Volume 2 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND .. THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 2nd Session VERBATIM REPORT Thursday, April 19, 1973 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 58

April 19, 1973 The House met at 10·30 a.m. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Tape 1273(Mornin~} MR. SPEAKER: Order! The honourable the Minister of Education: HON. C.R. OTTENHEIMER(MINISTER OF EDUCATION): Mr~ Speaker, I wish to inform the Legislature of the appointment of three principals for the three new vocational schools which are nearing completion at ~appy Valley, St. Anthony and Baie Verte. For Happy Valley the person appointed is Mr. Albert Dobson. Mr. Dobso~ was originally an Englishman.

He received his education at Boulton Technical College and graduated with a higher national certificate in mechanical engineering. Mr. Do~son moved to Newfoundland in 1967 and was employed as science instructor at the District Vocational School, Grand Falls. He will be taking up his duties as principal of the Happy Valley Vocational School on the 1st of May. For St. Anthony the person appointed principal is Mr. Thomas Hancock. He is thirty-one years of age and a graduate of Mount Allison University with a diploma in engineering and a bachelor of science and bachelor of education degree. Mr.

Hancock has been employed as lecturer in applied mechanics and mathematics at the College of Fisheries, St. John's for six years and for the last three years has been school supervisor with the Vineland Integrated School Board. Mr. Hancock will take up his position on the 1st of May as well. For Baie Verte the ~entleman appointed principal is Mr. Francis Pollett. He is thirty-eight years of age and followin~ graduation from hir,h s~hool he was employed in the electrical field, for twelve years with American Smeltinp, and Refining Company. For seven years Mr.

Pollett was employed as an electrical instructor at the District Vocatlonal School, Grand Falls,and for the last two years he has been supervisor of instructiPn at the District Vocational School, Carbonear. Mr. Pollett's appointment was effective April 16, 1973. 5 .-. ') ,, \i l.J ~ JM. - 1

April 19, J 973 Tape 1273 I have one copy to be tabled and ,'I couple for th,· Oflf10sit1on. PETITIONS: MR. ~.A. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the executive committee of a group known as the Defenders of Signal Hill. The prayer of the petition reads, "We the undersi~ned hlllllbly petition the Newfoundland House of Assembly to prevent the further commercial development of any part of Signal Hill directly or indirectly under its control." Mr. Speaker, our generation holds Signal Hill in trust. It represents more history than most places in North America.

It has witnessed our development from an outpost to a province and has played an active role in guaranteeing that development. In recognition of this fact,the Federal Government has set aside a portion of this hill as a national park. On the fringes of this park the province holds some land,in trust and administered by St. John's City Council. It has proposed to develop some of this fringe. The argument that is used is that the present area now under consideration is neglected and unsightly and that public funds are not presently available for this site.

It has been suggested that the construction of a television ~tation would do much for the area. I would suggest that it will do more for the television station. If we argue that a good development is better than no development where do we stop? What about good restaurants, ~ood hotels, p,ood machine shops and good crematoriums? We cannot make chalk of one and cheese of another.

However much one intends It :i television station is not a Monument, it is a commercial development that requires many ancillary services, not all of them desirable especially on Signal Hill, parking lots, garages, lunch~ooms, rest-rooms, water and sewer and a continuous stream of commercial JM - 2 traffic. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, a television station will r,row. Tf we are to judge by past records the proposed television station wil 1 double in size every ten years. Having allowed the initial building on the · · 5004

April 19, 1973 Tape 1273 hill,how will future councils be able to refuse further expansion? The end result even in our lifetime could be a vast network of studios and antenna that will reforest Signal Hill. Surely this is not the only possible site. What about the Southside Hills? What about the back of town? But if the City Council in its collective wisdom decides upon its intehded course,what price will they charge the developer? I would suggest a million dollars,as that piece of real estate is priceless. Think what it would cost to put there. MR. S.A. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I cannot say that I rise to support the prayer of the petition, Sir, but I recognize the fact that minority groups have the right to be heard and they have the right,the same as any other group of citizens in this province, to present a petition to this honourable House. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that I am one member of this House who cannot support the prayer of the petition. I think this is a step forward and we have not reached the stage in Newfoundland yet, Sir, where we can block - MR. SPEAKER: If the honourable member will permit. This is not a debate on the merits or demerits of the petition.

The honourable member is at this point requested to keep his remarks short and to the point and not to enter into debate. HON. A.J . MURPHY(MINISTER OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE) : Mr. Speaker, if I may. I think this is a point of information or privilege, whatever it is. I have just been asked by two members on the back now if they could speak on this and not support the petition,and I told them as far as I knew one cannot speak aRainst the petition as such. Could I ~et a ruling on that, Sir, because I know there are many who would like to take

part in this oebate, if you want to make a debate of it? MR. SPEAKF.R: To my knowledr,e - it maybe not as extensive as I would wish it to be, the procedure on petitions is set out 5605 JM - 3

April 19, 1973 Tape 1273 fairly clearly in thl!' stnndinp; orden ,rnd thort1 ml\y bo •hort commants on it. It was the subject of a detnlled ruling by the Speaker in la11t year's i;ession and certainly it would not be in order for wide rangi:1p, debate on the merits or demerits of the petition. It may be the subject of emotion. There are other vehicles of approach to this problem. At thi6 point, if honourable members should wish,it could adjourn so that I could get a definitive answer on this problem. At this point I do not think that debate would be pennitted. MR. ROBERTS: As Your Honour says,when Mr.

Speaker (Russell) was here I think the gentleman from Placentia West raised a question. That was quite a long debate and our Speaker did take the time to give us a written ruling and it is obviously not in order to debate a petition. I cannot recall any time when - one can stand and make a comment and the comment can be, "I support the petition" or the comment can be, "I do not support the petition." I think either of those is in order provided "it does not step over that thin line which Your Honour must lay down as to what is a mere conment or what is debate.

Debate is out of order on a petition because we just receive petitions almo5.t as a matter of consent. But surely it is in order for a member to make a very brief comment provided it does not become debate • Of course we look to Your Honour to tell us when a comment beco~es debate. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I will just sum it up then in one word by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I think the prayer of the petition ill nonsensical, Sir, and I am against the prayer of the petition although I recognize the fact that minority r,roups do have a right to be heard. MR. M. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, I do rise in support of the petition. I most assuredly rise in support pf the petition. I agree, Your Honour, to explain very briefly why it is that a member from a place as far away from St. John's as Labrador should feel JM - 4

April 19, 1973 Tape 1273 concerned enough to S.Ullf)ort what would on the outside look like a purely local situation. I submit, Sir, that Signal Hill and all that it means to us, Signal Hill is a national shrine and St. John's is my capital city as well as everybody else's. I think it is a measure of where we are at the moment that we should have so little concern for our heritage. I agree that Mr. Sterling had a very good idea.

His concept was good and I applaud his sense of the aesthetics, his concern for aesthetics but I submit, Sir, there are other areas in this city where such a facility could be placed without destroying the national character of Signal Hill. This should be kept as the national shrine that tt is. I do most assuredly support the petition. MR. J.C. K>RGAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments on the petition. I cannot support the petitions and I do not support the petition for the simple reasons that the proposed structure will not be built within the historic park area.

It is not being built within the Signal Hill area really. It is known as the Battery area really. I think this kind of development is going to enhance the beauty in fact of the Signal Hill area and I cannot think of any more appropriate place for a media complex than in the area where the first c0111D1unication started with Marconi. So I cannot support t~e petition. MR. 'P.S. TiiOMS: Mr. Speaker, I rise and I certainly cannot support the petition presented by the honourable member for St. John's North.

I believe th~ proposed television communications nerve centre which is proposed would be a step in the right direction in giving the proper service to the peop1e of Newfoundland in television. I believe not Signal Hill but close to Signal Hill, _on the Upper Battery where this complex is proposed, is the right and proper location for such a complex to be established, I cannot 5607 JM - 5

April 19, 1973 Tape 1273 support the petition. MR. H.W.C. GILLETI: Mr. Speaker, I feel too that I cannot support it,with all due respect to the minority group which, ·as my honourable colleague has already mentioned,does have a right to be heard. I would .certainly be a~ainst any commercial complex going there but a broadcasting station as such I think would be on the part of Newfoundland the most wonderful memorial to Marconi,because it was from that site that the first message went through the air and this, a broadcasting station,is doing just that. That is why I cannot support the petition, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: If honourable members will permit, it is quite possible that every honourable member here would like to speak to this petitio~ it being a matter of certainly urgent municipal concern. However, we do have other business to do. While this is a topic on which honourable members no doubt could expound at length,! think we should at this point move on to other matters. QUESTIONS: MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answer to question number 232,on the order paper of April 19, 1973,asked by the honourable member for St. Barbe North. MR.

SPEAKE~: Gentlemen,before I leave the Chair it has been brought to my attention that we have in the Ralleries seventeen grade Vll, grade Vlll and p,rade lX students from St. Thomas,Grand La Pierre JM - 6 School in Fortune Bay with their teacher in charge, Mr. 11.ierrill !·I. Reirl, and Mrs. Reid. I trust that your visit to the ?,alleries today will be interesting and informative and on behalf of the honourable members here I welcome you to today's proceedinr,s. On motion that the House resolve itself into Connnittce of Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY: HEAD XlV - Fisheries - 1401(01): HON.

F.D. MOORES(PRE~IER): Mr. Chainnan, in th~ opening remarks I will be comparatively brief today but on this particular subject of 5608

April 19, 1973 Tape 1273 fisheries where the ~eneral discussion is on the first vote,it could be very easy as well to go into great depth and great length talking about fisheries as they pertain to our province. However, I will make the remarks brief because I am sure the debate will be a good debate on fisheries today,because it is of serious consequence and of a serious nature to our province. I am sure members on the other side as well as this side will have what I will hope will be worthwhile co111111ents to make rather than just a critique of what the situation is.

I would also like to say that with the resignation of Mr. Cheeseman the detaih that maybe required may take a little longer but it will be available to everybody. I apologize for possibly not being as aware of some of the exact detaik as he would have been. But before, Mr. Chairman, getting into the specific programme for the fisheries of this year,the fisheries in Newfounr.land have always been a political whipping board for every political party. That is exactly what it has been, a whipping board because fisheries are always talked a lot about.

It has always been great election discussion but in fact the fisheries have probably been the most neglected of any department of government. We as a government are nowhere near where we wanted to be at this time after a year in office but the fact remains that more has been accomplished in the past year than any other one year since Confederation. The fishery 1~ :important but it is also as it is operated and conducted in this province very frustrating. It is an industry that has problems that are unique in themselves.

They maybe even more unique when the neglect· that we have had over the many years,with the method of how the fishery was prosecuted since the days we started, and it makes it evPn more frustrating ard more difficult when one sees what needs to be done. We have gone from a system in this province where we had 5609 JM - 7

April 19, 1973 Tape 1273 a futile system, if you like ·,in the fisheries. We also suffered now,in retrospect,in the fact that the fish always came to us and.we never had to go to where the fish were. Our fishery was geared to catch fish when they came on shore but in fact while this was happenin~ European Nations were indeed building equipment and gear and methods that made them go and look for where the fish were and made them go and hunt fish,which we are now findinr, ourselves in the same position and hav.~ to do.

The change of attitude that is required, the change in equipment that la required means that we must have a new approach in its entirety to the fishery. Another thing that makes it frustrating and difficult to project the fishery as we-should dp is the attitude really of the Federal Government.

The Federal Government in Ottawa, as good as they are in some ways,when it comes to the matter of fisheries programmes really have not given it any great consideration or any great degree of importance in their thinking, whether it is the conservation of the fish stocks themselves,which is federal jurisdiction and which is absolutely imperative if the fishery is to survive and be healthy,as is essential for this province, or whether it be the installation of facilities. There was a time in the days of Mr.

Pickersgill,when he was in public works, that wharfs and breakwaters and the like were not too difficult to get be~ause at that time they were much a part of their political pork barrel but today the facilities that are required,which are federal responsibilities, and I am talking of the tidewater facilities, are very difficult to arrange in Ottawa. There is in fact very little interest in the fisheries in Ottawa,as was demonstrated by the absorption of the Department of FisherieR into the Department of Environment.

JM - 8 A great deal more I am sure will be said on this today but 1n fact the fishery does p,o provincially and ferierally hand by r;Jove, by its very nature nf 1 ts hcinr: dc-Ppsca and on the w;ite~ ancl a ferleral responsihi 1 i ty froM hir:h ti~e out. 5610

April 19, 1973, Tape 1274, Pa~e 1 -- apb The inrlustry in l'lewfoundland has r,rown very fast in the last few year$ . The fishermen themselves have developed strong unions, I think, stronger than anyone would have thought was possible even just a few years ago.

This has done two things; it has given the fishermen a unified voice,which is important,but it has done even more than that; it has meant the interchange of knowledge through the union organizers, through their various conventions ~nd so on, a change in knowledge and ideas as to what is the best way to earn the best dollar,if you like, or prosecute the fishery in the most meaningful manner. We have seen better methods being employed in the fishery in most of our areas up to now with our fifty-eiP,ht foot lon~liners which are really developing into multi-purpose boats as opposed to just longliners.

We have seen different equipment being used around the province like ringnetting. We have seen scallop fisheries develop, shr:fmp fisheries develop, multi purpose boats and new species being caught. A great deal more work needs to be done in this area, particularly in the identifying of commercial Quantities of new species of fish as for instance the Japanese market that has opened up for caplin. WhsL can be done in caplin reduction as they have done in Norway is all very interesting and all very possible and beneficial to the province.

The companies themselves have progressed to a much more efficient degree thnn they had been previously but the government have not kept up when in fact, we in ~overnment, both governments, should be leading the way. This applies especially in the field of technology and programmes, whereby we can provide incentives to get better gear, better equipm~nt and to assist people in knowin~ and becoming aware of the different methods that are available for catching as well as the differ~nt types of fishery that there are available to our people today.

At one time in Newfoundland,it was not very lon~ ago, the only fish WAS the codfish. I do not know what the production 5611

April 19, 1973, Tape 1274, Pnp.e 2 -- 8pb or cod ii-1 todny compnr•d. to nl 1 thr nthrr "f''"C1"" co11h1mid hut r would sug~eet that it 1s a compnrntJvely umnll percentap.e wh~n one looks at herring and all the other fish that are presently being caught. As I mentioned, the down~rading by Ottawa has not done anything to help our cause and we have not done enough ourselves. However, our plans for this year are that we plan to do a great deal more. Last year there wns an under-expenditure in fisheries from the original budget to the revised fip.ures of almost $2 million. I think it was $1.9 million.

When you consider that this money was in fact not spent, this is wrong, because the fishery is certainly an area that needed it.But in the way of explanation I would like to give a few of the figures that are _available as to why. Nine hundred and forty-nine thousand dollars of that amount was transferred,in fact to the Newfoundland Industrial Corporation for the trawler that was being built at "Harystown. That takes nine hundred thousand dollars off the top of that.

The other items that had variations in the estimates under the capital works and loans grant were the fishery service centres, where eight hundred thousand dollarswerebudgeted ana in fact three hundred and forty-two thousand dollars were all that were spent. Small boat slipways; the estimate was three hundred thousand dollars and in fact. we got up to three hundred and seventeen thousand dollars. That one was overspent. Community and fish handling facilities '""ere six l1undred thousand dollars and in fact nine hundred and thirty­ six thousand dollars were spent.

Unloading facilities on wharves; fifty thousand doilars were allocated and seventy-three thousand dollars were spent. Fisheries access roads and that is to the facilities on shore; two hundred thousand dollarewere allocated, sixty-four thousand dollars, in fact,were spent. When we look at the.se fir,ures, the up~radin"' of vessels and equipment, the bounty on special gear and equipment all add variations but what hnppened in fac~ was that construction was delayed as a result of unusuallv severe winter conditions .resulting in a short- fall of two ·hundred and fourteen thousand dollars on the capital side. 5612

~pril 19, 1973, Tape 1274. Page 3 -- apb The Department of the Environment over the past years has been developing a programme to provide financial assistance to fishermen and other vessel owners who wish to upgrade their existing craft and/or fishing equipment. Our programme was therefore deferred so as to tie in with the upcoming federal subsidy progr8111111e which left us a shortfall of five hundred thousand dollars.

All in all, to sum up,the construction that was delayed amounted to two hundred and fourteen thousand dollars, the :Improvement programme which I just mentioned,which was done because of the delay in the federal programme,amounted to five hundred thousand dollars, The expenditure of nine hundred and forty-nine thousand for the trawler was in fact done by the N.I.D.C. rather than the Departlllent of Fisheries so in fact what was spent and the unallocated allotment last year was short-spent by two hundred and eighty-two thousand dollars. This explains why it was done.

It is not necessarily saying it was a good thing that it was done, it is given in the way of explanation. Mr.Chairman, when we look at the fishery, we are talking about really three areas that are concerned in this particular function. Number one, is the catching of the fish itself. This is done by inshore and offshore fishermen. What we are looking at in order to improve the catch of the fishermen themselves, first of all,ss I mentioned earlier. is better gear and more availability to that gear in making it easier to get it. Training in new areas of fishing.

Where at one time we had a deep-shore fishery, a deep-water fishery (trawler fishery,if you like) and an inshore fishery, I think we are looking at today,with the multi-purpose boats and the possibilities that are available, what I think they call in the United Kingdom, middle- distance fishing or middle-water fishing. In other words, people go out for two or three days as opposed to just going out for the day or going out for a week or ten days.

With the gear that is available and with the multi-purpose boats that will be cominr, more available all the time, and that is where the emphasis is now, both from. the fishermen and the governm~nt priority point of view, this is a fishery that will very 5613

April 19, i973, Tape 1274, PaRe 4 - apb definitely be playing a very real

part in the future. -~ We also have to try to help our fishennen understand the new methods that are available,such as mid-water trawling, if we are talking about the multi-purpose boats. When I say mid-water trawling I am talking about, of course, the difference between ground­ fish trawling on the bottom, the actual net in between. We are talking about new methods of scallop dragging, of shrimp fishing, of things that in some areas where these bodies are now being found but where people had no idea how to go about it.

We are talking about the development,together· with the federal government,of identifying commercial quantities of the new species and as I say, more importantly, probably, th~ · instruction as to how to take advantage of these. It is only a very few years ago, for instance, that the first turbot was shipped out of Newfoundland in a frozen condition. I am not talking about pickled turbot. It is only-a very short while ago that all these different species, shrimps, scallops, all these fish that have come in and are now being exported in commercial quantities.

The first phase of the fishery itself is actually catching it and these, very briefly, are a few of the problems and a few of the methods I think where the emphasis should be put. The second phase of the fishery, the fishing industry,or whatever we want to call it, is the processing. That has become more efficient in recent years but it is still staggering when one realizes that between thirty and forty percent of all the plant capaci~y in ~he province is all that is utilized during any given year.

It is just over thirty percent of the fish plant capacity that is actually in use in a given year,which is a figure that has to be overcome if we are going to be as proficient and as efficient as our international counterparts. The third part of the fishing industry is one at which we have been very bad in this province, as has Canada for that matter, and that is the reprocessing and the marketing of reprocessed goods that should and must be done in this province. P.eprocessinR of herring along would employ literally thousands of individuals. The difference between 5614

April 19, 1973, Tape 1274, Page 5 -- apb the huge amounts of herring thnt are being landed for fish meal as opposed to what could he done if we were talkin~ about four or ei~ht ounce jars of marinated herring or what have you, is quite phenomenal. we have herring, we have all these speciality items, we have any of the fish that we ship out in bulk form-~hich, with the proper technology and the proper expertise, should and will be done in this province. Some of these steps we plan to take dt!s year. We hope to initiate the beginning of all of them this year. We will be establishing the regional offices this year.

We will be, for instance, taking the various new methods of catching fish. like the ringnet I mentioned a while ago, the various types of gear and boats that are available now. The Department of Fisheries will be taking the display, if ~ou like, of instructional films,of boat models, their total exhibit,and will be taking a tour of the more isolated parts of the province and this will particularly include the Labrador Coast where this sort of knowledge is not readily available because of the lack of television and other things that are available to a lot of people in the province.

These things will be started this year. · The DREE - ARDA agreement - we hope to sisn up an interim two-year agreement very shortly which will assist greatly in the establishment of bounties or assistance for gear, for service centres around the province. These are the things that will be given first priority in the DREE - ftRDA agreement which we are negotiating right at the moment and should be hopefully done within the next few weeks.

One thing I would like to point out, Mr.Chairman, before we start getting abused too much for fisheries performance this year.and that is the figure, the total amount that has been spent on the fishery since 1n63 - 1964 until this year. 1963-196~ there was $1.5 million allocated to the fishery; 1964-1965,$1.5 million; 1965-1966, $2 million; 1966-196~ $17 million but that included $13 million for the Marystown operation and - $13.5 million as a matter of fact for the ~arystown shipyard construction which really in fact was not the 5615

April 19, 1973, Tape 1274, Page 6 -- apb fisheries programme as such. 1967-1968,$4 million; 1968-1969,$5 million; 1969-1970,$4 million; 1970~1971,$3 million~ 1971-1972,$6 million, last year,even on the re.vised figures there were $7 million spend and this year the budget is for in excess of $10 million. In fact we are spending some three or almost $4 million more than our las·t highest year ever in the fishery, this year coming up. A great d~al more than that probably should be spent but first of all we have to identify the problems and we have to make sure we are on the right-track to cure them.

For instance, the trawler development programme we have in mind does not show in the estimates because of a different method of financing and a different method of approach for that,which I can easily explain when we get to that area or if anyone has any questio?s on ,it. Basically, with these few remarks, Mr. Chairman, I will sit down and listen to what the other people have to say and I will do the best I can to answer their questions as they come up. CAPT. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman, the Premier in his opening remarks has told us very little • .

The Committee now has dealt with every department of itovernment and we find fisheries one of the most important departments of government left until last. I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that this is exactly where the prese~t government places the fishery of this province, at the end of their priority list. Two years ago, ~r. Chairman, the Pregressive Conservative Party went out and campaigned on a-major topic of emphasis on the development of the fishery.

The fishermen were gullible enough, quite a few of them.to swallow hook, line and sinker two of those promises made by the Progressive Conservative Party,and a great majority of the fishermen are responsible for puttinr the r,overnrnent in power today. However, I would say, Mr. Chairman, there is no p,roup of people more disappointed in the actions of the r,overnrnent than the fishermen of th:ls province. Now, Sir, the- promises macle to develop th€' vitRl resources are invts:lble. The Tory talk of two years ap,o has turned into promises emptier than the cod traps fished along the 5616

April 19, 1973, Tape 1274, Pap.e 7 -- apb northern part of Labrador for the past two or three years • . --"%: The honourable the Prmier attempted to divert public atten~ion from his administrations own mismanagement of the much heralded but to date nonexistent programme to develop the fishery. When his chief officer abandoned ship,as its floundering became obvious to all, what should the Premier do but rush out to call a press conference and lay the blame on Ottawa for the resigning of ~r. Cheeseman. MR. NEARY: And blamed it on the opposition. Nil. WINSOR: And putting part of the blame on the criticism which ~r.

Cheeseman was taking in the House of Assembly. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cheeseman received very little criticism from this side of the House,but the Premier is left in fear. He is not telling us the true facts as to why ~r. Cheeseman resigned He has not given us the reason. Roy Cheeseman had mare spunk and energy than to resign from the cabinet because he was criticized by one or two members of this House and even at that, very little. Roy .Cheest!man is a man, I would say, with a strong character,who saw danger.

He served in the last war, he was used to criticism, he was used to facing up to situations,sometillles beyond which he had any control. But, Sir, to say that Mr. Cheeseman resigned because of criticism and his failure to get all the co-operation from Ottawa, I would say is very misleading indeed. I would also say that it is very unfair of the Premier to label Mr. Cheeseman, to indicate that the man was not stable enough to withstand the criticism and carry out the functions of that department. The real reason for Mr. Cheeseman's resignation,when it is all brought out,is the fact that Mr.

Cheeseman was disillusioned, he was embarrassed, he was confused both w1-th the policies of the Premier or the government and I would say. much confused with the Minister of Finance. Mr. Cheeseman went out in 1972 and he c~paip,ned on the Progressive Conservative manifesto. He went to llermitar.e and promised 5617

April 19, 1973, Tape 1274, Pap,e 8 -- apb the fishermen what he would do for them but much to his sorrow and regret, on the eve of the bud~et he discovered that he could not go back to the people of that district with a clear conscience because he knew that the people of that district had greater expectations of him. In disillusionment, in confusion, in disarray he saw no other course but to resign. Now what do we have? We have a Department of Fisheries without a minister, without a deputy minister.

Tee deputy minister was put out to pAsture,on full salary I might add, but nevertheless that position should have been filled if the Premier saw fit to renove that gentleman. The Department of Fisheries is too important a department of government to be allowed to go very long without even a deputy minister not to say the importance of a minister. I cannot see, Mr. Chairman, how the Premier is going to be able to manage that department bearing in mind his other duties and the time that he can spend devoted to that department. I would say, Mr.

Chairman, that the gentlemen who are responsible for running that department will be very confused and I mi~ht add here, anything we say on this side of the House will have no reflection whatsoever on the officials of that department. I had the privilege and the opportunity to work with those gentlemen, not permanently but certainly permanently after Julv 1971. I found that the officials there were very co-operative and had good ideas. Those gentlemen, together with others,could develop a prograrrane for the fishery of this province.

Now, Sir, let us go back to some of the promises on which the Tory Party came into power. They used that manifesto throu~h the Speech from the Throne of ~arch 1, 1972. It stated that the Department of Fisheries will be p,reatly expanded immediately so that it can provide much ~reAter assistance and information to the fishermen of this province. The department will be drastically increased in size. What a contradiction. In ~arch the department was P,oing to be increased in size and what do we find? We find today, fifteen months later, a department shattered, a he minister so confused he had to resign and no 5~18

April 19, 1973, Tape 1274, Page 9 -- apb deputy minister. Here we are, Mr. Chaiman, the department has fallen apart in the seams. "It is niy government's intention to establish regional office of this department at select locations.•· Now, Sir, when the honourable Premier replies he can give us the information as to where those locations are. "These branches will be established in order to provide better service to fishermen living in those areas.

If the much expanded Department of Fisheries is to be fully effective, the fishemen themselves in all parts of the province must be directly involved." The only trace of anything being done in that regard, Mr. Chairman, is the task force, the Provincial Planning Task Force Committee on Fisheries. I would say, Mr.

Chairman, that this is the ultimate refuge for the indecision which will result in the proliferation of other task forces or committees,which will result in a chain reaction of one committee after another.which will end in self-destruction of the government who have not the courage to make vital decisions regarding the fishery of this province,which was outlined in the Speech from the Throne of March 1. Mr. Chairman, the Premier indicated very strongly in that press release that Ottawa was responsible for Mr. Cheeseman's resignation.

Now, Sir, we or at least I did not always agree with the actions of the Federal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Jack Davis. As a matter of fact, we often disagreed with his policies. I would say,Mr. Davis perhaps contributed more to the defeat of the Liberal Government in this province by the fishermen than any other means. He advocated and he brought into force certain regulations which were not acceptable to the fishermen, Sut, Sir, I am not qualified to debate the merits or demerits of Mr. Davis' progr8Illllles.

Scientifically, he felt that there were certain regulations which must be brought in for the conservation of certain fish stocks,and I suppose sometimes one has to be cruel to be kind. However, the effects of those regulations, especially those pertaining to the salmon fishery,had a very bad effect on the Liberal Government of this Province when we were out campairnini in 1971. 'MR. NF.ARY: llis int.c-ntions were honourable. 5619

April 19. 1973. Tape 1274. Page 10 -- apb CAPT. WINSOR: His int~ntions were good hut they were not inrerpreted as such in this province. Referrinp: to the Speech fro111 the Throne ap:ain. "Special emph~sis will he placed on the tremendous need to upgrade the place of the fishermen in the social and eco_nomic life of this province.

My government will immediately embark on a programme to encoura~e the establishment of additional advanced reprocessing facilities for fish within this province." Here I would like to bring to the attention of the Premier and when he replies he mi~ht be able to give me an answer: What are the government's intention on providing a fresh fish filleting plant or processing plant on Fogo Island? Fogo Island. Mr. Chairman, has a population of more than 4.ooo people engulfing ten co11111unities, The majority of t~em directly or indirectly depend larg~ly on the fishery for survival. I wouls predict now. Mr.

Chairman, that if there should not he a fish plant established on Fogo Island, the chances of that area surviving will be very, very limited, when we when we consider that there are about six hundred or more, six hU&dred odd fishermen on Fogo Island,with more than three hundred full-time fisher111en,and the only species of fish which can be processed on the island is cod.

What the people of Fogo Island want is a processing plant which can process all species of fish (I think the honourable Premier would agree with me on thisl If they are to be independent, self-supporting, self-sufficient. then, Sir, I do not see any hope for Fogo Island unless that fish plant is established there. The honourable Minister of Justice some tine ar.o made a statement to the effect that people have a right to live where they wish 1 and I aP,ree with him.

The honourable ~inister of Forestry and Agriculture, in his release the other day,said that when a development takes place, whether a national park or otherwise, the social upheaval and interference with a traditional way of life should be kept at the very miniml.ll11. We are firm believers in the creed that if people want to change their way of life,government has Rn ohligation to help in that change. On the other hand, and this is th·e po int I want to make, 5621)

April 19, 1973, Tape 1274, Page 11 - apb • if people are content and happy with their present life style and in the communities where they and their forefathers have lived for hundreds of years, then government, Mr. Chairman, have a very seriou& obligation ·to protect these people from serious social and economic upheaval. There lies the secret to the survival of Fogo Island.

I trust the r,overmnent will take heed and will fulfill their obligation and establish that fish plant on Fogo Island, because, Sir, about ten million pounds of fish is brought in by the longliners there and the .inshore fishermen who unfortunately have not been very successful during the past years. All of that fish but cod is brought by vessels from:Fogo Island to Conception Bay to be processed, All the labour which should be done on Fogo Island is now being carried out at fish plants at Harbour Grace or at Carbonear.

This must stop and the people of Fogo Island cust be given their right to be able to process and work in the fish plants like any other community. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that this will be a ~ood debate. Many of t'.1e honourable members in this House who are :representing fishing districts will certainly want to speak on this very important department and I trust the honourable the Premier will be very co-operative when asked questions. I am sure the Premier will endeavour to give us what information he can.

So, Sir, with those few opening remarks I will conclude by saying to the Premier and his goverrunent, the fishermen of this province expect a lot from him. They were told they ~~uld receive more, more would be done for them than by any previous government. Now, let us see what is going to happen. I will admit that perhaps one year is not a fair trial. I am not one to condemn wholly that too much has not been done,but what policies are being continued are policies we of the former administration started. It is only a continuation of those policies, therefore, Sir, I realize and the honourable Premier 5621

April 19, 1973 Tape 1275 (momin~) PK - 1 must have realized when he was out campaiitnin~ in that election that there is no miracle and no man can perfonn miracles in the fishinp industry of this province. We have a very precocious geographica1·1ocation. It is not easy to adopt policies and bring them into effect so that it is going to be noticeable over a very short period of time. Howevet", Hr.

Chairman, we will have to wait for another year and if improvements are not made to the fishing industry then, of course we will have to come bad: and suggest to the Premier that not only the ministers and deputy minister be relieved of their •uty but he then as Premier will have to retire as well. MR. F. B. MWE : Mr. Chainnan, I would like to speak on hehalf of what must be one of the most frustrated districts in the province, and that is St. Barbe North when it comes to the areas of the fisheries, Sir. Briefly, I would just like to outline what the situation is in St.

Harbe North with respect to the number of fishermen , the gear and the facilities that they _have there, This infonnation was kindly itiven to me by officials of the provincial Department of Fisheries. The figures are for the year 1q70 and there has been a ~reat increase since that time and I have not been able to get the specific figures on it. Sir, in that year, in tht'.' District of St. Barbe North, the.re were 659 bona fide fishermen.

The n~ber of gill nets were 2,119; the nUJT1ber of cod traps,173; the number of hand lines,730; the number of trawl lines,4,377; herring and gill nets,298j the nurnher of salmon and trap nets,81; lobster traps,41,000 approximately: the nUITlher of small boats less than twenty feet,37; between twenty and twenty-five feet,198; between twenty-five and thirty feet,131: between thirty and thirty-five feet, JO; over thirty-five, 6. !,ow. Sir, since that time there haR het>n a p:reat i'ncrea11e in the lonp:liner fleet. I believe in St.

Rnrhe North they must have up,,•ards of twenty, twc>nty-five or thirty lonr.linrrR in that onr district alonc>,that ~uch of an inc.rt>aee over the la11t two or thrC't" yenrs. Sir, in that year the 5622

April 19, 1973 Tape 1275 (norninp,) PK - 2 total production in p~~dage of all species was 8.053,000 pounds landed 9 of all species,in the district for a total landed value of $610,000 approximately. Now, Sir, there has heen a great increase in the number of fishermen I would submit and in the number of boats and th~ number of people involved in the fisheries from all points of view_, in St. Barbe ~lorth. Unfortunately, Sir, there has not been a significant increase,since this administration took over,of the fish handling facilities in St. Harbe North.

Unfortunately for these people there ia a great fish plant, and I will explain why I say unfortunately in a few minutes. there is a p,reat fish plant in Port Choix, Fisheries Products, and there is another great fish plant in St. Anthony, one just to the north and one just to the south. Consequently, Sir, there is next to nothing in the way of fish handling facilities in the District of St. Barbe North itself, Now they do have a number of community sta~es.

There are community stages at Anchor Point, Cook's Harbour, Black Duck Cove, Sava~e Cove, Sandy Cove and Green Island Cove. but, Sir, as far as fish handling facilities are concerned that is it. Now, since I h~ve been elected, Sir, the people anrl myself are making approaches to tht Provincial Department of Fisheries for what we call in the heginninp. a fish plant. Now, Sir, it was explained to me by the former Minister of Fisherie~. Mr. Cheeseman, the economic lunacy of trying to pet a fish plant in the District of St.

Barbe North itself, since we do have these two large fish plants one to the south and one to the north. What we r.radually evolved to,Sir, was the need for better fish handling facilities, -ulti-purpose fish handling facilities or specialized fish handling facilities qr ~eeder plants being established alonr, the coast of St. Barbe North. Because, Sir, this district is primarly a fishing district. It is only industry that these people have up there. It is the only hope that they have for the futur~. It is practically the only form of employment except for a few 562~

April 19, 1973 Tape 1275 (morninp,) services and hustnesses and thiA sort of thinp.. But. p.eneral~y speakinp;, St. Barbe Morth is primarly II fhhinp dbtrtct. Sir, there is a tremendous need for better fish handling facilities in that district. Pk - 3 Now T have to admit, Sir, that 1 have had a tremendous amount of co-operation from the officials of the Department of Fisheries and they have taken a tremendous amount of their time in the department and met with deleRations from St. Barbe North and have explained the situation to me and to these delepations.

But, Sir, unfortunately that is the only thing that the people of St, Barbe North have received from the Department of Fisheries and that is co-operation. There has been no action at all on the establishment of any type of fish handling facility. One year ap.o, Sir, we made respresentation to the department to try and ~et something done with the new ver,etahle storage unit thnt was heing established there in Plum Point. We were hopinp. to ~et that converted into some sort of a fish handlinR facility on the coast.

To this date, Sir, that veRetable stora~e unit, the frame of it, is still standin~ there in Plum Point and the other materials and the machinery associated with it are stored out on the Brig Bay Point. Sir, the one thing that I pleaded.forlast year was that this administration not take advantage of the rivalry between the Brig Bay Area, in the southern part of my district, and the northern part of the district. They are both lookinp. for additional facilities. To be quite frank with you,both areas are p.oinr. after that ver.etable storap.e unit for the purpose of usin~ it for a fish handlinp. facility.

Sir, even as recently as last ni~ht I rec~ived a telephone call from some people in the Anchor Point- Flow~r Cove Area sayinp; "Hhat is all this ahout the RriR Bay people havinp.•collected money to contribute towards the reconstruction of the Plum Point vep,etable storap.e unit?" Apparently, Sir, some officials of the nepartment of Fisheries have now gone into the Flower's Cove ·Area and said; "Orr,anize 5624

April 19, 1973 Tape 1275 (~oming) Pk - 4 yourselves, try and raise enough r.ioney so that you can get thts vegetable storar,c unit converted into a fish handling facility.~ The same thing has been told to the people in the southern part of the district. Consequently we are right back to where we were last year the people are up-in-ams up there and it is likely to develop into a civil war before it is all over.

Because I have never seen the like,where you ~et two groups of people who are fighting for something and end up fighting against each other and end up getting nothing because,well the rivalry there is so great. Now, Sir, the latest understanding that I have from the Minister of Fisheries before he resigned is that if that vegetable storage unit is converted into a fish handling facility in the Brig Bay Area that the same thing or an equivalent facility would be put in the northern part of the district, up around the Anchor Point Area or the St. Barbe Bay Basin Area.

That is the latest understanding I had from the minister. I had nothing in writing but we met with him in a delegation a number of times. That was the latest understanding that we had; he was developing a policy whereby a feeder plant system would be set up in the District of St. Barbe North. Now. Sir, I do not want to be quoted as saying that a fish plant or a fish handling facility should go in a specific area of St. Barbe North. But the Department of Fisheries has a feasibility study, I believe, that suggests ri~ht where a fish plant should go or a fair size fish handlin~ facility should go.

The Tlepartment of Fisheries know full well that that is not in the northern extension nor the southern extension of the district. it is smack in the middle. The only way of not establishing a fair size fish handling facility in the district is to put a number of smaller fi~h handling facilities or feeder plants distributed throughout the district. Sir, there are no ice-makin~ machines in the district. There are no haul-ups nor slipways in the district,so these great longliners are haulei up on the hare rocks in there. There is no marine service station in the district.

Sir, the people in that district are the most frustrated ~roup of people that ·r have ever come across in my life because the 5625

April 19, 1973 Tape 1275 (morning) PK - 5 potential is there in the fisheries but all of the facilities, the , -e!, major faciliti~s, happen to be outside of the district. Sir.

I would like for the Premier, because t have it from a reasonable source and authority, t would like for the Preimer to listen to this because he could call me wron~ on this if he wish but I have it from a reasonable source, Sir, and I have no reason not to believe what this person told me,that the Premier did make a commitment to an i.ndividual in the Brig Bay Area in the October election with rer,ards to a fish plant, What I am wondering now, Sir, if that commitment is what in fact is holdinp, up the situation in St, Barbe _ Nort~?

Because if there is a single fish handling facility or a fish plant to be established in St. Barbe North, the Brig Ray Area is not the place to locate it. Accordin~ to all of the studies that I have seen and according to all of the advice that I have had from the fishermen_ now I said, if there is a single facility - I believe that there should be a facility in the Brig Bay Area but there should also be a facility in the Anchor Point Area and the Flower's Cove Area,distributed up and down the coast. These facilities would not be najor fish plants. I do not think there is one fisherman in St.

Barbe North who is asking for a fish plant the equivalent of the Port Choix or the St. Anthony one because they realize fully that enourh fish cannot be caught on the northwest coast to supply three major fish plants. P,ut what we are asking for, Sir, is an improvement in the existin~ facilities. So, Sir, I would appreciate it very much if the Premier when he rises to answc-r some> of our queRtions will p:1ve 1,ome indication of what iR in store for ~t. Barbe North with respect to fish-handlinp. facilities within the VC'ry tienr future.

Sir, before I sit down I would like to brondc>n r.iy remarks to what I considC'r to he the J;?reatest failure of this administration in its fifteen months in office. Sir, this administration in its ~arch 1· Thr~ne Speech,which was delivered via television and which can certainly be considered the election manifesto of this administration, rose the eY.pectations of the people of Newfoundland to 5626

April 19, 1973 Tape 1275 (morning) PK - 6 a degree which ..,,e have never witnessed in this province before. Sir, the previous adminiRtration can he accused of risinp, the expectations of th~ people of Newfotmdland on a number of occasions hut we have never seC'n the like that we witnessed in the !-farch 1 Throne SpPech. which was a document which could be considered the election manifesto,which in the area of the fisheries raised the expectations of the fishermen in this provincP. beyond the limits that we have ever witnessed in this provinc~.

Sir, I cannot help Lut and i feel it is my responsibility to point out what was promised in that Throne Speech and what has been done since that Throne Speech was delivered. Sir , the Department of Fisheries, it was promised in that Throne Speech,will be p.reatly expanded immediately so that it can provide -much greater assistance and information to the fishermen of this province.

"The department will be dramatically increased in size, many new divisions will be established and mauy new services implemented so that it will reflect the importance that my government places on fishing as one of the major industries in the province. · "It is my government's intention to establish re~ional offices of the department selected at selected locations. Initially there will be hranches of the department located on the Burin Peninsula, of the S~uth Coast, on the west coast and the N~rtheast Coast. Now, Sir, the honourable the member for St.

John's East stated publicly on a television prop,ramme in which I took part with him one afternoon ·,stated publicly that the Throne Speech is a very important document because it lays out the prop.rammes for one full year of the administration, not for a term, not for a decade, not for two or three years but the Throne Speech outlines one year of the p,overnmet!t's programme. Now, Sir, this document said that initially there will be branches of the Department of Fisheries located on the ·Rurin 'Peninsula, the West Coast and the Northeast Coast.

Sir, if it is stated that this is p,oing to be done initially one can only assume that after that first year that there will be 5627

April 19 • 1973 Tape 1275 (mominR) PK - 7 other branches of the department set up. Sir, after fifteen months we do not see one branch of the department set up in any of these locations. There certainly have not been any announcements suggesting that there are to be further branches of the Department of Fisheries set up.

"My minister," Sir, "will encourage participation by all fishermen through discussion groups by providing them with the information developed in the department an4 through the establishment of rep,ional advisory councils which will work with the depart~nt in the formation of future plans and policies affecting each particular rep,ion.• Sir, the only information service that we have seen to the fishermen so far are these films to which the Premier related earlier in his remarks.

A third promise, Sir: "My Ministers will introduce a new programme to give better assistance to inshore fishermen to obtain boats, gear and equipment. A special incentives progra!llllle will be int~oduce to assist fishermen in obtaining large multi-purpose boats which can be used for dra~ging, seining, midwater trawling and long line fishin~.• Sir, I am not aware of any great new special incentives pro~ramme other than the Fisheries Loans Board Programme that was established under the previous adminstration and continued under the present administration.

"My ministers•" Sir, a fourth promise ,"will introduce legislation concernin~ a new financing approach to provide the supply of fish necessary for existin~ fish plants around our coast in order that they may be utilized to ;,,_,_ near full capacit; as possible.,. Sir, I am not aware of any ~reat new financinp, approach for this particular purpose. A fifth pronise: ''le~islation will be introduced to establish a corporation which will own or lease rights on a new fleC't of trawlers.

This flC'C't will add to the production of new or t'xistfng processing plants, Thi.' new trawlt'r fleet will be in addition to the existing fleets 1n the province." Sir, in that one ye11r nroniscc pror:rmnMc we c!i,J nnt witness one thinr.. 5ti2b

April 19, 1973 Tape 1275 (morning) PK - 8 A sixth promise: ''Hy ministers working in conjunction with the -~ federal government will establish a new and realistic programme of bait assistance to the fishinR industry.

These strategic locations will ensure a continuous supply of suitable bait and when necessary prohibit excess~ve export of scarce and desirable bait from the province." Sir, where is this proRramme, this new and realistic "LeRislation wi 11 be introduced at the earliest possible date to establish in conjunction with the federal government an inexpensive shared cost and joint pror,rSJ11111e coverinp, loss of gear. 11 Sir, that new progralffl!le has not been introduced.

I mi~ht admit.and I thank the Department of Fisheries for this, when an emergency situation arose on the northwest coast because of an early winter stonn the provincial government did come up with a sixty per cent assistance pro~ramme for the fishel'T'len on the coast and for that I thank the Government and I thank the Department of Fisheries. However, Sir, the promise of an inexpensive shared cost insurance programme covering loss to fishing Rear has not been introduced.

Another promise,,ir: "My ministers recognize the fact that the perservation of the fish stock is the most important single problem facing our industry. It is the intention of my ministers to make the strongest possible representation to the Government of Canada to recognize the tremendous importance of the perservation of fish in Canadian waters.

My ministers will support any oreanization with this objective and further will make direct representation to the Government at Ottawa and with all the energy and reason at their command to brin~ about this desire objective.• Now, ~ir, the other promises that were mentioned by my colleague for Fogo District, I "·111 not repeat those. But, Sir, the important point that I want to make is this, I anticipate that the honourable the Premil'r will ~et up and say, ''Well, we could not keep all of these promises because of the federal government in Ottawa!

Sir, what I am criticizinr, is the fact that this administration just several weeks prior to an election that they knew would be called ~ot up and 5629

Tape 1275 (mominp) PK - 9 madl' th<'~<' proM:l~es, lrnowfnr: full well that thc-y ,~ould have to Iif'Rotiate and probably have to nep.otiate for a lonr. period of time with Ottawa for the implementation,of many of these promises. Sir, I cannot help but point out that a Thr~ne Speech is a one-year pro~ramme, and the honourable the Premier and his administration knew that. So, Sir. I felt duty hound to point out what I considered to be one of the major fa111n~s of this ndministration and that is in the the fisheries, when the people of Newfounclland expect'ed so much from them.

So, Sir, I would like for the Premier, of course when he stands, to indicate to the committee, Sir, what is in store for the District of St. Barbe tlorth. I know it is only one out of forty districts,but Sir, to try and give some indication as to what the fishermen can expect here,becaus~ the resources are there, the industry is there, the potential is there but the facilities are not there so that those people can make a half-decent livinp, and benefits from the fishery. Thank you, ?ir. r.hai nnan. r,et some of the spin-off MR • . NEARY: r1r.

Chairman, before the honourable Premier stands to answer some of the questions that have been put to him by my colleague, I would lilre to have a few words about thi5 very :Important matt<'r, tn contribute something I hope to the debate here in thC' Pouse. We have heard some pood debates so far on the fisheries estimates. I hope that more r'embers as the day prorre~ses will participate in the debate.

Now, Sir, when the Premier gave his introductory remarks on the fisheries esti~ates, introducing the fishery rstimates because we do not have a "inister of Fisheries at the present ti.me, I was expecting, Sir, I sat bac~, I figured that we were ~ood for ~n hour or an hour and a-half, maybe three hours for that matter. Twas e:icpectinp; to hear a free-wheelinp, widr>-open, clc-ar-cut, firm statC'ment of policy hy the PrC'mier, the t.eader of the Tory Administratfon,on what direction, Sir, thf' ft sh<:>ri.eA W<"re r,oinp to tal'<" in this prov1 nee. I waR very dieappoint<'d, !!r.

C:hainna.n, just to listen to the Pre!!lier sort of brush 5630

April 19, 1973 Tape 1275 (night) PK - 10 over, skim over the items that he raised dnd again repeat something that he already stated outside of this Fouse,that the resignation of the Minister of FisherieB was due mainly to the lack of sympathy from the Government of Canada, from the nepartment of the Environment in Ottawa. The honourable the Premier did not repeat what he stated at a press conference down on the eighth floor when the former ~•inister of Fisheries resipned,that it was because of some criticism levelled at him from the opposition that he resigned.

Well, Sir, when we were discussing interim supply in this House and we came to the heading of fisheries, I gave the }:inister of Fisheries at that time a few ~entle love taps, nothing compared to what he would have gotten, Sir, if he had remained in the cabinet and stayed in this House. My argument at that time wns that that minister was most unhappy with the performance of the administration of which he was a part, in connection with the fishery in this province.

Ile was disillusioned. disenchanted; the department had been down~raded, had become weak, maybe through no fault of the honourable gentleman who was Minister of Fisheries at the time, maybe because of the policy of the administration not fulfilling the promises that were made in two provincial elections in this province that helped him get into power. The ~inister of Fisheries is gone now, Sir, so there is not too much that I can say about him. I can still level my criticism at the administration thoup.h: they are stili there.

I would have expected the Premier when he was addressing this HouRe a few moments ~p,o to pay tribute to the Newfoundland Federation of FishermPn and Mr. Pat Antle for the contrihution that they have made to the fishery of this province. You cannot speak about the fishery in Newfoundland, Mr. Chairman, withot•t identifyinp. Pat Antle with the fishery and the fishermen, a well known authority right across Canada on the fishery in Newfoundland, a walking encyclope<lia on the fishery, -Sir. I had the privilep,e a few years ap.o to attend a convention of the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen,.

April 19, 1973 Tape 1275 (morninR) PK - 11 Granted th!'rl' "'"s not a h1 p: crowci thf'rto hut the f'i,.hromf'n that were.- there, Sir., were enthueastic, th!'y had n r,rPat knowledRe of the fishery, they knew what they were talkinr, ahout. They were the grass-roots . . They had a great deal of respect for Mr. Antle. After servicinJ,? this province loyalty for what? Fifteen or twenty years? twenty years as President of the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen, what was the reward, Mr.

Chai nnan ,tor or an orRanization that kept the fishery afloat in this province when nobody else did, P,Ot the prices up~ lt may have been a siow, painful process, the fishermen may have become impatient but, Sir, they did get better prices for their fish, better conditions because of the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen and Mr. Pat Antle. What reward for that, Sir, for providing this outstandinr, service to Newfoundland by makinp; a major contribution to the fishery of this province, both provincially and federally? _ Mr. Antle is as well known in Ottawa, Sir, as he is here in Newfoundland. What happened?

This year the administration I suppose dealt the un­ kindest cut of all.the cruelest blow of all, Sir, they cut out the grant to the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen. I do not know how long the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen can carry on without that grant but I do know this, Sir, that despite all that is happening in this province~ despite the progress that is bein12: made on other fronts,that the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen still has a role to play in the fishery of this province. I ask the Premier today to reconsicier this m;,,tter of a p;rant to the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen.

Nobody has asked me to nake an appeal on thc1r behalf. It is purely spontaneous, Sir, unsolicited. But I thin~ it was a very cruel thin~ to <lo. I do not think that the ::ewfoundland Federation of Fishermen can survive very long without that ~rant. 1-laybt> they can. ~aybc they have a few dollars stowed away, I do not know. I hope they have. I hope that they will be able to continne their 12:pod work on behalf of the fishermen of this province. All it would tak';', Mr.

Chairman, is one highly pain import, that is all the r.overnrnent would have to do away with, $30,0no a year, one hirh]y paid imnnrt .Fe are brini?in!! them in here in droves, . 563~

Apdl 19. 1973 Tape 1275 (morning) PK - 12 $25,000, $30,000, $35,000, $36,000 a yearfor doing things that are not in the best interest of this province, Sir, not in the best interest of the people of this province. Do away with one and restore that grant to the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen. I know that history was made in this province a few days ago when Mr. r.ashin was able to negotiate on behalf of a group of fishermen in Bonavista North, St. Barbe. Mr. C8shin was successful in negotiating th~ first agreement on behalf of a group of inshore fishermen.

I approve of this, Sir, this is a gigantic step forward. AN HON. ~BF.R: Inaudible. MR. NF.ARY: ·I am reminded by my honourable colleague here that they are not getting enoup,h. The price of fish was never higher in the market but nevertheless, Sir, the fishermen are getting organized. You cannot do anything today without a union. You have to be organized, You have to put up a united front. Nobody appreciates that any more than Pat Antle. Mr. Cashin has been successful in doing something that maybe Hr. Antle 5633

April 19, 1973 Tape No, 1276 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: has not been able t~ accomplish. If Mr. Antle were a vounger man and in better health.I do not think that Rick Cashin nor anybody else in t~is province would . hold a candle to him. : But nevertheless, having said that Sir, I think that Mr. Cashin.and his Newfoundland Food Fishermen and Allied Workers Union are on the right track and I congratulate them for the progres  that they have made so far in this province. There is room for two organizations at the present time: they are both trying to accomplish the same thing.

But the government dealt the death blow to one of these organizations, the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen,and it is only a matter of time I would think. Sir, I agree with what Richat:d Cashin is attempting to do 0 ·He is only attempting to do, Sir, what is being done in the Scandanavian countries, negotiate province-wide on behalf of the fishermen,and this is a good concept, nothing but good can come of it. Sir, I wish him luck. I know he has had a lot of hard knocks. I know the fish merchants of this province probably hate the very ground that he stand  on.

I say,the more power to him, the fishermen of this province have been exploited long enough, I hope that Mr. Cashin and his organization will be able to overcome the obstacles, the obstruction that has been thrown in their way and that they will continue to forge ahead and get better prices and better working conditions on behalf of the fishermen in this proyince. Now, Sir, I expected the Premier also when he rose in this House to say a few works about SOFA. No, not a peep out of him, Mr.

Chairman, when the great issue today, Sir, in Newfoundland,in Eastern Canada, around our coast, the great is~uc is the depletion of our fish stocks, conservation,and I was expecting to hear a great discourse from the Premier on conservation. ~ell we will not have a fishery in this province pretty soon, ne will not have a fishing industry, Sir, unless we focu& more attention on conservation. 5634

April 19, 1973 Tape ·No. 1276 NM - 2 MR. NEARY: a word, not a ingle word out of the honourable the Premier. Untrue? Well maybe I was out of the House when the Premier talked about conservation. The Premier never mentioned SOFA. Did he? Did the honourable Premier mention SOFA? MR. MOORES: Just conservation. MR. NEARY: Just conservation - thought they went together, took it for granted that everybody understood they went together, SOFA and conservation. Well Sir, I want to take my hat off today to SOFA. Yes, I take my hat off to Jack Davis too, His policies may have been misunderstood and deliberately so.

Sir, the Tories in Ottawa and here on the home front were able to squirt their poison against Mr. Jack Davis. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: Well maybe not all his policies but a good many of them. What Mr. Davis was trying to do, Sir, was misunderstood because of the great propa~anda campaign that was put on by the Tories in Ottawa and some Tories on the home front ·. So, you would think,Mr. Chairman, if I had to elaborate we would be here longer than six o'clock this evening or twelve o 'clock tonight-. I will leave that to some of my colleagues. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition will deal with it.

I want to deal with the fishery in a general kind of a way; I do not want to be specific at the present time. 1 am rather disappointed that the Premier did not get up and enunciate government policy on the fishery. We have seen that happen so often in this session of the House, no leadership, no Minister of Fisheries to tell us what the policy is.

The other ministers that we have heard piloting -their estimates through th~ House have been on the defensive, Sir, they are edgy and jumpy and jittery, tearing up the microphones over there, th'ey are eo edgy, no policy and no leader in the House to state government policy and the Premier comes . in today, Acting Minister of Fisheries,and I would expect better from 5635

A1>ril 19, 1973 Tape No. 1276 NM - 3 MR. NEARY: the honourable the Premier. ~t least I would expect a little recognition of SOFA that has done such a magnificent job in focusing attention on the need for conservation of our fisheries, Sir. Mr. Gus Etchegary in particular, a one-man crusade with very little from the Tory Administration, Sir, very little help, lip-service half the time, the man has gone out of his way and I am well aware, Mr. Chairman, that there may he an alterior motive behind all this.

The fish merchants want to continue to stay in business but so do ~ur fisheTI11en, Sir, and in this case what is good for the fish merchants is good for the fishermen. AN HON. MEMBER: That is a switch. MR. NEARY: It is not a switch. In this case,! said . It is logical, it makes a lot of common senae to me, ~f there ar~ no fish, there are no fishermen to catch fish,to earn a living, there are no fish plants. I congratulate SOFA, Sir, I have not heard too much about the organization lately, I do not know if they are getting discouraged or what is happening.

I would like to hear the Premier's co1DD1ents on that matter. Talking about SOFA, save our fisheries, Sir, which I think ia one of the better things that I have seen happen in our province in recent years,because the fishing industry in this province, Sir, is still our biggest industry,but I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, we are not going t _o have it too much longer. We- hear about the government policy to spent $40 million on new draggers, How many draggers is that? Twenty odd draggers. Hhat is this going to do for our fishE!ry and conservation?

What is it p;oinr to do for the inshore fishery; This was the government that was going to concentrate a lot of its energies on the inshore fishery, now they are going out in deep water and you know what that me·ans, Mr. Chairman . What it 111Cans, and the Premier mentioned this, probably the key wor·d in his whole introductory remarks, technology - we have to bring new technology into the fishery. 5636

April 19 • 1973 Tape,No. 1276 MR. NEARY: Well, Sir, you bring new technology into the fishery and you are going to create unemployment. I am not an economist and maybe the economist could give me a continuing argument on that but it is a fact, Sir. Automate, mechanize, bring in new technology into the fishery and you are going to destroy the inshore fishery. You are going to force the man with the small boat, you are going to force him to go on welfare and I can see this happening every day in this province. Apart from that, Sir, apart from that I am afraid that our fish stocks cannot stand it.

Fish are not reproducing fast enough. I wish I could use the technical term that the biologists use on this, I am only an ordinary layman,but fish are not reproducing fast enough around our coast, not reproducing - that is as good a word as any. Now we are talking about bringing in twenty more draggers to get out there with the foreign fleet, deplete our fish stocks. MR, MOORES: They will be closer to the twelve mile limit. MR.

NEARY: They will be close to the twelve mile limit - no, they will be close to the shore and then we will have a worse effect on the inshore fishery and we have not heard one iota from the Premier today about the policy for inshore fishermen. Are we going to let it die? It appears that way, Mr, Chairman. Fishermen all over this province today,because of the publicity that the fishery estimates have gotten,will be sitting by their radioes and televisions today, waiting to hear ·what is in store for them, what direction the fishery of this province is going to take, not a sound.

No wonder somebody said they are completely bewildered and disillusioned and let down, they were conned by that administration, conned into votinv Tory in two provincial general elections, and the development of the fisheries was one of the gimmicks that werE used - cruel, Sir, iDIDIOral. 5637

April 19, 1973 Tape No. 1276 NM - 5 MR. NEARY: The Prem:lir talked about everybody as an expert on the fishery, I am not an expert on the fishery, I may be a man-care expert like a good many more people but I am not stund either. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: No, well that may be debatable, but I can read and write and I can think and I think I have a reasonable amount of common sense and I know that there is no policy right now, that that department haa suffered 1110re under this administration and under restructuring than any other department of government.

Last year they took $1 million out, put $900,000 of it over in the Department of Development. my friend there,the Minister of Industrial They have been chipping away at the department. When an entrepreneur comes into this province today,interested in a fish plant, he does not go to the Fisheriea Department, he goes to my friend here,the Minister of Industrial Development. They talk about Ottawa downgrading the fishery department and hooking it up with the environment, here you have the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Industrial Development, one cutting across the other.

Nobody knows who is responsible for what .• The Minister of Industrial Development has the big draggers and the Minister of Fisheries has the dories, as they said in the interim supply vote, the punts. · fhey talk about the Burgeo Fish Plant; we hear the public statements coming from the Minister of Industrial Development, not from the Fishery Department. It is being downgraded, Sir, it is being downgraded.

Before I leave the matter of conservation, Sir, I would like to hear the Premier tell us, because I have heard, I do not know where I heard it but I heard somebody say, somebody in authority say that this province cannot stand any more big fish plants. We should do with what we have now,in the interests of conservation. 5ti3b

April 19, 1973 Tape No. 1276 NH - 6 MR. NEARY: I do not know whether this is logical or not, Sir. Perhaps the honourable Premier can tell us whe;,her it is or not. We could stand a lot of more bait depots, Sir, collection units and freezers, small items that will help the inshore fishermen at a very low cost. We could stand a lot of that around our province, especially in Sou~hern Labrador, around the south coast and the northeast coast. It would do a lot of good. It would not cost very much money. But can our fish sto~ks withstand more big fish plants in this province?

We have already seen what has happened to the herring industry in this province, practically destroyed, practically wiped out. So we need one more on Fogo Island. I do not know if the honourable member is talking about a big plant or not. Sir, I think it is worth takinP. a look at before we get into opening huge,big fish plants in this province in the future. WE should take a long, hard look at the fish stock. Consult with SOFA~ is there any dialogue between the province and SOFA1 They are the experts, consult with them. Consult with Mr. Pat Antle, consult with Mr.

Cashin and his organization, find cut if there is room for expansion. Ia there enough fish or are we just living in a fool's paradise? Is it hopeless? The honourable Premier talked about advisory councils, I heard him at it.Before the last provincial general election he had it into the Throne Speech. Well there are three ready made advisory councils - Pat Antle's organization, Rick Cashin's organization, and SOFA. I will bet you dollars to donuts, Mr.

Chairman, that the government have not taken advantage of the wealth of information that these three organizations have on the fishery in this province, Instead th~y are plodding along in their own tired, old, worn-out way and making a sorry mess of the fishery in this province. They cannot even settle that poor, old strike down in Bonavista, going on now for almost one year, going on for a year. It did not take them long to get into Burgeo. A month or so before t~e last provincial election in March, ~here were soa&

April 19, 1973 Tape No. 1276 NM· - 7 MR. NEARY: choppers all over the place, planes zooming in, you would not know but you were back in the Battle of Brita .in. But what is happening to the strikers and the strike in Bonaviata and these strikers, these fishennen, these Newfoundlanders that are trying to fight for what they think is right? Thev caine in to the government at a demonstration here in Confederation Building and what were they -met with, Mr. Speaker? A battery of policemen.

That was the answer they got from the Minister of Justice and that administration over there, a battery of policemen with helmets on, 'Jne would not know but we were going to have a riot - a poor crowd of Newfoundlanders, fishermen trying to earn a living for their families. AN HON. MEMBER: Did they nave their helmets on? MR. NEARY: As far as I know they did. They had them on the day the students were here. I do not know what idea they have, but it is a good point anyway. They do wear these helmets. Sir, they do wear these helmets when demonstrations take place at Confederation Building.

I am not ~uite sure whether they had them on that day or not but I do lmow there was a fair number of policemen around. MR. DOODY: It makes a good story. MR. NEARY: It makes a good story. That is right. It is a good point. The Chairman did not ask me to withdraw it. Sir, they came into the government, asked for government help, support, co-operation, to settle up that strike in Bonavista, going on now almost a year. It will be one year this June.

So far, Sir, to my knowledge, the administration has not lifted a finger to try to settle that strike other than to come out and say (which is like being in favour of motherhood) ''Oh'. The conciliation officer is available and if either porty wish to av:311 of the services of the Department of Manpower and IndustriPl Relations. o.ur doors are always open.'' MR. MURPHY: What is the usual procedure? MR, NEARY: The usual procedure is take the initiative, What was the procedure in the case of Burgeo? $2.6 million~ That was 5ti4u·

April 19, 1973 Tape No. 1276 NM - 8 MR. NEARY: what was thrown out to Spencer Lake,under similar circumstances,by my ·Hahourable friend who is a member of that administration. MR. MURPHY: Is Bonavista for sale? What price do they want? MR. NEARY: I do not know if it is for sale. I do not know what price they want. I am not the government, if I~ere the government, I would find out and I would know and I would be able - the honourable minister does not know the answer to that question, Obviously it has never been discussed in cabinet, Sir. Mr.

Chairman, we heard the member, When they were crying out for help down there in Bonavista, what did the member do? He tumed his back on them. He turned his back on them, Sir, and came out publicly and stabbed the workers in the back, sided with the fish merchants, condemned his fellow Newfoundlanders for trying to get better wages and better working conditions. They will not forget that, Mr. Chairman, they will not forget it when the next election rolls around. Now, Sir, one other matter I want to deal with before I take my seat.

The Premier also mentioned on a number of occasions, both inside and outside of this House, the further manufacturing of our fish. I am not sure whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, Sir. I am more inclined to think that it would be a good thing. It would be a good thing, further manufacturing and processing of fish, but I do not know if it is possible, Sir? It would be a good thing if we could do it.

I do not know if this was another one of the off the cuff statements that the Pre111ier made without thinking but I am told by people in the fishing industry that the Americans would rebel against this sort of thing. You would see increased tariffs, Sir, of which you have never known the like,if WC further processed our fish here in Newfoundland. I do not know if that is true or not, I would like . for the Premier to tell us if he has adopted that as the policy of his administration, It may be a good policy. I think that if I were in his place I would try it myself.But is it possible to do it 5641

April 19 • 1973 Tape No, 1276 NM - 9 HR. NEARY: without cauilinp, u['iou11 t'IIZJ!Prcu ton  on the international market ? I  it po iblo? Could thci Promi•r clarity that wh•n he.stands to answer some of the que~tions that are put to him by the opposition? Before I take my seat I may as well deal with this too. I will give the Premier an opportunity to co111111ent on thiss What about the twelve mile limit?

Would one not expect the Premier when he stood in his place in this honour.able House to introduce the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. would one not expect to hear a clear-cut, understandable, simple statement of policy from the administration on the twelve miles limit? Maybe I am naive, Sir. but I certainly would expect that. We did not hear it and there is not.a week that passes in this province but we do not hear about fishermen. politicians up in Ottawa, threatening to bring out guns on their boats.

Gunboat diplomacy they call it in certain circles_ N.ot a peep, not a word, not a sound out of the Premier about this. What about it? What representations have been made to Ottawa? How strong? Are they just namby-pamhy weak,wishy-washy? AN HON. MEMBER: Wishy-washy. MR.NEARY: Wishy.washy; Or is this government just taking a hands-off attitude? Leave it up to poor old Uncle Ottawa, let them handle it. They are on the hook, keep them on the hook. These are the things, Mr. Chai~111&n, that we want answered in this •honourable House. We do not want feeble excuses and the Premier just skimping over Fisheries. Get up.

Live up to the expec~ations and the promises that were made to the people of this province. Cet up and tell us what the policy of that administration is going to be, Let us hear it in stronger words than we heard from the honourable the Premier when he opened the estimates of the Department of Fisheries. MR. CHAIRMAN: There were three gentlemen on their feet almost simultaneously. The Member for Labrador South I think was quickest off the mark. However, the honourable members may sit themselves 5642

April 19, 1973 'Tape No. 1276 NM - 10 MR. CHAIRMAN: out if they wish. · HR. MARTIN: Mr. Chainnan, I think I would save the honourable Premier a lot of trouble by putting my kicks in now and then he can lambaste us at the same time,in the one breath. Unless the honourable gentleman wants to reply and then reply to me later? I am quite prepared to take my seat. MR. MOORES: I just thought I would deal with the three most useless speeches first, because I think the one from Labrador South is probably going to be worthwhile. MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Chainnan, there is a great deal to be said along with all the rest that has been said. I think first,before I get into it and ,lose sight, there is one point. I would like to say that the remarks made by the honourable member for St. Barbe North regarding the specific problems of the fishermen in his district,! would like to support that one hundred per cent and vouche for what he is saying to be fact. I had the occasion to work amongst the fishermen of St. Barbe North, the whole St. Barbe Coast,for a short period of time. The problem really is critical and a frustrating one.

Having said that I would like to say, regarding the Premier's opening remarks, that his words are somewhat encouraging. Jfowever, we have heard encouraging words about the fishery and the solutions to the problems of the fishery for a long, long time~and what we really want now is some action and we do not have very much more time left to wait.

It is critically important that this govern111ent and everybody concerned with the fishery get on with the job of restructuring the whole thing,if we want to use a well-worn phrase, The rishcries Estimates, Sir, this year,notwithstanding the honourable the Premier's figures for preceeding years,! find to be the most discouraging and disappointing aspect of the entire 5643

April 19, 1973 Tape No, 1276 ~-ll MR. MARTIN: budget ·f!lt this year. $10 million I think falls far short of what we should be able to expect for an industry that influences far more people in a far large geographic area than any other industry we have in the province. There is indeed, as the honourable Premier says, a problem of identifying specifically what those problems are.

I would submit that the reason the government hHve not been able to identify those problems to date is becau8e they have ignored, almost completely, the advice or the potential advice of people who are well up on the problems of the industry. I refer to such groups as my honourable friend from Bell Island mentioned, the Federation of Fishermen, Fishermen's Union, SOFA and all the rest. I think we need go no further than these three groups to find all that has to be done. It has been said many, many times that nothing is being done for the fishing industry, That is wrong. Of course, many things have been done.

The problem is that they were not done in the right manner, Many things have been done in the right manner mind you but far too many things have not been done in the right manner. Many attempts have been made in an effort to bring the fishery up to its full level of potential but I think,generally speaking, we have been resoundingly unsuccessful in these efforts. After many years, after many centuries, one would have thought that by this time we WOHld be able to come to the nub of the whole problem. lnstead we have been consistently treating the symptoms and ignoring the real causes.

We have seemed to have always suffered from a collective sense of shame because of our history as a fishing society,and this is really getting down to where it is at. Even those who have given lip service to the concept of a greater fishing industry.it appears really,secretly harbour the conviction that it was all a lost cause anyway and we should be 5644

April 19, 1973 Tape No. ·1276 NM - 12 MR. MARTIN: looking somewhere else. The symptoms were easily identifiable and therefore having identified them, we should have been able to deal with them .eff~ctively. But what have we done? We have taken a look and said,jf the fishery should fail, the simple solution to the problem is to pay the fishermen unemployment insurance. If the plant were in danger of closing because of ineffeciency or whatever, then the answer to that particular problem was to give it more funds so that it could remain open.

The rationale was that the plant owner was doing his employees a favour by giving them jobs. There was nothing in it for him, it was all for the good of the people working for him. Therefore, becau~e of inefficiency or anything . else he was on the edge of closing up when he came crying to the government for more funds, not to keep his business going but to provide jobo for the poor plant workers, the outporters. The inshore fishery came up year after year a failure, you see,and the answer was obviously to drop it and concentrate on the offshore fishery.

I am not saying that we should not concentrate on the offshore fishery, but they both deserve to be dealt with separately, "Burn your boats and go to work in the fac torics." The problems, Mr. Chairman, the problem has always been that we have never been able to accept the deeper implications, the social and economic conditions of the whole country as it is related to the fishing industry. The sad and undeniable fact of the whole situation is that we have never had any fishery policy as such but an ad hoc piecemeal bunch of solutions to a great problem that nobody has ever been able to get down and deal with.

There have been a number of admirable attempts at introducing new technology. The right concept was there. I disar,ree that new technology and mo.re 5645

April 19, 1973 Tnpr l:!77 sophistication is r,oing to throw more people out of vork. That is one of the inherent dangers but there is also the matter of supplying the inshore fishermen who have no means of supplying themselves,with the pitiful little income that they have,with better boats and more sophisticated equipment so that the inshore fishery itself can be carried on but with the assistance of new technology.

There have been some ·very good attempts to infuse new capital into the industry but by and large most of this capital has been for the betterment of the fish merchants rather than for the bettennent of the fishermen. Some of it, a very, very small fraction of it had filtered down through. Sure the plants did remain open and that was a benefit to the fishermen but I submit, Sir, th_at a great part of that capital went into the pockets of people who are skimming the cream off the top anyway.

The fact that govermnent have dealt in that manner with the fishery has no doubt kept the fishing industry alive over the past twenty years but as I said,the approach has been anything but a resounding success. The problem I guess is that past governments have never been able to understand wha~ it is that they were really dealing with. There has been a real desire to forget the whole thing.''Ignore it and maybe it will go away." Well the fishermen of this province, Sir, have been here for many centuries and despite repeated attempts to forcibly make them go away,they are still here.

I think it is in spite of rather than because of government effort that they are still here and that there is still a fishery. The emphasis for development has alw~ys been misplaced. Much, much too much attenti~n has been paid to the doom-sayers who Ray: "The fisher{ 1H rir..1,l! rave it all up".' f'or J'.Pt ,'lhout it! The more people who say that in this province,whethE~r they are in government or not, the more people who go around saying, "Forget the fishery! It is dead," the less likelihood we are ever going 5646 JM - 1

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 to have of ~etting anyffiinr, out of Ottawa,because that seems to be by far the strongest lobby ri~ht now. The fishery is not dead. The traditional fisherv is dead. The trap fi ,.h,.ry m:,y vPry wr.11 he ciead hut that c!oes not say the fishing industry is a lost cause. All the more reason for a totally new concept of what the fishery is and what it means to us, · and with all good haste I might add. Here we are today, Mr, Chairman, sitting right in the middle of a great,hungry world.

Fish prices I think in the New England market last week reached an all-time high of sixty cents a pound for fresh frozen fillets, way out of sight, far beyond the wildest dreams of even a decade ago. We should be taking advantage of that. We should be taking advantage of the good market conditions that we have. What do we do? We go around saying the fishery is dead, We go around asking what is the sense? The ground fishery is indeed in very serious trouble, the cod, the haddock.

Some of the pelagic species, the herring,they have been very nearly depleted, They are in very serious trouble but there are other fisheries underdeveloped and undeveloped. Do we now protest to Ottawa? No. So I am afraid I cannot be quite as charitable towards Mr. Davis in Ottawa as my honourable friend from Bell Island has been. The man is a walking diaster. Instead of looking at the potential of the fishery as it is right now, instead of getting down and cutting losses, modernizing, expanding new fisheries,what do we do? We spend ten million miserable dollars on the expansion of the fishery this year.

That may very well be far ahead of what we have spent but the problems are far aheaa too. $25 million or something like that into encouraging somebody to come in here who should not be here at all,polluting our environment, disturbing our fisheries, dumping oil and chemicals all over the place, $10 5647 JM - 2

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 million for the fishery. At sixty cents a pound in the for•i~n markets we should have every floatable piece of equipment out there tod~y trying to catch fish, a Dieppe mobilization. Every dory and barge that we have should be out trying to catch fish. We say the fishery is dead? We are not going to deplete the fishery if we go at it in the right manner. There are underdeveloped parts of our fishery. There are fish stocks out there that are not even being touched and these can be very well developed for our own benefit and not for forei~n benefit either.

We have approached the fishery in much the same manner that we might have approached a difficult child. We attempt to pamper it and never get down to the ~asic problems. Now, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the lack of understanding of the fiahery was exemplified in the recent resignation of the former Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Cheeseman. tt is misleading, Sir, it is buck paaaing to lay the blame -for our province at the feet of Ottawa. Thia is our problem. This is the problem we have had to deal with for years and it is one that we are going to have to deal with.

We can see the concern that Ottawa has-so let ua stop beating the bushes. Let us stop trying to blame everything on Ottawa whether they deserve that blame or not and let us get down to putting our own House in order. We have to get down to the heads, guts and sound bones,as Mr. Cook might say. We have to start believing that this is a large-scale problem which affects a great majority of our population. We must show and clearly understand the social and the economic problems of our rural areas because the social and economic problems of our rural areas are the problems of the fishery, one and tbe same.

Politicans and aspiring politicans, Mr. Chairman, would do very well to take heed at what is happening because if nobody else is understanding, if nobody else is beginning to understand vhat is happening out there the fishermen themselves are. Finally 5ti4b JM - 3

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 they have awakened to the fact that there is nobody to help them but themselves and they are doing that. They are beginning to articulate their problems and they are beginning to not ask for but demand in a very strong voice the right kind of action. Do you know, Sir, that never,ever in our history has the price of fish been a political issue? Never once have we gone on a political campaign with the price of fish being the major issue.

Sure politicans ~11 bring it up and pay lip­ service and all the rest but the single most important issue in this whole nation has been consistently ignored. Primary producers have been something less than able to control their own destinies in this province,but not so out West. not so in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan wheat farmers long, long ago decided to make the price of their wheat a political issue, In fact I believe, Mr.

Chairman, that the roots of the party we now know as the Progressive Conservative Party may very well have sprung from the fact that the Saskatchewan wheat farmers were concerned about the price of their product. Unlike farmers in Saskatchewan,the Newfoundland fishermen have never had the same degree of concern or perhaps the same ability to get on with it - but that has changed. It is beginning to happen and I can assure you, Sir, and anybody else who wants to listen that never,ever again will this situation be allowed.

The price of fish and everything else concerning the fishery will be an issue and is an issue and will be in any further political campaigns in which we might be involved collectively. The problems of the fishery are the problems of all rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the root cnuses are the same. The fishinp, industry has been built and structured and exploited for the benefit of the few brokers who touch the fish as it passes between the fishermen and their consumer markets. That is the problem. When the time rolls around for these issues to 5649 JM - 4

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 be brought out, when w"?submit ourselves again to the judgement of the electors.I can assure you that those electors who are in any way interested in the fishery will have plenty of reasons for making whatever choice it is that they are r,oing to make, Remember Burgeo, Sir, which was brought up a few minutes ago. Last year in this House many pious sentiments were expressed regarding Burgeo~about the passing of feudalism and paternalism when Burgeo was discussed in the House.yet very few if any politicans of the day seem to understand the basic issues involved in that set of circumstances.

Nowhere have we seen 1n either the government or the official opposition any coherent policy to lift our people beyond that particular stage of development. Cure Burgeo, cure the problems of the Burgeo fishery,but that is not the case. Again we were dealing with symptoms. Burgeo was a symptom. Bonavista is a symptom. Cure the disease, Sir, that is what we have to do. This House and this government have maintained a position of studied indifference and worse, silent consent to support the forces of reaction.

There can be no real fisheries policy or indeed any policy of rural development that does not deal openly and in a forthright manner wit~ the fishermen as human beings.and people.and he is dealing with another type of person, the fish plant. Here, Sir, is the central issue. The fishing industry has been based upon the truck system. Ur.til very recent years very little money if any passed between merchants and fishermen, This is the feudalism upon which our fishing society in Newfoundland is based, The whole fishing society and not just the industry. We cannot talk development in physical or econ!)mic terms only.

We must understand the social and the human elements as well. We must develop our human and social resources so th3t we nurture a true independence in our people and we must cease to perpetuate the myth that ours is a ruggedly independent race, ~ndividualistic 5650 JM - 5

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 yes, but not independent. As far as· their culture and society will allow they are individualistic but not dependent. We have a certain degree of independence. We are independent to make a choice of either starving or grovelling. Very, very little, Sir, has been done in recent years to change that situation. The only direct action any government has taken so far has been to pump more public money into the fishing industry when,as it periodically occurs,the fish merchants make a public spectacle of their own incompetence and ask for more cash to keep them afloat.

Basically that is all that has been done. The money that the previous governments pumped into the fishing industry was done with little or no regard to the structure of the industry or to the pressures acting upon those employed therein. The previous·government,after much pressure and in an election year,introduced certain legislation which ostensibly had as its goal the altering of the relationship between the fishermen and the buyer of his product. I refer to the Fishing Industry's Collective Bargaining Act.

Unfortunately the authors of this legislation were reacting only to political pressure and with no true understanding of or sympathy for the problems of the people with whom, they were dealing. The present government have made some commitment to do something about this and we are still waiting, Mr. Chairman, patiently. Back in 1971,I think it was the honourable member from Fogo who was then the Minister of Fisheries an<l headed a delegation to -Norway and Iceland to study this very relationship between fishermen and buyer,particularly as it affected the prices of fish.

It was reasonably to be expected that any legislation arising out of this delegation's report would have come under the auspices of the Department of Fisheries but such was not the case. It was tossed as another bothersome problem to the Department of Labour. I fail to see the logic in that particular 5651 .W - E

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 set of circumstanceR. I could not see it. If we are goin~ to talk about new policy,~nd surely that is the first thing that we have to start talking about, a new fisheries policy ought to begin with legislation dealing with the firsthand sale of fish right down at the primary producer's level, legislation that supports the rights of fishermen and provides for them the vehicle to determine that they are in fact getting a fair.price for their fish. The fact that such a vehicle has not existed in the past in Newfoundland has had serious economic and social effects.

The economic effect is obvious.as they were not getting a fair price for their fish. But the social effects, Mr. Chairman, are far more sinister, far more sinister and demoralizing because they nurtured a feeling of suspicion and frustration that has damaged not only the image of fishermen but indeed it damaged the whole image of Newfoundlanders as a people,because it goes far bey.ond our borders. The effects of this kind of thing reaches into every foreign market that we have ever touched.

We have set ourselves before the world as a people capable of living with exploitation an4 of electing governments time after time that avoid dealing with this form of exploitation. I might remind the committee that on a number of occasions I have asked the Minister of Labour,who is now respcnsible for these matters,.what steps his government are taking to set up the advisory board referred to in

section 51 of the Fishin~ Industry Collective Rar~aining Act, 1971. I am told that it is now very nearly through the drafting stage. The Department of Justice still has it but it might v~ry well be on the way up by this time. It is going to be very interesting, Sir, to see how this new bill deals·specifically with

section 51. In one way or another, ~r. Chairman,

section 51 is going to go down in our history. That I can guarantee. 5U52 JM - 7

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 The other day we heard the Minister of Finance say that all segments of the economy were improving except the fishery or words to that effect. Foreign market prices for cod and red fish and other species of fish have had increases from twenty-five to fifty per cent in a little more than a year but that is not so for the fishermen, at least no automatic or relative increases, related increases. I think it was yesterday or the day before the Fisherman's Union announced significant increases in their prices because of negotiations that they successfully conducted.

But I understand, Sir, that in order to achieve this they had to go through quite considerable time and effort and great anguish,! think,to try to arrive at the stage they are now. What should have been theirs, through normal, just, fair concern for their welfare, had to be squeezed out of a reluctant industry through conflict and confrontation. Now, Mr. Chairman, these are not violent people. Our fishermen do not have that kind of tradition. That is not a part of our heritage. Perhaps that has been one of our problems.

It took a great act of desperation I am sure on their part for them to take on their employers in the manner in which they have, to have been forced to do this kind of thing to protect their own interest. Now, Sir, given these circumstances,the fact that the fishermen are forced to operate in that way, the fact that world prices are such,like never before, higher prices than we ever could have dreamed of, given these circumstances the government have two choices.

The government can either sit idly by and let the fishermen engage in bitter confrontation in order to get a fair price for their fish and fair working conditions or the government can show real imagination and dedication.to social and economic change by creating the guide lines so that fishe1rnan can ensure that he is getting a fair pric~ for his fish and ensure that the profits of the fishing industry are kept in rural Newfoundland. 5653 .TM - 8

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 That is not happening today. This in itself,just by virtue of keeping this money in rural Newfoundland~will work wonders in stimulating the economy. The Minister of Finance might very well then have his budget surplus next year. Why are the government so reluctant to tackle this problem? Why have governments been so reluctant to tackle this problem? One might suspect, Sir, that it is because we have a fish-merchant government.

If that be the case,then to do such things aa giving the fishermen their rights to bargain properly would be to incur the displeasure of the real governors of this province if this be the case, the fish merchants and their counterparts in industry and commerce. Now, Sir, a very good barometer for anyone wishing to forecast the movement of future political storms will be the actions of this government in dealing with this matter of the new lepislation,

section

Section 51 will go down in history. The second step in a fisheries policy is that regarding marketing. Now I realize that the phases such as marketing agencies and marketinp, regulations are not too well taken by my friends in certain other political caucuses. JTP.ars;ty it is. l'Rrketinr; ap,encies, good heavens'.. Socialism of the worst order! t'e do not hear very much talk of these. "Denial of the free enterprise system', they say. Well, Sir, as far as I am concerned every freedom has its limitations.

One is free within our society to do as~ne nleasP~ . . as long as it is not infringing upon the rights and privileges of others. That is a freedom with certain limitations. The free enterprise system as we know it gives free license to anyone to p,ougP his neir;hbour 111st as much a9 he pleases, free license. Let the weRker perish if they will! Well of course> that· f!=I whnt ha.'l h;q1penP1l all down throuRh the yi:ars. Our fishinp., fndustry,which was once our national pride,has perished because those enP,aged therein simply gouP,ed each other 5ti54 JM - 9

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 to death, all in the name of good,healthy competition I might add. Let me just for a moment, Sir, relate a major episode in our more recent history: Back in 1968,the fishery was still floundering along through the middle ages, the salt fish industry got into trouble. There was no programme governing the marketing of fish. There was no programme governing the relationship of fishermen with fish buyers. The practices were nineteenth century to sny the least.

For some reason,in that year, 1968, probably because of their haste and their greed to get as much fish as they could lay their hands on,fish merchants wound up with a great deal of very poor quality fish, rotten fish in facr pink fish. Now traditionally it has been the practice to dump this kind of fish,as it was not the first time it happened, on the world markets for whatever the markets could stand. "The devil take the hindermost, let her go!" The results of that practice were apparent to everyone except the fish merchants. We developed a reputation for poor quality fish. We really did.

We had a reputation in the world markets for having an inferior grade of fish and the industry that was our pride and job became secondary to Norway and Spain and the rest because they had better quality controls. Their government agencies and their union agencies and their merchants agencies, whatever they were called, did not allow poor quality fish to be dumped on the world markets. It did get through. Some got through of course but generally speaking this was the policy,but not so in Newfoundland.

So in 1968, along with this not so extraordinary JM - 10 situation came along another quite extraordinary situation, devaluation of the dollar, devaluation of foreign currency. Our merchants stood to lose cuite a few millions. So the result was that after prevailing upon the provincial and the federal governments to bail them out.the governments Lame up with a plan to ensure that our world markets did not become a dumping p,round for cheap, rotting 5tL55

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 Newfoundland fish. the federal government •~reed to buy 4· the entire catch,$2.2 million worth.I think .somethin~ roughly in thosf' figures • Now the understanding to the companies from the federal government was that the prices to fishermen paid out of this $2.2 million would decline only in relationship to the normal decline because of the devaluation of the dollar - a r,entleman 's agreement between the fish merchants and the federal goverrunent who were providing the money. So what happens?

The decline in salt fish prices that year was between $2.00 to $3.00 per draft but when squaring up time came as usual~where do you think the poor fishermen ~ot it? The same place he always got it come squaring up time. Instead of living up to their bargin with the federal government in Ottawa,these gentlemen of the fishing industry made up their losses by gougin~ the fishermen a wholesome $5.00 to $8.00 per draft and not the $2.00 to $3.00 that should have been normally expected, Not a bad little profit that.

A criminal act of exploitation, Sir, that could not have happened anywhere else but in this very province. It is not an isolated case. It ~as simply an example of the kind of thing that the government have been letting happen all along. Now as a direct result of that fiasco, the federal government were quite embarrassed by this whole episode, they decided to set up the unholy marketing agency. We got the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation and I might say, Sir, that it has done an exemplary job of protecting and indeed improving our salt fish markets. They are doing very, very well. So now what do we find?

Now we hear little rumors and rumblings that the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation may be phased out. I do not know how true ~his is but it is being circulated. Now why do you suppose this is? Well, it is because of course there is a powerful lobby in Ottawa of the fresh fish entrepreneurs who are hunr,ry for the fish which the Salt Fish Corporation are having 5ti5ti J'H - 11 ' I I

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 to put into their markffs. This must not be allowed to happen, Sir. The Canadian Salt Fish Corporation must be protected. If this should happen,it would be a dark, dark day for this province. It would be a backward step of the worst kind. So there is a very, very good market, a very lucrative market for good quality salt fish and the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation have been crying to get more fishermen to put their fish into salt production.

So what we see is a total lack of co-ordination or integration between these two segments of the fishing industry, the salt and the fre~h fish segments of the industry,with the result that we are getting good fish into frozen production that should be going into salt production. The return is much higher. This is what the Norwegians and the Icelanders do incidentally but then it really is not very fair to compare us with Norwegians or Icelanders because they are far, far, far more progressive than wear~ and it is not really fair to utter both in the same breath.

It is interesting to note, Sir, that back in 1968 when the world markets were suffering because of devaluation of the dollar that these two countries, Norway and Iceland,were able to withstand the impact of the decline in frozen fish prices because they did have the agency set up to deal with it. In fact, to add insult to injury,they blamed the Canadians for the decline in the market because as it stands we may say that the Newfoundland merchants were gouging the fishennen and that is an undeniable fact.

The fishennen were at the mercy of the merchants because they were unprotected, they had no union, they had nobody with enough strength to fight for their own interests. But likewise the Newfoundland merchants in the worid markets were in just as precarious position. They did not work together. They did not co-operate. There was cutthroat competition and when they got out into the large brokeragr areas they were as much at sea, so to speak, 5657 JM - 12

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 as the fishermen back·'fmme. This is where Norway and Iceland had it all over us. So what happened was that while our own fish merchants were here dickering and indulging in their favourite pastime of cutthroat competition,the brokers in the U.S. played the small processers off against one another,to the advantage of the'brokers of course. A proper marketing policy~such as Iceland and Norway, would have provided stability in such a situation. They have not done as we have done here, put all our eggs in one basket.

There is another example, the herring industry: The exploitation that occurred on the Southwest Coast of Newfoundland in the mid 1960's, another fine example of the barreness of Newfoundland's politicans in the field of fisheries policy. One company on the Southwest Coast, Sir, during the time back in the 1960's,proceased close to one hundred thousand tons of herring and moat of it incidentally going into animal food. They paid their workers an average of $1.25 an hour and paid the fishermen $18.00 a ton for herring.

This, Sir, was about one-quarter of what the fishermen got in other countries and other areas of Canada,noDrithstanding the fact that they were all selling into the same market. Completely and totally elogical - the profits were exorbitant. Fortunately we no longer put our herring,to the same extent 1 into fish meal but then,of course,the herring fishery on the Southwest Coast is practically gone, raped, nothinr, left and so are the profits of the fishermen and the workers.

The profits of the fishermen and the workers in this particular industry incidentally were not being kept in rural Newfoundland but they were going to companies from outside this province. Today, Sir, on .the Co~st of Labrador and in Northern Newfoundland 1 there is a real possibility for develop5.ng a herring fishery that can compensate in part for the decline of the cod fishery. There is 5ti5b JM - 13

April 19, 1973 Tape 1277 no indication whatsoev~ that this government has a policy to ensure that the development of that fishery will be in the best interest of the people of those areas. JM - 14 5659

April 19 - 1973 Tape 1278 There are at the present time on t"he Coast of I.abrader and on the Northern Peninsula merchants who are much the same kind of operators as the s·alt fish operators. We are back in 1968 and subject to the same conditions. They lack the necessary capital and the necessary marketing expertise to do the job properly. They are trying but they do not have it. They are not up there and they do not have the money, they do not have the experience, they do not have the wherewithal to get out and do the job properly. AN HON. MEMBER: Leadership - HR. MARTIN: A large part of it is leadership.

But yet they are the ones that we send out to exploit this industry, regardless, let them go, nineteenth cent9ry~ Last year one of these companies, operating in Quebec, Labrador,went bankrupt. They went bankrupt notwithstanding the fact that the price of herring was better than ever before. Part of the problem again was quality, no quality control. Well the Government of Quebec has now given the marketing of the herring on the Quebec side to the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation. Will the Government of Newfoundland do the same?

Is the government of this province prepared to pass over to the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation the jurisdiction for marketing herring amongst other species? Their indications are very, very P,loomy, Sir. It appears to me from the evidence of the past year that the Conservative Administration is less than likely to do the right thing with regard to the Salt Fish Corporation at least. I say this because of the exper_ience the people of Nain had with their char fishery last year. I sincerely hope that this is not an indication of government policy.

I prefer to believe that it was a mistake, maybe a mistake of the heart perhars. Last year was a backward step for Nain,I am afraid. When the Liberals were in power they did at least allow the Canadian Salt Fish Corporatiot: to market the char that came out of the Nain plant. The char, if I may 5660 JM - 1

April 19, 1973 Tape 1278 rP.mind the r.ommittee. Mr. Chairman, 4s I said before,is a very high quality product which has a very lucrative market. They were doing a very, very . good job in Nain of producing a hi~h quality product and the problem then became one of marketing. Well the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation did try to do some marketinp, on that and they got a very, very good price. Now what do you think, Sir, the Conservative Government did last year?

They took the produce from the Nain plant and instead of letting the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation market it,even for the same price but I am sure they would have gotten a better price,they took and they gave the whole consignment to a chap named Mr. Cohen from Montreal. I sincerely trust that Mr. Cohen made a good profit, a small agent from Montreal. I wonder, who is Mr. Cohen? One of the main planks of the conservative platform,if I recall.in 1971 and 1972 was a rural development policy based on Scandinavian-like planninp,.

Sir, the callous and cavalier way in which the ~overnment dealt with the Salt Fish Corporation and reverted back to the old fish merchant politics seems one of the most discouragin~ thin~s I think that this administration has dqne. I sincerely hope, Sir, that it was a mistake of the heart. A.~ HON. MEMBER: Ownership of that plant by the way should have been put in the hands of the people. MR. MARTI~: That was a stated government policy but it was the indication that eventually when that plant got to the point where the people employed therein could manage it themselves that it would be passed over to them.

AN HON. MEf-'BrR: They would. become the owners. MR. MARTIN: They would then become the owners. It would be interesting to· see what this r,overnment plans to do about that p~rticular situntion. Now quite obviously the herring on the Labrador Coast and alonp, the Northern Peninsula could he 5661 J~ -

A,>ril 19, 1973 Tape 1278 treated in the same way as the salt cod fish. We could learn,if we choose to, from our past mistakes and structure this new industry along twentieth century lines instead of allowing it to struggle along through the middle ages. The third point of a fisheries policy: Sir, it is my understanding that every company which has a loan from the government must place a member on their board of directors, a director appointed by the govermnent. That was the case and I assume it is still the case. Now I would like to know what