December

4, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 84

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I had some questions for the

Premier with respect to the Government's proposal for the Joint Fisheries

Management Board, but I will ask the questions of the Minister of Fisheries. I

want to refer him to

Section 5 (4) of that proposal. That

section outlines the

three types of functions that this board will undertake. Firstly it would

develop policies to guide the administrative actions of the federal and

provincial Departments of Fisheries; that is, issues related to fisheries

management, licensing and the loan board. Secondly it says it would make

decisions on user group allocations and licences, and thirdly it would monitor

federal and provincial administrative actions to ensure that the policies are

being correctly implemented. I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries: Does he

not realize that giving away such powers simply turns the provincial Department

of Fisheries into just another administrative arm of this Joint Management

Board. Would he not agree with that?

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

MR. CARTER: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. In fact, what we

are doing in this proposal is harmonizing the respective responsibilities of

both the Federal and Provincial Governments. We found out in the past that

unless we can harmonize our efforts, and let the right hand know what the left

hand is doing, quite often we end up making decisions that are at variance with

what the other jurisdiction is doing, and in some cases that can be quite

costly. I would like to cite an example. For example where some years ago the

Province, of which the hon. gentleman was a member of Cabinet, made a decision

to embark on a Scandinavian long-liner type vessel construction program, and

that program cost the Province, I believe, in excess of $20 million. There was

only one flaw in the arrangement. They did not have licences for the vessels. In

fact, they never did get all of the vessels licensed. In fact, one of the

vessels is still without a licence, I understand. Meanwhile, they also went

ahead and built those vessels at a cost of $20-odd million, introduced a brand

new technology and again they missed one rather maybe minor detail. They failed

to get a fish quota from Ottawa, the result being that I think the first year

they were in operation they had about a 1,200 ton quota, the second year it went

up to 4,600 tons, the next year back to 3,300 and then of course in 1990 the

Federal Government abolished the program altogether, leaving the program high

and dry, leaving the Province with $20 odd million worth of middle distance

boats with nothing to do and these boats, Mr. Speaker, are still struggling to

survive, so if we ever need an example where we need some kind of a joint

management regime, Mr. Speaker, I suppose that speaks for itself.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just given us a

very good argument for us as a Province, licensing vessels, which is something

that we have been after for many, many years as he would know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - and contrary to what he said in his answer

about harmonizing powers, what the proposal does in fact is ask for some of the

powers of the Federal Government to be transferred to the board, but all of the

powers by contrast that we now hold as a Province, would be transferred to this

board. And, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister this question. Would he

agree that the reason for the existence of a government department is to carry

out the wishes and the policies of a government? Policies that are expressed in

legislation, by Orders in Council, by Regulations and so on, would he agree with

that, and if he agrees with it, since this joint board will now have the

responsibility to develop policies to guide administrative actions as stated in

his own document,

Section 5 (4), what powers exactly will the Provincial

Department of Fisheries have? Could he be clear on that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I should correct the record I

suppose and point out that in our Question Period last night, the hon. gentleman

opposite quoted from the proposal, when in fact it took completely out of

context the meaning of the

section to which he referred, and I am referring here

to that

section on page twenty-two, where, the Leader of the Opposition went

through great lengths to explain in some detail what the Provincial Department

of Fisheries was losing and he listed here all of the things that would revert

to the board.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman mentioned about the licensing

of vessels and would that not solve the problem, but he knows as well as I do

that is something that has been talked about now for the past - what, ten or

fifteen years. There have been representations made to the Federal Government

going back to the days when Romeo LeBlanc was the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans, when I was a minister, and I know how difficult it was to even get the

message through to them. They were not even prepared to listen, and I can go

further, Mr. Speaker, and relate an experience I had with Mr. Valcourt, just

prior to his being taken out of that portfolio, when we went to Ottawa with an

agenda on which we had joint management, Mr. Valcourt point blankly refused to

discuss joint management.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not the question.

MR. CARTER: Maybe I have lost the question, Mr. Speaker,

but I can only tell you that the powers of the board will be those that will be

given to it by the respective ministers, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

and the provincial Minister of Fisheries. What will be left for the Department

of Fisheries of Newfoundland to administer? Very little will change in many

respects. The Province will still be responsible for administering the things

that are outlined in this paper, by the way, a number of them. We are going to

be handing over to that board some responsibility with respect to fish

processing licences. We will be handing over some responsibilities with respect

to Fisheries Loan Board policies, but by and large, Mr. Speaker, the fishery

will be run by the provincial Department of Fisheries. In areas where there is

an overlapping of jurisdiction hopefully that will be harmonized and we will

have a much smoother, and I believe a much more viable and much more effective

Department of Fisheries.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit reluctant to ask the

minister a question because he does not seem to get the drift of the question,

and when he does it is about ten minutes later. The question I asked him was

what he answered right at the end and it took about ten seconds to answer it.

Let me ask him again:

Section 5 (4) of the proposal says: one of the types of

functions for this new board is to develop policies to guide the administrative

actions of both Departments of Fisheries related to fisheries management, and

that includes licensing, loan board activities, and all the rest of it. It will

also make decisions on user group allocations and the licences.

Does the minister not realize and recognize that really what

is happening here is that all of the few powers that the Province now has, and

we have very few, are going to be transferred to an independent, unelected

board? Does he accept that? Is that what he is saying in his proposal? And if he

is, will he say it categorically? Let me then ask him this: does he seriously

believe that any Cabinet, or any Legislature in a parliamentary democracy

should, or would, give up its responsibilities to an unelected board? Does he

think that is what should happen?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it probably says a lot for the

hon. gentleman and his concept of government and politics. If he is interested

in de-politicizing some aspects of the fishing industry, which, God knows, needs

to be done, then I think this board will accomplish that. Now, if you want the

minister to be using as part of his pork barrel the issuing of licences or the

awarding of allocations, fine. But we don't believe that is the way it should

be. We believe that the fishing industry is sufficiently important to this

Province that politics should be kept as far away from certain decision-making

processes as possible, and this board will do just that.

There will be vested in this board certain powers with

respect to the Province and with respect to the Federal Government. Again, I go

back to what I said a moment ago. It is a case of now letting the right hand

know what the left hand is doing. So that decisions made by the Province will

not be contradictory to statements made in Ottawa. That quite frequently

happens, as I am sure the member's former leader, Mr. Rideout, would be able to

tell you.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to

follow up to the Minister of Fisheries, as well. I want to say to him that I

think we have seen a lot of cases over the last few years where the Provincial

Government has needed to take positions that have been contradictory to the

Federal Government. So I don't think we should get too cosy on this issue.

But I want to ask the minister follow up on questions by the

Leader of the Opposition. From reading the document we find, or we know, that

the Department of Fisheries, Cabinet and the Legislature would be accountable to

the board. The question I have for the minister is, To whom would the board be

accountable?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the board will be created by

both Governments and will be ultimately responsible to both Governments.

I was interested a few nights ago in reading an account of an

interview with the Leader of the Opposition when he said we are going back fifty

years, and that we are now slipping back into the 1930s in our approach. He has

a very short memory, because he was part of the Government that negotiated the

Offshore Petroleum Board, a board that is working extremely well, and I commend

the hon. gentleman for having come up with the concept. It was a similar

operation. Granted, you are dealing with a different resource, but that is no

less reason why, properly managed -

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question!

MR. CARTER: - properly structured, this fishery board

would not work just as efficiently and effectively as the Offshore Petroleum

Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I just want to remind hon. members that the Chair needs no

prompting from hon. members about members going on too long - the Chair will

judge that. Members should not be shouting 'Answer the question!' That is only

an interference and I ask hon. members, please, to follow the rules.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

A supplementary to the minister. I want to say to the

minister that the only thing common here, I guess, is oil and cod-liver oil when

you are talking about the offshore petroleum board because it is something that

the Province had no say over before.

Section 5.5 of the Government's proposal

does suggest that there may be need for some provision in the Act for joint

ministerial review of board decisions in limited circumstances, but beyond those

limited circumstances, the board's decisions would be final except for appeals

to the courts. I would like to ask the minister: What are the limited

circumstances that might require a ministerial review, and could the minister,

indeed, amend the decisions of the board?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the board, as I said, will be

the creature of both Houses, the House of Commons, and the Newfoundland

Legislature. What the Legislatures create, I suppose, they can abolish if it

doesn't work. If it doesn't work it can be abolished or changed to make it work.

Mr. Speaker, the ministers will exercise certain authority,

and there are cases where a person who is aggrieved will have the right to

appeal to the board, and ultimately to the courts. I suppose that is one way of

taking it out of the realm of politics, in that if we have a board that is set

up, for all intents and purposes, to be impartial and independent and to try to

remove it from the realm of politics, then it would hardly make sense if every

single decision made by the board could be appealed to the minister or to the

Cabinet because then, of course, that would lend itself again to political

interference. But there will be public hearings. For example, in cases where

there is going to be a policy change there will be a public hearing. In fact,

that is something we don't have now, not to the extent that you will under this

board, and if a person has a grievance with the board then they will have a

right to appeal directly to the board or to appeal to the courts.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The more we question the minister on this proposal, I think

it must become obviously clear to members that what we have here is a proposal

for a worse mess than we have now in the fishery of Atlantic Canada for

Newfoundland and Labrador, a worse mess, Mr. Speaker.

Another supplementary for the minister. The proposal states,

any policy directive issued by the board would be gazetted and laid before the

Provincial Legislature and Parliament. I ask the minister: Would the policy

require the approval of the Legislature, and would the Legislature be able to

reject or amend a policy of the board?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, as is the case now, policies of

the Department of Fisheries are discussed by Cabinet and ultimately presented to

the Legislature, and the situation would not change. That board, Mr. Speaker, is

there to serve the best interests of the Newfoundland fishing industry. It is

there to remove a lot of inequities that exist in the current system, where the

Province does not have any say whatever in the decision-making process. There

isn't an industry in Canada that has such far-reaching implications on a

Province, where the people who are running the Province have so little

jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker.

Now, they can't have it both ways. If they want to support

the Crosbie proposal where it will be purely an Atlantic Provinces board, then

Mr. Speaker, to maybe enshrine in the Constitution certain changes that they

deem necessary, that is something else, but I don't think we can wait that long,

quite frankly. I think the time is long gone, Mr. Speaker, when Newfoundlanders

are going to sit back and be governed by bureaucrats sitting in an office 2,000

or 3,000 miles inland. Newfoundlanders must have the right to have certain input

into the decision-making process and, in our view, this is the way to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A final supplementary for the minister. I mean, the minister

talks about the Government and a department formulating policies, but I want to

refer him again, on supplementary, to 5(4), Functions of the Board. It talks

about three types of functions. It said, first it would develop policies which

guide the administrative actions. So, really all you would be doing would be

administering policies set down by this board, actions of the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans, and the Provincial Department of Fisheries in areas

related to fisheries management, fisheries licensing, plant licensing,

recreational inland fisheries, and the Fisheries Loan Board. So I ask the

minister, if all his department will be doing will be administering the policies

as set down by the joint board.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the

Opposition can possibly have against giving Newfoundlanders the opportunity to

have more input into the decision-making process of the industry, by the way,

that is probably - I can't for the life of me understand why they would object

to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Now, if they would prefer for Uncle Ottawa to

call all the shots, that is fine. If they want to protect their soul mates in

Ottawa, and Mr. Cashin and Mr. Crosbie, if they want to protect those gentlemen

that is fine too.

But I can only tell you, Mr. Speaker, that under this new

proposed regime the Province will have considerable input. We will still be

doing just about the same things we are doing now, but except in cases where

there are new licences to be issued, or the allocation of TACs - this board for

example will be charged with the responsibility of advising the Federal Minister

on the overall TAC. Total allowable catch. When was the last time that the

what should the TAC be this year? They ask but they do not listen. Here is an

opportunity now where we can harmonize both Departments.

They talk about constitutional change. That would not do a

thing. All constitutional change would do is further aggravate the situation

between provinces. Somebody asked the question, why is it we did not go to the

Feds and say: look, give us the right to issue licences and set quotas? These

gentlemen know as well as I do that that has been on the agenda now for the past

twenty years. We have gotten nowhere with it. At least now - if we had the kind

of support that we should be getting from the Members opposite, there is a good

opportunity now we can get some kind of - and it is not going to be perfect, I

know that. But we can work at it and refine it and make it as perfect as

possible. But instead of bucking it purely for the sake of bucking it, if they

wanted to do Newfoundlanders a favour and to do their duty to Newfoundland and

to Newfoundland fishermen, they would be supporting this.

Otherwise, I will tell you what will happen. You will end up

with the Crosbie version of joint management, where there will be a board

established amongst the five provinces and Newfoundland will have one voice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CARTER: If they can tell us how we can protect our

interest by being one voice in amongst five then, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question was to

the Minister of Finance but in his absence the President of Treasury Board.

Public Service pensioners have requested a cost of living increase in their

pensions for 1990. They are prepared to accept Government's wage freeze for

1991. Can the Minister give them an answer? Will he give them an increase for

the year 1990?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as was announced in the last

Budget we are going to start negotiations with the unions to develop an indexed

pension plan, some form of indexing within the pension plan, that will then pay

for regular increases, not only for the people retiring in future years but the

people who have retired in past years.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that

the President of Treasury Board is aware that many of our - the average income

really of pensioners in this Province is below $8,000. Sure, that is a

disgraceful amount to be stagnated at. Does the Government have any compassion

for those people? If so, what is his immediate remedy to the real problem that

faces the pensioners?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will check into the figures

used by the hon. gentleman, but I can assure him that the average pension for

pensioners in this Province, people who have the full pensionable years in -

AN HON. MEMBER: Public Service (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: - I suspect is far - in the public service - I

suspect is far higher than $8,000. But I will check into it and get back to the

hon. gentleman at some later date.

Mr. Speaker, the pension fund is such that we have to be very

careful. We have now just gone through a process of making sure that the pension

funds of the public service of this Province get put back on a solid, sound

footing so that pensions can be paid to everybody who deserves these pensions.

We have now done that. We are now going to the next step which would see, if we

can get agreement fairly quickly, some type of regular increase paid, and that

is called indexing. But that too, Mr. Speaker, has to be paid for. Whatever we

do, at this point in time, because of the excesses of the last twenty years,

whatever we do at this point has to be paid for, we can no longer do something

that is not paid for.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am

sure the Minister is aware that the pensioners had an increase of 2.5 per cent

in 1989 and since the cost of living has risen by 20 per cent, surely the

minister knows somewhere down the road their pensions would be worth nil. What

is the minister going to do about the problem that is right before us today?

They received 2.5 per cent, the cost of living is up 20 per cent over the same

period, will the minister give the pensioners some reason to believe that

something will be forthcoming from this Government?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just

announced and it was announced in the Budget that this Government is doing

something to ensure that pensions of public service pensioners do not

deteriorate over the years. We understand that situation, we know that fixed

incomes deteriorate over the years, that is self-evident. We, for the first time

in this Province, are attempting to do something permanent to fix that problem

and to assure that the pensioners do receive increases from a proper indexed

pension plan, Mr. Speaker. That is the only way to guarantee it, and it is

something the previous Government refused to even look at.

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

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

is to the Minister of Social Services. Would the minister advise this House if

the group home in Happy Valley - Goose Bay will be closing within the next six

months?

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

MR. HOGAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is tentatively scheduled

to be closed over that period of time.

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

on a supplementary.

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

minister makes such a drastic move, would the minister take into consideration

comments made by a physician, who is the medical adviser to the group home? Mr.

Speaker, I want to quote what that physician said: 'There is one resident, Mr.

Wayne Andersen, at this group home who could never be a participating member of

any normal home, he cannot walk or talk nor can he clean or feed himself. His

brain is so damaged that he cannot be left to his own devices for an instant,

yet he is a full sized man so he cannot be handled by one person alone. His care

is such a demanding task that the care givers must be multiple and take turns on

a shift.' Mr. Speaker, taking that into consideration, why is the minister

determined to move this individual out to a home where he will not be able to

get the proper care?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to address a

question when a person stoops so low as to go into the privacy of an individual

and a client of my department, and I do not intend to discuss the specifics -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is unbelievable, distasteful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HOGAN: I do not intend to go into the specifics of

this particular individual, but I can assure The Speaker, and the hon. House

that every measure, every possible measure and care is being taken to ensure

that any individuals moved to any group home, will be going into circumstances

that are enhanced instead of backwards. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

the minister that I spoke to the family half an hour ago and the family wanted

me to bring that name forward in this House. Mr. Speaker, before the minister

does take such action and lock the doors on the group home, would the minister

consider evaluating the other Labradorians who are in institutions on the island

portion of this Province who could be taken back closer to their relatives and

placed into this group home along with Mr. Andersen?

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

MR. HOGAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that also has been given

consideration, and will continue to be given consideration and review. If the

movement of people from the island portion of the Province to that particular

group home will enhance their living, and improve their lot in life, I will be

the first one to be glad to do it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs. The City of St. John's, in light of the increased expenses associated

with the cost of amalgamation, not only to itself but also to its taxpayers, its

new taxpayers as well, has asked the minister and the Government for a

transition grant to help ease that burden. Is the minister prepared to provide

such a grant to the City of St. John's?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, our position is such that we

are willing to listen to any situation that is deemed to be unfair. We are not

providing transition grants in any of the amalgamated groupings in the Province,

the ones that we have done so far, and the ones that we will do in the future.

We are willing to look at an unfairness. If a case is presented, in whatever

area it happens to be, whether it be a facility, or assets, or liabilities, or

deficits, or whatever it happens to be that is deemed unfair - and that is the

key word 'unfair' - we will be willing to look at it.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: My supplementary is fairly simple, Mr.

Speaker: Would the minister regard a tax increase of as much as 50 per cent for

an individual home owner in one year as being unfair?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Well, firstly, Mr. Speaker, we do not know

what is planned in the City of St. John's as far as tax increases are concerned.

I presume he is talking about the area of the Goulds and Wedgewood Park, and the

Metropolitan Board areas that are coming into the city as well. Until we know

what tax increases are planned, it is very difficult for me to speak to the

question. What has to be looked at, I would think, from the city's perspective,

and I cannot speak for the City Council, not being a member, it is their

prerogative to set their tax rates. What has to be looked at is the services

being provided in each of those three specific areas.

I understand there are some pockets of residential taxation,

residents living in areas where services are not up to the full standard, if you

like, of most people in the City of St. John's, and I do not know whether or not

City Council plans to provide any easement, if you like, of the tax burden in

those cases. That is the sort of thing they are looking at right now, I believe,

with the transition team and trying to decide what the taxation level should be.

So it is early in the day; we do not yet know what they are going to do with

these expanding areas. In other cases, of course, we know that full services

have been in place for some time - Wedgewood Park as an example. In that case I

would expect, with full services in place, and they have been enjoying a tax

break, if you like, for a long period of time - some ten or twelve years since

Wedgewood Park has been there - I doubt very much if there is going to be any

differential in the tax rate set for Wedgewood Park vis-a-vis the rest of St.

John's.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before we move on to other items - I will recognize the hon.

member in a moment but before doing that, I want to welcome to the Gallery today

a delegation from the Council of Musgrave Town in the persons of His Worship,

Mayor Stokes -

MR. SIMMS: Musgrave Harbour.

MR. SPEAKER: Musgrave Harbour. Sorry! The Town Council of

Murgrave Harbour - I wouldn't want to make a mistake there - from the historic

district of Fogo, in the persons of His Worship, Mayor Stokes, Councillor Jack

Pinsent, and Town Clerk Sophie Mercer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I also want to welcome to the House of

Assembly today ten Grade VII students from the Enrichment Program here in St.

John's accompanied by their teacher, Patricia Donnelly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I've had a request from an hon. member

wondering if the House would agree to revert back to Ministerial Statements. The

Minister wanted to make a Ministerial Statement and he said that I went too

fast. I apologize for that. I ask hon. members, as always, if we have the right

to revert back to Ministerial Statements.

MR. SIMMS: Depends on which Minister, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it was the Minister of Mines and

Energy.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, yes. Okay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: We agree.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I was a bit slow today and you

went by me before I realized it. It could wait until tomorrow, but I will do it

with leave.

Mr. Speaker, on May 29, 1991, I issued a Call for Postings

pursuant to the Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum Regulations, 1991. All

parties interested in obtaining petroleum exploration rights in the Province

were asked to indicate those areas of interest before September 13, 1919.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House

that the response to the Call for Postings was sufficient to warrant a Request

for Bids under the Petroleum Regulations.

Accordingly, I hereby issue a Request for Bids and invite all

interested parties to make work expenditure bids for petroleum exploration

permits on any of fourteen land parcels situated onshore western Newfoundland

(as outlined in the attached map to this statement). If issued, these permits

will provide the exclusive rights to drill for petroleum on specified land

parcels for a period of five years. Interested parties have until April 30,

1992, to submit their bids.

Mr. Speaker, there is in excess of 500,000 hectares of land

available. I am confident that exploration permits will be issued on some of

these land parcels.

The successful issuance of permits will be a significant step

towards evaluating the petroleum potential of our onshore area, and it will mark

the completion of the first land issuance cycle under the new Petroleum

Regulations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Minister for providing me with a copy of

the Ministerial Statement prior to his releasing it. We on this side of the

House are delighted to see that the minister is responding in allocating land

for exploration on the Island portion of the Province. I hope that the industry

is fit and is justified in spending money and exploring for more petroleum

wealth on the Island portion of the Province. Of course, we all know it is very

important for everybody in the petroleum industry and in the mining industry to

spend money on exploration. Without exploring for oil or minerals we do not get

the opportunities to create more economic development, such as opening new oil

fields or mines. I wish them all the best in their bidding.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow move that the debate on Bill 50 entitled "An Act To Facilitate The

Amalgamation Of Certain Municipal Services In Relation To The Northeast Avalon

Region" shall not be further adjourned, and the further consideration of any

resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses,

section or sections,

preamble or

preambles, title or titles, or whatever else might be related to debate in

Committee of the Whole House respecting Bill 50 shall be the first business of

the House when next called by the House and shall not be further postponed.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to a question

from the Member for Port au Port who was asking the status of the incorporation

of Fox Island River and Point au Mal. In fact, I signed the document approving

the incorporation of this particular municipality in late November and it has

been sent to the Queen's Printer for gazetting. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the good

news is it has been approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to a question that was raised by the hon. the

Member for Menihek yesterday and in earlier days: A few days ago in responding

to a question about what products Government or an agency of Government might be

buying from Come By Chance refinery I used the word 'crude' instead of the word

'product' in my answer and it created some confusion. I would like to give the

details now as to what Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro really is buying.

At the present time, Hydro has two purchase orders for fuel

issued to Newfoundland Processing. One of them, purchase order number 2120000

was issued in January 1991 for 12,000 litres of furnace fuel for the

Stephenville plant. This order is effective for the period January 3, 1991 to

December 31, 1991. The second order, purchase order 2082000 was issued in

January 1990 for 1,500,000 litres of gas turbine fuel for Holyrood. This order

is effective for the period January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1992. The actual

quantity that will be received under this order will depend on the quantity of

fuel required for the hydro operation at Holyrood. Hydro is not obligated to

receive any particular specified amount but for the term of the contract up to

the 1.5 million litres. Both of these purchase orders, as in all purchases of

fuels, were done in compliance with the Public Tendering Act of the Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Opposition House Leader for now, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank you, very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: Forever!

MR. MATTHEWS: Forever - well, that is not too terrible,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: That is more than you can say about the hon.

member. He will not be there forever, for sure.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to Your

Honour's attention for your consideration, we are dealing with the private

member's resolution as put forward by the hon. the Member for Lewisporte dealing

with the issues of joint management of the fisheries. I want to submit to Your

Honour that there are two separate issues in this particular resolution that

have to be voted on, and I would request, Your Honour, that members be allowed

to vote separately. I submit to Your Honour that we are dealing with two issues

- 'Be it therefore resolved that the House of Assembly endorse and support the

joint management proposal released on December 2, 1991 by the Honourable the

Premier and the Honourable Minister of Fisheries' and, as well, 'Be it further

resolved that the House of Assembly formally oppose the federal proposal for

fisheries management.'

So we have two different proposals, two different issues, and

I say to Your Honour that there is adequate precedence in the legislatures in

Ottawa and in England that resolutions of this nature that deal with two

separate issues should, in fact, be voted on separately, it should be a split

vote. I would like to refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's Sixth Edition, paragraph

557, page 172: "A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be

divided so that the sense of the House may be taken on each separately," and,

"The Speaker has a discretionary power," I say to Your Honour, "to decide

whether a motion should be divided." So I would like to ask Your Honour to

consider this matter and, indeed, suggest that there are two distinct

propositions in this resolution put forward by the member.

The reason I rose before you recognized the hon. member is

that I did not want to take any of his time in debating this very important

resolution.

MR. SIMMS: Hear, hear! What a fine House Leader!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this is something that is the

prerogative of Your Honour, whether a resolution be split or not split. In this

case, the argument has been made that there are two separate proposals here. I

think the Opposition House Leader probably read an argument I made some time

ago, and followed rather closely the argument I made with regard to a split

resolution, Mr. Speaker, so I will leave it to Your Honour's good judgement.

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, I would like to have a moment

to address Private Member's resolutions, as I did before I made the previous

resolution. Our House has not worked very hard towards tidying up Private

Members' resolutions. There are Houses in Canada which have some very strict

rules on resolutions, and I say this to hon. members so that in the future they

can guide themselves accordingly. I know, for example, in the Nova Scotia House,

that a Private Member's resolution is allowed only three 'whereases' and one

'resolve', and many Houses have that procedure for Private Members, just one

'resolve', because it does get confusing when we get into two or three

'resolves'. Many times they are only meant to be political and tricky, and avoid

the debating of the proper issue.

The Chair rules that there are two distinct propositions

here, and to get the sense of the House, the Chair rules that it will allow two

votes on the two resolutions.

Private Member's Day

MR. SPEAKER: I call upon the Member for Lewisporte to

proceed with his Private Member's resolution.

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PENNEY: I am pleased and honoured today, Mr. Speaker,

to present this resolution to the House, particularly because of the importance

of the topic contained therein. It must be recognized as well, Mr. Speaker, that

my district is in a noted fishing area of Newfoundland, Notre Dame Bay. For the

record, I will read the resolution.

WHEREAS the province has released its proposal for joint

management which provides for the integration of federal and provincial

responsibility over the harvesting and processing sectors in the fishing

industry through a federal-provincial board; and

WHEREAS integration will lead to a more efficiently regulated

industry and will eliminate conflict and contradictions between federal and

provincial policies, enhance the conservation of fisheries resources, and

improve the competitiveness of fisheries enterprises; and

WHEREAS the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has

tabled a proposal for fisheries reform which does not seek to integrate federal

and provincial management responsibilities, and places the decision-making power

over the Newfoundland fishery in the hands of an Atlantic-wide agency where the

province's influence would be diluted;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House of Assembly endorse

and support the joint management proposal released on December 2, 1991 by the

Honourable the Premier and the Honourable Minister of Fisheries; and

BE IT FURTHER resolved that the House formally oppose the

federal proposal for fisheries management.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I would like to establish before I go

any further is just how important the fishery is to this Province. I would like

to share with hon. members some statistics from 1989. I think these are probably

the most current, accurate statistics.

In 1989 there were 48,000 individuals in this Province

involved in the fishery or the fisheries industry. That included 15,000

full-time fishermen, 15,000 part-time fishermen, and 18,000 plant workers. Mr.

Speaker, that represented almost 21 per cent of the total labour force of this

Province. The harvesting and processing of fish in Newfoundland and Labrador

accounted for 17 per cent of the gross domestic product in the goods producing

sector. So I think it is safe to say that when the fishery is in trouble in this

Province the entire Newfoundland economy is in trouble.

Now we have arrived at a very important time in the history

of the fishery in this Province. We are at a crossroads, I believe. So I would

like to take a few minutes to compare the existing situation of fisheries as we

know it today, the status quo, with the proposal recently presented by Mr.

Crosbie, compare that to the joint management proposals recently announced by

our Government, by the Premier and the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, and

compare that, as well, with some of the proposals we have heard from the PC

Party in this Province over the last few years.

First, let me say a few words about the procedures that we

see in place now, the existing situation. We recognize, I believe, that it is

totally unacceptable. Even Mr. Crosbie has recognized that there is need for

change. Unfortunately, I believe he has directed his change in totally the wrong

direction. But under the status quo the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

has wide-ranging discretionary powers, totally unacceptable discretionary

powers. Any policy or any accepted procedure can be changed at any time without

notice, without consultation with anybody, without accountability to anybody,

and the process, of course, is behind closed doors. It is a closed

decision-making process.

Now the perception, of course, when it is done that way is

that the interest group that has the greatest access is the one that gets the

minister's ear and the one that gains favour from the minister's office. Now, I

am not suggesting that that is the way it is. Certainly, nobody here would

believe that any of Mr. Mulroney's people in Ottawa would do that. But that is

the perception. The whole system is suspect of political interference. I do not

think we need to think very hard to understand why that is.

Now let's take a minute to dwell on Mr. Crosbie's proposal.

That one is unacceptable, as well. As a matter of fact, that is even more

unacceptable than the status quo. Mr. Crosbie proposes a regional fisheries

management agency with an Atlantic-wide focus of five provinces, Nova Scotia,

New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Quebec. That would give

Newfoundland one voice in five, provided we had a voice at all. But if we had a

voice, if we were permitted an equal voice, that would give us one in five. Now,

I do not accept the fact that those other provinces have the same dependency on

the fishery that we, in Newfoundland and Labrador, have. I have already quoted

you the figures, twenty-one per cent of our labour force. I don't believe that

can be said of any of the other provinces that would be involved in this agency.

The other concern I have with it is that it is not joint

management. It is nothing more or less than the reorganization of the existing

federal powers, taking the powers that the minister already enjoys, reorganizing

them a bit, throwing them in a hat, stirring them up and then putting them into

an agency.

Mr. Speaker, while we recognize the right of other provinces

to the fisheries resource - I say that sincerely - while we recognize the rights

of the other provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador will not stand in line with

Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec for the right to

harvest our fish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of allowing

that to happen, and we will do everything humanly possible to ensure that we are

not put in that position.

Let us take a minute to look at the proposals by the

Newfoundland Tories. Since I have sat here in the House of Assembly, in

two-and-a-half years, I have heard proposals for everything from shared to total

jurisdiction in the fisheries. As a matter of fact, in 1981-82 it was the major

topic of debate in the constitutional debates. Mr. Peckford was told that if the

Meech Lake Accord passed, then shared jurisdiction of the fisheries would be one

of the topics for future constitutional negotiations. So the Meech Lake Accord

had to pass so that his pet proposal on joint jurisdiction would be one of the

topics discussed in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: Discussed.

MR. PENNEY: Discussed. Discussed in the future.

Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Simms, the now Leader of the

Opposition, presented a set of proposals to the constitutional committee a few

weeks ago, part of that presentation recommended, as well, joint jurisdiction -

shared jurisdiction with the Federal Government over the fisheries resource - so

their position really has not changed. But I say to all members, the Opposition

seems to equate jurisdiction with power. They think that the more jurisdiction

we have, the more power we have. They are on a power trip; it is an ego trip.

But I say to members opposite, what is the good of power if we do not have the

funds? What is the good of having jurisdiction in the fisheries if we do not

have the money for the enforcement? We have total jurisdiction now over

education. We have total jurisdiction over health, and unfortunately, this

Province does not have the funds required to maintain a proper educational

system, or at least an educational system at the level that we would like to

have. We do not have the funds now to provide health care at the level that we

would like. So what is the good to get total jurisdiction of the fishery? For

anybody to think that if we share jurisdiction with the Federal Government we

would not have to share the cost is being totally naive.

When Mr. Simms made his presentation, and he proposed joint

jurisdiction, I asked him: Who did he propose would be responsible for

surveillance and enforcement? He said: Well, the Federal Government, of course.

So he is suggesting that the Federal Government grant us joint jurisdiction, but

we not be responsible for having to pay part of the cost. Like I said, Mr.

Speaker, that is totally naive. Our proposal on joint management-

MR. TOBIN: He is giving a speech.

MR. PENNEY: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not reading a speech. I

am reading from notes, and maybe members opposite should take more time to make

a few notes before they speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PENNEY: Maybe we would get a little bit better

quality speeches coming out of this hon. House.

MR. NOEL: Might make some sense periodically, anyway. A

good example last night.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few

comments on the proposals that were presented to the House of Assembly a few

days ago by the hon. the Premier and the hon. the Minister of Fisheries. It is

entitled 'Effective Fisheries Management', and that is exactly what it would

provide - effective fisheries management - effective for the first time in many

years. It is the most innovative position papers on the fisheries that have ever

been presented in this Province I believe. The most innovative ever, but it is

not a new idea, Mr. Speaker, it is not a new idea, it has been recommended by

federal studies and provincial studies, it has been recommended by anybody who

has been asked to do a study into the fisheries crisis. As a matter of fact, the

Kirby Report, recommended something like this, joint management. That was a

federal report but of course that was ignored.

Then the Harris Review Panel, another federal study. Mr.

Harris recommended the creation of a Federal/Provincial Board, to share

information, co-ordinate management objectives and to set policy strategy, and

for the benefit of the member Opposite, I read that out of my notes, if that

bothers him, and I would like to read another of my notes for him one more time,

just in case he did not get it the first time. Mr. Harris suggested the creation

of a Federal/Provincial Board to share information, co-ordinate management

objectives, to set policy and develop strategy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, then there was the Maloney Commission. Now

that was a provincial study. Mr. Maloney recommended the same thing, a joint

Federal/Provincial Agency or Authority, like we have recommended now. Mr.

Speaker, that is the support this proposal, this idea has had in the past, but

the support has not stopped, we are still getting the same kind of support. All

indications are that the fisheries industries in this Province is totally 100

per cent supportive of this proposal that we have just presented, that the

entire fisheries industry will support this position.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. PENNEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many (inaudible).

MR. PENNEY: Now, it is interesting to note though, Mr.

Speaker, and I cannot resist the temptation. When I said the entire fisheries

industry, I suppose if we try real hard, we will have to include Mr. Cashin in

there? Let me read a quote from Mr. Cashin. Mr. Cashin, from The Evening

Telegram, he says - Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that you do not rule

this unparliamentary because I am only quoting from the paper.

Mr. Cashin said that 'the report is a pile of crap, a pile of

crap' he said 'and Alice in Wonderland reads better.' This report, our

provincial report. He goes on, he says: 'I am quite certain that that view will

be held by most people in the industry.' Now, I am quite certain that the man is

absolutely wrong, again. Then he goes so far as to say: 'however fish company

officials may see things differently because they like to suck around with

Government.'

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. PENNEY: They like to suck around with Government.

Well, I wonder who Mr. Cashin has been sucking around with for the last little

while. I wonder whom he has been sucking around with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PENNEY: The audacity of the man!

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that, who said that?

MR. PENNEY: That was Mr. Cashin said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. PENNEY: If hon. members had been paying attention you

would have heard it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it again.

MR. PENNEY: Read it again? Read it again. Mr. Cashin says

some fish company officials may see things differently from the way he would

because they like to suck around with Government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right, The same as you. Maybe you

should go up to Ottawa (inaudible) yourself.

MR. PENNEY: Now, Mr. Speaker, all of those

recommendations were ignored. The advantages of our discussion paper, first of

all, would provide for rational decisions -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mr. Cashin is not here to

defend himself.

MR. PENNEY: - rational decision making process, totally

removed from political influence and political intervention. Now Members

Opposite would not understand that, I recognize that, but I ask them to pay

attention. It would provide for better co-ordination of Federal and Provincial

policies. What we have seen in the past are two levels of Government, setting

policy in two diametrically opposite directions. As the hon. Minister of

Fisheries said earlier, it is basically, let not your left hand know what you

right hand doeth, and that is what has been happening in this country. The

fishery is too important to allow that to happen.

It would provide greater integration of the fisheries

management decisions in the area of economic and social policies within the

Province. We have already established the importance of the fisheries to this

Province. We have already established the importance of it to our labour force

and our gross domestic product.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PENNEY: I will send my notes over to the hon. Member

if he would like to read them, Mr. Speaker. He might need a little bit of

background training in pharmacy though to be able to read some of these notes.

But I would gladly share them with him. Maybe we could educate him just a little

bit.

MR. NOEL: He'll need training in more than pharmacy.

MR. MURPHY: He needs some kind of medical help.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, another of the advantages -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PENNEY: We would provide open, consistent management

decisions. Now, I wonder is there anybody opposite who understands what open

decisions mean? These are decisions that are not made behind closed doors, these

are decisions where everybody can have an input. Consistent, where the same kind

of decision is made for everybody. Not where you treat your friends differently

from the other user groups. That is what we would propose, that is what we would

provide under this kind of a setup. Open and consistent management decisions.

We would provide a process of accountability, Mr. Speaker. We

would begin to rebuild in this industry, and in the process of governing we

would begin to rebuild a sense of pride and confidence. That is something that

the people in this country have not had in their government for a long time. We

would begin to put that back by eliminating the political intervention and the

influence. We would be providing pride and confidence again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of examples here

but time will not permit me. I will get an opportunity to speak again. How much

time do I have left?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. PENNEY: I ask hon. Members to just think about what

we have done with the industry in the last few years. Let's ask ourselves: how

can we expect the public to have any confidence in our system when there is no

accountability? How can we expect the public, the voters, to be proud of what

their elected Members are doing when the decisions are made behind closed doors?

Make no wonder the Tories in Ottawa are so low in the polls. Make no wonder.

The criticism of the Members opposite is that somehow we are

giving away something. This proposal is giving away something that is

Newfoundland's. As a show of good faith, trying to get approval for a project

that we believe in, we must give something in order to get something back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PENNEY: The hon. Member for Grand Bank says: don't

give anything. That is the kind of an attitude I think that has gotten us in

this mess. What we are proposing to give up, Mr. Speaker, we are proposing as a

provincial government to give up: policy development for the processing sector;

final decisions on granting and transferring fish processing licences; and

policy development for the Fisheries Loan Board. That is what we would

contribute. It is not giving up, it is a contribution. That is our investment

into this process.

In turn we would expect the Federal Government to invest the

following. This would be their investment: harvesting and conservation policy

development; recommendations to the Federal Minister on total allowable catches;

final decisions on granting and transferring licences; and final decisions on

resource allocations to user groups. That would be the Federal contribution.

Now if we could get the contribution from both sectors of

Government, from the Federal and Provincial Governments, if we could get those

contributions, and if we could get that accepted, we would have a much better

fisheries management in this Province in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes.

MR. PENNEY: The only thing I would like to say in cluing

up, Mr. Speaker, is that our Government is totally committed to this. We

sincerely believe this is the way to go, and I believe the industry maintains

the same thing. I believe that within the next little while members opposite

will understand that the industry supports this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. PENNEY: Well, that remains to be seen. Anybody who

can look at this honestly would support it. I will have time for my other few

remarks later so I will turn it over to members opposite.

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

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

I am pleased today to rise to speak and debate the resolution

put forward by the hon. Member for Lewisporte. I want to go on record from the

outset and say to the hon. member that I have problems with both the Provincial

Government's effective fisheries management proposal and the proposal made by

the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a few days ago pertaining to an

Atlantic regional agency to run the Atlantic fishery. I want to say to the hon.

member that up to until last night when we were here in this Legislature and

asked questions about this Provincial Government proposal I do not know if there

were too many members opposite who had read this particular document. I know

there were some last night who started to read it, after we raised questions in

Question Period, and they had some problems with it because they did not know

what was in it, and I say to members opposite that I am sure most of them over

there still have not read it. They should read it because it is a very important

document that everyone should familiarize himself with so that they understand

fully what the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries is proposing to do with our

fishery and how they would like for it to be run. I read it the same day that

the Premier made it public. I read it that night.

I say to the Member for Eagle River that he probably has not

read it yet. He is probably going to get his notes from the member for Port de

Grave who will give him a critique. I say to the hon. Member for Eagle River

that the caucus was expected to take a long period of time this morning but it

did not take as long as it was suppose to, and maybe it was because the Premier

was not there for the members to get their hooks into him about this, those of

them who have read it. I have two or three main concerns with this Provincial

Government's proposal. We have maintained for the last fifteen or twenty years

that the Province should have more say and more control over our fishery. We

have all maintained that. I have not heard too many people in the Province,

particularly those in elected office, whether it be federal, provincial, or

municipal say opposite. Everyone is pretty unanimous that we do not have enough

say over our most important and most traditional industry, the fishery.

The few things we do have control over, processing, once fish

is landed in our ports it falls under the jurisdiction of the Provincial

Government, the processing end of things. The issuing of processing licences

falls under the management of the Province. In this proposal the Province is

suggesting and proposing to give that processing authority over to a joint

management board, a Federal/Newfoundland joint management board. Now, my

question is: why would this Province, with the little authority that we have

over our most important industry, give that over to a joint management board?

Why would we want to do it? Why would we want to give the policy decisions of

the Fisheries Loan Board over to a joint federal management board, I ask members

opposite? Do not tell me you do not have concerns about that. I am sure most of

you do. Those of you who do not have a background in the fishery, and I suppose

there are some among you, a minority that do not deal with fishery problems on a

daily basis, perhaps I can understand those people not understanding the issue

here and not being concerned about it. But if you are dealing with fishermen on

a daily basis like I am, and which most members of this House are, then you

understand the importance. If you are out in the rural communities of this

Province trying to get some small form of processing facility going to create

ten, twelve or fifteen jobs, then you know how important it is for the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to have control over the processing end

of things. But, can you imagine trying to start some little processing facility

out in some small community now, and you have to go to the Joint Management

Board? Can you imagine it? Especially when that Joint Management Board is

setting the policy.

I will tell you what jumped out at me in this document when I

read it. I could smell it all the way through it. It is further rationalization

of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. Further rationalization, I say to

members opposite. We all know where we have gone in the last eleven or twelve

years with rationalization in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. Well, this

document is going to encourage more. It is talking about processing capacity. We

will go back to the days of Michael Kirby when he talked about how we had too

much processing capacity. Well, hidden in this there are overtones of Michael

Kirby.

It talks about availability of resource. You know what it is

insinuating? Again, that we have too much processing capacity for the amount of

resource available. What does that mean to members opposite? I know what it

means to me, that some of the processing capacity is going to have to go. We are

going to wipe out another number of Newfoundland and Labrador communities. That

is what is hidden in here. And if you give that off to the lap of a bunch of

unelected, unaccountable people, joint appointments, by the way, by the Federal

and Provincial Governments, they can do the dirty deeds for you.

This Federal/Provincial board is going to have full control

over the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, I say to members opposite, and that

is why I have been trying to pin the Minister of Fisheries down on the issue in

the last few days. All the Provincial Department of Fisheries will do, Mr.

Speaker, is re-issue processing licences where this board says they should be

issued. That is basically all it will do. It will administer the loans to

fishermen, but the policy will be set, all the policy for the fishing industry,

by this Joint Management Board, and that bothers me very, very much, I say,

because that is what the Government is elected to do. That is what politicians

are send here to do, and governments and ministers and cabinets, to develop

policy, and then the departments that the policy relates to carry out that

policy. That is why there is a Provincial Department of Fisheries today, to

carry out the fisheries policy developed by the cabinet of the government of the

day.

Now, if you are going to have that done by a Joint Management

Board you have to question, as I have done in the last few days, what, in the

name of God, will we need a Provincial Minister of Fisheries for and a

Provincial Department of Fisheries, and how that contrasts, Mr. Speaker, with

the Liberal Policy Manual of the last general election, when in it - I forget

the specific words - it talks about the Provincial Department of Fisheries and

how it would become, I think, the key economic development department of

Government. I believe those are the words that are used, or something similar to

that, in the document on the fishery, that it was going to make the Provincial

Department of Fisheries the key department of Government for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

What have we seen in the last two years specifically? We have

seen the budget of the Provincial Department of Fisheries reduced by $5.1

million and now the Government proposes to give all of the authority of that

Department over to a Joint Management Board. Now, that is what concerns me about

it, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are moving in the opposite direction, this

Government is moving in the opposite direction, to what most Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, in particular those involved in the fishing industry, want.

I see the Member for Lewisporte shakes his head. He must be

living in a different Newfoundland and Labrador than I have lived in for the

last forty-odd years, I say to him. It is a common complaint amongst people, it

is a very popular thing to talk about, that we should have more say over our

fishery. I say to the member, in the 3No dispute that has been raging on the

last five or six months, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians think it is our

fish. Isn't that what you heard? 'What are they doing out there catching our

fish?'

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what he said.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, this is all related to our fish. This

is all related to our fish.

MR. PENNEY: (Inaudible) protect our fish.

MR. MATTHEWS: It will not protect our fish, I say to the

Member for Lewisporte. It will do anything but protect our fish. If you look

into the proposals here to govern stocks where the Government is anticipating

that there will be other Federal/Provincial joint management boards, not only

Newfoundland/Ottawa, but Nova Scotia/Ottawa. If you look at the tangle that is

proposed in here to look after those stocks, it is unbelievable. We think the

fishery is in a mess now, Mr. Speaker. Well if we get two or three agreements

between any of the Atlantic Provinces and Ottawa similar to this one, if you

think the fishery is in a tangle and a snarl now, wait until that happens.

Now I want to go back to what the Premier said in the Liberal

document - the general election document.

No, that is not it. That is not the one that I am looking

for. The one there where they talk about the importance of the Department of

Fisheries and what it will become.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to as well, since this

resolution is twofold, it talks about the House of Assembly endorsing and

supporting the joint management proposal released on December 2, 1991 by the

hon. Premier and the hon. Minister of Fisheries, and it goes on to say: " And be

it further resolved that the House of Assembly formally oppose the federal

proposal for fisheries management."

I want to go on record in the House once more as saying very

clearly, very distinctly, and very strongly that I, as well, oppose the proposal

put forward by the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with regards to an

Atlantic regional agency to control the fishery. I oppose that for reasons that

are similar to why I oppose the Provincial position because again that would be

very complex, very complicated, and I think, again, will turn into a real mess.

Indeed, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians would then be directly competing with

other provinces for our fisheries resources because even though, perhaps, as a

Newfoundland and Labrador Province, we would have more members on the full

board, if you add up the members on the board from other provinces in total they

could outnumber us. I think that is a very dangerous game to play, and we on

this side have notified Mr. Crosbie that we do not support it, and indeed we

oppose his proposals to establish an Atlantic agency.

So we are on record. We have written him, he knows it; we

have talked to him, he knows it; he does not appreciate it, but I say that is

too bad. I say to the members opposite: that is too bad. I, for one, am not

willing to agree with any proposal coming from anyone, whatever level of

government, whether they are of the same or different political stripe as I am,

if it is not in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador. On this one I

just could not accept what Mr. Crosbie was proposing to do with the Atlantic

fishery and that particular agency.

I want to leave this message with members opposite. Those who

have read it - this document - those who have it and I hope will, those that may

have some problems once they read it of understanding all of it because there

are some complicated issues here, there are some complicated suggestions, you

have to read it a few times, sit back and think about it before you read it

again. But I really think that even if the Federal Government was to accept

this, if we were to in six months time enter into an agreement with the Federal

Government on this, then I think we are taking one major step backward, Mr.

Speaker, one major step backward. I do not think we would be doing one thing

positive for the fishermen and the fish plant workers of Newfoundland and

Labrador by entering into an agreement such as is proposed here. I do not think

so.

I think it is a very backward step because as we have said,

if we could discuss with Ottawa, and if they were receptive to allowing us to

licence the vessels that go out and harvest our fish, the two key elements that

we need on top of the processing, and on top of the fisheries loan board aspect

would be to be able to licence the fishing boats, and we would want to have the

say over allocating our share of the total allowable catch. Now I think we all

agree that the Federal Government has to establish the total allowable catch

because we are talking other provinces and other people in Canada. But our share

of the total allowable catch, we should be able to decide, as a Province, where

it goes, and what user group gets what. If we had the say over that, if we could

licence our vessels, we now have control over the processing end of things.

The only thing we could hope for above and beyond that would

be that our fish resources, our cod stocks off our shore, would replenish a bit

faster. If our cod stocks were in a healthy condition, and we could control

processing, we could licence our boats to go out and harvest the fish, we could

divvy up the allocation of Newfoundland and Labrador's share of the total

allowable catch, then we would not need anything else for the Newfoundland and

Labrador fishery. We would have all that we need. What else could we ask for, I

say to members opposite who do not pay too much attention to this very serious

problem it seems? What more could we ask for, if we had control over all those

aspects of the fishery? We would not need a joint Federal/Provincial management

board. We, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, could completely control the

fishery - our fishery. That is the real question that members opposite have to

ask themselves as they read this, and as they debate this today and over the

oncoming days, the ensuing days, and as their Government moves forward to try to

get an agreement with the Federal Government on this document. I ask them to

think about this.

I appreciate, I say to the Member for Lewisporte, that he has

brought forward this resolution. All I say to him, in the resolution, that why I

asked the Speaker to rule on splitting the vote is that if it was left together

and we voted against the four, particularly if we voted against the two, I am

sure the hon. member realizes - I do not know if he does though -

AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot support both?

MR. MATTHEWS: No. How can I support both, because if I

vote against the provincial proposal -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, but if I do, or if other members do -

if I say no to the provincial proposal, I as well say no to opposing the federal

proposal, and I am not willing to do that. I want to say no to both. I want to

say, no, Mr. Provincial Government, I cannot support your proposal. As well, I

want to say to Mr. Crosbie, I cannot support yours either. So that is why I ask

- what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Now that is what I have just been talking

about for ten minutes. I say to the minister with all due respect, that is what

I have just talked about for the last ten minutes.

Go up to Ottawa and ask them to allow us Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to licence our fishing vessels to harvest our fish, okay, number

one. We have control over the processing once you bring it to shore; that is

ours now, okay. We can determine where and how that fish is going to be

processed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The minister. The Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador. The same way he issues his processing licences, he

could issue licences for fishing vessels.

MR. CARTER: How do you feel about Santa Claus, Bill?

MR. MATTHEWS: I still believe in him, I say to the

minister. That is what I think about Santa Claus; I still believe in him,

because in Newfoundland and Labrador today there is not too much else to believe

in. As a matter of fact, I found it hard to believe a few days ago when I saw a

Christmas tree being lit outside of the building, because I was not sure that we

were going to have Christmas in this Province this year. That is the only thing

that has not been cut - Christmas.

In answering the minister, who was asking some sensible

questions, I say to him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Who what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who would enforce it?

MR. MATTHEWS: Who would enforce it? Well, hopefully in

our own waters we would not need to enforce it, but we could put observers on

our boats as we have now. There are observers on our own boats now, do not

forget. The biggest problem with overfishing, I say to the minister, is not

inside the 200 mile limit, even though there is abuse inside, most of it is

outside in international waters. The Province agrees, and I agree, that when you

are dealing in international waters, it is an international affair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who would enforce it inside of our

waters?

MR. MATTHEWS: Inside of our waters? The Federal

Government would enforce it. All we are saying is, let us licence our fishing

boats; let us decide amongst us our share of the total allowable catch, that

allocation; let us divvy it up amongst our user groups the way we see fit - the

minister can do that, or his advisory group can do it for him - licence the

boats; we control the processing on shore once the fish comes in, and what else

can we want from the fishery, I say to the minister. What else would we want?

Only that the stocks would get healthier so that our boats would bring more fish

in, so that we process and create more jobs in our plants. We would not need

anything more. We would not need anything more. We still need foreign fishing

stopped outside of the 200 mile limit, but that is an international issue that

we are very concerned about, and it is doing a lot of damage to our fishery, but

that is what we really need.

I say to the Member for Lewisporte, there is just one thing

he said, by the way, that I took exception to when the Premier said it probably

a year and a half ago in the old Chamber - when he said that we cannot afford

this, and we cannot afford that when it pertains to the fishery, and I just want

to say this to the member, we cannot afford not to because our very survival

depends on it. The financial position of this Province is directly linked to the

state of our fishery more than anything else. If we had a healthier fishery,

more fish landed in Newfoundland and Labrador, more jobs in our processing

plants, more taxes paid, then we would not be having the $120 million or $125

million deficit this year, I say to the Member.

So it is all connected. You cannot just say: we cannot afford

to touch it. And all the while we go through this 'cannot afford to touch it'

bit our financial position in the Province worsens. That is why the economy of

this Province has gone downhill the last number of years. Directly related to

the state of our Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. I say to Members opposite

that it was not too much for the Province to go up to ask the Federal Minister

and the Federal Government to let us licence those boats. Was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: You have done that, you have done it? When?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), 1977.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister, 1977 he was tied up

dealing with the Two Hundred Mile Limit, which was very positive, but again that

did not go far enough either.

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: But having said that, Mr. Speaker, I will

just conclude by thanking the Member for putting forward the resolution to give

Members the - I think very timely - opportunity to debate a very important issue

for this Province. I ask Members opposite particulary to read this document,

peruse it very carefully, talk to those you know who are involved in the fishing

industry. Because I sincerely believe that this proposal is a backward step for

the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. I cannot support the hon. Member's

resolution.

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

Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased

today to have the opportunity - as a long-time fishermen for the last nineteen

years, I think it is very appropriate to be able to speak in support of this

motion.

For a very long time here in Newfoundland we have been

talking about having more to say in our management of our fishery. The fishing

industry in Newfoundland is one of the most important industries that we have. I

have seen it used as a political football every since I was a boy. Both in the

Federal and Provincial governments. Whenever they want to win politics or win

more votes they use our fishery for their own means.

What do we see today? A fishery that, when I was growing up

as a boy, I went down on the wharf evening after evening and I saw the boats

come in flat on the water. Every day as we go by it gets worse and worse. So

that comes to prove that what we have been doing over the last years has not

been right. We have had our Federal Government managing the fish stocks and we

have had the provincial government managing it this way and that way. All we

have done is tear it apart. We have devastated our fishery.

So I think it is about time that we come together and work

together to manage the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador so that we can have

a fishery in days to come.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: Not for political gains! Not so the Opposition

can get elected; not so the Liberals can get elected. Because we are here today

and gone tomorrow, and maybe not so long as that. But I'm telling you that we

have to look after our fishery in such a way that it will be there after we are

all gone.

I saw down in Labrador like I said here, a few years ago,

Nova Scotian trawlers coming day after day and night after night till they

cleaned up our turbot stocks. You can go down there now and you cannot catch it

in a five and a half inch mesh, because there was no organization to it. The

Federal Government was sending down Nova Scotians to catch our fish and we did

not know what was going on. We hear it on the news media day after day about all

the foreign fishing that is going on and we wonder if it is true. We have planes

out there flying around all day long, so why can we not have a video made of

just whatever ships are out there so we can show it to our public.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMALL: Say that again?

MR. TOBIN: I thought the Fishermen's Union were doing it.

MR. SMALL: The Fishermen's Union, is using the fishery

for political gains, for their own political gains, so they can get more members

to keep the ones at the top employed with the big salaries. I mean I was

involved in it for years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: I saw the fishermen's funds used to try to get

the NDP elected and because I was running as a Liberal I could not get any grant

from the Fishermen's Union-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMALL: - we saw the Saltfish Corporation that was set

up to give a payback to the fishermen who caught the fish and salted it, that

was used as a political football and used until the day it went bankrupt, so

what I am saying is both levels of Government need to get their heads together

and work out a sensible management plan. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would

like to say a few words as it pertains to this resolution. I, like other members

of this hon. House, have great difficulty with both of those proposals. When I

look at what is going to transpire here if either of those recommendations was

accepted, Mr. Speaker, it is again a step backward. I mean it is not political,

it is like the hon. member who just spoke said, and I think this was his first

speech in the House of Assembly and I want to congratulate him.

I want to say to that hon. gentleman that you spoke well and

I am sure it was from the heart and I am sure also, that it was through

experience that the words came forth, and that in itself is a major step forward

in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, if we were to go along with the federal

proposal, again we speak of a board, a board that would look after the interests

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Mr. Speaker, there has to be politics

within any department of government, that is what it is all about, government is

politics and if we take the politics completely out of the fisheries - I am not

saying that it should not be motivated by some aspect of that, but not to take

it completely away from the politicians. What are we elected for? What are our

duties in this Legislature, if we have nothing at all to do or say about the

industry that is the mainstay of our Province? An industry from whence we came,

this is what our ancestors came over here for, this is what they landed on this

Island for, to prosecute the fishery.

There is one part of our fishery already gone, Mr. Speaker.

The seal fishery which was very, very important to our fathers and forefathers

in general. I know my father was a very, very strong fisherman as it pertains to

the seal fishery and the cod fishery and I find it heart warming I suppose, in

being able to stand here in my place and say I was to the ice myself, three

springs, and the experience that I gained from it was something that I could

never gain from a book. My father was to the ice twenty-seven springs. I am not

here to talk about the seal fishery but I am talking about our dwindling

resources, our dwindling partnership in all resources.

This part of our livelihood is gone, taken away from us, Mr.

Speaker, by people who did not know what they were talking about. I hear today

that in Spain now they are trying to impress upon the economic community, the

European economic community, whereby they still could retain some of the sports

activities that they have in Spain. Now, those were some of the people who were

adamant in destroying our seal fishery. They want to still be able to drive

bulls until they die, bash other animals to death with whatever just for the

sports sake of it. Those were some of the participants of the European economic

Community that destroyed our seal fishery.

Mr. Speaker, if we let this board, if we let the powers to be

designate any more aspects of our fishery to some board, members of which have

no knowledge of and could not care less about the fishery in Newfoundland and

Labrador, then this would be certainly a step backward.

Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the provincial proposals. The

Province proposes to address the situation by saying that we will form this

board jointly with the Feds and we will let them take over processing,

licensing, and the loan board. But, Mr. Speaker, these are situations basic to

the problems within the fishery, licensing, the loan board. How would someone

jointly on a board, if the make up of the board was never established, be able

to realize or visualize the needs or aspirations of some fellow who needs a boat

down in Pouch Cove, or in Trepassey? How would this board work? No one has told

us how they intend the board to work. I think this paper that was brought into

the House by the Minister of Fisheries, sponsored by the Premier and the

Cabinet, I suppose, but I say for the record that the Premier had the most to do

with it, but after two and a half years this is a very meaningless piece of

work. It does not address the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It does

not address the needs of our fishermen, our plant workers, or Newfoundlanders in

general, because the spin-offs alone from our main industry affects every

individual in this island Province, and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister and the Premier are saying is

that we will give away what we have had since 1949, we will give away the

rights. But from the time of the Premier's predecessors right from the Smallwood

years, what we wanted was more influence over managing our stocks. With the

proposal that we have here today we are giving away what we had since 1949.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are hon. members on the other side

over there who will vote along party lines but this time, for the sake of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, let us be reasonable.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: I would. I am a Conservative and I am saying

now that Mr. Crosbie's proposals do not satisfy the needs of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I am also saying that the Premier of this Province's

resolve to the situation certainly does not meet the needs either of the people

of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, we had one chance and every Member opposite who

today is flinging around this paper, waving it and saying: this is the greatest

thing, this is the saviour for the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, this is

it, this is the paper that is necessary. Everyone in this House should vote for

it.

We had one chance to bring our fishery to the forefront and

we fouled it up. We did not foul it up, but you did on that side! I am surprised

when the Minister of Justice quit, gave it up, that they did not bring back

Elijah to become Minister of Justice. His buddy. The Premier, his high-handed

methods, and you are over there, tools of the Premier. That is all it was. When

you defeated Meech Lake, which gave the fishery priority for the First

Ministers' conference - at least to be discussed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: At least to be discussed! At least it would

be there on the table.

AN HON. MEMBER: What promise have you got?

MR. PARSONS: What promise do we have? What promise do we

have now?

MR. MATTHEWS: None!

MR. PARSONS: None whatsoever. You gave it away! You blew

it! A chance for prosperity, the only chance Newfoundland and Labrador had to

become part of this great Dominion. With our greatest resource. The Member for

Labrador certainly can appreciate the fact that we should not give away any

more. I am positive the hon. Member realizes as well as I do that we cannot give

away any more or we will have no say in anything. Does he really and truly

believe that a board made up of whom we do not know - granted, there will be

impartial people on it, I suppose, non-political - does he think that board

would serve, would be the answer to the problems within the fishery today?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, at least what we have now, at least we

have a little bit of control. We have all control over processing. We do, we

have control - the hon. Minister of Fisheries smiles. Well, don't we have

control over processing?

MR. MATTHEWS: We're supposed to!

MR. PARSONS: We are supposed to, yes. We have control

over the Fisheries Loan Board, don't we?

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't have say in all of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say in none of it (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: We have say in none of it now if the

Minister's proposals are adopted.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't understand the stuff you read.

MR. PARSONS: I'm not reading anything. All I have there

is the resolution by the hon. Member. I am not reading anything. I do not need

to read when it pertains to the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. I was a

fisherman myself, and I realize the plight of the people out there. I realize

also that if some drastic steps are not taken where this fishery is going. Down

the chute.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thanks to who?

MR. PARSONS: Down the chute. Thanks to who? That's the

problem, thanks to who. It did not start with the Conservatives. It stared from

the time we entered Confederation, because no one placed very much, if any,

stock in our main industry.

MR. MATTHEWS: If Romeo LeBlanc (Inaudible) give away more

fish!

MR. PARSONS: Oh, if Romeo had to get another stint at it,

boy, we would be gone. We would not be here now. I do not know but Jay Parker

was right when he said we all should be moved to the mainland. If we had to

leave Romeo here for another four years then I think we would be all gone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Well, that was true. Mr. Parker said that a

great number of Newfoundlanders, that we could not provide for our people. They

should be moved to the mainland. But there is not much up on the mainland for to

move them for now.

MR. GRIMES: We have enough problems (Inaudible) you were

against Confederation, you were against the school tax and now you are against

this. You haven't been for anything in your life.

MR. PARSONS: Glory be. No wonder the unemployment

statistics are 22 per cent. When I look across at the Minister and hear some of

his comments, no wonder why - a big joke. It is a joke. It is not any joke with

me, because I live down in a small community where everyone around, practically,

are fishermen. When I go up the shore all I see are plant workers and people

that are very sad, very sorrowful, as it pertains to the plight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I will tell you one thing. No matter what we

are doing with the fish we are not in bed till twelve and one o'clock in the

day. We are out there working, like all Newfoundlanders had in their heart and

soul many years ago, and with some of it is lost today.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's different. (Inaudible)

constituents.

MR. PARSONS: I look after my constituents to the best of

my ability. That is why I am standing here today. Because there is a number of

my constituents who have problems with both parts of this resolution. I have

great problems with it. I am not like the Member for Harbour Grace, although I

was involved with a union at one time, but I am not like the Member for Harbour

Grace who has no experience whatsoever in the fishery, only what someone told

him -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: - what someone told him, that is why I said

to the member, the newest member in the House, that he came across to me today

real well, because I found that gentleman a man who knew what he was talking

about, not what someone else told him, who had a physical involvement in what we

are talking about here today and that is what we need, more men who were

involved in it and know what they are talking about. Not some bureaucrat, not

someone who writes down something here, this is what you do and you read it and

say is this true? Is this true, is this a good proposal? Are you sure now, you

will bring it before the House? That is what we have here, the Member for

Lewisporte today, did not have a clue - fine, fine -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that is good.

MR. PARSONS: Now, we have a Minister of Fisheries who is

a good friend of mine -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes he is, a constituent of mine, yes a fine

gentleman but he has his head screwed on the wrong way when it pertains to the

fishery. He wants us to go the other way, you have to take a twist. I mean you

have tunnel vision that was given to you by the Premier. The Premier gave you

this vision of degrading the fishery, that is what it is, degrading the fishery,

reducing the fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that is why (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: What we do is very simple and it is that we

have to go to Ottawa and try our best to get some of the things that we talked

about enshrined in the Constitution. That is the answer to it, there is no other

answer to it and what I said in the first instance as it pertains to Meech Lake,

there was the answer we had. They talked about distinct societies, I do not hear

the Premier going around now talking about distinct societies, that was his big

beef at that particular time. That was his big beef but he forgot about the

people because he was waving a wand to the people on the mainland from cape to

cape saying I am the saviour of Canada, because I am anti-French, that is why,

but he forgot about the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, he forgot about the

people he should be representing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: - what in the hell was the difference to a

fellow in Ming's Bight about the distinct society? The important thing to him

was to get food for his family, which an awful lot of Newfoundlanders, because

of the situations that are occurring now, have a problem with just putting food

on the table.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you support Meech Lake?

MR. PARSONS: Did I support Meech Lake? Yes, I did.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was in Meech Lake that supported the

fishery?

MR. PARSONS: It said at least that it would be on the

Agenda -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) have a Constitutional discussion.

MR. PARSONS: You would be having Constitutional

discussions on the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, but the Premier forgot

it. The Premier forgot it; he was on the stage for the rest of Canada, he was

performing but he is not performing today, because he knows now that Meech Lake

did have some (inaudible)-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)

AN HON. MEMBER: He knows he is wrong.

MR. PARSONS: He knows now he was wrong -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I get excited when I see some

of what is written on those resolutions brought before the House, with nothing

for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and if you people get up today and say

either one is right that this is the right way to go, then you spell the end to

our fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. PARSONS: The end to the fishery. If we give some

people from God knows where, the right to control our fishery, leave it with the

Minister of Fisheries; try to improve upon his lot, that is what we always said,

that is what we always advocated, that more jurisdiction, we do not mean

surveillance, we are not foolish enough for that, but for licensing. And for

God's sake, do not give away to some foreign, foreign to us board, to say if a

fisherman down in Pouch Cove, like I said before, gets money to buy a boat - I

mean bureaucracy is bad enough now but at least we have people on that board now

who are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who understand the plight of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who know the needs of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. Don't go set up some board. I mean, you were elected to do a job.

We have the ERC now. They are looking after the economic situation in the

Province. Now, we are going to set up another board to look after the fishery.

Now, we are going to have another board to look after - What are you all being

elected for? What are you doing here if you are going to give everything to the

boards? Set up a board here, set up a board somewhere else. Let's do it

ourselves.

DR. KITCHEN: I am 'board' to death!

MR. PARSONS: The old Minister of Finance says he is

'board' to death. He is bored to death, yes, indeed he is. He is bored to death

because he doesn't care. But there are a great number of us in this hon. House,

Mr. Speaker, who do care. The hon. minister couldn't care less. You see what he

has done, the layoffs, the tax grabs. What does he care about the poor people?

Nothing, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we speak about today.

In this resolution we find that both levels of Government

have proposed solutions that will fix the Newfoundland fishery, that will

straighten everything out. This is God's gift to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, it is a step

backwards. I don't believe the Minister of Fisheries has his heart in this.

Because I don't think he would want to sit in his office and have someone else

dictate to him from a board that is at arm's length with the minister's

department, and that is what it would be. I don't think the Minister of

Fisheries would advocate that, in fact, I am sure he wouldn't. I have spoken to

the Minister of Fisheries over the years about different aspects of the fishery,

and he has a lot of good suggestions the same as everyone else in this hon.

House, but the point remains, Mr. Speaker, we have not seen it in this -

effective fisheries management is not in it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you read that?

MR. PARSONS: Yes, I read it, and there is nothing in it.

It is a giveaway. It is giving away the rest of our resource over which we have

some effective powers. And for God's sake, in closing, Mr. Speaker, I say to the

hon. members, don't pass something just because you are Liberals or pass

something because we are Conservatives. Let's stand on our two feet. Let's be

counted. Let's really show the people why we are here, to represent

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and to protect our greatest resource, which

supplies directly or indirectly much of the funding that enables us to be here,

the financial aspect, which is part of what Newfoundland and Labrador is all

about.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in closing, I say to the hon.

the Member for St. John's South that he should use his experience, his weight

with respect to the fishery, to influence his Government and the members of

Cabinet. That is the only way we can go. The only way we can go is through the

Federal Government to try to have some of the things enshrined in the

constitution that this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. PARSONS: In closing, I hope that we will all take a

realistic look at this proposal, and govern ourselves accordingly, not by

political ties. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by

congratulating my friend and colleague from Baie Verte - White Bay for, I think,

one of the finest speeches I have heard on the fisheries since I have been here

- no nonsense, no bellyaching, no puffing and blowing, just a good, hard,

simple, well thought out, sensible speech. In fact, having listened to the hon.

gentleman, and having observed him during the campaign when I had the privilege

of attending some meetings with him, it is not difficult to understand why he

got elected in that district, and I can tell you now, it is not hard to

understand why I am going to be drawing on his advice and his considerable

experience as long as we have the privilege to sit together in this House. I

have more respect for the member than I do for a lot of other so-called leaders

in the fishing industry, because at least he is speaking with authority. That

gentleman, I would suggest, has wrung more salt water out of his mitts than some

of our so-called leaders in the fishing industry ever sailed over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: A good line! A good line!

MR. CARTER: I think that bears repeating, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman has wrung more salt water out of his mitts than most of our

so-called leaders in the fishing industry have ever sailed over. Now, think

about it. I guess that pretty well sums up my feelings towards the hon.

gentleman, a good speech, no nonsense, factual. I cannot be so charitable when I

describe speeches made by certain other members. With great respect to my friend

over there -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your dear, dear friend.

MR. CARTER: Not a dear, dear friend but a good friend. I

must say that I was not at all impressed with most of what he had to say. He

talked at length about what we gave up in the Meech Lake Accord, and he talked

about his former leader having negotiated this big breakthrough, how he twisted

arms, and how he cajoled his federal counterparts - imagine, he encouraged them

and convinced them to put the role of the fisheries on the agenda. Now, just

imagine, after forty years of Confederation, or whatever it was, up to that

time, the great fathers in Ottawa consented to include fisheries on their First

Minister's agenda. What a breakthrough! Your former leader got the word

'fisheries' on the First Minister's agenda.

MR. GOVER: After senate reform.

MR. CARTER: Yes. On the same agenda, I suppose, was the

mover and seconder of the report, a few speeches by somebody, and also that

other great revolutionary thought, senate reform. That, too, would have appeared

on every agenda in the future of the First Ministers, senate reform, and the

roles and responsibilities of fisheries. Now, I can tell you that the fishermen

in Crow Head and Herring Neck, when they heard that because of the actions of

our Premier, that the Meech Lake Accord had been squashed and that fisheries and

senate reform would not appear on the agenda of future First Ministers - I tell

you it was a sad day in Herring Neck.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the people wept.

MR. CARTER: Yes, and the people wept. It was a sad, sad,

day, not to mention, by the way, what it did to the Dow Jones. I had a few

dollars in the stock market in those times and I was frightened to death. The

Dow Jones actually tipped bottom up and that, too, of course, caused some

concern in Herring Neck, the fact that Dow Jones took a dip.

Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder Newfoundland is in the mess it's

in. The grandfather of the now Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the late Sir

John Crosbie, in a somewhat similar situation in the old House of Assembly, in

describing a situation, got up and said that the House and the country was in a

state of 'chose'. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, it is no wonder that

Newfoundland is in a state of 'chose', according to Sir John Crosbie. Because

everything we do - if we were to bring in a resolution tomorrow supporting

motherhood, there would be certain factions within the Province - and we know

who they are, the habitual complainers, those that always complain and never

have an answer to a problem. Most of them are from the other side, the other

party, certain other so-called leaders. They have made a career of criticizing

and knocking others who try to do something.

I was amused, by the way, when I read in the press reports

here the comments of John Carnell Crosbie, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Let

me see, what did he say? John Crosbie was talking to Jacinta Wall of the C.B.C.

She was talking about the Newfoundland plan. Crosbie was talking about

implementing a Newfoundland plan, and he said: It is not possible to do that

without really inciting almost civil war-like situations between these five

eastern provinces. You certainly cannot do it unless all provinces are going to

agree, and it is quite clear that they don't.

Now just imagine! A few weeks ago, we talked about the need

for Canada to extend jurisdiction to maybe assume custodial management of the

resource on the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks. Mr. Crosbie used the same

kind of reaction then, that if Canada would dare go out there and take control

of that resource, as legitimate as our actions would be, it would start a third

world war. That was Mr. Crosbie' prediction, that any action by Canada to

unilaterally extend jurisdiction to the edge and the slope of the Continental

Shelf would more than likely cause a third world war. He said the Portuguese and

Spaniards would not accept it, indeed, he said, the Americans would not accept

it.

Now he is saying that if Newfoundland dares get what it is

entitled to, gets justice to which we are entitled, that it is going to cause a

civil war in Atlantic Canada. Mr. Crosbie appears to be obsessed with this

business of starting wars. But why is it that everything that Newfoundland

wants, everything that we need or everything that we deserve, or that to which

we are entitled, if we go after it, and if some other province does not agree

with it, then we are being accused of trying to start a war? It just will not

happen.

Now, then, I ask you, How many of the Atlantic provinces,

certainly, how many people in Newfoundland, supported the Federal Government

when it gave Nova Scotia practically 100 per cent of its defence dollars? How

many Newfoundlanders do you think were offended by that, and how many people

from P.E.I., New Brunswick or Quebec? But did that matter? No, of course not, it

was Nova Scotia. So they went ahead and poured the defence money into that

Province, overrode the objections of other provinces which were have-nots and

could use that bit of input into their respective economies.

How sensitive was the Federal Government, for example, when

this huge defence contract was given to the St. John, New Brunswick, shipyard

some time ago? Did it matter to them that Marystown was going down for the third

time and the synchrolift in St. John's was just about gone? How many

Newfoundlanders supported that proposition? But did that matter? Of course not.

But it seems that every time we go for something to which we

are entitled, every time that we want our rights, if some other province, or

interest group in some other province, objects, then we can't have it.

Given that, I suppose the question that one must ask is: What

hope is there for this Province? What hope is there for Newfoundland, if we are

not going to get anything unless it is something nobody else wants, or something

that all of the other provinces agree with? In the case of offshore

jurisdiction, we are not going to be able to resolve that problem unless and

until every other fishing nation in the world, even those that fly flags of

convenience, agree to it. Now, how long will we be waiting for justice?

It is aggravating, it makes one angry, to think that our

rights are being treated so lightly, and now especially by our federal minister,

a native-born Newfoundlander. I could understand this, I would be much more

understanding, if it were Bernard Valcourt or Tom Siddon, or maybe Romeo LeBlanc

or Pierre De-Bann, any of those gentlemen, because I can understand that they

are not native-born Newfoundlanders, and I would not expect them to have the

same kind of affinity for this Province and the problems of our Province as

would that other gentleman who is a native-born Newfoundlander, whose roots go

back far, probably farther than most of us. Yet, Mr. Crosbie is quite content to

use the standard argument that he cannot do that which is right for

Newfoundland, his native province, because somebody up there might object.

Well now, what else is new? What else could we expect? How do

we expect ever to get Portugal and Spain to agree to a unilateral extension of

the Canadian jurisdiction, the result of which would deny them access to our

fish? Now, if we are going to have to wait until that happens, well, then, I am

afraid we are going to wait until a certain place freezes over.

I think it is nothing short of disgraceful. The gentlemen

opposite - I suppose that, being in Opposition, they have a certain role to

play. They are inclined sometimes to set aside what is in the best interest of

the Province and only promote that which is in their own self-interest. They are

now caught between a rock and a hard place, by the way. They can't support the

Crosbie giveaway, they can't support the Crosbie sellout, and that is what it

is. Crosbie's proposal is nothing short of a sellout. Can you imagine for a

moment poor old Newfoundland having to sit in a boardroom somewhere in Halifax -

and I can tell you one thing now, that the headquarters of that board that

Crosbie is proposing will not be in St. John's. It will probably be in Ottawa,

Moncton or Halifax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Probably Halifax, Moncton or Ottawa. You can

be sure it will not be in St. John's - or in Newfoundland. So can you visualize

now, if you will -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CARTER: - a board meeting, Mr. Speaker, in a large

boardroom somewhere in Ottawa or Halifax, where you have seven people. You have

three Newfoundlanders, three, more than likely, Upper Canadians, or eastern

Canadians, and a chairman. That board will be sitting down divvying up the loot.

They will be sitting down, sharing the allowable catch, who gets what and where

and when and how.

Now, given the fact that most Atlantic Canadians who have

never fully accepted the proposition that Newfoundland does have certain

historic rights to northern cod - they have never accepted that proposition.

Because they have used the argument that codfish swim around, they don't carry

passports, and it is difficult to identify their nationality. They have never

fully accepted the proposition that Newfoundlanders have historically earned the

right to have first crack at the northern cod.

They have also refused to recognize the well-established

principles that even the Law of the Sea conference endorsed, the principles of

adjacency, economic dependency, usage, and economic efficiency. There might be

one or two others but these are the main ones, the main one, of course, being

the principle of adjacency. The fact that the fish stocks are close to our

Newfoundland shore certainly would qualify Newfoundland under the principle of

adjacency. In terms of our economic dependency on the resource and on the

fishery, who can question Newfoundland would have first call on the resource

under that principle?

I remember a few years back, and I expect some members can

remember, when a certain consortium made up of people from New Brunswick and

Quebec, known as Nova Nord - the hon. gentleman from St. John's East remembers,

obviously. Out of a clear blue sky they wanted to get their hands on a

substantial quantity of Newfoundland fish, northern cod.

AN HON. MEMBER: They spent hundreds of thousands

lobbying.

MR. CARTER: Spent hundreds of thousands, indeed, maybe

millions of dollars lobbying, buying their way wherever they could find somebody

who would be willing to be bought, to try to get access to our precious Northern

Cod. I tell you, Newfoundlanders will never know how close they came to getting

it. They came within a hairbreadth of getting their 20,000 metric tons to be

caught off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador and taken back to their

respective communities on the North Shore, or in Quebec, or in New Brunswick,

for processing. In so doing then, they would have established historic rights.

Now, when we get our new board in place and start establishing rights and

divvying up allocations, then I am afraid that Nova Nord could very well have

been a key player in the future of the fishing industry in this Province. That

is what Newfoundlanders would have had to contend with. One single

Newfoundlander sitting in a room amongst four others, representing a province

that from a political point of view could buy and sell this Province, a Province

like Newfoundland with seven federal seats - seven seats up against four other

provinces with a combined total of what, in excess of 100 seats?

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and seven.

MR. CARTER: One hundred and seven seats in the House of

Commons. Now I know enough about the way the House of Commons works to

appreciate just how important it is to have a lot of seats up there, and to have

a majority of seats. So, I guess to make a long story short - my time is running

out - Newfoundland would not have stood a snowball's chance in you know where

under that kind of a situation. Whatever chance we have, and I am not going to

be naive enough to stand here and suggest that the proposal that we have put

forward is a perfect document; of course it is not. Of course it has some flaws

in it and it needs to be revised maybe in some cases, modified here and there -

reworded. Maybe some of the wording needs to be dressed up -

MR. GRIMES: It is a great start for a proposal.

MR. CARTER: But it is a good start.

MR. GRIMES: It sure is.

MR. CARTER: It is a good start, and it is certainly

better than the one put forward by the federal minister from Newfoundland in the

Federal Cabinet, Mr. Crosbie. It is a good start, Mr. Speaker, and I believe one

that is necessary. Now, probably more than any other member in this House,

rightly or wrongly, and whether it is for good or bad, I have probably spent

more time in the fisheries portfolio than I would say any other Newfoundlander

alive today, in my two terms, and I have some idea the level of frustration that

we have to suffer in trying to deal with the federal governments.

The Member for St. John's East Extern talked about

Newfoundland abdicating its responsibility, handing over jurisdiction to this

board. I should remind him, if he does not already know, that we have no

jurisdiction right now, except for processing, the issuing of processing

licences, the formulating policy on fisheries loan board loans - that is about

all we have, and I gave an example earlier, a prime example as to why a board is

necessary. In fact, I might have time to give a couple of examples. The

Scandinavian long-liner program is a typical example of where the right hand did

not know what the left hand was doing, and the end result being that the

Province was $20-odd million worse off, in the hole, because of it - another

Sprung - a floating Sprung - another fiasco; where the Government of the day,

for whatever reason, and I suspect that a lot of it had to do with providing

work for Marystown - that was one of the reasons. That thought did not escape

the Premier at the time, and I am not against that. I am not against Marystown

getting work, but I am suggesting that there were substantial subsidies paid on

those vessels that inflated their costs over and above what we could ever hope

to get to recover for them by way of a sale.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. CARTER: It is true. Those vessels cost well over $20

million, and I suppose if the Province today even had a fire sale we could not

get more than a couple of million dollars for four of them. It is a shame. It is

an absolute shame what happened.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. CARTER: May I have leave just to finish my story?

MR. TOBIN: No way, Mr. Speaker, no.

MR. CARTER: Do I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: To clue up, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I will leave Marystown out of

it. I do not mean to be unkind to Marystown or anybody in the shipyard up there

or my colleague who represents Marystown. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, that the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing.

The Province, for whatever reason, and I suspect some of it

was political, decided to build five mid distance vessels, Scandinavian

long-liners for a total cost of about $25 or $26 million. But they made one

slight error, one slight omission in their plan. Well, actually two. They forgot

to secure a licence for the vessels and they forgot to secure a quota for them,

without either of which the vessels just could not operate and the $20 million

would be just money down the drain. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? Even

this day there is one of those vessels without a licence, and the Federal

Government will not yield, will not give that vessel a licence.

On the question of the quotas, yes they gave them a small

quota, 1200 tons back in 1988, 1200 tons divided among five or six vessels, not

enough for a good meal of fish and brewis for each vessel. Then they upped the

quota one year, dropped it another year, and in the final year abolished it,

with the end result being that that was the only user group in Atlantic Canada

whose quota was completely abolished. In every other case, consistent with the

reduction in the TAC, other user groups took a proportionate loss on their

quota. The mid distance boats were just wiped out. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have

four left, four beautiful vessels with good fishing technology but not able to

make enough money to pay the insurance on them.

That is why we want the quota reinstated for those vessels,

not to take it away from these forty-five or sixty-five foot Newfoundland

vessels, but to take it back from some of the numbered companies and some of the

political hacks in Nova Scotia and Montreal who are operating under numbered

companies and who got quotas from their political friends in Ottawa, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible). I do not want to interrupt the

Minister, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to hear from the (inaudible). It is now

four twenty-two and the Member for St. John's East I think is going to speak in

this debate, as well, and to ensure that he gets his twenty minutes - and the

Minister can continue, no problem, provided the Member for Lewisporte is

prepared to give leave to the Member for St. John's East. In order for the

Minister of Fisheries to continue, we have got to get leave from you for the

Member for St. John' East, okay.

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I will clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CARTER: I will clue up, as I started, Mr. Speaker,

again paying a compliment to my colleague from Port de Grave and to again repeat

that he has wrung more water out of his socks than certain gentlemen I know in

this Province have ever sailed over.

AN HON. MEMBER: Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. CARTER: Baie Verte - White Bay.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this debate to make my remarks about the proposal

put forth by the Government, a proposal, Mr. Sp