April 1, 1998 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIII No. 9

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings, the Chair would like to

recognize today twenty students and staff from the Wolsingham School in Northern England.

They are accompanied by John Maddison, Vice-Principal, and they are here in St. John's as

part of a Travel and Tourism Program of the United Kingdom.

Also attending with them are seventeen students from the Tourism and

Training Institute in St. John's, accompanied by their teacher Hilda Pollard-Milly. Also

accompanying the group is Tracy Puddester from Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, we have in the gallery today thirty-two Grade

X students from Gonzaga High School in the District of St. John's East, accompanied by

their teacher, Mr. Tom McGrath.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I have today written all federal cabinet

ministers and all the Members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada and Quebec to impress

upon them the importance of a TAGS replacement program and the urgency of an appropriate

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Again.

MR. TULK: Again.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the Member for Bonavista South made

the quip just now: `Why don't you go do it?' I wish we could, Mr. Speaker, and I tell him

that we will keep after the federal government until they exercise their responsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

informed this House on March 23, the Province intends to remain cooperative in providing

advice on the appropriate structure for a replacement program, but we must impress upon

the federal government its responsibility for the resolution of the crisis created in

Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed in Atlantic Canada as a whole, as the result of the

groundfish collapse.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, families and communities in Newfoundland and

Labrador are in crisis. Independent, objective reviews of the impacts of the groundfish

closures, including the Harrigan Report and the Commons Standing Committee Report, have

clearly demonstrated and documented the enormous impacts on rural areas of the Province in

particular. Out-migration and erosion of the tax base is threatening the survival of many

of our rural communities.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of HRD has recently

completed its own in-house study which shows that indeed there is a substantive response

required from the federal government as well.

Clearly, the post-TAGS challenge is a federal responsibility. It is

equally clear, as documented by Harrigan and the Standing Committee in The House of

Commons, that the post-TAGS problem is of extraordinary dimension that cannot be

adequately addressed through normal programming.

TAGS is also critically important to the provincial economy as a whole

- not just to those people directly affected by the moratorium . In relative terms the

lost employment is equivalent to the loss: in Nova Scotia of an industry nearly double the

size of the defence industry; in Ontario of an industry twice the size of the automobile

industry; in Alberta of the entire oil and gas industry; or in British Columbia of the

entire forest industry.

Mr. Speaker, A new multi-faceted program is needed to address the

post-TAGS challenge. The old program did not work and this in not the fault of the

individuals or communities affected. The Province will continue to press the federal

government to discharge its responsibility and will be a strong advocate on behalf of

those affected by the moratorium.

Mr. Speaker, this is a national problem impacting all of Atlantic

Canada - not just a Newfoundland and Labrador issue. People are becoming very anxious as

the termination of TAGS gets nearer and as more and more people exhaust their benefits. It

is our view that the federal government needs to act sooner rather than later in

finalizing and announcing a post-TAGS initiative. It is not in the interest of anyone to

wait until the expiry of the existing program in August before details on a new program

are revealed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know why the Government House leader is trying to outclass the

Member for Twillingate & Fogo, because this is exactly the private member's resolution

that he has brought forward, I say to the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the TAGS recipients in Newfoundland

and Labrador are sick and tired of having to go out and tell their story; they are sick

and tired of being studied; they are sick and tired of the minister standing up here and

saying: We are going to write a letter to Mr. Harrigan, or we are going to write a letter

to Mr. Peddigrew.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I plead with the minister, Mr. Speaker: Do

something to help those thousands of people out there. When you are going to formulate a

program, do not only allow the FFAW and the UFCW, and some government bureaucrats; include

the people themselves. Those are the people who know, I say to the Government House

Leader.

Mr. Speaker, those people, those thousands of Newfoundlanders, first

were told by the Premier of the day that their income would be safe until May, 1999. Then

it was rolled back, because instead of 27,000 people being eligible for the program there

were 40,000. So, because the federal government made a mistake, they came forward and

said: Now we are going to take a year's pay away from you. You will not be good until May

of 1999; you will be good until May of 1998. Now it is August of 1998.

People need to know. This program has now been in effect since 1992.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: The scientists whom you depend upon for your advice

have told you many times that the fishery will not come back to the stage whereby those

people will be allowed to go fishing again.

We are down to the wire, and I say to the minister: Get on with it, and

allow those people to live with some kind of a life so that they can support their

families.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi

have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You cannot emphasize too much, or no one in this House can emphasize

too much, the urgent and critical need for the fishers and the plant workers, and those

who depend upon the fishery in this Province, to have a replacement program for TAGS. It

is almost already too late to stop the insecurity that occurs in families throughout this

Province over the replacement of TAGS; and not only the replacement of TAGS, but those

workers who are being lost off the TAGS program every single month.

Mr. Speaker, the idea of writing a letter to Members of Parliament and

Senators and other people - no harm done. Will it do any good? I do not know.

The representatives of fishery organizations across the Atlantic are in

Ottawa today: The Fishermen's Union, Earle McCurdy, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, the

Eastern Fishermen's Federation, the CAW and the Alliance Despcheurs Proffessionnels de

Quebec, are all in Ottawa today to press the case. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it needs, in

addition to letter writing of the minister, in addition to what will be, I presume, a

unanimous vote of this House this afternoon, a delegation from this House to go to Ottawa

to further press the case -

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

MR. HARRIS: - to ensure that everyone in Ottawa knows that this is

an issue of national importance, and that we require the government to take its

responsibility seriously to the people of this Province.

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

Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the people of the Province that the recent

outbreak of salmonella food poisoning has been traced to contaminated cheese in Schneider

Lunchmate products. This confirms the suspicions of the public health officials in this

Province as outlined in the notice to the public we distributed on March 27, 1998. As a

result, J. M. Schneider Inc. of Kitchener, Ontario, announced yesterday a recall of four

of their lunch products. The organization is advising customers not to eat some of their

snack products due to possible Salmonella contamination of a cheese ingredient. I would

also like to remind consumers, at this time, that products with an expired "Best

Before" date should not be consumed.

The recall list includes Schneider: Lunchmate Chicken Soft Taco;

Lunchmate Beef Taco; Lunchmate Two Cheese Pizza and Lunchmate Big Combo Beef Taco.

Any of these products with a "Best Before" date between April

1 and May 17, 1998 should not be eaten. Mr. Speaker, this is of particular concern to us,

as many children consume these items for their lunches in schools.

Recent cases of Salmonella infection have been identified in all

provinces across the country. During March there have been twenty-seven cases of

Salmonella infection identified throughout this Province. Symptoms of Salmonella infection

are flu-like including a sudden onset of diarrhoea, abdominal pain, fever, headache and

sometimes vomiting. Sickness may set in from six to seventy-two hours after consuming a

contaminated food. Salmonella is the most common cause of "food poisoning" and

can cause very serious illnesses. Food contaminated with this bacterium does not look,

smell or taste spoiled. Consumers experiencing symptoms should contact their doctor. As

well, Mr. Speaker, we encourage the good practice of hand-washing.

J. M. Schneider Inc. has given notice that these products listed should

be returned to the place of purchase for a full refund. A consumer information line has

been set up by that company to respond to concerns about the recall with a 1-800 number.

The number is 1-800-221-2985.

We expect that cases may continue to surface in the Province over the

next few days in people who have already consumed contaminated products. We want to ensure

that health inspectors will be monitoring retail outlets in the Province today to ensure

that all remaining recall products are taken off the shelf.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to provide updated information to the

public as soon as it becomes available.

I want to offer my congratulations to the staff at the public health

laboratory here in St. John's, as well as members of the Department of Health, for their

quick action on this particular issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, I, too, have great confidence in the medical

ability of the people employed there, and I am delighted they have found it fairly

quickly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I hope the minister does not take that as an

endorsement of my confidence in her. Especially, I say to the minister, too, for the

benefit of those people who may, over the next few days, become sick and so on, the

Department of Health and Community Services will pursue every avenue to ensure that it

gets out to the public and that proper communication is there, and is continued. Because,

along with, as was referred to, people who have already been infected, there are other

people who may have eaten a product and, over the next while, may become infected with it.

We would certainly hope that the department will ensure there are very

strong communications out there to the public so that we can deal with this problem as

expeditiously as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, the recent Budget by government, by their own admission, was

predicated on the assumption that a post-TAGS era would include some sort of post-TAGS

program. I would like to ask the Premier today: What proposals have been made to the

federal government by his government with respect to the post-TAGS era, and what can we,

and the people of the Province and those affected, look forward to after the TAGS program

has ended?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could just -

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

MR. TULK: If I could just inform the hon. gentleman. It is a very

important question, just what kind of proposal we put forward.

First of all, we set out, as we have told hon. members in this House

before, to establish that indeed it was the responsibility of the federal government, and

to try to make sure the federal government is aware, and that we believe it is their

responsibility to put in place a program, that they are responsible for the mismanagement.

Successive federal governments across this century have been responsible for the

mismanagement of that resource. The second thing we tried to make them aware of was that

regular programming will not take care of this situation, that it is a crisis that demands

extraordinary means.

We have also put forward to them that there are several components of a

program. Income support is necessary for many people who were formerly involved in the

fishing industry, in fish harvesting and fish processing. The other thing, if I could just

outline it, is that we have told them it will be necessary for them to enter into

negotiations on a new retirement program. We have also said to them that it is necessary

for them to enter into licence buy-backs, and to enter into looking at an option such as

an economic diversification program, so that we can expand the economy of our communities.

We have been told that half the people in the fishing industry need to come out of the

fishing industry, particularly in the harvesting sector and so on.

So, those are the kinds of proposals and discussions that we have been

having, both at an official level and a government level, with the federal government.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to make it clear that the questions I am asking with respect to

this program today are not done from a partisanship point of view, because of the

importance of this to all of us in the Province, especially those who are impacted. It is

critical. If anything is required today it is that this Legislature, all of us together,

act in unison to strengthen the hand of government to make sure that any program

whatsoever that is coming is done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I think it is important, as well, to find out what

has been done to date. We are getting mixed messages. I know the minister is getting mixed

messages. We have heard one thing from the federal minister, Peddigrew and we have heard

another thing from our own provincial minister. Certainly The Globe and Mail has

not helped, and the Premier has done his

part in putting them in their place.

The minister talked about economic diversification. Could he elaborate

on what he means in terms of economic diversification? Will it involve community driven

groups, will it involve those people who are impacted by the program, will it involve the

economic zones, or will it involve all of the above?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I will not give the short answer because the

hon. gentleman, I suspect, is sincere, and I agree with him that we have to be unanimous

in our efforts here in this House to ensure that indeed the people of Newfoundland are

represented and represented well. That is a non-partisan effort, and I would hope that

today's debate, while it will focus the attention on this issue, will be a non-partisan

debate and will be very, very factual. I believe and hope that that will be the case.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of what we have said in terms of economic

diversification, there are many areas in this Province, and there are many ideas that are

being put forward by a group of people who serve on the Regional Economic Development

Boards in the Province that can create numerous opportunities for employment. Let me just

give you some of the new ideas that have come up. There are new ideas coming forward every

day in aquaculture, in which many of our people who were formerly involved in the fishing

industry would be very interested, and it would be very appropriate for them to take

part

in.

There is a possibility of developing in this Province a dimension stone

industry. There is a possibility of developing a peat industry in this Province. Those

ideas are not mine. They are ideas that are coming forward from some eighteen meetings and

the twenty Regional Economic Development Boards that exist around the Province, and I

could go on. There is a list which I would be glad to supply to hon. members and the hon.

gentleman. As a matter of fact, I would be only too happy to supply to him the priorities

that those people have put forward, the 100 priorities that they gave us that they want to

act on immediately this year.

So in terms of economic diversification I say that there is quite -I

would not make fun, if I were the hon. gentleman, at Sam's Butcher Shop in Goose Bay. Let

me say to him that that is a very good project that was undertaken by a gentleman in Goose

Bay. He has done very, very well, and thanks to his minister up there, he finally got some

caribou to put through that place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: So do not belittle those kinds of things because he will

create four, five or six jobs and that is the type of industry that we have developed in

places like Baie Verte and in places like Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get back to the serious question of what his

leader asked: How are we hoping to involve the people in this Province in those kinds of

diversification programs? Obviously, the mechanism is in place. It was put in place over a

number of years by a group of people called the Regional Economic Development Boards,

which, by the way - let me just tell the hon. gentleman some of the things that are

happening.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities on Saturday

- I spoke to both them and a group of REDBs from around the Province to see how they can

come together to create economic opportunities in the rural areas of this Province. I want

to say to him that ours is a community base, yes. We want to go out and through those

REDBs get people's ideas and let those ideas flow from people. I say to him, there is room

for all kinds of economic diversification in this Province as a result of that process.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously people directly, who are

impacted by the loss of the TAGS program and the question mark that surrounds what the

future may hold, are very concerned. As the minister knows, government knows and the

Premier knows, people have been dropped from the program - people who were on maternity

leave or people who were on workers' compensation. Those people who have been dropped, for

a variety of reasons, have they been included in terms of the proposals to the federal

government in what a post-TAGS Newfoundland and Labrador would like, those people who have

been specifically dropped?

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

MR. TULK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to the hon. gentleman, I

am impressed, and all of us are, by the feelings, and the insecurities that are being felt

by a number of people in this Province.

For example, last week I met with a group - I believe it was from the

Member for Bonavista South's district - and I have to say that if you go to those meetings

you cannot help but feel for the plight of those people - people who have been employed in

a year round plant in Catalina, who had fished all year round, who had been in a

processing plant all year round because Catalina was a deep sea plant. You cannot help but

feel for the lowering of income that they got on TAGS, and now the fact that they are

coming off TAGS, that is even worse. The steps gradually get worse. So you cannot help but

feel for those people and the truth of the matter is that we have made their plight known

to the federal government and we would hope that if all those people do not come back on

TAGS - and as Mr. Harrigan said, I think we should keep this in mind: that there is no way

that one size fits all. I think we have to look at the cases that are there and through a

process hopefully of economic diversification, help our people.

I want to make one other point, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Harrigan made -

and I know we are almost getting into a speech here - but one other point that Mr.

Harrigan made was this: that the Newfoundland people want to work. That was, I think,

probably one of the most important points he could have made.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is no secret.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: It is no secret to me. I say to the hon. gentleman that

for many people in Central Canada it may have been a secret but it is no secret to me. It

is no secret for anyone, and Mr. Harrigan made that point. We would hope, that through a

program that the federal government puts in place to help us pick ourselves up and get us

on our feet, active measures, that we can somehow take care of the needs of all the people

who have been affected by this economic crisis.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Just a couple of more questions. Mr. Speaker, I asked

initially what proposals have been made and the minister responsible elaborated on the

characteristics or the features of what a post-TAGS program should look like.

Let me ask the minister this: In making those proposals to the federal

government, has the Province put any price tag on such a program? For example, are we

talking about a program over a four-or-five-year period of $1.9 billion like the old TAGS

program? Has the government, in making representations to the federal government, put a

price tag on a post-TAGS program that they would like to see?

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, just let me say to the hon. gentleman that

we feel it is incumbent upon us to put forward the problem. We feel it is incumbent upon

us to put forward the components of the program.

I want to say to him that I think it would be kind of silly for us,

actually, to put a price tag on it. I do not know how you can put a price tag on what is

happening in this Province. I do not think you can. I think what you have to say is: Here

is what is necessary, federal government, and we are going to hold you responsible for it.

And whatever it takes, if you come forward with a price - not a price, if you come forward

with enough funds to take care of the needs of the people of this Province as a result of

the mismanagement of both PC and Liberal governments in Ottawa, then that will satisfy us.

But if you do not take up those components of the program and come forward, then we will

be the first people to tell you.

I say to the hon. gentleman, there are all kinds of rumours floating

around, but let me just say to him that there is not a definite price to put on it. We

want a solution to the problem, not a price tag.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister is right, there are all sorts of rumours

floating around about what the cost of a program is, what is available from the federal

government. I do not think it is really incumbent on any of us to talk about rumours of

what it might look like. I do not think it will help the cause in the long run. But I

think it is important to talk about what the features of it would be.

You said in your statement yourself that the old program did not work,

and it was not the fault of people in the Province, or especially those who were impacted

by it. In a post-TAGS program, in terms of the administration of that program, what

proposals have been made to the federal government that would make a new program work? Are

we looking at a program jointly administered by, say, your department and the federal

Department of Human Resources Development? Or are we looking at a program that would be

administered like the old NCARP for the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans? Or,

thirdly, are we looking at a program where the federal government acknowledges its

responsibility in terms of the funds required, necessary, and in turn then turning that

over to the Province so the Province would be able to administer it 100 per cent? Could

the Premier or the minister elaborate on that feature of a post-TAGS program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister has given a very good

description of the range of measures that we would look for in a post-TAGS program. I

would hope that the Leader of the Opposition, and all members of the House could agree

that the kind of range talked about by the minister represents what we think would be a

fairly complete response necessary to deal with the post-TAGS program. Indeed, we would

say very strongly to the federal government that to respond to some of these measures but

not all of these measures would, in our mind, be a great mistake. We need to deal with

capacity, and capacity reduction, but also a variety of measures to assist those who have

been affected in the broader economy.

I want to make something very clear that I hope all members would agree

with, and that is this: The legal, the constitutional, the moral responsibility now to

those who have been displaced from the fishery lies solely, legally, morally, politically,

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we have seen in recent days some people

making the case - indeed, The Globe and Mail , my favourite newspaper, which is

against Hibernia, against TAGS, against the seal hunt, against Churchill Falls; I mean,

they want to send us all a one-way bus ticket to Mississauga. But, Mr. Speaker, we have

seen the case made: If a mine closes, nobody provides assistance for the miners. This is

the great logic at work that says that somehow we are wrong to seek or to expect some

assistance for the collapse of the fishery.

A mine is a non-renewable resource, a mine is 100 per cent provincial

jurisdiction. The fishery is a renewable resource, it is sustainable, and it is

practically the only natural resource which in Canada's Constitution is 100 per cent the

jurisdiction of the national government. So I am confident that the Leader of the

Opposition, and I say this sincerely, will join me in saying it is not the role of the

provincial government to take up the financial obligation of providing the assistance

which is so clearly required to those who have been displaced. This is not a burden for

the taxpayers of this Province, this is an obligation and a responsibility for Ottawa.

One more word and I will finish. The last time out when we faced this

in the way of surplus in the UI account. Today, four years later, there is no deficit,

there is a massive surplus in the EI account and if we could afford to act with compassion

and responsibility in 1993 with Canada having a $42-billion deficit, by God, we can afford

it today when we have a surplus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier is right. I mean, the changes in the UI

fund which have led to massive surpluses occurred when you were in the federal government,

Premier, that shortened the time frame in terms of ability to draw, and heightened the

number of weeks required so that you could draw; I understand that, and the surpluses are

astronomical in terms of the history of that fund. Clearly, there is money, the federal

government has money. If it chooses to act, then it must act unilaterally and it must act

in the interest of the country and particularly in the interest of those people who are

impacted. I agree with him.

Just one more set of questions. We have talked about licence buy-out,

we have talked about income replacement. Let us talk about, for example, early retirement.

As part of a program, has the Province put forward in terms of a

feature - and you may or you may not have, that is why I am asking the question - that in

terms of early retirement, would we see the age drop from fifty-five to fifty? Would that

be a feature that the Province would like to see or, is it too early to tell yet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, with respect to that particular

question, I would have to say to the hon. member, it is too early to tell. But I can tell

you that the last go 'round - this was an option when I had a different hat and a

different job in another place - that I put on the table, which was at that time, taken up

not so much by Newfoundlanders; because we have to remember, while we are the largest

jurisdiction impacted by the collapse of the fishery, and therefore, the largest

jurisdiction taking up the range of measures included in the old Atlantic Groundfish

Strategy, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and I would suggest, in any

future series of programs, British Columbia would be a player. So the notion that this is

a Newfoundland and Labrador problem, is not true. That is the other great `lie', if I may

use that word, Mr. Speaker, I do not direct it at any one individual or any one

institution but that is the other great `myth' out there, that this is a Newfoundland and

Labrador problem.

Mr. Speaker, our distinction simply happens to be that we are the

jurisdiction most impacted. We would be quite happy not to have that distinction but we

have it; but this is a Canadian problem that impacts Canadians more in Newfoundland than

it impacts Canadians anywhere else, and the notion put about in The Globe and Mail

that this is a Newfoundland and Labrador problem is false. It is a problem for Canada, for

Canada's Government; it affects Canadians and most of those affected live here. But yes,

early retirement is a must in my judgement and we would be open to discussing fifty or

fifty-five, but of course, that will depend upon the discussions amongst all of the

governments affected because it takes the participation with respect to that particular

program of provincial governments under the early retirement measures.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: One last question with respect to a post-TAGS era or

program that I will put forward to government today because there are other members who

would like to certainly have questions for government in other matters.

We all know that a feature of the old program involved training or

retraining. We have all heard the horror stories associated with retraining and training.

I would like to ask the Premier or the minister: If there is a component of retraining or

training in the new TAGS or the new program or the post-era program, will it involve

provincial control 100 per cent, because I think that is necessary; and secondly, will it

involve in some meaningful way the training of individuals for jobs that are there, not

for jobs that are not there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to hear the

representation of the Leader of the Opposition that he has just made - I am saying this

seriously - with respect to the question of training.

The Leader of the Opposition has offered the view and the opinion that

any training component should be 100 per cent, if I have heard him right, under the

jurisdiction of the Province. Is that what I heard?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, and there is an argument to be made there; and

the argument, I think, would probably flow along the lines that the last time it was

administered by the Department of Human Resources Development, Ottawa, and there were

many, many problems - some successes, we would all acknowledge, but many, many problems.

Therefore, how could those, arguably, closer to the scene, those of us here in the

Province, play a greater role?

I would say today to the Leader of the Opposition, we would be quite

open to hearing any suggestions or ideas in that regard, but I would not be prepared to

commit today, that the Province would take over the responsibility for co-ordinating,

orchestrating, designing and delivering training because there would be, obviously, a very

substantial cost associated with that. But this is something, certainly, that I think we

should discuss and we should explore.

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for The Minister of Environment and Labour. Mr.

Speaker, on October of 1997, I wrote a letter to The Minister of Environment and Labour,

as well as to The Minister of Health with regard to the smoke stack at the Grace Hospital

and the soot/ash problems, as a result of burning Bunker C fuel.

In February of this year, Mr. Speaker, The Minister of Environment

responded to my letter advising that the most prominent soot/ash problems occur just after

the Bunker C burners are repaired and reinstalled.

When in normal operating mode, he said, there are very little, if any

problems with emissions at the facility. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he could

explain to us, then, the reason that the residents are experiencing problems on a regular

weekly basis. With soot/ash-covered cars, linen soiled while hung on the line, filthy

windows, patios, sidings on their homes, not to mention the fact that parents are

complaining that when wiping the noses of their children, the tissues are covered with

soot.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot answer that particular question today, but what I will do for

the member is go back to the officials in the department, the people who monitor the

conditions at that particular stack and others, to see if they have the details there to

answer that question, and if not, to investigate into monitoring to see what is the

problem.

I act on the advice that they give to me, and when I write back,

obviously, the minister did not go down to inspect the stack, it was on the advice that

was given to him. So what I give to you is what has been given to me, and I have to trust

their judgement in that. But I will go back and be vigilant and see what the answer to

that question would be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I attended a meeting last night in my

district and many of the people who attended that meeting, say that they have been in

contact with the Department of Health and Environment, on a regular basis complaining

about this now for the last three, four or five years.

In the center of a residential area, in an effort to save money, the

government has resorted to burning Bunker C fuel, a dirty fuel that emits dirty emissions,

at the risk to people's health, not to mention property damage. I ask the minister if he

could tell us if he feels that these savings are worth it when the government has put

people's health at risk.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot answer the question that the member just posed. I do not know

if they have changed over the last two, three, or four years, since the Liberal

Administration have taken over, or if that was the Bunker C that was there for the

seventeen years that the former Administration was there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR LANGDON: I would have to go back, Mr. Speaker, to check and see.

But I am sure it is not the directive from the Minister of Health to the St. John's Health

Care Corporation to buy Bunker C, so that we could pollute and endanger the lives and

safety of people who live around the Grace Hospital.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Alright, Mr. Speaker, I ask if the minister can

perhaps answer this question. Will the minister tell the House that the government will

take responsibility for their actions and reimburse residents for damage to their

property, and furthermore, for potential liability for health problems that people may

face as a result of the government burning Bunker C fuel?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.

MR LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, we will not do that. As I said to you

earlier, I will go back to the people in the department and see what the practice has been

over the years. But I am sure that as a custodian of workplace safety and the health of

the people in the workplace and people in that surrounding, we will do everything that we

can, within our jurisdiction and power, to ensure that the people in the area do have good

quality air. If there are any problems there, we will monitor, and if there is anything we

can do to correct them in co-operation with the Health Sciences, with the board, then we

will do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Education, and it concerns some of

the 11,000 students who are attending private colleges in this Province. The ninety

paralegal students who lost their school yesterday are victims of the government's policy.

I want to ask the minister first off two questions: Will the minister

compensate these students who lost their school yesterday by refunding their tuition,

which is what happened to the fourteen students who complained in December about the

quality of instruction, the availability of equipment, and the quality of the courses they

were taking at that institution? Will the minister compensate those students by refunding

their tuition? They cannot get it now from the institution.

Can the minister also say what assurance he can give to the 11,000

students across the Province, in some of the sixty-plus other private institutions, that

their programs are not susceptible to the same kind of economic problems as were

experienced by the paralegal institute?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the question again. Before I answer, however, maybe you

would like to seek to put the answer in context, because I know the hon. member will

follow up with a supplementary.

As I understand it, and the hon. member can correct me if I am wrong,

these two questions are asked in a context - and I am going to answer the two specific

questions - from the leader of a party whose policy position is that there should be no

private training institutions in Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like that clarified.

If that is the case, or if it is not the case, he can let me know, and then I will answer

the specific questions.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just add another question to the two that I just asked. I know

this is Question Period and not answer period.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The minister knows my position on this, because he has

heard me on open line saying that not all the courses in all the colleges are bad.

Given the fact that since this issue was first raised in this House

there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of complaints about private colleges in this

Province brought to the attention of his officials in the public forum and elsewhere, will

the minister not agree that a time has come for there to be a full-scale inquiry into the

role of private colleges in providing post-secondary education in this Province, and the

role of his department in monitoring and controlling that situation?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do understand from comments I have heard made publicly by the hon.

member, who is the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that the view of that party is that

every post-secondary training option in existence in this Province should be somehow

subsidized by the public purse, and that there should not be private training institutions

in this Province. That is what I have understood and, again, in asking the next question

he might clarify that as being true or not.

I say that because there have been other questions asked by others in

the House, old `coppertop' himself, in a party that suggests that they do support private

training but are opposed to one or two institutions. That is different.

The issue is this: Would there be compensation for the students

involved in this unfortunate closure of an institution yesterday? The answer is no.

Because as was suggested yesterday, the work of the Department of Education in being

vigilant and being concerned for these students, and the students only, is that every one

of them is being offered an opportunity to continue with the full training for which they

signed up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if that is the circumstance, if a student

- in this instance it happens to be training as a paralegal - has contracted with a

private training institution to do a paralegal course, and albeit their study is

interrupted for two or three days this week, they are being told that by Monday of next

week the expectation is that they will continue on and fully complete the training for

which they have paid money, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: That has been the role of the government. Why would we

or anybody else - or why would members opposite, Mr. Speaker, might be the real question -

be suggesting to these students that they should go out and try to get their money back?

They are going to get the training that they volunteered for, that they sought out, Mr.

Speaker. They sought out this course. No one went to them and said: You should go to

become a paralegal. You must train to be a paralegal.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

This was a personal choice decision by students made after they

investigated the options, and they are going to get every bit of training that they

bargaining for and purchased. It will be delivered to them, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, I guess we will go -

The hon. the Member for Fogo & Twillingate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. G. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope they clap that loud when I am finished.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to start debate on a resolution that I hope

all Members of the House of Assembly will support, as it is a non-partisan resolution, one

that affects all members of the House because it represents the people in all your

districts.

The resolution reads:

WHEREAS the recovery of the fishery is slower than expected and foreign

quota reallocations are not the solution; and

WHEREAS families and communities in Newfoundland and Labrador are in

crisis and independent, objective reviews of the impact of the groundfish closures,

including the Harrigan Report and the Baker Report, clearly appreciate the enormous impact

on rural areas in our Province; and

WHEREAS a continuation of TAGS, in its current form, is not a solution,

and regular programming is unable to address the problem;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the

federal government to accept its responsibility and put in place a well-structured and

substantive response program to replace TAGS which includes: income replacement, economic

diversification, employment adjustment, training linked to job opportunities, early

retirement options for older workers, and a licence buy-back program.

Mr. Speaker, to understand why I am standing here today, you really

need to let me digress and tell you how we got here. Having worked as the Executive

Assistant to the provincial Minister of Fisheries from 1989 until 1996, I can speak with

some knowledge as to what has brought us here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. G. REID: On July 2, 1992, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity,

whether it be fortunate or unfortunate, to attend a meeting with the then provincial

Fisheries Minister, Walter Carter, at the Cabot Building in downtown St. John's, where we

met with John Crosbie who, at the time, was the federal Minister of Fisheries. This

happened at around two o'clock in the afternoon, and at three o'clock, Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Crosbie attended a meeting and went on the air in this Province and announced a two-year

moratorium on the Northern cod stocks in this Province. Shortly after that, two more

moratoria were introduced, one for the South Coast and one for the West Coast of our

Province. Mr. Speaker, he virtually, with the stroke of a pen, closed the fishery which

has sustained this Province for 500 years.

Mr. Speaker, while this was a bit of a shock that day, it was no

surprise. Fishermen - we have some in the galleries here today - for years prior to that

time had complained to the federal government that there was a need to do something, that

there was a need to reduce quotas, because they had witnessed low catch rates and fish

that were smaller and smaller each year.

Not only did the fishermen warn the federal government, Mr. Speaker,

but provincial fisheries ministers, whether they be Tory or Liberal alike, warned the

federal government in the late '80s and early '90s. Tom Rideout did it, Walter Carter did

it, but it fell on deaf ears.

Mr. Speaker, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians blame federal

scientists for what has happened to our fish stocks, and while I agree to some extent, I

do not support it fully. Personally, I do not think scientists were ever given the money

or the wherewithal to determine how many fish were in the ocean.

I think those who should shoulder the blame totally for what has

happened here are federal politicians, for not having the intestinal fortitude to do what

was required of them back in the late '80s and early '90s, and that was to reduce fish

quotas -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. G. REID: - and to drive foreigners off the Nose and Tail of our

Grand Banks.

They did not want to cut quotas for two reasons. One was because they

did not know what to do with the people who would be displaced in the fishery due to these

quota cuts. The other one is that they also paid too much attention to processors, fish

companies, large fish companies in this country.

I remember distinctly, Mr. Speaker, a couple of days after Mr. Crosbie

called a moratorium, sitting in Mr. Carter's office up here on the parkway, when a

Newfoundland processor came in and begged for Walter Carter to go to the federal

government and ask them not to close the fishery but to reduce the quota. Because to that

fish processor it did not matter if we caught the last fish in the ocean as long as he

made a dollar on it. As for foreign overfishing, the federal government did not want to

upset foreign countries, afraid that we might not be able to sell wheat or other products

to them.

Mr. Speaker, I remember another meeting with the federal Minister of

Fisheries of the day, Bernard Valcourt, that great Canadian whom you all remember. When

Mr. Carter asked him to reduce the quota on the Northern cod stock, Mr. Valcourt looked at

him and said: No, I cannot do it because I do not know what to do with the people I would

displace. I am not the minister of fish, I am the minister of people.

Well I ask Bernard Valcourt, where are the people today? I know where

Mr. Valcourt is, but here are the people of Newfoundland. Some of them are in the gallery

here today, looking at me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. G. REID: I remember another meeting with Mr. Crosbie, when

Walter Carter asked him if he could do something, send out the navy if need be, to drive

the foreigners off the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Mr. Crosbie actually laughed at

him. He used to call him Wally. He said: Wally, you are crazy, boy. You will start a Third

World War. I cannot do it.

I guarantee you, we left there and went to the Opposition of the day. I

guarantee you, when we asked for a commitment that if they were elected - Brian Tobin and

Jean Chrtien - if they would send out the gun boats to protect our fishery, and the

answer was: Yes, we will do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. G. REID: They lived up to that commitment, Mr. Speaker, and we

actually fired shots across the bows of foreign boats that we drove off the Nose and Tail

of our Grand Banks.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to stand here today and be political. I am

just recounting incidents that I have witnessed in the last two or three years. I am not

blaming it on federal Tories. I am blaming it on federal Tories and federal Liberals back

in the '80s and early '90s who would not pay attention to what we were saying in this

Province.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the federal government had and

still holds complete jurisdiction over the fish in our waters. We have no control. The

only control that we have, as a Province, is the licensing of fish plants and the

inspection of fish plants. If the fish is alive and in the water, it is controlled by the

federal Department of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, they jealously guarded their responsibility and they

managed the fishery so inadequately that we arrive at where we are today. Look at the

state we are in today: hundreds of communities and thousands of people thrown out of work,

on the streets.

Back in 1992, when Mr. Crosbie signed the moratorium form saying there

would be no fishing on the East Coast of Newfoundland, it was just the same, Sir, as if he

issued a work-stop order for the people in the thirty-eight towns in my district. And it

was not just my district. It was districts from St. John's to St. Anthony, from St.

Anthony to Rose Blanche, and from Rose Blanche to Petty Harbour. People say St. John's.

People forget that in 1989, 1990, 1991, there was a fish plant on the south side. It

employed 400 or 500 people. Where is it today?

I remember when 1,200 people were employed on the Bonavista Peninsula,

in Port Union - 1,200 jobs - people who worked year round, who went to work, planned their

future, planned their holidays, planned their three weeks off. And with the stoke of a pen

these people were told: Go home, we don't need you any more.

In all, Mr. Speaker, some 28,000 Newfoundlanders were thrown out of

work in the past few years. Since that time not a lot has changed, except that a number of

the people who were put on the income support program that was put forward by the federal

government have come off now, and the rest are scheduled to come off between now and

August of this year unless something is done.

Mr. Speaker, it is for this reason that I stand today, to encourage the

the coastal communities in our Province. It was they who mismanaged the fishery, and it is

they who have to be held responsible.

Both the Harrigan and the Baker reports recognize the responsibility

and the impact it has had on the rural communities in our Province. It is now time for

them to act. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't think for one minute that the simple reallocation

of foreign fish quotas is going to be the answer. The simple fact is, the only reason

there are foreigners fishing inside the 200-mile limit today is the fish stocks that are

in excess of our needs. We don't fish grenadier and silver hack. We don't do it because it

is not economically viable for us to do it. So that is not the answer, to take the few

grenadier and shove them through the fish plants of Newfoundland. It is not going to help

us. We need something more than that, Mr. Speaker. We need the federal government to

implement a well structured and comprehensive program to replace TAGS. As I said earlier,

this should include income replacement, economic diversification, employment adjustment

and training linked to job opportunities, early retirement for older workers, and a

licence buy-back program.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there are problems with the current TAGS

program. I know that when you say education and training, a lot of people laugh and say

that we have enough hairdressers now. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not to say that that

education program, that training component, was a total waste of money.

One gentleman in my district used the opportunity to go back to the

fisheries college up there on the hill to become a captain. Today he is working as a

captain on a boat. I know a girl who left the fish plant and got a degree on this program.

She is working today.

I know there are some problems, and a number of people have come to me

and asked me to make it known - see if you can make it known - where all this money was

spent, who received the most of it, because I think the idea on the mainland is that

fisherpeople of this Province took this money and blew it.

I, for one, do not think for a minute that all the money was blown by

the fisherpeople of this Province. There are others who received dollars in this as well

as the fisherpeople, and maybe we should have a look at a report that states categorically

where all this money went.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to sit down now and let some other gentlemen

speak. I will close debate later on this afternoon, but before I do - this is a bit of a

strange thing to ask, Mr. Speaker, but with the leave of the House I would like to amend

my own resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to amend the

resolution?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. G. REID: I would like to amend the resolution to state, at the

end of the resolution:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an all-party committee of the House of

Assembly convey this Province's concern to all federal political caucuses in Canada.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment the hon. member made to his resolution

is in order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy today to be able to stand and take

part in this debate here

in the House of Assembly. I commend the Member for Twillingate & Fogo for bringing

such an amendment forward. I can assure him he won't have any problem getting support for

his private member's resolution on this side of the House, including the amendment.

When I heard the Member for Twillingate & Fogo speak about his

involvement in the fishery, how he attended this meeting with the minister and another

meeting with the minister, I was reminded of my own involvement in the fishery. My

involvement, I say to the Premier, was with a pair of rubber boots on. My involvement, I

say to the Premier, was getting up in the morning and going to work at a fish plant. My

involvement was going to work in places like Gaultois, Williams Harbour, Black Tickle,

Harbour Breton, Charleston, South Dildo. Those were the places where I fed my family, I

say to the people opposite. Those were the places where I went to work, and was very proud

to be a fish plant worker.

One time if you worked in the fish plant you made paltry wages, you

were looked down on, you were somebody who left school. You were a drop-out. The fish

plant was the place to go of last resort. It was the place to go when you couldn't find

anything else to do. That has all changed. The people working in fish plants today, and

the people working in fish plants in 1992, had very good jobs, made very good money.

Thanks to the unions, of course, the unions played a big

part in it.

The member referred to Port Union. Twelve hundred people went to work

in that fish plant. Another 500 worked at the (inaudible) plant there. If you were in that

town when the whistle blew at twelve o'clock, you had better get out of the way because

people were moving. It was a busy town, it was a vibrant town, and people were happy to

have a job. They worked year-round, they planned their holidays, they took their

vacations, their families were looked after. You go out there today and you will hear

stories of fifty-two businesses that are after closing since 1992.

I relay a story to the Premier, where I went in my district the other

day and there was a collection being taken up for the fire department. It was having an

annual auction. They called me and asked if I would make a donation. I said: Yes, what I

will do is buy $25 worth of gas from the three service stations that are in the community,

and you can give it out as a prize, $75.

I went and did it in two service stations. The last one I went into, I

put my credit card down. I asked: Can I put $25 worth of gas on my credit card? The owner

of the service station looked down at the card and he looked up at me, and he looked down

again, and he hung his head and said: No, I'm sorry, I can't do it. I asked: What's wrong?

My money no good here? He said: I have been in business since 1967. The banks called me

half an hour ago. I am out of here tonight. There will be no gas here after 10:00 tonight.

I have been in business since 1967, it is the only job I know. Where do I go the next day?

That is a frightening way to find yourself, somebody who is fifty,

fifty-five years old, in business for the past thirty years. He has his house put up as

security on his service station. He may not have worked in the fish plant, but his

business was directly related to the revenue that was being generated from that particular

fish plant.

Those are the stories that are told. The Government House Leader

attended the meeting down in Tors Cove when Mr. Baker and his Standing Committee of the

House of Commons were there. A gentleman got up and pleaded before the microphone for

somebody to listen. People are sick and tired of telling their story. Eugene Harrigan.

Somebody from Ottawa came down here and one of the ministers said: It is wonderful to have

a minister from Ottawa, a person from Ottawa, come down and listen to our story, because

they do not understand.

Premier, how often do those people have to tell their story? How often

are we going to belittle those people to come forward and beg Ottawa? And you sit down,

Mr. Minister, and say: Today I wrote a letter. Today I wrote a letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I commend you for doing that - don't get me wrong,

I commend you for doing that - but I do not think it is enough. I think if we have to make

a pilgrimage, each one of us here, to go up and meet with Mr. Pettigrew, to go up and meet

with Mr. Martin, to meet with the Prime Minister, we have to demand that for the 18,000

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are presently getting an income from this particular

program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I remember NCARP, when that program

was first brought about. There was in excess of $1 billion put forward for approximately

eighteen months, and then the TAGS program came in May of 1994. The now Premier, the then

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, made the big announcement down at Hotel Newfoundland,

$1.9 million over five years. The minister was told at that time that the program was

underfunded. He was warned at that time there was not enough money there in order to carry

out the program. Mr. Speaker, it was not long after that before people were told, now that

there is another program being brought in, now you must apply. You have to apply now to be

qualified for a TAGS program. Okay, everybody on NCARP now had to apply.

Some people did not qualify. Because you did not qualify, you were told

then you could appeal. So you appealed to the same people who disqualified you in the

first place. That was not good enough. The government of the day said: What we are going

to do now is hire some people to travel across the Province so that you can come forward

and have your appeal heard.

I do not know one person who left those appeals without thinking that

they were going to be put back on the program, but finally the same letter came again: I

am sorry, you do not qualify.

Then the now Government House Leader, if I recall correctly, and the

former Member for Eagle River, made a trip to Ottawa and said: This is not right; we need

another appeal. We need a chance for those people to be able to come and try to get on

this program again. So they said: Okay, we are going to allow you another appeal. We are

going to give you an address with a post office box on it. Nobody knew who was on the

appeal board. There was no telephone number, no address; it was a phantom group. You could

not appear in person.

That is the way that our fishermen and fish plant workers were treated

in order to get on this particular program. That is the way they were treated, Mr.

Speaker, and we wonder today why those people are upset.

Then we found out that the government of the day did make a mistake;

they did under fund the program. So, what did they do? Now we are going to take a year's

pay, we are going to take a year's wages away from you.

How many people would be sitting over there today, or over here, if you

were told that you were going to lose next year's salary? How many people would be sitting

here today? You would be out there trying to get on CBC Television, and you would be out

there trying to get on the radio, in order for somebody to listen and talk about this deed

that has been done to you. That is what was done to those people here. A full year's wages

were taken from every fish plant worker and every fisherman included in this program in

the beginning.

I am a little bit ahead of my story, Mr. Speaker, because when those

time frames were passed out, people with long-term attachment to this industry were denied

the full five years because somebody had the initiative to go away and try to keep bread

and butter and body and soul together for a year when the fishery could not support them.

Women off on maternity leave were denied the program for a full year. People on Workers'

Compensation and people who were on sick leave were taken off this program, some of them

with eighteen, twenty and twenty-five years' attachment to this fishery. And you say that

is right?

So what did some of our fish plant workers and our harvesters do? They

said: Nobody is listening; we have to protest. We are going to go down on Water Street and

occupy the HRD building there.

So a group of them got together and went down and tried to bring their

plight to the attention of the decision makers of this country. Then they went and

occupied the federal minister's office. What happened to them? You tell me that we are

living in a democratic country today when you cannot go out and demonstrate peacefully?

They did not go down and take the computers and throw them out the window. They did not go

down and break up the furniture. They did not go down there and destroy anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe that is why they didn't get listened to.

MR. FITZGERALD: Maybe that is what it will take.

They went down, Mr. Speaker, and demonstrated by having a sit-in. They

sat peacefully in those offices. The next thing you know, the telephone call was made

whereby you have to vacate the premises. We are going to take you out. They were arrested.

They were charged. Our own government today charged those people for trying to get

something that was rightfully theirs, and we are wondering today what all the excitement

is about. We are wondering today, Mr. Speaker, why those people are demonstrating, why

they are coming out and having public meetings. There are very good reasons for that, and

those are some of them, Mr. Speaker.

Before I run out of time, Mr. Speaker, I too would like to move an

amendment to the hon. member's resolution. My amendment will read: To move that the

resolution now before the House is amended by adding immediately after the first resolve:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the

federal government to make provision for and to announce immediately the extension of the

current TAGS income replacement program until May of 1999 conclusion date, that was an

integral part of the federal government's original commitment to TAGS recipients; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that former TAGS recipients who have long-term

attachment to the fisheries, and who have been taken off the program because of illness,

injury, maternity leave, or other such reasons, should be immediately reinstated into the

current TAGS program and include any programs that might follow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker -

PREMIER TOBIN: Are you including the NCARP program too?

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I am talking about the current TAGS program. I

am talking about the people who have been taken off the current program. This resolution

and the resolution that was put forward by the Member for Fogo & Twillingate have

nothing to do with the NCARP program, I say to the Premier. It has nothing to do with that

whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, the member also talked about foreign fishing. There has

been all kinds of arguments in this House here as to whether George Baker's figures are

right or whether the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture's figures are right. There have

been all kinds of arguments here as to the quotas that has been allowed foreign fishermen

and to the quotas that has been taken from them. Look, I don't know if we can open one

fish plant, I don't know if we can open two fish plants, if we can employ twenty people or

200 people, but I say to the government opposite: If we can create one job by stopping

foreign fishing, by getting away from this foolishness in saying that we have fish stocks

in excess of our needs, if we can create one job then let's do it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo that

if roundnose grenadier and argentine are not something that we can fish profitably, then

maybe they might be a food stock for something that we can fish profitably. Maybe it might

be a food stock. Today with as many people as we have on the TAGS Program, and

Unemployment Insurance, I do not think we can afford to have one fish caught inside our

200-mile limit.

MR. EFFORD: How about tuna?

MR. FITZGERALD: Tuna, absolutely, I say to the minister. When you

look at tuna being worth approximately $25,000 a fish and, in the last report that was put

forward by the Newfoundland Herald, where tuna is sold, parts of the tuna fish is sold in

excess of $50 an ounce, Mr. Speaker, over in Japan, then I do not see how we can allow

those foreign boats to come here and fish 113 tonnes of tuna on an annual basis, when our

own Province here is only allowed to fish 35 tonnes.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: That is disgraceful and it should not be allowed to

happen as long as we have people here unemployed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member who

moved the motion today. I thought he spoke most eloquently and, in fact, I believe I can

say on behalf on many members in this place, it is one of the finest speeches we have

heard in this House in a very long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member who has just

spoken for his speech as well. He speaks as somebody who has had, like the mover of the

motion, direct participation in the fishery during the course of his life, and I

appreciate the passion and commitment that he brings to this cause.

Mr. Speaker, I rise - I did not intend to speak today, but I rise to

ask that this House, on this issue, this day, given that it is late, we are now into the

spring. We have a program that was set to expire originally this spring - it has been

extended, we now know, until August. Who knows, it may be extended to the end of 1999 and

if it is - perhaps that is one of the options that is being considered by Ottawa - even if

it is extended to the end of 1999, and I do not know if it will, or will not be, it does

not solve our problem. It does not provide a longer-term solution. We have to be very

careful, and I am a bit nervous that somebody in Ottawa does not hear a declaration - and

I know that is not the member's intention, but I am saying to him, I have been to Ottawa

-that we do not hear a declaration from the House: extend the Program to 1999 and Ottawa

says, "Okay, we will do it," and that is the end of the problem.

Let me say something else that is beginning to concern me a great deal.

This notion that if we extend the Program to the end of 1999 and we stop all - not that

there is much going on - but we stop all foreign fishing in our waters and give those

quotas over to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, then we have solved the problem.

I do not know how many people understand what it is we are talking

about when we talk about foreign quotas being caught in Canadian waters. In principle, it

sounds perfectly logical to say, give us that fish and we will go fishing ourselves.

What are we talking about, Mr. Speaker? I had the job at one time of

looking at some of those so-called quotas and looking at what their value was to Canada,

and I also had the job of sitting around the table talking to all of the other NAFO member

states, and being at a meeting in Brussels, where we had to get the votes from the NAFO

meeting that allowed Canada to walk away with the lion's share of the turbot quota; that

allowed Canada to win a resolution to put a moratorium on 3N0 cod; that allowed Canada to

win the votes to carry on the moratorium on the flat fish stocks, flounder stocks and cod

stocks in our offshore waters.

Mr. Speaker, I remember those debates and those battles very well. I

remember who voted for us at those meetings and I remember who voted against us at those

meetings. Mr. Speaker, let it be clear, who was in the room. While I was minister, and I

believe it is still the case today, Canada's negotiating committee had a representative of

the Provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, we were in the room. The union was

in the room, part of the negotiating committee, the industry was in the room, every single

meeting on every single issue that took place. It was not a federal negotiator, it was a

committee made up of the union, of the Provincial Government, and of the industry from

Newfoundland, and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada, and every position taken was taken after

seeking the advice, and having the consent, of that negotiating committee.

Mr. Speaker, when we say - and on the surface it appears to be logical

- let us kick out the foreigners who are catching silver hake, well, who is catching

silver hake? Fishermen know who is catching silver hake off the Scotia shelf, off Nova

Scotia. Who is catching it? Cuba is catching it. That is who is catching silver hake. Why

are they catching silver hake? Because there is a big quota. I do not remember the numbers

anymore, but the last I recall was in the range of 30,000 metric tonnes, which is offered

up to Canadian industry, Canadian fishermen, Canadian processors, the vast majority of

which nobody wants because there is no price for it.

What do the Cubans do with the silver hake they catch? Do they sell it?

No. They take it back to Cuba and they feed some of the poorest people in this hemisphere.

They feed themselves with silver hake. That is what they do it. They take it and they use

it. It is a socialist society. It has a form of government that we do not agree with. They

are amongst the poorest people in this entire hemisphere. They feed themselves. They do

not compete with us, they do not enter markets against us, they do not sell a product that

we are selling, they do not catch a product that we want to catch, they do not process a

product that we want to process. They come in rusty, broken-down boats, under very

difficult conditions, and they feed themselves.

Cuba has been with Canada when they were under the gun, when they were

being threatened by the big, powerful 300 million, fifteen-country European Union: Don't

you dare vote with Canada, they were told, because we are big and we are powerful. I can

tell you those meetings got rough. Cuba voted every single time with Canada, and now we

are going to say, without thinking it through, to that country: We do not catch the fish,

we do not want it, we do not need it, it is of no interest to us, but, by God, you are not

going to feed yourselves with it.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, all I am asking of all the members is think

through each of these species. Let us talk about tuna. Tuna is a highly migratory species.

What does that mean, "highly migratory species"? It means something that every

fisherman can tell you. The various tuna stocks -in this case bluefin tuna, which is what

is moving through the waters here of Newfoundland and into Nova Scotia, St. Mary's Bay,

St. Margaret's being one of the prime capturing spots, an area called the `Hellhole' being

the most prolific spot in Nova Scotia - tuna swim the oceans of the world. It is not a

stock like our cod stock which stays roughly on our Continental Shelf, moving in and over

the line, available to us only.

Tuna swims the world. It is an incredible animal. It moves around the

planet, and for that reason there is an international commission established, of which

Canada is a member, which manages internationally the tuna stock. Because you can catch

the tuna in Canada, or the United States, or in South America, or somewhere else in the

world. Every single member of that international commission has a part of the quota. What

the commission does is meet to ensure that during the migration pattern of the tuna, no

one country catches more than its share and in the process kills off these fantastic tuna

stocks.

They are managed worldwide, the meetings are international, the quotas

divided internationally. So when we see a Japanese tuna boat in St. John's - anybody who

has been down at the waterfront sees those vessels, they tie up down at the east end of

the harbour; they are white boats, they have kind of a flashing bow on them. When you see

those boats in the Harbour, they are not catching Canadian quotas, they are catching

Japanese quotas. The Japanese will take their quotas in Canadian waters, their share of an

international, highly migratory species, or they will take them in somebody else's waters.

We are not giving them quota, we are not giving them an ounce, because the fish swims in

Canada and it migrates outside of Canada, and they can catch it here or they catch it

somewhere else.

Captain Don Whelan, sitting behind me, is nodding his head, because

Captain Don Whelan knows what I am talking about. The only issue for us is, are we going

to close Canadian waters to the Japanese, who traditionally have taken part of their

international quota here at certain times of the year, or not. I can tell you that when it

came to the NAFO meetings -

AN HON. MEMBER: We will not get them.

PREMIER TOBIN: We will not get the extra quota, no, we are not

entitled to it. All we can do is kick the Japanese out, I suppose, but they are going to

catch those same poundage - those same tonnage, somewhere else, and they are entitled to

it. Or else we can say it is a free-for-all, every country catch all the tuna they can

catch until there is no more tuna.

But we know what will happen if we do that. We are a living experiment

from what happens when you do that, we in Canada. So this is an international management

system for a highly migratory species.

Mr. Speaker, those are the facts. On tuna and on Japan, Japan has voted

with us consistently on every single conservation proposal that Canada brought to the

table at NAFO. Every one, on the famous vote, the vote that tipped it in our favour, that

gave us the quota, that took away from the European Union the right to catch turbot, the

right in the process of catching turbot that had killed the last of the cod stocks, as

they were doing with their illegal nets, their illegal liners and their two sets of books

and their two sets of logs and their deceitful fishing practices; the country that said:

"Enough is enough," and voted with us - the Japanese, they voted with us.

I remember Mr. (Inaudible) who is the Deputy Minister of Russia, who is

now the Minister of Fisheries in Russia, promoted just recently by the Yeltsin Government,

saying of the fishery in Atlantic Canada, saying of our fishery - it is like a drowning

man, he said, and we have to throw a life ring, a life raft, we have to have a moratorium,

and I remember the Europeans threatening him. And he is a big bear of a man and he does

not threaten very easily.

We need to understand in this House, that in the real game of managing

international fisheries, where there are millions of dollars at stake, where Spain, for

example, has a massive deep-water, distant water fishing fleet, hungry for fish to keep

them going, there is great power and great influence and great persuasion brought to bear

to have these other nations of the world vote against Canada.

And it is only because Canada has finally decided that no longer will

we trade off the fisheries of Atlantic Canada and the interests of Atlantic Canadians, so

we can sell a few more tons of wheat - and yes, the interests of our fishermen are as

important as the interests our farmers and our manufacturers in Ontario - it is only

because of that that we began to stand up and take a hard line. And, by God, when the time

came, we needed friends who understood us and would stand with us around the table, and we

had it with the Cubans and we had it with the Japanese.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the House, it is easy to stand here,

very popular to stand here, very popular to be in a full hall, in a rural community and to

say let us pound out the foreigners, let us beat them into the ground, let us throw them

out. Let us get back all our fish, let us take everything they are catching and process it

at home. But there is not a single fisherman - now, for the uninformed ear, for the person

who lives in the city of Corner Brook or Mount Pearl or St. John's, who lives along the

Trans-Canada Highway, would not know a flatfish from a sculpin, it sounds good - but there

is not a single plant worker or fisherman who knows anything about this industry who is

going to believe that the solution to our problem is recapturing a few pounds of product,

in some cases that we either

a) do not own, or

b) cannot use, and that is going to solve

our problem.

Mr. Speaker, it takes political will. I am very proud to stand here

today - and, by the way, I am not attacking the member, I just ask us to be careful and

work together on this. But if in the process of getting one so-called job, like processing

silver hake -and, by the way, there is unused silver hake quota, the member should know,

that nobody is using. The quota is there, the science is there, nobody has taken it. So we

can take all that we want.

Look, if there is anything that we can utilize, we should utilize. But

let us be careful. Let me say this to the members: I have been in Ottawa, I know how they

think in Ottawa. I do not want them to believe that giving us species that we do not want,

can not use, have never used, or extending this program a few more months is going to

solve the problem, because, by God, it will not solve the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish my remarks. This

is about political will, Mr. Speaker, this whole issue is about political will, about

doing what is right. It is not a debate here in this House. We can have a debate, we can

be foolish enough, I suppose, to make one. This is not a fight between Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. It is not a fight among Newfoundlanders, Labradorians and the people of

Quebec or Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick or between the people of Atlantic Canada and the

people of Pacific Canada. That is not what the fight is about. It is not between Liberals

and Tories, Mr. Speaker; that is not what it is about nor what it should be about, and we

will lose a tremendous opportunity to have our voice heard if we are not able to put aside

for a moment, our own political considerations, to rise to the challenge to speak with an

effective voice on this issue. This is about will.

This is about whether or not Canada works the way it ought to work,

about whether the Federation functions the way it should function. And I do not mind

saying today, that in his day, as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - and we can sit and I

can find fault with some of my predecessors and I am sure they can find fault with me, but

that is not going to solve anything today. In his day, having to take the terrible

decision, the burden of closing down the fishery when it became necessary, we can all

argue about what happened before but there is no point today, leave that to the

historians.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

PREMIER TOBIN: With leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER TOBIN: In his day, Mr. Speaker, when the burden of a

terrible decision had to be made, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of the day, John

Crosbie, made that decision, and what a burden we can all imagine it must have been, to be

the first in 500 years, to tell a place and a people that their traditional way of life,

the very reason for settlement, had come to an end. Just imagine what went through his

mind as the full weight of that decision blossomed, the full meaning of it blossomed,

exploded, Mr. Speaker, into his consciousness.

Then the minister of the day had to go back and had to put the

incredible proposition to his colleagues around the Cabinet table. Given their scope,

given their frame of references to what happens, how economies are run, he had to put the

incredible proposition to his colleagues around the Cabinet table that not only were we

closing the fishery but that Ottawa must take the responsibility, that the national

government managed it - the national government mismanaged it, the national government was

responsible and the national government had to pay.

Now, he brought in a two-year program, announced it with the hope that

in two years our traditional way of life would recover sufficiently, that after two years

of assistance people could go back fishing, and everybody who was subject to that program

prayed that that was true, that in a couple years they could get back on the water and,

Mr. Speaker, that was not easy. That took will, Mr. Speaker, that took a minister sitting

around the table with his colleagues at the time and having the will to make the case and

to insist that people not avert their eyes from the responsibility they had.

Mr. Speaker, a few years later when that program ran out, we had to

make that argument again. You had to make people look at the reality of Atlantic Canada

and face up to the responsibility - and I was there at that stage with my colleagues from

this Province - the responsibility we had, and face up to our responsibility, and we put

in place the second program, $1.9 billion, and it had its problems, there is no question

about that, but it put $1.9 billion, $2 billion into the economy of this Province and

sustained tens of thousands of people in Atlantic Canada during a very difficult period.

So, Mr. Speaker, again, I say to the seven MPs from Newfoundland, and I

say this to them irrespective of their Party or Party stripe, they are our members in the

House of Commons. You know, in Ottawa, we do not have, like the U.S. Senate, equal

representation, we have representation based on the size of one's population. We have

seven out of 300-plus. They have an enormous challenge and, Mr. Speaker, we will not help

them in their challenge if we are diverted from the substantive issue; and the substantive

issue is this: The Northern Cod stock, the 2J+3kL cod stock, 99 per cent of the spawning

biomass of that stock, 99-plus per cent, more than 99 per cent have disappeared and there

is absolutely nothing to indicate that any time soon - and, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude

in a moment - that that stock is going to recover.

So, Mr. Speaker, the truth is, a solution until next May, 1999 is not a

solution. A solution that offers up the possibility of a handful of more jobs

theoretically, from recapturing foreign quotas, is not a solution. We need a longer term

solution. We need something that helps us to diversify our economy. We need to face the

reality that some of our people - and I know the member opposite would agree with this,

and we have to say it out loud and not be afraid to say it - some of our people who have

traditionally been attached to the fishery are never again, in their lifetimes, based on

what we know, going to be attached to the fishery again. We cannot hold out the false hope

that anybody who was ever on the water or anybody who ever worked in a fish plant is going

to go back to the fish plant or go back to the water, because it is a lie! And the most

cruel thing we could say to people - because we do not have the courage to tell them the

truth - is to make them believe that we are going to just keep them holding on for a few

more years and something will happen. Mr. Speaker, all of the evidence tells us there is

something different.

We have an obligation - we, in this House - to not only face up to the

truth amongst ourselves, in our own private caucus rooms, but to say it out loud. The

truth is, we need to restructure this industry. We need capacity reduction. We need to

diversify this economy. We need investment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and we need

it over a sustained period of time or rural Newfoundland and Labrador is going to

continue, as it has, to disappear. Who are the 10,000 people that left Newfoundland and

Labrador last year and the 8,000 the year before and the out-migration we have seen in

record numbers? They are the people who are the fall-out from the collapse of the fishery

and have slowly been moved off the assistance programs but, Mr. Speaker, who - in the

words of the Minister of Development and Rural Renewal - have one character and quality

above all others! They want to work and they are gone to where the work is!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: So, Mr. Speaker, I say to this House - and I

conclude. I had no intention of speaking today, Mr. Speaker. I did not think it was my

time or place to speak today but I stayed in the House because I was so captured by the

words of the Member for Twillingate & Fogo when he spoke and I was so captured by, in

particular, the expression of the Member for Bonavista South when he talked about his

experience working in a fish plant, that I felt something important was happening today,

something very important. I felt that perhaps just for once the voice of the people of the

Province, rather than our voices, were being heard and the feelings of the people of the

Province, rather than our manoeuvering, political or otherwise, were taking precedence in

this place.

Mr. Speaker, all I say to the members of this House is, let us not

engage in the game of politics today. We can do it 364 other days of the year. Let us grab

the moment -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that all the members have

spoken on both sides. Both the Member for Bonavista South and the Member for Twillingate

& Fogo have spoken seeking to advance the cause of those who have been dislocated. I

am merely making a plea, Mr. Speaker, and I hope it will be answered, today is not the day

to write history. Today is the day to try to secure the future for the fishermen and for

the fish plant workers of Newfoundland and Labrador who have been displaced, and let us

work together in that good cause, Mr. Speaker, today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to take the opportunity now

before recognizing any hon. member, to rule that the amendment by the Member for Bonavista

South is in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, stand to speak and pass my comments on this particular

resolution here today. I do not intend to take up too much time on laying the finger of

blame for what happened, at all. I think we all have a responsibility in what happened to

our fish stocks. I do agree with the Member for Twillingate & Fogo and I agree with

Dr. Art May, that it is not the civil servants, the public servants in this country who

should be fired for what happened in the fishery - it is the politicians, where the buck

stops, that hold responsibility for the fishery being where it is today. And if anything

could be done, fire the politicians or recall them or use whatever methods are necessary

within our democratic system to put the responsibility for where it lies. It is cheap,

political tactics taken by - whether it is by Mr. Baker or whoever else, I do not agree

with it. Elected politicians have to accept responsibility, and they might stand and be

counted there, and pass it off on some people who are hired and directed and follow

instructions of the politicians of the day. It is utter nonsense, it is a pile of baloney,

you can call it, and it is hardly worthy of further comment on the issue at all.

We have to look at where we are heading. We know where we have been. We

know what foreign overfishing and foreign fishing did, and we know what domestic fishing

and domestic overfishing did, and the misreporting of catches, and catching in different

areas, the using of liners in nets - all of these things that people did because they had

to resort to it, because the people of the day, and the politicians of the day, did not

listen to the cries of fishermen for the past fifteen years. Fishermen told me that they

came in and they hauled up nets on trawlers and every mesh was full with a two-inch

flounder, a two-inch yellowtail, every one, dragging over breeding grounds in the

wintertime, uncontrolled access to the fishery. We destroyed the fishery off the shores of

our Province, foreigners and domestic people, people who did not listen to the people out

there who were only trying to make a living and earn a decent livelihood for their

families.

While the Premier indicated the answer is not extended until 1999, and

I agree that is not the long-term answer, but that Premier, when he was federal Minister

of Fisheries and Oceans, gave a commitment to the people in this Province under the

program that we had a five-year program, and they announced certain funding to that.

People made their plans, people borrowed, people mortgaged, and people took on financial

responsibilities based on that written letter of commitment. I think a written letter of

should be considered a contract, and they should have to live up to the responsibilities

around which people pattern their lives.

We have a responsibility as politicians to do something about that. I

appeared before the Standing Committee of the House of Commons in Tors Cove. I made an

oral presentation, and followed up with a written presentation. I addressed many of these

things. Just preceding me, opening there, was the Minister of Development and Rural

Renewal, the Minister of Fisheries, who talked about the history, where we have been and

what has happened. I put forth, on behalf of our party, directions we should be proceeding

in, where we should be going with a new program. Granted, while the people want TAGS

extended until 1999, it does not necessarily mean we should stay with the same program. A

replacement program that would serve the same purpose is equally acceptable to these

people.

We have seen injustices under this program. We have seen people, and

they are in every fishing district in this Province, who spent twenty-five years and more

in the fishery who, under Workers' Compensation for one year - yes, for one year they went

on Workers' Compensation - are being kicked off the program in May. Nothing against people

who spent five full years in fishery. They met the criteria, they should meet the

criteria, but someone who spent twenty-five years, the only year out of their life, and

now they are kicked off a program, and their family with not one other cent of income to

turn to?

That is wrong, and there was nothing in this system to allow for it. I

say, the government of the day, the NCARP, provided for that. The NCARP provided historic

attachment and allowed opportunities for people who were sick, on maternity leave,

workers' compensation, whatever the reason, to stay on the program, but TAGS program did

not. The Premier of this Province, as minister, at Hotel Newfoundland on April 20 1994 -

and I attended - announced a $1.9 billion program under The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy,

or the TAGS program as we know it today.

I said in this House on many occasions, in May 1994: There is not

enough money in the program to go beyond three-and-a-half years. You changed the

qualifying criteria from NCARP to TAGS. There is going to be an increase in people on the

program from 26,000 to 39,000 roughly, and there is not enough dollars to carry it

through. We went on and misled people into believing it would be there, and then we cut

them short at the appropriate time. There are responsibilities we have to fulfil.

We looked at aspects of training, and it has been referenced on many

occasions that the training did not accomplish what it was supposed to do. There were

millions of dollars wasted by driving people into training programs. A new program under

TAGS and new training, as alluded to here in the resolution, we have supported that and

have stated publicly that we must continue to be able to train people.

But we have to be realistic, Mr. Speaker. Seventy-two per cent of the

people on TAGS do not have a high school education; 72 per cent. Only one in four of these

people are able to go on over the short term and pick up a training program. Others have

to go through a more lengthy process of getting the equivalent of a high school education

or some other basic training program. Many of these people, Mr. Speaker, are in their

forties and fifties. There are people today in their fifties who will probably never get

back into a fishing boat or work in a fish plant again.

It is not 100 per cent federal. This Province has participated in

programs for early retirement on a 70/30 basis. This Province only needs to spend 30 per

cent to participate in retirement programs. They did it for people fifty-five and over. I

feel, in light of people in their fifties today with only a Grade VI or Grade VII

education, it is either early retirement or a social welfare program for many of these

people.

We have to look at our options, the people who have spent forty years

working. My father fished from the time he was thirteen until he was seventy-two;

fifty-nine years fishing. I grew up in a fishing community, in a fishing boat from the

time I could walk. I spent twenty years in the industry myself, and I know a little about

the things that the Premier talked about. Yes, foreign quotas and catching of

under-utilized species, or species excess to our needs, cannot be done on a social basis,

it must be done on an economic basis. If it cannot be done on an economic basis, it will

not be done. It is no more than a program that is going to subsidize people to stay home,

if that is the case.

There is another twist to foreign fishing, or foreign overfishing,

whatever the case may be. That is, besides the directed fisheries that these people are

carrying out, there are by-catches, and those by-catches, in many instances, are for

species that are under the moratorium, that we cannot catch. We can't even go out and jig

a fish for food purposes in this Province, when we are allowing foreigners to take

by-catches of thousands of tons of species that there is a moratorium on here in our

Province. That, to me, is not an acceptable alternative, to allow that foreign fishing

here within the boundaries of our jurisdiction, within the 200-mile limit, and on the

Continental Shelf I might add. That is not acceptable.

People debated balancing the social aspect with the health of the

stocks. The last three years before the moratorium were three of the best years of inshore

fishing in my district in some time. People made a fair amount of money, and there were

very large catches from the inshore trap fishery; three of the better years. People

couldn't understand why, on July 2, when we were led to believe the fishery would continue

that year - the catches were high for the last three years. Harvesters invested heavily,

spent tens of thousands of dollars to gear up for an expanded fishery, because we had

three great years of the inshore fishery, in 1989, 1990 and 1991. Then, in July, when they

were led to believe there would be a fishery, they got hung out to dry. And they had

invested tens of thousands of dollars.

What do we do in the process? This provincial government, I might add -

and this is a part of the program - are out now sending letters to people, that they are

going to turn it over for collection to the Justice Department in five days, on a boat

that has been high and dry since 1991, a boat now that is rotted and falling apart. They

are going to collect on them. They owe the full amount, they cannot fish, they cannot

pursue other species, they haven't got the boat size, they won't allow them to go up to

that size, and now they are demanding that they pay up or we will confiscate it. And we

will even go so far as telling them: We have the legal right to take it out of your

spouse's income, or sell the assets that you have to repay that boat. That is what they

are doing.

For people who have been crippled and damaged by a government, whether

it is federal or whether it is provincial, there has not been any compassion shown at

either level, I might add, for the people who are in this plight today.

In representing a predominantly fishing district, I have been around

the fishery my entire life. I have been involved in representing people in 300 cases in

appearance before appeal boards. I know what my colleague from Bonavista South talks

about. How do you tell a person who is fifty, who lost a cheque two months ago, who has

spent twenty-five years in the industry, who broke their leg and missed a year, that now

you are gone from the program and your family has no income.

They don't understand why they spent a lifetime in the fishery and now,

because someone got injured on the job... I will use one particular instance. An

individual who worked for twenty-four years, worked in a fish plant nine weeks, and at the

end of that ninth week got injured and did not get back to work for the rest of that year.

Now the criteria under TAGS - and this is an example to illustrate how

people have been dropped out. It says if you had six weeks in a year you will qualify if

you picked up four on one of those projects they provided for everybody who had six weeks

or more. This person had nine weeks, was on Workers' Compensation and could not go to work

on a project in the fall, and lost a year on the program with twenty-five years. It is

these types of people.

Women on maternity leave missed a summer, the prime time in the

fishery, and are now off the program. People who were sick, people who underwent surgery

and just missed a portion of the year, did not qualify for that year after twenty-five

years. You were not allowed ten weeks out of twenty-five years, to be able to miss, and it

was ignored.

The TAGS program did not address it, and I say the NCARP program that

preceded that by the previous government did address it. It did allow for those

exceptional circumstances. I went to 200 appeals under that NCARP board, and under TAGS

almost 100. It was different criteria, there were different tolerance levels. The reason

why, from day one, because the government knew that $1.9 billion was not enough. They had

to find ways to drive people off the program, and in doing so they drove people off the

program who had invested a lifetime into the fishery and devoted their entire working

lives. It was to the detriment of a small number of these people that did not get looked

at under the program.

We want to see economic development in this new program. We support

that, and I have talked about that. I want to see communities like Trepassey, for

instance, an area that is devastated... Thirteen per cent of the people in Trepassey today

are employed; 13 per cent. A town that had 1,480 people when its plant closed in 1980,

today has 700-and-some people; people who beyond August of this year will not have an

income. Sixty houses boarded up. Property values declined from $15 million to $10 million

this year from the last assessment in a town that is on its knees for economic development

opportunities to be able to sustain at least a reasonable way of life for the people in

the area.

There are no young people there any more. There are people retired,

people without a high school education, in their forties and fifties, who worked at a

plant with 700 people in Trepassey. They came from all over the Province to live there, to

build houses there, and now there are houses being sold for $3,000, $5,000 and $6,000.

These are some of the hardships under this program, and why it is

imperative that a program has to address economic development in areas. It has to address

how to deal with the impacts the moratorium has had on the way and the life of people in

rural Newfoundland.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, just to finish up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, they are some of the items, and my colleagues' too. I will

not run over; I have only a few seconds to finish here. They want an opportunity to speak

on this topic too.

I want to see this government - and you will get support from us here -

put whatever pressure is necessary on the federal government, and here I want to

emphasize, on the provincial government, to drive an early retirement. Because it is early

retirement or it is a welfare program so that people, after forty years of work, can at

least retire with some dignity, I might say, and look at people who have invested a

lifetime in the fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr.Speaker.

I rise today to support my colleague, my seat mate, the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Yes, I just noticed that, Mr. House Leader.

Some people in this House today are probably saying: How come this

member here, the Member for Grand Falls - Buchans, would be speaking today on a fisheries

issue? I want to tell you how this fisheries issue affects the people in my district, the

District of Grand Falls - Buchans.

The main industry in my district is pulp and paper. The biggest

employer now is actually the health care system,

whereas once it was the paper company.

But the paper company is the next largest employer. I want to tell you about the effect

that the cod moratorium has had on my district.

Most people around the Province think that it is only affecting coastal

Newfoundland. Lots of days we get tired of hearing the rhetoric on the open line shows. We

hear the same people telling you about their plight, about the TAGS issue, but do you know

something? If we were in that situation we would do the exact same thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I compliment and commend the people who have not given

up that fight. Every day they are on the talk shows telling us, trying to drive home the

message that they are a hurting society, and people are not listening.

Grand Falls - Windsor, which is the biggest part of my district, has a

population of some 16,000 people. Mostly, Grand Falls - Windsor is really a service

centre. We provide service to a radius of 75,000 people throughout the region. You know,

when the people in the fishing industry do not come into Grand Falls - Windsor, we have a

serious problem. Sometimes it is not noticed until we look around in our retail outlets.

I remember going into the mall before Christmas, the Exploits Valley

Mall, and there was a jewellery store that had been there for years - I think it was there

right from the time the mall opened - and I heard a rumour that it was going to close. Why

was it going to close? Because, you know, people only spend money on jewellery when they

have disposable income. It is a non-essential item. It is not like gas, groceries, and

things like that. You do not go out and buy jewellery if you have to put food on the table

first. That jewellery store in Grand Falls - Windsor employed some five or six people, and

more at the busy peaks. That is one of the indirect repercussions of the cod moratorium.

Only last week I looked around and there was a building supply firm

that had been in our town for probably twenty-five years, closing its doors. The reason

why it was closing its doors was because construction, renovations, home improvements, are

not taking place around coastal Newfoundland any more. People who are on the TAGS program

are afraid to spend their money because they are looking at 1999, and what is going to

happen to them.

Then you look at the car dealerships. Every fisherman drives a pick-up,

and every fisherman has to have a pick-up when it comes time to go moose hunting in the

fall. So, what is happening there today? The fishermen who were coming in to Grand Falls -

Windsor buying their new pick-ups every two or three years are hanging on to their

pick-ups now and are nursing them along; they are repairing them and hoping that they will

get by with them. Also, the fishermen who were coming in to Grand Falls - Windsor to buy a

new snow machine, a new outboard motor, new fishing gear, are not coming any more. They

are hanging on to their money. There is no need for them to buy fishing gear. There is no

need for them to buy rubber suits or rubber boots. These are the kind of things that are

indirect for people who are in urban centres, but they are direct because they are

affecting us.

Grand Falls - Windsor is a business community. Right now, in School

District No. 5, we have a declining enrollment of 650 students. So, what is that doing to

us? These are 650 students less in our system, so schools are closing and these 650 kids

do not need to buy any clothes for next fall in Grand Falls - Windsor. They do need to buy

anything because they are on the mainland somewhere.

A couple weeks ago, I went up to visit in the senior citizens' home. I

was going along shaking hands, it was an official opening. I was saying: Okay, Mr. Smith -

for instance - where are you from, and Mrs. Healey and Mrs. Quirk, or whoever. Do you know

something? The majority of people in that senior citizens' home were not from Grand Falls

- Windsor, they were from all over Newfoundland. It is a domino effect that is being

created here. Seniors are afraid they cannot access the services that are out in rural

Newfoundland any more. They are coming into Grand Falls - Windsor which might be good for

our economy. We are becoming a senior citizens' haven and that is great. We welcome them

with open arms. But, it is also destructive to their own communities. They are not there

as taxpayers any more, they are not there as consumers any more, they are not there as

leaders in their communities and they are not there as families any more. All these things

are important, and it is showing up in the larger centres.

Also, in Grand Falls - Windsor, we have about six private training

schools in addition to our College of the North Atlantic. When we do not have people

coming in from coastal communities around us, who will sit in the seats of those colleges?

Who will sit in the seats there, who will be out to our restaurants, who will be out to

our movie theatre, who will skate on our stadium ice and who will go to the Arts and

Culture Centre? Who will do all these things if we do not have people coming in from

coastal communities to actually purchase and be consumers of the things that we have to

offer?

Somebody said the other day: We depend on each other all over this

Province; and we do. Our geography is so sparse, people are moving, you know, all over our

Province. It is dense. When you look at this, sometimes there is rivalry between towns.

Take for instance the Gander Airport. The Gander Airport is not an issue for Gander. The

Gander Airport is an issue for all of Central Newfoundland, the entire Central

Newfoundland. If we do not have an airport in Gander, we cannot get people to come into

Grand Falls - Windsor to do business or we cannot get them to come into Springdale.

Just last week I heard that some of the services of the airlines are

going to be cut back in Gander. Starting, I think, May 1, there will be a flight coming

from Gander in the morning at 6:00 a.m.. Do you know what that means to me as the Member

for Grand Falls - Buchans? That means that I have to get up out of bed at 3:00 a.m. in the

morning to try to catch a flight in Gander to come out here and do business. What does

that mean to someone down on the South Coast or someone in Springdale? I mean, we have to

rally around each other, we have to support each other and say: This is not a Gander

issue, this is a Central Newfoundland issue, and get together and support each other. So,

what is happening in coastal communities around all of Newfoundland and Labrador affects

every one of us.

I want to tell you about another industry that might be affected, that

we are not thinking about today, and that is insurance companies. Who will be out there

looking after the property that's left around rural Newfoundland? Who will insure it, if

there isn't a fire department down there to protect it? Insurance companies are going to

fold. Why would you want a property appraisal company if there are no properties to

appraise?

We have two businesses like that now in Grand Falls-Windsor, property

appraisals. What is that going to do to a company like that, if people are not going to be

looking to renovate their homes and want to borrow new money, or even buy new properties?

Everything has an affect on what is happening in rural Newfoundland.

this issue? I would have to say, yes, they should be responsible, and they should own up

to that responsibility.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: This is a moral, social, and financial issue. It is

tearing the lifeline out of our Province, it is tearing the guts out of rural

Newfoundland, and we have to do something as an entire House of Assembly here today. We

have to get behind this resolution, we have to support it 100 per cent. We can do nothing

less. Whatever comes out of this resolution, it has to be meaningful. It has to be

meaningful in the sense that there is some future for rural Newfoundland, there is some

future for the people who are affected by it.

To say that there were useless training courses in the past, yes, some

of them were useless. I would be the first to admit that, and I'm sure there are many

around the Province who would say that. I think we have learned from that. Whatever comes

out of this resolution here today, if it means we have to send a delegation to Ottawa,

let's do it. If it means we have to take members from all sides of the House, put them

together, and let us as a group represent what people are saying around this Province,

let's do it.

I will tell you one thing, time is of the essence today. This is April

1 and it's no joke, let me tell you. We have to do something, and I would urge all

members, in closing, to support this resolution. Let's get it off the back burner, let's

get it on the front burner, let's get action and let's get it done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I am delighted today to be able to rise on this particular motion put

forward by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. It's not only timely - and the Premier

alluded to it earlier, about maybe it's not a historical day, but I think it may be a

historical day. We don't have to have a major press conference or anything to have a

historical day. The motion put forward by this member today is something we have been

talking about in this House for years, and also in the House of Commons in Ottawa. I think

it is timely, and I think it is important, that we (inaudible) this today.

The Member for Grand Falls - Buchans made a good point before she sat

down, about procrastinating on this any longer. If there is one issue in this House of

Assembly, in the short time I've been here, that we can all go forward together on with a

solid message to Ottawa, it's this. I don't care how many times you point the fingers

around and talk about scientists and overfishing or whatever; the blame lies back up there

in Ottawa where the root of the problem started over many parties over many years.

The people who are paying for that are Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians; not because they lost their job. I don't even want to hear people talking

about the fishermen in Newfoundland who lost their jobs. It's not a job they took from us.

If it was a job we would take our pink slip and our ROE and go get unemployment. They did

worse than that, Mr. Speaker, something that is unforgivable, something that everybody in

this House of Assembly has to take with passion, and say in one voice. With all due

respect to the letter that was mentioned earlier by the Government House Leader, yes,

that's another avenue to take, to write a letter. It's another avenue to make a phone

call. It's another avenue to make a motion here today.

Mr. Speaker, in one collective voice, this entire Province, represented

by this Legislature, every party and every member in this House of Assembly, has to give

one straight message to Ottawa, that it was not a job that you took away from this

Province, it wasn't the economic failure that we see around the Province now as an effect

of the fishery collapsing, it was a history, a way of life in this Province that has been

changed forever.

Mr. Speaker, anybody who comes from the rural districts - I know the

urban members also frequent the rural communities. I come from a district of thirty-three

communities with populations of from twenty-five to 600 or 700 people. I go there on a

regular basis, Mr. Speaker. Every time I go back to my district - I feel as comfortable on

the front of the stage in Fleur de Lys as I do in this House of Assembly, or down in

Ming's Bight, or down on a stage in La Scie, or out in Little Bay Islands where I go very

often. The Minister of Justice goes there often.

Mr. Speaker, when you sit around in those places and talk to those

people, it not a job they are telling you they have lost. When you sit down with a skipper

at the head of the wharf and he looks at his boat tipped over, it is not a job he is

talking about losing. He looks at pictures around him of family that have gone, because

pictures are all that are left. That is what this is all about, Mr. Speaker, it is not

about a job.

When I hear people talking about a job, how a fisherman lost his job,

we are not even touching the surface. If you talked to those people who have been in those

outports for years and love where they live - there was a time, Mr. Speaker, when I left

the town I grew up in, in Baie Verte. I left when I was seventeen. Like many of us, I did

my high school and left Baie Verte. I went to Labrador City and worked in construction and

whatever I could get my hands on. I finally ended up back in university. I used to always

thing at that age, Mr. Speaker: I will never live back in Baie Verte again, that is too

small a place. Then I would say to myself: How can people live down in Fleur de Lys? How

can people live down in Ming's Bight?

Mr. Speaker, do you know the funny part about all that? If you go right

around the world, you will always come back to the same thing. You have people in St.

John's now who say: How can you live out in Baie Verte? Then you go up to Toronto and you

have people up there saying: How can you live down in Newfoundland? Then you to go New

York and you find people saying: How can you live up in Toronto, up in Canada? Then the

whole things comes around again.

I was in Nippers Harbour about three weeks ago at a Firemen's Ball. A

lady said: You are still living in the district? I said: Yes, I am still living in the

district. She said: Well, you are in St. John's a lot. I see you on t.v. I said: No, no, I

am still living in Baie Verte. I am only in St. John's when I have to be, when the House

is open or there is a meeting or something. I am only in there when I have to be. She

said: I can't see how people can live in St. John's. So, Mr. Speaker, we went full circle,

from somebody in New York wondering how somebody can live in Canada, to somebody in

Nippers Harbour wondering how somebody can live in St. John's.

The bottom line is this: It is relative to where you are. That lady and

that family, for years and years, grew up in that beautiful little community of Nippers

Harbour. They own their own home. There is no crime there. If somebody is having a problem

up the road, somebody else helps out. That is the beauty of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr.

Speaker. That is what it is all about.

That is why, when I listened to people here today talking about this,

when the Premier got up and so on, and I talked to some fishermen outside after the

Premier had spoken, you know it is not the j