March 20,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 2

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, since the House last sat, I

guess, there has not been much of an opportunity to really press the government

with respect to an issue that I spent a lot of time on in the last session;

specifically, I am talking about Trans City Holdings. During the last session of

the House, in particular, I had on many occasions asked the Premier a lot of

questions about that issue, which he frequently deferred to the Minister of

Finance, but there were occasions when the Premier said that if, in fact, there

were any finding that would indicate there was anything wrongly done, if there

were any findings by the court, then he would, in fact, order a full public

inquiry. At least, that is the

interpretation I put on it and I think most

people in the public did.

We now know that the Supreme Court in fact has now spoken and

it has said that the government did break the law with respect to the awarding

of contracts for these health care centres to Trans City Holdings in 1991. In

addition to that he also said there were many unanswered questions, so today, to

begin, I would like to ask the Premier specifically, does he condone what the

government did in breaking the law?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government has concluded

that it does not share the opinion and judgement expressed by the trial judge

totally, and for that reason, has filed an appeal. The matter will therefore go

before the Court of Appeal and the government's argument on the findings of the

trial judge will be heard at the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal will

render its decision on that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, nonetheless, the Supreme Court

has already ruled that government broke the law - I think that is my point, and

the government has argued in the House, as well as it did in the courts, I say

to the Premier, that it had the right to reject the preferred bidder under

Clause 8 (1) of the Public Tendering Act. I think that was one of the big

arguments that government made both here in the House and in the court, but the

Supreme Court states on page 92 of its decision, that Cabinet's decision to

reject the preferred bidder does not come close to approaching a not expedient

determination contemplated in Clause 8 (1) of the act; so isn't the Premier

therefore concerned as a result of this ruling in the courts and these words by

the judge, isn't he concerned now about the perception, the public perception in

particular, that this whole sorry mess was really a trumped-up scheme to give

these lucrative contracts to his Liberal friends?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have said that the

government does not share the findings of the trial judge in the matter.

MR. SIMMS: None of it.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, we didn't share the findings of the

trial judge with respect to the Holiday Inn, either, and the Court of Appeal

said the government was right. So this matter will now go to the Court of

Appeal; the government has a right to do that. A Notice of Appeal has been filed

and we will let the Court of Appeal decide the issue.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can see where this is going now. This will be their defence

and their way of stalling this whole thing, I guess, by simply saying, it is

being appealed.

In the last session, Mr. Speaker, we asked lots of questions

about

it and they answered it; he didn't, but he had his Minister

of Finance answer them, and the case was before the courts, so I say to the

Premier, don't try to use that crutch as an excuse for not answering questions

directly. And the Premier might not be concerned about all of this but the

Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador clearly was concerned about it.

Now, on pages 91-92 of his decision - and I know the Premier

has read it - Justice Orsborn warned that the use of Clause 8 (1) in this

circumstance would introduce a significant potential for unfairness, favouritism

and fraud, and would destroy the integrity of the public tender process. Mr.

Speaker, that is exactly what happened and what we have been alleging for

several months now, so I want to ask the Premier directly: Isn't it a fact that

the government did favour its friends in awarding those contracts, and isn't it

a fact that the government acted unfairly and deliberately, to do it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, and I say again: the

government does not share the findings of the trial judge. It is not an unusual

event for a party to an action, not to agree with the findings of a trial judge,

that's why we have a Court of Appeal. The matter has gone before the Court of

Appeal. I am not about to discuss it now, in detail, with the hon. member here;

I will not do it.

Now, I know what he says, while the matter was on trial, they

kept asking questions of me or the Minister of Finance on the issue, and there

was such a battery and such a constant array of it that we had to do something

to try to give some kind of response to the answers, but the matter ought to

have been left until the courts are finished with it. When the courts are

finished with it the matter can be discussed publicly. We do not propose to

discuss any of these issues until the matter is dealt with by the courts.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think this is surprising

to anybody observing what has been transpiring for three years now with respect

to Trans City Holdings. I don't buy the Premier's explanation, not for a second.

I think everybody in the Province can see what he is up to and what the

government is up to.

On page 146 of the Supreme Court's decision, Justice Orsborn

said, `viewed as a whole, the evidence before me is sufficient to raise

suspicions that the award of the contract to Trans City was influenced by

factors unrelated to the substantive contents of the bids.' Now, Mr. Speaker, I

think that gets right to the heart of the matter and it goes back to what the

Premier and I debated, or discussed, if you want, in Question Periods last Fall.

The suspicion is clearly that there was deliberate and unlawful political

interference to get these contracts for Trans City. We have alleged it and the

Supreme Court has now raised it in its decision. In view of the fact that the

Premier said, if there was any evidence at all, `the slightest bit of evidence

at all,' I think were the words he used, that he would not hesitate to hold a

public inquiry. So I want to ask him here today, formally - despite the fact the

matter is under appeal, that is the other issue, but a judicial public inquiry

to expose the truth about the political interference and manipulation in this

scandal, that is what the people of the Province want, that is what all of the

editorial writers around the Province have been asking for. Is he afraid of what

the inquiry might expose about his own personal knowledge and his own personal

involvement in this thing? Is that why he is hesitating? Is he afraid to expose

the truth?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Desperation finally hits when he has to

resort to that. Desperation is finally disclosed. No, Mr. Speaker, the matter is

before the Court of Appeal, by way of an appeal, and I say again, the government

does not share the findings of Mr. Justice Orsborn in the matter, but that is

not unusual, that is not intended to be a criticism of Mr. Justice Orsborn. In

previous cases, the government has not shared the findings of a trial judge and

gone on to a Court of Appeal, and Courts of Appeal have said the government was

right or the government was wrong. The Court of Appeal will come to a similar

conclusion in this case. Either the government's position is right or it is

wrong, and we will wait and we will see.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. The Supreme Court said that the

government was wrong. I want to try and bring it back once more and ask the

Premier this question. I try to listen to him closely when he says: We disagree

with the findings of Judge Orsborn. Now that is one thing.

The second thing is this. There was throughout that decision

an enormous amount of evidence put forward, a lot of conclusions that were

drawn, a lot of comments that were made by the judge and by others, which to my

way of thinking, in reading it, even though I may be biased in the matter -

because I think the best way to expose the truth in this case is an enquiry - it

seems to me there is enough evidence to indicate to the Premier and to the

government that there has been something wrongly done here. Not just with

respect to breaking the public tendering act, but the political interference.

That is what I've been harping at.

So why doesn't the Premier stand up in the House today, put

this matter to rest, appoint a public enquiry, a judicial enquiry, to look at

all of these allegations and to expose the truth? Why wouldn't he do that? Is he

afraid of the truth?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. We've asked the Court of

Appeal to review the entire matter and we are prepared to wait for the opinion

of the Court of Appeal. I say to the hon. member, if he spends every Question

Period from now until when the Court of Appeal renders its judgement asking

exactly the same question, the answer will be precisely the same.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

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

of Education and Training. The academic results for the autumn semester at

Memorial University led to a very high drop-out rate, particularly for

first-year students, but not exclusively and not particularly to first-year

students only. Has the minister asked the University for an analysis of the

drop-out rate at Memorial over the past five years, and is he prepared to make

that information public?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: I thank the hon. member for the question, Mr.

Speaker. I thought they had chickened out on asking questions on education. No,

I haven't asked the president of the University to give me an analysis of the

last five years. We did discuss the drop-out in Christmas, and of course it was

not entirely unexpected, as hon. members will know. Because of the teachers'

strike last spring a lot of students were admitted to Memorial who, in the

normal course of events, would not have been admitted. As the hon. member knows,

the university did not stand by its normal standard of admitting people who only

had 65 per cent, and it is quite possible a lot of people did get in who would

normally not get in. I am not aware that there is any extreme difference with

the other years, but I certainly will take that part of the question under

advisement and discuss it with the president. They haven't volunteered the

information to me.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the minister attempts, of

course, to camouflage his answer by focusing on the teachers' strike. We all

admit that was a factor in first year results. It was a predictable result;

however, the concern is being expressed by many people that Memorial's drop-out

rate is a concern to parents and to the public in the Province, and I am asking

the minister if he would compare the data for Memorial, as far as drop-outs are

concerned, with other similar institutions in Atlantic Canada, and if he would

compare the drop-out rate at Memorial with other post-secondary institutions in

this Province.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to commit to

spending a million dollars on some kind of an enquiry, but I certainly will

bring this to the attention of the University to see if there is anything we

should do from there.

Now I have to admit that I have had extensive meetings with

the University, as well as with various student organizations around the

Province, and that is the first time that issue has been brought to my

attention, except as I already said, about the first year drop-out at Christmas,

but I was not aware there was anything different. The hon. member will know that

when he attended university, and when I attended, it was quite normal to have

people - we even called them Christmas graduates. That has been in the

vernacular of the universities, I suppose, since Plato taught Aristotle, but I

will certainly check it out and see if there is any basis there, or if this is

not some more fearmongering, some more scare tactics, which the hon. member

tends to use so often.

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

for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, it's not good enough that we

would have stay in school initiatives in senior high school if the government is

prepared to abandon this campaign at the post-secondary level. My point is that

we have extensive allocations of money from the federal government and the

provincial government towards stay in school initiatives to keep people in high

school. I am asking the minister if he would consider a program towards

targeting students at the post-secondary level so that we can encourage these

students to stay in school, because we all know that the need for post-secondary

education is paramount if we are to prosper and continue to grow as a Province.

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Probably the hon. member has not been

following what is happening in post-secondary education in this Province, Mr.

Speaker. We are second to none in the country in the strides we have taken over

the past three or four years in post-secondary education. We have a council of

higher education which has worked out credits which can transfer from college to

college, from college to university, from university to college. We have been

making better strides in this Province than have ever been made before in the

history of this Province. Maybe if the hon. member would like to have a briefing

sometime he could come over to my office and sit down with some people rather

than be picking up little bits of information here and there. He would be

pleasantly surprised to see just what is happening in this Province, and I would

be delighted to teach the hon. member as to just what is happening around him. I

would suggest that maybe we might get some research available to them over

there, too, because it won't hurt us to have education examined a little more

closely.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations. On January 6, 1995 the minister reluctantly - and I would like to

emphasize the word `reluctant', because I think, other than there having been

pressure coming from this side, there would have been no money brought forward -

he reluctantly announced a provincially funded employment creation program, a

program that was supposed to help relieve the appalling unemployment situation

existing here in this Province. I ask the minister, how much of the $5 million

that was brought forward was actually spent on that creation project?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: I want to thank the hon. member and his

colleagues for motivating this minister to get the money for the job creation

program. I am sure everybody believes him. I am happy to report, Mr. Speaker,

that, even though the final numbers are not totally concluded yet, as of March

14 we had 432 projects approved for 15,445 weeks. I have to apologize to the

Minister of Finance because in looking at the possibility of slippage we

committed $5,053,000 to a $5 million program because, as the minister would

know, there is always a little slippage.

Now, I don't want to apologize. If we base this program on

six weeks we would have provided to Newfoundlanders in our response 2,722 jobs

for a period of that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Now, we know that all people did not utilize

the full six weeks, so I am sorry to say to the hon. member that it is probably

not 2,722 people involved, it is probably more like 3,500 Newfoundlanders

involved.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

minister if he would table that information, number one, and, number two, I

would like to ask him again, not how much money he had allotted, but how much

money was actually spent? I know that I called the member one day and he gave me

another $35,000 just like that, knowing full well that it would be returned.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the minister: Who were

the members of Cabinet who helped him create the criteria, to put the criteria

forward, in order to be eligible for those projects? It is a question I have

asked many time but nobody wants to say who the members of Cabinet were. I would

like to ask the minister: Who were they, that infamous group of people who

created the criteria for this project?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. member that I was happy to provide the

extra $35,000 to his district because when we announced this program we

announced it as being non-political, and as the final figures will show, it was

non-political. I also say to the member that those involved in the Cabinet

committee were just as concerned as this hon. member that the program start

(inaudible) go.

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

for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister again if he would

table the information he has brought forward on the money that was spent and the

number of jobs that were created, if he would, please?

Mr. Speaker, this job creation program was a blatant example

of government's lack of compassion and caring for the downtrodden and

unemployed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, it is a situation where the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was more concerned about the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board balancing his Budget than caring for the

people out there trying to put bread and butter on their tables.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me say

to the hon. member first of all, it was a total Cabinet decision to put this $5

million forward. This government -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: - a total Cabinet decision. Secondly, as the

member fully knows, this program is not completed yet. It will not complete till

the end of the fiscal year, which is March 31 1995. When the program is

completed, when all the numbers are in, I will be more than happy to disclose

the total program. The member may find that his district is probably in the top

five. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Natural Resources. Last September, I believe it was, HMDC announced

it was going to be moving work from the Marystown Shipyard to the Saint John,

New Brunswick shipyard, because the Marystown Shipyard, they were afraid,

couldn't have the project delivered by September 1995. I would like to ask the

minister, Mr. Speaker, if he can tell me what progress has been made to date on

the work at Saint John, New Brunswick.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not aware of the

details of it, but it is my understanding that everything is on

schedule and

there are no problems.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if that is the minister's answer,

it is obvious he is not very aware of what is taking place. Let me ask the

minister this: Can he tell me how many welders in Saint John, New Brunswick are

now pre-qualified to work on that project, have up to the standard -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not interested in

knowing how many welders from New Brunswick are qualified.

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

for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer just

confirms what everyone said, that is, there was some sort of a scam when this

was moved to Saint John, New Brunswick. Now, the minister is not concerned about

it. Let me tell him that there is not a handful yet pre-qualified to do the

welding work. I can also tell the minister that they are flying people from

Marystown up there on weekends, employees from the Shipyard, to try to get some

work done on it. There is absolutely nothing being done with it.

Let me ask the minister this question: Will he today assure

the House that the commitment that he accepted from HMDC that the project would

be delivered back here in Newfoundland in September 1995 will be still

maintained?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't even remember the

details of the dates. What I do remember is that everything related to Hibernia

right now is going along fine. As a matter of fact, some components of Hibernia

right now are ahead of

schedule and everything is going fine and everything will

be fine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on one question. The minister, in

answer to questions asked by my colleague, the Member for Bonavista South,

avoided answering the direct question he put to him about who it was among his

colleagues who drafted the criteria for the job creation program. He, himself

publicly said there was a committee of three Cabinet ministers. Will he tell the

House today: Who were the three Cabinet ministers who developed the criteria?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, it was a Cabinet decision, I

answered the hon. member, and it is still a Cabinet decision. The Leader of the

Opposition, who was a Cabinet member some time ago - and of course will never be

again; however, that is his own decision - but I say it was a Cabinet decision,

and that is the answer, complete.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not the question.

MR. MURPHY: It is a Cabinet - I don't care what the

question is. If the member doesn't like the answer, I can't help him. It was a

Cabinet decision.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't ask the minister whose

decision. We all know the Cabinet makes the final decision. What I asked him

was, would he tell the people of the Province, the public, who were the three

ministers who developed the criteria which were recommended to the Cabinet. He,

himself said there was a committee of three ministers to develop the criteria,

and he said it publicly.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: First of all, let me correct, Mr. Speaker,

what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said: I never at any time said it was

three Cabinet ministers. Now it is not unusual, Mr. Speaker, for a Cabinet

committee to be put together. This has been going on for some time. The Cabinet

made its decision and that is the end of the question. I mean there is the

answer, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does not like the answer then I am

sorry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question, I suppose, directly or indirectly related

to the decision that the hon. minister just referred to. Some time ago a list of

proposed projects under the ministers program came down to my office from the

minister's office. Several from community councils in my district, one from the

development association in my district and one from the memorial hall committee

in Jackson's Cove. Acting under instructions from the minister's office to

return these things quickly, I reviewed the applications that came to my office

and I sent back $100,000 worth of approvals to the minister's office which was

the allocation for a rural district. These approvals were for legitimate town

and community councils and for the Green Bay economic development association.

Two or three weeks later I get word that the memorial hall committee, chaired by

a prominent Liberal, received a project over and above the $100,000 and

certainly outside the recommendation that I put up to the minister's office.

Would the minister please explain why the memorial hall committee warranted this

special consideration?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, what we tried to do, of course

the hon. member and members know, was to help rural Newfoundland. We sent out

the information, as I said in the correspondence, all fifty-two members received

the information pertaining to the program. Now when the minister approved and/or

submitted to my department $100,000 worth of work we never asked the member

and/or those groups who submitted, what political stripe they were. When we had

some extra funding and a request came in from the hon. member's district and we

had some money left, we were only too happy - I didn't check personally and not

until the hon. member raised it did we get involved in political kinds of

connotations and/or innuendo. The hon. member had $112,000 in his district and

if he is accusing this government of providing more than $100,000 for people in

his district well then I take the apology. We put no political face on this

program, Mr. Speaker.

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

Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that

one other legitimate duly elected town council in my district and one other

legitimate and recognized fire brigade in my district also had applications in,

somewhat late but those were not approved yet this mysterious hall committee did

receive an approval. So is the minister stating categorically that the

chair-person of this committee, an employee of the natural resources department

of this particular Liberal Government, did not exert political influence to have

the application for the memorial hall committee approved?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member,

there was absolutely no political interference.

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

for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, one last question and this time

to the minister who just spoke up, the Minister responsible for Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. A year or so ago I wrote the minister as to the legitimacy

of the memorial hall committee and he basically said that there was very little

on file with regard to that committee in his department, recognizing the

recreation committee and the local service district, two legitimate elected

bodies in the area. I note from today's paper that the minister does not wish to

get involved in this matter. Why would not the minister responsible for

communities in this Province want to straighten out a mess where you have a

private dictatorial committee running a community hall in a community that are

governed otherwise by ordinary democratically elected bodies?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason why is

because legally I am not allowed. Under the Municipalities Act the local service

district which was legally elected has no right whatsoever to maintain, own or

operate a community hall. If they wish to do that as a group of individual

citizens without being representative of the local service district, I have no

problems with it. I as the minister, have no legal authority to interfere or

interject or go in and impose any will that I might have or the hon. member

might have. I can't do that; he knows that, I spoke to him personally about it.

I have written letters to the council and the media asked me about it last week,

absolutely not. If they have a problem within the community about a particular

hall in the community, then let the people in the community settle it among

themselves. Nobody is going to drag me or this government into an argument such

as that.

MR. SPEAKER: There is time for a further question. The

hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, I am relaying the frustrations of the

citizens who have indeed elected a committee to run this hall, and there appears

to be some dispute as to whether of not a self-appointed committee can run a

community hall built with public funds, or whether or not a publicly elected

committee can do it. They are looking to the government of the Province and/or

that democracy reigns and that dictatorships no longer runs small communities.

The power of giving or not giving the stamps to individuals

will not run a given town any more, and they are crying out for someone, in a

position of authority, be it the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs or

the minister of something, with regard to this government, to recognize the

birth and the growth of democracy in Jackson's Cove and I call on the minister

to so do.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am sort of surprised that the

hon. member would even bring up the subject, because this subject has been - I

talked to him personally about this, I have talked to both groups, both sides of

the fence on this and really it is not something that I can do as a minister, go

down and dictate or decide who owns the building and who doesn't. This

particular committee, Mr. Speaker, was formed some twelve years ago; they went

in and they built the building, I don't know but it might be fifteen years ago,

and they built that building with government's help, maybe from the provincial

government, maybe, I don't know if you would know that on the other side. I know

they had federal help. This particular committee owned and operated it, this

building they are talking about, for ten, twelve years, and all of a sudden, in

the spring of 1995, it becomes a concern to the people living in the community

and now, all of a sudden, the people in the community want to take it back.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, that is not

democracy. That is not democracy. He talks to me about democracy. Taking

something that has been operated, looked after and well-looked after for that

long a period of time and now all of a sudden somebody comes along and says: now

we want to take this over and run it. No, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it again:

I have no intentions of getting involved in that dispute. I won't be dragged

into it, and I would suggest the member stay out of it as well because he may be

causing some of the trouble down there by interfering in this particular

situation. Jackson's Cove will work the problem out themselves, Mr. Speaker, and

it is not going to be a decision of this government especially not from me as

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Public

Accounts of the Province for the year ending March 31, 1994.

MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with

Section 13 of the Auditor

General Act, I am required to table the Annual Report of the Auditor General for

the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994, and I now table the report.

In accordance with

Section 39 of the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary Act, 1992, I am required to table the Annual Report of the Office

of the RNC Public Complaints Commission for the year ended March 31, 1994, and I

now do so.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to give the

following resolution:

WHEREAS three years ago on March 13, 1992, this hon. House

unanimously approved a resolution calling on Canada to extend management

jurisdiction to the limits of the Continental Shelf; and

WHEREAS NAFO is still unable to stop international

overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and on the Flemish Cap

despite clear evidence that many fish stocks are being fished to extinction;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House once again call upon the

the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like a few moments to discuss further a matter I

raised in Question Period today with regard to the situation in Jackson's Cove,

more specifically the Memorial Hall in Jackson's Cove.

I have a petition here, two sheets, twenty-one names -

twenty-two, I guess, including my own - from people from Jackson's Cove,

Silverdale, Nickey's Nose Cove, Langdon's Cove, the general area. The prayer of

the petition is as follows:

Petition to the House of Assembly: We, the undersigned,

petition the hon. House of Assembly to have government cause the memorial hall

in Jackson's Cove, which was built by public funds for public use, to be turned

over to a publicly elected community board of directors.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was given to me a couple of weeks

ago, I guess, before the House of Assembly opened. The committee of board of

directors of the local area has been elected in a public meeting. They are in

place now and I guess what they are seeking, to some extent from this provincial

government and maybe even the federal government, is some indication of their

legitimacy insofar as they are a democratically elected body.

What happened here goes back a number of years. A community

hall was built by a committee elected by no one, answerable to no one, mainly

with federal public works funds or make-work funds over the years through the

good graces of the MP of the day, Bill Rompkey. We have a large, substantial,

well-built building in the community run by a private committee that enjoys very

little, if any, support from the general public. This committee also, by the

way, owns and operates Bill Rompkey Roadside Park in the area.

They didn't live up to their obligations with the Crown Lands

department, and that park lease reverted to the Crown, and the local recreation

committee, duly elected and recognized by the provincial government, applied to

the Minister of Crown Lands at the time to take over the park, to run it as any

local recreation committee should. I wrote the minister on the matter.

Unfortunately, the minister of the day decided to give the park back to the

non-elected committee and thereby snub the duly elected recreation committee.

This is something that has been festering in the background

for quite some time. Then, most recently, the Minister of Employment came out

with this make-work program this fall, or early in the new year, and the

memorial hall committee did apply for a project. I didn't recommend approval, as

I indicated in Question Period earlier today, because I knew the memorial hall

committee did not enjoy widespread public support, and in terms of Jackson's

Cove and area enjoyed no democratic legitimacy with regard to the citizens.

Nonetheless, someone obviously whispered in someone's ear because the committee

eventually did get a project approved over and above the $100,000 allocated for

Green Bay. Mr. Speaker, it is not at all normal, certainly not with regard to

the Wells Cabinet, for Green Bay to get one morsel, one shred, one iota of money

or anything out of the Wells government that it absolutely isn't entitled to

under the rules of the game.

So for the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to indicate that all of a sudden this government is doing great

favours for Green Bay by giving us some money over and above the $100,000 that

we would normally be allocated is stretching it a bit thin, to put it mildly.

Now, we have the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

saying he doesn't want in on this. Well, Mr. Speaker, someone in authority in

this government has to recognize the birth and growth of democracy in Jackson's

Cove. An individual prominent to the Liberal Party, until recently, at least,

employed by this government, and employed a number of times by this government

since this government has come to power, has run that particular town with an

iron hand. What we have now is the local citizens wanting some say in the

running of their community institutions. One of them is a community hall, which

was built with taxpayers' dollars through mostly federal money, and now we are

in a situation where they formed a committee to take over the hall. The private

committee, the unelected committee, the unanswerable committee, is threatening

the citizens committee with legal action; the police, of course, are refusing to

evict citizens from a community hall, because that would be somewhat of a

contradiction in terms. Because how can you not have a community occupying its

own hall?

That is the ridiculous situation we have in the local area,

and we have a provincial government absolutely refusing to wade into the middle

of this, I would submit, probably because the person chairing the private

unelected committee was and probably still is a very prominent Liberal, and

still holds considerable sway with this government, and that is not good enough,

Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, that hon. member knows the

difference. That last comment he made about political interference and so on, he

knows the difference of that. There is absolutely no reason why this government

should interfere or get involved in a situation, a dispute, among people in a

community. There is a legal avenue there. If those people in the community want

to go through the court system to determine who owns that building, well,

sobeit, let them do it. But with regard to doing something down there, or

accusing this minister of doing something politically underhanded, I take

exception to that. And he knows the difference of that.

He knows that in the past two years since I've been minister

in that government everything that goes on in his district I consult him on it.

I write each and every one of those members over there and ask them for personal

recommendations from people sitting on councils in their area. I ask them for

personal recommendations. Each and every one of you get letters from me. There

is absolutely no justification in that member standing in the House and accusing

this member of politically interfering with any decisions that are going on in

that particular community.

I will suggest, Mr. Speaker, to you, that really up until now

there has been nothing wrong in the community as it relates to the hall. Anyone

who wishes to use the hall in a community has access to it. If there is a

wedding in the community and the building is available, they use it. Certain

groups in the community go in and use it on a regular basis. They do charge, I

think, $5 a night for a meeting or whatever, which covers their expenses. I

don't know.

The reason I decided not to get involved in it was that I

went through basically the same thing in the lower part of my district back in

1989 and 1990, where a group of senior citizens had acquired money to build a

hall. A number of people in the community came to me and said: Why shouldn't we

control the hall? The end result was that there was no legal opinion on such a

matter. I went to both the Provincial and Federal Governments. They would not

move on it. The bottom line was that if they wanted to secure ownership of a

building in a particular community in the Province, or in that particular

community, then they would have to go to the courts.

I'm suggesting that if the community feels so strongly about

this that rather than have twenty-five or twenty-six names on a petition here

today, he would have had 200 or 300, which would be representative of the

majority of the people in the area, and if the majority of the people in the

area feel that strongly about taking over that building, well, take it through

the court system, which is the right one to make the decision. I am surprised at

the hon. member, because he knows that I have been treating him half-decently in

the last little while, as the minister. And for him to get up and accuse me of

being politically partisan, I think, demands - or at least, for the respect that

I have given him, he should have the respect for me, and not accuse me of doing

such things, because he well knows that I don't do them.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few words in support of my colleague's presentation on

the petition he presented here today so ably on behalf of his constituents, in

the community of Jackson's Cove, I believe it is, in the historic district of

Green Bay.

Mr. Speaker, I don't profess, frankly, to understand clearly

this dispute; I have heard people comment on it on radio, on CBC Radio in

particular, they have frequently, you know, tried to get some commentary on this

particular topic. And I have tried to listen quite closely to hear exactly what

is going on here and I have to confess that I have not been able to get my

finger on it just yet. However, having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think, for the

minister to get up and sort of berate the Member for Green Bay for doing his

job, was perhaps a little out of line, but for the Member for Green Bay to get

up and present his case on behalf of the people he represents in Jackson's Cove

is totally in order and he has every right to do it.

Now, I would have hoped that the minister would have gotten

up and explained to us what exactly went on here. I know what happened to me

when the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations sent me the list of those

applications he had, I was asked to prioritize them and send back the ones that

I prioritized, in rank; now, I understood everybody did that. Those who didn't

get a priority from the member, presumably wouldn't be approved at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, if we are supposed to listen to

ministers, why would you bother to send and ask us for priorities if you are

still going to approve those that we would not recommend?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, nonsense! That is absolute nonsense. So,

Mr. Speaker, the ministers have no legs to stand on at all in trying to suggest

the reasons for this approval for the funding for this particular project, and

that is what I would like to get at the bottom of. The question I would like to

have answered is, Why did that specific project get approved above and beyond

the several that the Member for Green Bay recommended? He recommended several

projects, one of which was not funding for this building but, the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, jumped in feet first, Mr. Speaker, feet first,

he jumped in, and he approved it, on his own; he approved it on his own.

Now, why, all of a sudden? What made that project so special,

so important that he would approve it on his own? Not even involved -I

understand the owners live in St. John's.

MR. HEWLETT: The chairman works for the government in St.

John's.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I understand the chairman of this project

committee lives here and works for the government here in St. John's, so I don't

know what would make it so special.

On the other point, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs commented about what a good minister he is and how co-operative he is

and how he communicates with everybody. I don't know if I have had a

conversation with him at all, by the way, as one member, but maybe that is

something personal. But I do know, that the Town Council of Bonavista requested

a meeting to come in to talk about some slippage in funding that was available,

and the minister - or at least the town was told the minister said: You can come

in but if your Member for Bonavista South is sitting at that meeting, then the

meeting will be cancelled, it will not be held.

Now, if that is evidence of how open and how courteous the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is, then, either something is wrong

- he did not explain accurately how he operates, or else, the information we

have heard is inaccurate, one or the other. And I have to mention that, because

that is what we have heard. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, either the information is

inaccurate - if the minister could settle down for a second I will tell him what

I said. I don't think he heard me. If I could get the attention of the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I said, either the information I received

was inaccurate, which I take it he is trying to say, it was, or the minister

wasn't totally forthcoming in telling us when he was on his feet a moment ago,

how courteous, what a great fellow he is, and how he deals with all the members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask the members. Ask your own members.

MR. SIMMS: I have. Not one of them has stood up and said,

yes, he is a great minister, or anything like that, not one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SIMMS: May I say to the minister, in conclusion, I

have asked several of your own members, too, and they haven't responded in a

very positive way.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in

connection with what the member was just speaking about. The minister shouted

across the floor saying, it is not true, but, Mr. Speaker, it is true. When

members of the town council from Bonavista came in here to meet with the

minister on some slippage money last year they were directed by the minister:

Come and meet with me but if you bring your member there will be no meeting, and

if he shows up while the meeting is in progress, the meeting will be cancelled.

That came from the five people who sat on the council in Bonavista, and I know

who I would believe, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member used an

opportunity to put forward the facts as he understood them.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Motion 1, please, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At the outset, I must acknowledge to the House, and to the

media who presumably will report this debate, that the initiative for this

motion really comes from all sides of the House. I think, as soon as the action

members on all sides of the House were disposed to have this House express its

support. The Leader of the NDP, the hon the Member for St. John's East, wrote me

about that a number of days ago and I readily agreed with his proposal and asked

the Government House Leader to make arrangements to deal with it, and I saw a

letter from the Leader of the Opposition approving of it, too. So, while the

motion stands on the Order Paper in my name, I must acknowledge, Mr. Speaker,

that effectively, I am presenting the motion on behalf of all sides of the

House.

Now, let me deal with the reason why it is important, I

believe, for this House to express its approbation of the federal action. The

international reaction has been somewhat mixed. The Spanish, as you can imagine,

are highly critical of Canada, calling it a piratical action, calling it a

totally unjustified and illegal action at international law. The other European

nations, other than Spain and Portugal, have also formally taken precisely the

same position. The European community, speaking for all the European nations

have echoed that position as well.

I want to give the House today some explanation for the basis

of this action by Canada. I don't need to remind hon. members of the House of

the fishing practices of Spain and Portugal countenanced by the European

community over the last six years. They have systematically destroyed cod,

plaice, yellowtail, and other groundfish stocks on the Grand Banks. Long after

Canada stopped fishing those stocks, had moratoria put on those stocks, the

Spanish and Portuguese systematically continued to fish those stocks, in many

cases without any quota whatsoever, and where they did have a quota they

expressed their dissatisfaction with that quota, used the objection procedure,

established their own unilateral quota, and then promptly ignored that

unilateral quota and caught two or three, or sometimes four times as much as the

quota allowed.

It is hard to find civilized language to adequately describe

what the Spanish and Portuguese have done. It is hard to find civilized language

strong enough to condemn the wilful blindness of the other member states of the

European Community who have indeed wilfully blinded themselves to this food

carnage, this environmental crime, that has been perpetrated by Spain and

Portugal on the Grand Banks of Canada outside the 200-mile exclusive economic

zone.

They have been ignoring the NAFO quotas, ignoring NAFO rules,

ignoring their own quotas, and fishing with wanton disregard for the future of

those fish stocks, and with total and complete disdain for the fact that

thousands of people in this Province have relied on those fish stocks for many

years as the means of providing a living for them.

In meetings with ambassadors over these years, their response

was very simple: Oh, no, we're not doing anything improper; there's lots of

fish. Canada's position is simply wrong, Mr. LeComte used to say to me, we don't

agree there is any jeopardy to the Northern Cod stocks. There is lots of codfish

out there.

Well, we all know how wrong they have been. They have been

wrong about the American plaice; they have been wrong about the yellow tail as

well, as they systematically destroyed each of six or seven different stocks on

the Grand Banks in the last few years.

If you look at what they have done... I am sorry; I apologize

to hon. members. I will table in the House tomorrow copies of these, but as this

is a holiday under the government's collective agreements I couldn't get these

reproduced in time for today. I just got them over the weekend, but I will table

complete copies of the ones I will show the House.

This chart shows the European quota on the left-hand side of

the chart of 164,400 tons of groundfish, and their probable catch of well over a

million tons - 850,000 tons that they actually reported themselves - with a

total quota from NAFO of 164,000 tons. Now it's hard for anybody with any sense

of objectivity and fairness to countenance that. How then can the European

Community stand before the world and say: This is an acceptable way to behave.

We approve of and endorse what Spain and Portugal have done.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has tried everything. It has exhausted

all reasonable possibilities over the last five years or so to stop this wanton

destruction. I have participated with the federal government, both the former

federal government headed by Mr. Mulroney, and the present federal government

headed by Mr. Chrtien, in efforts at the United Nations to try and stop this

activity. I have gone to capitals in Europe, showed them what was happening,

showed them what their fishermen were doing, and they denied it time and time

again. In some cases, occasionally you would find an ambassador from perhaps

Germany or the UK who recognized what was being done, and their position was:

Well, you know we have to stand by Spain and Portugal. They are members of the

community. We have to stand by other members of the community.

My response to them was: Okay, if you do that then you take

equal responsibility with Spain and Portugal for what they are doing, because

you are countenancing it and giving it credit in the eyes of the world. So if

you are going to support them, then you are as much to blame as anybody else,

and I say that the governments of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy,

and all of the other nations of the European Common Market that have not spoken

out against this despicable behaviour of Spain and Portugal are as much to blame

as Spain and Portugal.

I am going to table for hon. members excerpts that I have

made from a March 16, 1992 report done not by Canada, not my words, but this is

a report done by a committee on behalf of the European Community itself,

assessing the community's own failure in administering its fishing regulations,

and they used words like `fraudulent'. Fraudulent catches consisting mainly of

fish smaller than the medium sizes have no difficulty finding purchasers. This

demonstrates the extent to which medium sizes are being ignored. There is a very

low level of compliance with the legislation on meshes and minimum sizes.

They knew all this. Each of those governments of the European

Community knew all this in March of 1992 when they got this report, when I got

this report, and they did nothing about it. They probably knew it well before,

but they had it clearly confirmed to them when they got this report, what the

Spanish and Portuguese were doing and they took no steps whatsoever to deal with

this despicable level of fishing that amounts to wanton destruction of a major

food stock and food supply for man. I ask the Clerk to table this, Mr. Speaker,

and distribute it to hon. members.

The federal government, led by Mr. Mulroney, was sensitive to

the concerns and Mr. Crosbie would frequently speak out strongly about what was

being done but they took no action. They were not prepared to take the kind of

decisive action that would see world opinion galvanized against this despicable

behaviour and that is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because we saw the destruction

of fish stocks in the meantime. However, change occurred in November of 1993.

Mr. Chrtien came to power with his commitment, given out here in the foyer of

this building, to take effective measures to deal with the overfishing. Within

six months we had a piece of legislation on the Order Paper and being considered

by parliament, dealing effectively with this overfishing.

I want, Mr. Speaker, to mention to hon. members the basis for

this legislation. This is not an attempt to extend jurisdiction. Now I know the

hon. members opposite have put forward a resolution in that regard and I know

the sincerity that moved them to do so but I have to tell them that in my

judgement, right at this particular time, this will not help Canada's cause or

Newfoundland's cause. So I am going to ask them to reconsider it and I will tell

the House why shortly, Mr. Speaker.

Canada passed this act but in doing so it recognized that it

had no basic jurisdiction beyond the 200 mile limit. It could not regulate

fisheries so it had to establish a basis for action and that appears in

Section

5.1. Parliament recognized, in 5.1, that the straddling stocks on the Grand

Banks are a major renewable world food resource. Note that, a major renewable

world food resource, not Canadian food resource. So we had to acknowledge that

our action was being taken for the purpose of protecting the food resources of

the world, not just the interest of Canada, that those stocks are threatened

with extinction.

They go on to declare that the purpose of

Section 5.2, and

5.2 is the real action

section of this law, they go on to declare this - and

this is crucial to Canada's position - that the purpose of

Section 5.2 is to

enable Canada to take urgent action necessary - and necessary is the key word -

to prevent further destruction of those stocks and to permit their rebuilding

while continuing to seek effective international solutions to the situations

referred to above. Now that's not take it within our own jurisdiction that seek

international solutions and that is the basis on which Canada put forward this

law. Then the law enabled Canada to prohibit any person, being aboard a foreign

fishing vessel in the prescribed class in a NAFO regulatory area, to fish

contrary to the regulations. So Canada is declaring to all of the world that it

is acting out of necessity to protect those fish stocks for mankind, not to

promote its own economic interests.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to table in the House a copy of a

similar justification exercised by President Truman in 1945. Here are his words,

`In view of the pressing need for conservation and protection of the fishery

resources, the Government of the United States regards it proper to establish

conservation zones in those areas of the high seas contiguous to the coast of

the United States wherein fishing activities have been or in the future may be

developed and maintained on a substantial basis.' Now, Mr. Speaker, here is the

President of the United States, in 1949, declaring that for conservation

purposes the United States regards it proper to establish conservation zones on

the high seas. Now that is precisely what Canada did. So hon. members will note

that I have rewritten the Truman proclamation and taken out of it only the

words, `Government of the United States' and substituted for that, `Government

of Canada' and the word, `United States,' for `Canada.' No other change than

that and that is a clear justification, international law with international

precedent, set out for the action that Canada has taken, and a clear basis for

supporting that action. I'm happy, Mr. Speaker, to table a copy of that, and ask

that it be distributed to hon. members so that they will have it. It would help

them in their arguments when they meet people who dispute Canada's right to take

this action.

It is clear that Canada was acting out of necessity. There

was no other alternative to protect the interest of Canada and the world. That

interest in this food supply was in peril of total extinction, or at least

commercial extinction. They've commercially extinguished a half a dozen stocks,

and now the Spaniards and Portuguese, under the auspices of the European

Community, were in the course of turning their attention to the turbot stocks.

No other course was possible to avoid certain destruction.

All one has to do is look at the record, look at what has

happened during the moratorium. I will table this for members as well. This is a

chart showing the number of European Community vessels fishing in the NAFO

regulatory area. You will see that as a moratorium was imposed on one species

after another, the Europeans increased the number of vessels year after year

after year. There were more vessels fishing in 1992 than there were in 1991;

there were more vessels in 1993 than there were in 1992; there were more vessels

fishing in 1994 than there were in 1993; and so far this year, there are more

vessels fishing in 1995 than there were in 1994.

How can anybody accept that kind of behaviour? In particular,

how can you accept endorsement of it by the so-called civilized nations of

Europe? France, Germany. The United Kingdom, the leader of the Commonwealth of

which we are part. How can anybody countenance that kind of action as one stock

after another is systematically destroyed, 40-odd thousand people in eastern

Canada put out of work, more than 30,000 of them in this Province alone? How can

anybody possibly countenance that kind of action? The wonder is that anybody

would speak to the Europeans for sitting still and seeing this action occur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The arguments against what they've done,

the case for the action that Canada has taken, Mr. Speaker, I believe is

irrefutable. When you look then at what happened with respect to the turbot -

and this is what caused this action at this time - the European Community,

dissatisfied with NAFO's action - NAFO just took control of the turbot last

September and put in place a quota for turbot of 27,000 tons. Over Canada's

objection, by the way. Canada objected to that quota being established, but the

Europeans wanted to establish it and they did. They assigned to the Europeans

only 3,500 tons. The Europeans caught about 60,000 tons of turbot last year.

The Europeans complained bitterly and said: We are the

biggest fishers of the turbot, therefore we should have 75 per cent of the

turbot quota. Instead they only got 12.5 per cent. So they started their

practice all over again: We are going to set aside NAFO's quota and establish

our own. Those are precisely the words they used in respect of the northern cod

five and six years ago. Those are precisely the words they used in respect of

the American plaice and the yellowtail. They've destroyed each of those stocks.

I will table tomorrow in the House, but I will show hon.

members today, this chart. The upper part of it, the blue part, shows the

fishing for tuna between 1977 and 1994. The upper part shows where all of the

fishing took place. That is the fishing within Canadian waters, within the

200-mile zone. It wasn't all Canadian fishing. Some of it was Canadian fishing.

Much of it was foreign fishing permitted by Canada and regulated by Canada

within its zone. There was no quota for the Europeans outside the zone.

It wasn't until 1991 when they had fished the codfish stocks,

and the plaice and the other flounder stocks, when they fished those to

commercial extinction, they then turned the ravaging fleet loose on the turbot,

and this is the basis on which those pirates are claiming a historical right to

fish 70 per cent of the quota that has been set by NAFO. What they are saying

is: Because we behaved in a piratical manner, reward us for our activity.

Civilized nations of the world cannot stand by and see that

happen. Mr. Speaker, that is what moved Canada to act when she did. There was no

other alternative but to move. Canada had no choice - out of necessity -

because, you see, Canada is the contiguous coastal state that has the greatest

level of interest, and has the greatest ability to regulate and manage those

stocks, and is the state in whose fishery waters those straddling stocks mostly

occur. So clearly, it's Canada that has the responsibility at international law

to take action, to lead the action of the world to protect those stocks. If

those stocks are in fact destroyed, the world will not criticize Spain and

Portugal; they will turn to Canada and ask: Canada, how could you have allowed

that to happen on your doorstep? You are the ones who regulated the 200-mile

economic zone where most of those fish stocks occur. It is your responsibility

to act. So Canada exercised its responsibility, and they are acting.

Their action, they claim, and they are correct in doing so,

is temporary until a UN binding convention can be put in place. There is some

hope that may occur within the year or two, but the UN decided last August to

put a convention - a binding convention -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

PREMIER WELLS: If I can have just a minute or two to

summarize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER WELLS: The UN indicated last year that a binding

convention would be put in place, and they are now meeting, starting on the 27th

of this month, in New York, to work on the precise wording of that convention.

Now, a binding convention is of no value if it is a toothless tiger, so it is

crucial what goes into that, and it is very important that Canada play a lead

role there in gaining support for a strong convention.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize what this

motion is intended to emphasize - the support of all Members of this House of

Assembly and of all people in the Province for the courageous action of a Prime

Minister who led a government that took this decisive step.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It is one thing for me, as the Premier of

the Province, or the Leader of the Opposition, or the Leader of the NDP, or

anybody else, to request Canada to do it, and make great speeches about how

necessary it is, but when you have the ultimate responsibility for this kind of

action to all of the rest of the people of the nation, to all of the other

nations of the world, and you have the political courage to stand up and do it,

that is where the real credit lies, and I ask this House to acknowledge it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I ask this

House to acknowledge the courage and determination of Brian Tobin, his superb

performance during the last couple of weeks -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - the steady, effective leadership of the

ministers and indeed the support of the Canadian people.

I ask the House to endorse this resolution unanimously and

thank the House for giving me the additional time, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to be able to stand in my place here today to

speak on behalf of our caucus, and join with others in the House - as I

understand it, everybody in the House - in expressing what I understand to be

the straddling turbot stocks, protecting them from devastation and possible

extinction.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, just a few years ago, I guess it was

in 1990 - so not that long ago - February, when Dr. Harris released his report

on the state of the Northern Cod stocks, and a lot of people at that time were,

of course, talking about the possibility of the commercial extinction of that

particular resource - a lot of people. That was only five years ago. The

reaction of many other people in the Province, of course, was one of disbelief.

A lot of people didn't even believe that. How could the great Northern Cod

stocks be depleted that badly? How could they have reached that particular

stage? I can remember people saying that, but now that Newfoundlanders have

lived for several years under the Northern Cod moratorium, we know, particularly

the people who earn their living from fishing know, full well, the price that

has to be paid when more of a resource is taken than can be sustained.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have no hesitation whatsoever in standing

commending the federal Fisheries Minister, Brian Tobin, for the action they took

a week or so ago.

Mr. Speaker, European vessels and other vessels that continue

to flout the NAFO agreement - so-called agreement, and continue to catch what

can only be described as baby turbot out on the spawning grounds of the Grand

Banks, really are living in a fool's paradise. They are living in a fool's

paradise if they think that the environment will tolerate that kind of abuse.

In trying to be fair and reasonable, I said to myself: Well,

perhaps the rank-and-file, the average person in the street in Spain and

Portugal, and maybe even the politicians that the rank-and-file elect in those

two countries, may have reacted with similar disbelief to warnings that the

turbot stocks might be in jeopardy - similar to the way many of us reacted only

five years ago when we heard about it. Perhaps they, too, felt that the well was

bottomless and that there was plenty of fish.

There comes a time when education, diplomacy, all those kinds

of approaches, have to be forgotten, must give way to force or strong action.

Because when a world food resource, as the Premier and others have described -

and we've heard it described, of course, ourselves many times over the last

number of years - is threatened with extinction, and when the livelihood of a

coastal people with centuries of historic attachment is threatened with

destruction, and when years and years of talks have produced no direct results

at all, and time is running out, there comes a time when it is more of a crime

not to act than it is to take action - more of a crime not to take action. I

think that point in time has arrived, and we obviously all agree with that

particular position.

I remember the Premier talked about many times he has had

occasion to speak with members of the EC, the European Community, ministers. He

may not remember, but I remember, a time, I think it was during the Earth Summit

in Rio De Janeiro - he may remember it now that I've mentioned it. He and Mr.

Crosbie both held a meeting with some of the European Community ministers or

members who were there. The minister actually was there. I was invited. The

Premier invited me along and I sat in on that meeting when the Premier made a

similar case to the one he has made now, and made quite often, and quite

effectively, I might say, publicly, explaining what has transpired. And, I mean,

the look on the faces of the European Community members said it all. They just

did not, do not, or refuse to, believe any of the evidence that is put forward.

It is absolutely amazing.

Even in the face of the report that the Premier referred to -

I haven't had a chance to read all of these excerpts yet, but it is pretty clear

there - but I say to the Premier that I think the evidence was there before

that. Because I'm sure others before John Crosbie, officials' level, the

ambassador, what was his name, Gershwin - remember that chap? Yes, he was there

for a number of years. I'm sure they must have made all this information

available to the EC, but clearly, the EC wasn't interested in listening. I think

that is the problem. Because they didn't have a mechanism to enforce, nor did

they have an interest, in my view, to enforce.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what shocked me are the reports on the size

of the turbot, that I saw on television, that Mr. Tobin made public. When I saw

the pictures - I mean, a picture is worth a thousand words, there is no question

about it. I think the pictures of the size of those turbot on the television

airwaves sent shock waves - it certainly sent shock waves through Newfoundland,

and probably through Canada. I'm not sure what happened in the rest of the

world.

Then, the reports on the size of the mesh and the use of the

liners, Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming. It indicates quite clearly

that not only sound environmental principles but indeed international agreements

are being violated. There is absolutely no question about it. We all know that

these vessels, particularly the Portuguese and the Spanish vessels, are raking

up the sea and they are decimating the nursery that is out there where the

smallest and the most vulnerable fish must be left to grow, and they are doing

it without any concern or consideration for the future. Now, if you look at the

chart, the Premier shows they didn't really start overfishing or fishing the

turbot until 1991.

AN HON. MEMBER: So much for (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, certainly they have no historic claim to

turbot, that's for certain. But, I mean, you have to say to yourself, well,

maybe the people on the streets over there do in fact say to themselves, `Well,

we have only started fishing this in 1991. How can the stocks be gone four years

later?' Maybe that is what is happening, I don't know, I am trying to give the

people of the country a little bit of a benefit of the doubt, if you want, not

the government, because the government certainly knew different.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: And that is what they reported.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the other point about this whole issue is,

the international management protocols that are in place today for straddling

stocks, like those on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap,

are really toothless, the arrangements that are in place. They are absolutely

toothless and they are held in the highest of contempt by the very countries

supposed to be the ones who are bound by them. I remember SONAR putting a

proposal forward, that group in the Province that was put together comprising

people in the fishing industry and so on, the unions and I think - I am not sure

if government members or MHAs, I think there were some members involved in it,

if I remember now. In any event, they had a proposal to establish some kind of a

new protocol - the Premier talked about it - through the convention that would

be binding on all the countries and so on, but as he points out correctly and as

I think SONAR pointed out correctly, the danger is that this had the potential

to turn into just another hollow convention and that would be of little use

whatsoever.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why, by the way - and the

Premier mentioned he was going to make some reference to our proposal for a

motion on Wednesday, I think you may have overlooked it, but I will try to

explain to him why we are doing it, why we are going to do it. First of all, it

has been a long-standing position of our party to seek the extension of the

Continental Shelf for all the reasons that we all know - and I won't go into all

of those details - and also for the reason that we thought we had the support of

the House of Assembly already on the position. He may or may not remember that

on March 13, I think it was, of 1992 - because during a similar dispute that was

going on with respect to high seas overfishing, during that particular time

there was something going on, three years ago, I forget exactly what it was, but

it was enough for my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank to demand a unanimous

emergency resolution be debated on the morning of March 13. The Speaker allowed

the emergency resolution to take place although I believe it may have had the

support of the members on the government side at the time. In the end - and it

was a resolution that called for the extension of the jurisdiction of the

Continental Shelf - in the end, it was passed unanimously by the House of

Assembly three years ago. So we felt that it may be an appropriate time to

reiterate our position, and that is the purpose for our putting forth that

resolution on Wednesday.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I recognize as well, that from a

negotiation perspective and so on, there could be some sensitivity there, and we

are aware of that. I think what we are tying to say here is that we recognize,

as a Legislature, the principle of extending the jurisdiction and we would not

something along those lines could be said to clarify the situation. What we

support from Members of this Legislature so that if they do it, at an

appropriate time, they would have our support for it. We said it to the previous

Federal Government, too. And, by the way, I don't mind saying here publicly

either, that this particular issue and the position we have taken in support of

this particular motion, is not something that we would have had difficulty

supporting if it had been put forward for the previous government, but the

previous government didn't do it, they didn't either have the courage or, Mr.

Crosbie couldn't get the support of his colleagues, or whatever. I can tell you,

we have never wavered at the provincial level, as a provincial party, often to

the chagrin of Mr. Crosbie who, occasionally might mention to us, you know, you

don't want to attack us up here in Ottawa too often and things like that. But we

didn't have any hesitation to do it, because we felt it was the right position

to take, and it wasn't strictly for politics, it is the right thing for

Newfoundlanders to do, to support this kind of action; that is why I have no

hesitation and no more will any of my colleagues who speak in this debate, have

any hesitation, because it is an economic issue of importance to the people who

live in Spain and Portugal, it's an economic issue to our people here in

Newfoundland and Labrador but, more importantly, it is a world environmental

issue. I think that's how we can win on this particular issue, and that's why I

they are protecting a resource that actually will provide a food source to the

world. I think that is an important point for all of us to remember and I guess

we all have remembered it.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other point I would like make and

that is, since Mr. Tobin also has revealed that 85 per cent - I think it was 85

per cent or whatever - 85 per cent of that catch were immature fish - you say

it's less?

AN HON. MEMBER: Seventy-nine per cent.

MR. SIMMS: Seventy-nine per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, what they call immature fish.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Fifteen per cent was mature.

MR. SIMMS: Well, he said 15 per cent was mature,

therefore, I am assuming 85 per cent was immature.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay. In any event, it is not only that those

small fish are being caught, Mr. Speaker, with illegal mesh sizes or with liners

or whatever, the significance of Minister Tobin's statistic, is that, there

obviously is not enough mature turbot in the area to sustain a commercial

fishery. I think that is the significance of the statistic. As scary as, you

know, the story, itself was, that's the significance, and if that is the case -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. - so if that is the case, Mr. Speaker,

then, I don't see how the minister can avoid seeking an immediate moratorium on

fishing for turbot from the European Community or NAFO.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. I don't see how he could avoid asking for

a moratorium.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The whole Labrador again, let them fish.

MR. SIMMS: Let's not get parochial here; I mean, the

reality is, we are talking about the same issue right from day one, and if that

is the case, if in fact, there is not enough mature turbot there, Mr. Speaker,

to sustain a commercial fishery, then there should be a moratorium, without

question, on fishing, by the European Communities and I hope that Minister Tobin

pursues that.

The final point I make, relates to the reported news stories

of Mr. Tobin being prepared to relinquish part of Canada's turbot quota. I would

like to state for the record, what I understand Mr. Tobin to have said and what

that might mean.

My understanding is that Mr. Tobin has stated that members of

the EC, the European Community, have already overfished their NAFO allocation of

turbot and Canada is prepared to give up part of its allocation to compensate

for the overfishing -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not to catch.

MR. SIMMS: That's what I just said.

- to compensate for the overfishing. Now, that's what I

understood.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No. That's what I understood him to say. But,

out there, somewhere in the world, or in the media or somewhere, there was

another story going around.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Transfer, they were talking about

transfer.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Of course, when I heard that - if anybody

else heard it, you would have gotten really upset about it. So, with respect to

that particular point, if that is what Mr. Tobin said, which is what I

understood him to say, then, the concession that he has proposed could very well

be justified in the interest of conservation. It could very well be justified.

I want to make it clear for the record, if indeed the

European communities have overfished their quotas, the minimum decision out of

Brussels in these discussions that are ongoing should be in agreement that there

will not be any European fishing vessels in the area of the Nose and Tail of the

Grand Banks or on the Flemish Cap, for that matter, for the remainder of this

year, for 1995. There should absolutely be no question about that, and I say

that for the record, but, Mr. Speaker, if the Europeans have overfished their

quota, then there should certainly be no more turbot for them to catch. On that,

I hope, we all agree, and let us be clear about it for those who are going to

speak today in this debate.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take my full twenty

minutes because a number of our members want to have a few words. I thank the

House for listening and I pledge my support to the resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I, without hesitation, support

the resolution presently before the House, brought by the Premier. On March 9th,

prior to the arrest of the Estai, I wrote to the hon. Brian Tobin, Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa, to offer the support and encouragement of myself

crisis. I called the threat to the turbot stock a threat to part of the common

heritage of mankind, which we believe that, under international law, Canada has

the right and even the duty to protect and to prevent its destruction.

At that time, I urged government to take all necessary steps,

including seizure of offending vessels, to secure the position taken by Canada,

and I urge the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition that we join in a

resolution in this House on this non-partisan issue, which I believe all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would support wholeheartedly. It is, as the

Premier says, easy for members of this House to get up and say what Canada

should or shouldn't do but, on the other hand, when you are in the position of

the Prime Minister of Canada, and his Cabinet ministers, it is a step that must

be taken with great foresight, with great conviction, and with a willingness to

take the consequences of your actions, those consequences being somewhat

uncertain in the international climate in which we operate.

The consequences are uncertain, Mr. Speaker, because the

nations of the world have a history of disregarding the interest of the

environment and taking their own self-interest first, and a willingness to hang

their hats on some very old propositions of international law regarding the high

seas, the use of the high seas, and the rights to fish on the high seas to the

very last fish they claim. Mr. Speaker, at the same time, these same nations are

prepared to mouth the platitudes of sustainable development and renewable

resources being available, and take

part in international commissions on the

environment which promote these notions, but when it comes down to the crunch,

Mr. Speaker, the nations of Europe have supported the destructive fishing

practices of Spain and are prepared to threaten, at least, the position of

Canada in trade and other matters for the sake of enforcing their position

behind the fisheries of Spain on the Grand Banks and on the Flemish Cap.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to show the

political parties represented in this House for their action. Without

hesitation, Mr. Speaker, that is offered.

I want to congratulate other members of this House who helped

organize some opposition to the Spanish vessel activity, and shows of support

Works, Services and Transportation together helped organize an impromptu

demonstration on Thursday, March 9, outside DFO headquarters in the White Hills.

There was a most moving demonstration on the waterfront in

action at long last in insisting that international players and actors fully

recognize the need for conservation. It was a moving demonstration. The people

who were there, the 8,000 to 10,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, were there

in a mood of reflection, a sombre mood, a serious mood, recognizing that the

action that was being taken was part of the last gasp, as it were, to try to

protect the turbot stock, after seeing the destruction, by the same type of

overfishing, of the cod stock, which has caused so much suffering and so much

economic distress in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we see that the types of fishing practices long

recognized by fishermen, well recognized, as the Premier has pointed out, by the

European Commission in official documents as early as 1992, that these practices

are continuing internationally, and they are even continuing inside the 200-mile

limit today. So when we say unanimously here that we support the actions of the

Federal Government to stop destructive fishing practices being carried out by

foreign fleets off our coast, which we unanimously endorse, we also should ask

the Canadian Government to ensure that similar fishing practices are not being

carried out inside the 200-mile limit, in such fisheries as the shrimp fishery,

where the information I have is that the shrimp fishery is also engaged in

destructive and wasteful practices - destructive not only to the shrimp stock,

itself, but also to other species which are caught in the shrimp nets.

I have heard stories of shrimp that had been caught and

packaged and stored in the holds of shrimp trawlers, being thrown overboard -

small shrimp - to be replaced by larger shrimp which they just brought onboard -

frozen shrimp, packaged shrimp, thrown overboard, hundreds of tons of it, to

make room for larger shrimp that was more valuable; and the people involved in

the shrimp fishery tell me that the shrimp are getting smaller and smaller. Yet

these practices go on, and don't seem to be able to be stopped because of the

greed of the owners of the vessels, and perhaps the individual crew members who

are a part of it. They don't seem to be able to stop this by the use of

inspectors. They don't seem to be able to recognize that the greed of one ship

or one company means the destruction of a species for all, a way of life for the

people of this Province, and the destruction of a food resource for the world.

So while we support wholeheartedly the actions of the

taking this particular action at this time, we want to urge them to stay the

course in the face of the patronizing reports of the European Community, in the

face of the sabre-rattling, in the face of the threats, and in the face of those

kinds of actions, to stay the course because we are on this point right. We must

continue to ensure that the people of the world understand that this is an issue

of supreme importance for international cooperation, for the future of the fish

stocks, and for the future of our way of life. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very happy to be

able to stand here today and make a delivery in support of this resolution.

Newfoundland's groundfish industry has collapsed and all

major ground fisheries, including 2J-3KL cod, 3PS cod, 3NO cod, and all major

flounder resources, are presently under moratorium. The result of the groundfish

collapse has been the displacement of approximately 30,000 fishermen and plant

workers in Newfoundland. To address that problem the federal government

introduced the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program in 1992, and The

Atlantic Groundfish Strategy in 1994. In addition, the Province has introduced

several programs of assistance for those displaced, including participation in

several early retirement programs for fishermen and plant workers, interest

forgiveness for fishermen with debts under programs of the Fisheries Loan Board,

debt forgiveness for retired fishermen with loans under the Fisheries Loan Board

programs, and waiver of marine service centre fees.

Despite these moratoria, recent scientific advice indicates

significant stock recovery is unlikely in the short term. In fact, for some

species stock recovery may take ten to twenty years, or even longer, if indeed

the stocks recover at all. Foreign overfishing, primarily by vessels from Spain

and Portugal, has been a major contributor to the current groundfish crisis. In

addition, continued foreign overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks

is a major factor in preventing stock recovery. Between 1986 and 1994 the

European Union harvested more than 1.3 million tons of fish in the NAFO

regulatory area. That is eight times its legal quota of 164,000 tons. Despite

Canadian efforts to conserve the stock through the imposition of moratoria on

virtually all groundfish species, and the displacement of 30,000 fishermen and

plant works in this Province alone, foreign overfishing and foreign fishing

vessel activity on the Grand Banks continue at a high level. In fact, the total

number of European Union vessels fishing on the Grand Banks was higher in the

winter of 1994-1995 than either of the previous two years, despite the decline

in groundfish resources. As of February 27 1995, there was a total of 24 Spanish

vessels fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and an additional

fourteen Spanish vessels fishing on the Flemish Cap.

Canada, with the active involvement and support of this

government, has dedicated considerable efforts to resolve the foreign

overfishing problem. These efforts have focused on three areas. First, the

implementation of a new domestic legislation which allows Canada to take direct

enforcement action beyond or outside the 200-mile limit; efforts to seek a

permanent international solution to the problems through the UN conference on

high seas fisheries; and efforts to seek more effective conservation and

management decisions by NAFO.

In 1994, Mr. Speaker, Canada enacted new legislation to allow

it to undertake unilateral action to enforce conservation and management rules

outside the 200-mile limit for the protection of any straddling stock. As an

initial step, Mr. Speaker, the federal government established regulations to

allow action to be taken against stateless vessels and non-NAFO vessels. The EU,

at that time, strongly objected to the new Canadian legislation reflecting the

fact that many of these flags of convenience vessels were indeed re-flagged

Spanish and Portuguese vessels. So that on April 1, 1994 Canada arrested and

seized the Christina Logos. This Panamanian registered vessel carried a

Portuguese captain and crew. When caught, the Logos had about 180 tons of fish

on board, the majority of which were extremely small cod, red fish and flounder

and indeed they had been caught using a net liner.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that this government, and

previous governments as well, has been actively involved in the fight to end

foreign overfishing. The Premier, our Premier and my colleagues, have sought to

address this problem at every conceivable opportunity including conferences of

the Atlantic Premiers First Ministers Conferences and the annual meeting of the

New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers which was hosted by this

Province here last summer. The Premier himself has also been extremely active in

promoting awareness of the problem in Europe, in the United States and indeed

throughout the world and has attended several sessions of the UN Conference on

the high seas fishery.

Since September, 1994, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that I

personally have had the opportunity to address the problem of foreign

overfishing on university campuses from Vancouver to Nova Scotia. The Province,

through its ongoing public relations campaign - and I am sure all members are

familiar with some of the material that was used in that campaign. I brought

this poster along which is a very striking poster and I am sure most of you have

seen it. This material has been used in schools and elsewhere and has been very

active in increasing public awareness of this problem. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased

to report that the work which we have done has been very successful in garnering

public support throughout the world to address this problem.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to turn my attention to a discussion

of turbot or Greenland halibut. Unregulated fishing of Greenland halibut has

been one of the most serious problems in NAFO in the past few years. This stock,

Mr. Speaker, is in serious decline and its continued plunder by foreign fleets

represents an environmental offense. Prior to 1990, the two plus three turbot

fishery took place almost entirely, Mr. Speaker, within Canadian waters with

annual catches somewhere around 30,000 metric tons. In 1990 however, the EU

began a large scale turbot fishery in the waters just outside the 200-mile limit

with annual catches from between 40,000 and 50,000 metric tons in 1991-1994.

Excess catches by the EU were a major contributor to the reduced landings by

Newfoundland fishermen with Canadian catches falling from around 12,000 metric

tons in 1991 to just under 1,600 metric tons, Mr. Speaker, in 1994.

During the September 1994 meeting of NAFO, responsibilities

for the regulation of this stock was given to NAFO and NAFO established a total

allowable catch of 27,000 metric tons for 1995. As a result, Mr. Speaker, of a

special NAFO meeting in February, 1995, Canada was allocated 16,300 tons or 60

per cent of the TAC while the EU was allocated just 3,400 tons or 12 per cent.

In comparison then, Mr. Speaker, to the fifty ton catch by the EU in 1994 the

3,400 ton allocation did indeed represent, rightfully so, a major reduction. The

EU has issued a formal objection to the NAFO decision and stated that it would

continue to fish according to their own unilateral quota. The EU then

subsequently established its unilateral quota at 18,630 tons. By March, 1995 it

was generally concluded then, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

DR. HULAN: Could I just have about another minute?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

DR. HULAN: By March, 1995 it was generally concluded that

the European Union had exceeded its NAFO allocation of 3,400 tons. Despite the

fact, the European Union vessels continued to fish on the Nose and Tail of the

Grand Banks. In response then, Canada extended its regulations for the

conservation of straddling stocks to include European Union vessels, and advised

the EU that vessels continuing to fish in the area would be subjected to arrest

and seizure. As a result of the EU refusal to leave the area, Canada arrested

the Spanish trawler Estai on March 9. Examination of the Estai's catch revealed

that a very high percentage of catch was undersized turbot which could not have

been caught using legal size mesh.

In addition, a secret compartment was found aboard the vessel

containing twenty-five tons of American plaice. American plaice is currently

under NAFO moratorium throughout the regulatory area. Subsequent inspection also

revealed the discovery of two log books. One of these was for inspection

purposes, showing that the vessel was honouring NAFO regulations. The other,

prepared for the vessel's owners, contained very different reports on the

vessel's fishing activities.

While Canadian enforcement vessels were attempting to arrest

the Estai, the vessel cut its net. The Spanish said that was done in order to

allow the vessel a chance to escape. On March 16, however, a Canadian vessel

recovered the net which still contained a small number of live turbot and

flounder. Examination of the net revealed that the mesh size was considerably

smaller than that legally approved by NAFO. Indeed a net liner - a net liner of

eighty millimetres, or around three inches - was also used, making escape by

fish of any size virtually impossible.

Mr. Speaker, foreign overfishing is not a new problem. In

fact, overfishing by foreign vessels resulted in the collapse of all major

groundfish stocks in the early 1970's, a collapse which led to the

implementation of the 200-mile limit in 1977. Unfortunately, the declaration of

a 200-mile limit was not sufficient to protect the straddling stocks from

overfishing by foreign vessels.

The collapse of Canada - Spain's bilateral fisheries

agreement in 1981 also added to the problem. Moreover, the entry of Spain and

Portugal into the European Union in 1986 increased the severity of the problem

considerably. Under the terms of the agreement covering the entry of Spain and

Portugal into the European Union, these vessels were banned - they were banned -

from fishing in European waters for a ten year period. What did this do then,

Mr. Speaker? It resulted in a transfer of the problem to the Northwest Atlantic

and the Newfoundland shores.

Mr. Speaker, since 1986 the European Union has harvested

eight times its legal quota of fish from the waters of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Now, eighteen years later, after the implementation of extended

jurisdiction, fishermen in this Province are legally forbidden from catching

fish -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to clue up his remarks, please,

quickly.

DR. HULAN: - from catching fish to feed their families,

to feed Newfoundland families, while the Spanish and Portuguese continue to

fish, and continue to plunder the stocks off our coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: This cannot continue, and I call upon all

members of this hon. House to support this resolution.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Needless to say, it is a great pleasure to stand today to

speak to the motion put forward by the Premier, which looks like it will get

unanimous support of the House, and I guess I might take a page out of Mr.

Tobin's book. Maybe I am going to have to transfer some of my minutes to make up

for the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture going over time, so I will

do that in the name of conservation of time, but I do not want to belabour, Mr.

Speaker, what has already been said.

As important an issue as it is, I guess that is why we have

reached the agreement we have today with regards to speaking time to allow as

many members as possible to participate in the debate, and it is so important to

the future of Newfoundland and Labrador that I think that the more often we, as

elected members in this Province speak about this issue, the better off we will

be. Some people have said: well, why are you going to debate that again? How

many more times can you say it? We have to say it many more times yet until the

deed is done to our satisfaction, until we protect the resources off our shores

for the benefit of our people, for the benefit of the people of the world, so I

don't think we should get bored about this matter, we shouldn't get too edgy, we

should continue to debate it and express strongly the wishes of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador and we all know what they are on this particular

issue.

I want to go on record as well as the previous speakers in

commending the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,

Mr. Tobin, for the actions they have taken. It is good to see, they are actions

that we have advocated before, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, we

urged Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Crosbie to take such actions. A few years ago, we

went to Ottawa and met with him and told him then when he talked to us, the

Leader and I about diplomacy, and I remember he said specifically, he had a

meeting upcoming shortly thereafter with the President of Spain and he had hoped

that his meeting would be successful, that he wanted to try diplomacy.

We have all applauded diplomacy to a degree. If diplomacy

works then of course that is the path we should follow but we warned him then

that we did not share his optimism that he would be successful.

MR. SIMMS: I believe your words were -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I did not say Brian, I called him

Prime Minister and we said: you better have more action in your back pocket than

diplomacy. We told him -

MR. SIMMS: You didn't say back pocket.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Arse pocket.

MR. SIMMS: That's right.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You better have it tucked away because

diplomacy will not work with those people, and as I have said before in this

House, I went to Spain and Portugal four or five years ago I guess it was, as

part of a delegation led by the then federal government, to talk to the industry

people in Spain and Portugal and the Premier alluded to it in his speech and

rightfully so.

From the comments and the expressions that he has received

from the people in the European Community when he showed them the facts, and he

told them what their actions were doing, and they just looked you very boldly in

the face as if there is no problem, or say: it's your problem, who created the

mess inside of 200? We did not. That has been their attitude; at the same time

by the way, the very same time as their industry and their people have been

going through the same difficulties as we have.

Fish plants shutting down, less people employed, fishermen

earning less money at the very same time as they were experiencing the same

difficulties as we have been experiencing, is what I couldn't come to grips with

it personally. I said: well, what else do you need to show you how serious the

situation is when your own industry is going through a period of collapse,

because fish landings are going down, because the fish is not there, because you

and us, have over fished? We all have to share the blame, I have said it before.

We have not been all above board either with our fishing practices over the

years, we all know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tobin said that publicly.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We all say it because we know it is

right, but, they just totally ignore the picture. They are still ignoring the

picture even though there are fewer people working processing fish in Spain and

Portugal. I sometimes wonder how it is even viable for them to send their boats

over but we know why it is viable for them, economically how they manage now

because if they didn't have the liner in their nets, the revenues from their

catch wouldn't pay enough to get them ten miles off shore. They wouldn't pay for

the fuel to get them out of sight of the land, so we know now what it is all

about, it is by coming over with the liners and catching the juvenile fish and

still, it is so difficult to impress upon those people that the situation is so

very serious.

I just hope Mr. Tobin and the Prime Minister and the federal

government have success in what they do, we wish them well, we support them, but

I am still not confident that it will happen. I have to say it on record here. I

will have to wait and see what the final solution is to this. I don't know, I

really don't know, what is going to come out of the bag in the final analysis on

this, what the final result will be.

Until then I'm going to be cautious. I've been cautious from

Day 1. I've applauded Brian Tobin for what he did. I didn't go through the same

song-and-dance as some people have on the issue because I wanted to wait and see

in the final analysis how it would filter out. I say that Brian Tobin didn't

have any choice but to give up, not catch, all of our turbot quota in the name

of conservation. As difficult as that is to swallow, that our fishermen will

have less earnings now from fish landings because the European Community

overfished. That is why it is. Our fishermen will have less earnings, our fish

plant workers will process less fish, because the European Community overfished.

Very difficult pill to swallow. But being good Canadians and so responsible, we

will accept it, and we don't have any choice if we really are sincere about

conservation.

But, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, they should

not be allowed to take one more turbot. I'm optimistic that will be the result,

I'm hopeful, but I'm not sure. What else can there be? There certainly can't be

anything else that we can accept. I don't know if - the Premier has probably

talked to the federal minister, the Prime Minister, on the issue, and I don't

want him to share the content of the discussions with us, but certainly that

must be the end result. You've overfished, we are going to catch less fish

because you overfished, to balance it off so we don't exceed that number that we

believe is sustainable, but you don't catch another fish. That is what the

bottom line has to be in all this. I just hope that we - and I'm sure the

Premier and his ministers will push the Prime Minister and Mr. Tobin and the

federal government to the hilt on that because nothing else is acceptable for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and for Atlantic Canadians. Nothing else is

acceptable. Anything less than that, by the way, will be a failure. I just hope

at the end of the day that is the result.

I want to commend the Premier and the Member for St. John's

East, and everyone. I want to commend everyone for (inaudible) this is so

important. As I said, it is so important, it is so big an issue for this

Province, to the future of this Province, and our rural communities

particularly. Of course, as our rural communities go, so do the urban

communities. If our rural communities collapse the whole provincial economy will

collapse. That is why this issue is so important to all of us here in this

Province. We as elected people, as elected members, have to continuously debate

and talk about this, and not get tired of it and say: How many more times can

you say that, how many more times do I have to listen to Bud Hulan say this, how

many more times do we have to listen to the Premier say that, or Len Simms or

Jack Harris or John Efford? Whoever. We've got to keep saying it and we've got

to keep debating it and talking about it, because if we don't we won't have

anyone here to talk about. That is how serious it is for us, and we all realize

that.

I just want to go on record as supporting the motion as put

forward by the Premier, categorically supporting it. I wish the federal

government all the success in the world as they negotiate with the European

Community. I wish them all the luck in the world. They are going to need it.

They are not dealing with what we consider to be responsible people when it

comes to this particular issue. They are not responsible. They have not shown to

be responsible to date. We just hope that with what has transpired in the last

two weeks will bring them to their senses. I know one thing, it has had a

tremendous impact across the world. To our benefit, to our advantage, I feel. As

the Leader of the Opposition said, a picture is worth a thousand words, there is

no doubt. It tells it all when you see the size of those turbot and you see the

liners in the net. It tells it all. I think what Brian Tobin did by bringing

that vessel in here will certainly prove great dividends to us down the road. I

just want to go on record as totally, categorically supporting the motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take a few

minutes to express the point of view also on this matter, especially from the

environmental point of view. This is what this is all about: Conservation and

the principles of sustainable development. This case just further points out

that we see another resource off our coast which is being fished to oblivion, to

pure devastation, and the European Economic Community, which is part of the

civilized world, has been ignoring its own guidelines, its own requirements, and

has been intent basically on fishing out the sea. The actions taken by Brian

Tobin and the federal government, and the Prime Minister, can only be commended

from an environmental point of view, can only be commended from a sustainable

development point of view, can only be commended from a saving of the

communities of Atlantic Canada point of view, and saving of a fish resource for

the worlds point of view. This is a world food resource, the devastation that is

off our coast because of a lack of following basic principles of farming fish we

now see the devastation that has been wrought on the Province, on Atlantic

Canada.

Canada has learned its lessons. We have learned our lessons

from not managing the resource properly. We have put moratoriums on. We have

people in our Province wondering about their existence in trying to create an

alternative employment for existence. We have the national round table on the

environment working with the provincial round table of the environment in this

Province now doing hearings around the Province in the small fishing

communities, talking to them about the sustainability of those communities. I

never thought we would see the day, and I do not think a lot of members in this

House thought they would see the day where we would have to be looking that hard

and looking that long at what we done, what we have been involved with in the

past in our fishery, and to watch foreign interests still not paying any

attention to the devastation, to the ecological nightmare that has been created

because of these practices.

The federal government deserves our full commendation. Thank

God for John Chretien. Thank God for Brian Tobin and the intestinal fortitude of

that government to deal with the issue now, finally to get at the issue, to deal

with the fact that conservation principles have not been followed, have been

totally ignored. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the EU to wake up and smell the

coffee. We are living with all the problems of the ignorance they are showing

towards this world food resource. It is more of an environmental issue than any

issue we have around us today and our communities have been suffering for it.

Let the word go out today that we are not going to have it

anymore and that the federal government is going to manage that resource for the

world, not just for us but for the world. Canada has been very kind in its

administration of the 200 mile limit. We have been very kind with other

countries, in allowing them to fish in our waters and to help manage the

fishery, but how can we continue to be kind when they ignore basic principles of

life. It is heartening to see the attitude now being displayed by the federal

government in its short existence in Ottawa. It is heartening to see it, and I

think a lot of people in Canada have come on our side from an environmental

point of view, and all realize that this cannot continue.

Mr. Speaker, I was reading a release a German federal member

of Parliament made and I just want to read a couple of lines of it. His press

release came over the wire on March 10. He goes on and he says: it distracts

from the actual scandal, the ecological and economic devastation of the waters

off the Coast of Newfoundland through overfishing, particularly by EU member

countries. He then goes on to explain the process and he talks about fishing

piracy of the EU and the way they have ignored their own regulations and that

they only do things by voluntary co-operation.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I just want to end off by saying this, his

second last paragraph states: it cannot therefore be tolerated that the ocean is

fished empty in both an economic and ecologically senseless manner against the

decisions of NAFO while Canadian fishermen who are observing the conditions for

conservation lose their livelihoods. I think that sums its up, Mr. Speaker. From

a conservation point of view the federal government has carried forward the

proper action.

Sheila Copps was on the news yesterday advocating from an

environmental point of view the same issue and from here on in the EU must

understand that this issue is about the conservation of a world resource, and I

again endorse the comments and the move by this government today and by all

members of the House.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, would like a few words in support of the resolution

to commend the federal government for actions it has taken with regard to the

turbot dispute in the European Union.

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised, and indeed pleasantly

surprised, that Canada did finally move to arrest a foreign vessel outside 200,

a foreign vessel that was flying its own flag and doing its own thing regardless

of what either the rules of NAFO laid down, or what the rules of common sense or

conservation with regard to any living stock laid down. It is about time it

happened, and I am pleased that the federal government did what it did; however,

as things progressed over the last little while I was somewhat concerned when

there was talk that a Canadian delegation was going over to talk to the

Europeans about this, and that the turbot quota assigned to Canada was somehow

negotiable in return for some sort of promise of good behaviour from the

Europeans. I don't agree with that, to be quite frank with you.

I do believe that Canada acted within its moral - if not

legal - rights, and to some extent international law as regards to the sea is an

evolutionary process and things are not always worked out in advance, and one

country or another has to take the lead, has to take a bold stand and make

itself be heard and make itself count on the world scene. To the extent that

Canada has done that, I commend the federal government; however, I do have

concerns that once the diplomats get involved they will tend to blunt the

effort, tend to blunt the determination of our national government in dealing

with the Europeans.

The bottom line is simply that NAFO set quotas. Europe

generally and most cavalierly decides not to obey those quotas, and there is no

enforcement mechanism outside 200 to require them to obey the quotas at all. Out

of this situation has to come either the continued arrest of foreign vessels

that continue to fish in violation of the rules, or some sort of real

enforcement mechanism - with teeth - that will force European vessels to obey

quotas laid down by NAFO, of which they are a member. To date neither has really

happened, and I do hope that one or the other does happen.

As I said, it causes me some concern to have made a very

tough stand and then send our diplomats to Europe with some of our fish to lay

on the table as some sort of token for the Europeans to somehow start behaving

themselves. Mr. Speaker, I have severe doubts about the usefulness of trading

fish for good behaviour, but certainly if that is the game you are into then any

such trade would have to come with guarantees of good behaviour and guarantees

of enforcement of NAFO quotas, and to date we haven't seen that. Like the

Opposition House Leader earlier, I have some concerns as to the ultimate outcome

of this particular thing.

Canada got off on a good footing. I hope it keeps on that

good footing, doesn't buckle under, can stay the course over the long term.

There are economic interests in central Canada having to do with trade with the

European Union in manufactured and high tech goods that can impact negatively on

the determination of the federal government to stay the course, and I do hope

that Canada will see fit this time to exercise its jurisdiction on the world

stage on behalf of the half-million poor souls on this Island, if for no other

reason than to show the world that it really is a real country and that we just

won't put up a token fight. We will fight for real, and we will fight for long.

Like I say, Mr. Speaker, it remains to be seen what the

ultimate outcome will be, but I sincerely hope that the actions that the feds

have carried out so far, as commendable as they are, will continue into the

future, and that we will have a resolution which sees some enforcement with real

teeth on the high seas. Otherwise, we will have to fight this war year after

year, stock by stock, until there is absolutely nothing left in the ocean.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the few minutes

that I have allotted to me to speak I want to put a little different aspect from

the previous speakers in representation, using my district, the District of Port

de Grave, as an example of all fishing communities around the Island.

Very simply, there has been a lot of frustration in the minds

of the fishermen for a number of years in those fishing communities. A lot of

dismay in the individual families. When your investment is up to anywhere from

$500,000 to $1 million each, that life investment into that fishing industry,

and you talk and you tell the fisheries people, DFO, the politicians of the day

what is happening on the Grand Banks, nobody really listens.

I think last week was a relief of that frustration that

they've been holding for a number of years. Because they've witnessed over the

years inside the 200-mile limit the Spanish and the Portuguese fishing trawlers

side by side taking fish out of the water, and they kept telling the DFO

inspectors that not only were they fishing inside the 200-mile limit and outside

the 200-mile limit at the same time, they were using the liners in their nets.

That was the result of what the individual fishermen had told the inspectors. As

they saw their livelihood being taken away from them over the years, and as they

saw fish plant after fish plant close, they told, they put the correct

information to the politicians, to the DFO, to all the enforcement agents, but

nobody listened.

I'm going to just run down very quickly the example of what

it had on my district, the last ten or fifteen years what I've had to witness in

my district, the effect of the overfishing on the Grand Banks. Because we say:

Why would Port de Grave be affected by the overfishing on the Grand Banks?

They've proven over the years that when the fish stocks have been reduced to the

extent that they couldn't fish out in the bays they could go out to the Grand

Banks in the small fishing boats that they have, some sixty-five feet - or

sixty-four, eleven-and-a-half inches - and catch the fish. They've proved that

very well over the last couple of years. They've went out 350 miles and

retrieved swordfish, shark, tuna and all other species of fish, and done quite

well by doing that, so they were very much affected by the overfishing.

In my district in Port de Grave there are fish plants that we

had in full operation pretty well on a full yearly basis. Three of them