April 24,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 35

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding with our routine business, on behalf of

hon. Members, I would like to welcome to the galleries today, forty-nine

secretaries from Newfoundland Career Academy. They are visiting today in

recognition of Secretary's Week, and they are accompanied by their instructors,

Gloria Dawe and Regina Edwards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. On Thursday

of last week the Minister confirmed that a consortium of consulting companies,

named Newlab Engineering of Newfoundland and -

AN HON. MEMBER: South River.

MR. R. AYLWARD: - South River, as the Minister of Social

Services says - and a Nova Scotia company, William Nycum and Associates, were

awarded work for the Port Saunders Hospital for design work, contrary to the

advice of the officials of his Department. Will the Minister table these

proposals for the Burgeo and Port Saunders hospitals? And will he table the

recommendations from the officials of his Department concerning these two

proposals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, the proposals that were put

forward by the officials in my Department are part of a Cabinet paper and the

Member is aware that they will not be tabled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

the Minister is trying to hide what really happened with these contracts but the

proposals are public documents. At least the proposals could be tabled in this

House - the proposals from this company and the other companies which bid on it,

the other Newfoundland companies which bid on it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary. Let's get to it

please.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said in his

answer Thursday that the reason that the contract was awarded to the same

company for both hospitals was that it will save money for the Province. Will

the Minister tell us how much money will be saved by awarding both contracts to

the same design person, seeing that the value of the construction is somewhere

between $11 million and $12 million? And how much of this money - the design

work money - will go to the Nova Scotia firm rather than Newfoundland firms?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I will take that and get an

answer for the Member.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister could

tell me if his officials agree that the Burgeo and Port Saunders hospital

designs are identical designs and would he tell me if his officials suggested to

him that it would be cheaper to give the design contracts of the two hospitals

to the same company?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the two

establishments are basically the same design and it was decided that it would be

more economical and efficient to give it to the one company. I will get the

information which the hon. gentleman is requesting, and present it under Answers

to Questions.

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

Oh, I am sorry; not to fall into the trap I did yesterday.

Will the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains yield to his friend from Kilbride?

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my thanks to

the Member for Torngat Mountains. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell this House

or will he confirm that at least 60 per cent of this design work will go to a

Nova Scotia company and will he confirm or is he aware that Newfoundland

companies cannot bid on proposals for Government work in Nova Scotia?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the gentleman

last week when he asked the question, we were aware when the contract was

awarded to the Newlab Nycum company that there were companies in Newfoundland

which were capable of doing this work, we had no illusions about that

whatsoever.

The thing that we were trying to do was to broaden the base

of expertise in Newfoundland, and this company from Nova Scotia had formed a

consortium with the company from Newfoundland so that for future work there

would be a broader base of companies in Newfoundland that were able to provide

this work. Now that was the reason for it and that is the answer to the

gentleman's question.

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

Order, please!

I have officially recognized the hon. the Member for Torngat

Mountains, and he is the only one who now officially has the floor.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

During the past number of days, and particularly since the

Budget came down, we have been receiving a lot of calls from senior citizens in

the Province who have been required to fill their prescription drugs, so I have

a question for the Minister of Health. One of the restraints in the Budget of

1991 eliminated certain drugs from the drug subsidy program for senior citizens.

Could I ask the Minister how much he expects to save annually from this

particular measure, and what will be the average increase in the cost of those

drugs for senior citizens?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we did several things with the

drug program for senior citizens. One thing we did was change the formulary,

where some drugs can be changed for the generic drug which is less expensive

than the brand name drug. We are not saying to senior citizens you cannot have

the brand name drug, however, if you insist on having the brand name then the

senior citizen will be expected to pay the difference between the generic drug

and the brand name drug. We are not forcing the senior citizen to do it but in

most cases they take the generic drug.

The other item which was taken off the list was the cough

medicine, the one which has an narcotic base. I have been advised that it really

does not have any therapeutic value and when we were faced with laying off a few

more nurses, or closing up a few more hospital beds, we thought it would be less

harmful to the people of the Province if we removed this particular cough

medicine from the list. Now, how much will it cost the senior citizen, Mr.

Speaker? Not one single solitary cent more than it cost before, because the

senior citizen does not pay for the drug. The senior citizen pays the

prescription cost, Mr. Speaker, and what we do with the formulary or what we do

with the drugs has no bearing whatsoever on the cost to the senior citizen.

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

a supplementary.

MR. WARREN: I want to ask my question again to the

Minister. How much does the Government expect to save by this particular

measure?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is in the vicinity of

$200,000. Whether it is $201,098, I do not know that, I will have to table that

information for him. But it is in the vicinity of $200,000.

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

supplementary.

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

supplementary is to the Minister. Would the Minister confirm that two of the

particular drugs that a majority of senior citizens in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador are obliged to take are the two drugs Inderal and the

second drug is Zantac, those two particular drugs go almost together when they

are prescribed by a doctor, and those two drugs, besides the pharmacist $7.15,

as of last month now senior citizens will have to pay an extra $18.22 for the

Inderal drug, and an extra $28.84 for the Zantac drug?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, that question was addressed in

the answer to the first question. What we have done is we have made some

adjustments to the formulary whereby these two brand name drugs, which the hon.

Member referred to, are replaced by generic drugs and before a generic drug is

accepted as a replacement it has to be approved by Health and Welfare Canada. It

is not just something we dream up. All the other provinces have accepted that

there are generic drugs that can replace that. However, as I pointed out, in

some cases a senior citizen might wish to have the brand name drug which has no

more value than the generic drug. If the senior citizen wants to do that then

the senior citizen has the option, Mr. Speaker, of paying the extra money. But

it is unnecessary. There is no medical reason to do it because the generic drug

is exactly the same drug, Mr. Speaker, and it is less expensive and, of course,

we all know what the hon. Member's friends in Ottawa did with the generic drug

industry where they are forcing all people to pay ten times as much for their

drugs as they should be paying, Mr. Speaker. I have no control over that. I wish

the hon. Member would talk to his friends in Ottawa to deal with that very, very

serious problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, on a final

supplementary.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will not

say my final supplementary, but another supplementary to the Minister is: The

Minister earlier in his comments mentioned the so-called cough medicine drugs.

Was the Minister's rationale for removing those particular cough and cold drugs

from the subsidy program a means of saving the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador thousands and thousands of dollars, and at the same time putting it on

the backs of the senior citizens in this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I have indicated a final supplementary, but

I will allow the hon. Member one more supplementary.

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

Minister tell us what advice he received for changing the system for roughly

between 60,000 and 100,000 senior citizens in this Province who have to rely on

those particular drugs for their last days living in this Province. Today they

rely on that particular drug. Would the Minister advise us what advice he has

for the senior citizens in this Province who are living on a mere income of x

number of dollars a month? How will they cope with having to pay up to 300 per

cent more for their drugs per month.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have good advice and good news

for the senior citizens. The drugs are available. The prescription fee did not

go up. There is no extra cost for their drugs, Mr. Speaker. I have good news for

the senior citizens. I advised them that when I sent their drug cards out to

them last spring. Nothing has changed. However, if they insist on taking a brand

name drug when a generic drug is exactly the same, then I would have to tell

them that in my unmedical opinion they are wasting their money, but I am not a

doctor. But the best advice that I get from the professionals and the experts in

their field is that nothing has changed, and that is the wonderful thing about

this, Mr. Speaker. We were able to make some adjustments in the drug program, we

ended up saving some money in the overall costs, but to the senior citizens in

their last days, as the hon. Member talks about, who are on the poverty line, as

the hon. Member talks about, who are the people who are less able to pay, I am

pleased to be able to say to them that this Government as usual in its care and

concern for senior citizens made absolutely certain that they are protected

better than they ever have been before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

the Minister of Health must have had some of the narcotic cough medicine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I would like to ask my question to the

Minister of Fisheries. I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries could update the

House as to the status of negotiations for the 1991 lobster prices?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are still ongoing.

In fact, I met with the members of the union and FANL this morning - a long

discussion. I had to leave them at 10:00 a.m. to attend a meeting but I got the

impression that up until that time things were going very well. I expect an

announcement, hopefully, later on today or tomorrow, indicating that an

agreement has been reached to establish a price for this year. There have been

many problems given the fact that only a small minority of the number of

licenced lobster buyers are members of FANL. In fact, a large number of them

operate outside of the Province and that aggravates the problem still further.

But nevertheless both sides are working hard and I would be very surprised if

they do not come to some kind of an agreement later on today or tomorrow

morning.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope as well as

the Minister does that the negotiated price is concluded later on today or early

tomorrow. As part of this ongoing lobster price saga, would the Minister be

making it clear to buyers that their lot licences for 1992 will not be renewed

if they do not abide and pay the 1991 negotiated prices? Will he be making that

clear to buyers?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the Fishery Act under which we

have to operate, is certainly restrictive in that it does not give us certain

powers. Namely that we do not have the authority under the Act as it is now

structured to do that. But we have gone as far as we can, I think. We will be

attaching a condition to the lobster buyers' licences to the effect that we

would expect them to pay the negotiated price, and failing to do that, then we

serve notice that we will have to take a hard look at their licences next year

when the time comes around to renew them.

That appears to satisfy both the union and FANL. So I guess

we will have to leave it at that. But I repeat: we are writing the buyers - and

there about 200 of them - indicating that we want them to be fair and at least

meet the price negotiated, and failing to do so might very well end up in posing

a problem for them next year when they come to us for a new licence.

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

West.

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

the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Since this Government came to office the

Minister has been going around promising amalgamation, stifling the democratic

process by deferring elections in various places and whatever else that could be

done, promising to amalgamate certain areas of this Province. That has gone on

long enough. I would like to ask the Minister today to give us a precise answer

as to when he will be making an announcement as to what Government intends to do

in the northeast Avalon area.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as I reported to the House last

week, I believe it was, we are proceeding with feasibility studies. They have

been mostly complete. Of the forty-two groupings we have some thirty-six

complete, the rest are in the process of being finalized. I will be reporting as

soon as I have those groupings finalized and recommendations made to Government,

and subsequent Government approval on the groupings that are being recommended

for amalgamation.

Some of the groupings, I might say, Mr. Speaker, are being

recommended against proceeding with amalgamation, which is normal, because the

feasibility process is entered into to discover whether or not amalgamation is

the right thing to do or not. In some of the groupings the commissioners are

recommending that we not proceed. But the vast majority, some 80 per cent of the

groupings, are being recommended to proceed, and as soon as those

recommendations are finalized and Government has approved of them or otherwise I

will be reporting to the House.

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

West.

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

then, based on the fact that some people are fearing that there may be another

deferral of elections in this Province in the next year or so, let me ask the

Minister whether or not - Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, not the President of Treasury Board. I would like to ask the

Minister whether or not he will be supporting, and indeed implemening the

recommendations of the committee, the feasibility study that recommended that

Wedgewood Park not become a part of the City of St. John's?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I feel confident that no

further deferral of elections will be necessary. In fact, the next municipal

elections are three years away and I do not think that is a particular worry at

this time. I would hope that the amalgamation process would be substantially

complete before this sitting of the House is over. I have stated that publicly,

and I still feel we will be able to accomplish that, Mr. Speaker.

As far as any particular groupings are concerned or whether

or not a certain community will be joined to another, obviously I cannot comment

on that until Government has seen my recommendations, one way or another, but I

certainly cannot comment prior to that.

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

West on a supplementary.

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

in my final supplementary, if he is sure the election is three years away? Is he

sure that the elections in this Province are three years away? Will the Minister

now come clean with the House, and indeed with the people of this Province, and

confirm the amalgamation issue in the northeast avalon area is being replaced by

the regional service board, the board which strips the power of municipalities

and places all the powers in a very dictatorial way in the hands of the Minister

and the Cabinet?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, if he would say that a board

that is appointed with municipal representation of elected people from the

Member councils is dictatorial in any way, I fail to see his point. I fail to

see his point, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the Regional Services Boards, the way the

legislation reads, is that it shall be composed of Members from the respective

councils served by the board, and in fact sits underneath the councils, not

above them. It is subservient to the councils. Now if that is dictatorial, it is

a very poor choice of words, Mr. Speaker.

We have no intention of bringing in regional services boards

except in areas where they are needed, and as far as the northeast avalon is

concerned, we would have to wait and see how the amalgamation process is

completed. There may or may not be such a board in the northeast avalon. It

indeed depends entirely on the composition of the groupings when the

amalgamation procedure is finalized.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last fall I raised the issue about large outside

companies trying to get a foothold in the school busing transportation system in

the Province. I wonder if the Minister has any indication that this might be

happening now?

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

DR. WARREN: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that some

boards are contemplating calling block tenders which would result in a $1

million deal which would eliminate smaller operators from participating in the

school bus transportation operation?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the school bus budget is a

fairly substantial amount of money. It is my understanding that boards are

looking at every possible way of providing a more efficient and effective

service. One possibility is for smaller companies to join together and bid

co-operatively on contracts. I gather that some boards are looking at all of

these options, and we, as a department, are encouraging them to look at ways and

means of improving the effectiveness of school busing.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we are finally

getting the Minister on record as stating that Government is really encouraging

large companies or encouraging boards to invite large companies to bid on the

bus business. I ask the Minister if he is successful in what he is attempting to

do, does he realize that he is going to put out of business almost every small

bus operator in this Province?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member's premise is

that we are encouraging large companies, I would want to reject this. What this

Government is doing is encouraging a more effective and efficient school

transportation system. Mr. Speaker, there are areas of this Province where we do

have perhaps more busing services than are needed to meet the demands of a

declining student enrollment. We have a number of areas where we are told the

busing systems are not co-ordinated, and this Government intends to, as it does

in other areas, to ensure that we get the best possible use of the limited funds

that we have available for busing and other services, and we are going to

actively promote a more efficient and effective service. This does not, Mr.

Speaker, mean that we are going to have larger companies offering all kinds of

numbers of contracts.

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

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I asked the

Minister would he guarantee that, despite the attempts to tidy up the individual

bus runs, and nobody is against that, that is good business, will he guarantee

that tenders are called in a way that will not eliminate the small independent

individual operators from participating in the business that they made a

livelihood in for several years, with everything they have tied up in that

system?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, this Government certainly wants

to encourage small business as well as big business in this Province. We will do

everything possible to ensure that people are treated fairly in the process if

any new system is developed, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Health. The Minister will no doubt be aware that the Federal

Government has just released a task force report on Weight Loss Control Clinics

in the country, included in which is a set of recommendations which Provincial

Governments could implement to safeguard the health and well-being of users of

Weight Loss Clinics. Mr. Speaker, in view of this being National Consumer Week

and because some of the Ministers opposite might need to use Weight Loss Clinics

along with many other consumers who are more health conscious, I wonder if the

Minister could say whether his Department is at present controlling Weight Loss

Clinics, do they have a registry of such clinics, and are they having a look at

them?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we were aware that the study was

going on in the Federal Department of Health and Welfare. We have not yet

received a copy of the report. I understand it is enroute to us, and any comment

I make would have to be on the release that I read in the newspapers and it

would be totally inappropriate for me to say that. However, once we receive the

report, we will be reviewing it in the very efficient manner that the Department

of Health reviews all reports, whether they come from the Federal source or from

our own source. After we have reviewed it, if we feel that there is a need for

some regulation or to do something about the weight loss clinics then we will be

making a recommendation to Government, Mr. Speaker. And in due course if there

is a problem it will be dealt with.

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

supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the

Minister of Health could indicate whether or not he has any indications of

problems of existing operations, and whether licencing of such clinics has been

contemplated by his Department already?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. Member is

suggesting now is that I would prejudge what we are going to do with the report

before I have seen it or read it, and that would be totally inappropriate. Once

the report is received by Government, and if there is some concrete reason

there, then we will deal with it. I cannot discuss on any rumours I might have

heard or any off-the-hand remark that someone would have made about health

clinics, I would want to do it from a very purely professional basis as the

Department of Health operates.

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

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

disturb the Minister of Transportation, who is reading his paper, and ask him a

straightforward question.

MR. GILBERT: I am sure it will be a good question.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, it will be an excellent question, I can

assure you. Mr. Speaker. In January and February of 1989 the Town of Grand Falls

then and the then Grand Falls Chamber of Commerce wrote to his Department

opposing the Department's plan to install a median on the Trans-Canada Highway

through the town, I am sure the Minister is quite familiar with it. The

Department wrote back at that time and said it would not be proceeding. Indeed,

I believe the Minister himself has said, he would not be asking it to proceed -

perhaps a couple of years ago. Can he advise if this matter now is actively

being revived once again? And if so, is it at the insistence of the new Town of

Grand Falls - Windsor or is it at the insistence of officials in his Department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Member for

Grand Falls asked that question because I knew he was down to the town council

in Grand Falls last week trying to find out the information and they would not

give it to him. Back in 1988 there was some concern from the town of Grand Falls

about the median, and the then town of Windsor wanted the median, and now that

there is a combined town they had a meeting with me and my officials a few weeks

ago and at that time the topic of the median came up and officials from my

Department, and officials from the new amalgamated town of Grand Falls - Windsor

are now investigating what should happen to it. I assure the hon. Member for

Grand Falls that he should go down to the town council more often and ask for

information because when he does they tell me about it.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Minister of

Transportation that whoever is telling him is telling him inaccurately and

incorrectly. I was not down to the town council office in Grand Falls last week

so I hope his answer is far more honest than the information he has provided.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, my new question, not a supplementary, is to the

Government House Leader.

Can the Government House Leader tell us when the departmental

salary estimate details will be published, released, and tabled?

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

MR. BAKER: They have been, at this point in time,

printed, so I assume that means they have already been published - I do not know

the distinction between the two terms. They will be tabled in the House, Mr.

Speaker, as soon as I get a chance. I have not even looked at them yet. I just

want to make sure there are no major errors and so on that are obvious to me,

and at that point in time they will be tabled in the House, no later than

Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I stand once again today to

submit the report of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedure for the House

of Assembly. In doing so I would like to acknowledge not only the Members of the

Committee who assisted in the report, my Deputy Chair, the Member for Port au

Port, the hon. the Minister of Justice, the Member for Bonavista South and the

Member for Grand Falls, but I would also like to acknowledge the work which was

carried by the previous Committee of the House, who, in themselves carried a

great deal of the load for this particular report.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things which we became very conscious

of as we went through with our deliberations, was that we found as we made

adjustments to one portion of the standing rules, we found that we were

affecting others and therefore, we found that the changes which eventually

evolved are far-reaching and long-ranging.

I would also like to thank, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

Committee, the House of Commons and the Speaker of the House of Commons, for his

assistance and for the assistance given by his staff; also the Ontario

Provincial Parliament for their assistance; the assistance given to us by the

staff of this particular House as well, and I acknowledge the contributions made

by you, Mr. Speaker, in assisting us in finalizing this report.

It is with pleasure as I said, once again, that I table this

report on behalf of our Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table the

exceptions to the Public Tendering Act, for the month of March.

Petitions

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

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

hoping that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation could remain in

the Legislature, because this particular petition does have some connection with

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by 1,347 people, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I think I heard a comment from

one of my colleagues down this end of her saying: That is more than the number

of people in my district. That, in fact, is interesting because it is not from

my district, it is from the district of Naskaupi which is represented by my hon.

colleague, the Minister of Environment and Lands.

There are 1,345 signatures -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to interrupt

my colleague, but on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member on a point of order.

MR. KELLAND: We cannot hear what my colleague from

Torngat Mountains is saying. There is a high noise level here and I would like

to hear him, Mr. Speaker, so I would ask you to exercise control over my

colleagues on both sides.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, hon. Members know

that whenever an hon. Member on either side of the House asks for order, that

request should be obeyed.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

my colleague for Naskaupi is interested in this particular petition, because I

am sure if he looked at the names which are on this particular petition, he

would find maybe 60 per cent or 70 per cent or 80 per cent of those people were

supporters of him during the last election.

The prayer of the petition, and I want to read this because I

would think that the House would want to make sure it is in order, but the

petition goes as follows:

"We - Selby Mesher, Eugene Mesher, Gerald Hagerty, Ford

Mesher - wish to express our concerns to the Minister of Labour regarding our

dismissal from Northern Construction and Insulation Limited. We have been

concerned" - now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that everybody understands

the next part of this. "We have been concerned about the safety of school busing

in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, and subsequently advised our employer as required

under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We are concerned about the safety

of the passengers that travel to and from school and other activities. We

therefore request the Minister of Labour to initiate a full enquiry into the

reasons for our dismissal and the safety of the present busing operation in our

area.

"We, the undersigned, support the above mentioned persons and

humbly ask that this petition be presented in the House of Assembly at the

earliest possible convenience."

Mr. Speaker, I would think that that petition is in order,

and I find it interesting that if 1,347 names in this petition are not

necessarily - and I want to repeat this, because we have to look at the safety

of school children not only in Happy Valley - Goose Bay but all throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador, because during the last number of days and weeks I

think that the safety of school children has not been looked at attentively

enough by this Government. I would suggest that those people who signed this

particular petition are concerned about their children and other people's

children who are travelling on school buses in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I believe it is high time that this Government, and the

Ministers of Education, Labour and Transportation, stand up and make sure that

the school children in this Province are transported from home to the school and

back again in a safe manner. And this is not happening in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand in support of

the petition. It is perhaps a bit of a different type petition from ones we are

used to hearing, but the petition itself deals with a crucial issue, and that is

the issue of bus safety, and hopefully the Minister of Education in the absence

of the Minister of Labour will comment on the petition also.

In recent days we have seen a tremendous increase in activity

as it relates to the safety of school busing in the Province. Just listening to

part of a phone-in show this morning, I heard one driver remark that he had been

stopped four times on the same run yesterday and once again this morning in the

same bus, by the police. First you might think, oh, that is overdoing it, it is

harassment. But the bottom line is it is certainly a very safe measure. Now,

undoubtedly, when there is some co-ordination things will flow a little more

easily than that, a little more conveniently for the bus drivers. But having

buses stopped and checked and having regular checks done I do not think can

happen too often.

Just a few years ago we made several changes in the school

busing operation. We limited the number of years in relation to the age of a

bus, we eliminated standing on school buses - up until a few years ago a certain

percentage of students were allowed to stand on short runs, we eliminated all of

that. It was extremely costly for government but safety was of prime importance.

We also started a program that saw a number of inspectors go out to different

parts of the Province and stop - and the Minister of Transportation knows this

because they come under his department and they do a very good job - they just

do not go to a garage and have a look at a bus that is on a ramp or whatever,

some of them stop buses on the side of the road, put on their coveralls, crawl

underneath them, and that is the way to do it if you are going to assure safety

with all the possibilities that are out there to avoid safe measures, then that

is what has to be done. We are looking at 120,000 students attending school

every day, a large percentage of these, I would say, in the order of 80,000 or

90,000 are being bused to school. A tremendous number of school buses of

different ages, sizes and conditions are operating on our highways, and unless

measures are taken to make sure that these vehicles are safe, then the lives of

a number of our children could be in jeopardy, so I have no complaint at all

about buses being stopped over and over and being checked. As I say, hopefully

with proper consideration, consolidation, and coordination it will not get to

the point where it is becoming harassment, but as long as it is a safety

measure, I am all for it. I think when some people, whether they be bus drivers,

school principals or parents, recognize that there is a safety factor and decide

to put their own jobs on the line to do something about it, then this certainly

should be taken into consideration. To think that people might be fired because

they brought to the attention of authorities the fact that school buses were not

safe or the concern that school buses were not safe, certainly, I think, they

should be given credit for it and not the pink slip. So hopefully the Minister

of Education or the Minister of Transportation will also confirm the need to be

extremely safe and vigilant in relation to our school bus operation because as I

said, we have 80,000 or 90,000 students every day whose lives depend upon the

safety of the vehicles and the individuals who operate them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GILBERT: The gentleman from Torngat asked some

questions concerning the state of school bus safety in Goose Bay, and I tabled

it, if he had bothered to read the answer to my question.

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. GILBERT: Now I think it is time, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

I would ask the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains to please

refrain from interrupting, but more significantly and importantly I would ask

him to withdraw the remark that he just made.

MR. WARREN: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker, he did not tell the

truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

When the Chair asks an hon. Member to withdraw he is supposed

to withdraw unequivocally, unqualified.

MR. WARREN: Unequivocally and unqualified.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I also want to remind hon. Members that when the Chair is

making a ruling the Chair is not going to tolerate any comments or any shouting

from Members on either side of the House. The affairs of this House are supposed

to be carried out with dignity and with respect, and Members are supposed to

show the appropriate dignity and respect to the Chair. There are all kinds of

rules in Beauchesne and in the authorities to deal with that, and this Chair

will not be timid in doing so.

The hon. the Member.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman for Torngat

raised some questions about school bus safety in the Goose Bay area last week.

If he had read the answers to his questions which I had tabled in the House

yesterday he would have had his concerns about safety taken away. We, in the

Department are not at all concerned about the safety of the school buses that we

are operating in Goose Bay. The laws dictate that school buses are inspected

three times a year, July, December, and April. This is done in a garage and the

mechanical work is checked out by garage operators who are licensed by my

Department to carry out those inspections.

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

a point of order.

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

The Minister was referring to a paper he tabled yesterday and

I also refer to it, Mr. Speaker. He said the sixteen buses in question were

inspected in December, but I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is incorrect

because two of those buses were not inspected and the company has been charged,

therefore what

the Minister said here is definitely incorrect.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, there is no point of

order, just a difference of opinion between two hon. gentlemen.

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

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, the Member obviously does not

want the answer to the question and if he read on he would find that I said

further on that the safety inspections, as far as we were concerned, were

carried out. The RCMP charged the company that does the inspection with some

infractions and they have lost their license to operate for six months. It has

nothing at all to do with safety inspections.

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For the final time I am going to ask the hon. the Member for

Torngat Mountains to refrain from interrupting. In petitions we have a procedure

to follow and it should be strictly adhered to by all Members. The Member

presented his petition and now the Minister is responding. He was given equal

time, five minutes to present his petition and the Minister should be afforded

the time, without interruption.

I shall not remind the hon. Member another time I can assure

you.

The hon. Minister.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, you can see what is happening,

the Member for Torngat is not at all interested in getting an answer. He is

trying to make points on the backs of school children. An alarmist, Mr. Speaker,

is what we have there. The inspections were done on those buses in December and

our inspectors from the Department were in Goose Bay in February. They did their

checks and were satisfied that the inspections were carried out according to the

procedure that is outlined for our Department.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this Department is quite happy that the

inspection was done properly by our officials. There were minor infractions

discovered when our inspectors were there. The Glen Corporation, I think is the

name of the company who were doing the inspections, were given their warning

tickets, a follow-up was done and they did what they were supposed to do with

the inspections. Now, as far as the employees being dismissed, that is under

investigation by the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, but it has

nothing at all to do with the safety of those buses to operate in the Goose Bay

area. Again, it is a blatant attempt by the gentleman for Torngat to raise

concerns on the safety of children.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of

the House to refer to the petition, to make comments on the petition?

MR. SPEAKER: No, the hon. Member does not have leave.

MR. KELLAND: By the leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Before going to the Orders of the Day, this

being Wednesday, I thought there were a couple of rulings that I was about to -

was there another petition?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, another item.

MR. SPEAKER: Another item. The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is rather

uncomfortable, this being Wednesday and we are under time constraints. I wanted

to move the make up of the Estimates Committee and the Heads of Expenditures

referred to each Committee. The Opposition House Leader has a copy and I would

want -

MR. SPEAKER: Order now. We are now going back to Notices

of Motion, are we?

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. I just want to move

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. All right. The hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. BAKER: I want to move that this be the Committee

structure, Mr. Speaker, and I do not intend to talk any more about it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we will second the motion. The

only thing we were hung up on was the printing of the Salary Estimates Details

and we have been informed now through Question Period by the Government House

Leader they will be available no later than Monday, and the Estimates Committees

can finally get on with their work, I guess, at that stage.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. All those in

favour of the motion, please say 'Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, 'Nay'.

Motion carried.

Just before 3:00 o'clock there are a couple of items left

standing that the Chair would like to rule on now. They were both raised I

believe on April 11, or close to that date. One -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! - related to Oral Questions

and the matter of another Minister answering was raised, and the matter of

transferring questions was raised and the two of them are separate matters. The

question of another Minister answering: before anyone begins, when somebody asks

the Government a question, well I dealt with that, any Minister is entitled to

rule within reason, as the questions are asked to the Government, although

generally when questions are asked the Minister to whom the question is

addressed would answer. But again there might be an overlapping of departments,

for example, a question could be addressed to the Minister of Education and that

could be an overlapping question for the President of Treasury Board or the

Minister of Finance. So that has been acceptable in our House.

But the matter of transferring of questions has always caused

a lot of confusion. When a Minister gets up and starts answering and sputters

and stammers for a minute or so and then says I will refer the question to

somebody else, that has always, as I have said, caused some confusion. Houses

deal with it in different ways. I understand in the House of Commons that the

Speaker does not allow it. In our House it has sort of been neither here nor

there. It has been by consent. And when Members said nothing about it, nothing

was done. I would prefer that it did not happen - the transfer of a question -

because it is unfair, a person starts off and gets a minute or two and then says

I will transfer it to somebody else. It is my preference that that not happen.

The other item, and I will not get into it, unless hon.

Members insist, and this is the one raised by the Opposition House Leader on

April 11, about, Members will recall, when we ran into a problem with rising the

Committee. There were two things asked by the Opposition House Leader at the

time or we inferred that there were two things: the duty of the Chair at the

moment of interruption, that is at the time when the Committee should rise; and

no one has given that instruction, and the effect of continuing the proceedings

past the moment of interruption, past that time. It is clear that, one, the

Chair is instructed to, most of the time, rise the Committee, and when the Chair

is not instructed then the Chair ought to do it, the person in the Chair ought

to ask that the Committee rise. Now if it goes over, that too has generally been

ruled out by the Speaker, if the Chair intervenes, and the Chair will intervene

to say that the Committee should rise. So the Chairman of Committee has that

authority to rise the Committee. And my final statement on that is if that were

not so, of course, if the House were not able to proceed in this matter its

wishes could be thwarted or frustrated by a Member who declined to yield the

floor at the time appointed for the adjournment. And I refer hon. Members to

Erskine May, 17th Edition, 1978, page 663, and a ruling in our own House in 1978

by the Speaker at that time.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: A brief and quick point of order. I wonder,

could we be assured by the Government House Leader, that in view of the fact

that half the Cabinet is missing here today, there are seven missing, would he

be prepared to ensure that they all know of Your Honour's ruling, particularly

with respect to transferring answers, because, I think Your Honour has ruled now

that, that is not going to be permitted and should not be allowed and it is

important that the Premier and other people know it for sure, because they are

not here.

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

MR. BAKER: I would like to assure my good friend, who

always co-operates with me, the hon. the Opposition House Leader, that Cabinet

Ministers avidly read every day, when Hansard comes out, what happened and what

rulings were made and so on, so I am absolutely certain that they will be quite

up to date on His Honour's rulings.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, Private Member's Day,

the hon. Member for LaPoile on his private resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution put on the Order Paper printed

today but put forth yesterday by myself, is one that was re-inforced yesterday,

I might add, in my driving down to the Sea-food Outlook conference that was held

at the Newfoundland Hotel.

On the way down I was listening to the Fisherman's broadcast

and did hear the new hon. John Crosbie, speaking of a more regional approach to

fisheries management, and, if you will note, in this resolution that I am about

to read into the record, for the sake of Hansard, it really is pushing towards a

more regional approach to dealing with fisheries issues, specifically with

regard to the winter fishery, which operates down in my area in the district of

LaPoile, but also affects other nearby areas.

It affects the Burgeo area, the hon. Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, the area in which the hon. Member for St. Georges

and also several other Members on the Northern Peninsula, from their districts,

a lot of the fishermen reside, who fish in the winter fishery so, it is pretty

well Province -wide, a lot of the companies which are involved in the winter

fishery also are from various areas of the Province and have ties to a lot of

the variety of other fish plants throughout the Province, so it is a totally

Provincial issue and the operation of the winter fishery is of great concern to

me and I am sure to all of these individuals as well.

Now for the record, the resolution reads:

WHEREAS the winter fishery on the Southwest Coast is the

primary fishery for fishermen and plant workers from the communities of:

LaPoile, Petits, Rose Blanche, Harbour Le Cou, Burnt Islands, Isle aux Morts,

Margaree- Foxroost, Port aux Basques, Cape Ray and Codroy; and

WHEREAS the winter fishery is utilized primarily by over 100

inshore mobile gear vessels from many communities in the Province, which catch

up to 50 per cent of their vessel quotas during the winter fishing season; and

WHEREAS the catastrophic failure of the fixed gear fishery on

the southwest coast, this being local vessels, Mr. Speaker, has placed even

greater pressure on the mobile gear catch and also on the processing sector to

provide employment for the residents of the southwest coast area; and

WHEREAS the winter fishery has seen much difficulty over the

past number of years insofar as the orderly progress of the fishery has been

repeatedly interrupted by disputes over its management by the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans.

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House encourage

and support the establishment of a regulatory committee consisting of

representation from the Provincial Government, Federal Government, Fishermen,

Processors and

THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Federal and Provincial

Governments work together to establish an effective mandate for this proposed

regulatory committee, the intent of this working together, Mr. Speaker, would be

joint management of this important resource.

Now, in preparing for this, there is not really a lot, when

you are from a given area that you can prepare, because you deal with it daily;

you know the issues, you know what is happening in a given area, you understand

the history of it and really, you have to look at the history and for the

information of hon. Members who are not totally familiar with the history of the

southwest coast fishery, there is a legacy I guess, of hundreds of years with

Basque fishing people coming to the Port aux Basques area and Port aux Basque

originally was a fishing port and gradually developed. Of course, in the early

1900s with the advent of steamers going across to Nova Scotia, Port aux Basques

became the primary port of entry for the ferry terminal which changed the town

itself and of course the district itself. I think Port aux Basques was not the

main fishing community. LaPoile is very rich in fish, the town of LaPoile

itself, the community, and other places down the coast, which is where some of

my own ancestors come from, Rencontre West. That was a very sheltered fishing

area, down along the south coast. So the fishing industry throughout the Island

has a very historical tie to people's reasons for existence in the place where

they now live. To bring it a little further ahead we have a legacy in the

district of LaPoile over the years of one T.J. Hardy. The T.J. Hardy Company

over the years was, as it developed, and I remember having a chat with one of

our fishplant operators Mr. Gabe Billard from Margaree, Fox Roost, one time who

said that he chased T.J. Hardy once out of the harbour as T.J. was down there

trying to sell his catch back when T.J. was fishing. To get beyond that T.J. did

build up a huge operation in Port aux Basques and in other places along the

coast. He used to broker for fish all the way down the south coast and even

possibly as far down as the district of Fortune - Hermitage at some time. I

spoke to a gentleman who used to sell construction equipment and he spoke of

going down to help them count the cash that they would take on the coastal boat

down to those places to buy the fish, counting out hundreds of thousands of

dollars in cash that the buyer would put into a suitcase, jump on the coastal

boat and go down the coast because this was the only thing that was of any value

to the fishermen who they would buy it from. Now, T.J., if we remember

correctly, got into an arrangement with Nickersons, the Nickerson group, and

that made him part of a larger picture, of course. It gave him markets for his

fish but it also did constrain him in his operations and was possibly the

eventual demise of Hardy's, that along with the FPI situation, when the whole

fishery was restructured. Back then the Hardy fish plant used to buy up and down

the coast. He used to buy along the south coast and also up along the north

coast, up the northern peninsula, and a lot of the places that ended up

developing fish plants, because of the scientific observations of the time,

those places were normally places where he would go and buy the fish and have it

trucked down to the southwest corner of the Province for processing and eventual

shipment to the fresh seafood markets, if the fish could be brought in quick

enough in order to be shipped fresh, and also the frozen product with the advent

of the large freezing capacity that was developed there. Don Jamieson at the

time assisted them with the development of this freezing capacity so that they

could buy from all along the south coast and all along the north coast. This was

the manner in which the fishery on the whole of the west coast and south coast

that was tied into the Hardy fish plant was conducted. It worked very well for a

number of years, and then, I think, with the Kirby Task Force out of which

developed the FPI situation, FPI did take over the plant there and the plant in

Rose Blanche. I use this as an example because other plants in the area were

affected in a similar manner to the way that the Hardy fish plants were

affected. At that time a large company was trying to run a smaller local

operation but with the advent of all those other fish plants the resource was

more difficult to get and the fishplant ended up being less viable because of a

smaller operation. There was less resource available to keep the thing going for

the ten or eleven months of the year that it normally did keep going in previous

years.

This really would then allow you to look at fisheries

management and how the management of the fishery, notwithstanding the

development of plants up and down the coast, but how this actually affected the

overall operations on the southwest coast with regards to the winter fishery. We

have several peculiarities out in our district as far as the winter fishery

goes.

One: Because of the fishery being conducted in the winter you

have an unemployment insurance regime which is much more restrictive in hard

times now than was originally intended. What happened was, because the fishermen

in our area normally would fish in the wintertime they were regularly ineligible

for unemployment insurance benefits like other Newfoundlanders because they were

fishing at the time in which the unemployment insurance benefits were drawn. So

a change was made in the unemployment insurance regulations to allow them to

qualify in two different time periods of the year. This would then allow the

winter fishery to become a qualifying period, while all other fishermen

throughout the Province who did not normally fish in the winter would not be

fishing, these guys could qualify and utilize these important weeks of

employment as a qualification period, so that they could in effect draw some

unemployment insurance benefits when they were in fact unemployed.

This was fine of course when things were going well. But as

the number of months of work were made smaller because of poorer resource

allocation, lowering of the TAC, and also a failure in the fishery, it

constrained these fishermen to a point where they had to qualify and get twenty

weeks of work while other fishermen throughout the Province would only need ten.

So this was one peculiarity to the area.

Another one would be the overall management of the stock. The

problems that are having a direct effect now on the southwest coast fishery in

the winter can be traced back to the early 'eighties. The early- to mid-eighties

when the Federal Government did change the overall management of the fishery so

that the enterprise allocation system would come into being, whereby small -

under sixty-five foot, the sixty-four eleven and a half - steel vessels and

wooden otter trawl units could come down and catch their share of the quota. Now

because of the way that the winter fishery was as far as being a very restricted

season, that the fish would be there to catch, it was not something that you

could go out and over the course of four or five months catch what you could

because you always had time. Weather considerations because of the wintertime

and also the fact that the cod stock was always in motion and it also was

affected by the ice, meant that there was a very short period of time in which

this fish could be caught.

Now, that creates the goldrush mentality. That coupled with

the enterprise allocation system would mean that we end up with a goldrush

mentality in the overall management of the cod stock. And also now with the

redfish becoming a more marketable commodity, you also end up with the redfish

being something that has to be managed in the same manner. The goldrush

mentality prevails and this has caused a number of socio-economic problems in

the area and problems that could I would think be alleviated with this kind of

initiative that I have mentioned in the resolution.

Now, I speak of a regulatory committee and I am very specific

in suggesting a regulatory committee for the winter fishery. They currently have

a winter fishery advisory committee which undertakes to give advice to DFO

officials with the assistance and consultation of DFO officials on the overall

management of the winter fishery. Now this is a forum in which I have

participated at times, and it is a forum where you have a variety of individuals

from the different sectors of the industry. They come together and make the

recommendations of the committee through the putting of motions and the passage

of motions and that. But the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is under no

obligation whatsoever to accept the prevailing thoughts and decisions of that

committee. It is but an advisory committee. And at times I guess the advisory

committee comes up with recommendations that are ignored and do nothing to

enhance the overall management of the fishery from a standpoint of its affect on

the socio-economic aspects of the area of LaPoile, Codroy, and wherever else the

fish might go.

A lot of the problems of course have been relegated to the

inception of a monitoring programme. The monitoring programme, which was always

being pushed for, there was much talk of over-fishing and mis-reporting down

there on the southwest coast. I do know of many instances that have been

reported, and very few have ever been I guess carried though the courts to a

point, and often they were thrown out for lack of evidence, because it is a very

difficult thing. You have to actually catch someone in the act and be able to

verify and prove that such was the case. So the regulations are certainly

tightened up now in favour of a much more restrictive fishery, very restricted

to the point where a lot of fishermen were quite upset this year. But I feel

that it is a matter of those who in the past did abuse the system are the ones

who are probably the most fearsome of the advent of this new program of

monitoring. The monitoring program has proven quite good in assessing the way

that things went on in the fishery: what vessels were landing, what fish was

being landed exactly,

whereas in the past these were guesstimates on the part of

the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as to exactly what was brought forth in

their statistics.

Now the fisheries management: if we wanted to look at what

happened as far as why is the cod stock there suffering so much. Well,

initially, let's look at what the cod stock and what the effect on the local cod

stock out there, the ground fish landings, is as far as the fixed gear sector.

In 1985, the fixed gear fleet, the 3PN fixed gear fleet, had landings in excess

of 7 million pounds, 1986 is was 9 million pounds plus, 1987 it went up to 11

million, so 1987 was a banner year, but from there the bottom falls out of her.

In 1988 it went down to 2.1 million, in 1989 it went down to 1.3 million, and

over the last two years it has been less than 100,000 pounds per year. That is

the fixed gear, the hook and line vessels, the small boat fishermen who are so

severely affected by the management activities that have allowed in excess of

100 extremely efficient otter trawl operators to operate in that area and many

thoughts as to what has caused the preponderance of such a, you know, a problem

with the fixed gear sector. The fishermen themselves, if we often talk to them,

we could probably find out a lot more than we can from the scientists who

monitor the stock. They tend to say they have worries about the bottom being

torn up. That is seen by fishermen as a possibility of causing problems to the

management of the fishery, and, you know, very little vegetation on the bottom

for the bottom feeding fish, and they see this as one possibility. Another, of

course, is that the fishermen have been driven out near the ice edge, and the

Federal scientists feel that they are, and they are just not migrating in close

to shore. That is another possibility.

Now the otter trawler fleet has expanded even further this

year which is something that was very upsetting to the fixed gear fishermen and

other fishermen in the area. There were four new licences granted to fishermen

from Quebec, who were fixed gear fishermen from Quebec, and yet the local people

who were fixed gear fishermen who have always wanted to be able to get into the

otter trawl area were not able to do the same thing, but it was somehow or other

done at the higher levels and those quotas were sold over the wharf there in the

last few weeks. These people who had these extra quotas would go down and make a

deal with the guy there who had his otter trawler, who had his quota of fish

already fished and said, 200,000 pounds would you go and catch it for me? No

problem. We will give you this much percentage of it. He goes out and catches

the 200,000 pounds on someone else's behalf who has little or no investment in

the otter trawl fishery. And again it is putting that much more pressure on the

Gulf stock because of a transfer from another stock.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of time left now. I do want

to emphasize -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. RAMSAY: Just to complete.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. RAMSAY: I just want to emphasize that this regulatory

committee, you know, it would have to be developed with the assistance of the

Federal and Provincial Governments to see how a good local management committee

could work, and it would certainly inter-tie with the new Federal Minister of

Fisheries ideas on regional management. And I feel this will be a step in the

right direction to gaining the joint Federal/Provincial management that we

foresee as being the proper thing for the Province in the future. I will have a

bit more to say a little later on, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

pleasure today in rising to debate the resolution put forward by the hon. Member

for LaPoile. I must say that some of the comments that I have heard the hon.

Member make over the last twenty minutes or so have been interesting, and I want

to respond in some way to his comments and moreso, I guess, to the resolution. I

want to say to him from the start he talks about the regional approach and that

he has been encouraged by comments made by the new Federal Fisheries Minister

about regional approach, about regional management, regional responsibilities

and so on. I just want to say to him that from listening to the new Minister

over the last twenty-four or forty-eight hours the impression that I have

received from listening to the Minister is that the regional approach he is

talking about is more or less in the Atlantic region. It is the Atlantic

Provinces regional approach. So I do not know how parochial the new Federal

Minister is going to want to take the regional approach, and I understand full

well where the hon. Member is coming from by putting forward this resolution and

the concerns that he has, particularly about the winter fishery on the southwest

coast and the communities in his District that have been so drastically affected

over the past few years by a decline in the winter fishery and by the, I guess,

the snags and wrangles that have developed over the last two winters

particularly in that part of the Province.

It is interesting to hear the hon. Member talk about the

regional approach, to hear him talk about a joint management committee or a

regulatory committee. I would be remiss if I did not go on record as saying, Mr.

Speaker, that the party of which I am a Member has continuously sought more say

over the management and the control of our fishery. We believe that it is vital

to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is our most important industry,

our major industry and for that reason we feel that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians should have more say over that.

I feel, and I have said a number of times in this legislature

and outside, that if Newfoundland and Labrador had more say and control over the

management of our fishery that I do not think our fish stocks would be in the

state and the mess that they are in today. Being closest to the resource, having

taken fish from the sea for however long we have been here, I think we know more

about it - I am sure we know more about it than people who live some 2,000 miles

away. Now that is an argument that I have made continuously since my time in

politics and as a Member of the former Government. I feel if we had more say,

more direct input into the management of our most important industry, today our

fish stocks would be much healthier. There would be more fish off our shores to

catch. Fishermen would be making better livings and landing more fish, there

would be more people employed in our fish processing plants throughout the

Province, making more money, working longer periods of time per year, there

would be more personal income tax and retail sales tax going into the Provincial

coffers and consequently as a Province we would be much better off.

Now having said that, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to what

the new Government has said over the past two years, and at times I have found

the Premier's comments particularly to be contradictory. Upon assuming office,

on a number of occasions, the Premier asked out loud in the old Assembly and to

the media what would we do if we had more jurisdiction over our fishery? What

would we do with more management over our fishery? On occasions he said we could

not afford to have more jurisdiction. I remember on one occasion in the old

Chamber, I said to the Premier that I would reverse his argument and say that we

cannot afford not to have more say over the fishery for the very same reasons

that I have just outlined. We all know the problems that we all encounter on a

daily basis with our constituents who are involved in the fishery, trying to

deal with the Federal Fisheries and Oceans, and the regulations that they place

upon fishermen, and on and on it goes. But not if there were more people

involved in the fishery, Mr. Speaker, but if the same number of people who are

involved in the fishery today could make a better living from the fishery, then

our Province would be a much better place in which to live; we would have better

services and health care, education and transportation and so on. I think that

has to be the ultimate aim and goal of any Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It has to obtain and require a greater say in the management of our

most important industry.

I listened to the hon. Member for LaPoile as well talk about

the fishery restructuring process, the crisis that we went through in the early

80s, the Kirby Task Force report, and I am most familiar with the process and

the results of the Kirby Task Force, having been very, very involved in my own

area of the Province with the recommendations of the Kirby Task Force which in

essence was to eliminate processing capacity in the Province and close up fish

plants. Their contention was that the Province had too much processing capacity

and consequently fish plants had to close, particularly along the south coast of

the Province, and I was very, very involved, Mr. Speaker, with the people of

Grand Bank whose plant was scheduled to close at that time and we consequently

worked, protested and did all that was in our power and got that decision

reversed. The plant, I am pleased to say, is still working today for FPI even

though it may only be for another few weeks with Fishery Products International,

but hopefully after that it will be a new operator, probably in a new type of

fishery.

There is one thing that I want to point out to the Member for

LaPoile. Now what we are really talking about here in management is the resource

itself. We are talking about the fish in the sea or the lack thereof. I would

like for the hon. Member for LaPoile to remember that as a part of the Kirby

Task Force report, if my memory serves me correctly, that Michael Kirby, who is

now Senator Michael Kirby, recommended the total allowable catch, I believe it

was 466,000 tons.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: 366,000. Okay, I will take the Member for

Eagle River's word on that, 366,000 metric tons. The most that we ever took was

266,000 tons or 296,000 tons. I believe the highest we ever took was 266,000

tons. So that was 100,000 tons less, Mr. Speaker, than the Kirby Task Force

recommended. Now I say when you look at what has happened to the fish resource,

the fish stocks, I say thank God, that we took 100,000 tons less than was

recommended by Michael Kirby, because if we and the Federal Fisheries and Oceans

had listened to Michael Kirby and gone out and caught 366,000 metric tons then

can you imagine what a sorry state we would be in today if we started catching

that much fish in the early 1980s when we look at what has happened to our

resource now.

Yes, we all know about scientific advice, I say to my

colleague for Eagle River. We know just a few years ago they recommended 266,

and then came back the next year and wound it down to 150, a variation of

somewhere around 130,000 or 140,000 metric tons in a span of less than twelve

months. Which of course told me that the validity of the scientific data that we

were getting was quite questionable and I still question it, very seriously I

question it. And as you know in debates on the fishery in this Legislature that

I have consistently argued that we had better be careful about the very drastic

decisions we have been making about the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador,

the lives that we have been affecting of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, both

fishermen and processors, that we do not come back and find out in a few years

time that the very drastic action, the shutdown of plants and the eliminating of

people from the fishing industry was unnecessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, well, I say, I am going to go back to

the hon. Member and his resolution and say to him, what we are really talking

here is the resource from the winter fishery. I mean, there is no question. I

think we all can agree that the state of that particular stock is in sad shape,

it is not in good shape. And when we get into these kinds of debates the bottom

line is, we all say, we put forward our own various arguments - I guess the

sobering, underlying thought is that you cannot afford to gamble on the future.

And even though some of us may think that we are being a little too conservative

- excuse the expression - on conservation, that we really cannot afford not to

be, because we do not want to jeopardize the future of the fishing industry, and

we want our stocks to rebuild so that our fishery becomes a more viable

industry.

So I want to say to the Member for LaPoile who has put

forward this resolution, that in essence I have no difficulty whatsoever with

him proposing that Federal and Provincial Governments work together to establish

an effective mandate for this proposed regulatory committee, the intent of which

will be joint management of this important resource. And I say to him quite

sincerely that, realizing why he has introduced this resolution - because he is

concerned about the communities in his region of the Province just as I am about

mine, we have a different problem from his - that we should take this issue

further than just the southwest coast fishery.

We should take it further than the arguments that the Member

for Eagle River consistently puts forward on behalf of the people of Labrador.

And some good arguments I might say, the Members for Eagle River, Torngat and

Menihek and so on. More fish for Labrador. They consistently argue that. And the

people in my area of the Province, particularly from the deep sea fishery, say

that they should be allowed to catch more fish, that the northern cod stock is

not in as bad a shape as the scientists tell us. And we hear it from the

skippers and the trawlermen on a regular basis. I hear it every weekend when I

go home, I speak to someone who is involved in the deep sea fishery. Skippers

call me on a regular basis and talk about that resource and say: you know, the

scientists are all wrong. There are some times I wonder if perhaps they are not

more accurate than the scientists.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Precisely. Any time I talk about adjacency

and historic dependency, I am talking about Newfoundland and Labrador as a

Province. I do not get parochial and talk about one region of the Province

because if we start doing that I think we are going to end up losing worse than

we have already lost. It has got to be a Provincial effort, and that is my

message I guess, what I am saying to the Member for LaPoile. We have got to talk

about Newfoundland and Labrador having more say over our fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: There you are, Mr. Speaker. Now you talk

about being parochial again. You see, I am trying to make a logical speech on

this, now. The Member for Eagle River is telling me now that he does not want

any of our people - I suppose Newfoundland Island people - coming to Labrador

catching his fish. Well, the Member for LaPoile could say that he does not want

anybody from up the northern peninsula going down and tying up in Port aux

Basques and catching fish and trucks trucking it out. I could say, if I was so

parochial, that I do not want anyone down fishing in 3Ps. That all that should

be for the people from Little St. Lawrence, around to Point May and Fortune and

down to Garnish, so everyone else stay out of it.

So I mean, the situation is we cannot afford to be so

parochial. And we are never going to get anywhere as a people and as a Province

if we do not go forward as a Province. And the joint management and the joint

regulatory committees that the Member for LaPoile talks about, should be of

Provincial scope. And if we are going to have any impact in negotiations with

the Federal Government in getting joint management of the fishery that is how it

has to be approached. We cannot go going off and say the Burin Peninsula this

and Labrador this and LaPoile something else. We would all need our own Minister

of Fisheries, each region of the Province.

So that is the approach that has to be taken and I am hoping,

I must say, I have been encouraged over the last couple of months by statements

that have been made by the Minister of Fisheries, that as a result of the

Mahoney Report we are now going after, as a Province, more say, joint

management, boards similar to the offshore petroleum board. If it is a board

that will be struck similar to the offshore board then I would certainly support

it. But the only reservation I have, I say to the Minister of Fisheries - and I

expect he will be speaking in this debate - is that the joint management

fisheries board needs the same teeth as the offshore board. It needs the same

endorsement by the Legislature of Newfoundland, by the Parliament of Canada,

that needs to be written into the joint management board act, whatever it will

be at the time, so that it gives it some thump. And I really hope that is what

the Provincial Government is pursuing in this matter, a board directly similar

to the offshore petroleum board because then we will have some real say over our

fishery. But until we get that we will not.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how I am doing for time but...

a couple of minutes. I will just finish up my remarks by saying that I want to

say to the Member for LaPoile that I have no problem with his resolution. Just

that I hope that - fully realizing why he has brought in the winter fishery on

the southwest coast, that it is more of a constituency matter - I hope the

thinking of the Provincial Government is broader than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, Danny - excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I keep

referring to him by his first name. I want to say to him that no one is

interested in exploiting Labrador. I am certainly not. I hope that our fishery

can be managed in such a way that the people of Labrador will truly benefit from

the resource off their shores. I sincerely mean that and I hope it happens. But

there are going to have to be changes for that to happen. And if you are going

to talk about adjacency and historic dependency you have to be sincere about it.

And if you look at historic dependency on people who have gone for years to the

Labrador to fish that is historic dependency, they have been historically

dependent on that resource. They have caught the fish.

And I say to the hon. Member again. And I hope the hon.

Member gets the chance to go and talk - or maybe he has already - to the

fisheries officials in Portugal and Spain. Because that is the exact same

argument that the people from Spain and Portugal will say to us, whether we go

as Newfoundlanders or Canadians, that they say they have had an historical

dependency upon fish off our shores, particularly the Grand Banks. And they

point fingers at us and say that they are not the problem for the resource

crisis, it is us. So they have been coming over here for 400 years. The same way

as Newfoundlanders have been going to Labrador for how many years. So it is not

right to exploit anybody.

But I think if we are going to be rational about this and if

we are going to have joint management of our fisheries, we are going to have to

do it and come up with a process that is in the best interest of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. There is enough resource out there if we allow

it to rebuild that we can have a very viable and healthy fishing industry so

that the people of Labrador, the fishermen and fish plant workers, can benefit

to make a good living and people on the island portion of the Province can do

the same. And that, Mr. Speaker, is what I want to see, and I want to go on

record as saying to the Member for LaPoile that I support his resolution.

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

MR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy to

take

part in this debate today because certainly the intent of the motion I

suppose is somewhat along the lines that we have been talking about now for

quite some time. I suppose in simple terms what the motion is saying, is

pointing out, is the need for a joint management regime to be put in place to

manage the fisheries not only on the southwest coast of our Province, but in my

view that resolution could just as easily have been put forward on behalf of the

entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because I do not think anybody,

given all the facts, can deny Newfoundland the right to have some meaningful

input into the decision making process in terms of fisheries development.

It is incredible, it is almost unthinkable, that a Province

like Newfoundland, where we depend so heavily on the fishing industry and always

have depended heavily on the fishing industry, where the major part of our work

force derives a living, either directly or indirectly, from the fishing

industry. Where many thousands of our Newfoundlanders who work in fish plants on

the shore derive a major part of their income from the fishing industry. That,

coupled with the fact that notwithstanding Hibernia and other mega-projects that

we are now looking at for future development, I think most people will agree

that these projects will come and go. But the fishing industry will be expected

to stay on forever and to continue to make the kind of contribution to the

social and economic life of this Province that it has made in the past.

I was very interested in the comments of my friend for Grand

Bank. I was delighted to hear that he is supporting the concept of shared

management. I can tell him now that that support is welcome, and the type of

joint management that we have been talking about consists of a board somewhat

similar to the offshore petroleum board, a board that would be comprised of

seven people: three people appointed by the Provincial Government and three

people appointed by the Federal Government, with an independent Chairman

appointed. And that board then would be responsible for the management of almost

all aspects of the fishing industry in the Province.

The Federal Minister of Fisheries would be expected to

transfer his responsibilities, the things that come under his jurisdiction, to

that board, as would the Provincial Minister of Fisheries. So the licencing of

fish plants, for example - which is a Provincial responsibility - the

responsibility for that would be vested in that committee as would certain other

regulations that come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Pardon? Well, I think it has to be a give and

take. I think, as I see it, if you are going to set up that kind of a board,

three, three and a chairman, then you cannot just ask them to do things on a

piecemeal basis. For example, we would expect that board to have within its

jurisdiction most of the powers and responsibilities that are now in the hands

of the Federal Minister. But that is not to say that the Federal Minister would

abdicate his or her responsibility in terms of having to report to Parliament,

on matters pertaining to the fishery, that is that person's constitutional

responsibility to report to Parliament, to account to Parliament for the conduct

of the fisheries as it relates to the Federal Government and the Provincial

Minister would do the same thing. The Province would transfer most of its

responsibilities, for example, the licencing and all of these things to that

Joint Board, but that still would not take away from the Provincial Minister

responsibility for answering to this House, and to the people for the conduct of

that area of the fishery for which he is responsible. If a dispute were to

arise, and we have not thought this through to any great extent yet, but it is

now in the process of being thought through, if a dispute were to arise, for

example, in terms of items or matters that would normally come under the

Province well then that dispute would be referred to the appropriate Provincial

Minister of Fisheries and I would expect him to have the last say. There must be

some mechanism in place to settle differences if and when they arise and the

same, of course, would apply for the Federal Minister as well. But this is only

a broad outline as to what we have in mind. But I have discussed this matter,

well in recent years, at least, with two Fisheries Ministers, Mr. Siddon and Mr.

Valcourt, and at one point I thought we were getting somewhere in both cases, in

fact, Mr. Siddon appeared to be extremely interested in what we were saying and

wanted more information, which we supplied, but subsequently he lost interest

and that is where it died. At a recent meeting with Mr. Valcourt the matter of

joint management came up and again he expressed some interest in it, wanted more

information on it which we supplied, and as with Mr. Siddon for whatever reason

his interest was lost and that is as far as it got.

Now yesterday morning I had the privilege of meeting our new

Minister of Fisheries, Mr. John Crosbie. I have not had a chance yet to discuss

joint management with the new Minister, an old stranger, an old friend of mine.

Today I spoke to the International Seafood Marketing Organization here in St.

John's and I learned that my Federal counterpart performed that job yesterday,

and I was told in a good natured way, the Minister was having a bit of fun, and

giving those in attendance a rundown as to the extent and the length of time we

have been associated in one form or another. I do not have the exact words that

he said, but in his usual way he was somewhat humorous, I am just sorry I was

not there. Nothing vicious, nothing demeaning, insulting, in a good natured way

he said, he thinks that he and I can get along and work well together.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: He gave as his reason the fact that we have

been around for about the same number of years, we have served on all levels of

government. I succeeded him as Deputy Mayor of St. John's back in the 1960s. He

then ran in Provincial politics. I later left that role and ran Federally, and

was elected in St. John's West where I spent seven or eight years in the House

of Commons. I came back to the Province in 1975 and I was appointed to the

Moores Cabinet as the Minister of Fisheries. Lo and behold, my old friend jumped

into the seat of St. John's West, so he was following me there.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is following you yet.

MR. CARTER: In the meantime, when I went in Fisheries, lo

and behold, he moved out. So we have been sort of moving in and out. So he was

trying to relate that experience to the people at the Conference today, as only

he can put it, he said that we belonged to many parties together and that we

often at times stayed around in the same party and served in the same Cabinet.

He said there were times when we were like ships in the night - we just passed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: I too then could not allow the opportunity to

pass without having a bit of fun, so I said that Mr. Crosbie and I have done

some strange things, maybe, in politics. I said, Sir Winston Churchill one time

in describing, in trying to justify how he moved from party to party back and

forth, and I think Sir Winston might have moved four or five times -

MR. RIDEOUT: Four times.

MR. CARTER: Four times, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition says.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: I said at least the new Minister can only be

accused of ratting. Sir Winston said that when you do it three times you rerat.

He said any fool can rat on a party, but it takes a real man to rerat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: Now I suppose having started of as a Liberal

and then gone, for all the right reasons I might add, to become a Tory, and then

for all the right reasons again to become a Liberal, that would bring me close

to Sir Winston and it would probably put me in the category as having reratted.

But seriously, Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by Mr. Crosbie's

appointment, I think he, and I said this publicly, and I have determined to, and

I told him this yesterday privately, that I am not going to be out bad-mouthing

him or trying to pick a fight or bring on any kind of a confrontation, because I

think if we do that, the Province will be the loser.

I think we have an excellent opportunity now to do some of

the things we want done in the fishing industry and of course, by virtue of his

control of the ACOA funding, then by extension, we can say the same thing in

other areas of economic development in the Province where ACOA funding will play

such a vital role. But I think we can work together well, and I believe that,

even though I do not sense in him now any great deal of enthusiasm in support of

a joint management regime, I believe that he is a broad-minded person and a man

of common sense and that when it is properly explained to him, I believe he will

come around to our way of thinking; because there is no way the present

situation should be allowed to continue and think about it, if you will, Mr.

Speaker, for a moment; there we have an industry in Newfoundland that is the

most important, a most important industry in terms of the employment it creates

and its contribution to the economy, it is an industry that brought us to this

Province and I expect it is one that will keep us here, where all of the

decisions, at least most of the decisions are made a couple of thousand miles

inland, in the Ottawa Valley, made by people who, in most cases have never been

east of the Ottawa Valley, would not know where to find Newfoundland on the map

in some cases, and would not know what a codfish looks like, it just does not

make sense.

I can imagine the uproar in the other provinces, especially

in the Prairie Provinces. For example, in the Province of Saskatchewan where

wheat is important to the economy of that province. Think, Mr. Speaker, for a

moment, what would happen if every single decision affecting wheat, where it was

growing, how much was growing, who harvested the wheat, where it went, if all

those decisions were made in Ottawa without hardly any reference whatever to the

Province, it just would not work and, in fact, I think it is to our credit in

this Province, we must be a very civilized people that we would allow this sort

of thing to continue as long as we have. I think there is going to have to be

some changes made in the matter of jurisdiction, that has to come, and I believe

that Newfoundlanders and the Newfoundland Government and all others will have to

get their backs behind the wheel and do whatever necessary to ensure that we

achieve that objective at the earliest possible date.

I recall when the Harris panel, Royal Commission, whatever it

was called, was commissioned to undertake a thorough study of the northern cod

stocks, I then requested my federal counterpart, to extend its mandate and to

include in its study, the problems in the gulf area, because it was no secret

even then, four or five years ago, that the fish stocks in the gulf area were in

serious trouble and that something had to be done, and it was equally obvious

that not enough scientific research had been carried out in that area; in fact,

I suppose that probably accounts for a large part of the problem; there was

insufficient research. In fact, I am told that their last attempt in trying to

put a handle on the amount of fish that is available out there, it was not

successful because they actually could not find enough fish to count. That is

why their recommendation came back for the management plan last Winter when they

recommended that the TAC in the Gulf area go from 5000 tons to 35,000 tons,

wide-ranging parameters.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. CARTER: No, 35,000, I think. The best the scientists

could do was from 5000 tons to 35,000 tons. That is an admission, of course,

that they had no scientific backup whatever for that position. Anyway, the

upshot was, Mr. Speaker, that the TACs were announced, they were reduced

somewhat, but again they went against their own advice because in a report that

was published by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in December of 1990

there was a recommendation in this report, a report commissioned by the

Department, and one of the recommendations said that where possible decisions

should be taken to increase the fixed gear share of the TAC. They were

recommending that the fixed gear share of that TAC be increased, and lo and

behold a month or two later when they announced their management plan they did

just the opposite, while they reduced the TAC by a few thousand tons, I believe,

it was from some 58,000 down to 40-something, I believe of the TAC, from 58,000

to 35,000. They gave 16,000 of that 35,000 to the mobile fleet and they gave

12,500 to the fixed gear which was a total contradiction to what the

recommendation contained in their own report.

Mr. Speaker, it is of interest to note, I guess, in trying to

focus some attention on this problem, and the severity of it, when one realizes

that last Fall we conducted a survey on the southwest coast of our Province, the

Fisheries Loan Board and my Department conducted a survey, and it was found that

the average earned income by fixed gear fishermen in that area, income earned

from the fishery, was less than $5000 per year. I have often said a baby-sitter

in Toronto would make more than the fixed gear fishermen who were operating last

year on the southwest coast of our Province, and that is a pretty sad

commentary.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. CARTER: No, that was earned from the fishery. They

could not possibly live on $5000 a year so that was supplemented, I suppose, by

welfare, a bit of make work, and some UI. You have probably 5000 fishermen up

there, I guess 5000 would be a reasonably accurate number of fixed gear

fishermen. Based on wrong scientific advice, and sometimes in the absence of any

scientific advice, there has been a proliferation of harvesting effort up there

to the point where now it has gone beyond anything that is sensible and sane.

You have 108 mobile vessels up there fishing for cod and you have another

fifty-eight vessels up there who would in turn fish for shrimp, and then, of

course, at the right time of the year they move up and fish for cod. I guess the

upshot, Mr. Speaker, is that there is far, far, too much catching effort, and

quite frankly I do not know how else you can manage to tackle the problem and to

help the stocks rebuild unless we find some way to reduce the number of vessels.

If you talk about reducing the number of vessels of course, you must not forget

the fact that you have five reasonably large fish plants operating in that area,

employing many thousands of people. What happens there? Who will come to their

rescue? Bearing in mind that the problem to which I am now referring was brought

on by virtue of mismanagement or bad management or poor management, call it what

you want, of the Federal Government, then it must follow that they have to

accept responsibility for the consequences.

And when I hear people calling upon the Provincial Government

to come forward and join in some kind of a response programme, one that would no

doubt cost many millions of dollars, sometimes I am surprised at such

irresponsibility. Because I am sure most people - and a lot of the people whom I

have heard ask that question, I am sure they know - that given the nature of the

problem and the cause of the problem and who caused it, certainly the Province

should not be expected, even if we could afford it, to make that kind of a

contribution towards alleviating the problems that it has caused.

So I suppose, as somebody said a moment ago here, the

problems in the Gulf area are far more serious than in the northern cod area.

(Inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. CARTER: - far more serious.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. CARTER: -and they are almost as serious I would think

as the serious problems that face the fish stocks on the Nose and Tail of our

Grand Banks. I heard an interesting story yesterday. We met with the Premier,

the members of the Fishing Industry Advisory Council and the Chairman of that

Council, Mr. Gus Etchegary, gave the Premier an overview of the problems on the

Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, where the major part of this over-fishing is

now occurring. He was telling us that - and I guess this will be of interest to

my friend for Grand Bank - that only a few years ago, before the fishery's

crisis came upon us, that all the plants on the south coast depended on fish

that they caught on the southern Grand Banks. They were not at all dependent on

the northern cod stocks. In fact only a very small percentage of their total

production came anywhere north of Cape Bonavista. And in fact, prior to 1977, I

am told, there was very little deep sea fishing going on north of Bonavista.

Practically all the offshore effort then was concentrated off the southern Grand

Banks.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: That is right. It is only a few years back as

my colleague says -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: It was almost unheard of. I recall back when

I was in this job before that we were hearing then about ice-reinforced vessels,

German ships being reinforced- it was unheard of. I mean, you hardly knew what

it meant. But a couple of vessels, with some help, managed to get

ice-reinforced.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: That is right. So I guess the point I am

trying to make is that while now everybody is looking to the northern cod as

being the salvation, the saviour of all of our fish plants, including the ones

on the south coast, that historically the south coast plants did not fish

northern cod and for that reason of course we have to put a lot more effort into

finding ways and means of curbing over-fishing on the Nose and Tail. Because

therein lies the problem. And this year for example, or last year -

AN HON. MEMBER: It will be hard to do.

MR. CARTER: It will be hard to do but it has to be done.

This year, for example, over-fishing on the Nose and Tail, 100,000 metric tons

of fish were taken illegally by, apparently, two countries. Now just think for a

moment what 100,000 tons of fish could do for the south coast of our Province.

Indeed for the Province itself. You would have untold prosperity today in places

like Grand Bank, Trepassey, Gaultois, Fortune, and Marystown. Untold prosperity.

Then we found out after the fact that another company, German

I believe it was, a foreign company, country, or ship, took 32,000 metric tons

of turbot just off the northeast coast, out on the edge of the Continental

Shelf. And again, visualize, if you will, what that could do for the plants on

the northeast coast. That would provide a year round supply for Twillingate,

Valleyfield, La Scie, St. Anthony. It is just mind boggling when you come to

think of what is happening out there and the effect it is having on this

Province, and that is all the more reason, I suppose, why we have to address

that problem and maybe working with the new Minister find ways and means of

driving it home to the offenders just how important it is that they cease and

desist from what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for extending me these few

minutes to clue up. Again, I compliment the Member on his fine resolution, and

hopefully, maybe before too long somebody will bring in a similar resolution in

a broader context including the entire Newfoundland and Labrador Fishery.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity today as well to

make a few comments in support of the resolution put forward by the gentleman

for LaPoile. You know, I cannot help but think of when I first became Minister

of Fisheries for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1984 or 85,

whenever it was, it was in the spring of 85 actually. The norm was to talk about

the Newfoundland fishery. You know, Mr. Speaker, I very quickly came to the

conclusion that one of the greatest misnomers of all time is to try to talk

about the Newfoundland fishery because there is not such a thing as a

Newfoundland fishery. In fact, there are a multitude of fisheries in

Newfoundland and Labrador and they are all distinct and different.

The hon. gentleman brings in a resolution today that deals

with what we call basically the southwest coast fishery, the Port aux Basque

area and up the western side of the great northern peninsula, 4RS, 3PM, and that

fishery is totally distinct from the northern cod fishery which affects the

northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2J, 3KL. That is the fishery for

many, many reasons, I suppose, because it geographically impacts on so many

communities. There are so many thousands of people dependent on it. That,

unfortunately, in many, many respects is the fishery that gets the most

attention. I say to this House today, Mr. Speaker, that despite the problems,

and there are very, very serious problems in terms of northern cod stock, I say

to this House today and I say to the hon. gentleman who brought in the

resolution that I firmly believe that the most serious problem we have in the

Newfoundland fishery today is the 4RS, 3PM fishery. That is the most serious

fisheries problem facing Newfoundland and Labrador today, because, Mr. Speaker,

that fishery, if we are not very, very careful, and I am not convinced that we

have not gone past the point of recklessness, that fishery is on the brink of

collapse. Now that can be interpreted to be a statement that will scare people,

but I mean when you get the scientific community recommending a TAC anywhere

from 5,000 tons to 35,000 tons, they do not know what they are talking about.

All they are doing is trying to cover, you know what. They want to leave a way

open for politicians, for Ministers to be able to do something. They are not

sure what to tell them to do or what not to do, but they will leave an opening

so that they will not be caught in a bind if the Minister wants to do something.

That, Mr. Speaker, is not good fisheries management.

I say to the hon. gentleman today, and I say to this

Government, that I believe that this Government should go - and there is an

opportunity now with a new fisheries Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: I do not know about that. It might be worse.

But I say to this Government that this Government should go

to the federal Government immediately. Go immediately to the federal Government

and say, 'we recommend that the 4RS, 3PM fishery be closed, permanently closed

to everybody - moratorium, five years maybe. Now, obviously, to do that you have

to have a plan, you have to have a plan to compensate the fishermen while they

are out of work and the fish plant workers while they are out of work. But I

suggest to this House, Mr. Speaker, it is better to do that now then face a

total collapse of that stock. And I fear very, very much that is what we are

facing.

You know, people will argue with you that look, there is lots

of fish out there because we can go out with our otter trawls and we can, you

know, with one tow we can fill the trawl. But, Mr. Speaker, what they are not

saying to you is that they are dragging during the spawning season. Everybody

knows or ought to know or everybody who wants to find out can know that fish

congregate to spawn. And the fact of the matter is, and Dr. Templeton for

example, wrote about this many, many years ago, the fact of the matter is that

you could catch every last fish that is out there and not know that you are

doing it because they are all together in that relatively small pool. So it is

useless from a scientific prospect to say that the fishery is not in bad shape

because the catches are good. It is useless to use that as a yardstick, because

it is possible to fish the stock to the point of collapse if you use that as the

only yardstick.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a very, very serious problem in

that southwest coast fishery, and I believe that this Government is going to

have to tackle it. Look, if you leave it to Ottawa nothing will happen, and I do

not care who is up there Liberals, Tories, and I suspect if it was the New

Democrats it would be the same thing because the Newfoundland fishery is a pain

in the neck to Ottawa. It has been that way since 1949 through successive

Liberal Governments and Tory Governments, and I suspect it will continue to be

that way. There are those in Ottawa who cringe when they hear that a

Newfoundland Minister of Fisheries is coming up to bring up another problem. I

mean it is a social disaster is what the super bureaucrats up there will tell

you. And unless you go up with a battering ram and beat down the doors and make

the case then they are just not going to listen to you. Now that is what is

going to have to happen in terms of the southwest coast fishery. It is going to

have to become an environmental issue. You have to raise it about the level of

fish. I mean really what we are talking about is a sustained use of the

environment, and you are going to have to raise it above that little word 'fish'

that they do not want to hear up there.

What we are talking about here is the major collapse of a

major cod stock.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: That is right. I mean people get upset now,

and rightly so, because the ozone layer, the earth is warming up too quickly and

so there is going to be major, major catastrophes decades down the road. Well it

is in the same vein that this has to be approached. Canadians - and by the way,

this stock is totally within the control of Canada - we cannot go ranting and

raving, as true as it is about foreign overfishing in 4RS and 3PN, I do not even

know if the French have anything there at the moment. So this stock is totally

within the hands of Canadians to manage. We cannot blame it on anybody else only

ourselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, that is 3Ps, that is further up the

south coast, what we are talking about here is 4RS, 3PN fishery. So 3PS is a

different situations. But the Member is right.

But I mean the point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that this

stock without exception is within the bounds of Canada to manage and if Canada

does not manage it properly, we have nobody else to blame it on. If Canada is

going to perpetrate and oversee an environmental disaster, the collapse of a

major fish stock, then we obviously become the laughing stocks of the world. And

I think we can magnify that into a national issue. And that, I say to the Member

who brought in this resolution, is a challenge for this Government, it is a

challenge for this Minister of Fisheries, it is a challenge for the Premier. Let

the Premier take up the cause of a major environmental disaster that is about to

happen in Canadian waters off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador in a fish

stock that is totally within Canada's boundaries to manage. And there will be

people in Vancouver who will be interested in that. There will be people on the

Prairies who will be interested in that. There will be people all throughout

Canada who would be ashamed to have it said in the international community that

Canadians managed a fish stock to collapse. I believe that there would be a lot

of sympathy and a lot of understanding if there was a crusade taken on by this

Province to get that message out all over Canada that we are facing a major

ecological disaster in a major fish stock in Canadian waters, a disaster that

cannot be blamed on foreigners, and cannot be blamed on anybody only ourselves.

Now, I think if that were to happen I think the Federal Government would be

forced to bring in a plan that will very seriously cut back that fishery, if not

close it down altogether until the stock regenerates itself. Fish are a

renewable resource. As long as you do not take every last one out of the water

it will rebuild, it will replenish, but there is nothing more frightening than

to have the biologists and the scientists come to you and say, this stock can

stand a fishing effort of anywhere from 5000 tons to 35,000 tons. They obviously

do not know what they are talking about. It is not worth the paper it is written

on. It is a recipe for disaster and we cannot allow it to happen. In many

respects that is one of the reasons why this Party, and me personally are so

supportive of this resolution. The resolution itself is parochial, and that is

the Member's responsibility, it should apply to the fishery in all of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Shared management or shared jurisdiction, whatever

fancy name you want to put on it, is not a new concept. It is one that we

articulated for years when we were Government, and it is one that this

Government wisely articulates, and I applaud them for it, but it is not a new

concept. The resolution itself, or the intent of the resolution should apply to

the whole of the fishery in the whole of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. On any other given occasion I would take the opportunity to amend the

motion but I am not going to do that today because it is too important to the

cause that the hon. gentleman has tried to have addressed in this resolution. I

do not want to make little of it by tampering with his resolution. There might

be the odd word in there, the odd tittle, or the odd jot that I do not like, but

I am not going to fool around with that because the issue is too important, and

it is too important for too many people on the south coast of this Province, Mr.

Speaker. I was interested in listening to the Minister sort of expand a little

bit on the concept of the joint management board, and I thought it kind of

strange that after two years of talking about this particular concept that the

Minister would tell the House that it has not all been necessarily thought

through yet. I do not want to put words in the Minister's mouth but I think that

is in effect what he said. There is still some thinking to do about how this

particular board would operate. Well, I say to the Minister, in all sincerity -

MR. CARTER: May I rise on a point of order to clarify

what the hon. gentleman just said?

MR. RIDEOUT: I will just yield if the Minister wishes.

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

MR. CARTER: I may not have used a good choice of words,

Speaker, but I certainly did not intend to convey the impression that there has

been nothing done on this proposition. In fact I can tell the House now that in

our White Paper on Fisheries, which will be ready for presentation very shortly,

the whole plan is very well laid out. I guess where some of the problems arise

is a matter of just how do we go about attacking this problem? What is the first

move? How do we go about taking whatever steps are necessary to make sure that

it will be implemented? It might well be that the Premier will have to visit the

Prime Minister. He might have to visit the respective caucuses in Ottawa to get

their support, I know it is not going to be an easy battle because we are also

facing the prospect of a lot of opposition from the other Atlantic Provinces. It

was only this morning that my Deputy Minister and I talked about the possibility

of he going to Halifax to visit his counterpart, to maybe try to soften them up

and allay any fears they might have. The package is together, but it is the

process of how we go about getting it in place given all the opposition that

there will be to it.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: I acknowledge certainly what the Minister

had to say and he is right. I mean, the other Atlantic Provinces, first of all

are going to be against this because it might mean something additional for

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Federal Government, I can tell you, and again, I do not

care what the political stripe is, will be against it in the first instance; I

mean, Romeo LeBlanc would not hear tell of it, Pierre de Bane would not hear

tell of it, Tom Siddon would not hear tell of it, Valcourt would not hear tell

of it, I would be surprised if John Crosbie would hear tell of it, in the first

instance, so there is a major, major selling job that is going to have to be

done on behalf of this Province and that brings me to my final point, Mr.

Speaker, because I know I am running out of time.

It is vitally important for the overall fishery in

Newfoundland and Labrador, in addition to the problem that my friend is

articulating in his resolution, but it is vitally important for the overall

management of the fishery in this Province, that the Provincial Government, the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, stop sending mixed signals to Ottawa.

Nothing will damage our case more than the Member for Eagle

River saying one thing as a Member of the Government, and the Minister of

Fisheries saying another and the Premier saying something else. When the

Government speaks, Mr. Speaker, it is going to have to speak with one voice; it

will undermine the Member for Eagle River, it will undermine the Member for

LaPoile, it will undermine the Minister, it will undermine the Province, if

there continues to be, mixed signals about how Newfoundland and Labrador want to

manage the fishery.

You cannot have it both ways; you cannot have the Minister of

Fisheries, as he did a few months ago, saying that the quota should be less than

what the Federal Government set it as, and he said it for the right reasons,

because the scientific advice was to that effect. You cannot have that and other

Members of the Government saying: we want to get in, we want a quota, as right

as that is, because that - if you were the Minister sitting up in Ottawa, that

would be manna from heaven for you; they would be saying: sure, this crowd do

not know what they want; the Minister who speaks for the Government says, we

have set the TAC too high, the Premier, who is the Leader of the Government,

says that we should follow a 'lifo' principle, Last in, first out, and now we

have a Member who supports the Government, saying we want in on top of everybody

else with the quota going down, so the signal has to be one signal; the voice

has to be one voice and there comes a time when we have to, sometimes for the

good, for the overall good of everybody, we have to bite our own tongues, so to

speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, what a bruising personal attack

by the Member for Eagle River: 'I am despicable'. I might not be the best

looking fellow in the House, but I thought I was half decent, I might not be

able to speak the best, but I can match the Member for Eagle River any day, Mr.

Speaker; but what a low blow for a Member of this House to say to another

Member, 'you are despicable'; go and call Ron Pumphrey, boy, he is looking for

you.

What I am saying to the Member, if he would get his little

parochial mind in order, what I am saying to the Member is this: that, my

problem as bad as it is, or the Member for LaPoile's problem as bad as it is,

and your problem as bad as it is, the overall good of the whole Province is what

has to be addressed. Now, get that through your little parochial mind; if you

can do that, you might be worthy of a Cabinet post some day, but if you cannot

do that, then you are worthy of nothing!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) repeat what the people of

Eagle River had to say.

MR. RIDEOUT: Is that right eh? Sure, you are, sure you

are, but do you have any responsibility to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador?

MR. DUMARESQUE: You went down and you discriminate

against the people of Labrador in your politics when you were Minister.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Labrador made great strides in

fisheries development during my tenure as Minister, I am very proud to say;

very, very proud to say. Native people were given the right to manage their own

resource and to have their own way of doing it through their own co-operative,

Mr. Speaker, never heard it before, that was not a Liberal initiative.

Who built the plant that this Government allowed t