tell the hon. member but that's irrelevant. I can

tell the hon. member what my usual response to that was that I don't think the

hon. member is reading his speech, he is just quoting from copious notes. That

was always my `pat' answer, all the time, regardless of whether the member was

reading or not, but, Mr. Speaker, just on this final submission on this point of

order, I say to the hon. member, when he was reading the reference, that it

refers to ministers and everywhere there are authorities on this, it has been

referenced to ministers.

As a matter of fact, I will tell the hon. member that the

most famous ruling made in that regard was made - I won't say by which Speaker,

but the matter was the tabling of a book written by Mr. Smallwood and the person

who quoted from the book was Mr. Neary and Mr. Neary didn't want to table the

book because he didn't own it. The book belonged to Mr. Smallwood and Mr.

Smallwood was absent at the time but the government of the day insisted that he

must table the book because he read from it and Mr. Neary protested. Anyway, it

was in the Committee that the ruling was made and Mr. Neary refused, so as hon.

members know, he reported back to the Speaker so the House was called out of the

Committee, back to the House and the Speaker read from Beauchesne, read from Sir

Erskine May, word for word, quoting that only a minister was required to table a

document, but on the basis of that quote -

AN HON. MEMBER: Required.

MR. LUSH: Yes, only a minister was required to make -

AN HON. MEMBER: Required

MR. LUSH: Required. Yes, only a minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: - only a minister was required or obligated to

table a document and proceeded to make the member table the document based on

that particular ruling and it was clear that Sir Erskine May was saying that it

was only a minister, so I say that in tabling of documents, Mr. Speaker, that it

is only a minister who is required to table a document and quite clearly,

Erskine May points out that a Private Member has neither the right nor the

obligation.

MR. SPEAKER: I will recognize the hon. Member for

Kilbride then I will hear from Government House Leader.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Bonavista North for raising the

point because it raises another issue which I think, you, as Speaker, should

take into consideration and advise all hon. members. At which point when asking

questions or participating in debate, if we have relevant information that can

cause other disclosures or shed more light on a situation or a subject - I seek

advisement from the Chair as a member of the House - to say when and at what

point can I do that and I would appreciate it - I don't know if you understand

what I am saying -

MR. SPEAKER: No. I am sorry, I don't (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I seek advisement. If, as a Private Member,

I am unable to table documents in the House, especially when it's on an issue

that may shed more light to which the public is paying attention; as a Private

Member, am I to disclose or am I not allowed, based upon what the Member for

Bonavista North says, that I am not allowed to table a document in the House or,

should I seek the Chair's advice before tabling documents in this House? I am

looking for direction, basically.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I shall be very brief but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my hon. friends opposite. It is not

often they recognize wisdom although it is often proffered to them.

My friend for Bonavista North has once again shown his

mastery of the rules of the House. The rules are quite clear. A private member

may neither be required to table a document nor be permitted to table a

document. That is the rule. We can change the practice if we wish, but the rule

is quite clear.

MR. TOBIN: That doesn't make sense!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have given up trying to make

sense of the hon. gentleman for Burin - Placentia West, or to make sense to him.

What I am saying is that in my submission the rule is very clear. My friend for

Bonavista North referred to Beauchesne, and it is quite clear. My friend for

Burin - Placentia West referred to really quite another issue. The rule is, one

is not allowed to read a speech in this House, and that is obviously the

situation to which the Speaker was addressing himself when he made the ruling to

which my friend for Burin - Placentia West referred. My friend for Bonavista

North in my submission is completely correct. His point is well taken and I

would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, Mr. Speaker, only ministers or those who

speak for ministers may table reports. That is quite in order as well. Or with

one exception. Committees report to the House, but that is under a different

Standing Order as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Private members have no right to table

reports. Private members may table a document in behalf of the minister but are

doing so in behalf of the minister.

Your Honour, I will draw this to a conclusion, unless Your

Honour wishes to carry on, because the rule is at 3:00 p.m. on a Wednesday we

get on with the private member's motion, in this case the one standing of my

friend for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) briefly, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Very briefly?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is very serious. If this

drags on it is very serious, what is taking place here. (Inaudible) example the

Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir stood in this House and tabled a report on

behalf of the Government Services Committee, as a private member. What we are

saying now is that the committees that are out there right now that are holding

hearings are not going to be allowed to come back before this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible). Are not allowed, Mr. Speaker, as

a private member, to come back in this Legislature and table reports. If the

Speaker is to listen to what has been said by the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: So, Mr. Speaker, what the Member for Bonavista

North and the Government House Leader are doing here today, is trying to shut up

the Member for Kilbride who has tabled documents that will probably cause

embarrassment to the government. What it is doing is preventing and prohibiting

this House from doing its work if private members are not allowed to table

reports of committee of which they chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is 3:00 p.m. I will take the question under advisement. It

is an important one, as members realize, and it is a question of what may be

tabled in the House and by whom. I will report back to the House as soon as

possible.

It is now 3:00 p.m.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes will be speaking to Motion No. 3. I now call the motion.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I introduce

the following I would just react to the comments of the Minister of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation. It looks like it is going to be an interesting

afternoon, since we started before I even got to start. I say to the minister,

it is not the exact wording as the Member for Fogo when he brought forward a

private member's resolution, but it is in the same spirit. The only difference

on this side of the House and the other side of the House, we are allowed to

bring forward our resolutions when we see fit. There is a sense of freedom on

this side, no shackles holding us back. I say we don't get stifled on this side

of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, someone to write it? I say the writing is on the wall, I say

to the minister.

I would just like to bring forward the following private

member's resolution, Mr. Speaker:

"WHEREAS the fishing industry has been, and will continue to

be, the cornerstone of the culture and economy of Newfoundland and Labrador;

AND

WHEREAS the fishery moratorium has placed this Province

in a very critical situation;

AND

WHEREAS the present situation demands a new sense of

direction and strengthening;

AND

WHEREAS the amalgamation of the Department of Fisheries

into the new Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture weakens rather than

strengthens efforts to revive the fishing industry in this Province;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly strongly

urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and its Premier to reinstate a

Department of Fisheries concerned solely with fisheries and fishery related

matters; strengthened and revitalized; and, separate from the Department of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture announced by the Premier on August 26, 1994."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the minister, we look forward to

his remarks later on this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, my only concern today, or my only set-back

today, is that the Member for Fogo is not present, because I am sure he would

like to stand up and support my petition if he was in the House. I look forward

to some support from the other side of the House.

As most members are aware, I represent the District of St.

Mary's -The Capes. It has been known for hundreds of years as a fishery

district. The culture and the history of the District of St. Mary's - The Capes

is settled around the fishery, from the community of St. Bride's, out on the

Cape Shore, right down to Trepassey, Portugal Cove South, communities like St.

Mary's, Mount Carmel, right throughout the district; for hundreds of years these

communities have depended upon and have thrived because of the fishing industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for LaPoile is raising a point of order.

MR. RAMSAY: If I could, just for a second, for the hon.

member's sake, I did want to explain that the hon. Member for Fogo is away

because of a death of a close friend of his family. I just want to make sure

that is on the record along with the remarks. I think the hon. member is aware

of that, but I just wanted to make sure it was noted in the remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, as the hon.

member realizes. He is using the occasion to put information before the House. I

will recognize again the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was aware of where the Member for Fogo was, and I

appreciate that he cannot be with us today, but I am sure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: We have a lot of new speakers in the House

today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will go back now almost 500 years, when John

Cabot came here to Newfoundland, and in a couple of years time we will celebrate

the arrival of John Cabot. I will go back, as history tells us, to when they

lowered the baskets and filled their baskets with fish and, upon his return to

England, when he reported that the waters off the `New Found Land' were teeming

with fish. It took us almost 500 years to bring this great industry to a

standstill, and I hope that over the next couple of years we take the right

direction and make sure that we bring back the fishing industry to what it was a

number of years ago, and bring back the industry for the benefit of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I don't intend to stand here today and play politics with

such a serious issue as this. We are talking about the most important industry

in this Province, an industry that we have lived upon and have survived upon for

many hundreds of years. It has created a good life for many Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. I won't use the word `good'; I will say it has created a `great'

way of life for the many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have made their

living from the sea. The bounty of the sea has made us a proud and prosperous

people over the years, and I think it is a shame that we now, for some reason or

other, have looked at it - the Premier, in his wisdom, or so-called wisdom, has

looked at it - and put this industry, as far as I am concerned, on the back

burners of the government in what they have done in taking away a full-fledged

Department of Fisheries and rolling it into a Department of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

I think at this time in our history, when this great industry

has been brought to its knees, and all you have to do is drive around my

district, or many districts in this Province in rural Newfoundland, and you can

see for yourself that this industry, as I said before, we are so proud of, has

really brought the outport way of life to its knees. I see it every day as I

drive around my district. I see the impact that it has had on the communities. I

see the impact that it has on social life, along with the economic way of life.

I see the impact it has had on families. I see the impact it has had on

individuals, and I believe that over the next couple of years we are facing a

very serious situation in this Province in relation to rural Newfoundland, the

way of life of outport Newfoundland, and I believe that only by putting

fisheries front and centre can we have the opportunity at least to make sure

that the concerns are raised about the fishing industry, and that those concerns

are brought forward in the manner that is non-partisan and is on behalf of the

people of the Province.

I say right now we are in a present crisis here in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and that it affects everybody. The people who concern

me the most, as I look around my district, are the young people. I look back

just a few years ago, and I can remember young fellows in my home town of St.

Bride's making upwards of $300 and $400 a week down on the wharf cutting out

tongues. I would see 150 people working in the fish plant there, several other

indirect jobs in the community because of the industry, Mr. Speaker. When I look

at those young people now trying to find some dollars to help them out to get to

university or to post-secondary education, whatever the case may be and there is

nothing for them to fall back on, Mr. Speaker, in regards to finding some work

in the community, as young people. Like I said, I can remember when thirteen and

fourteen year olds were out making dollars and putting it away for school to

help their parents out, for clothing or whatever the case may be, to help with

text books. I think that the fishing industry helped everybody, from the

youngest in the community to the oldest. It helped everybody, Mr. Speaker.

It is sad to see, this crisis now that we are facing in this

Province, what it is doing to outport Newfoundland. What I see every day, Mr.

Speaker, is sad and I think that right now there is not enough concern - there

is a lot of concern now over the past few days about the turbot stocks out there

and I applaud the efforts, I had no problem in doing so. I applauded the efforts

when the time was right, the efforts of the federal government and Minister

Brian Tobin on his actions on the Grand Banks. I had no problem anytime standing

up and supporting those efforts.

I believe that very critical negotiations are ongoing now and

hopefully over the next few weeks something will be solved that will save the

turbot stocks. I believe that if we had to do that with the cod stocks back a

few years ago we might not be in the situation that we are in in this Province

today. That is why I believe now, Mr. Speaker, and why I bring forward this

resolution today, not on behalf of the people of St. Mary's - The Capes - even

though like I said before, it is a full fishery district - but on behalf of all

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe if there was ever a need

before for a full fledged fisheries department in this Province, the need is

now, Mr. Speaker.

I am very concerned when I look around the Province. I go out

to people in my own district and other parts of the Province that I travelled

over the past month and people ask me - and I don't mean this in a negative way

but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, people ask who is the Minister of Fisheries. I

mean people have asked me. I was up on the Northern Peninsula a couple of weeks

and somebody asked me at a meeting I was at: Who is the Minister of Fisheries? I

think that is sad, Mr. Speaker, and I don't mean that in any negative way. I

just say that now because of the way the Premier has decided to roll in the

Fisheries - food and Agriculture people are not really sure who is the Minister

of Fisheries. When the Member for Twillingate was the Minister of Fisheries

everybody in this Province knew who the Minister of Fisheries was, I say to the

minister. This is nothing negative against the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture now. I say to the member that people really don't know. Because the

departments are rolled in together people are not fully aware of who is the

Minister of Fisheries.

They asked down on the waterfront when I was down as an

Opposition member in the House of Assembly supporting the efforts of the federal

government on the waterfront - when I was down people asked then where was the

Minister of Fisheries. When you had thousands of people on the waterfront

supporting the efforts of Brian Tobin and the federal government people asked

where was our provincial Minister of Fisheries. I say that I think it is sad,

Mr. Speaker.

I think that when the Premier goes off on his trips to New

York or Washington to talk about the fisheries to the world, to talk about the

fisheries to other countries on behalf of the government, I ask him, why doesn't

he take his Minister of Fisheries with him? Why doesn't he take the Member for

Eagle River with him? No, if the Premier wants to be Minister of Fisheries he

should be Minister of Fisheries but he should not. I say to the minister, what I

am trying to get across is that because of the way the departments are rolled in

together many people in the Province think that the fisheries department is on

the back burner, that the main concern with the minister is agriculture and

because of that people really do not know who the Minister of Fisheries is at

the time. People are asking questions. I am just putting forward the concern

that the people have raised with me, Mr. Speaker, and I say in all honesty that

people have asked: Who is the Minister of Fisheries? I think it is a sad

commentary on the government, it is a sad commentary on Newfoundland and

Labrador, that has been built around the fishing industry that people out in the

Province are asking who is the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, and I think

that is sad.

Like I said before, we were down on the waterfront, Mr.

Speaker, a few weeks ago, to support the efforts of the federal government. The

hon. Member for Port de Grave was on the waterfront showing his support for the

federal government on their initiative and so were many people down on the

waterfront that day - and I say this in all honesty - like the words of the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations yesterday, he said: `In all honesty

and sincerity, I say to you that people were asking on the waterfront that day:

Where is our Minister of Fisheries?' They asked: `Where is the Premier?' for

that matter. But they asked: `Where is the Minister of Fisheries?'

I say I believe in my own heart and soul, Mr. Speaker, that

if the Member for Twillingate were the Minister of Fisheries he would have been

on the waterfront that day speaking up for the people of the Province, at least

on behalf of and supporting the efforts of the Federal Government. I was down

there as an Opposition Member in the House of Assembly, supporting the efforts

of the Federal Government. But again, there are no shackles on me, I say to the

Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the fishing industry

has built Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very important that it be highlighted

here in the House of Assembly as much as possible. I believe that many times we

find other issues of concern here that are put on the - and place our fisheries

issues on the back burner. As I said earlier, I believe, and I'm sure the people

in many parts of Newfoundland and Labrador believe, that there is a need for a

full-fledged Fisheries Minister in this Province right now, more than ever

before.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) bring back the fish.

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Eagle River, how

often did I hear the Member for Eagle River shouting out about the fishing

concerns. I don't want to get off on that today. I'm not here to talk about

party politics or anything. I'm talking about the concern of the people in this

Province. The concern is that we do not have a fully-fledged Department of

Fisheries in this Province. That is the concern that people have. It was

addressed here.

The Member for Fogo, if he were here today, would be able to

stand in this House and tell me - he has told me in private, he has told other

members in the House about the telephone calls that he received. He sent

petitions around this Province that he has failed to bring forward in this House

today, over the past number of months, from thousands of people in this Province

who have brought forward the concerns they have, fishermen and fisherwomen

throughout the Province who are concerned that our fisheries, for some reason or

other, seems to be put on the back burner.

Over the past couple of weeks, yes, the concern has been

highlighted by the Premier and other members of the government, because of the

turbot dispute, but I believe that we should have a full-fledged Department of

Fisheries in this Province simply because of the history of this Province right

now, because of the crisis that we are going through. People are looking for

answers. I get several calls to my office on a daily basis concerned with

fisheries issues and concerns. I talk to people over in the department, but for

some reason or other it doesn't seem that there is a hands-on approach within

the department. I believe that is wrong for the people of this Province now who

have been surviving on the fisheries for so many years.

I believe that the resolution today - I look for support from

the other side of the House. Maybe because of the shackles that are on the

members on the other side, they will not stand and support. I know from private

conversation with some of the members opposite that there are several of their

members who think that there should be a full-fledged Department of Fisheries.

Whether they stand up here today in the House and support the resolution and

bring forward a unanimous consent that there should be a full-fledged Department

of Fisheries remains to be seen.

I look forward to hearing comments from the other side of the

House, and from the colleagues on my own side. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have listened to a lot of talks in my lifetime, but never

have I sat through twenty minutes of mouthing of the same twenty-six words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: That was very interesting indeed.

I am indeed delighted to stand in this House and address the

resolution that is on the floor of this hon. Assembly today, that has been put

there by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, or maybe it was some other

member. The resolution states that the fishing industry has been and continues

to be a cornerstone of the culture and the economy of this Province. Now, the

member stood in his place today and spoke to his resolution, and yet he did not

speak to his resolution at all.

On the issue of being a cornerstone, I can assure you that

you will get no argument. This Chamber will get no argument, this Province will

get no argument from this minister as to whether the fishing industry is the

cornerstone of this Province, because indeed it is. It has been for 500 years

and it will be for the next 500 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, to the private members' motion,

obviously for these gentlemen on the other side of the hon. Chamber, it is

getting a little too complicated and they are starting to make certain sounds

that I referred to in this House earlier. Mr. Speaker, the private members'

motion calling upon government to reinstate a Department of Fisheries concerned

solely with fisheries and fisheries-related matters, separate from the

Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, we just went though about

fifteen minutes here in this House of Assembly talking about people reading

speeches here in the House. I would like to tell the Speaker right now that the

hon. minister is reading, Mr. Speaker. He is not taking it from notes, he is

actually reading, and I ask that you correct that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the Chair had no indication, or it

didn't appear to the Chair, that the hon. member was reading a speech. There is

no point or order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Again, my reference to my notes is so that we

have a reasonable delivery in this Chamber and not a mouth full of words that

mean nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: When you have people elected in this Province

who are basically so illiterate that they cannot write a resolution, this is a

sad day in this Province - a sad day in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, all I say is that the minister

is lucky that he is protected by the Chamber, he wouldn't say it to me out on

the street. I say, Mr. Speaker, I don't have a Ph.D. I speak to the point of

order, Mr. Speaker, like a lot of speakers here. I don't have a Ph.D, but the

people of St. Mary's - The Capes elected me to represent them in the House of

Assembly and I say that I am far from illiterate. I may not have a university

background, Mr. Speaker, but I have a background from living, working and making

my home in rural Newfoundland, and I will put my background up against the

background of the minister any day at all, on any street in this Province, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I submit there is no point of order. The

hon. gentleman, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes has written a resolution

which speaks for itself. The fact that my friend, the Member for St. George's,

the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture has characterized it as being of

a certain type is not an insult to anything, it is just that the thing speaks

for itself. The hon. gentleman should either have pride of authorship or sit

down and be quiet, but in any event he should not raise specious points of

order. He should let his arguments speak for themselves. If they have merit they

will be heard, if they have no merit, as appears to be the case, then his

raising specious points of order will not help him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, The hon. the Member

for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think a very valid point of

order has been raised by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. The Government

House Leader can twist it how ever he likes but what the Minister of Fisheries,

Food and Agriculture said was that it is unfortunate that we have people who are

so illiterate that they cannot write a resolution. He referred to the Member for

St. Mary's - The Capes being illiterate, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think - I

don't have Beauchesne in front of me, but I would suggest to Your Honour that to

refer to another member in this Assembly as an illiterate is not acceptable

conduct, Mr. Speaker, or acceptable language coming from the Minister of

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. I say to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, probably if he went the route you did, he would have a

Ph.D, as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the Chair will take the point of

order under advisement and check Hansard to see exactly what transpired and then

make a ruling later.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Ph.D while you are up.

DR. HULAN: Do you know what it stands for?

Anyhow, the resolution that is put forward to this House, Mr.

Speaker, is based on the premise, is based on a false assumption, that the

integration of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture weakens rather than strengthens

the efforts of the department, and the efforts with regard to rebuilding the

fishery.

I should also note at this point, however, that government,

in integrating these two great and critical important resource sectors of our

economy, fully recognizes that the fisheries industry has been and will continue

to be the cornerstone of this Province - it will continue to be. Indeed, the

real purpose of the integration is for the strengthening of linkages between the

two great food industries, fisheries and agriculture. That is the real reason

for the linkage, ladies and gentlemen. If some members don't understand, fish,

indeed, is food; vegetables are food. Therefore, we have a great department that

links those two great sectors in one, as a Department of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

Also, it is interesting, and I should make note of this in

this House, that the largest organization associated with the fisheries in this

Province, the Fisheries, Food and Allied Workers, have already been integrated

along those same lines of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the

Premier -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: The Premier and I have enquired as to the view

of the industry with regard to this integration.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you are supposed to sit down when

someone else is recognized, I say to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Fisheries to

call me -I wouldn't interrupt the minister except for the statements he made

here this afternoon regarding another member, and because of the point of order

that was raised earlier today by the Member for Bonavista North, but the member,

the doctor, the Ph.D graduate, is continuing to read a speech in this House of

Assembly. Mr. Speaker, is that allowed or is it not? Is it permissible under our

Standing Orders and the rules of this Legislature, for the minister, who got up

and referred to another member as being illiterate, and had to get up and read

notes that I suspect someone in the department wrote for him - it is either one

thing or the other; practice what you preach, throw away the notes, or apologize

to the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, there is no Standing Order or any rule

which prevents a member from referring to notes when he is making a speech.

The Chair understands that the hon. member has some notes,

but whether he is reading or not, the Chair doesn't understand it to be that

way. The hon. member has copious notes, I guess, and he is referring to them

from time to time, and there is nothing against that.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I were reading, I would be reading. Obviously, the hon.

gentleman across the way does not know, referencing to notes versus reading, the

difference thereof.

I believe the common response that we have received from the

industry, both the Premier and I, has been not whether there is a separate

Department of Fisheries, or a combined Department of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture. The question today is restoring the strength and rebuilding the

industry, whether it is under a combined name tag of a Department of Fisheries,

Food and Agriculture, or a separate name tag of Fisheries only.

Integration of the Department of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture has a clear mandate, and that is to provide strong leadership in all

aspects of food production. Indeed, there is no doubt that my department and

government has a clear sense of direction for the fishing industry of the past,

a fishing industry that will not be the fishing industry of yesterday. It will

no longer be a fishing industry of the hunter and the hunted. It will be an

industry that is based on education, on science, on technology, on managerial

skills. It will not be the industry of yesterday, of the hunted and the hunter,

and when the hunted is diminished, no longer does the hunter have a supply of

work available to him.

There are those individuals participating in all sectors of

the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker, who clearly understand, very clearly

understand the linkages between Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, because the

great fishing industry out there has a clear understanding that, yes, indeed,

fish is food, the same as Agri-food products are food. Indeed, many, many of the

concerns and challenges of the fishing sector are also common, very common, Mr.

Speaker, to the challenges and the problems associated with the Agri-food

industry. We are dealing then, Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, with two

established industries that have one common goal and that is the production of

food, and has a common goal for the production of that product out in rural

Newfoundland where employment is the greatest. They are rural-based industries

and they will remain as rural-based industries, and indeed, together as a food

movement, they can rebuild the economy of rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to comprehend why those

opposed to the establishment of the Department of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture interpret the decision to represent a weakening of government's

commitment to the fishing industry. It states right in the resolution, Mr.

Speaker, that we should take a new direction for the fishing industry of this

Province. Well, I ask you, with what my department has focused on, secondary

processing, value added aquaculture, are we not taking and leading us into the

21st Century with that new direction? I submit to you that we are, because we

are also going to develop this industry, this food industry in this Province,

keeping in mind the need for healthy food for Newfoundlanders and the

generations to come and the effect that healthy food and health eating has on

good health in the body.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

DR. HULAN: Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for

Humber Valley -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

- I would like to welcome to the House, on behalf of all hon.

members, thirty Level II students from Canon Richards High School. Their

chaperons are: Mr. Calvin Mitchelmoore, Ms. Johanne Hughes and Ms. Elizabeth

Gould and are from the district of the Strait of Belle Isle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words pertaining to this

particular resolution put forward by my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's

-The Capes.

Mr. Speaker, this, to me, is a very important resolution;

there are a number of `Whereases' contained in the resolution that deserve more

attention. It is not only the `Be it resolved' part of the resolution, or of any

resolution, that deserves attention, but in this case, as it pertains to the

resolution and as it pertains to the `Be It Therefore Resolved' that there will

be a separate Department of Fisheries, or should be a separate Department of

Fisheries, like it was, previous to last year's Budget, well, then, to some

extent, Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with it.

Now, I just heard, from the Minister responsible for

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, some of the comments he made pertaining to the

fishery. Our fishery is not down; our total value of fishery is not down. The

way we catch fish is down - our groundfish is down, way down - no question. But

other commodities and other species of fish are up. In fact, our total value

last year, of fish, is up. It is up! But the numbers that are employed in the

fishery are way, way down. The days are gone when thousands and thousands of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be able to pursue the fishery and be able

to take a good and sensible living out of it. The days are gone, in the sense of

going off to sea and reaping the benefits of the fishery. They are gone!

In aquaculture, yes, there is all kinds of business

available, and there are all kinds of opportunities available in aquaculture.

But the fishery as a cornerstone in communities and rural areas of this Province

has pretty well had it. There is a number of - I can speak for my district: the

community of Jackson's Arm. I will start off with Sop's Arm, which was primarily

depending on groundfish up until 1989, mainly depending on groundfish. The

industry closed out, went bankrupt, and Sop's Arm Fisheries is no more. But the

community of Jackson's Arm for years depended on pelagics, primarily on pelagics

- some groundfish over the years, but since 1989, none whatsoever.

What happened last year to some pelagics around this Province

and in some areas of the Province? What happened to some species, like mackerel,

herring, crab? sales of crab, way up, total value landed, way up. But mackerel,

herring, caplin, last year, was a dead loss. Caplin experienced the most

dramatic decline within the pelagic species, with landings falling from 47,000

tons to just 1,800 tons last year; 1,800 tons, from 47,000 tons in 1993.

And you wonder what happened, for instance, to a community

such as Jackson's Arm in my district. Only for crab prices being up and the

catches being up last year in that particular area, it would have been a

tragedy. It would have been just as detrimental to that community as with the

groundfish to other communities around this Province.

But the values - this is why I think we have great potential.

The importance of the fishery is no different today in this Province than it was

yesterday or yesteryear - no different. It is just as important. It is just

that, like I said, the volume is not there, the groundfish is not there. There

are certain species now - we are gone into underutilized species. Just for

instance, to give an example: between 1993 and 1994 in shellfish, in the tonnage

there was 66,420, versus 1994, it went up to 78,870. In total value landings in

shellfish it went from $117 million - (inaudible) in 1993 - to $190 million in

1994 alone. That is what brought the value of total fish landings in the

Province up, last year, to a total of $212 million, versus $194 million in 1993

- so it is approximately $20 million. It mightn't sound much, but it is up on

the total value landed, and that includes groundfish, pelagics, and all

shellfish, including crab.

I guess it proves that we are going after the underutilized

species. We are spending more time going after underutilized species. It is

bringing in - I know that the company, P. Janes and Sons, last year had great

sales, all kinds of sales, for mackerel and herring, whatever they could bring

in - squid. One of the only plants and companies in the Province that has an

offshore quota for squid is P. Janes and Sons. They had 1,000 ton offshore quota

for squid given to them - I don't know, probably five or six years ago, but

everybody knows what is happening to the squid. But if the mackerel and the

herring had been good this year, and squid and caplin had been good, that

community would have prospered, providing hundreds of jobs to individuals and

families in that particular area.

So, the importance of the fishery in the Province as a whole

is obvious. It is obvious, I think, that there should be more emphasis put on

it. Maybe the minister can, like he said, get up and explain that there is just

as much emphasis put on the fisheries today by his department as there was two

or three years ago. Maybe there is, but I think the emphasis now has to be in a

different area. It has to shift towards conservation; it has to shift towards

aquaculture; it has to shift towards -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Now, I know the hon. the Member for Eagle

River would just love - he is almost the same height - to be down in the seat

that the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture is occupying now; there is

no question about that. I would say that is his dream, and maybe some day he may

realize it, as long as he stays quiet and doesn't interfere with the minister

and what he is doing. Give him a few tips, but don't interfere, and you just

might slip down into that seat some day and occupy that particular chair - or

the position, I should say.

Mr. Speaker, in a district such as mine, I am blessed with

the fact that I have pretty well everything when it comes to resources in the

district. There is a little bit of everything. That is why we often refer to

communities and towns around the Province about being diversified. The district

of Humber Valley is diversified in the sense that it has involvement in the

fishery pretty well of all kinds, even including aquaculture, because a young

fellow from Deer Lake has an aquaculture farm, Arctic char, up in Grand Lake,

one of the largest cold water bodies, and one of the coldest water bodies in the

Province, a great place. He is having a few problems, but, nevertheless, who

doesn't? that could be a success.

We have the fishery in White Bay South. There is forestry all

throughout Humber Valley and White Bay South; there is tourism; there is

agriculture; mining and transportation, you name it and it is there - the

crossroads for the Northern Peninsula, east and west - and the opportunities are

there to do whatever people would like to do, provided they are given a chance.

The Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, of which

the hon. member now is minister, is going to have to put more - I talked to a

gentleman from the district of the hon. the Member for Port au Port, last

Saturday, at the Dominion Store in Corner Brook. He has a scallop farm out there

- I just forget the gentleman's name.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I think that is - he had some

beautiful, beautiful scallops there at the Dominion Store in Corner Brook. You

could try one or two, or whatever. They were there for sale. It is the way of

the future with regard to the fishery in the Province, no doubt. And I would

like to ask the minister - I never got a chance to look at the Estimates with

regard to aquaculture yet, we will have an opportunity by Monday to look at

them, to see what the Province is doing to try to help out people in that

particular field, and companies and so on. Don't put impediments in their way.

Don't put blockages there to stop businesses and people from trying to get into

the industry. There are enough impediments there now to stop anybody before they

even get to first base. There are all kinds of excuses why you shouldn't do it.

There are all kinds of people there saying why you can't do it. You will never

find anybody there to say, `Well, this is the way you do it,' or `We will help

you get started.'

I hope that one of the priorities in his department, by his

officials, will be to try to take some of those people and lead them through the

quagmire that we find in this Province, especially as it pertains to

bureaucratic red tape. It is there, regardless of what ministers say, or what

anybody says. They are there, and that is going to be one of the biggest

obstacles that any government department is going to have today to try to

overcome, because those people are there - we are the ones, I said it before,

who have to knock on doors every four years. Everybody else in those government

departments stay there. They are answerable to no one only whoever their

minister is or deputy minister or whatever. We are the ones who have to knock on

doors, they haven't, and if there is an application that comes in to do anything

they are the first ones to say: Sorry can't do that. They have never probably

moved outside the office, never got up from the desk and don't know what it is

to shovel a bit of dirt or to get their hands dirty. They make a decision

because a lot of people got the idea here but they cannot get it on paper. Some

of them do both, they got the idea and they can get someone else to help them

put it on paper and then someone in here will say: No sorry, no good. So I say

to the minister that he is going to have to take a personal approach, a first

hand approach and give directive to his officials to make sure that anybody who

comes forward with an application to do anything, whether it is in fishery,

whether it is in agriculture or whatever it is in, to give them a chance and

give them a hearing. At least give them a hearing.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned about the crab, the shell fish. Last

year it jumped to its highest level in fifteen years. Its highest level in both

catch and price of crab last year. Now that was because of certain factors,

there was a low catch I believe in Alaska, notably in Alaska and reduced

supplies available to US markets created by other local production problems in

other places but that made a big difference last year alone, just that.

Now there is another concern that I have. I have heard that

the federal government or DFO is in the process of probably allocating some more

crab licenses to probably inshore boats. Now this is usually what happens. It is

the same way with everything, no matter what kind of a quota you have, no matter

what you have, there is always someone who tries to get in on the bandwagon. Now

I say to the minister, through his department, make representation. Although I

would like to see more quota for inshore, especially for the smaller boats, they

are going to have to be very careful with that. I heard that they were going to

try to issue 134 new licenses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am

very pleased to speak in this debate. I am very pleased to speak against this

resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it has been some time since we saw a resolution

come before this House that so clearly distinguishes between Tories and

Liberals. So clearly distinguishes between what the Tories believe and what the

Liberals believe. Mr. Speaker, obviously we have seen from the other side today,

in the presentation given by the hon. member, that the Tories are showing their

typical regressive, backward and weak nature, Mr. Speaker, in very dramatic

form. There is no doubt about it but on this particular occasion of the

formation of this particular department, staffed by this minister, we are seeing

a very progressive Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. That is in

line with how we feel as Liberals. We have new ideas. We are not afraid to go

out and try to integrate our ideas and be able to make something bigger, Mr.

Speaker, to make it better. We are not always going to have our heads in the

sand and get up and talk about the days of the past.

When we are going to talk about John Cabot putting his nets

over the side of the boat and how you think that the Department of Fisheries if

it stood by itself, is going to bring back John Cabot, bring back all the fish

that was there before. How silly, Mr. Speaker, how silly but obviously quite in

keeping with the principals of Toryism, Mr. Speaker. How backward can you get?

But we are not seeing any backward motives here, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing

visionaries at work over on this side of the House. We are seeing visionaries

that are taking science and technology and applying it to the fishing industry

as it was never done before.

Yes, we were the hunters and the hunted. Yes, when we brought

the product on the shores, when we took it up in the nets, yes we sent it off

somewhere else so that people could get the jobs out of it, Mr. Speaker. We were

not getting the kind of value - and that obviously was started in 1989 with the

previous Minister of Fisheries but obviously it is still continued and in a

more, I think, significant fashion now with the addition of this minister who

brings his credentials to this department and is applying science and technology

more to this particular area of government than it has been before. Simply

because that is the way of the future. That is the vision of the fishery of the

future.

Our fishery of the future we know is not going to have the

same 360,000 tons of northern cod. We know we are not going to have the same

supply of American plaice and flounder and grey sole. We know we are not going

to have the same supplies of redfish and turbot and shrimp. We know we are not

going to have all of that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Because of the federal government

mismanagement of those resources in the past, that is why. Aided and abetted and

done by your Tory colleagues in Ottawa over the years, Mr. Speaker, namely the

biggest yellowtail flounder of all, the hon. John Crosbie. He was one of the

foremost who applied their regressive, backward, weak principles of Toryism to

fisheries policy in this country and in this Province. Obviously we are seeing

here now progressive policy, we are seeing a visionary policy of the fishery of

the future. We are seeing courageous action on the part of this government.

I mean, if you want to talk to the member over there, you

would believe that just because there happens to be a Department of Fisheries

and Oceans in Ottawa that that stopped Brian Tobin from doing what nobody else

did in the history of this country, and take over custodial management of the

Nose and Tail. Do you think that that stopped them? Did that stop him? Because

he had Oceans in the department name, that stopped him from doing what no Tory

ever could, ever had the courage, the vision or the guts to do. No one, not to

this day.

Here we are now into the crab industry. In three years we've

seen the price of crab go up ten times, from $0.31 cents. If we were to believe

the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes it is not supposed to happen with

Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. It is supposed to go from $0.31 back to $0.03.

No, that is not what has happened. Nothing has stopped the fishery from

prospering in that particular section, and nothing will stop the fishery from

prospering in other parts of the section.

We are going to see fisheries policy move forward. We are

going to see the value of our fishery significantly increase. We are going to

see a future of the fishery that will bring security to our people. We are going

to see our fishery diversified. We are going to see our rural parts of

Newfoundland and Labrador get into the other species, so that when the house of

cards comes down on one species it won't mean that rural Newfoundland and

Labrador will be on its face like it is today simply because that was the

regressive policy of the Tories opposite that was followed for the seventeen

years they were in power. They believed that we should do nothing only build cod

plants; they should do nothing only try and take some cod and put it in and give

it out to the Americans then, or to the Japanese. That was the policy that was

put forward. They never tried to diversify our fishery, they never tried to see

that we got access to that northern shrimp resource, they never tried to see

that we got access to the other species that are out there that can provide

security.

It came to us, it was us who went down into Port au Choix and

saw that the shrimp was landed there, and there is going to be another

investment there now to FPI and to others. It was us who took the initiative on

the northern shrimp that I know is going to bring to fruition, asking for an

inshore northern shrimp fishery, to be able to bring into Canada for the first

time ever. Those are the kinds of policies that we are going to offer. It was us

who went to the Connaigre Peninsula and put the money into the aquaculture down

there. I suspect that we are going to see more significant, substantial moves

made in aquaculture as a result of this department and the energies of this

particular minister.

We are looking at the ground swell of support that is out

there now for a new seal fishery. It is a result of this department. It is a

result of the actions of this minister that we are seeing a new renewed focus on

the sealing industry that we never saw before. We see an opportunity now where

we are going to get the value from that animal that was never even thought of

before. I am hoping that we are going to get the approval and see a situation

where we can have a floating abattoir so that we can deliver a first-grade,

high-quality seal meat, and a seal skin, and also the use of the oil that was

never done before. That is coming about as a result of the research and

development that this minister has done, and the emphasis that he is putting on

this aspect of the fishery. It will create jobs, it will create substantial

jobs, and long-term meaningful security to our communities that we've never seen

before.

It was us who went to the Coast of Labrador and got the crab

industry and made it a productive enterprise, making money, giving 140 jobs to

the people in Cartwright that they never had before. It was the Liberals on this

side and it was the visionaries on this side of the House who did that.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that the people out there now are

calling them yellowtail Tories, it is no wonder that the people out there now

are saying: where are they now? They feebly get up - the Member for Grand Bank

feebly gets up and says: Well I don't think they will go away tomorrow, I don't

think they are all going to leave tomorrow, I don't think they are going to move

as fast as they want to, Old Chicken Little, is at it again, Mr. Speaker.

Six months ago, we saw him in fine form, brought in the

legislation, within twenty-four hours it went to the House of Commons then it

went to the Senate, got Royal Assent - never done in the history of Parliament,

he got up in the House and said: It's not going to do anything, it is only going

to take a look at the few vessels of flags of convenience vessels, that's all.

Then they arrested the Americans, then they arrested the Spanish and then they

arrested everybody who was in there doing things they weren't supposed to do.

That was courageous action, that was watershed legislation, that was Liberal

visionaries backed up by this minister and this government and we will have no

apologies to make for our actions in this department and the future fishery that

we build for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, none at all, none at

all.

We have nothing to learn. Take the Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes, and he will say, change the name of the department, put it back to

the Department of Fisheries and that will mean automatically, overnight, the

northern cod fishery is going to start jumping on Cape Shore, the northern cod

will be climbing up the banks of Trepassey, it will be doing all kinds of

things. Oh yes, you can imagine now, National Geographic going out seeing the

backflips the cod are taking simply because the Department of Fisheries is going

to be brought back. They are going to be singing the songs, the whales will be

coming up singing all the songs, can't believe that the Department of Fisheries

is back. How silly do you get.

We on this side of the House were re-elected on the basis of

our actions, on our merits and on our polices of providing good government for

our people and we will continue doing that in the fisheries department with this

minister and with this focus as we have in the past number of years and I

submit, Mr. Speaker, that when the next election is called, I have absolutely no

doubt that they won't turn to the yellowtail Tories, they will turn to the red

Liberals, the visionaries, the people who said that we are going to tackle the

issues, that we are going to put plans in there, we are going to put money in

there, we are going to put ideas in there, that we were not going to hide under

our tables, we are not going to run down under the rocks around the coves and

shores of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to go up there and boldly

challenge the Spanish, we are going to boldly challenge anybody who takes our

fisheries for granted. We have nothing to learn from the yellowtail Tories

opposite, not one thing, not one iota, not one sentence, not one idea if even

there was one put forward, Mr. Speaker, which there isn't.

We listened for fifteen, twenty minutes at the beginning of

this and not one iota of policy - obviously the fisheries critic over there does

not even believe in the issue, never wanted to bring it forward, couldn't bring

this resolution forward, the fisheries critic wouldn't bring it forward,

obviously because he knew that he would lose his credibility - the little that

he has - he would lose that if he brought it forward. He walked away from it, he

ran away from it, he skirted around it, he went out and poked his nose in the

door once or twice today because he definitely did not want to be associated

with this particular resolution.

He told the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, that if you

put forward this resolution, I tell you, you know, the credibility of our

policy, I mean the visionaries that we have there now, Loyola and Lynn Verge,

the Loyolas of the world who are going to be the saviours of the fishery, the

Bill Barry campaign manager for the fishery, the Bill Barrys of the world who

are going to solve all the fisheries policies of the world.

I am anxious to see how much influence the Member for St.

Mary's - The Capes is going to bring on the Member for Ferryland. I am anxious

to see if he is going to support the kind of policies that that member has been

talking about for the past few months, where his vision of the future of the

fishery is to have four or five plants in this Province working twelve months

around and the hell with rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, that's not our

policy. We will not accept it and we will build our future fishery to give the

security to the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that they never had

before and never had the hope of having before while they were at the tiller.

That is the result. They know what the record is. They know where we are going.

We have laid it out in fine fashion. In the foreseeable future, the near future,

I hope, we will see the release of another significant document from this

minister, outlining our view of the future of the fishery in this Province, and

I believe the people of this Province will again be proud of what we are doing.

They will again be able to look at us and say: Yes, indeed, again we have people

who have a plan. Again we have people who have some commitment. Again we have

some people who have the courage, the guts, the will, and they are not supposed

to hide behind a Tory banner or a Liberal banner. We are hiding behind nothing

but good, solid government. That is what we are doing, and the people of this

Province, I am sure, will respond positively to that particular record when we

are about to go and tell it to the people as we see it.

I am happy to be able to come here today and enunciate the

policy in support of this minister, and in support of this government's actions

on this issue, and if I had another thirty or forty minutes, I would love to be

able to talk about some of the other famous yellowtail Tory policies that we

have been so accustomed to seeing over the last twenty years. I wish I had the

time today to be able to talk about the kind of stuff that was done in Ottawa

that was supported by the members opposite, but I know other members want a

chance to speak today, and I would be only too happy to sit back and listen to

them. I will listen to the member clue up over there when he has a chance, and

tell us where the future of the fishery is according to the yellowtail Tories,

to the `Loyolas' of the world. We will see where the future of the fishery is,

and I submit that the future of the fishery, in the minds of those people

opposite, is 400 years old, and that will not be accepted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: That will not be supported; that will not

be enunciated by this minister and this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I was going to say, before the Constable leaves -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Before the Constable leaves, I want to

say to him, I was watching the Member for Eagle River; I would like to meet him

halfway on the old Grand Bank soccer field, or the old St. Lawrence field, with

the ball coming out of the air. There is no doubt you would just hear one big

grunt, and there would be two people run out and grab him by a leg each, and

they would say, `Pump him, pump him', and they would be pumping him, trying to

get the air back into him. `Pump him,' they would say, `Pump him.' That is what

I was thinking about, how I would love to see the courageous Member for Eagle

River with the ball coming down center field in Grand Bank, two of us going for

it - can you imagine? We would see who was the yellowtail then, I say to the

Member for Eagle River. He wouldn't flick like a yellowtail or a turbot, because

there wouldn't be any flick left in him. There wouldn't be a flick left in him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Flatfish.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A flatfish, yes, a real flatfish. What a

tirade, I say to the Member for Eagle River! How childish and how juvenile the

member gets!

The resolution that the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes put

forward was the same resolution that the Member for Fogo gave notice of. The

Member for Fogo gave notice of the same resolution, and went all over the

Province gathering thousands and thousands of petitions from fishermen and

concerned people - thousands of petitions - going to present them in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then `Bud' challenged the member out.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Imagine, the resolution, and the

Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture jumps up, yes, insulting the member,

challenging him out.

MR. TOBIN: What about all the signatures he had?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: All the signatures, and then the Member

for Eagle River getting up and calling us yellowtail Tories. The people of the

Province know -

MR. TOBIN: Wait now, `Bill'; did he sign `Beaton's'

petition where (inaudible) the names.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he signed it. He signed the

petition calling for a separate Department of Fisheries. Nine of them over

there, sitting in those benches, signed a petition supporting the resolution put

forward by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes that indeed there be a separate

Department of Fisheries. Nine members on the government benches signed the

petition.

The Member for Eagle River talks about our lack of vision.

Then he talks about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, Food

and Agriculture, why is he so testy? Why is the Member for Eagle River so testy?

Why is the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations so testy these days? On

and on I could go. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation for a week

hasn't shut up, yapping and putting people down. Why? What is it all about? Are

they trying to make an impression amongst their own members, to show their own

members that they are courageous?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) testy (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that is a good point, I say to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. If I had his worries I would be

testy, too.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If I had your worries I would be testy,

too, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I don't know

how the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board keeps so cool over there. He

stays pretty cool, very cool. I don't know what he is like inside, but he

appears as if he is cool, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Health wasn't too bad in his answers today, I

must say. He was pretty calm and collected - very good answers, I say to the

minister. I have to commend him; very good answers you gave today. You handled

yourself very well on the issue.

MR. EFFORD: On the fish?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it has nothing to do with the fish.

The minister knows what I'm talking about. I'm talking to the Minister of

Health, I say to the testy Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

The Member for Eagle River talked about the lack of fish. He

can't go back beyond John Crosbie for some reason, you know. You don't have to

reflect back very far to the days of Pierre Trudeau and Romeo LeBlanc and Pierre

DeBane, you know. Every second day you took up the paper you read where Canada

had given more fish to another country as part of a trade deal, thousands of

tons of fish. I remember picking up the papers years ago. We had entered into

arrangements for fish to be taken by other countries - really. The biggest

giveaways - if you want to call it giveaways; if you put the terms on it that

the Member for Eagle River would - were during the Trudeau years. During the

Trudeau years were the years that most of our fish was given away to other

countries, if that is the way we want to term it, phrase it, `giveaway'. Pierre

Trudeau (inaudible) and that crowd. They are the ones who gave away most of our

fish. They were the ones who entered into the treaty with France and all the

other arrangements that there were. How shortsighted the Member for Eagle River

is! He can't go back beyond John Crosbie. He hated the man so much he must dream

about him.

The other interesting thing is how the member talked about

the control Brian Tobin has over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fourteen trawlers out there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, absolutely amazing! How you can

make yourself believe anything! Fourteen out there today fishing as we speak,

flagrantly overfishing; arresting the Estai - brought her to St. John's,

cut the net off another boat, took the net to New York, and still there are

fourteen overfishing today out there.

MR. TOBIN: At least fourteen.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: At least fourteen overfishing today,

fishing a very fragile stock that will soon be completely wiped out. Yet we say:

We have to keep negotiating and talking. Talk until what? until there is not a

turbot left in the water to share up. That is what we are headed for, Mr.

Speaker, as sad as it is. There soon won't be any turbot to share. We won't have

to worry about the figures coming up on the CBC television screen of what they

are proposing to give away because it won't mean a row of beans; there will be

nothing to give away - nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the resolution. We, as a

party, have never entertained anything but a separate Department of Fisheries -

never. As a party, we have never entertained anything but a Department of

Fisheries is a Department of Fisher