March 13,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 6

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding with the business of the day, on behalf of

hon. members we would like to welcome, first of all, some guests from Iceland,

sitting in the Speaker's Gallery. We welcome specifically Commander Helgi

Hallvardsson and his wife, Mrs. Hallvardsson. Mr. Hallvardsson is Commander of

the Icelandic Coast Guard. Also, we would like to welcome Mr. Arthur Bogason.

Mr. Bogason is the head of the Small Vessel Association in Iceland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We would like, also, to extend a warm

welcome today to fifty-five Grade IX students from the Amalgamated Academy of

Bay Roberts, and they are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Ed Russell and Mr.

Harold Stanford.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

question this morning for the Minister of Fisheries. Yesterday, the minister

told the House that the government had recommended a total allowable catch for

Northern Cod of 100,000 metric tons, which included, and I quote from the

minister's words in Hansard yesterday: "an allowance made for the foreign

illegal fishing... something like 47,000 metric tons."

That translates into a 1992 catch limit of 53,000 metric tons

for the entire Atlantic inshore and offshore Northern Cod fishery, a 60 per cent

cut from the 127,000 metric tons caught last year. Now, what we have to remember

is that there has been approximately 14,000 tons of Northern Cod already caught

by the offshore fleets. So 13,000 of the 53,000 has already been caught, which

leaves 40,000 metric tons for the inshore. That is devastating.

Having made the recommendation, I want to ask the minister -

most surely, the minister must have prepared for the consequences of the

Province's recommendation and he has refused to answer the questions before. So

I ask him, How did the minister propose that his recommendation be implemented?

Did he propose a complete shutdown of the offshore trawler fishery for all fish

species, doing away with the by-catch for the flounder fishery? Did he propose

to shut down the longliner offshore fishery? And what limits did he ask to be

placed on the traditional inshore fishery?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, what I said in the House

yesterday, I think, indicated that the Province recommended to the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans that there be a total allowable catch this year of roughly

100,000 metric tons, consistent, of course, with the best known scientific

advice. We suggested that there would be an allowance made that we factor into

that amount an amount for foreign overfishing. I said that last year, 1991,

foreign overfishing accounted for some 47,000 metric tons. In our

recommendation, in a letter that I will table here this morning, we suggested

foreign overfishing. We estimated that up until the time when that could happen,

say the end of March, foreign overfishing would account for around probably

15,000 tons. So we said you should factor in that amount, which would then leave

a substantial amount for the inshore allocation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in my letter to the Minister of Fisheries,

we summarized the discussion that I had with him on February 18, I think it was.

I outlined what the inshore harvest has been for the past ten years. In fact, I

have the figures here. 'It should be noted,' the letter says, 'that the average

landings in the period from 1978-1991 in the inshore was 85,000 tons.' We

projected that, given the present circumstances, the inshore landings this year

would be in the order of 60,000 - 70,000 metric tons. Now the hon. gentleman can

could just as easily have put a TAC of 300,000 metric tons. The fact of the

matter is that the fish just are not there, thanks to the mismanagement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CARTER: - mismanagement of the friends and colleagues

and soul mates of the gentlemen opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to remind the minister that he is getting rather

lengthy now, and that ministers are supposed to be brief. I ask the minister to

clue up very quickly, please.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, let me point out that from

1988-1992, in a four-year period, thanks to the mismanagement of their friends

in Ottawa, the Total Allowable Catch has been cut by 55 per cent; 146,000 tons

have been cut from the TAC, and that has cost this Province 5,600 jobs.

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

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

Any way the minister tries to cut the pie, with a recommended

TAC of 100,000 tons, 14,000 of which has already been caught, leaves 86,000.

Factor in the 47,000 tons that he says should be factored in because of illegal

fishing by the foreigners, and what does that leave you for the inshore fishery

for this Province? - around 40,00 metric tons. Now, if they caught 65,000 last

year, this will leave them 25,000 less metric tons to catch this year. That is

what it does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: That is what you recommended.

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, my question to the minister: In his

proposal, did he address the issue of the number of people in the fishing

industry who would lose jobs or have their earnings significantly reduced as a

consequence of his recommendation? Certainly, God, in making such a

recommendation, the minister addressed the issue of other impacts on the

provincial economy, as well. Can he tell us how many jobs would have been lost

and what his plans were to address those losses?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yes, we did address the

consequences of a drastic reduction in the TAC. In my letter, which I will table

this morning, we pointed out to the federal minister the kind of action that we

felt should be taken and, at the same time, we offered to join with the federal

government as we offered to do, by the way, two years ago when the Province

offered to pick up the tab for 20 per cent of a $547 million response program,

over $100 million.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen opposite are obviously trying

to take attention off the real problem, and they are getting up in the House now

trying to defend what their friends in Ottawa are doing when, in fact, they

should be up condemning their federal soul mates.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. members that they are not supposed to

interrupt members. There are a couple of members who insist and speak rather

loudly, and the Chair is going to have to deal with that in the appropriate

manner. So hon. members know that they are not supposed to interrupt. That is

the key.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the history of the present

government is an embarrassing one, I am sure, to the members opposite.

AN HON. MEMBER: Always.

MR. CARTER: They have consistently ignored scientific

advice. They have gone ahead and set their own quotas, contrary to the proper

advice they have been getting from their scientists, and now, Newfoundlanders

are paying the price for it. These men opposite, rather than trying to shift the

blame to the Province, should be up shoulder to shoulder with the Province

trying to get from Ottawa the kind of response program that is going to be

necessary to tide us over in this very critical period.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We in no way have

ever attempted to defend the actions of the federal government, let me say to

the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MATTHEWS: But, having recommended a total allowable

catch of 100,000 metric tons -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: - including that which is now being taken

by foreigners. Now, this recommendation might very well be accepted by the

federal minister in September, I say to the minister, that certainly, God, he

has made plans to provide for those thousands of fishermen, fish plant workers,

and trawlermen who will be affected by the minister's recommendation. Where is

his plan, and will he table it in the Legislature today?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely incredible,

to think that a member of this House, a Newfoundlander, given the circumstances

that brought on this crisis in the fishing industry, mismanagement on the part

of the Federal Government, total mismanagement, everybody must agree to that,

yet they expect the Province with a budget of $3.5 billion to pick up the tab

for problems caused by the national government who have a budget of $155

billion, a government that can pour money into the western farmers, into the

potato farmers of PEI without batting an eyelash, then they expect us to pick up

the tab and to find a solution to a problem of which we are no part whatever, a

problem caused by mismanagement on the part of the national government. I say

shame on them.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I planned

to direct to the Minister of Justice but I guess he does not sit in the House. I

was then going to ask the question to the Premier but he is not here. The

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is not here and the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation is not here, so I think I will ask it to the

minister who is always acting, Mr. Speaker, and that is to the President of

Treasury Board, does the Province use any kind of a local preference guideline

in awarding tenders for Government contracts?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, because of the noise I am not

sure I got the question right, but I think the question he asked was: are we

following local preference guidelines in awarding contracts. The answer, Mr.

Speaker, is, yes.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it was not because of the noise

he did not hear me, it was because of the disgust he had for the answer by the

Minister of Fisheries that he did not hear me. I asked that question because

there is a long list of printing contracts that used to be done in this Province

that have now been awarded to mainland firms. I am talking about projects such

as the provincial road map, provincial park stickers, information booklets,

tourism literature, Department of Education publications, the Hughes Commission.

Why are those kind of contracts which once created jobs in this Province and put

money in the pockets of Newfoundlanders now being used to help out the people in

mainland Canada?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is a fairly complex question

that was asked and the answer is not going to be necessarily complex. The member

should know, he was sitting in Cabinet and was still there then, our local

preference policy allows for a maximum of 15 per cent allowance be given to

local companies and that varies from zero to 15 per cent, depending on the

percentage of local Newfoundland content.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that would take care of instances where

tender bids are within 15 per cent. The local preference policy does not say

that regardless of price the company with the greatest local content gets the

contract, that is not what the local preference policy says. It gives simply a

15 per cent allowance, the maximum of 15 per cent allowance for local

preference, and, Mr. Speaker, the local preference policy was applied.

Where a bid comes in that is 20 per cent or 30 per cent or 50

per cent, there is a 30 per cent or 50 per cent difference, then the contract

has to be awarded to the low bidder simply to protect the integrity of this

Province, to ensure that we get the best value for money because there is

another side to it which has to do with increase in taxes if we overspend, so,

Mr. Speaker, the local preference policy is being applied and this of course

works in reverse. We have a lot of Newfoundland firms getting business outside

the Province too, and if they were subject to a complete ban in terms of bidding

on outside projects, then a lot of Newfoundland businesses would be in trouble,

so I would like to inform the hon. member that there is no such thing as a

barrier set up and no business being allowed to be done outside this Province.

The local preference policy is sensible and it allows a 15

per cent preference and that is being applied in these contracts.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the answer the minister just gave

is not going to do much for the twelve union people who have just been laid off

and also the non-union people who have been laid off by publishing companies,

some of whom are here this morning. That answer is not going too put much bread

and butter on their tables -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and I want to hear the

question.

MR. TOBIN: Does the Government know, Mr. Speaker, what it

is really doing? Surely the loss of benefits to the Province more than offsets

whatever price break the Government gets from mainland companies, and will the

minister and the Government stop acting like penny-pinching bookkeepers and

start behaving like government looking after the welfare of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the sheer hypocrisy that we have

just witnessed is absolutely amazing. Here we have an ex Cabinet Minister who

was part of the government that operated under the same local preference policy

that we are now operating under, here is such an individual suggesting that at

this point in time we set up total barriers and do no business with anybody

outside this Province. It is a disgusting show of opportunism, Mr. Speaker, and

that is all it is, to attempt to grab a headline or something.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs but, in his absence, I direct it to the President of

Treasury Board.

It is very clear that many municipalities and property

owners, particularly farmers, are finding extreme hardships as a direct result

of the amalgamation that took place in the St. John's region. Is the Government

prepared to put in place any program to assist these municipalities and

individuals with the extreme extra costs that they are being shouldered with, or

is Government prepared to admit that the whole thing was a drastic mistake and

reconsider the whole issue?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there are obviously

going to be problems as taxation changes in any area. However, let me say from

the outset that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has indicated

he is quite willing to sit down and talk to these people and see what can be

worked out. In the interim, as the hon. member will know, the people involved

have had a meeting with the St. John's City Council, which is really where the

problem is, and they came away from that meeting, according to the news report

this morning, satisfied that their problem was being looked into. The fact that

they are sitting on land that is not like other land and is, in fact, land that

is frozen and not of commercial value, it is land that is zoned agricultural, is

frozen and would not have the same value as ordinary land that could be sold for

development and so on, this hopefully will be taken into account by the City

Council of St. John's.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has addressed one

very small component of the problem that no doubt my colleague from Kilbride

will want to deal with, dealing with the farmers over there. My question related

more to municipalities. Municipalities in this region have found that their

costs have increased drastically as a result of amalgamation.

Let me give the Minister some examples, Mr. Speaker. The fine

City of Mount Pearl, a 27 per cent increase in the cost of solid waste disposal

at Robin Hood Bay this year, 27 per cent. A 13 per cent increase, $90,000

additionally, for water supplied from the region this year.

The Town of Paradise, $600,000 increased cost for water and

sewer. That is what they will be charged by the City of St. John's. Six hundred

thousand dollars for fire protection. One point two million dollars additional

cost to the Town of Paradise. If I could just take a moment: areas like Topsail

Pond, Three Island Pond, St. Thomas', and other areas that do not have water and

sewer, and cannot hope to have water and sewer for many years, are being

assessed at a rate of $300 per house by the City of St. John's for water and

sewer.

Now will the Minister not admit that these are totally

unrealistic, unreasonable, and the most stupid amalgamation concept any

government ever dreamed up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the affect of

amalgamation on communities around the Province - the member started out talking

about around the Province, and then he narrows in on a couple of examples right

here. In terms of the affect of amalgamation around the Province and the costs,

the services that are being provided have to be provided regardless, whether

there is one great big municipality in the whole Province or whether there are

5,000 municipalities in the Province. The same services have to be provided and

they are going to have a certain cost attached to them. We have to realize that

if we are getting a service we have to pay that cost.

Now, if you want to get into some of the details that the

member mentions, and he mentioned quite a few, it has been common throughout the

Province for a number of years - while the hon. Member opposite was sitting in

Treasury Board or in Finance - it has been a common situation around the

Province for years that individuals who are part of a community pay part of the

total cost of the servicing of that community. If there is a

section of the

community that did not have water and sewer then they are obligated by the

Municipalities Act that the hon. Members operated under opposite, to still pay

the same taxes as everybody else, because the total taxes in the community will

then provide that water and sewer to the areas that do not have it.

So this is something that has been in the Municipalities Act

for years. I operated under it when I was a municipal councillor, and the hon.

Member opposite should know, he should be familiar with it, as I am.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes, he says he wrote it. He should be very

familiar with these sections of the Municipalities Act that insist that in a

community taxation be fair and equitable. So, Mr. Speaker, the answer is that if

the services are being provided in an area, in a community, then everybody pays

for those services.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Minister I am

familiar with the Act. General property tax is applied across the municipality -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary. I gave him some leeway

the last time. I would like to hear the supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, by way of a

preamble -

MR. SPEAKER: No

preamble on supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: General property taxes are applied across

the Province, water and sewer assessments are applied only when service is

provided. The cases that I mentioned are not.

Speaking of additional costs, Mr. Speaker. The Government has

stolen the Mount Pearl fire department away and given it to the City of St.

John's at an additional cost of more than $700,000 from a city that was quite

prepared to pay for the services that they could have provided to themselves.

Will the Minister tell me. The City of St. John's has just hired six

firefighters back that had been previously laid off. What assurance will the

Minister give us that the thirty firefighters who were trained by the City of

Mount Pearl, highly skilled, highly qualified, will be given some preference in

hiring, and that the City will not go and hire untrained people and begin a

whole new training program again?

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

MR. BAKER: I can give absolutely no assurance, Mr.

Speaker, because they are operating under The City of St. John's Act, and the

City of St. John's obviously has control over the City of St. John's. I would

also like to remind the hon. Member that these individuals accepted the jobs, on

condition - knowing full well that these were very short-term jobs, and this was

the condition under which they accepted them.

I would also like to point out to the hon. member that all

these things he is talking about associated with amalgamation on the northeast

Avalon are subject to a review process. There is a team in place looking at the

affects of the amalgamation of the whole northeast Avalon area. If the hon.

member, instead of getting all excited and so on, would wait until the proper

process runs its course, then we will see what happens.

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

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

a question for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, and I would just like

to say that all these problems should have been addressed in a feasibility study

had there been a proper feasibility study done. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture is aware, I am sure, of the problems farmers who have

just been annexed to the City of St. John's are having with the tax problem.

Mr. Speaker, what plans do the minister and his department

have to try and help these farmers deal with the City of St. John's in

alleviating some of these unreasonable business taxes?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his

question. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are aware. The minister and the department is

aware of the difficulties that are being created or at least appear to be

created for the farmers, particularly in the Goulds area. We are monitoring it.

We are very concerned about anything that has an adverse affect on farmers or

that in any way causes them problems with regard to continuing their present

level of business or denies them the ability to expand.

Up to this point in time the farmers in the Goulds nor

elsewhere on the northeast Avalon have approached the department or me

officially. I know there have been meetings, and I know there was a meeting with

the City Council yesterday and there was a meeting prior to that. I have had my

officials sit in on those meetings so that we are aware of exactly what is

happening. We take some comfort, Mr. Speaker, out of the meeting yesterday of

the City Council where the council did indicate to the satisfaction of the

farmers, I understand, that they are aware of the problem and the difficulties

that will be created if the farmers are overtaxed, and that they expect to get

an acceptable resolution to the problem.

So, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time we are watching the

process work. When and if the farmers approach the Government or myself as the

minister then we will look at what is indeed appropriate for us to do in this

situation.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What came out of

yesterday's meeting, Mr. Speaker, was a commitment by the Mayor and the Deputy

Mayor to ask the rest of council if they will defer taxes, keeping it on hold

for six months.

AN HON. MEMBER: A six month period.

MR. R. AYLWARD: There was nothing resolved, Mr. Speaker.

Nothing whatsoever resolved in this issue. They are just going to hold the taxes

for six months.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to inform the minister, there have

been farms in the City of St. John's before amalgamation. There were several

farms: Torbay Road, Blackmarsh Road, and a couple of other areas have farms.

They were never taxed this way. It is only since amalgamation that this new tax

- this is not an existing tax, this is a new tax on farmers. The farmers that

were in the City did not pay before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member is on a supplementary and should get to the

question.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the

minister now is he prepared today to meet with the Minister of Municipal Affairs

and prepare an amendment to the Municipalities Act and the City of St. John's

Act to deal with this issue the same as the property tax issue is dealt with in

the Municipalities Act and the City of St. John's Act now?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as this particular problem

unfolds this Government will do anything that is appropriate. I will meet with

any minister if it is appropriate, we are waiting to see, Mr. Speaker. I would

prefer the City Council to work out a resolution that is acceptable to the

farmers in the Goulds, in particular Kilbride, or wherever on the avalon within

the boundaries of St. John's. But, Mr. Speaker, when it becomes appropriate or

necessary I will meet with any minister and discuss anything that will help

resolve this situation.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question

is to the Minister of Health. I am sure that the minister is aware that he

received a letter from a parent in the community of Rigolet. I would ask the

minister if he is aware of the fluoride overdosing in the community of Rigolet?

Tests have shown that there are high levels of fluoride in the water supply. Was

the Minister aware of this before the parent wrote him three weeks ago?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

on a supplementary.

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

Would the Minister advise us why officials with the

Department of Health who worked with the Grenfell Regional Health Services knew

about this overdosing for the last number of years but never advised the people

of Rigolet or the school officials?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, officials in Rigolet were

advised.

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

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, my last supplementary. The

Minister says the people in Rigolet were advised. They were advised in December

of 1991, three months ago. It was the first time they were advised about this

overdosing of fluoride in the water supply.

Now, would the Minister do as requested by this parent in

Rigolet and have an investigation into why this went on for the last number of

years, and what is the effect on the children in the community?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there was a well drilled in

Rigolet in 1983. In 1985 the Grenfell Hospital decided to make fluoride

treatment available to the children in Rigolet. Before this treatment was

applied it was normal practice to test the water to ensure that there was no

surplus of fluoride in the water. So the water was tested in early 1985 and it

was discovered that the well did contain an extreme amount of fluoride. The test

was so high that it was unbelievable that so much fluoride could exist in

drinking water. People at the Grenfell Hospital thought that there must have

been something wrong with the way the test was done. So later in the following

year, before they gave the fluoride, they did two more tests and they discovered

that the fluoride tests were way down. It seems that for some reason the

fluoride in this well fluctuates up and down. Quite a few tests subsequent to

the first one revealed that the amount of fluoride was indeed not extreme.

After convincing themselves that the fluoride was not extreme

they began to give the fluoride treatment to the children in the Rigolet area.

Recently it has come to light that the amount of fluoride has indeed gone up in

that well in Rigolet. The Grenfell has stopped giving fluoride treatments. They

have advised certain age groups not to drink the water, they have advised

pregnant women not to drink the water and they have advised children in a

certain age group not to drink the water.

Mr. Speaker, over the past months there has been quite a lot

of attention given to this, both by officials in the Department of Health and by

officials who work with the Grenfell Regional Health Association. The difference

between the way things are carried out in the Department of Health and the way

the hon. member would like to carry them out is every time we test a well or

every time we close a well or every time we do something we do not get up on the

rooftops and shout and try to get media attention for it. We try to solve the

problem, Mr. Speaker, and not play politics with peoples' lives. We try to deal

with the problem.

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

There is time for a short supplementary.

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

I guess the Minister is aware that an independent dentist

recently went into Rigolet and tested thirty children in the school, and each

one of those thirty children had from mild to extreme overdosing of fluoride.

Now, would the Minister do the honourable thing and have an investigation into

this episode?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have the results of the tests

that were done with the children. It is enamel mottling of the teeth. There were

eight students who were questionable, there were fourteen who were very mild,

there were three who were mild, four moderate and five were severe. The Grenfell

Regional Health Services are taking steps to deal with this problem, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Enterprise

Corporation Act, I would like to table the financial statements, covering a

twelve-month period from April 1990 to March 31, 1991. It only cover the last

three months, though, for Enterprise Corporation as the new corporation. The

previous nine months will incorporate NLDC and the transitional period. There is

no picture in that one.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Fisheries

Loan Act I table here the annual report of the Fisheries Loan Board for the

fiscal year 1990-1991.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

the following resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that Canada immediately extend management

jurisdiction over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

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

Placentia West.

Order, please!

The Minister of Fisheries is standing on a point of order?

I have two members - I ask one member to sit. I am

recognizing the hon. minister, asking if he is on a point of order, because I

recognized the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I was on petitions, but the

minister wants permission to go back to Answers to Questions for Which Notice

has been Given. Does the House agree to do that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I want to table here, a copy of

my letter to my federal counterpart, Mr. Crosbie, dated February 21, in which we

have outlined the Province's position with respect to the 1992 management plan.

Petitions

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

West.

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

I have a petition that I would like to present this morning.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation is very much aware of this petition. I have discussed it both

with him and with his deputy minister who have been involved in it. I wish he

were here because he is familiar with it in terms of giving me the answers that

are needed. Anyway, I will just go through with this.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He is meeting with the council in Goose

Bay trying to set up (inaudible) for Ed Roberts.

MR. TOBIN: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that he is

legitimately away, I have no doubt about that. But the minister is very familiar

with this. He has been involved in it, as has his deputy minister, because I

brought it to their attention. And I must say, I am satisfied with the amount of

involvement and support I have seen from the minister and the deputy minister

regarding this petition already.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear

that this petition was sent in to me from Marystown this week; it was faxed in

and we have, here, some of the signatures. Attached to this, I have, Mr.

Speaker, approximately 1200 more signatures that I have discussed with the

minister, and I will be presenting the additional signatures to him with this

petition.

Mr. Speaker, the prayer of this petition is to the hon. House

of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative Session convened. The petition of the

undersigned Marystown fish plant workers and the surrounding areas - those are

the people who are employed in it, and rather than getting really into the

petition, Mr. Speaker, basically, the concern is that the employees at the

Marystown shipyard and the Marystown fish plant change their shifts at 2:00

o'clock in the morning, and the employees of the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation do not go to work until 4:00 or 4:30 in the morning. So, what

is happening, and has happened quite recently, is that the employees in the fish

plant, in particular, when they were ready to change their shift and go home to

Red Harbour, Boat Harbour, Baine Harbour and these places, the roads weren't

open.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Grand Bank.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and in Grand Bank, Garnish, and the

Frenchmen's Cove area it was the same, they weren't open, and the employees had

to stay at the plant and be put up, mull around until 7:30 or 8:00 o'clock in

the morning until they could go home.

There is also a touch to this petition, Mr. Speaker, in that

there are letters of support from Fishery Products International in Marystown,

letters from the Fishermen's Union who employ the union representing the

fishermen's groups, dealing specifically and supporting their request. I have

also had a letter, Mr. Speaker, that was given to me by the employees. I will

just touch on parts of it that basically say, 'We, the employees of the

Marystown area, have great concern for our safety while travelling on the Burin

Peninsula Highway from Boat Harbour, Parkers Cove, Rushoon, Red Harbour and

other areas to the Marystown fish plant at Mooring Cove, and we feel that the

snow clearing, salting, sanding and time

schedule are inadequate to meet our

needs. Under the new regulations, work crews, snow clearing equipment and others

do not come -' it would take me too long, Mr. Speaker, to really read the

letter, but the complaint that I outlined is that they don't really get out

until such time as the employees have been finished work for two and one-half

hours. There are some incidents mentioned here: 'On February 26, our shift ended

at 2:30 a.m. The road was covered with black ice - frozen slush which fell

before 10:30 p.m. the previous evening. No snow clearing attempt had been made

to remove the -' the typing on this is not great, and it is hard to read.

Anyway, they went through several channels to try to get the matter straightened

out, and it was 5:30 in the morning before the road was cleared.

So what happened is that the people - and it is not just on

one occasion. This has been going on for the past couple of years. This has been

going on since this government decided to lay off people and cut back.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Trans-Canada is in a terrible state.

MR. TOBIN: This problem has been going on since this

government decided to lay off people and to cut back -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true. Don't be so foolish!

AN HON. MEMBER: It's true. It's true.

MR. TOBIN: It is the truth, Mr. Speaker. this Government

cut back, cut funds, fired people who worked for the Government, and created the

problem that is now causing the people from down over the road in my district or

from Baine Harbour to have to go -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members again from both sides that in

presentation of petitions there is supposed to be no debate, but to keep our

remarks to the petition, signatures, allegations in the petition. I do not want

to take up unnecessarily the time of the hon. member.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. R. AYLWARD: You need to get the Minister of Labour

out of here, Mr. Speaker, he is disrupting the House.

MR. TOBIN: I say the words of this petition clearly

outline, clearly demonstrate to everyone who sits in this House, that it is

because of Government cutbacks that this petition is being presented today, Mr.

Speaker.

Having said that, I want to say that I have met with the

Minister of Works Services and Transportation and with his deputy minister, and

we have discussed it. I firmly believe that he is genuinely concerned to try to

resolve the situation. His deputy minister, I believe, has already been in

contact with the person who organized the petition. I will give him credit for

that; but for the Minister of Labour to say that it is not because of government

cutbacks - no one has been laid off - you fired 3,000 last year, boy. That is

the problem! People's lives are being put on the line as a result of it. The

people from my district - their lives have been jeopardized because of the

actions of this Government, and in particular the Minister of Labour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that I

hope government will act upon this request and provide care and concern for the

people who use those roads after their shift change at 2:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

I thought someone opposite would have stood in their place to

at least react to the petition. Whether they will after I finish I do not know.

As my colleague has alluded, this is a very serious situation. We have

approximately 1,200 signatures on a petition that really is calling for improved

snow clearing and safety precautions by the Department of Works Services and

Transportation so that they can get to and from work.

The Marystown fish plant is one of the few fish plants left

operating in this Province. As a matter of fact, only this morning I heard they

are going down now for two or three weeks - closing again. So there is a very

serious problem with representing a district of the Burin Peninsula - Grand Bank

- where there are hundreds of employees who have to go to the Marystown fish

plant for work - more, of course, since the Grand Bank FPI plant has closed.

There are approximately 100 from the Town of Grand Bank, itself, now working at

Marystown, and road conditions at times are pretty hazardous. There are two

reasons for that, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, if

he does not know. One is because there were layoffs and there is now only one

shift operating the snow clearing equipment, the flyers, and so on, in the area.

Their regular shifts start at four o'clock in the morning and as my colleague

has said, the employees get off at 2:00, so they either leave and take chances

on going off the road or wait until the snow clearing measures are taken.

The other problem, Mr. Speaker, is, quite often the depots

put their shifts on and keep them on and work them and work them, until the men

on the flyers and snow plows can't work anymore. They have to be taken off for

rest. So, there are two problems here, safety problems. And I know full well

that many of the snow plow operators are on the road at times when they should

not be, because they have been on too long. I have known cases where flyers have

gone off the road because the operators have been on too long in bad weather

conditions. So there are the two problems, and all we are doing here in

presenting this petition and supporting the petition as I am doing, is asking

the government to have a look at that particular situation that affects those

employees.

There are far too many people unemployed in this Province at

present, we all know that and if something can be done, a corrective measure can

be taken to at least facilitate those who are left working in our fishing

industry, to get to and from work, then I don't think that is asking this

government for too much. And that is basically what those employees at the

Marystown fish plant are asking for, it is what the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, in presenting the petition, is asking for, and it is what I am asking for.

I am pleased to hear that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has

at least been made aware of it and it looks as if he is certainly considering

some positive action to it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as

supporting the petition and ask the government for consideration.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This, obviously, is a

problem that is specific to one area of the Province. The petition, I believe,

has been delivered to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation and

they are now working on the problem. I would like to thank the hon. member and

the people who did the petition for bringing the matter to our attention.

Outside of a few comments about the situation, just about

everything that both members opposite said is not true. First of all, this

situation is not a result of any cutbacks. What happens is, we do have a shift

on, but there are arrangements made in the various regions of the Province so

that where need exists, workers can be put on to clear roads, and it is up to

the local foreman, and so on. So there are provisions made for work at times

other than the normal shift time. There are a number of places in the Province

where they have the shift changes but normally it is at midnight and at eight

o'clock in the morning or something like that, and the usual work shift covers

those eventualities. However, this is a special case, I am sure the department

is working on it and I am sure there is a solution.

I would like to comment on the fact, now that it has been

brought to our attention, we will do something about it, but I would also like

to point out that I am very pleased that these people who signed this petition,

finally brought this matter to the attention of the two members opposite,

because, obviously, this situation has been going on for some time and this is

the first they have heard of it. I am very glad that the petitioners finally

brought it to the attention of the member for the district so that he can do as

he should do, come to Works, Services and Transportation and get the situation

corrected.

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

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: That can't go without being challenged. The

fact of the matter is that we asked the previous minister; I mentioned it to him

but he wouldn't do anything about it. The people became desperate and had to

send a petition, and this time we have had a really good, sympathetic hearing

from the new Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the most of the

winter I was acting -

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

addressing the point of order?

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking to the

petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the Chair has to address the point of

order, simply to say there is no point of order, it was just a point of

clarification.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: I simply want to point out, Mr. Speaker, in

conclusion, that during most of the winter, I was acting Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, and had the matter been brought to my attention by

the member opposite, I would have acted in a very expeditious manner. But I

would like to say once again, I am glad that the residents of his district have

finally pointed out to him that this problem exists.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, prior to Orders of the Day, if

I could.

MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under Standing

Order 23, I would like to request leave of the House to make a motion for the

adjournment of the House for the specific purpose of discussing a definite

matter of urgent public importance, that of the crisis in our fishery, and the

need to have an extension of management jurisdiction, to include at least the

Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. So, under Standing Order 23 I request that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, over the last number of weeks

this situation has reached the boiling point in our Province and in the country.

We have had the Premier of the Province within the last two weeks visit the

Prime Minister on the situation; just yesterday and the day before we have had

the fishermens' union led by Mr. Cashin in Ottawa addressing the Prime Minister;

we have the gentlemen from Iceland in here going through the situation that they

went through in trying to deal with their overfishing problems and cod wars;

Community trying to address the issue of foreign overfishing on the Nose and

Tail of the Grand Banks.

Mr. Speaker, the only group I guess that has not gone on the

record of the Legislature and through the public of the Province and Canada is

the legislators who are firstly and mostly responsible for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, namely this House of Assembly.

Now, I ask for leave under Standing Order 23. In doing that I

say that if this is not an emergency situation, if this is not worthy of an

emergency debate because of the public importance in this Legislature, I doubt

if ever there will be an emergency debate allowed under Standing Order 23. What

other situation or crisis would be more important to the people of this Province

than the one we are presently going though? I think that we should debate it. It

means everything to this Province, it means everything to the economy of this

Province, and I think that this Legislature should have an emergency debate on

it, on the resolution that I put forward this morning calling for the Government

of Canada to extend management jurisdiction to include the Nose and Tail of the

Grand Banks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could

have a brief recess, a five or ten minute recess?

MR. SPEAKER: A brief recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to take their places please.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is an unusual

occurrence to ask for the adjournment of the House to be moved to allow for a

debate that is of utmost urgency. It is an unusual occurrence in this House, and

it is a very unusual occurrence to actually go ahead with such an emergency

debate. The reasons are many and varied. Obviously the urgency of the topic is

not the matter of point here, it is the urgency of having the debate now. That

is the deciding factor Speakers generally take into account when determining

whether such a debate is to be held. Obviously in this instance we are debating

the Throne Speech, and members can easily express opinions in terms of extending

jurisdiction over the Nose and Tail of the Bank in the debate that is ongoing.

So there is really no urgency of debate in terms of this particular motion.

There are lots of opportunities for members to express their opinions in the

Throne Speech debate as well as in the Budget debate that is coming, and so on,

the Interim Supply debate, and express their opinions on this very important

issue. Normally it is unusual for such a motion to be accepted.

Mr. Speaker, we have decided that we would support such a

debate at this time for a number of reasons, but the prime reason being that - I

know it is left to Your Honour to decide, and precedence would say that it

should not go ahead. That is not what we want to do. Also that has been

Government's position for quite some time, and it is not something with which we

disagree, extending jurisdiction over the Nose and Tail of the Banks.

So, Mr. Speaker, we would welcome such a debate, and welcome

the fact that rather than the Government, which has already stated its position

to Ottawa - the Government stating its position - this would then be the House

stating its position which is an entirely different situation. So, Mr. Speaker,

we would agree to 'by leave' if necessary to have the debate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the

comments of the Government House Leader, that the topic is one of most great

urgency, although I can understand his remarks about the possibility of debating

it at other times, and it appears that it may well be that if Your Honour was

asked to rule on this that you would have to rule that an emergency debate could

not take place. So it seems that unanimous consent must be required to debate at

this time, and I would certainly be prepared to offer that consent. I think it

is important that the House express its view on this issue. It is a matter of

great importance and urgency that the House be on record in this matter.

Therefore I would also urge the Speaker, with unanimous consent if necessary, to

have this debate go ahead at this point.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, very briefly. I wonder if we

could agree to the time limits: fifteen minutes per speaker?

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we would concur with ten

or fifteen minutes. We have to make a decision. What we were basically thinking

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, we were thinking with ten minutes it

would allow more people to participate in this important debate, as we thought

there would be a lot of members interested. Let's put a maximum of fifteen

minutes on it. I am sure some speakers will only speak ten anyway. We will agree

with a maximum of fifteen minutes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is:

BE IT RESOLVED that Canada

immediately extend management jurisdiction over the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks.

The Chair is just going to recess briefly, just for a minute.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to say a few words regarding this important

matter today. As all hon. Members know, without delaying matters, when we raise

a matter for urgency, to debate a matter of urgent importance, the thing the

Speaker must consider is the urgency of the debate. Not the urgency of the

matter but the urgency of the debate. In looking at that the Speaker should also

try to get the general feeling of the House, the general will of the House.

I get the distinct feeling today that there is a general will

to proceed under the conditions that we have outlined. But I do want to point

out to hon. members that under normal circumstances we would not grant this

today because we do have the Address in Reply, which allows Members to debate

any matter they want. But considering the matter and the general will of the

House to do this, we will allow it to proceed.

I will repeat the motion:

BE IT RESOLVED that Canada immediately extend management

jurisdiction over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

Since it was the Opposition House Leader who made the motion,

I call on him now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

beginning of this very important and urgent debate I want to thank the

Government House Leader and the Member for St. John's East, and all Members, for

giving consent to go ahead with this emergency debate on this critical and

important resolution as it affects our Province like none other. We can talk

constitutions and we can talk anything else, but there is nothing that means as

much to this Province as our fishery. Particularly the crisis that we are going

through in our fishery today.

Now in beginning the debate I want to go on record as saying

that I do not intend to be partisan in my debate. I intend to talk about the

Federal Government, and when I talk about the Federal Government I talk about

former Federal Governments and the current Federal Government, and former

Provincial governments and the current Provincial Government, because this need

to extend the 200-mile limit to include the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks,

goes back years and years. It did not start last fall when Mr. Crosbie brought

down his Total Allowable Catch of 185,000 metric tons, it didn't start a few

weeks ago when he announced that he was reducing the Total Allowable Catch to

120,000 metric tons, it didn't start when the provincial Minister of Fisheries

recommended that the Total Allowable Catch should be 100,000 metric tons, it

started well before that. The problems with our fishery started years and years

ago, and the problems with our fishery, Mr. Speaker, started because of

arrangements that were made with other countries many years ago, many, many

years ago. We have had obligations to other countries, with fishery arrangements

dating back to the time when we were controlled by Great Britain, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, in an attempt to improve upon those arrangements, to make better

arrangements, there were other arrangements made with other countries.

I do not need to remind members what effect the 1972 Treaty

that Canada signed with France has had upon the fisheries around our shores. We

all know why that is. It is because the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon,

French Territories, are located just nine miles off the shores of Newfoundland

and Labrador. The French Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, particularly the

Island of St. Pierre, is nine miles offshore from the Community of Point May.

For those who have taken the ferry to St. Pierre, they take it from Fortune

which is twenty-two miles, but they are only nine miles off our shore, the

French Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. So that is why we have had these

arrangements with France. That is why at present there is a boundary decision

about to come down on the Canada/France issue in 3Ps involving St. Pierre and

Miquelon and Canada. Of course, Newfoundland has a great interest in that.

So this is how complicated and complex the situation is. We,

from three miles to twelve miles, and then the big struggle came to try and get

beyond. When we got 200 miles, Mr. Speaker, we thought we had her knocked. We

thought we had her knocked, Mr. Speaker. When in 1977 our economic zone, our

fishing limits, were extended to 200 miles, we thought we had her knocked. And

no doubt, Mr. Speaker, it was a big improvement.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the hon. member would mind if I

interrupt just for a brief second. We have some students here and they normally

leave. We have here twenty-eight Grade VI students from the Newtown Elementary

School in the great district of Mount Pearl, and we would like to welcome these

students from the Newtown Elementary School accompanied by their teachers, Mrs.

Anstey and Miss Rogers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not mind the interruption at all. I would like to

welcome the students and the teachers here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Being a former teacher.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, being a former teacher, having taught

students of that age at one time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not a very good one.

MR. MATTHEWS: Not a very good one? Well, I do not know. I

commend the people who arranged to bring them in.

Mr. Speaker, what I was saying is that when the 200-mile

limit was implemented and became law how delighted we were, as a people. We

thought it would take care of all of our problems, but as we know, Mr. Speaker,

it has not taken care of our problems because the spawning areas, the fertile

Nose and Tail of the Banks, the Flemish Cap, the nursery of many of our fish

stocks, are being plundered by foreigners.

People say: Well, why back in 1977 and the years prior, when

we were building up to get a 200-mile limit, why didn't we actually get an

extension to 200? Why wasn't it put to 300 or 350? There were a number of

reasons for that, Mr. Speaker. One of the main reasons is that the continental

shelves of the majority of coastal states in the world are inside 200 miles.

There are only, I think, five, Canada being one, where the continental shelves

extend beyond 200 miles. So the majority of countries in the world have

continental shelves of around 200 miles, or 200 miles satisfy their needs. Of

course, that is why we were able to accomplish what we did.

To go to the Law of the Sea Convention now, or to go to the

world courts, or wherever we would have to go to try to get an extension beyond,

what we have to realize is that I think there is a minority of coastal states

that have shelves beyond 200. What I am trying to say to members is: realize the

battle that is on to try and convince the majority of countries in the world,

the coastal states in the world that are already totally accommodated by the 200

limit, the need and the urgency to extend beyond 200.

So, what are we left with, Mr. Speaker? We are basically left

with a situation where we are calling upon our Federal Government in this

resolution, and we are not the first ones to do that, it has been called upon

for years, to extend the management jurisdiction to include the Nose and Tail of

the Grand Banks. Now, there is no question, Mr. Speaker, that it has to be a

federal initiative. The Prime Minister and the Federal Government has to take

the initiative, take the ball, and go with it. We as provincial legislators, the

Premier, the Ministers, the Government and the Opposition, can scream and cry,

and do all we can, we have to do that, we have to go on the record in this

Province as being united and together in this Legislature. The Federal

Government has to know that and we have to try, Mr. Speaker, and those attempts

have to be ongoing, to convince Prime Minister Mulroney and the Federal

Government that he has to get himself over to those countries that are pillaging

our stocks, to eyeball them, and tell them they have to stop and get out.

Now, that is what has to happen. I think, Mr. Speaker, that

as part of that process we as provincial legislators have to go on record as

calling for this because to date, over the last while, we have not done that.

There is no question that the Federal Government and the Prime Minister has to

take that initiative. Now, we have heard all kinds of proposals over the last

number of weeks on this issue, some who believe that we can automatically extend

to 350 miles. I attended a meeting a few nights ago here with the Icelandic

people, who were in the gallery today, and suddenly this thing surfaced, that

under the Law of the Sea Convention we can go to 350 miles automatically because

Iceland right now is thinking about doing it in one of their areas.

It went on and on and everyone there was beating up on the

Prime Minister, on Mr. Crosbie and other people. How come they have not told us

about that? I let it go on for awhile, until I could not take it anymore. The

Member for St. John's East was there, four or five of my colleagues here, and

one or two from over there, the Member for Pleasantville and others. I just

could not believe what I was hearing. As I said the Premier is a lawyer, a

respected legal mind. We have a new Minister of Justice, Mr. Roberts. We have a

former minister, Mr. Dicks, a former minister, Ms Verge, a former minister

Senator Ottenheimer, a lawyer in Richard Cashin, a lawyer in Cabot Martin.

MR. SIMMS: The Prime Minister is a lawyer.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Prime Minister is a lawyer, John

Crosbie is a lawyer. Kim Campbell as Minister of Justice.

MR. NOEL: That is our problem, too many lawyers.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member for Pleasantville says that is

what is wrong, we have too many lawyers. That could be. I do not know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I find it hard to believe, Mr. Speaker,

that with all the battles that former Premier Peckford fought on fish, with all

the letters that are on record from Premier Peckford, the letters that are now

on file from Premier Wells and Minister Carter - the Premier was up last week to

meet with the Prime Minister on the issue - that someone out of all those people

did not know that we could extend to 350 miles. Now, that is why I find it hard

to believe. Anyway, these are the kind of things that have been going on over

the last number of weeks, I say to members. Having said that there is no issue

as important to the people of this Province today as extending management

jurisdiction to the Nose and Tail of the Banks and getting the foreigners out.

The minister, in the letter he has written to the Federal Minister, said there

was about 47,000 metric tons taken last year in an area that there is suppose to

be a moratorium on. There is suppose to be no cod taken whatsoever . They have

wiped out the flounder stocks in that area and now they are pretty close to

wiping out the cod stocks, in an area where they are not suppose to fish,

completely ignoring NAFO quotas, completely ignoring the outcries from Canada

and from this Province and other Atlantic Provinces about what they are doing to

us.

What really bothers me is that two Falls ago I was over to

Portugal and Spain as part of a delegation to talk about this very issue that we

are debating here this morning - to talk about overfishing, and the need to stop

overfishing, and the need to allow our stocks to regenerate - particularly in

Portugal and Spain. They are people who are going through the same thing that we

are going through. Their industry is in a downturn. Their fish plants are

closed. They are processing less fish. There are less people processing fish.

The fishermen are catching less fish. It's the same situation - unemployment

rates escalating - but you sit down to talk to them about the problems we, like

them, are experiencing, we are willing to take action to reduce our fishing in

our own economic zone - our 200-mile zone. Even though they know themselves what

they are going through in their own industry, they look you in the eyeballs and

say: it is not our problem. They say that - the whole wide spectrum of the

industry. It is not our problem; it is yours. Yet their economic fibre is coming

apart the same as ours. My point is that they are very, very hard people to

convince.

I do not know how bad things have to get before they get out

of it and stop it, because if they do not cut back themselves in those areas,

there is going to be no fish left there. What do they do then? My point is that

conservation, even though they know there are problems, their industry is in

trouble, they are not willing to come to grips with the conservation issue. That

is very disturbing.

So when you talk about being diplomatic, I do not think it is

going to work. I hope it does, but I really don't think it will. We have been

years trying the diplomatic route and it has not worked. I think Canada has to

be bold. I think the Prime Minister should go over, which I think he has stated

that he will, and he should confront the leaders of the European Community and

he should tell them: now you either stop it or here is what you can expect. If

they do not do it immediately upon his request face-to-face, then we should

extend jurisdiction to include the Nose and Tail of the Banks - to at least

include the Nose and Tail of the Banks. I think that is our only recourse, and I

think all hon. members agree. I think they do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Because if we do not, we will have nothing

left in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What is the old shoe-factory man saying

now?

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Whatever. Quick strikes or whatever. The

hon. member heard some rather bizarre suggestions just the other night. People

wanted to get zodiacs and go by the foreign trawlers and hook explosives on the

warps.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, even people suggested that. I could

imagine all the Newfoundland heads being blown off now, but then of course

people said, well you would hire somebody to do that. You would hire somebody to

do that. There are all kinds of suggestions being made on how to go about it, on

what to do and how to address this issue. I do not know if a lot of people

realize that they are talking 200 to 300 miles out to sea. We are not talking

Quidi Vidi Gut or the Lake. We are talking the middle of winter pretty much,

with ice.

I think the only solution - and that is why I moved the

resolution this morning and I am delighted that the House gave consent to debate

it - the only solution is for Canada, for the Prime Minister and his Government,

to take immediate action. Get to Europe as fast as you can get there, Prime

Minister. Talk to those leaders over there. If they do not concur with getting

out, tell them to get out, come back to Canada and do it in your Parliament. If

it takes sending out our navy to have a presence out there, send them out as

well. What you have to remember in all the debate about what Iceland did in the

cod wars, and the most recent one, is that it was the Icelandic Coast Guard that

was involved in their last cod war. It lasted for about three years. It was

government sponsored, and that is why it could carry on so long. That is why it

could carry on so long, because it was government sponsored. To try and get the

small boat fishing industry in this Province to go out in the area concerned,

how long are they going to be able to afford to stay there to get the results is

the point.

So you really have to have government sponsored activity is

my point, which Iceland did with their coastguard, and they must have the

capability, Mr. Speaker. You must have boats that are big enough and fast enough

to do what we want done. But I think the first thing we need is a presence out

there so that the foreigners at least realize that we are serious, because they

are monitoring what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. They know what all of us are

saying, but once they see the presence outside there I think it will bring them

to their senses.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the opportunity to

debate. I realize my time is about up, and I thank hon. members for their

concurrence, for their support, and I look forward to listening to other members

debate the issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased

today to have the opportunity to be a part of this very important debate, be a

part of the discussion as it relates to the problem of foreign overfishing, and

certainly how it impacts upon the fishing industry, and indeed the lifeblood of

the Newfoundland economy.

However, Mr. Speaker, before I get to the crux of that

matter, I think it is important for us to raise a couple of salient points.

First of all, the timing of this resolution. The timing of this resolution and

this call for an emergency debate is impeccable because we have had this House

open for some time, we have seen the actions of the Federal Government shortly

before this House opened, and certainly the crisis has been around us, and the

kind of concern has been with us now for some time. But all of a sudden now on

Friday morning, Mr. Speaker, here we have this call for an emergency debate.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, would it have anything to do with the

fact that the emergency debate and the issue of extending jurisdiction had been

dealt with yesterday in Ottawa, and certainly I guess the Opposition, who did

not want to ruffle the political feathers of their cousins in Ottawa, did not

want this House to speak as it should, as I am sure it will, and as it has in

the Throne Speech. They did not want to be able to tell Mr. Crosbie, for

instance, and the Prime Minister of this country that this is exactly how

everybody in this Province feels, Mr. Speaker, because I guess they would have

thought that would have been all that more embarrassing. It is embarrassing

enough as it is to know that yesterday the resolution read in Ottawa: Canada

should take immediate steps to extend its functional jurisdiction to the Nose

and Tail of the Grand Banks, by the hon. the Member for Burin - St. George's,

Mr. Simmonds. That is the motion that was there yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and

debated all day yesterday in Ottawa. But at the end of the day who stood for

Newfoundland and Labrador? Who stood? Was it the Member for St. John's West, the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, Mr. Speaker, it was not. Was it the

Member for St. John's East?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, Mr. Speaker. They did not stand for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? Why not?

MR. DUMARESQUE: They did not stand for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: They should be there.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, that is where we are. The

hon. the Leader of the Opposition said this is going to help. The opportunity

that you take to not say that politics interferes and should be a part of this

is remiss on your part because all you are doing is acting as the coward because

you are taking the easy way out on this one. It is time that you people stood in

this House and said what you have to say about your Tory cousins in Ottawa.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the hon. member's

oratorical skills. I love listening to him and all that kind of stuff, but we

are trying to keep the debate on this particular issue at a certain level, and I

hope he will comply with that request made by his own House Leader as well as

ours. But in particular I do not like to be referred to as the coward, and I

think the hon. member should withdraw that remark.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can't believe -

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member addressing the point of

order?

MR. DUMARESQUE: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously I never said that there was any particular member a coward, but if for

any reason they feel I have I certainly withdraw that comment, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: As I said, I withdraw that, but, Mr.

Speaker, it just galls me. Now to think that I am supposed to come in here as a

member of this hon. House knowing what impact this is having on my riding and

all rural ridings in Newfoundland and Labrador, and not be emotional, not be

able to put forward what I believe is the feelings of every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian as I know they want me to, is trying to stage a political game. That

is what is happening, Mr. Speaker, in this House today. We have seen an

opportunity and given every opportunity for this particular motion to be placed

on the order table days and days ago, but it did not come about simply because

they did not want to tell

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you put it on?

MR. DUMARESQUE: They did not want to tell. Why did we not

put it on? I will tell you what we put on, on page 3 of the Throne Speech, on

opening day. This is what we put on. We said that this is not good enough. We

said we want to extend and "exert custodial management over the Nose and Tail of

the Grand Banks...." That was page 3 of the Throne Speech on opening day. Our

record is clear, our position is unequivocal, our position is there for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: The position that is not clear, and the

thing that is really lacking in this whole debate, is leadership. Leadership by

our own native son, John Crosbie, the Minister of Fisheries and the Member for

St. John's West. That is where leadership is falling down.

Leadership is also falling down, Mr. Speaker, on our Prime

Minister. That Tory cousin over there. Our Tory cousin. That is where the

leadership is falling down. Let me recall about a week ago in the House of

Commons, when Don Mazankowski was out speaking to the farmers of the country. He

said to the people of Canada and to the farmers there on the grounds that day:

Michael Wilson is acting right now for you. Barbara McDougall is over now in the

EEC right now for you. He said: Bill McKnight is over there right now in

Brussels acting right now for you. But when we have the devastation occur in the

Newfoundland and Labrador fishery and thousands of people displaced, there was

nobody - including our own native son - acting when we needed them to act, and

certainly not doing what we expect them to do.

Now then. We have another comic, and a very sad display again

yesterday, from another native son, our head of the FFAW. Going up there, being

part of that charade. Going up there and saying that if we do not do something,

he said: I am going to tear this place apart. Apart. Twenty minutes later the

lion was transformed into the lamb.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to him in the meantime?

MR. DUMARESQUE: I do not know. I think the fact that he

is going to be a part of this panel or study - I do not know if it is going to

be another $800 a day like he got with Keith Spicer, I do not know if that is

what happened to him, Mr. Speaker. But obviously when he went in and he got

squeezed between the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, St. John's West, and his

buddy the Prime Minister of Canada, he obviously got every ounce of integrity,

compassion and perseverance for the people of Newfoundland squeezed right out of

him. Squeezed right out of his head and into his back pocket for a few dollars

from Ottawa and from the Minister of Fisheries. That is what he got and that is

what he did get. And that is what he (Inaudible).

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know that all we are

seeing from that man is a charade, playing to his masses in the union, that: I

am going to tear this place apart. When we knew that he went into that room and

within an hour he talked about the politics of it and he came out for his photo

opportunity. Well, the time for photo opportunities is over. The time for

charades is over.

It is time that the people of this Province got what they

expected from the Opposition in this House and the Tories on the other side of

this House, and that is to stand up and say unequivocally that what we got

yesterday from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Member for St. John's

West - and the Member for St. John's East, and all the other Tories that were up

there - what they got was completely and utterly unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, and

cannot go tolerated.

If the Members of this hon. House think that you are going to

get anywhere cozying up and placating a political agenda, the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador will not forget that. I can tell you that. What we

have seen here is the most dramatic display of political manipulation and

manoeuvring that we have seen in some time.

As I said, our record is very clear. On the day that this

hon. House opened on page 3 of our Throne Speech it was unequivocal about our

position. It said that we will "exert custodial management over the Nose and

Tail of the Grand Banks...." That is where it was. We did not just say that and

let it lie. A few days after that our Premier went to Ottawa and sat down and

told the Prime Minister of this country directly what he thought should be

happening and how it should be happening. After that was over we did not come

back here again and sit on our laurels and say to the people of Newfoundland

that we are going to forget their most vital industry. We are now going to be

putting into place a public relations campaign that the Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans and the Member for St. John's West had a conniption over. He said:

you are going to try and give us a bad name. Well my Lord, if there was a person

in this Province and in this country and a party and a performance that needed

to have a bad name, it is that person. He is failing us miserably in our one

important minute of time. The Member for St. John's West.

That I think is what is going to come out of here today. We

have seen a party opposite that has never had the fortitude, the gumption, to

come in here on Day 1 of the opening of this House and say: we want an emergency

debate on the fishery. Because they were playing political games with John

Crosbie and Brian Mulroney and it will not be forgotten.

AN HON. MEMBER: And he is still telling them, even today,

what to do.

MR. DUMARESQUE: And he is still telling them. He is

telling them now: boys, if you are going to have any hope of ever getting one

seat in the next election in this Province, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Crosbie said: you

are going to have to try and do something. You are going to have to try and be

associated in some way with some manner of exercising control, or something to

do with the fishery.

But what a weak-kneed and pitiful display to know that after

the motion is dead in Ottawa, after the gauntlet was brought down by our own

native son, after the Tory cousins that they have over there said what they were

going to say, then we have this pitiful whimper coming from them on Friday

morning to say that after the horse is gone, after the barn door is closed, now

they are going to look for the emergency. The emergency has been there but the

will has not been there. Politics is what has always been there with that hon.

crowd opposite.

So I will only say in conclusion that yes, I will support

this resolution -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, our position is very

clear. We are seeing nothing more with this resolution than what has already

been articulated by this Government, this Minister, this Premier and this

Cabinet time and time again, and is most recent in the Throne Speech. So

certainly, I would expect that we will be sending another message. But we sent

it when the time was right to send it. We are not sending it for politics ,and

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will not forget you for doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to

participate in the debate. I am not going to take my full fifteen minutes

because I know there are members on that side of the House who want a chance to

say a few words, and I know there are members on this side who want to say a few

words, and if we all take the fifteen minutes it will only mean about four on

each side, so I am only going to take about ten minutes to reiterate what I said

on opening day when the Throne Speech was delivered, when the Premier and I

debated the motion moved by the Member for Eagle River, I think it was the

Chairman of the Committee, to draw up the Address in Reply to the Throne Speech.

I was hoping the level of debate on this particular

resolution would remain as non-partisan as possible because it is extremely

important, as I said on opening day, and the Premier agreed and welcomed my

suggestions. It is extremely important that we as members of this Legislature in

Newfoundland and Labrador be seen as putting forth a united front approach,

non-partisan. In fact I used those very terms in the Legislature and the Premier

agreed with me. I also offered whatever assistance we might be able to provide

as an Opposition in the upcoming public relations campaign across Canada. If

they wanted some members of our party, I cannot speak for the NDP, but for all

parties to participate in any kind of a speaking arrangement in different

places, we wanted and agreed to do that.

I think it is rather unfortunate that the Member for Eagle

River, and I do now want to dwell on it, but I think it is rather unfortunate

that he chose to take the approach in this debate that he took. He was totally

and absolutely partisan in his approach and that is unfortunate. There are lots

of times for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: There are lots of times when members will have

the opportunity to do that and to be partisan. That is fair, that is acceptable,

there is no problem with it whatsoever. We can also be partisan in our approach

on this issue and if that is what his speech was trying to do, to drag us into a

partisan debate, he is not going to get it. There have been many people in this

House, particularly in this Province, who have said to me time and time again

they are sick and tired of politicians trying to lay blame on one another. They

are absolutely disgusted and sick and tired of it, Mr. Speaker.

Whether it is blaming John Crosbie, Brian Mulroney, Pierre

Trudeau, Len Simms, or Clyde Wells, whoever it is, Romeo Leblanc, or whoever,

people are absolutely fed up with it. They are absolutely disgusted with it, so,

Mr. Speaker, the sooner that we as elected representatives in this Legislature

mature to that way of thinking, members on both sides of the House, the better

off the people of this Province will be, let me tell you. That is my own

strongly held view. I am not interested in attacking this one or attacking that

one, criticizing or condemning. For God's sake, we are all in it together, the

Liberals, the Tories, the NDPs, Richard Cashin, John Efford, whoever, we are all

in it together, Mr. Speaker. Is that not what this is suppose to be all about?

Well, Mr. Speaker, why do we not get down to dealing with the problem? Everybody

is an expert on the fishery. I am not and I admit it, Mr. Speaker, but there are

many of us who think we are experts in the fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: And I am not.

MR. SIMMS: I do not know. The bottom line is everybody is

entitled -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the Leader of the Opposition is having difficulty

following his line of thought, developing his line of thought, and I think the

interruptions are coming from both sides of the House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The bottom line is that everybody is entitled to their

opinion and I respect that. If that is what the Member for Eagle River wants to

express as his opinion I have no problem with that. I am just saying it is

unfortunate that is the only approach he took.

There are many other things to talk about, but the important

thing in this debate here today is that we are not going to be seen by the press

who cover this debate as simply talking about a partisan attack in the debate,

nothing but a partisan attack and forgetting what the issue is. Mr. Speaker, the

resolution is that we support unanimously in this Legislature, urging Canada to

extend its management jurisdiction to include the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks, that is the motion, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: - exactly, Mr. Speaker, but the problem is you

have everybody, every man and his dog so to speak, over the last few weeks

taking some action, including the Government. I am not criticizing the

Government, I know what the Government's position is, I have seen the Minister

of Fisheries interviewed on national television on several occasions, in fact

just the other night on the seal issue, which was a rather interesting program.

I am not criticizing anybody, but the people who are most closely responsible

for the well-being and the welfare of the people of this Province are us, the

elected representatives, the legislators, we are the ones most closely

responsible, yet, as a Legislature, we have not taken the initiative to put our

position formally on the record and to formally pass it on to whomever needs it,

it might help. It certainly cannot hurt. I think any initiative that we can

undertake should be tried, I say to the Member for Carbonear, and I say it

sincerely.

So, I am delighted that the Government and the Member for St.

John's East have agreed, not because we put forth the motion, we thought about

it this morning quite frankly because of the debate that occurred last night,

that was all. There was no big deal. I mean, to hear the Member for Eagle River,

you would think we were conniving this for political reasons, and all that is

nonsense, absolute hog wash. We thought about it this morning because we heard

about and saw the debate last night in Ottawa, so we should guard our own house

MR. REID: We are our own worst enemy (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: - exactly, I agree with the Member for

Carbonear 100 per cent. We are our own-

MR. REID: When I say 'we', I do not only mean we, the

Members of this House, I mean all of the other players who are in this game

(inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, well, as I said, everybody is entitled to

his view but I think, we are, in this House, certainly our own worst enemies

many times. We have some people who are experts in the fishery in this House and

we do not hear enough from them. My friend from Grand Bank is very knowledgeable

about the fishery, he represents a fishing area. The Member for Fogo, the Member

for Burin - Placentia West, to mention some, the Member for East Extern, a

former sealer and fisherman and all the rest of them. The Member for Baie

Verte-White Bay, I have a great deal of admiration for his background in the

fishery and I know he is very knowledgeable about it. The Minister of Fisheries

has been involved for decades - I was going to say centuries - but you know, at

the Provincial and National levels, as much as we ask questions of him in the

House and get mad at his answers and things like that, we have respect for the

individual and the gentleman himself because he has a good knowledge of the

fishery. There is no question about that. You may not agree with everything he

says. For all the criticisms that come forth about the Member for Port de Grave,

I think he certainly has his heart in the right place and I think he has a

really good understanding because he deals directly with fishermen so he has to

have some understanding about what the fishermen feel, so, criticise him if you

will, criticise us if you will and if you must, but that has nothing to do with

it. We need to show a nonpartisan, united front approach to the Federal

Government, to the Federal Parliament, to the European community and to all

those who are resisting the sensible, scientific advice which is now coming to

us which says that our northern cod stocks are being devastated.

Mr. Speaker, this is not new. Back in the 1970s I guess,

something similar happened. I was looking at a commentary made by Bill Barry in

the paper and he made the point that back in the 1970s, the inshore catch

declined from 172,000 tons in 1956 to 35,000 tons in 1974, so there was a

serious situation in those days. I happen to think today's situation is much

more serious. But just as a lay person who admits that he does not understand

the fisheries in totality, I am trying to learn more and more about it every

day.

I have a general knowledge of it obviously from being

involved in politics and public life, and I have met and talked to lots of

fishermen and so on; but the fishery is so complex and complicated. First of all

you would need days probably to try to explain everything that you want to talk

about on the fishery. Even at that I am not sure that everybody can profess to

be an expert in the field. I certainly cannot, but I am willing to learn and

willing to listen. But I want to listen to some people with some knowledge and

some expertise, and people who are going to give me some information. I am not

interested in listening to personal attacks and that kind of thing in this

particular debate. I do not mind it on other occasions.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you who spoke for me. It was a

friend of the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir no doubt, the Mayor of Burgeo,

Gerald MacDonald who said: one of the problems that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have - let alone the rest of Canada and the European Community, I

suppose - one of the problems they have, in his view at least, is that the

problem with the foreign fishery is that most people do not distinguish between

what is going on outside 200 miles and what is happening inside 200 miles. That

is what Gerald MacDonald said, the Mayor of Burgeo. You know, I think he is

right. I think he is absolutely right. It is difficult to understand the complex

situation that exists.

Mr. Speaker, I said I was not going to take my full time, so

I will live up to that commitment. I think I am just going to say that we

support the resolution and I am glad members opposite will support it. It is not

for political partisan reasons. It is to show the rest of the world that we in

this House are united, at least, in urging the Federal Government to get on with

doing whatever has to be done - whatever has to be done - and we are prepared to

support them in that effort. I think that is what we should be saying.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this morning having

the opportunity to speak on this motion. I am not speaking as an expert on

foreign overfishing, but I am speaking I guess as an expert on fishermen.

I have been involved in fishing, I guess, ever since I was a

boy. I started off catching the small tomcods on the stage head. I grew up, and

all but eleven years of my life, I guess, I spent fishing. Over those years I

have seen a lot of changes in the fishing industry. I may have to talk slowly

because I have a stoppage, but at least I will get to the point.

I have seen our fish stocks dwindle away over the years. In

White Bay when I was a boy you could go out with eight inch nets, and you could

haul up turbot and the biggest kind of cod just a mile from the shore. That is

completely gone. I started fishing up in Labrador in the early seventies, and I

fished off Black Tickle. Just outside of Black Tickle we have the Hamilton

Banks. That is where our codfish were spawned, and grew, and supplied our

Labrador stocks. When you would go out in the morning and look out on the

horizon, it was just like a forest fire out there. This was the smoke from the

foreign draggers that had come in over night. You could see them in the morning

and just as it would get daylight they would all move away again. That was going

on for years and years until we wiped out our Labrador stocks. Years ago our

schooners used to go up to Makkovik, and all up the Labrador, and get load after

load of fish. Now we have our Labrador stocks wiped out completely.

Our ocean is a very complex piece of environment. I have

observed over the years that our water is getting colder and colder. For

whatever reason, it has happened. I have seen fish hauled up in White Bay that

when you take them in the boat and rip open their guts, the ice would be in

their stomachs. That leads me to believe that something has happened in the

environment, in the ocean, that our waters are getting colder and colder, and

our fish stocks are moving further and further south. That leads to the point

that we don't have full control over our Continental Shelf. It is all very well

to put a law in force that we can look after our moose along by the highways and

not allow anyone to shoot them, but the minute the moose move back in

wintertime, poachers go in and kill them all.

So, I think, what has happened to our fish stocks now, is

they are moving out into deeper water, because our waters are getting colder,

and Canada doesn't have full control over our shelf. Then there are foreigners

out there just scooping it up, and we have no control over it. And not only cod,

we have turbot. Our big turbot lives out in deep water, 450 fathoms of water,

and they are being scooped up and we do not know anything about it. Our flounder

move off the Grand Bank out over the Nose and Tail in wintertime where the water

is warmer. That is all being scooped up.

Now, the mess that we are in today, did not happen since our

Liberal Government came to power. We neglected our fishery for the last fifteen

years. We have been talking about Hibernia. And because we wanted to get a

political deal on Hibernia, we didn't do very much about our fishery. The motion

we are debating today should be dated back maybe eight or ten years ago. Now, we

have to shut the barn door and we have nothing left.

So what I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it is about time we

took control over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank. And, when all the dust

settles, we must declare so many sanctuaries offshore. We must declare the

Hamilton Bank off limits to Canadian fishermen and foreigners. There must be an

area on the Funk Island Bank declared as a sanctuary. And our Grand Banks - we

need at least fifteen or twenty years to bring our stocks back to the state

where there is enough fish out there that can swim inshore for our inshore

fishermen to be able to catch them.

On the land, we have national parks all over the place. No

one is allowed to hunt a rabbit or a moose or anything else. So the ocean is no

different from our land. So we must declare certain areas of the ocean as

sanctuaries so our fish can spawn, grow and mature and then spread out into the

other areas. I could go on for a long time speaking from experience, but I would

just like to say that I support this motion, and I do not want to play politics

with it, because there are so many lives out there dependent on what people in

government do. So, I support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am,

obviously, delighted today to have the opportunity to participate in this debate

on the resolution put forth by my colleague from Grand Bank. It is, no doubt,

one of the most serious issues that has ever faced the economy of this Province.

I listened with great interest to what the Member for Baie

Verte - White Bay had to say, the concerns and the problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why (inaudible) bring it up now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you be quiet?

MR. TOBIN: I listened, Mr. Speaker - no, Mr. Speaker,

just let me say, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay debated this in a very

genuine and sincere manner. He didn't get up and make a complete fool of

himself. He debated it in a very genuine manner, concerned about the fishing

industry in this Province, concerned about the problems that have created the

mess in this Province. He was big enough to say that this did not start since

the Conservative Government came to Ottawa. He said it started fifteen, or

twenty years ago. He has taken the high road. He has chosen not to lay blame.

Because, what are we going to achieve by laying blame at this time? What am I

going to achieve by standing here and talking about the time when Romeo LeBlanc

was the Minister of Fisheries? The same problem existed back then. I remember

first when I was elected, in the spring of 1982. In the fall of 1982 I got the

first taste of it when the federal government decided on the allocations that

Burin plant was to close. So, it is not something that has just happened. I

remember back in 1982 when they closed the Burin plant and the people were

thrown out of work. But everything was to be solved. The companies were going to

move their operations from Burin and consolidate them in Marystown, and all the

primary processing people were going to be looked after. Then, we saw just last

year again when Trepassey closed the trawler fleet, all moved to Marystown, and

had all this put in place.

Mr. Speaker, all of the trawlers that fished from Trepassey

are now tied up and five additional Marystown boats are tied up. The Burin boats

are just about all finished in the harvesting sector, as well. So it is a

problem. It is a problem for the people on the Northeast Coast, it is a problem

for the people in Labrador, and it is a problem for the people on the South

Coast and East Coast of this Province.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can go back to 1977, I guess,

when the hon. Don Jamieson -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Mount Scio -

Bell Island doesn't take the problems in the fishing industry in this Province

seriously - and to be perfectly honest with you, I have never known the Member

for Mount Scio - Bell Island to take anything seriously, so I should not expect

him to take the fishing industry seriously - but I can remember back in 1977, I

believe it was 1977 when the 200-mile limit was signed, when Mr. Jamieson was

actively involved in it, and I can remember the late Wallace Hollett, from my

own district, was one the people who signed the 200-mile limit. They, Mr.

Speaker, and everybody else believed that was going to go a long way to solving

the problems of the fishing industry that this Province was experiencing. Do you

believe that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: So did everyone else. But it has not done

that. It has not achieved what it was supposed to achieve because today we have

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Eagle River gets

up over there. I am not going to get up in this House today and tear apart the

Minister of Fisheries for his allocation of 100,000 metric tons, giving 47,000

metric tons of that to the foreigners. I am not going to get into that. We said

we were not going to be partisan, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that you keep the

Member for Eagle River and the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island quiet so I

can debate the real issue, the fishery.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: The problem is, Mr. Speaker -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: The yahoo from Pleasantville, Mr. Speaker -

this is very serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Shut up (inaudible).

MR. NOEL: Is 'shut-up' a parliamentary word?

AN HON. MEMBER: If it is not, it should be, so take it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am standing up in this debate

today because I am concerned about the men and women in this Province who were

affected by the fishing industry because we put a resolution today, basically an

non-partisan resolution, and I ask members opposite to treat it as a serious

issue. If you were the thousand people in Catalina who got laid off last week,

and if you heard Mr. Young on the radio this morning announcing that Marystown

is going to close on March 23, if you were the 1,200 people employed in that

industry you would not enjoy sitting in these galleries today watching the

Member for Pleasantville, Eagle River, or Mount Scio -Bell Island laughing and

making a joke out of this issue. The men and women, Mr. Speaker, that are

affected -

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The men and women -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: This is terrible. This is absolutely terrible.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen such action

before from members of this House, and I have been here a lot longer than either

one of the three of them. Over an issue as important as this, Mr. Speaker, the

bread and butter of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - that is what we are

doing, and we are trying to get jurisdiction. We are asking. My colleague from

Grand Bank's resolution asks that this House go on record in demanding the

federal government to extend jurisdiction to include the Nose and Tail of the

Grand Banks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Too late.

MR. MATTHEWS: Give up if it is too late.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, all we are asking in tabling this

resolution is to be non-partisan, and we are asking all members, including the

Members for Pleasantville, Eagle River and Mount Scio - Bell Island, to join

with us and support that resolution that we are about to send off. All we are

asking them is to join us and vote for that resolution and send it to Ottawa.

That is not asking too much.

We are not asking them to be political in doing it, we are

asking them to do it for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Because I have seen it in my own district. I have seen my own town where I was

born and raised, where my family and friends are, many of them, thrown on the

unemployment rolls in Trepassey because the fish plant has closed. The fish

plant in Trepassey has closed for one reason, and that is the lack of cod

stocks, because, to a large extent, it is what is happening on the Nose and Tail

of the Grand Banks.

I have seen my district, I have seen the fish plant in Burin,

a primary processing operation, close. I have seen the downtime in the Marystown

operation that was never supposed to be. This morning, I heard Mr. Young on the

radio announcing that come March 23, another 1,200 people will be thrown out of

work. I have seen in excess of twenty deep-sea trawlers tied up in my district.

I have seen men and women who were involved in the inshore fishery no longer

involved because, for the lack of fish coming to their shores, it wasn't worth

their while to get involved, and I am sure my friend and colleague knows what I

am talking about.

So it is the whole sector, the deep-sea and the inshore

fishery, that have been affected by what has taken place, because we, as

Newfoundlanders, as Canadians, have not gained control over the Nose and Tail of

the Grand Banks.

As my friend from Baie Verte - White Bay said, it didn't

happen since this government came to power, nor did it happen since the

Conservatives came to power. It has happened in cumulative years, and everyone,

forgetting about politics, who has responsibility in the last twenty,

twenty-five years, be they Tory, Liberal or NDP, should accept their

responsibility and forget the blame. Because the blame is not going to put fish

in the water and it is not going to put bread and butter on the tables of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador who need it. Blame will not do anything.

We have to move ahead. The government in Ottawa today, the

present Mulroney Government, must show the leadership to move ahead, to tackle

the issue, and to demonstrate to the world, to the people who are abusing

outside the 200-mile limit, that we are serious and that we want protection and

conservation to be part of what is happening out there, and we are going to do

it by extending our jurisdiction. That is what we have to do.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, is there any way of keeping the

Member for Pleasantville quiet, because he is a complete ... he is doing nothing

to show people - the students who are in the gallery do not appreciate, I am

sure, the conduct of the Member for Pleasantville, so I ask him to be quiet.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, when we signed the 200-mile

limit, what happened? Canada controlled what was inside the 200-mile limit, and

beyond the 200-mile limit, it was passed over basically as international waters,

to be controlled by NAFO, of which Canada is a member. Who has listened, besides

Canada, as a member of the NAFO association?

MR. MATTHEWS: NAFO has some control inside.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, inside as well.

MR. MATTHEWS: The straddling stock.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, on the straddling stock that goes in and

out. But therein lies their problem. When we signed the 200-mile limit if we

only had been able to go the extra distance - the Law of the Sea Conference and

all that was involved - but if we had only been able to take in the entire

Continental Shelf. I guess, at one time, when Newfoundland was a Dominion, we

owned the Grand Banks of Newfoundland or the Continental Shelf.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: We didn't?

MR. NOEL: We still do. We can't have rights off

Newfoundland and still own the Grand Banks.

MR. TOBIN: When the member wakes up he will act like a

mature adult and conduct himself accordingly in the House.

Mr. Speaker, we now have a very serious problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there are men and women, tens of

thousands in the past number of years, who are unemployed, no longer employed in

the fishing industry.

I remember, as a young boy growing up in Trepassey, when from

the Southwest Coast - Rose Blanche, Margaree, Fox Roost, down the coast to

Francois, all of these people used to come to Trepassey every summer to fish.

There were times there used to be as many as thirty longliners from the

Southwest Coast down to Trepassey to fish.

AN HON. MEMBER: The western coast.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and fine men, the salt of the earth. They

came in May and left again in September or October, whenever the fish was gone.

Fine men - one of the finest groups of individuals you could ever ask to meet. I

will say that and I will stand by it forever. One of the finest groups I have

ever met were the people of Francois, and I think I knew most of them. But that

doesn't happen any more, it hasn't happened for probably the last dozen years.

Why? My friend from LaPoile knows what I am talking about, because many of his

constituents did the same thing. Why do we no longer see these people? It is

because the fish stocks have disappeared, that's why.

All we are asking is that we, this Assembly, this

Legislature, to go on record, together with the other groups, including Mr.

Cashin who has gone to Ottawa. We know the government's position, and now this

House will be on record unanimously, and hopefully, in a non-partisan way,

hopefully, we will have no more of this partisan gibberish that we had earlier

this morning - in a non-partisan way, that this Assembly, made up of fifty-two

men and women, will send a message to the Prime Minister of this country that

we, representing the people of this Province, expect from you, Sir, nothing less

than to use your position and your government's position to extend and take

control and jurisdiction over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. member, I would

like to take this opportunity on behalf of all members to welcome to the gallery

a group of students from Port aux Basques, visiting to participate in the YBC

Provincial Tournament, along with their leaders, Edgar Bailey and Faye Coffin.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I stand here this morning - I came in

initially and was going to have a few words to say in the Throne Speech Debate,

but the order of business was changed. No doubt about it, as all members have

said here, this is a very serious problem. I have some concerns as to why it was

raised this morning, and my colleague from Eagle River covered them, but the

crisis in the fishery is there.

When I first came to this House in 1985 one of the buzzwords

and the Bible that was used then for the fishery was the Kirby report, and it is

Navigating Troubled Waters: A New Policy for the Atlantic Fishery.

In the front of every paragraph there is a quote by some

learned person as to what was happening. Now when I listened this morning as the

Opposition House Leader introduced the motion I sort of thought about

Chapter 3:

The Atlantic Fishery - Myth and Realities. The quote that was used there I am

sure my colleague for Eagle River will be conversant with it. Because it is

this: 'The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances as though

they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than

by those that are.' Now, that is from Machiavelli.

So when I saw that I wondered why the Member for Grand Bank

would introduce that this morning? So I listened to my colleague for Eagle River

and he pointed out that yesterday in the Federal House the same motion was put,

and was voted down. I would not like to impugn motives on hon. Members. Because

I am sure that like everyone in Newfoundland they are very concerned about what

is happening to the fishery and what has happened.

As I say, I was going to speak this morning in the Address in

Reply to the Throne Speech. I have been here now for some seven Throne Speeches,

I suppose. As everybody knows they highlight where the Government is and the

course they intend to follow for the rest of the time of their mandate. During

my four years as an Opposition Member I saw the course that was set by the

Government. I saw two Throne Speeches that came in that were based on oil; and I

had two that were based on cucumbers.

The Leader of the Opposition this morning referred to the

Mayor of Burgeo as a knowledgeable person in the fisheries. I say to him yes, no

doubt he is. But all the people on the coastal part of my district are very

conversant with the fishery because over the last ten years they have gradually

been starving to death, because their income has decreased because of it.

The first time I went to Ramea during the 1985 election there

was a man who was very knowledgeable in the fisheries too. Like the Mayor of

Burgeo. Only this gentleman works in the fish plant in Ramea, a fellow by the

name of Jim Young. He said to me: Mr. Gilbert, if Brian Peckford could squeeze

some oil out of codfish we would be all right. That was in 1985. They were

recognizing it then. Lester Greene, who was the chairman of the local fishermen

in Burgeo, said to me in 1986: Mr. Gilbert, if they catch that fish out on the

Grand Banks and outside, the foreigners catch it, and the seals eat it, we are

not going to catch it here on the Burgeo Bank where we always fish.

So all those people in that part of my district who had

traditionally made their living from the inshore fishery, and there are two or

three kinds of inshore fishery in newfoundland. There is an inshore fishery I

suppose that could go from Cape St. Mary's to St. Anthony, Cape Bauld. There is

one that goes from Cape Chabarou (?) to Port aux Basques. The inshore fishermen

in that district were ones that fished - as my colleague for Burin - Placentia

West just said - in the wintertime and in the fall they fished off Burgeo,

Ramea, and Franois and McCallum and all those places. Then in the summertime,

it is not the traditional time for them to fish there, they came down to

Trepassey and Golden Bay and fished in St. Mary's Bay and Cape Pine. So they are

very conversant with the fishery and what has happened over the period of time

that this erosion has taken place.

Now we talked about my time here in this House and I have

heard the Member for Grand Bank this morning. He talked about the nursery and

the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and stuff like that. I can remember my

colleague, the former Member for Fogo, when he was the fisheries critic, he

raised this issue in 1985 and 1986. About what were we doing with overfishing.

It has gone on and on. This is raised continually., What were we doing? In the

last ten years I am sure within this House the problem of overfishing has been

raised.

Rather than impugn motives on either government, whether it

be Liberal or Tory, whoever is in Ottawa, they certainly mismanaged the fishery.

The three things that we have - I suppose, you know, when we look at it, there

are several things that drove us to the crisis we have in the fishery today. One

is the federal mismanagement, the second one is foreign overfishing, then you

could say the seals is another one, and too many plants, over which, I suppose,

we in this Province have some control. There has been a government in power,

either Tory or Liberal, while this was happening.

So now we have a very serious problem, one where people are

starving to death. The inshore fishery is destroyed, the offshore fishery is

destroyed, and yet we stand here in this House and see a motion put forward this

morning, and I do not want to become partisan about it, but I honestly feel in

my heart that this motion was put forward to protect John Crosbie. That is where

I feel it is wrong. Yesterday John Crosbie had a chance, as the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans, to vote for a motion that was put forward to extend the

limit, he chose to say: No, I will have to go with my government. Now he to me

is not a man of principle, and I have some concern about it. Because in the

Throne Speech that we saw put forward here there is no doubt about it, the point

that was highlighted was the fishery. We recognized this in the three years that

we have been in government, and while we were in Opposition it was the thing we

recognized, that we have to have some control over our fishery, otherwise it is

all lost and we are going to reach the stage where we are right now.

So for us to get up and grandstand by making a resolution

that we want the extended boundary, there is not a Newfoundlander who does not

want the extended boundary. We have been saying it for ten years, and this is

where the problem is, you see.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GILBERT: When Mr. Cashin went off to that meeting in

Ottawa - Mr. Cashin, the lion of the inshore fishermen: I am the man who is

carrying the cudgel for the poor forgotten fishermen on the bill of Cape St.

George.

This man whom you see perform almost savagely when you see

him in front of a t.v. camera here or in front of a group of fishermen. I was

utterly amazed to think that here was this same man, this man whom we see

leading the charge and the man who will ride on his horse and protect those

fishermen, when he came out of that meeting - and I have attended meetings with

Mr. Cashin - and I sat there and watched t.v. and I was amazed to think that

here was this fellow who was fighting for the fishermen of Newfoundland coming

out and saying: Well, I suppose we have to accept it, boy, there is nothing else

we can do.... that is not the Richard Cashin that I knew, Mr. Speaker, when I

saw him perform in front of his constituents in Burgeo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GILBERT: It seems to me, as someone said here in the

banter back and forth this morning, that we are not all together on this

situation. What I think we should do - as Newfoundlanders and as members of this

Legislation we certainly have a responsibility to highlight the problems, but we

have highlighted the problems in this Legislature. Our Government, over the past

three years, has pointed out that every time the Minister of Fisheries and his

officials and the Premier have talked to Ottawa the main concern that we have

had is control over the fisheries.

Now, this today is motherhood. There is no one who could

stand in this House and say he is not going to support a motion that gives us

control and asks them to extend the 200-mile limit. That would be madness. Every

Newfoundlander knows, everyone is aware that we must have this, otherwise that

word `genocide' is going to come in, because we are going to be starved to

death. There is no doubt about it, that the inshore fishermen in Newfoundland

have gradually starved to death, particularly the inshore fishermen on the south

coast, because nothing dramatic happens to the inshore fishermen on the south

coast. First of all, there are not a great number of them. Politicians, as we

know, only understand numbers. If there are 15,000 like on the northeast coast,

all right. If there is a problem there it reaches a highlight. The unions

recognize this. But on the south coast where we have the full-time inshore

fisherman, the fellow who fishes ten or eleven months of the year - there has

been no great crisis. We have not had an ice blockade. All we have had is that

because of mismanagement in the offshore, mismanagement to some degree in the

inshore, the inshore fishermen along the south coast are slowly starving to

death.

So when we stand here and say that we want to extend it -

yes, we want to extend it - but there are a few other things that we must do

with the fishery in order to see the stock rebuild. When I see members now raise

this as a burning issue, certainly it is a burning issue; it has been a burning

issue for ten years. That is the whole deal. This is where it is. It has been a

burning issue for ten years. We, the politicians got up and made a great noise

that we must shoot that or kill that, or do all of that sort of stuff, but the

inshore fisherman - the fellow who was really affected, the fellow who was

putting his hand in his pocket and finding a lot less dollars than yesterday -

he was not listened to. Every one of them had a chance, but nobody - those

people who were speaking for him - it is great to say now, let's go out and cut

the nets of the people who are fishing. That is a great thing to do, but I do

not think it is going to work. We had the chance to do it.

When we asked the Federal Government down through the years,

would you please take the case of Newfoundland to the United Nations? Let us

make the other nations of the world aware of what is happening in our fishery.

We have never had any of the leaders do that. We stand in protected places like

this and make hollow statements, but by God, the thing that has happened