May 8,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLI No. 45

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

My question is to the Minister of Mines and Energy. I wonder

if he can tell me if the Government has been advised by Wabush Mines that the

original five-week shut-down scheduled from July 1 to August 5 has now been

extended to September 15?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have been advised that

the shut-down at Wabush Mines is going to be from July 1 to September 3. On

September 4, Wabush will be going back into operation at half capacity until

September 15, after which time, it will be running at full capacity. I

understand there will also be a short shut-down at Christmas.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, concern has been expressed by

the employees of Wabush Mines and the residents of Wabush about the continued

viability of that particular mine. Has the Minister met recently, not only with

the local mine management, but with the owners, to ascertain what their plans

are, not only in the short-term, but the long-term viability of that particular

mining property?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, my last meeting with the

manager was, I think, in early January when I was up in Wabush, but we do have a

meeting scheduled with the top people of Wabush and its owners for May 29, here

in St. John's. They will be coming to St. John's on May 29.

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

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

I understand that the Minister has received a request for a

meeting with local steelworkers' representatives. I wonder if he can tell me if

he is prepared to meet with local steelworkers' representatives as soon as

possible, he, the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, and the

Premier?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I talked to the President

of the union local at Wabush just before lunch and we have agreed that we are

going to try to get a meeting arranged for twelve o'clock on Monday coming, with

myself, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and the Premier.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, Sections (3) and (9) of The

Municipalities Act state that Cabinet may order the amalgamation of towns or

communities only on the recommendation of the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs and that the Minister, prior to making his recommendation,

must order a feasibility study. I want to ask the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, has he recommended, or is he considering recommending the

amalgamation of all cities and towns on the Northeast Avalon into one supercity?

Since the Minister is required by the Act to order a feasibility study before

proceeding to a decision on that proposal, when does he propose such a study

take place?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this time is

that very shortly, I will be making a statement in the House.

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

MR. SIMMS: That might be fine. I am glad to hear you

might make a statement. Can he answer the question, Mr. Speaker? The question

is: When is the Minister going to order a feasibility study on the

much-talked-about super city proposal? When is he going to order a feasibility

study on that concept?

AN HON. MEMBER: Never.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, some year-and-a-half ago, we

ordered feasibility studies on the Northeast Avalon. Those commissioners'

reports have been received by my Department, and certainly, by Government, and

that process has been followed as outlined in the Act.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister would not

consider the feasibility study that he ordered nearly two years ago to be a

study into the feasibility of the supercity concept? Did that study not deal

with Government's original proposal to amalgamate twenty communities on the

Northeast Avalon into six municipalities? Is that not was in that original

study? Is it not also true that none of the municipalities that made

presentations to the commissioners, including the City of St. John's,

recommended a supercity? If that is true, how then can the Minister claim that

the affected municipalities have already expressed their opinions on a proposal

which was never presented to them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in the feasibility process,

which involves some seventeen main points, if I recollect correctly, the

seventeen municipalities made written briefs to the commissioners, four groups

of commissions with two commissioners in every case, one common commissioner and

three appointed by the towns and cities. I would suggest that almost every

possible scenario thinkable was talked about, debated and options and so on were

discussed in the hearings process and throughout the feasibility hearings.

So, Mr. Speaker, that process has now been ongoing for a

year-and-a-half. I do not think anybody would argue we have had considerable

debate both internally and externally. As I said earlier, I will shortly be

making a statement to the House.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the same questions to

the Minister: Has he now rejected his initial amalgamation proposal for the

north east Avalon, which was the subject of the feasibility study, has he

rejected that; has he rejected all the alternatives supported by some

municipalities which did not include the supercity and has he rejected the

recommendations of the feasibility study which also did not include the

supercity?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we considered in my Department,

and of course as the Minister considered, every option that was available; I had

the benefit of the year and a half of study and dialogue with the communities

and with those community leaders, and certainly with representation from the

public and interested groups.

The benefit of that knowledge and my own input of course,

will eventually involve a recommendation and Government will make a decision and

I can only repeat for the third time that I will eventually be making, based on

the rationale I just gave you, a statement to the House.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps he could tell us when he

is going to do all this; secondly, I want to ask him this: Is he comfortable

with the Premier's position to bring a resolution or legislation before this

House to force amalgamation on the north east Avalon question, and, since

Cabinet cannot act without a feasibility study, according to the law, how can

the House be forced to make such a decision without the benefit of such a study?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, until Government makes a

decision first of all, and then decides on the procedure that Government wishes

to take to implement that decision, I cannot comment any further.

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

MS. VERGE: My question is for the Premier. The Premier

has clearly indicated that he intends to bring either legislation or a

resolution to this House of Assembly, to force the amalgamation of

municipalities on the north east Avalon. How does the Premier intend to proceed

with his amalgamation plans for the hundred or more municipalities outside the

north east Avalon area, does he intend to deal with them at the same time and in

the same manner as he proposes to deal with the north east Avalon?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I have

not indicated that I intend to bring legislation or a resolution before this

House to deal with the north east Avalon. It may be that tomorrow we may do so,

but at this point in time I have not made any such indication.

The second question was, how do we propose to deal with other

amalgamations? We will deal with other amalgamations and the issue of whether or

not other amalgamations should take place in due course, whenever it is

appropriate to do so; just a couple of days ago, two or three days ago, we

received a report on Corner Brook for example on Massey Drive and Mount Moriah.

The Government will require some time to review that report and we will make a

decision as to what we do with it. In any other case that is appropriate for

consideration, if it is appropriate to arrange for it by arrangement with the

municipalities, we will do so, if it is appropriate to bring legislation or a

resolution before the House, we will do whatever is appropriate at the time.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the

Premier. Over 100 municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador have been worrying

about the Government's proposal to amalgamate them into various combinations and

permutations for almost two years. How much longer does the Premier propose to

make these municipalities and the citizens of the municipalities wait, before

the Government makes a decision? How much longer is the Premier going to dither?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it may take us more than one,

two, three or four terms, I do not know, before we correct the total mess that

the former Government created. It may take us a fair amount of time to really

restore this Province to a sensible basis.

We are going to start out, Mr. Speaker, operating on a

reasonable basis. We have put forward proposals, invited discussions. We had

some degree of success, very notable success in the case of Grand Falls and

Windsor, and we are very proud of that achievement. Spaniard's Bay and Tilton,

and there were two, three or four other groups that got together - communities

that got together and amalgamations took place.

We would hope, Mr. Speaker, that over the next few years,

perhaps over the next few terms that we will be in office, we will achieve a

greater level of amalgamation to ensure that we provide good quality public

service both on the municipal and provincial level to the people of this

Province. We will proceed in an orderly and disciplined way and we will not be

stampeded by any of the jibes from the opposite side, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I detect in the

Premier's answers this afternoon that the Premier is retreating from his

previously stated hard-line position. Has the Premier, indeed, now ruled out

using his Liberal majority in this House of Assembly to force amalgamation down

the throats of citizens who do not want it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not ruled out

anything. But I am not about to go into a panic just because the hon. Members

opposite want to try and make things more difficult, want to try and make the

governing of this Province in a sensible way more difficult than they have made

it by their seventeen years in office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the position of the

Government remains the same. Our preference is to persuade municipalities to

agree voluntarily to amalgamate where it makes good sense for them to

amalgamate. In situations where for their own reasons that promotes their own

self-interest - and I understand self-interest -I am not critical of people

saying: it is better for us in our little municipality - take Wedgewood Park,

for example - I am not critical of the people of Wedgewood Park saying: it is

better for us to protect our own little municipality, totally surrounded by St.

John's, because we are better off and we have lower taxes and so on. I

understand their wanting to protect what is essentially a kind of a privileged

or special position. I understand that. But the Government must govern in the

overall best interest of the people in the area concerned, and in the overall

best interest of the people of the Province as a whole. Now in some cases where

we are unable to persuade municipalities that the right thing for the overall is

to amalgamate, then it may well be that we may have to ask this Legislature to

act.

What I have committed from the very beginning was that the

fifteen people who occupy the Cabinet would not sit in that room and in secret

make the decision without disclosing to the people of this Province the basis on

which the decision was made. That we would in a forthright, frank and principled

way come before the House and say: Members of the House, here is what we propose

should be done. Let's hear the pros and cons. Let's act in the best interest of

the people of the Province. And we are prepared to justify to this House any

action we take.

Now we think that that is principled. We understand that the

Members opposite are grossly embarrassed by this kind of open, principled

Government. The Member for Kilbride keeps, like a trained monkey, beating on his

chest. I do not know what he -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Displaying all the intelligence,

incidentally, of a trained monkey, beating on his chest. He has not the

competence or intelligence to speak for himself, he has to keep beating on his

chest.

And I would remind Mr. Speaker that no Member of the House is

entitled to hold up a sign that says anything that a Member is not entitled to

say on his own, and I request -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) take off my Mount Pearl pin

too?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Wink at the gallery now while you're at

it.

MR. SPEAKER: When the Speaker is standing, please, hon.

Members know the procedure. I stood to remind the Premier that he was getting

rather lengthy in his answer and I would ask him to conclude very shortly,

please.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the noise

from the trained monkey opposite, and that is the only way I could do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Premier is

hurting now when he has to resort to such lows, let me tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier told the

House in response to my question that he would not agree to hold a plebiscite in

the city of Mount Pearl prior to an attempt to impose annexation on the city.

Yet on November 15 of 1989 his Minister of Municipal Affairs told the House, and

I quote: to go through the procedure of a plebiscite without hearing from the

people, letting them have their say for or against amalgamation, letting them

have their say in the form of a written brief where they may want to make

different representation than is proposed by the Government, would be denying

them their democratic rights. And to proceed with a plebiscite without any

hearing process would be wrong and against the Municipalities's Act.

In view of the fact that the supercity concept, as my

colleague has just said, has not been the subject of either a feasibility study,

public hearings or a plebiscite, will the Minister now stand by his words and

assure the people of Mount Pearl that they will be given their democratic rights

before any such resolution is brought in to this Chamber?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Mount Pearl is

very conveniently extracting some words out of a statement I made speaking in

the House.

The point I was making quite clearly, if you were to read the

rest of it, is that the process of a feasibility study with the seventeen main

points I mentioned earlier which identify all the critical criteria that are

needed to assess the situation of whether amalgamation or annexation should

proceed, are vitally important as opposed to the emotion of a plebiscite. And I

made the point at that time, that it was important that the feasibility process

be followed. I was not speaking for or against the plebiscite. I was simply

making the point that the importance of having a feasibility process in the Act,

which includes public hearings, was far more important, and important that that

be carried out. I did not speak for or against the plebiscite at the time.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have also extracted

these words that the Minister said on June 19, when he said: one large city for

the north east Avalon is an option, and it is probably what the future will see.

Whether it will be this year or five years or ten years from now, it is probably

in the future. The point that I was making is that it is the ultimate solution

and could very well come sooner or later.

Will the Minister now confirm in fact that this statement

shows a clear bias, and that the Minister's objectives are clear and were clear

well before any of these processes were begun in the region, be it supercity

feasibility study or feasibility study on any other option? His is a

predetermined decision, Mr. Speaker.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, once again the Member is taking

things out of context. Clearly what was meant by that statement - the word

'supercity' was never coined by me, it was used by the press to describe an

option at one extreme. And the point I made then when I made that statement was,

at one extreme we have the option of putting together all seventeen communities.

And whatever you want to call that is your choosing.

At the other extreme you can do nothing. You can leave the

seventeen communities alone. And the point I was clearly making is that

somewhere in between there is a solution. That is the point and the statement I

made at that time. The fact of the matter is, yes, it may be true. History may

see that eventually we may have a community that would encompass all seventeen

communities. This is going to take some time. We have the rural communities that

are relatively unserviced, some of them without any servicing at all. In fact,

someday we may see a community stretching beyond the seventeen communities.

Someday.

So all I was saying was at one extreme we have an option

where all could come together, at the other extreme we can do nothing. In

between there is a solution. I think that is a very valid statement.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister, we

may well see that some day but we will only see it when the municipalities

themselves desire it and not when it is forced upon them.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier a question. Yesterday the

Premier indicated that he had not decided on whether or not, should this issue

in fact ever come before the House, a free vote would be allowed in this

Chamber. We all recall, Mr. Speaker, the Premier's strong stand during the Meech

Lake debate, where he insisted that Newfoundlanders be given a right to their

say and not be governed by the majority view of the rest of Canada. Will the

Premier, Mr. Speaker, apply his national form of democracy at the provincial

level and allow the citizens of Mount Pearl to exercise their democratic rights,

and allow his own caucus to exercise their democratic rights and

responsibilities? Will he show by his deeds, Mr. Speaker, that this is a

Government by the people, for the people, and of the people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed considered

what is the appropriate way to proceed. We have ruled out only one method and

that is by Order of Cabinet. We will not be proceeding by Order of Cabinet.

Whatever is done, whatever decision is taken, we will not be proceeding by order

of a secret meeting of Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, other than that there are a variety

of alternatives. There could be an overall plebiscite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is a noise in the House

that sounds distinctly like a trained monkey beating on its chest. It is not

very intelligent, it makes no contribution to any kind of debate, so I ask Your

Honour to direct that it cease.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: What cease, the noise? Do not be so silly.

PREMIER WELLS: It is the Member's childishness that is

immature. It is no wonder they are where they are in the polls, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Members have an obligation to see that there is the

right atmosphere in the House for the asking and answering of questions. I am

sure the people of Newfoundland would want that, and every Member has the

responsibility to ensure that we are measuring up to that expectation.

I ask the Premier to conclude his answer, please.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have told the House that we

have ruled out one option only, and I have told the House what that is. That

leaves therefore the possibility of a free vote, and that is certainly possible.

It leaves the possibility of a Government measure if we decide to act on

whatever we decide to do. There is also the possibility of an overall plebiscite

in any area that was concerned. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs has already -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member wants my

answer instead of his own voice I will give him my answer. I again ask Your

Honour to direct the Member for Kilbride to stop beating on his chest and making

the noise that is distinctly like that of a trained monkey. I find it difficult

to answer the questions that have been asked with that kind of noise going on.

The Member is displaying, perhaps, even less intelligence than one might expect

from a trained monkey.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not aware of what is going on. If there are - I

say again - any acts of irresponsibility I ask all hon. Members to please -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I now recognize the hon. Member for Harbour Main.

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

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. On April 16 I asked the Minister

when she would be responding to a letter sent last November from the Transport

and Allied Worker's Union requesting amendments to the Labour Relations Act to

make it possible for the union to be certified as the official bargaining agent

for independent truck operators. Has the Minister responded to that request?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: The item is being worked on, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for recognizing me. The item is being worked on and I am in touch with

the union officials, in fact I was speaking to the President of the Teamsters

local only yesterday, so, my critic can be assured that the matter is being

given attention.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will remember that I

cautioned her at that time, that we could see a re-occurrence of the road

blockages experienced in previous years if she did not act. Is the Minister

aware that yesterday, 120 independent truck operators, 120 independent truckers

converged on a road construction project near Argentia and that the police have

been called in?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that

my critic is so courteous when he does not have any one in the galleries to be

performing for. Yes, I am aware; the union with which I am establishing very

cordial relations had the politeness or whatever you would want to call it to

call me and inform me of what was going to take place before it happened.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: The Minister, apparently did not hear the

question. How long does the Minister intend to wait to resolve the issue to

allow these truckers their democratic right to collectively bargain, or, does

she intend to sit idly by and allow the present construction season to be

disrupted and interrupted while she does nothing.

Now I mean she has not yet responded to the union; I have

been in touch with them and they have not had any correspondence from the

Minister, how long does she intend to wait before she takes action on this very

important matter?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, there may have been no written

correspondence, but as I indicated earlier, we are in touch by telephone and I

would rather put the time into considering their request rather than into a

letter, especially when I am actually in conversation with these individuals and

my officials are, as well.

The hon. Gentleman knows indeed that there are many issues

that have to be addressed in this whole dilemma with which the truckers find

themselves facing. I am moving on the item as expeditiously as possible, trying

to take into account the many considerations such as the economy, the rights of

contractors, the rights of the people who own the trucks and so on, it is a

complicated issue but I am moving with dispatch, I feel on it, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

a question for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, but before I do that I

might say that even trained monkeys do not lie.

Mr. Speaker, last weekend the Federation of Agriculture held

their meeting at Gander to discuss the Task Force Report on Agri-Foods and at

that meeting, the Chairman of this Committee said that there was a financial

implications report prepared along with this report; can the Minister confirm

that there is such a report available?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: I am not sure as to what the hon. Member is

referring. I have the Task Force Report, the Task Force Report has been tabled;

I am not sure as to what the hon. Member is referring, maybe he can clarify it.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, during the discussions on the Task Force report,

the Chairman of the Task Force, Mr. Bud Hulan, in answer to a question from one

of the producers, one of the farmers at the meeting, said, in conjunction with

this Task Force report, he prepared a report which showed the financial

implications of the Task Force report, and that report has not been released.

Can the Minister confirm, as I said again, that there is such a report

available, and why was it not released when this report was released?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I received from the Task Force,

a costing of - of the two hundred and something recommendations in the Task

Force report, some of them, probably fifty or sixty, carry cost implications,

and the Task Force undertook to do a very preliminary report on the cost of the

various recommendations. At this point in time, there is a committee of senior

civil servants looking at the Task Force report, reviewing it, doing cost

estimates on the various recommendations, and, I would think, shortly, that

committee will report to me on their findings with their recommendations. They,

of course, would have the report provided to me by the Task Force, indicating

the cost of the various recommendations as determined by the Task Force.

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

time for a short supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the Minister would not

release this financial implications report because it showed that this report,

in itself, would be devastating to the agricultural industry? How does the

Minister expect that the farmers in this Province can make decisions and have

proper discussions on this report - which was prepared on their behalf, I might

say - if they do not have the facts and figures of the financial implications of

the report in front of them so that they can discuss it?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the cost of the

various recommendations could be devastating to the report. Anyone would know

that if the Task Force were making a recommendation, it would cost this Province

money. Nobody expected recommendations - for instance, one recommendation is

that we look at the building of a new abattoir, price tagged in the vicinity of

$14 million, to replace the old one at Newfoundland Farm Products. I do not see,

Mr. Speaker, how anyone could assume or say with any credibility that providing

the costing of the projects would devastate the report.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like, at this

point in time, to raise what I consider to be a very important issue in the

House, as a matter of order. It has always been very important in terms of

democratic parliaments in the world, and it is commonly accepted, that certain

behaviours are parliamentary and certain other behaviours are unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to state that point. The reason for it is

simply that unless there is some distinction made between what is accepted as

being parliamentary and what is not accepted as being parliamentary, Parliament,

perhaps, would cease to function in a civilized manner; and that is the reason

for indications that certain customs and practices are parliamentary and certain

customs and practices are unparliamentary. I think it is very basic to the

operation of Parliament itself.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to Your Honour

that according to Beauchesne, Paragraph 489, page 144, "Since 1958, it has been

ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions:" and it takes up page

144, 145, and I think there are twenty or thirty references about the phrase

`deliberately misled', and `dishonest', there are another ten or fifteen

references; but you come to the word `lie' and you find there are thirty-eight

separate references to that particular word as being unparliamentary.

Paragraph 490, is the reverse, and it is put there for a

reason, to show that certain expressions sometimes have been ruled parliamentary

and sometimes have not; but there is a list of expressions that have been ruled

parliamentary. "Since 1958, it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following

expressions:" and sometimes it has been ruled parliamentary to use the word

`deceive', and so on, but, Mr. Speaker, you will not find one single instance

where it has been ruled parliamentary to use the word `lie'. Then, Paragraph 492

goes one step further and says: "The following expressions are a partial listing

of expressions which have caused intervention on the part of the Chair," which

means they are even more serious than normal and ruled as being unparliamentary.

You will find the word `lie' there, as well, Mr. Speaker.

Now, a Member of the House has, for two days, now - and I was

hoping that after one day he would have made his silly little point and would

stop breaking the rules of the House and being unparliamentary - has been

wearing a button which says that another Member of this House has lied, and was

carrying a picture of that Member of the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to

Your Honour, if it is unparliamentary to use that word in the House, then it is

also unparliamentary to have that word held up so that everybody can see it in

the House. It is exactly the same principle. It is exactly the same principle.

There are some customs that are accepted in democratic parliaments in this world

and some customs that are not accepted, and I suggest to Your Honour, in this

point of order, that the Member for Kilbride is clearly unparliamentary and

should be directed to cease and desist from being unparliamentary in the days

ahead.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have an idea the Government

House Leader reluctantly stood on that point. I think he might have got a nudge

from somebody to his right, because if ever I saw a weak attempt to try to put

forth a point of order that is invalid, that was it, and he certainly knows it.

There are two points I want to bring to Your Honour's

attention, if I may. First of all he talked about the use of the word, 'lied'

and all of that. Your Honour well knows, better than any of us, that you cannot

make a predetermination on injurious reflections upon Members in advance, or

throughout. It depends on the tone quite frequently in which it is used and all

the rest of it. Your Honour is quite capable of restoring order and has shown it

and proven it to us time and time again, and we have shivered in our shoes

frequently when Your Honour has stood to tell us we were out of order, but to

suggest somehow - and I think he was trying to say the Member for Kilbride said

that the Premier lied - that is not what the Member said at all. Your Honour is

aware also of the pious words of the Government House Leader talking about

unparliamentary language. In the same reference, Paragraph 488 of Beauchesne's

6th Edition it is also noted that words like 'lacking in intelligence' have been

ruled unparliamentary by Speakers. I wonder who has used that reference in this

House, Mr. Speaker, on a frequent basis? Also, there are other words there that

Your Honour is fully aware of, including one on Page 147 which says, 'trained

seals' has been ruled unparliamentary. Now, I agree with the Government House

Leader that the use of unparliamentary language should be brought to the

attention of the Members of the House by the Speaker, and certainly it should

have been done today when the Premier used the words, 'trained monkey, acting

like a trained monkey', so you talk about unparliamentary language. But the more

important point, Mr. Speaker, I believe, is his final point, about the wearing

of a button in the Legislature. Your Honour would be aware that on Page 152 of

Beauchesne's 6th Edition, Paragraph 50l says, "Speakers have consistently ruled

that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the Chamber." That is

accurate, but Paragraph 504 goes on to say, "Political buttons and similar lapel

pins do not constitute an exhibit." All that has happened, Mr. Speaker, I think,

clearly, is that the Member for Kilbride has done something that has taken

somebody over there by surprise. The usually cool Members opposite have been

irked and have been upset by it, but I draw to the attention of the Government

House Leader that one of his own Members, the Chairman of the Government

Services Committee, Mr. Penney, in an interview today in the paper, in fact, and

I know from knowledge that when there was a meeting the other night in this

Legislature of the Estimates Committee dealing with the Department of Finance,

there were a number of people who sat in the gallery, for example, with all

kinds of material, hats, caps, posters and banners, and he did not rule that

anything like that was unparliamentary, so he was certainly not offended by it,

so I cannot see how the Government House Leader could be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Well, the point of order, clearly, is that it

is not a point of order. I assume that the Speaker will consider the references

I have quoted for him rather than the foolishness that the Government House

Leader referenced.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Before Your Honour rules, the Member for

Kilbride has been sitting in his seat for the last couple of days with a button

on showing my picture - I have no complaints about buttons -showing my picture

claiming 'Clyde lied'. Now everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, that it is

unparliamentary to call any other Member in this House a liar or to say that any

other Member in this House is lying. It does not matter whether you do that by

holding a sign on your chest and keep tapping on it in this way to draw

attention to it, or you do it directly - the Member is demonstrating the kind of

intelligence there is. Now, Mr. Speaker, if this is the behaviour to which this

House is to be reduced, if Your Honour is to rule that this is the acceptable

standard of behaviour, if Your Honour is to rule that this is the acceptable

behaviour for this House, then I suggest to Your Honour that you will reduce

this House to an animal zoo. Because that is the way all the Members will behave

if they adopt the same approach.

Now Your Honour, above everybody else in this House, is aware

that ever since I came to this House I have tried to maintain a reasonable level

of decorum and proper behaviour in the House. But to see that kind of behaviour,

that kind of insulting comment by another Member in this House, saying that a

Member has lied or portraying a poster claiming that another Member is lying is,

I suggest to Your Honour, totally unacceptable behaviour and I ask Your Honour

to so rule before this House does indeed get reduced to a zoo.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very

interesting to note that the last time a Premier stood to his feet in this House

and tried to intimidate and browbeat into submission the Chair, it was a Liberal

premier. And this Premier is following in his footsteps. This is the most brazen

attack that I have seen a leader of this House take on the Chair since I have

been here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, all that is wrong with the

Premier is that when he has his own way, when he can manipulate and manoeuvre

and be smooth-talking and say what he wants to say, then the world is unfolding

as it should. But when somebody in Newfoundland and Labrador - be it a union

leader, be it an ordinary citizen in Ming's Bight or be it a Member of this

House -

MS. VERGE: Or be it a Liberal backbencher.

MR. RIDEOUT: - or be it a Liberal backbencher - when

somebody in this Province has the audacity to speak up and say that they do not

like what the Premier is doing or do not like what the Government is doing, the

Premier loses his cool and his skin dissipates into nothing only wrath on

anybody who would have the audacity to suggest it.

There is no point of order here. What is before this House is

the fact that this Premier can give it but he cannot take it. Well, he had

better learn how to take it or get out!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. All hon. Members

would know that if there is one Member who is concerned about decorum, it is

this hon. Member. The matter we are dealing with is not a matter of concern

politically. When we are talking about decorum in the House it is a matter that

concerns all hon. Members and it is a matter, I am sure, that concerns the

people of this Province - they want their Members to represent them with dignity

and with respect.

The question that I have to ask myself; because it is a bit

of a new question. The question that I have to look at, and all hon. Members

have to look at, is to whether or not any hon. Member would want that kind of

symbolism brought into the House; as whether any hon. Member would want another

hon. Member to bring in a symbol that represents something to the extent that

this does. This is the question that I have to reckon with. Politics aside, all

hon. Members have to ask themselves the degree of respect and dignity this kind

of symbolism represents and whether it does anything in this House to enhance

and promote the level of debate.

These are some of the issues that the Chair will have to deal

with when dealing with this particular point of order, and I shall take it under

advisement and do some extensive study on the matter.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: I notice Your Honour referred to the other

issue that has been raised. But I wonder would Your Honour rule or at least take

under consideration the point of order that I raised in the discussion, about

the Premier's use of unparliamentary language, 'acting like a trained

(Inaudible).'

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was not aware that the hon. Member

was on that point of order. I thought he was on the point of order relevant to

the symbolism to which I have just alluded. I thought he had just raised that

matter in terms of supporting his debate.

If he wants to make it a point of order, again, this Chair is

always very concerned when people get into certain levels of comparison. And I

think the hon. Member mentioned something about the Chair intervening. The Chair

will intervene when the Chair thinks it is absolutely, positively

unparliamentary. As hon. Members know, parliamentary language many times is

difficult to define, because one takes the context, the tone of voice. And if

the same comment was made in a rather malicious manner than there is no

question, the Chair would have stood.

But in the sense that much was said and the Chair did not

obviously stand, but the hon. Member asked me to rule on the point of order, and

we have had it mentioned that 'trained seal' is unparliamentary. We have also

had 'trained seal' used in the parliamentary sense. As I have said, it depends

on the maliciousness in the way it is raised. The content and in the terms in

which the Premier raised it, it seemed to have lacked the maliciousness that I

would intervene on. But it is not a term -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would advise hon. Members as well that when the Chair is

making an

interpretation, it is not proper for hon. Members to respond. If hon.

Members want some other way of doing it, they have another way, but do not

interfere while I am carrying on with my ruling. When the Chair or the person in

the Chair is speaking, there is supposed to be silence at all times - silence,

silence, silence. No problems at all, they are replete, and I am not going to

debate with the hon. the Opposition House Leader - I am not permitted to. And I

am not going to debate with him other than to say that when I am making a ruling

I want silence from both sides. I would ask the hon. Opposition House Leader,

further, to stop debating with me right now.

As I have said, it is difficult many times to determine

parliamentary language. This is something in reference to animals, it is not

something that this Chair promotes. It is not something this Chair promotes, but

as I said, in terms of intervening, if I had thought in the sense of the

Premier's maliciousness I would have stood, and since I did not stand, I will

not ask him to withdraw it at this point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I was asked a question in the House by the hon. Member for Grand

Falls regarding the employment breakdown at the Bull Arm project. I do not have

the full information that he requested because it is not all on computer yet,

and it will probably be another month before it is, but I am going to table what

information I have. I think it will be of interest to him and to any other

individual who has questions in that area.

His other question regarding the hiring of nurses I hope to

have an answer for tomorrow.

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

the hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a

privilege to rise again in this hon. House and to speak on a very serious issue

affecting the people of my riding and all along the coast of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, if I were to say that the Grand Falls paper mill

was closing down today, or if I were to say that the Stephenville paper mill was

closing down today, I would be only saying the same thing by coming here today

and saying that 828 people as of next Thursday will be without a cent of income

on the coast of Labrador for a very indefinite period. That is the seriousness

of the issue that we are dealing with here today, and I know hon. Members are

familiar with it. I know they have dealt with it on a number of occasions

before, but I believe it is incumbent, Mr. Speaker, to deal with it again today,

and I would want to, over the next number of minutes, to lay out the case that

people on the coast of Labrador. I want to indicate what exactly the situation

is. What exactly the basis for concern is, and to offer some, what I believe are

very reasonable solutions, to the problem that we have at hand.

The situation, Mr. Speaker, is that the unemployment

insurance system for fishermen on the coast of Labrador is set up as such that

from November 15 of each year to May 15 of each year, all fishermen are eligible

for that degree of income support. The unemployment insurance benefit they

receive is based upon the 60 per cent of their earnings that they have in their

previous fishing season. They have a fixed period in which they can receive this

income support, Mr. Speaker, and there is no way they can get around that

particular regulation. It affects the people from L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain. All

these communities, some twenty-six communities, permanent communities from

L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain are affected. These fishermen, and particularly the

fishermen from Lodge Bay to Nain, have to have two residences, Mr. Speaker. They

have to move outside in the Summer, they have to move back again in the Fall, so

that they can go back there and get their houses back in order in that time of

the year.

Now the situation this year one would argue, as I am sure

other Members will, that we have heard this story before. We have heard the

situation on the coast of Labrador before, but I must point out, Mr. Speaker,

that this year the ice conditions are indeed the worse they have been in recent

memory, it does not take any scholar to find out. As a matter of fact if you

were to just call up Canada Coast Guard and get a map which would outline the

presence of ice along the coast of Labrador you will find that there is indeed a

very late Spring on the coast of Labrador. Indeed all communities from Lodge Bay

north have yet to have their bay ice leave the communities and certainly from

Nain north to this side of Bell Isle there are some 180 miles of ice stretching

along that coastline.

So, Mr. Speaker, the presence of ice is documented, the

presence of ice all along the coast is fully documented. In the Labrador Straits

for instance, the ferry is supposed to come on the 1st of May of each year. I

can tell you today, Mr. Speaker, that the Labrador Straits is blocked with ice.

The ferry is stuck on one side of the Straits of Bell Isle and there is no way

she will be getting over there in the next little while.

Mr. Speaker, here we are with a situation that is beyond the

control of the people on the coast of Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member

because this is a very important resolution he is putting before the House of

Assembly, not only important to his District but important to Newfoundland and

Labrador as a whole. I have been trying to listen and to understand, but it is

absolutely impossible when Members on both sides are carrying on conversations.

I am sure he must be finding it very difficult himself to speak to a group such

as this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I call upon hon. Members to please be mindful of that,

because when Question Period is over there is a tendency for Members to relax a

little but we still have Members speaking. The point is well taken.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would appreciate silence while I am talking about this

particular issue because as I indicated earlier if it was announced today that

the Pulp Mill in Grand Falls was closing down or the Stephenville Mill was

closing down, this House and the people of this Province would be in an uproar,

Mr. Speaker, and justifiably so. What I want to impress upon the people of this

Province through this honourable House today is that that is the same thing that

is happening on the coast of Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Eight hundred and

twenty-eight people from L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain on May 15 will have absolutely

no income support and no alternatives for income support from then until - in

many cases, Mr. Speaker, particularly from Lodge Bay to Nain, it will be eight

weeks before they get income and if the season is anything like it was last

year, Mr. Speaker, in Black Tickle it will be somewhere around the 15th of

August before there is a codfish landed on the Coast of Labrador. So you are

talking almost ten weeks, Mr. Speaker, before we get a set of income into the

heads of the families in 828 situations on the Coast of Labrador and sometimes,

I must admit, Mr. Speaker, we seem to be desensitized, I suppose, to put it

lightly, to the plight of individuals in this Province, particularly individuals

in the extremities of this Province who have to go through tremendous hardship

but are not able to get before a television camera or take a bus load of their

fellow-citizens to come in here and let the people of the Province see exactly

what they have to go through. Sometimes there is a desensitization to that, and

I think it is really detrimental to the whole situation in which we have to

work, Mr. Speaker. Be that as it may, I would like to outline what I feel is the

basis for my concern. As I indicated earlier, from Lodge Bay to Nain, Mr.

Speaker, on this part of the Coast every one of the fishermen have to move

outside. They have a permanent residence in the inland communities and then they

move outside some fifty or sixty, sometimes as much as eighty miles away from

their permanent community. They have to move outside and there are something

like thirty-five seasonal communities from Lodge Bay to Nain, whether it is to

go up to Okak in Northern Labrador, or to Occasional Harbour out in Central

Labrador, or to Henley Harbour in Southern Labrador. Right from that end down to

Nain, we have some thirty-five or thirty-six seasonal communities, and come 15

May, Mr. Speaker, they have to go to their local merchant. They have to go to

their local merchant today, as they have always done since they have been on the

Coast of Labrador, and try to convince the local merchant to give them their

basic bread and butter to take to their outside communities. That is what we are

dealing with. There is no way they can save money when they are on unemployment

insurance. There is no way they can have the kind of financial ability they

require to be able to go and save some money by buying their groceries in bulk,

or their fishing supplies, Mr. Speaker, or any of the other needs they may have.

Even basic gas - to take their snowmobiles and their supplies out on the bay

ice, even the gas, at some ninety cents a litre, is a tremendous hardship on the

people who are on this kind of income support. As I indicated earlier, there is

absolutely no other alternative for the people on the Coast of Labrador at this

time of the year. There are no other employment opportunities on the Coast of

Labrador. There is no tourism, no mining, no forestry. All we have, as anybody

knows, and I am sure most hon. Members who have visited Labrador this time of

the year know, there is one blanket of white snow from one end of her to the

other, and this year it is going to be there well up to the middle of June, and

in Northern Labrador, certainly, much longer. You have absolutely no opportunity

to go out and get that extra income, to be able to go out there and compete like

other people in a more urban area, for any kind of cash that might be available.

Mr. Speaker, the income supports we have on the Coast of

Labrador are just not working. I think in 1985 we had a special committee of

this House that went and looked into the cost of food on the Coast of Labrador,

just basic food prices, and the conclusion was that the people on the Coast of

Labrador have to pay 25 to 30 per cent extra on their cost of food. A number of

things have contributed to that, but certainly, one of the most contributing

factors is the fact that we do not have a highway and the inventory cost for

local merchants is so high that they have to pass on the interest to their

consumers.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that sometimes, in

this hon. House, and indeed, in this Province, the needs of the people on the

Coast of Labrador are overlooked, that we do not get the right kind of attitude

and will demonstrated, and, I guess, the biggest example of this is in the

unemployment insurance system as it relates to fishermen on the Coast of

Labrador. The Federal Government has known about this in the past, and

certainly, since the Conservatives have taken over, it has been one monotonous

response after another. We have had the same kind of response from Minister

after Minister, and now, Mr. Speaker, we have Mr. Valcourt, the new Minister of

Employment and Immigration. Mr. Valcourt obviously demonstrated his sensitivity

to Labrador when he was the Minister of Fisheries. I would only hope that the

crash that happened at the press conference down at the White Hills may have

again desensitized him a little bit, and hopefully he will see the wisdom in

making a correction to this particular regulation.

For the record, I would like to point out that in the early

'eighties when there was an unusual presence of ice along the Coast of Labrador,

and even at the same time when the migratory pattern for the inshore fish stocks

in that area was much more aligned with the fishing season and the unemployment

insurance programme, that the Liberal Government of the day did extend the

unemployment insurance benefits for the fishermen there. They did not do it

every year, but they did do it in the early 'eighties.

So, there is a precedent for it and there is a mechanism to

get it changed. As I mentioned, there are some, I believe, concrete solutions to

be looked at. The primary one, in the short-term, is obviously that there should

be some adjustment to the regulations. And the Minister can do that. It is not

like there has to be a great debate. There does not need to be any Royal

Commission. Everybody must quickly come to the understanding that you cannot

fish where there is ice, and you also cannot fish even if the ice did move away

and the fish is not at your shore. If you are working in a twenty or thirty foot

boat you cannot just go to the Virgin Rocks or anywhere that you would choose,

because there is just no way that that technology can allow you to do so.

This is something the Federal Government can do with the

flick of a pen, something they can change by a simple Order in Council or the

Minister may be able to do it, actually, without even an Order in Council.

I guess, one of the other things we have to try to change is

the attitude the Federal Government has towards unemployment insurance. There is

absolutely no doubt that today we have prevailing in this country the most

right-wing Government we have ever seen in our history. We see today in the

Federal Government, a number of Ministers who are bent on destroying the

unemployment insurance system as it relates to fishermen and as it relates to

anybody else in this country. We have seen through their regulations and Bill

C-21, the direct attempt - and as a matter of fact it is now legislated - that

insurance system. They have said to the people of this country who need that

income support so badly, `Okay, you are on your own.' That is what they are

telling the people on the Coast of Labrador, that is what they are telling

anybody who is associated with the unemployment insurance system. They are

telling us that you have to pay for yourself, you have to pull yourself up by

the bootstraps, and if you do not, then that is too bad. We are not going to

help you. If there has to be some kind of assistance to the unemployment

insurance fund, then we are going to make sure that you pay for it, you, the

person who has got to work as hard as you possibly can for a living, and

certainly, the employer who has to balance his books, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is one of the most glaring examples

of the right-wing philosophy taking hold in this country and one that must be

fought with all kinds of opposition and the kind of social conscience that must

be prevailing if we are to be a caring society.

I realize I just have a few more minutes at the opening of

this particular debate. I look forward to the remarks from my hon. colleagues on

both sides of the House, and I hope that at the end of the day we will be able

to pass a resolution in this House unanimously demanding that the Federal

Government change this regulation and also that they change the programme. In my

concluding remarks on this debate today, I will outline what I believe are some

very reasonable changes to be made, particularly what can be done in terms of a

guaranteed annual income or what can be done under a possible court challenge to

this particular system as it relates to the equality rights under the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I will close my opening remarks at this point,

and look forward to the debate. I hope that all hon. Members will be able to

reflect upon this issue and give it the serious consideration that I know the

people in Labrador expect from this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a

pleasure for me to rise this afternoon in the legislature to debate this Private

Member's resolution put forward by the hon. the Member for Eagle River. It is a

resolution that I have no difficulty in identifying with. It is a resolution

that I have no difficulty in supporting, I say to the hon. Member, because,

coming from a fishing area of the Province, I know full well the hardship that

is being experienced by fishermen throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. He makes

reference, of course, his resolution is about the ice conditions in Labrador

that are preventing fishermen from going fishing to make a living, and

consequently, their UI is expiring in just a few days. I want to say to him that

I support his resolution. It is a worthy resolution. My only serious wish is

that the Federal Government, particularly the Minister of Employment, now, Mr.

Valcourt, will accede to the request made by the hon. Member and to the request

made by myself, to address this very important issue. I want to say to the hon.

Member that I only hope Mr. Valcourt does not read a transcript of the Member's

comments today, because it is not going to do very much for the fishermen of

Labrador, for the hon. Member to continuously rise in the legislature and

lambaste the Minister.

We know, a number of us were not too pleased with Mr.

Valcourt's performance as Minister of Fisheries. A number of us are on the

record as having said that. I think, now that he has been moved out of that

particular portfolio, and we have a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, the hon.

John Crosbie, as Minister, we can look forward to, hopefully, better and

brighter things; not that Mr. Crosbie can solve all of our problems, because he

cannot manufacture fish, but at least, we will get decisions from the man. He

understands Newfoundland and Labrador. He understands the people and he

understands the problems, so I think it is in the best interest of all of us. We

hope that Mr. Valcourt, with his change in responsibilities, will have a change,

I guess, of attitude, and that he will identify very quickly with the needs of

these people in Labrador and in other parts of the Province, I might say to the

Member for Eagle River. It is not only those in Labrador that have ice problems,

there are other areas of our Province, the Island portion, that are blocked in

solid with ice and people cannot fish, so they have the same needs as his

constituents do, and I only hope that the Federal Minister deals with it.

Having said that, I want to inform the Member that I have

spoken with Mr.Crosbie's office on this matter, and requested that they very

quickly look at it and put some pressure on Mr. Valcourt's department to look

favourably upon the requests that have been made by a number of people in the

Province. I would like to say to the Member, as well, that the preliminary

information I received back from Mr. Crosbie's office is that their belief was,

the last time there was an extension for this reason was in 1985. Now, I cannot

argue if that is correct or not, and it does not matter, but the information I

received back from the gentleman I talked to when I called, is that his

impression was, the last time there was an extension for ice was in 1985.

Whether it was before that, I do not know, or if, indeed, the date is correct,

but that does not matter. I think what is important is that apparently it has

been done before, so it is not that this would be precedent-setting. If

something has been done before, then why can it not be done again? I think it is

very, very justifiable that the Federal Government look upon this very

positively and do it quickly, because these people are running out of benefits

in a just a few short days.

I want to say, as well, to the Member for Eagle River, that

he touched on another number of issues. He talked about the need for a change to

fishermen's UI, some changes that have been talked about and some that have

taken place over the years. It is an issue that I feel very strongly about, as

well.

There are a number of changes that are very, very necessary,

Mr. Speaker, in the whole realm of the fishing industry, particularly the

inshore, small boat fishery in this Province. It was only last year, in my own

area of the Province, early in the fishing season, that we had a substantial

gear loss; the fishermen lost lobster pots, lump roe nets and so on, and, in

essence, right from the start, their season was a disaster.

We called upon, and at the time, I, as fisheries critic,

called upon the Provincial Minister of Fisheries to implement a gear loss

programme, but I say to the Member for Eagle River that his Minister of

Fisheries was not receptive to that. In the Liberal campaign of 1989, in the

Liberal manifesto of `a real change' - there were talks then on how they would

work - this Government, when they were campaigning, hoping to be the Government,

said, `We will work to develop and implement a workable catch failure insurance

or assistance programme to relieve the hardships suffered by those who work

full-time in the inshore fishery, but experienced poor seasons and substantial

reduction of income, or sometimes even a total loss of income.

I would like to remind the vocal Member for Eagle River, a

great promoter of the fisherman, involved in the fishing industry of his

district, to remind him of what his own campaign manual was about in 1989 and

just say to him that this is another Liberal campaign promise that has not been

kept, like the school tax and a number of others that have not yet been

addressed by this Administration. So, maybe with his influence with the Minister

of Fisheries and the Premier, he can bring about some programme for catch

failure insurance or some other compensation of assistance to fishermen who have

low catches for whatever reason, whether it is gear loss, ice conditions, or

whether it is just that the fish are not there. That is something he should

pursue with his own Government.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I totally support this

resolution put forward by the Member for Eagle River. I tell him that having

already been in contact with Mr. Crosbie's office - and the reason I have done

that is I think that if there is going to be something coming through for the

fishermen of Labrador and the fishermen of the Island portion, it will come as a

result of the intervention by John Crosbie. It will not come because Mr.

Valcourt gets telexes or telegrams from the Member for Eagle River, or he

receives a phone call from me as the Opposition Fisheries critic, it will come

because John Crosbie puts in the request and puts the pressure on it at the

federal level to get it, and I am only hopeful that this will come about.

I just want to finish by saying that I fully intend to follow

up on the matter again within the next twenty-four hours with Mr. Crosbie's

office, to see if anything has happened in discussion with Mr. Valcourt's office

pertaining to this problem. I conclude by telling the Member and all Members of

the House, and the people of Labrador, that I fully support the Member's

resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: I do not want to take up a lot of time. I

just want to speak a few minutes to reinforce what my colleague from Labrador

has said about the situation that exists in Labrador for Coastal Labrador

fishermen.

What the hon. Member is looking for, and what all Members of

this House, I would expect, support, is not an emergency measure that occurs on

a one-time-only basis - and I want to make that point - this is an annual

occurrence in Labrador. It is not a question, as it is in some parts of the

Island part of the Province, where wind and tide conditions and certain

particular weather condition cause a problem any given spring, which may not

occur for as many as four or five years subsequent to a problem year.

This is not an emergency measure one-time-only shot that we

are talking about here; this occurs every single year on the Coast of Labrador

where the benefits are cut off on the 15th of May, and in certain parts of

Labrador it is well into July, often in July before fishermen get their gear in

the water. And, you know, you are talking about up to two months of having no

income for a family.

Now, I personally believe - and I have spoken on this before,

when we were Members of the Opposition, that I believe this is an unfair and

cruel treatment to the people of Labrador. It, also, as the hon. Member for

Grand Bank says, applies to the Island part of the Province on occasion, but not

on a regularly occurring basis, which is every single year, as it happens on the

Coast of Labrador.

I expect the present Federal Fisheries Minister would be very

sympathetic to the cause. His family history, for example, would indicate that

he has a great knowledge of the fishing industry in this Province. He is aware

of the hardship and the trials that fishermen go through in this Province, and

he is certainly aware of the problems that fishermen on the Coast of Labrador

experience with respect to loss of income. I have spoken to him years back on a

similar subject when he was involved provincially, as well.

When the present Federal Fisheries Minister is thinking about

the situation, and when he receives an application for consideration by various

Members, the Member for Eagle River, the Member for Grand Bank, and others, he

would have to think, how would he feel in a similar situation. I am not

suggesting anything other than normal thinking processes when I talk about what

the Federal Minister has to go through, but how would anybody, how would the

Federal Minister, or anybody else, feel, if every year, on a regular basis,

recurring over and over, and over, not as an emergency one-time-only situation,

your family income were cut off for up to two months? What do you tell your

family? What do you tell your wife and children, as to what you are going to do?

These are proud people we are talking about here in our Province. They are

fishermen of long tradition. Our entire tradition in the Province, I suppose, is

rooted in the fishery. They are proud people who do not wish to be forced into a

situation of social assistance. Now, the unemployment insurance question is

something they have earned and contributed to. No one wants to look at their

family and say, sorry, we have no income and we have to go on welfare in order

to feed you for the next couple of months. I do not think we should subject our

people to that kind of soul-destroying situation. Again, I reiterate the fact

that it is not an emergency situation we are dealing with here, although it is

an emergency; but it is not an emergency situation which you must deal with

piecemeal, once every now and then. This is something that occurs every single

year on the Coast of Labrador. What I am suggesting is that we do pay strict

attention, and every Member of this House should support the resolution by the

hon. Member for Eagle River, my colleague for Labrador, and that we should give

everything we can in our efforts to try to alleviate the situation, and have

some changes made. As the hon. Member suggests, it is not much more than a flick

of the pen on behalf of the Federal Minister, with the precedents currently in

place.

I would like to add my voice, and not take up the time of the

other Members who wish to speak in favour of this particular resolution, Mr.

Speaker. A strong voice from every Member of this House will send the proper

message up to Ottawa.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say a few words about the resolution so ably

presented to the House of Assembly by my hon. colleague for Eagle River. I want

to speak from two points of view, one as Minister of Social Services, and one as

a person, by the mere background of where I was born, I guess, in Port de Grave,

a very large fishing community in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

which gives me some insight into the problems that are encountered by fishermen,

not only on the Labrador Coast, which this particular resolution deals with -

and so it should - but all across the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

about the implications on our present UI situation as it affects fishermen, as a

whole, especially at this time of year.

First of all, I want to make a comment on the statement made

by the hon. Member for Grand Bank, concerning the present Minister of Fisheries.

I, too, agree, and I hope that the present Minister of Fisheries is going to be

good for Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the confidence he is going to be, and

I think he carries with him, not only a genuine interest in the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, but also a long history of working for the people. I

know, from time to time as politicians, and as people opposite to his political

views, we sometimes criticize the hon. gentleman, and so we should. We all

should be criticized from time to time. But I think if we were all to be honest

in our criticisms, whether they be criticisms for the sake of criticizing, or

constructive criticisms, we all should have a great deal of respect for the hon.

John Crosbie and for the dedication and service he has given to Newfoundland and

Labrador in his term of office, not only in the Provincial Legislature, but also

in the Federal Legislature.

Members are going to be surprised, their eyes coming open,

and saying, What is Efford doing, changing his politics? No, I think I give

credit where credit is due, and John Crosbie, being a Federal MP and Minister of

Fisheries, with the staff he carries with him, is going to be great for

Newfoundland and Labrador. I suppose we could put it down to one point. If ever

we had a chance to get something for Newfoundland and Labrador, for someone to

really get inside and see what the problems are, the opportunity and the chance

are certainly there now; because I am a strong believer - and I guess it is only

natural, and everybody should be of the same view - that you cannot solve

problems unless you first recognize that problems are there.

The biggest problem we have had with Ottawa's attitude toward

Newfoundland is their not giving the Newfoundland fishery the respect it

deserves, and the importance of it for the Newfoundland and Labrador communities

in relation to the economy and the jobs for individuals related directly to the

fishing boat and to the fish plants. If Ottawa had given us a little more

respect over the years, we would not be dealing with and fighting so many

problems as we are today.

I know, when this issue came up last year, one of the things

that I found a problem, as Minister of Social Services, was the number of

hardworking people, the salt of the earth, as we refer to these people out

around home, as individuals, being reduced - and my hon. colleague, the Minister

of Environment and Lands, spoke about it - to going to Social Services, people

who genuinely work hard for most of the year, in season. Through no fault of

their own, nature plays an important role in when they can go to work and when

they can not. And, if they are lucky enough when the ice does leave and the

season comes when they can fish, then we have the other problem to deal with,

the shortage of stocks.

So, they are true Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, dedicated

to the fishing industry, dedicated to their families and making their living,

who, through no fault of their own, are reduced to going and looking for social

services to buy the essential things they require for their children. Now, I

want to say very clearly, I do not think there is any shame in anybody who is

really dedicated to working, hardworking people, having to go to Social

Services; but try telling that to an individual who has probably spent

thirty-five or forty years, working hard, who never went to a Social Services

office to get a light bill paid or to get enough money to buy groceries or the

essential things for their family, to get up in the morning and look in their

cupboards and see no food there, no money to buy with, and have to go to Social

Services for the first time in their life. It is a very, very hard thing to do.

I remember, a couple of years ago out in my own area, a

couple of people got reduced to that. They were fishermen, by the way. I

remember one man telling me that he got up one morning and knowing he had to go,

he went over to the local Social Services office in Bay Roberts. He got out of

his car on the parking lot and walked back and forth three or four times across

the lot. Emotionally filled up, he got back into his car again and went home. He

could not reduce himself, as he said, to going into the office and asking for

money. I mean, you are taking away a person's dignity and pride and

self-respect. And that is the way hardworking Newfoundlanders really are. We get

blamed for wanting the easy way out of life, for 10-42, and getting on the UI, a

great thing that we can get for thirty or forty weeks a year.

But I believe, and I am convinced of this, that 99.99 per

cent of the people who find themselves in that position, if they had a choice of

working twelve months of the year or going on UI, they would much rather work

twelve months of the year. It is a very small percentage of the people who find

themselves quite satisfied with the system of working ten weeks and being off

for forty-two. But our economy does not dictate that. We do not have the

factories of Ontario and Central Canada and the other opportunities that people

have of going to work. So we have to recognize the fact, as we have for the last

400 or 500 years, that we have to work seasonally. But the problem is the

Federal people, the administrators, and the politicians in Ottawa are not

willing to pay some attention and recognize the fact that that is the way of

life here in this Province for most of our labour force, that people living in

Coastal Labrador and around the coast of Newfoundland, and who depend on the

fishing industry, have no other choice but to live that way.

I thought it very ironic that last year when there was a

problem out West with the farmers, the Federal Government was not too long in

giving $1 billion - not $1 million, not $100 million, but $1 billion to the fund

for the farmers when they had the problem out West when the drought was on. And

I do not disagree with that. I think the farmers should be helped. They are a

very important part of the country of Canada, for the food supply of the world.

I am not saying they should not do it, but I cannot understand, as a native

Newfoundlander and a Canadian, why we have to get down on our hands and knees

every time there is a problem here in Newfoundland, and they do not recognize it

up there; and the more you beg, they just shun you, as the hon. Member for Eagle

River explained, in confronting the Minister of Fisheries, in the way in which

it was put down, and the way in which he had to arrange a meeting with the

Minister of Fisheries.

We are all Canadians. Because we live in eastern Canada,

because we live in coastal Newfoundland and Labrador, we are no less than people

living in Ottawa or BC or no less than the rest of the people, the farmers and

the other industrial people, the labour force in Canada. We are just as

important to the country of Canada as everybody else. We are just as important

to the world food supply. In fact, I do not know but we are more important. The

amount of food that has been taken off of the Grand Banks in the last 300 to 400

years, I wonder what would happen to the world if that food was no longer there.

So it is about time that the people in Ottawa started to

recognize the value of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and what it means, and

how we have to survive here in this Province. It is not just good enough to

present a letter to Ottawa once in awhile and for somebody to stand up in the

House of Assembly or someone to go to Ottawa. That is not going to change

things. It is no good putting a band-aid on it now. It is good for this year.

Putting a band-aid on it and let's give it a few extra weeks after you get down

on your hands and knees and beg for it. That is what really sickens my stomach.

When we have to beg, as Canadians, for our natural rights, that we have an

important

part in it. We belong to this country. And we should not be reduced to

begging. No more should good hardworking Newfoundlanders and Labradorians be

reduced to having to go to social services for two or three months of the year

to get money for the little kids to go to school. And that is what is happening

here. It has happened in years gone by and it is happening here today.

So we are not calling on the people of Ottawa to put a

band-aid solution - only, I should not say. We are not only calling on them to

put a band-aid solution on what we are asking for now. We want them to recognize

that this is an ongoing problem in this Province, along coastal Labrador, along

all of the fishing areas of Newfoundland. Sure, out in my area where I come from

there are a number of boats that fish the Grand Banks right now and they are

making some money. But, equally as well, there are another fifty-five or sixty

crews who will not be able to catch fish. The ice is in Conception Bay now. The

cod fishery usually does not open until the middle of June. The caplin is coming

in at about the same time. And it is until then before they can earn any money.

So they find themselves, year after year, going from May month until June, and

sometimes the first of July, before they get a pay cheque.

Now after coming off the year before just making enough money

to put themselves through the winter, and we all know the cost of living this

day. You do not get by on $4,000 or $5,000 or $8,000 or $10,000 like you could

twenty, twenty-five years ago. The cost of living today, the cost of putting

your kids in school, an unemployment cheque does not serve the purpose for most

part of the time, and I commend the people who live in this way of life to be

able to survive and provide the basic essentials on what they receive from

unemployment insurance. But when you take that amount of money away, then just

imagine the stigma on those families. And having to go over and put their hand

out.

So it is time for the people in Ottawa to recognize that this

is a major problem. It is not a problem that you are going to hand out $1

million or $2 million this year, and it is not going to go away. What we have to

do, we have to change the system. We have to give the people who are dependent

on the fishing industry the same rights as everybody else in the labour force.

If I am working in a factory in Ontario and I get laid off, what do I do? I draw

UI for whatever the number of weeks are, I am not too sure, probably about

thirty-five weeks, depending on what part of the country you are living in.

Because the statistics of the labour force I think change as the amount of

weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Canada Works programme (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: And Canada Works programme. My hon. colleague

makes a very good point. A Canada Works programme for ten weeks, you draw for

the remainder of the year. Why should fishermen be reduced to any less than

that? If they are allowed to draw UI for x number of weeks, when they start

earning money, the fishing season opens up, they are automatically terminated

from the UI. They put in the amount of money they earned. Why can they not be

treated like that? If that is the answer then so do it. If it is bringing in

income security, do it. But at least let's bring in something solid that we can

solve this problem with.

Another problem I find with the fishing and the UI benefits

for fishermen, fishermen in my area, there are a number of fishermen probably

making as much as $150,000 a year, some of them I know last year made a quarter

of a million, the skippermen. They draw UI benefits. Yet we have a fisherman

living in Port de Grave or living in Eagle River along the coast of Labrador who

earned $3,000, could not get ten weeks, they do not get UI.

What sense is in that? What mentality up in Ottawa drew up

those regulations? And it is not something that is identified in 1990 and 1991,

it has been going for years since the UI for fishermen was brought into. And the

more you talk about it the less people listen up there. What do you have to do?

Get down on our hands and knees and crawl up. "Oh, Mr. Ottawa, give us a few

more dollars because we are hungry?" And that is what Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have to do every time there is a problem down here and it is not

that we do not have politicians bringing the message up there because if they

listen, my hon. colleague for Eagle River has certainly done it enough himself

over the last few years that the problem should be solved and the problem should

be changed and I am sure, many politicians before him and since that time has

certainly brought it to Ottawa, but the fact remains that they are not willing

to listen, because the whole problem with Ottawa is that they are dealing with a

mentality that Newfoundland is a thorn in their side, trade relations with all

the rest of the world matters more than the fishing industry, give them a few

measly dollars whenever you cry out and that will keep them quiet and what odds

about it.

I remember back when the Meech Lake talk was on, I forgot the

gentleman's name who said it: cut Newfoundland off and let it drift out to sea.

I know he probably said that in the heat of debate, I have no doubt about that,

but I am going to tell you one thing, that is about the mentality of most of the

federal politicians. It is not just the one individual and I do not think any

Newfoundlander and Labradorian regardless of what side of the House you sit or

what your political views, can argue against that particular attitude that is in

Ottawa; it is there, it is real.

I only hope and pray that at some point in time, Mr. Speaker,

that we are going to see some attitude of change and I think if we ever had the

opportunity to get some change in the attitude we have now in hon. John Crosbie,

being recently appointed Minister of Fisheries, I think he can bring the message

that we need brought to Ottawa the way in which we need it brought up there,

with a strong voice. I have the confidence, I do have the confidence that he is

capable of doing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: It has nothing to do with politics, this is

what is real for Newfoundland and Labrador. It gives me a little pain to know

that I am complimenting a Tory and it is not very often I do, but when you see a

man with the respect and the criteria of the work load he has carried over the

past twenty or twenty-five years in the political forum, you have sometimes to

bend a little bit although it gives me a pain here and there, but you have to

compliment him.

But I have to have confidence because I keep saying that

Newfoundlanders are going to be treated the way in which they should be treated

some time by Ottawa, so if ever there is a time, if ever there is a time to get

that opportunity and get that message through, it is now; if we do not get it

through now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is going to happen.

The Newfoundland fishing industry is on the decline; the

people are being demoralized, young people are not getting involved in the

fishing industry the way I would like to see them, there is an attitude to close

out the inshore fishery completely, there is a mentality to do away with things

and I suppose that is one of the reasons they are not improving the UI benefits

in that they do not want to encourage people to get involved, but I do not know

- I do not know what would happen to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador if

we lose the fishing industry; I do not think we have any future.

I do not think Newfoundland, as much as we have Hibernia, as

much as we get the mining area, as much as we get the forestry or the waters of

the Hydro Development, I do not think Newfoundland has a chance to survive in

the future if we do not develop and maintain the rights of Newfoundlanders to be

able to fish off the whole coast of Newfoundland and Labrador; I believe that

very, very strongly and I think we should be placing just as much emphasis on

keeping the youth attracted and educated towards our fishery and interested in

becoming part of it in the future as we are in maintaining the number of people

around the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador today, I think that is very

important.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to give a lot of

people an opportunity to speak; I say very clearly the hon. Member knows that

we, on this side of the House and I am sure all Members in the House, will

support him in making his comments and his views known to the federal people in

Ottawa. I will be very interested, when I sit down, I see my hon. colleague for

St. John's East Extern, old anti-confederate himself, is going to get up and

give us a few words and I am sure, it is going to be positive in support of this

particular resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to have a few words to say on

this resolution and certainly I do not think there is anyone in this hon. House

today or any day who could dispute what this resolution is saying. Mr. Speaker,

the only thing I do dispute is some hon. colleagues speaking about UIC. UIC as

we all know it, Mr. Speaker, is just that - an insurance, and I do not think

that there is a need to broaden that insurance, but I do think that in the

instance like we are seeing now, not alone in Labrador, but in many other areas

of Newfoundland and Labrador we see a need, we see the way that UI should be

acting. When there is a need, UI should step in as an insurance to make sure

that people do receive the benefits necessary for them. I am a firm believer of

that, Mr. Speaker.

Now the only query that I have with the hon. Member for Eagle

River is that every time he stands in his place in this hon. House he confines

himself to his own district, and rightly so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Just a moment now. Just a member now. And

rightly so, he should, but he also should elaborate just a little, I think, on

the rest of Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, the situation in Labrador is bad, and we

all know it. The hon. Member is coming in now, and I am glad he is because I

would not want for him to think that I was talking behind his back. But, Mr.

Speaker, there are problems all over Newfoundland and Labrador because of the

ice situation, especially this year, and for other years the problem has been

there. I know that the problem is great in Labrador, and I can appreciate the

Member's feelings on it, but he has to appreciate too that there are a lot of us

over here who represent districts with fishing communities, and a great

percentage of mine is. The problem down there is just the same now as in

Labrador. What I am saying is that you isolated the resolution to Labrador. Now

as far as I am concerned the resolution should have read 'areas of concern or

areas where there is concern' because there is concern right along the whole

northeast coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, but what I am saying is it should be

here in the resolution. It should be in the resolution for the whole of

Newfoundland - to have that as a problem area.

I want to remind the hon. Member for Eagle River - I read an

article in the paper where he said that, and he said here in the House as well,

that there should be a quota for Labrador. I agree with him, perhaps because of

adjacency and because of history, that perhaps Labrador should get a quota. But

I want to remind the hon. Member that up until 1988 FPI had no problem raping -

reaping, I mean - raping too, I suppose, the resource in 2J. But since -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say raping.

MR. PARSONS: I said reaping.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said raping.

MR. PARSONS: I did so. I also said that; reaping, I said,

and raping.

Anyway, in 1988 they caught their quota, but in 1989 I think

they caught about 15 million pounds and there were 5 million pounds of the quota

that they could not catch because of ice conditions. Now this year there is not

any, there has not been any caught up there at all because of ice conditions in

2J.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I am getting to that. I do not know what is

wrong with the hon. Minister over there. I do not know what is wrong with him.

Did you have something for your dinner today that you did not like? (Inaudible)

got some good fish.

Now what I am saying to the hon. Member is that I agree with

his resolution, but I think it should be in a broader sense to involve all the

fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador who are in need of help from the Federal

Government when the need arises. I do not think that UIC - I would be lying

myself - I would feel bad about it if I said that UI should be given to

everyone. I mean increase it up to twenty weeks, thirty weeks, fifty weeks, no,

UIC was brought about as an insurance to help people when the need arose, when

people were unemployed.

Now, let me say this to the hon. Member for Eagle River, I

told him I agreed with his resolution, but the UIC of all the fishermen I

represent ends 15 May as well. Every one of them ends 15 May. Now, he said all

he can see in Labrador is a white coat of snow. What can the Member for Fogo see

only the same white coat? What is a fellow in Joe Batt's Arm going to do when

his UIC runs out the 15 May? What can he do? And we can come closer to home,

what is the fellow in Pouch Cove going to do 15 May?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: We are going to do something. Do not worry

about that. I want to remind the hon. Member that I have already interceded for

my constituents. I have already spoken to the people in Ottawa, not today, two

weeks ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak to the motion.

MR. PARSONS: I am speaking to the motion, but every time

the hon. Member gets up he ridicules the Federal Government. Today he got up

asking that UI be extended, and then he vilified, he criticized, he ridiculed

the Minister to which he is going to send, whatever he is going to send, his

telegram, I suppose, to Valcourt, Minister of Immigration and Employment, the

new Minister. Whether you like him or not is immaterial, but if you are here

today to seek help for your constituents, then I do not think you should get up

and lambaste that Minister. I do not think you should, but you did. You have to

play the political side of it. You are a politician, boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: He did not? No, not much.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say to the hon. Member that time,

that this year there has not been any fish caught out there. I want to say to

the hon. Member, and I have the opportunity today because we are on a fishery

resolution, that I agree with him when he talks about adjacency and historic

rights as far as Labrador is concerned, but there is only one thing I would like

to ask him, where is he going to get the quota from? Only this year has FPI not

caught its quota, so where are you going to take it from? Who are you going to

take the tonnage from to give to the residents of Labrador? You talk about

underutilized species.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: That is an international matter that you

would not understand. It is just a matter of not understanding. You think out

there on the ocean you can do what you like, you can cut it where you like, and

you can tell this one they have no relevancy. International treaties have to

apply. You do not believe in treaties.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: Underutilized species?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why is it underutilized?

MR. PARSONS: Because a great amount of it cannot be

caught. No one can catch it up there now because they are not fishing up there.

FPI with their reinforced trawlers cannot get up there to catch the fish they

have now, cannot catch their quota, so who is going to catch it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: There are still six or seven months of

the year.

MR. PARSONS: The hon. Member says there is six or seven

months of the year. What was the average accumulation of stamps by the fishermen

in Labrador in your district last year? How many stamps did they have?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Probably ten or eleven.

MR. PARSONS: And in some instances six or seven.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: And how great was the stamp? Was it what we

call a top stamp?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Two hundred dollars a week average, I

suppose.

MR. PARSONS: Is it viable? Is it viable for those people?

I know what you are talking about. You are talking about a quota that would be

caught by large ships and landed in Labrador.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, by our own fishermen, the same

fishermen.

MR. PARSONS: By your own fishermen?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Right.

MR. PARSONS: What I am saying to you is, for this year

the big company, FPI, which is the largest company we have, could not catch

theirs so how would the Labradorians catch theirs under the same

weather conditions. Now they may catch it in July and August

but you are still going to have no more that ten stamps -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Why? The inshore fishery closes as of

September 15, they could be going from September 15th to the last of November or

December.

MR. PARSONS: The answer was, Mr. Speaker, the answer to

all this was, what you people, the hon. Members on the other side, what was in

their campaign policy, what the hon. Member for Grand Bank reminded you people

of today; and I urge the hon. Members, I urge the hon. Government Members, the

Minister of Social Services and all - Mr. Speaker, this is what the Government,

the Liberal manifesto said: The Liberal Government will work to develop and

implement a workable catch failure insurance. This is what you told the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador; this is why the Member for Eagle River was

elected; this is why the Member for Port de Grave gets up and shouts, he said: I

received more votes than half of you over there -

AN HON. MEMBER: Because of promises.

MR. PARSONS: - because of promises. Let me read the rest

of it, Mr. Speaker; a workable catch failure insurance or assistance programme,

to relieve the hardships suffered by those who worked full time in the inshore

fishery, but experienced poor seasons and substantial reduction of income or

sometimes, even the total loss of income.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I think that you should go to the Minister

and look for extra UI benefits, but, you should sit down and talk to your own

Minister of Fisheries, you should sit down and talk to your Premier and say: Mr.

Premier, the time has come, it is a disaster in Labrador, now, Mr. Premier,

things that we said during the election campaign, we are going to have to

fulfill and then there would not be a problem -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: He does not know where it is at.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not allowed to talk to him.

MR. PARSONS: Now, that is the answer, that is the real

answer, a workable catch failure insurance and when the people cannot get out

and fish in Labrador, that is a catch failure, Mr. Speaker, and there is not

even a great problem.

The President of Treasury Board, who is a part of this

Liberal philosophy, will certainly agree that it is time to implement their

promises.

They have broken so many but I do not think they can break

their promises to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, so, I suggest very

strongly, very strongly, very strongly to the Minister of Social Services, very

strongly to the Member for Eagle River, to get together with the President of

Treasury Board and the Premier and your Minister of Fisheries and point out to

them, on page thirteen, what they promised the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador - what they promised the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There

were going to be no more problems in the fishery, they were going to bring in a

programme that was going to solve it all; we would not have to go to Ottawa.

The Minister of Social Services said we should not go to

Ottawa on bended knee, I do not say we should and we would not have to; all you

have to do is implement on page thirteen, paragraph three, which says we are

going to bring in a support programme -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who read it for you?

MR. PARSONS: - a support programme. I just read it for

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, you did not.

MR. PARSONS: You never even read it, it is only what the

Premier told you, and that is what you went out and fought your election on.

What he told you he was going to implement and the people believed what you told

them, but the point remains, they will not believe you any more, because they

believed you so often and you - he is not allowed to say it, Mr. Speaker, that

forbidden word, that I am not allowed to say, that is on the buttons, that is on

the caps is very evident in this here as well. And -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him to take you on.

MR. PARSONS: Do you want to take me on?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to take me on?

MR. PARSONS: Do you want to take me on?

AN HON. MEMBER: It does not make any difference.

MR. POWER: If you really want to get beat up, come down

and take me on, if you really want to get beat up badly, come down to Ferryland,

we will have a real go and a bit of fun.

MR. PARSONS: You know, I sympathize with the people of

Labrador, I really do, I sympathize with them and I know there are people in

Labrador, like people all over Newfoundland and Labrador, that the last thing

they want to do is go to look for welfare, to look for help in that sense, but

if the conditions are such, well then, there has to be an avenue, in this day

and age we cannot let people suffer because of conditions that they have nothing

at all to do with it and cannot control.

MR. WOODFORD: Tell the truth! Tell the truth!

MR. PARSONS: Once you start telling the truth, the Hon.

Minister of Social Services just cannot take it. It gets too hot and he leaves

the kitchen.

AN HON. MEMBER: So they should, because all they are

doing is disrupting the House.

MR. PARSONS: That is all they are doing. The Premier took

the House on his back today.

MR. SIMMS: And he talks about decorum.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, about decorum. That is all they are

doing, taking the House on their backs.

MR. SIMMS: Trained monkeys, all of them.

MR. PARSONS: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that.

MR. SIMMS: You can.

MR. PARSONS: No. I do not know how many minutes I have

left, but I have to say one thing in the House. I do not like to ever do

anything that hurts anyone, but I was here the last day that the hon. Member for

Eagle River spoke on a resolution, and that day he said a word, and he said

something to a Member of this House, that I found very, very offensive. For that

hon. Member to utter that word, I thought was disgraceful. I do not think it

becomes that hon. Member. I think that perhaps he was not thinking. He called a

Member on this side of the House - and everyone knows who it was, the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition - he called him despicable. With all the decorum in the

House, Mr. Speaker, I do not find one word that irritates me more.

I have to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that

he kept his cool that day, because I am not sure that I could take it. I am

really not sure, because there comes a time -

MR. SIMMS: I cannot believe the hon. Member for Eagle

River said that. Did he say that.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, he did. Why I mention it now, is

because they started in about decorum. I respect the hon. Member for Eagle River

today, and I think that he got sort of overenthusiastic at that particular time.

He got carried away with himself. I am going to ask that hon. Member today to

get up, like a man, like an hon. Member -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he a monkey?

MR. SIMMS: A trained monkey.

MR. PARSONS: No, I cannot say that. I cannot even say he

is a trained seal, because that is out of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Monkey is not.

MR. PARSONS: A trained monkey, Mr. Speaker, is not out of

order.

MR. SIMMS: He is untrained.

MR. PARSONS: I would have to say that he is an untrained

monkey, and he will always be a monkey in my -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Deal with the resolution.

MR. PARSONS: I am dealing with the resolution. I am

dealing with the Member who brought in the resolution, and I am saying to that

Member, that he should cool down a little bit now. Relax! Relax! They must have

had a tough caucus over there this morning. Boys, it must be rough when they get

into the amalgamation bit. I will bet you there was not much conversation on

your resolution this morning at your caucus. Very, very little! I doubt very

much if you knew who was going to speak to your resolution when you came in

here.

Now, getting back to your resolution, I hope that Mr.

Crosbie, the Minister of Fisheries, does what we all expect him to do, and that

is look after Newfoundland and Labrador. That would be nothing uncommon for that

hon. gentleman, because he has been doing that since he started his political

career. I have said it before, he is a credit to Newfoundland and Labrador. But

when I see all of those crawling back now, after I heard the Members on the

other side rake down the Hon. John Crosbie: They were no good. They were doing

nothing for Newfoundland and Labrador. Himself and Reid were misfits, and now

they are crawling back. Every one of them are singing his praises.

MR. DUMARESQUE: What about when Crosbie was a Liberal.

Did he do good then?

MR. PARSONS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did Crosbie do good when he was a

Liberal.

MR. PARSONS: That is an unfair question.

MR. SIMMS: He was never a Liberal, that is the point.

MR. PARSONS: That is a political question. Well, I will

say to the hon. Member for Eagle River now, when you get on your feet I want you

to tell the hon. House what a great man Mr. Crosbie is. That is what the

Minister of Social Services did.

I want him to repeat it because the more often he repeats it,

it makes me sensitive to what he was saying three months ago.

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

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. PARSONS: Crosbie was no good, and Reid was no good.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will support the resolution. Thank you very much.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the

vaunted wicked attack of the Member for St. John's East Extern had me pinned to

the wall back here, and I am not so sure I am going to be able to even get my

words out, but I must say that I have great respect for that hon. Member, and I

have great respect for his views and I always will have. I may beg to differ

with his views, but I have the greatest respect for them. I think he said he is

going to vote for the resolution so I am happy to hear that and I am sure that

at the end of the day he will vote to support the resolution. I want to say that

it is also the right of any private member in the House of Assembly to bring

forward a resolution concerning whatever they feel is important, and if that

private member chooses to do so that resolution can concern his district, it can

concern an issue in his district, it can concern whatever that hon. Member

thinks is important. The hon. Member for Eagle River has brought forward a very

good resolution, one that is very timely, one that is very important for the

people of coastal Labrador, and I believe that it should be supported by all

Members of the House, and I certainly do not think that the right of that Member

should be downgraded or said that he cannot be able to undertake to do this. It

is his right, he has done so, he is serving his constituents extremely well by

doing so, and hopefully it will have some effect on the new Minister of

Employment and Immigration, the hon. Bernard Valcourt.

Now the reason he is bringing this in is, of course, because

he wants ammunition so that the hon. Minister, the new Minister, will respond

because obviously the hon. Minister now of Employment and Immigration who used

to be the Federal Minister of Fisheries and who I believe was not a very good

Minister, great Minister or effective Minister in understanding, at least,

Newfoundland's concerns, I believe that he is in a position now where it is as

important or more important for the Province with the position he now holds, so

I would hope that the hon. Minister as he now undertakes his new duties will

undertake to understand better the Newfoundland position and the Province's

position, and the problems of the Province, especially the Province's fishermen

who are having a very difficult time in this time of crisis. You normally would

think it would be timely, Mr. Speaker, that the new Minister of Employment and

Immigration is coming from the fisheries portfolio. You would think that we

would all be excited, at least, to know that the Minister should have a good

background as to this Province's economy and understanding of the crisis that we

are presently going through and that we would feel good about that, and that we

would feel good about that and that we would think that the Minister will

completely understand the problems and it will not cause the havoc in the

problems that we have had in the past by trying to get the simple things to

correct the problems that are out there. I would only hope that the federal

Minister, Mr. Valcourt, would act quickly on the request the Member for Eagle

River put forward to deal with the fishermen's problems. They are serious

problems, they are ones that need to be addressed, and this is a short-term

solution to a long-term problem. It is something that the Federal Government who

has the jurisdiction at this time have not undertaken very seriously to resolve,

and I would hope that they would do so over the next two years. Unfortunately,

the previous Federal Minister of Fisheries was unable, I believe, to be

effective, and unable to really address the crisis of the fishery in this

Province.

What always poisons me, Mr. Speaker, I must say, when it

comes to the fishery in this Province, what poisons me, I suppose, on the

national scene, is that when the farmers in western Canada get into a problem,

Mazankowski and everybody else in the west, they all go to the Cabinet table and

figure out a new plan, or another way, another scheme to deal with the farmers

problems. The most recent one that I saw only a number of weeks ago was a plan

to provide income support for the farmer. They have an agreed upon plan, they

have an agreed upon amount of dollars, they have criteria laid out, and what I

do not understand, and I know that it has been a problem for quite a number of

years, but the Federal Government can work out the criteria to bail out and help

out farmers in Canada, but they cannot work out a program or criteria to give an

income support program for fishermen. It is beyond me. They can use the same

criteria, probably, and I look forward to the Member for Eagle River's

presentation at the end to see what solutions that he offers the new Ministers

of Fisheries and Employment and Immigration in Ottawa. The Federal Government

can figure out a way to deal with the farmer who has a mortgage and machinery

that he operates and payments that he has to make. They can figure out a way to

do that. And they can figure out a way to help them out and ease them through a

time of increased supply in grain industry -

AN HON. MEMBER: And they do not get UI.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: And they do not get UI.

MR. K. AYLWARD: And they do not get UI, no. But they can

work out a way to do that but they cannot work out a way to provide income

support for fishermen. And fishermen do not want UI, they would rather be able

to make a living on their own. But here we are. We still can not work out a way

to provide an income support programme.

Fishermen in this Province have always been entrepreneurs,

people who went out and have been in business for themselves. They have been

entrepreneurs for the 500 years they have been in this Province. They go out and

create a living for themselves. And the problem that we have at this point in

time is that the regulations and requirements that have been brought forward by

the Federal Government have really put the fisherman into a situation, a

straitjacket, where he can hardly make an income worth living on. And it is time

that it was reviewed.

One of the proposals made by the Provincial Government to the

Federal Government has been the possibility of setting up a Canada-Newfoundland

Fisheries Board, something with jurisdiction to deal with some of these problems

and invent some of the solutions, and some of the solutions are not so

complicated. They can be resolved, I believe, if both levels of Government want

to resolve them.

There was a mechanism being proposed to do that. There is a

new Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Crosbie, who I welcome into the portfolio. Who as

a Newfoundlander I hope will certainly make every effort, and I am sure he will,

to deal with the problems. I would only hope that his sensitivity to the problem

will be brought to the Cabinet table and that maybe for the first time in a long

time we may see some real progress made in dealing with this long term problem

that we have had for a long time. It is long overdue, it is something that can

be addressed, it is not an idea that is a wild idea, that is something that is a

dream that we have or an ideal that cannot be worked out. There are problems

that can be fixed. They can be fixed if people cooperate. And I would ask - I am

asking the Speaker today - that when we send up the resolution to Ottawa after

we vote on it that our Government make further representation to the Federal

Government to deal with this problem and to help provide some solutions.

We have had a number of studies done in the last year or two

on the crisis in the fishery. They have identified a number of problems

especially on the west coast of the Province, in southern Labrador, all over the

Province there have been some major problems. The experts have put together a

number of recommendations that can help resolve some of the problems in the long

term.

I believe the Fishermen's Union under Richard Cashin has

provided some proposals on the west coast and southern Labrador - west coast for

sure I know of - on income support to the previous Minister, who is Bernard

Valcourt, when he was in the Fisheries portfolio. Hopefully Mr. Valcourt, who is

now familiar with those proposals from his previous experience, will help deal

with that proposal from his new position of Employment and Immigration.

Hopefully I am going to make some representation of my own, and I would ask

other Members to do so. I am sure the Government will do so. The west coast is

having serious problems over there and it needs to be protected and properly

managed.

The other thing that I am very pleased to see is the hon.

John Crosbie is in that portfolio now, at least he can bring some seriousness to

the portfolio in dealing with the issues. The overfishing has really taken a

toll on this Province. The Federal Government has done little or nothing to

protect us. I would hope that the new Minister will try to emphasize to his

Cabinet colleagues that the time has come to help protect this wonderful

resource which we are so dependent upon. Because they certainly have not done

that. It is not as important as grain is to Canada. Fish is the second or third

or fourth or fifth priority. It is certainly time that the Federal Government

put an emphasis and the importance where it should be on renewable resources, on

a resource such as this, because fish is equal to grain is equal to other

resources that we have and we certainly have not been getting the serious

concerns addressed by the federal Government.

The Member for St. John's East Extern, who I have great

respect for, talks about -

AN HON. MEMBER: You do!?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, I do, I have great respect for all

Members and their views. I may differ on their views but I have great respect.

Now, he talks about what have we done, the Liberal Government. I tell you,

twenty months is what we have been here so far, two years, and we are trying to

resolve a lot of problems. It is going to take a little while, I think. We are

going to make some mistakes along the way. You cannot move ahead and not make

mistakes. You are going to try things out that may not work. You might try this

thing, and it may not work. Like Sprung - you tried Sprung, and that did not

work. There are a few other things that may not work, but you have to try. If

you do not try, you will never know. For example, catch failure insurance, I

think, is a very good idea. The Government proposed to the Federal Government

last year when the crisis was on a joint program, funding from the Province and

funding from the Feds, to deal with the crisis in the fishery, not only for the

short-term but for the long-term. The Federal Government decided to not even

listen, not bother, or even sit down and talk about it, and went on their own.

So, we are trying to do what we can. We are also trying to

get a board formed, a Canada/Newfoundland fisheries board, an excellent

initiative. I think it would be superb, number one, but again, whether or not

the Federal Government is going to listen is another question. We are trying to

be pro-active and trying to help resolve the problems but it is going to take

some time. We cannot just do it overnight. In politics, two years is not a very

long time when you are trying to resolve long-term problems that have existed

for fifty, sixty, or one hundred years. They have existed for a long time, and

the time is getting short, patience is being worn out, and the problems that

fishermen experience, such as the fishermen of Labrador, it is time for those

problems to start getting dealt with. In Canada, we are all supposed to be

equal, but, unfortunately, and maybe it is just due to population and so on, the

Federal Government pays more attention to the West. That is fine and dandy, but

we have serious problems, they deserve recognition, and they certainly deserve

to be dealt with. The Federal Government certainly has not done that, and the

Opposition, who used to be the Government here, provincially, can complain to us

about not doing this and that, but what they have done previously, well, we are

in the situation where we still have to resolve these problems. They were not

able to resolve them. We are trying our best to resolve them and we are going to

continue to do that. It is difficult to do that. You have to have open ears, and

in Ottawa, we are not so sure, but hopefully, Mr. Crosbie will try to wake them

up. I would exhort his colleagues on the other side to keep talking to this new

Minister of Fisheries and ask him to do what he can to address the problem. We

are only here two years, we have a lot of work to do yet, and we intend to do a

lot more. We come into Government and we are in a crisis in the fishery which we

did not invent. We get in and the first thing we face is a crisis in the

fishery, and we hear, How come you did not bring in a new program? We are trying

our best. We are trying to bail out fish plants and we are trying to keep

everybody going.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a federal responsibility.

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is a federal responsibility, yes, but