May 30,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 18

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we start the routine business of the day, I would like

to welcome a number of groups to the galleries on behalf of all members.

We have seventeen Level III students from Xavier High School

in the District of Bellevue, accompanied by their teacher, Adrian Norman; seven

Adult Basic Education students for Skills for Success on Parade Street,

accompanied by their instructor, Donna Adams. As well, we have twenty-eight

Grade V and VI students from New World Island East Elementary in the District of

Twillingate and Fogo, accompanied by teachers, Roland Hamlyn and Chris Osmond

and chaperons, Noreen Cutler, Rex Cutler, Ivan Card and bus driver, Boyce

Sansome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, Mr. Furey, the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I rise to announce that effective

today, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association will merge with the Canadian

Exporters' Association to form a new business organization to be called the

Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada.

Mr. Speaker, due to the historical significance of these two

organizations and the major role they have played in the economic development of

Canada, a similar statement is being made today in the House of Commons by the

federal Minister of Industry Canada, the hon. John Manley, as well as other

provincial industry ministers in Legislatures across Canada from coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, manufacturing and exporting have always been

closely linked. As trade barriers fall, Canadian companies are developing,

producing and exporting quality products to the rest of the world. In short, we

continue to succeed in a fiercely competitive global marketplace. The union of

these two associations that have played a significant role over the years in

achieving that success, will result in an even stronger organization with an

international focus.

This merger makes good business sense and will benefit

Canadian companies, including many here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the Chairman of the

Canadian Manufacturers' Association at this significant juncture is a

Newfoundlander - Mr. Lorne Janes, who is also currently Chairman of the

Newfoundland Manufacturers' Association.

Manufacturing continues to play a key role in developing our

economy provincially. Newfoundland and Labrador is leading the country in terms

of increasing manufacturing shipments for the first quarter of this year, with

an increase of 14 per cent, higher than any other province. Manufacturing

shipments comparatively for the country are down slightly for the first quarter.

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to acknowledge the

contribution of Mr. George Lee, who has been Chairman of the Newfoundland

chapter of the Canadian Exporters' Association for the past three years.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the Canadian Exporters' Association and

the Canadian Manufacturers' Association for their past work and wish the new

organization, the Alliance of Manufacturers & Exporters Canada, the very best in

the future. We look forward to working with them.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I first of all wish to note that Mr. Janes, who has been with

the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in the capacity of chairman, and Mr.

Lee, with the provincial

chapter of the Canadian Exporters' Association have

served well in those capacities in this Province and on a national level. It is

very appropriate, too, I think, that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and

the Canadian Exporters' Association merge.

As a Province and as a country we depend heavily upon exports

and particularly, too, with free trade there has been an increase in exports and

an export trade surplus in our country because of these new ventures. Many local

and Canadian manufacturers depend heavily upon the exportation of goods from our

country that has a small population base out to large markets around the world.

These associations have very many goals in common, the Manufacturers'

Association in production for exporting a tremendous amount and it is very

appropriate, too, that this step has been taken. I commend both associations in

taking this initiative now to work on a more collaborative basis now and in the

future by merging into one association.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

I ask the minister: Has an agreement has been reached for the

transfer from IOC to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro of the twenty megawatt

generating station at Menihek dam which now supplies electricity to the town of

Shefferville?

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

DR. GIBBONS: I do not think it has been finalized, Mr.

Speaker, but it is close to being finalized. There has been some work on this

for some time and I believe the expectation is that there will be an agreement

and a transfer finalized in the next few months.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister also confirm if Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro has agreed to upgrade and to lease that facility after the final

transaction to Hydro Quebec, and how much will we receive for that lease?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro have not agreed to do any upgrading on anything. Let me put this in

context. Presently the Iron Ore Company of Canada, a private company, owns the

Menihek power station which has a rating of about nineteen megawatts. The only

use of power from this particular station at this time is in the town of

Shefferville, which of course used to, at one time, have a mine that was split

on both sides of the border, but at this time the only use from the power at

Menihek is in the town of Shefferville, and this is a town that is mostly

populated by some natives in Quebec.

The Iron Ore Company would like to dispose of this facility.

A couple of years ago they tried to do this privately, and it was our view,

since Menihek controls about 25 per cent of the water that flows through the

Churchill watershed that it would not be appropriate for some external private

company to come in and control that watershed. We suggested that Hydro should

make an arrangement with the Iron Ore Company of Canada to obtain ownership of

this facility and control over that watershed. That is what is being arranged

and we hope that agreement is finalized.

Now, as part of it in the meantime, we get control of the

watershed and we get ownership of the facility. In the meantime there is no use

for the power that is being produced by that facility at this time except in the

town of Shefferville which uses about seven or eight megawatts of the nineteen

megawatt capacity. The agreement that is being made is that Hydro Quebec will

provide an amount that will be sufficient to pay the Iron Ore Company the amount

that they want in terms of a purchase price, so Hydro Quebec will provide that

money.

Hydro Quebec will provide the quantity of money that is

required to upgrade the facility for transfer of the power to the border, the

Labrador/Quebec border, and within Quebec I think the native groups are going to

take ownership of the distribution network in that Province.

What is going to happen is that we, through Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro, will obtain ownership of it without spending a single penny.

Hydro Quebec will provide the money that will give the Iron Ore Company what it

needs for the purchase, and Hydro Quebec will spend the money that is needed to

upgrade that facility to give a certain supply of power to Schefferville for the

time in the future.

In the meantime, what is being built into this with us being

the owner is that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be able, at its option,

at any time, to say: We need the power that is surplus to Schefferville's needs

tomorrow, immediately. Secondly, if a demand comes for power over and above the

surplus to Schefferville Hydro can determine to set a time period and say: We

will make a recall for whatever amount we want and we give you a notice period

for that recall.

Thirdly, what is being arranged is that if a demand becomes

available and we want all the power from Menihek -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his remarks.

DR. GIBBONS: - we can give three years' notice, Mr.

Speaker, and say we want to cancel and terminate this arrangement to sell any

power into Schefferville.

What is happening in all of this is that Hydro Quebec will

only have the power as long as it is no longer surplus to our needs, and we have

a good deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Will the minister then make it clear, is

the portion that is used, that is supplied, going to be leased at a certain

amount or a certain fee recovered for the ongoing operation of the Menihek dam,

or is Hydro Quebec, I ask the minister, going to control the operation of

Menihek dam? Who is going to retain operational control?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, ownership will rest with us

through Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation. Operation for supplying the

power to Schefferville will be through a lease arrangement with Hydro Quebec.

For that arrangement it will pay us a fee for the power that is produced, a fee

that is substantially higher than the present fee that is paid for the use of

that water by the Iron Ore Company of Canada.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad the

minister is catching up, because I asked him in question number two if it is

going to be leased, and he did not say it was. He now said it is going to be

leased, so he is admitting that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is going to

receive the transfer, and make it clear, the Menihek dam from IOC that no longer

has a use because they don't need it for Schefferville, now Newfoundland is

going to pay for the upgrade and get reimbursed, and then lease it to Hydro

Quebec, the minister said, for the amount of power that is needed for Quebec -

they are going to pay for those costs - and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is

now going to lease that to a company in Quebec; that is what he said.

I ask the minister: With all of the problems we had with

Hydro Quebec, why would we turn over the operation of that facility, that the

minister said, to Hydro Quebec? Why wouldn't we retain that control here in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, we are turning nothing over to

Hydro Quebec, absolutely nothing.

MR. SULLIVAN: You are leasing it.

DR. GIBBONS: We are going to own it, but we do not own it

today. It is owned today by the Iron Ore Company of Canada, which is providing

this power to Schefferville, to the town. They have no other use for the power

on the Labrador side of the border, and we are going to own it for the first

time in our history, we are going to control the 25 per cent of the Churchill

watershed that flows through the Menihek as a result of this arrangement, and we

are not going to spend one cent, not one red penny, not one loonie, ourselves on

this matter. Hydro Quebec will provide the money that is required to purchase

it, for us to purchase it. They are going to provide all of that money. They are

going to provide the money and do whatever upgrading they need to do to maintain

a service to their people, and what we are getting out of this besides ownership

is a bigger annual fee substantially than is presently being paid to us by the

Iron Ore Company of Canada for the water rights. The other thing we are going to

get is access instantly to the surplus power that is available if we need it,

access within a reasonable period to be determined by Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro if we want to recall more than that surplus at any time for an industrial

development in that part of Labrador, and access on three years' notice to the

full amount of that power if we need it for industrial development in that part

of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good deal for us, an excellent deal

for us.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Minister, if it is a good deal could you

tell us what the lease terms are, and what the lease fee is to lease this to

Hydro Quebec to operate, to supply Schefferville with power? What are we

getting? In other words, how much in the total deal are we receiving for this

Province? And on the demands, we know there is approximately 130 megawatts we

have the right to recall, I think, on the Churchill from CF(L)Co; that is still

there, I understand. We have used approximately 170, so will the minister stand

and tell us what the lessee is, the lease is out; we know we have ownership it

is in our Province and we should. Tell us what we are getting in the total

package because of this deal.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, presently, I believe the Iron

Ore Company pays us about $2,500 to $3,000 a year in fees for this and that's

about all.

I don't have the exact fee that we are going to get at this

time, I don't know the exact fee myself but we are going to get substantially

more than is presently being paid to us for this and we are going to get

ownership without spending a loony and, we are going to have access to any of

the power that is produced there, subject to our recall rights that are in the

agreement, and I mentioned most of the conditions that are in the agreement a

moment ago when I went through the different stages on which we can have recall

rights and the lease itself is a twenty-five year lease but it is subject to

being ended at any time, three years notice are all that is given if we want to

terminate it completely because we have a demand for the power. So, we are well

protected in this, it is a good deal; at this time today we have no demand for

even one miliwatt, not microwatt, one miliwatt for the power from that dam.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why shouldn't we own it, if IOC is not going to use it? A

generating station in Newfoundland and Labrador, why shouldn't we own it I say

to the minister.

I want to move on to another aspect.

Hydro Quebec owns and operates an electrical generating

facility at Lake Robertson. It uses this facility to supply power to the

residents of Quebec and an agreement is in the works I understand, to supply

power to Southern Labrador which was served by diesel generation in the past.

How much I ask the minister, is Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro paying Hydro Quebec for this power that is going to be supplied to

Southern Labrador?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is correct. Hydro

Quebec has developed the power facility on the Quebec side of the border, near

the Labrador Straits that is going to supply power to a number of towns in that

area that are presently on a grid as primarily supplied by diesel.

We have had discussions with them through Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro to get some power that for a period, will be surplus to their

needs. There will be a time when they will have some surplus power and, again, I

don't know the exact amounts, I have not been involved with the negotiations

about the exact fees but I am sure these numbers are available somewhere. I am

not even sure that the agreement has been finalized as to the exact amounts, but

there is some power, that for a number of years will be surplus to the demands

of Hydro Quebec in the Quebec part of that particular part of the country and

they are prepared to sell the surplus to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for use

in that grid.

Recently, in Coastal Labrador, there was a public hearing by

the Public Utilities Board about the rate that should be paid for that

particular power or for any power to the people who are on that grid. PUB I

expect, will be ruling in the next few weeks on what they think that power

should be sold for in the region combining the surplus power from Quebec with

the power that is being generated presently by diesel. I don't know what the

answer is going to be by the Public Utilities Board. They have had the public

hearing, they have had lots of input on it but I myself, have not been a part of

it and I don't know the exact numbers and I frankly, have not been interested in

the exact numbers.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am appalled. The minister knows the transaction is

happening and he does not know what we are going to get. I am very interested in

the numbers I say to the minister. I am appalled that we don't know what we will

be getting for this deal on the Menihek dam and also, it is my understanding -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) appalled.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I am appalled. - and it is my

understanding that in Southern Labrador that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

will be paying in the vicinity of forty-five to sixty mils, for interrupted

energy I might add; we will still need to maintain periodically, the diesel

generating machines that are there at the plants to supply it, because we don't

have a consistent supply.

Now I ask the minister, the residents in Southern Labrador

feel they should pay rural, interconnected rates. Now, don't you think,

minister, that there should be a straight substitution of equivalent power,

amounts that are needed, exchanged between Hydro Quebec and Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro to serve both instances, from the Menihek dam and Lake Robertson

that is located near Southern Labrador?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the two matters are quite

separate and quite different. In the Lake Robertson case, Hydro Quebec has

developed a hydro power development. It has paid whatever it costs to develop

that hydro power development. It has some surplus power that is available and

they have said that they are prepared to make that available to us for an

appropriate price. That price is being negotiated. I don't know what that price

is but it is a price certainly that is considerably cheaper than our present

cost of producing power in that region or anywhere using diesel generators much

less than the cost of producing it using diesel generators. So if such cheaper

power is available to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro it certainly should be

(inaudible) to obtain that power if they can get it for any temporary period to

help cut down the cost and make it cheaper on the ratepayers of Newfoundland and

Labrador and that is what they are trying to do.

The Menihek one is quite a different matter. There is a power

station that is presently owned by the Iron Ore Company that is presently only

producing power and selling it into Schefferville and is being produced by that

company. We can get ownership of it and will get ownership of it through an

arrangement that is being made. It will not cost us one penney to do so but we

will have recall rights on every kilowatt that can be produced on that one, when

and if we need it at any time, when and if we need it under the appropriate

conditions. So in both cases, as far as we are concerned for this Province, it

is a good deal for us both ways.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have the

minister's word it is a good deal and he does not even know what the figures

are. How can the minister tell us it is a good deal when he said he does not

know what we are getting, I say to the minister? Is it going to be another

Churchill Falls deal? We want to know and we have a right to know. I ask the

minister, what are we getting on the deal with the Menihek dam? What is

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro paying for power to serve people here in

Southern Labrador? Why shouldn't there be an equal substitution of power? Why

should Hydro Quebec be able to come in, operate and run a hydro generating

facility in this Province when we have to pay for interrupted energy at probably

an exorbitant rate in Southern Labrador? What is so secretive about this

transaction? Why doesn't the minister subject just the public hearings so people

in this Province can subject that to public scrutiny and to ensure that we are

getting the best deal that is in the interest of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing secretive

about it. It is a good deal. In both cases it is a good deal for us. In the

Menihek case we are not spending one loonie and we are going to get ownership,

control of 25 per cent of the Churchill power, Churchill water rights and we are

going to get significantly more per year than we now get. I don't know the

dollar amount personally. I would tell you if I knew it. I don't know it but I

am told it is significantly more than the $2,500 that the Iron Ore Company of

Canada - or the $2,500 or $3,000 that the Iron Ore Company of Canada has been

paying for the last forty years or so since that was developed in the early '50s

but I don't know the exact amount.

In terms of the rate that we are paying for the interruption

of power from Lake Robertson, my understanding is that negotiations are not

finalized. I have not been given a figure as to the final rate that we will be

paying but again it is substantially below the cost that we presently have for

producing diesel power, substantially below it. I am told it, I can believe the

people who tell me that it is substantially less than what we are presently

paying for diesel power and for diesel power it is the most expensive power in

this Province. We only get about 28 per cent of the cost of the power in the

rates that are being paid by the people who are buying it.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my

question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Minister, a very, very serious issue was raised here in this

House yesterday regarding the existence of a cartel in the crab processing

industry. Would the minister inform the House if there has been any new

developments to support the statements that were put forward here in the House

yesterday?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: I have no idea what the hon. member is

talking about. If I made a statement in the House yesterday I made it publicly

before yesterday. Again, after Question Period yesterday to the news media: Do I

believe there was a cartel existing in the Province? I said yes yesterday that I

believe a - whether cartel is the proper name but that is the name that it is

being referred to among the fishermen of the Province. Do I believe it exists? I

have not changed my mind since yesterday. If the hon. member is asking me what I

discussed at meetings this morning, I'm not going to tell him.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister

that this is a very serious issue. He may be `Joe Blunt' with me but I think a

lot of people out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador whose lives are

depending on this need to know some answers.

Minister, yesterday you indicated that you were doing an

investigation within your own department and seeking the advice of the

Department of Justice. We don't have the luxury of time on our side because as

you know there is already a very active snow crab fishery presently taking place

in other Atlantic Provinces. I fear that this particular fishery might interfere

even further with our markets and pricing, et cetera. Would the minister inform

the House as to how long he expects his investigation to take place? When does

he expect it to be over, and when can we get our fishermen back fishing and our

plant workers back to work?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the

hon. member finds it a very serious situation. Had I not raised it through an

interview on the Fisheries Broadcast last week he wouldn't have even questioned

me in the House on it. So I find it (inaudible) now he finds it a very serious

situation.

I find it a very serious situation. I was the one who brought

it out in the public, I'm the one who is going to deal with it, and I am going

to deal with it in a manner that is efficient and proficient to the satisfaction

that I am satisfied it is either totally not there at all, or it is totally now

being stopped among the fishing industry. But as far as the snow crab fishery

this year in Newfoundland? A snow crab fishery has been announced: 37,000 metric

tons by the federal government. Whether I have asked Justice for advice or not

has nothing to do with crab pots going in the water.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I remind the

minister that he is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. We all know that.

You are expected to bring those things out and to be on top of what is happening

in your particular industry. So it should be no surprise to the minister that I

would raise it after he raised the issue in expressing concern.

The minister also stated yesterday that he doesn't believe

fish harvesters play any

part in this so-called cartel, and it is strictly

between the processors. I ask the minister if he has had any consultation

whatsoever between the representatives of the fish harvesters, the FFAW, and if

he has, would he mind telling us what their opinions and suggestions regarding

this particular operation of a cartel were.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: I've had meetings with the processors, I've

had discussions with the union representatives, I've had discussions with people

in the harvesting of the crab; or I guess fishery in general, but in this

particular case crab is what we are talking about. Am I going to tell the hon.

member the results of those discussions that I've had? No I'm not.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have one

question and it is for the hon. Minister of Justice. It is on the same topic as

just previously discussed. My one question is this. What legislation or what

provisions or what act or what regulation forms the basis of the referral or the

investigation which has been requested by the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture to your department? What is the concern of the Ministry of Justice,

or what is the basis or the subject matter for which advice is being sought?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the provincial fisheries of this

Province is under the guidance of the fishery inspection act. We have a lawyer

from the Department of Justice who is assigned to my department. I had some

concerns about the possibility, or what I believed to be a cartel - the name is

only talked about in the general public, and it is an organization or structure,

whatever - quite some time ago because I live in a fishing community. It was

expressed to me last year and I brought it to the attention of the proper

officials at the time.

Since becoming Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture I have

asked the lawyer who is assigned to the provincial Department of Fisheries and

Aquaculture to look up and research, under the fisheries legislation, whether it

is the fisheries inspection act or whatever, or the combines act, or whatever

legalities can be, if he can advise me if this, what we perceive to be

happening, is a legal thing. That lawyer who is assigned to my department is

doing that research . He will get back to me, I'm hoping, no later than next

week at least, the middle or the latter part of next week.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I have my inaugural question for the new Minister of

Development and Rural Renewal, D2R2 as it has been described. First of all

government has indicted their desire to stimulate economic growth and

development in Newfoundland and Labrador through the nineteen economic zones

and, of course, the implementation of the regional economic development boards.

Capitalizing on opportunities that are available will require strategic planning

and a coordinated approach to regional economic development as the minister has

stated, and I agree.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister,

given the rush to put into place all the permanent boards before the end of

June, I ask the minister if she thinks there is any danger that the viability of

these initiatives will compromise by a lack of communication and coordination

between government and these boards?

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, it is not a rush in the sense that

we have been working for some time now, in fact for the past two years to put in

place the provisional boards. What we are now trying to do is move it ahead so

that we can see some economic development take place. In fact what we are trying

to do is get the permanent boards up and running by the end of June, but bearing

in mine that a lot of the people who have served on the permanent boards will

already have served on the provisional boards.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte on a

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: At the Strategic Planning Conference held

this past weekend in St. John's, which the minister attended, the

representatives from the provisional boards and the permanent boards were

confused about their role in this development initiative and they requested

government's commitment to the process. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether

she is willing to demonstrate government's commitment to this process by

providing these boards with unlimited access to government expertise, number

one, by repairing the broken lines of communications between the board

representatives and government, and to let the pace of implementation of these

boards be driven by the grassroots that the minister keeps referring to?

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes to all three.

What we are hoping to do is have all boards up and running by the end of June,

the intent being that we want to see economic development take place in rural

Newfoundland. We all know the urgency of that happening so we will certainly

make sure that all expertise in government is available to every board

throughout the Province. The rush is not on my part here, I think the rush, in

any discussions I have had with members of the provisional boards and the

permanent boards that have been established, they were all anxious to see

economic development take place in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte on a

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has also indicated that these boards will have a

great deal of autonomy and support within consideration of projects, especially

within their own zones. Also at the last part of the conference there were a lot

of discussions among the representatives. They raised concerns about the college

closures. Board members indicated that the presence of community colleges

throughout the region were essential to the economic restructuring process of

these boards, so I ask the minister if she will respect the concerns raised by

the members and ask government to reconsider the closure of the community

colleges until there is a thorough assessment of these colleges and the impact

of the closures?

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

Rural Renewal.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the

decision to close community colleges was a Budget decision and it was a decision

that was taken by this government and a decision that the Minister of Education

has indicated will stand.

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

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

In the absence of the Environment and Labour Minister I ask

whoever the acting minister is. As we know and as the people of the Province

know there is a major development that government is about to make a decision

on, that being Star Lake Power Development. I would like to ask whoever can

answer for the government, where is that project proposal? When can we expect a

decision by government on the environmental impact, and will the department let

that project proceed or not?

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

MR. TULK: The last part of the question was?

MR. E. BYRNE: When will the government announce what the

environmental impact of it will be, if that project will be proceeding and when

it will proceed?

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding in

conversations that I have had, and as a matter to some effect in the department

that I happen to run, the wildlife section, as I understand from the Minister of

Environment and Lands that project will soon get the green light. As far as

environmental okay is concerned it will go ahead, but I will have the Minister

of Environment and Labour give a more detailed answer when he gets back in the

morning.

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

supplementary.

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

Let me ask the minister who is responsible for wildlife then,

in the environmental assessment and the environmental impact study that was

done, it indicated that the Buchan's caribou herd, that they anticipated there

would be a 15 per cent mortality rate on the herd each and every year. Is the

minister aware of that and if he is, is he concerned about the impact on the

Buchan's caribou herd, and what its long-term impact will be on that herd?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister.

MR. TULK: Let me assure the hon. gentleman that the

wildlife division is concerned about every aspect of wildlife in this Province

and indeed we will take whatever measures are necessary to protect it. And if

the hon. gentleman fits into that category we will even protect him.

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

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Minister of

the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods to present the 1995 Annual

Report of the Regional Services and Protection

Section of the Wildlife Division.

In so doing, I would like to take perhaps twenty seconds to say that we are this

year tabling this annual report, and we are doing it as a tribute to a wildlife

conservation officer by the name of Jobe Flowers in the community of Hopedale,

in the District of Torngat Mountains, who met an untimely passing in a fire last

November 17, 1995.

Petitions

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to present a petition this afternoon on behalf

of residents of the District of Virginia Waters. Last night I was pleased to

attend a public gathering by approximately sixty or seventy residents of the

area of Brophy Place, Kelly Street, Hunt's Lane, McGrath Place and Blackwood

Place, on the issue of school busing. This particular area, Brophy Place and

those streets that I just mentioned, along with other parts of the city of St.

John's, in particular Shea Heights and areas of the Goulds and Quidi Vidi and so

on, have been dealt a very difficult blow in the last number of days, and that

is the cancellation and discontinuance of school busing in an area where, of

course, the people in these areas have long been used to satisfactory and

appropriate busing for their children to the neighbourhood schools.

In meeting with the group that was assembled last night at

the community centre on Brophy Place, it was clear that these individuals are

upset. They are in a position such that financially it would be virtually

impossible for them to afford the cost of busing, or taxiing, or other ways to

school for their children next year, and it was necessary that a meeting such as

this was called. It was called by the community leaders in that particular area.

Representatives of Metrobus were also present, and representatives of the

Department of Education, in the absence of the minister, were present as well.

One thing that came out of that meeting was the fact that

there was a commitment by the officials who were present representing the

Department of Education that an approach will be made to the minister to have a

meeting with the minister by the individuals representing those concerned

parents in this area, in the hopes that the minister would, too, consider this a

special case. We will recall in the House the other day when the issue of busing

was brought to the floor of this House by my colleague, the Member for St.

John's South, it was indicated by the Minister of Education that special

circumstances would be given a second look, and I would submit, in having heard

the concerns of these concerned parents at this public gathering last night,

that this, too, meets the definition of special circumstances. I can only hope,

on behalf of this group, that the minister will take a hard, serious look at the

real concerns that have been brought forward by the group as we met last night,

and I hope that the commitment as made by the officials of the Department of

Education, is made and kept, and that very shortly we will hear a response from

the Minister of Education as to having listened to the concerns of this group

and hopefully finding that this is a special needs case.

So, on behalf of the parents of Brophy Place, Kelly Street,

Hunt's Lane, McGrath Place and Blackwood Place, I present a petition voicing

their genuine concerns as to the total discontinuance of school busing for the

children in their area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I stand to support the petition presented by the Member for

St. John's East, and the petitioners who have asked for a second look in terms

of the discontinuance of school busing and how it impacts on them within the St.

John's.

Mr. Speaker, it raises a larger issue, an issue that impacts

upon many areas of the city. My colleague, the Member for St. John's South

raised a similar issue last week in the House dealing with constituents in Shea

Heights where they discontinued school busing service, yet a school bus will be

travelling through their community.

The larger issue is school busing in St. John's, generally

speaking. There is a sense within the community, and there is a sense within

people who rely upon school busing and their children who rely upon school

busing, that this area of the Province is being treated very unfairly on this

particular issue. I would submit to the House and in particular to the Minister

of Education that when he returns he should take look at school busing as a

whole for the entire area of St. John's, and make some recommendations that

would see the reorganization of school busing in St. John's with this impact:

that for the children who depend upon it, it is reinstated where there are

special circumstances, and reinstated immediately, and to bring it to areas that

now do not have it that may need to have it.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a word with respect to the petition that

was just presented by the hon. the Member for St. John's East with respect to

school busing in St. John's.

The comments I would make are not necessarily in support of

the petition, although I do recognize that people who have historically had

school busing provided within the city limits that was not extended to everybody

within the city limits, are now concerned, understandably, as to why that change

would take place now and the availability of busing to them would occur.

I have a small area in my district that is affected by this

policy. We have been meeting with the people in our area. The reality is this:

within the city of St. John's, with the exception of a very few areas on the

periphery that have been identified by the Members for Kilbride and St. John's

East - within the city of St. John's, Metrobus has an adequate busing system.

While I agree with the principle that everybody within the city should be

treated equitably with respect to school busing, it is not a question of

necessarily expanding the school busing - the free school busing, if you like -

by virtue of yellow buses that the boards run into the rest of the city. It is a

matter of ensuring that all parts of the city are treated fairly.

I have expressed to my constituents that I will undertake on

their behalf, not necessarily to ensure that we will continue to provide busing

to them that is not available to all of the population of St. John's. The fact

of the matter is that some areas of the city have been receiving free school

busing while 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the people of St. John's have had to

use Metrobus and pay for their own busing. What I have undertaken to do for my

constituents, which they agree with, is to ensure that now that the busing that

really was not appropriate for them to have in the past and which has now been

withdrawn is replaced by an adequate network and routing of Metrobus service

that will ensure that they have a way of getting their children to school, as

does everybody else in the city.

The people in St. John's have to use Metrobus by virtue of 90

per cent or 95 per cent of them being self-serviced by that system, and for

those areas on the periphery who were piggy-backing on a free bus service, I can

only say that I will undertake, on behalf of my constituents who are affected,

to ensure that they have the same access to Metrobus that everybody else in the

city of St. John's has. If, in the infinite wisdom of the Minister of Education,

he so chooses to decide to expand school busing universally, free of cost, to

everybody in St. John's, then, of course I would be happy to ensure that people

in my district get their fair share of that free ride.

In the absence of that, and in the unlikelihood of that, then

I would say in the circumstances that would not be appropriate, because St.

John's does have a good Metrobus system. I can assure the hon. member that the

people of Brophy Place, Shea Heights, Newfoundland Drive and East Meadows,

Blackmarsh Road, Jensen Camp Road, Old Pennywell Road, and all of these areas

that are so affected, I can undertake to do the best I can to ensure that they

have a good Metrobus network servicing them, as do the other 95 per cent of the

people who live in the city of St. John's.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of the

residents -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OSBORNE: Is the hon. member finished?

I am standing today to present a petition on behalf of the

residents of Shea Heights in St. John's, to oppose the discontinuation of school

busing in Shea Heights. This is one of a number of petitions that I have now

presented on this particular issue, and while the hon. member across has stated

that each area of St. John's is receiving Metrobus service, Metrobus service is

a service for which the general public has to pay, while most areas of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are receiving free school busing. I think

this is unjust and unfair to the residents of St. John's, most particularly to

the residents of Shea Heights, as there is a school bus that passes directly

through the community of Shea Heights on the way to Blackhead, and directly

through the community of Shea Heights on the way back to drop these students off

at school.

I ask the House to accept this petition and to review the

special circumstances which the Minister of Education has said he would review

in this particular case, as the Metrobus system in St. John's is not subsidized

and all other areas of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are subsidized

with school busing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak to the petition that has been brought

forward by my colleague, the Member for St. John's South. I would just like to

respond somewhat to a few points made by the hon. the Minister of Health just a

few minutes ago.

The situation and the distinction that has to be made is that

Metrobuses are not school buses. There are no monitors aboard Metrobuses to deal

with young children. Metrobuses do not stop at a prescribed pick-up place for

young children. Metrobuses do not drive onto school grounds to ensure that

children are dropped off close to the school entrance, they will stop wherever

the bus stop is and, in all likelihood, it could very easily be on the opposite

side of the street. A Metrobus does not take into account driving conditions or

weather conditions, or placement of bus stops. To put it simply, a Metrobus is

not a school bus, and that is fundamentally the problem with the argument which

is being raised by my learned friend opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with this decision with respect to

the discontinuance of school buses is the same as with every other decision that

has been made dealing with education in the last number of months. There has

been no planning, the decisions have been arbitrary, the decisions do not take

into account what is in the best interest of young school children in this

Province, the decisions are made without any comprehensive plan and, as a

result, the young people of this Province, and the parents of these young

people, are protesting, and they are protesting in large numbers.

Just witness the 2,000 to 3,000 young high school students

who stood on Confederation hill yesterday. What young people are saying is: We

are not going to take it anymore, and the decision to discontinue school bus

services for the people of Brophy Place, for the people of Shea Heights, for the

people of the Goulds, and for other parts around this city, people who have been

accustomed to adequate and free bus services over the years, this decision, as I

mentioned earlier, is unfair, is unkind, and does not take into account what is

in the interest of young people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition.

The petitions of the undersigned residents of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, known as the Fightin' Nfld'ers, ask for the House of

Assembly to accept the following prayer:

We, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador,

do hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to support our

petition to do one of the following: open a food and recreational fishery to all

Newfoundland families or close the food and recreational fishery to the rest of

Atlantic Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will continue on with the petitions that

I have started. I have told the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the

members opposite that I will continue to present petitions. As a matter of fact,

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was going to run out of petitions on the food fishery

but lo and behold, somebody has been listening, because I have hundreds of

petitions now from places like Botwood, Point Leamington and right across the

Province, asking for me to continue to voice their opinion of how the government

has reacted in not allowing a food fishery in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the now Premier, the once Minister of Fisheries

for the Federal Government, was the person solely responsible for deciding not

to have a food fishery in this Province. I was delighted the other day that he

did get up to respond to one of the other petitions I presented but, Mr.

Speaker, what was shameful is that his arguments for closing the food fishery

were - disgusting; that is probably the best word I can find for it. For the

federal Minister of Fisheries to give those reasons for closing a food fishery -

when he had the resources, he had the scientific research to go on, that he

would decide to close the food fishery.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture here in the

Estimates Committee meeting on his department a few nights ago, reminded us how

many fish seals eat in just one day. The seals eat more in one day than what was

caught in that entire food fishery, when it was open, and I support the minister

when he talks about increasing the seal quotas. That would be our solution to -

and you could have ten food fisheries in this Province for the amount of fish

that seals eat. Not one person who signs these petitions, or myself who supports

them, believes - if I believed for one minute that a small food fishery for a

man who could go out and jig a fish to eat - if the Minister of Fisheries

provincially or federally or his great scientific research that comes from

Ottawa could show me that that would in any way hurt the recovering fish stocks,

Mr. Speaker - the small amount of fish caught by a food fishery would not, in

any way, hurt the recovery of the fish stocks.

Now, Mr. Speaker, nobody has been able to provide us with the

information that says that in-bay stocks - and if you talk to fishermen around

the Province - who I think are the real experts when it comes to the fishery,

not the scientist out of Ottawa - if you talk to these people they will tell you

there are lots of fish in the bays of this Province. We are not talking about

the offshore biomasses where the big draggers go out and scoop up the fish.

Speaking of the offshore draggers, Mr. Speaker, they can catch, in one day, what

these people caught as a food fishery. The difference between - I say to the

Member for Fogo, the Government House Leader, that he made a point -

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) Bonavista North now.

MR. SHELLEY: I am sorry, the Member for Bonavista North,

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected, with the changes in boundaries. I stand

corrected, the Member for Bonavista North made a comment about the food fishery.

I think, if you really sat back to think about it and the scientific research,

if you want to go on facts and figures and so on, that there has been no

scientific research. I have asked DFO to show me the different of the biomasses

offshore, which is why the moratorium is in place now, Mr. Speaker, and I concur

with that. I believe that there should be no commercial fishery until we can

find out that there is a link between the in-bay stocks and the offshore

biomasses of cod fish in this Province. That is where we don't know.

The other thing is, Mr. Speaker, why in Prince Edward Island,

New Brunswick and Quebec they can fish for food? The Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture can go over on a holiday this summer in Prince Edward Island and jig

a fish as a Newfoundlander but he cannot jig a fish in Newfoundland. Now, Mr.

Speaker, unless some scientist has been telling the minister - and the fact that

I found out is that fish caught off the South Coast of Newfoundland were caught

in the Bering Strait, thousands of miles away. So unless we have a chain-link

fence under the water that is going to stop those fish from coming between

Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, why the discrimination? that

is what I ask the Minister. Why is it? We are saying that there are different

stocks or different borders and these fish come to a border, stop and turn

around and say, sorry, we cannot cross the border. What a ridiculous comment to

make, Mr. Speaker! The truth is that Newfoundlanders are being discriminated

against when it comes to the food fishery. The second point being that, if there

are fish in the bays, and in the small communities out there, Mr. Speaker, any

man who has fished for years and years and years, should be allowed to go and

catch his ten fish to eat. I am not saying a commercial fishery and the minister

- I talked about the federal minister, it is the former federal minister's

argument. Our own provincial fisheries minister, Mr. Speaker, has said: you

think we should open up the commercial fishery? No, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe

we should open up a commercial fishery, not until we are absolutely sure,

because that is a large amount of fish we are talking about but I am talking

about a minuscule amount of fish that is caught in a food fishery, and I will

refer the minister to this.

The two arguments that the then Minister of Fisheries put

forward for closing down the last food fishery, there were two main arguments.

First he said, they were getting small fish and then he came back and said:

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. EFFORT: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to support the petition that is put forward by

my colleague from Baie Verte in support of the food fishery.

Mr. Speaker, it is a fishery that has always existed here in

Newfoundland ever since the first day here I suppose, and they are soon going to

celebrate a big worldwide national event, Mr. Speaker, that happened 500 years

ago. It is something that we have always done, it has always been part of our

culture, it has always been part of our diet, we were allowed to go out and jig

a meal of fish I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: That looks terrible.

MR. FITZGERALD: It does not look half as terrible as the

shirt that you have on here today. In fact, I believe it is the same one he had

on yesterday. You should wash your shirt sometimes, don't pollute the bay I say,

because it might have some impact on our fishery.

MR. EFFORD: I only have two.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, that is one more that we

thought we had.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today on a very serious matter and

that is the food fishery; the minister will stand up I am sure, when I sit down,

and get on with the same old speech that we must conserve our stocks and the

plant down in Catalina is closed and the one in Bonavista is closed and I have

fourteen fish plants in my district - this is what you will hear, I say to the

people in the galleries, this is what you will hear when he stands, and he will

go on and say that until those plants open that we cannot be allowed to go out

and take a chance on destroying the stocks that would provide so many of our

people with a livelihood and a pay cheque, and he will get nobody here to

disagree with that because that is not what we are supporting and that is not

what we are proposing and that is not what the people in Newfoundland and

Labrador want.

What I say to the minister is: the people in this Province,

the people, Mr. Speaker, in rural Newfoundland would still like the opportunity

to go out and catch a meal of fish, and I can guarantee that there is enough

stock out there to supply them with that particular need and we will not destroy

anything. I call on the members here to go down on the waterfront. If they want

to talk about destroying something, if they want to talk about conserving our

stock, I would ask them to go down on the waterfront and look at the back of a

boat that is tied up down there now, from Clearwater Fine Foods in Nova Scotia.

It is a shrimp dragger and has been there for a few days, and

look at the process that this particular dragger uses in order to catch shrimp

which is a favourite food of the cod I might add, Mr. Speaker. Look at the

technology that they use. What you will find is two, big, iron plates about the

size that you would attach to a big construction excavator or grader, tied up to

the back of the boat, that is dragged over the ocean floor in order to catch

shrimp. There is nothing wrong with catching shrimp, nothing wrong with going

out and providing employment with that particular boat, but it is the way that

we fish that particular stock, and you look at it and you can see the damage

that it would do because there are seven or eight big, cutting edges attached to

those particular pieces of steel that is dragged to keep the ends of the net

open to scoop up the shrimp and you can imagine what it is doing to the ocean

floor.

Cutting edges on it that can be replaced the same as you

would do with a grader that is ploughing the road so you know what it is doing,

Mr. Speaker, it is ploughing the ocean floor, destroying spawning grounds,

destroying hundreds of tons of juvenile fish that people in the House heard me

say before with the stories that are brought back for those particular fish

Mr. Speaker, it is ploughing the ocean floor, destroying

spawning grounds, destroying hundreds of tons of juvenile fish. People in the

House heard me say it before, with the stories that are brought back from those

particular fishermen, where they stand on the decks of the boat and shovel out

tons of cod, halibut, redfish, turbot, two and three inches long. Still the

minister will stand here and he will say that if we allow somebody to go out

with a hook and line we will destroy the stocks.

In fact, it was only a couple of months ago that the

fisheries officers down in my particular district went up and took away some

kid's rod where he was out on the rock flicking it out as we all did when we

were growing up, trying to catch a few connors or trying to catch a few

tom-cods, what have you. It is a sport that belongs to us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Came, Mr. Speaker, took away that

particular -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - rod and sent the kid home.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Shameful.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, I would like if I could to take a

few minutes to speak to this petition, to clearly lay out what I see as the

issue here, to clearly say where I think we should stand on this issue. Let me

say to the Members for Baie Verte and Bonavista South that there is not a member

in this House who would today feel any better - and I believe the same thing is

true for the minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture - there is not a member in

this House who would today sooner stand and say: Yes, there is a food fishery in

Newfoundland, this member, and I believe every member in this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I will tell you why. Mr. Speaker, I've sat and

listened to those gentlemen for the past, I don't know how long, go on with

petitions about how we should have a food fishery.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I have no doubt that it will keep going. I say

to them that I think - I won't accuse them, Mr. Speaker, of playing to people's

emotions about how they feel about traditional Newfoundland. I won't do that.

What I will say to them is I think they are gambling with doing something to

fish in a particular part of an eco-system called the North Atlantic Ocean, the

fish that are called -

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Now, I sat and listened to you. I would ask you

to sit back in your seat and listen to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. TULK: The fish in 2J-3KL, I say to the hon. Member

for Baie Verte, is on the verge of extinction. He knows it, everybody else on

this planet knows it, that the fish in 2J-3KL is on the verge of extinction. He

has no other evidence to indicate otherwise! He has no evidence, Mr. Speaker, to

indicate otherwise.

I say to him that what he is doing in this House is doing the

same thing that politicians did in I think it was 1990. A politician who was

then the federal Minister of Fisheries was advised by his scientists to make the

TAC for 2J-3KL fish 125,000 metric tons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Nineteen eighty-nine. What did he do? He gave

into the political pressure of fish companies and people like the hon. gentleman

opposite and announced 197,000 metric tons. That is what he did!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who gave him the advice?

MR. TULK: The scientists told him to give 125,000 metric

tons, I say to the hon. gentlemen, and they announced 197,000. What happened in

1992?

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that got to do with it?

MR. TULK: What does it have to do with it? It is called

bad judgement on the part of politicians!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: What happened in 1992?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SHELLEY: Sit down boy, you are making a fool of

yourself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: What happened in 1992, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SHELLEY: The food fishery (inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: Thousands of people in this Province got laid

off.

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

I ask the hon. Member for Baie Verte to allow the hon. Member

for Bonavista North to make his presentation.

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible).

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

I just asked the hon. member if he would give the hon. Member

for Bonavista North the courtesy to be heard in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

that he can yell and bawl all he wants. The truth of the matter is I will say in

this Legislature what I want to say and I will say it how I want to say it. I

won't ask the hon. gentleman for permission.

We saw as I said in 1989 a federal Minister of Fisheries say:

Oh yes, we will go up to 197,000 metric tons. In 1992 the people on Fogo Island,

the people along the northeast coast, got laid off.

Mr. Speaker, this hon. gentleman then comes out and says: You

know, a dragger can catch more in a day than people in the food fishery will in

a month. He is right. The truth of the matter is, he is right. But I ask him

this -

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the seals?

MR. TULK: The seals, the same thing, and nobody on this

side of the House will disagree with him that the seals should be hunted. As a

matter of fact, I guess we have pushed and had more success than any previous

government in the last fifteen years in getting that done.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to him through you this evening, one

of the best fisheries ministers this Province has ever seen - the second best, I

say to the hon. gentleman, was the man who made the decision in 1989.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TULK: Let me say to him, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TULK: - that two mistakes do not make a right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: (Inaudible) anyway! (Inaudible)!

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

I have to remind the hon. the Member for Baie Verte that it

is totally unacceptable and unparliamentary to be continuously interjecting when

a member is speaking in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

a petition.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition on behalf of some

residents of Bonavista South. The petition reads:

To the hon. the House of Assembly in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador, that:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power, since it has a monopoly in the

delivery of an essential commodity in this Province, is not at risk of becoming

non-competitive - and the whereases and wherefores continue.

What the people in the District of Bonavista South are saying

is that they want to speak out against the application by Newfoundland Power to

the Public Utilities Board to be awarded and granted an increase of some 4.9 per

cent, I think they were looking for, in a hike in electricity rates in this

Province.

It is a utility that has a monopoly on the delivery of an

essential service. Last year it made something like $27.8 million to $28 million

profit, not a bad profit, I say, compared to the economic conditions that most

of our companies find themselves in today. This particular utility, as we know

if you turn on your television, they run all kinds of ads promoting what they

do, and naturally, it is done in competition with the oil companies, to go out

and control the heating market out there today. They already have a monopoly on,

I suppose, the lighting market, if you would, and they enable us to use domestic

products in our homes. But they are also a situation now where they want to go

out and control the heating of our homes as well.

When you look at the older homes in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, many of them with very little if any insulation, and you look at the

cost of heating those homes, and you look at the decision of the government

opposite to combine the GST with the RST, the harmonization of two taxes which

will allow this utility to tack another 8 per cent on to the hydro bills, the

light bills in this Province, you will find that many of our homeowners and most

of our people out there today will be paying in excess of $55 to $65 more a

month on the electricity bill for their homes.

This comes at a time when many people are facing layoffs,

many people are going year after year without a hike in wages. One of the

reasons Newfoundland Power uses in trying to support their application to the

Public Utilities Board is that they have not had a rate increase since 1992. I

can assure you that there are a lot of people out there today who haven't seen a

raise in their pay cheque since 1992 either, and many people whose pay cheques

have either shrunk or disappeared altogether. Mr. Speaker, when you look at what

this utility company is doing in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and when you

look at the ads they are carrying now, especially as it relates -

I looked at a television set the other day out in my district

and the local channel was on and Newfoundland Power at the time, was advertising

for people to have their houses wired for electric heat. I don't think it was

the power, that is wrong to say Newfoundland Power was advertising it, it was a

contractor who was doing the advertising, but obviously there was a deal worked

out between Newfoundland Power and that particular contractor that would allow

them to go - he would come, wire your house, put in electric heat, and the cost

of providing that particular service could be spread out over a

four-or-five-year period with the cost added to your hydro bill, another way of

Newfoundland Power getting inside the door in order to have your house heated

with electricity and there again making a nice, handsome profit off the

consumers of this Province.

You will find also, that Newfoundland Power, when they

provide a service, do not always come and say, because you have built a house,

now we will run power wires to it and provide you with the service that you

require. Not so. If they have to stick any more than one pole, you will find

that the person who is responsible for paying the bill in that particular

household will also have to come forward and launch out $300 to $400 for each

other pole that is stuck. So not only do they look for profits but they also

charge you for their services that will be there forever and a day and you will

always be paying for it.

If you go to put a light on a pole and if they have to place

a particular pole other than the one that is already existing -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: - I say to hon. members, it will cost you

another $ll or $12 a month. So I call on the government, Mr. Speaker, to make

representation on behalf of the taxpayers and the ratepayers in Newfoundland and

Labrador and oppose this rate increase for which this particular utility has

applied.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to support this petition. We have presented

several petitions now to the House of Assembly regarding the rate increase by

Newfoundland Power and, I ask the members of the House of Assembly to take into

consideration the number of petitions and the number of people who are lobbying

against the rate increase by Newfoundland Power. I think it is time that we, as

responsible representatives of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, took heed and represented the people of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador in their wishes.

The people of our Province do not want a rate increase by

Newfoundland Power. A company that has made almost $30 million last year in

profit does not need a rate increase. This company is doing an aggressive

advertising campaign, they hold a monopoly on electrical power in the Province,

they are doing an aggressive advertising campaign to promote their product. They

have reduced the amount of the increase that they are seeking slightly, because

they themselves have realized that the amount they were looking for was

horrendous. I feel, as many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians feel, that this

rate increase is unjust and not necessary at all. So I ask the members of the

House to support this, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order 11.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Establish The

Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board And To Provide For The

Certification Of Professional Fish Harvesters", (Bill No. 9).

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

responsible for the future direction, the building of the fishing industry for

the future, it gives me a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction to have the

opportunity to stand in the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador and

to introduce a bill, "An Act To Establish The Professional Fish Harvesters

Certification Board And To Provide For The Certification Of Professional Fish

Harvesters". I think it is a day that will be remembered for a long, long time

in the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think this is the beginning of

the building of a new fishing industry, the fisheries of the future, realizing

that the fishers of the past made a lot of mistakes, caused a lot of decisions

to be made to bring about the collapse of the fishing industry. But the good

that can come out of this is to learn from the mistakes of the past and to begin

an industry, the fishery of the future. Newfoundland and Labrador does have a

lot of potential for a fishing industry.

A couple of things I want to get into before I get into the

actual harvesting, the certification of professionalization of fishermen, is

just to talk generally about what is happening in our fishing industry.

Honourable members opposite, on a day-to-day basis, present petitions to the

House of Assembly for the opening of a food fishery in Newfoundland and

Labrador. In presenting those petitions, they make comments and refer to the

fact that the Province is 500 years old. Since people came across the Atlantic

Ocean and settled on the shores of Newfoundland, codfish has been a food

stabilization for the individuals involved in the fishery and, for that matter,

for individuals who have just settled here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and

they are quite right. The reason for people coming over and settling on these

shores was to be active in the fishing industry. Was it a part of their food

stability? Yes, it was. But let's come on up through the years, and let's not

talk about 100 years, or century by century, let's try to put it all together,

what happened from the first day that our ancestors, came across and settled on

these shores up until most recently.

We have had one of the richest resources of any country in

our world. Here is the issue, the fishery, and I am not only talking about

codfish, although cod has been the main fish for the last hundreds of years.

Hopefully, it will not be the main and only dependency on the resource in the

future, but traditionally that is what it has been for all those hundreds of

years. And it has been, as I said, the richest resource in the whole world that

any one province or any one people could have.

Look at our history. Look at what we have gained and how we

have benefitted from the fishing industry as a whole. Have people who have been

involved in the fishing industry taken pride and taken the opportunity to make

that industry theirs, and make it work to the best advantage that it possibly

could work for them as our fish harvesters, through processing, or to the fish

merchants, and to the industry as a whole? Absolutely not. In fact, the most we

have been interested in doing is getting the fish out of the water, in any

manner that we wanted to get it out, get it onto the wharves, get it onto the

tables, or into the stages, and then get it to the merchants. That was the real

concern. Have we ever taken full advantage of the fishing industry, and the

returns that resource could make? Have we ever been responsible and concerned

about conservation, that this is a renewable resource, and if we manage it in a

proper way it would last forever and ever and ever? No, we have not. Have we

ever been concerned about the quality of fish over all those hundreds of years -

100, 200, 300, 400, 450 or 500 years? Have we ever been concerned, when we take

a species of fish out of the ocean, about what the value of that fish could be,

concerned about the handling of it until it reached the consumer's table,

concerned that the better we handle it, the more we do with it, the better we

process it, the more we value add it, the more dollars and cents it will bring

into my pocket, if I am one of those individuals? the more it will bring in to

the processors, the more it will bring in to the workers? No, we have not. Have

we ever been concerned about the methods and the type of gear we used in all

those centuries in fishing? Have we ever taken the time and the interest to

ensure that all of the people involved in the industry properly understood

whatever the technology, whatever the term or whatever the type of boat, the

type of prong or the way of handling the different species of fish and the cod

in those days? No, we did not. Did we ever take the time in our education

system? Did we ever take the time in our training system, in all those years, to

say that we have an industry here, young people are going to be involved in the

industry and we are going to put in our training programs, from day one, anybody

who wants to be properly trained and to take advantage, to work in the fishing

industry and to give them the benefits of the training that could be made

available so they will be able to have a return and be able to work as in any

other profession? No, we have not.

In fact, when I grew up in the fishing community of Port de

Grave, and not unlike any other fishing village around this Province, those

people who most commonly got into the fishing industry were those people who

dropped out of high school, who really dropped out of school and decided, `Well

I have dropped out of school. There is not a lot of work around. I am going to

go fishing.' Were they required to go and get some training? The only training

that they got and we had gotten was from the individuals in the fishing

industry, our parents or a crew master, a skipper who said to us - oh, we went

out from time to time during school vacations or during holidays and watched the

cod traps being hauled, a trawl or whatever type of gear or technology was being

used in that given day. What we watched, what we saw - not what we were told in

most instances but we saw other people do was the amount of training that we

received. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that we are in the situation we are in today.

When I grew up in the area and we went out and hauled our cod

traps the mesh - it was not the size that mattered to us, whether it was 1,000,

2,000, 5,000 pounds of small cod hooked and meshed in the side of the cod trap.

What did most fishermen do? They pulled them out and threw them away. Was there

a concern or was there any forum or any system put in place to explain to young

people involved in the fishing industry that if you destroy that type of fish,

that small fish, what will happen is there will be none left for the future. No,

there was not. If there were people out there using prongs and sticking them

down into the fish, into four, five, eight or ten barrels of fish that was in

the bow of the boat or just throwing then on the stage with the sun pouring down

on them, was there anybody who ever said, look, you handle that better. You get

it to the market, you get it into a processor so that you can get top dollar for

it? No, it was just the individuals who thought of, by themselves, different

things to do. But there were never opportunities made available to people who

relied on the fishing industry for a living. Nobody ever saw the fishing

industry as the basis of the main industry of this Province. Nobody ever said

the fishery is a major, major resource. It is vital to the survival of rural

Newfoundland and Newfoundland in general, rural coastal communities, but

Newfoundland in general.

I remember just a couple of years ago when I was going around

the Province for two years as the head of a small group of fisherpeople. I used

to say to people, the fishery of this Province is important to every man, woman

and child, no matter where you live. I used to get people looking at me and

doubting. You could see the expressions on their faces. You could hear the

comments they would make. I used to call up businesses and ask: Why don't you be

a part of this organization in bringing about awareness of the destruction of

our fishing industry. Comments would be made to me: `I am too busy. I am not a

fisherman, I have nobody in the fishing industry.' Today, after the moratorium,

today they realize how important the fishing industry was to the survival of

their own personal business and the survival of the economy of Newfoundland and

Labrador in general.

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this piece of legislation

cannot go with just a few mere comments and not talk about the errors, the

mismanagement and the thinking of the past. If we are going into a fisheries of

the future, to rebuild a fishery that is sustainable for communities and for the

people who are involved in the industry and the harvesting and the processing,

we must start now to have respect for that resource and to have an understanding

of its potential, what that resource can do for our incomes in this Province,

for people living in communities in rural Newfoundland and the Province as a

whole.

It is terribly difficult to talk when there are a dozen

different conversations going on around you, seriously.

Mr. Speaker, the fishery of the future is beginning now to

unfold. It is critical now, today, to start building. We know that the

groundfish stocks are not yet recovered sufficiently to have a commercial

fishery. I think in general we all accept that. There may be areas, different

zones in the Province, where there is a good sign that the fish stocks are

returning. To say that we can go back into a commercial fishery as we did five

or ten years ago, or fifteen years ago, no. We know the stocks have not reached

that size yet. We know that for a time we must wait, maybe two, three, four, or

five years, or whatever, before it begins to open, but we know we have to handle

it and think about it very carefully, and make sure that when we do we do begin,

not to jump into it and everybody take a boat and go out at the fish.

What we must do now is plan. What we must do now is focus on

getting all of the people in this Province, especially those who are directly

involved in the industry, all thinking the same way. The principle, I am saying

to the people involved in the industry, the principle on which we must start is,

we must insist in respect of everybody who is out working in the industry that

from the time that species of fish, no matter it is, comes out of the water,

from the time you set your nets, your gear in the ocean, and you take it out,

until it reaches the consumer's table you have got to have total understanding

of the potential that piece of fish, or that product has of returning the best

dollar to you. In other words, handle it as if it is a piece of gold. Handle it

with the utmost respect, handle it with the utmost care for quality, because the

world is demanding quality.

The market is out there saying: If you are going to provide a

product for us it must be a quality product. Newfoundland is just a very, very

small dot on the map of the world with respect to how much fish is out there.

Aquaculture is unfolding rapidly day by day all over the world. More and more

countries all over the world are getting more and more involved in the fishery.

In other words, the supply is out there. There is a demand but there is a

supply. If we are going to create a market where we can be successful we have to

emphasize quality, number one.

No longer can we treat that product in the manner in which we

treated it in the past, so we begin by telling and educating our people right

across the industry. That is not only the people who catch the fish, that is the

people who process the fish, the people who work in the fish plants, the people

who put the ice and water, and whatever cure is going on in the processing

sector, and the people who truck the fish - all people involved in the industry

from the time you get into the boat and start putting gear in the water, until

it reaches the consumer's table. That is where we must begin training our people

and emphasizing and ensuring that our people believe it and respect it. That is

the only way it can work. And it is not just enough to talk about it, it has to

be implemented and planted in the minds of the people. Mr. Speaker, that is the

clear message that we must implement and talk and make sure that our people

believe it.

The next thing, whether it is number one or number two, or it

is side by side, parallel with it, is conservation. No longer can we ever bring

back a fishery in which we harvested, managed, and processed in the manner which

we did in the past. We must get the best product out that we possibly can, but

ensure that the resource is going to be there for the future.

How many time did I say when I was in the Opposition in 1985,

1986, 1987, and 1988 during Question Period, during debate in the House of

Assembly, during public consultation, public debate, what the large draggers

were doing out on our Grand Banks around Newfoundland and Labrador.

Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. When a dragger would go out on

the Banks and fish, taking all of 60,000, 70,000, 80,000, 90,000 pounds of fish

in one haul - and this is where the destruction really took place - and looked

at the size of the fish that was in that haul, and made the decision that the

only fish that they were going to bring ashore were fish from 24 inches, 25

inches, 30 inches long, and had grinders installed on their boats to grind up

all the small fish, so, in other words, all of 60,000 pounds - and use that for

an example - and they would probably take 20,000 or 25,000 pound of the larger

fish out and throw away the rest. In other words, if they came in with 500,000

pounds of fish on board, you had the large fish, and by catching and bringing in

that 500,000, they probably destroyed another 750,000 pounds or a million pounds

or whatever numbers.

That was the kind of thinking that went on in the harvesting

of fish. It happened on a large scale on our draggers, but it also happened in

the inshore fishery, as I described earlier, with our cod traps and our gill

nets. I have said, one of the worst pieces of gear that ever went in the water

was a gill net, in the bays around Newfoundland. A lot of people will argue and

say no, that is not right, but I will say it. I have said it publicly, I have

never used one, and I will say it again publicly.

AN HON. MEMBER: The worst piece is the otter trawl.

MR. EFFORD: I am talking about inshore, in the bays. When

you get out on the Grand Banks otter trawling, the way in which it has been

used, yes, it was a total destruction, not only to the fish stocks but to the

environment, as has been described and talked about, so many times debated here

in this House of Assembly. What did it do to the bottom? What did it do to the

eco-system? We know of the destruction that those trawlers and those draggers

have done; and are still doing it, by the way, outside the 200-mile limit.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on. I could give a hundred examples

of what has gone wrong with our fishing industry, why we are in the situation we

are in today. Now, I want to take a couple of minutes and talk about what can

happen to a community if we properly manage the fishing industry. I am going to

take a community just for an example and give you the type of thing that I

foresee for the fisheries of the future.

Let us use the town of St. Lawrence, which has a government

facility that cost the taxpayers of this Province millions of dollars to build.

If we were to rebuild and reopen a community like that, how should the fishing

industry unfold in that area? How could it succeed? Can it succeed dependent on

codfish, when the cod comes back, one species of fish? No. Can it succeed on any

one species of fish? No. Here are the reasons why.

Because there is no one species of fish that can supply

sufficient work for individuals working in that operation to get the length of

working time they should get out of any industry. Dependency on one species of

fish, like we are doing now in the crab industry, means six, seven, eight, nine,

or ten weeks, if you are lucky. Then we come to a government, provincially or

federally, looking for make-work programs. The end result is that we have our

television cameras around from The Fifth Estate from CBC, or some other

documentary program, showing Newfoundlanders carrying rocks around in their arms

trying to get enough weeks work, building slipways or whatever else, to try to

survive. No longer will the people in the industry and no longer will the

general public allow that to happen.

We have to build a fisheries of the future that they must be

a multi-species operation. So it is quality, conservation, and multi-species

operation. Here is the plan that should be put in place. We have to utilize the

other species of fish in the ocean to our commercial advantage. People will say:

Well, there is only crab, or there is only cod, or two or three others. How

wrong that is.

The value of what resources are in the ocean, other than the

few species of shellfish or the cod or the groundfish that we have taken out, is

just unimaginable, the multi-millions of dollars of value of other species of

fish that are in the ocean, and I will give you a couple of examples that the

market is demanding. A simple little shellfish that we used to see as a nuisance

on the beaches when were growing up, called a ose egg, called by different names

in different communities around the Province, today called sea urchins,

fishermen in this Province today are realizing as much as $25,000, $35,000, or

$40,000 over the season in catching and harvesting that one species of fish

alone. If someone had said that to us five or ten years ago, we would have

laughed at them.

Skate; when I hear the word skate, I think about hockey

players. I learned a few years ago it is referred to as a fish, what we used to

call a mull ray, a nuisance fish. When you hauled your cod trap, or you hauled

your trough, and you saw a mull ray, better known in some areas as a maiden ray,

you cursed on it; it was of absolutely no value at all in those days. Today, the

world markets in France and the United States, and the Asian markets, are crying

out for skate, mull ray, maiden ray. In fact, there are boats leaving our shores

now to go out into 3Ps zone fishing for those species of fish. They are

realizing, in one trip, $25,000, $35,000, $40,000 worth of maiden rays or skate

for the market - in one trip. Five years ago or ten years ago we laughed at it;

we did not know anything about it.

Kelp on our shores, kelp on our beaches, the markets are

crying out for kelp. The markets are crying out for marine cucumbers. One would

want to stay away from cucumbers in this House because we know how much money

has been invested and lost in cucumbers. With millions of pounds of cucumbers

out on the ocean floor, the Asian markets are crying out for them. Harvest it,

process it, and we will buy. We had one boat go out awhile ago, about three

weeks ago, to the South Coast, and in two drags, in two tows, brought up 14,000

pounds of marine cucumber.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) South Coast?

MR. EFFORD: No, not only on the South Coast, all around

where there is a hard bottom, a rocky bottom.

Shrimp is another species that is not fished commercially by

the small boat fishermen here in Newfoundland; yet in Maine and in Nova Scotia,

it is a commercial fishery. We are only now starting our exploratory stages. It

is a fishery that starts in September and ends in April, and we are talking

about multi-species operations.

Just let me give an example of a multi-species operation that

I see unfolding in the fishery in the future. Let's start off in the spring of

the year, and let's say that the crab fishery, the snow crab, is a species that

starts up - which it does - in March, April and May. Then, the next species that

you would fish would be caplin. Then, the next species that you would fish, for

example, would be codfish. Then, as you go into the fall of the year, you have

your shrimp fishery, you have your mackerel fishery, you have your herring

fishery, then you have your other underutilized species, which runs right

through. So, you start in March and run right through until the next March if

your properly organized and develop the other species of fish, and educate and

work with the people in harvesting, and give them the ability to go out there

and do it.

Now, the first question that will come to me is: Is there

enough fish to sustain all of the people involved in the fishing industry today?

Absolutely not - absolutely not - but I would rather see 50 per cent of the

people involved in the fishing industry get a full season's employment out of it

than to see 100 per cent of the people involved today getting the minimum amount

of work, and most of them not working at all, in a totally frustrated industry.

Build the fishing industry to the best advantage possible of those people

involved in the industry. That is the thinking we must have. Number one is

quality; number two, conservation; number three, a multi-species operation, and

building our industry with our thinking around that.

Now, is it sufficient for a minister to stand in the House of

Assembly and go on for twenty or thirty minutes and talk about it? No, it is

not. Is it sufficient for just one or two, or a small group of people to believe

in it? No, it is not. We, as a government, the people involved in the industry,

the private sector, the business people, the financial institutions, everybody

must become aware of it. Everybody must believe in it. Everybody must believe in

it with a passion, that this is the type of resource that other countries and

other provinces and other nations would be proud to have and would reap the best

possible benefits. We now have to begin with the thinking and the respect and

the understanding of what the financial benefits and opportunities are there and

we must use them to the total benefit for the people of this Province, and we

can build, Mr. Speaker, an industry, a fishery of the future on that motive of

thinking. With that motive of thinking we can build an industry, in that form,

it is a business and it must be operated like a business. It is a part of nature

and you must respect that; it is part of the food for the world market. The

world demand, we must respect that and that is where our quality comes in.

This, Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation that I am

introducing today, simply says that: The professionalization of fishermen means,

taking advantage of the opportunities there and acting in a professional manner

in that industry; and all the things that I have said in the last twenty or

twenty-five minutes mean simply that, simplified down to that, giving the people

in the industry the opportunity to become professional people, with the proper

training, with the proper education to debate the talk and the opportunities

made available, that can happen. It will only happen if we believe in the value

of the resource that we have and we have to believe in developing it to the best

potential possible, with the maximum number of people who can be sustained in

the industry and financed and supported by the resource, and get away from the

attitudes that the rest of Canada and other people living in Newfoundland have

seen and made fun of and made wisecracks and laughed at and say: Well, they work

for seven or eight weeks and then they give it up. No longer is that going to

happen in this Province. The fishery of the future is beginning here today, Mr.

Speaker, professionalization with the utmost respect and thought for the

resource that is available at our shores.

Thank you.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to rise today to say a few

words on Bill 9 as put forward by the hon. Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, and I say to the minister that even though we might say sometimes

it was a long time coming but it is here, and I congratulate the minister for

bringing this piece of legislation forward.

It is one of the few pieces of legislation I suppose that has

been introduced in this House that was done with consultation, and I suppose the

reason it was done with consultation is because the minister probably didn't

write it. It was written I would think, by the FFAW. In fact, if we recall,

Father Desmond McGrath left his parish on the West Coast and came to work with

the FFAW, I think it was his dream to put forward a piece of legislation that we

see here today known as Bill 9.

Governments before or I should say ministers before this

minister, had intentions of bringing this same piece of legislation to the floor

of the House of Assembly. In fact, the former minister had promised it to the

fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador to be delivered in 1995, the spring of

1995 and if you read the proposals as put forward by the FFAW\CAW,

professionalization of Newfoundland and Labrador Fish Harvesters, it is a

proposal that is almost the complete repeat of Bill 9, so it is a proposal that

has been put forward by the fishermen.

I think it is something like 225 or 245 communities around

Newfoundland and Labrador that were visited, the stakeholders, all the

registered fishermen were contacted by letter and notified that this particular

group would be in their communities and they came forward and offered their

suggestions and advice, and as a result of that, we have a piece of legislation

brought forward here today and put forward by the minister and I don't think he

will find anybody who will disagree with it, because it was

an act of

consultation, a great deal of consultation and I commend -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, the union told them they had to do

it.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, the union told them they had to do

it, that was part of it but in order for it to be done the minister had to agree

and I think it will clear up a lot of the things that are happening in the

fishery today. It is called, "An Act To Establish The Professional Fish

Harvesters Certification Board And To Provide For The Certification Of

Professional Fish Harvesters." Why shouldn't fishermen be classified as

professionals? Why shouldn't a fisherman go through the apprentice stage and go

on to be a Harvester I, to a Harvester II, to a Harvester III and then a master

fisher? When you look at all the things that are happening in the fishery today,

you look at the type of boats that they are using, the technology that they are

using and gear types, the technology that they are using on their particular

boats, you will find out that many of those fishermen, not only have to be

fishers I suppose but they also have to be navigators. They have to be

electronics experts and they have to be almost like managers of businesses

because that is what the fishing industry is today. In order to be successful

you have to be able to do all of those things.

I commend the fishermen, Mr. Speaker, who have seen a need

for this, who have come out and taken pride in what they've done because as we

all know - those of us who represent rural communities, and those of us who came

up from fishing families - it was always a profession that never carried a lot

of respect for it in a lot of cases. Sometimes the fishermen - because they were

not big wage earners in most of our communities in years gone by - it was a

struggle, Mr. Speaker, people got involved in the fishery as an occupation as a

last resort. They got involved in the fishery to provide the staples for their

families. They went out and at the end of the year when they brought forward

their bill, went forward to get straightened up at the end of the year if they

went down on the Labrador Coast or even if they fished around their communities,

most of the time when they went to the local merchant to get straightened up

they received very little in the form of monetary exchange, Mr. Speaker. Usually

it was always the situation that the fishermen owed the merchant. The merchant

owned the fishermen and the fishermen owed the merchant.

When the minister brought up this particular concern that is

happening within the crab fishery today - I can understand he is so concerned

because none of us, I am sure, sitting in this Legislature today would ever want

to go back to that, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly what will happen if you see

a group of processors out there controlling prices, controlling who they buy

from, who they sell to and it filters all the way down the line. Then you have

people who are responsible to the merchants of this world and we have gone full

circle from where we came.

Mr. Speaker, the fishermen today, if you notice them, are

walking with a much quicker step than they did a few years ago because now they

are proud of what they do. They are proud people and they have every right to

be. They have every right to be proud when they go forward, go out on the sea

and take a chance on losing their lives. Mr. Speaker, many of them fish 200

miles offshore. Many of them go out in boats that should never be out there and

I hope this piece of legislation today, when you get the professionalization of

fishermen, that the people who make rules and regulations will listen to this

group of people because that is something else that should never be allowed to

happen.

I get many calls from my district, Mr. Speaker, of crab

fishermen having to go out past the 200 mile limit in order to take

part in a

crab quota, the crab fishery. We might stand here and say well they don't have

to go. They made enough money by fishing inshore that it will get them over the

winter. It will get them enough stamps for unemployment insurance but human

nature being what it is, Mr. Speaker, and all of us I suppose who have a little

bit of dignity about us would like to be able to go out, make a few dollars,

support our families and do a few things that need to be done today to put us up

in a little bit of a different class so that we can afford a few luxuries.

Mr. Speaker, human nature has it that we will go, we will

take a chance and that is what is happening today and many of those fishermen

will tell you that even though they go out to the 200 mile limit in their

fifty-eight foot boats they do not want to be there. They do not want to be

there and they should not be there, because in most cases their insurance is not

even in effect once they go out past a certain mile. Once they go out past a

certain mile then their insurance is of no use to them should they get involved

in an accident, and God knows many accidents happen out there. We can tell all

kinds of stories where people got lost, people we know, or else some very, very

narrow escapes.

As we look at how far we have come since, I suppose, our

fathers went out and took

part in the gill net fishery, which the minister spoke

about and that he was totally, totally against. I think the gill net fishery was

introduced somewhere in the 1960s and at that time there were no particular

rules and regulations as to the size of mesh to be used in your gill net, You

could go out and fish and take

part in a fishery that had no controls

whatsoever, and when you came ashore - and we have all seen it, you came ashore

and brought your boat into the wharf and the first thing you did was jump down.

It did not matter if you walked over the fish or if you fell down into it, and

if you did not have a prong aboard the boat somebody handed you a prong and you

stuck it down and threw it up on the wharf.

I can picture it in my own community now. There was no

thought for quality. It was a word we did not know, and it was a word we did not

have to know because nobody bothered to tell us how important it was. It was an

old tradition we continued to go by. Then all of a sudden we realized there was

some incentive not to do those things, some incentive to put some ice on a boat,

carry it out and ice your fish to protect your fish from the sun. There was some

initiative with not having, as a result of the prong, holes down through the

fillets of your fish when you brought them to the plant. In fact in the

particular plant where I worked it was not uncommon to see a dump truck go

delivering asphalt during the day and go to the local wharf during the night and

truck up a load of fish.

The way of cleaning of asphalt out of the box of the trucks,

anybody who knows anything about trucking or construction, was to diesel fuel,

the diesel fuel would break down the tar, the tar would flow out and then you

would go and take a water hose, wash that down, and go on down to the wharf,

load up the fish, bring it back and put it in gear, up goes the box and away it

goes into the plant. We did not know any different. It was a way of making some

money. Nobody told us that we could not do it. The fish merchants bought the

fish and I suppose as a result of that we were always poor fishermen, because we

were delivering a product that was not in demand. We were delivering a product

of very low quality and it reflected back on the amount of money the merchant

was making, and the amount of money he was paying the fishermen.

Mr. Speaker, all that has changed now. Anybody who drives the

highway knows it is not uncommon to come upon a tractor trailer with the fish

stored in grey containers, they can only be a certain size, and there has to be

so much ice onto it. If it reaches a plant or reaches a processor and that is

not done then the fishermen do not get paid for it. It took us a while to change

those habits, it took us a while to adjust to new things, like it does with

everything else. Sometimes change is welcome and more times we buck against it

because it is not something that we are used to and it is something that is

going to cause us a little bit more time, but we have been rewarded in that in

that we have gotten a little more money.

Back in 1992, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, there was a

moratorium announced on our fishery around the coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Some of the wise people of the world thought it was no big thing. I

think at that time the whole fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador was something

like 5.5 per cent of our gross domestic product. People thought that we would

shrug our shoulders and shake ourselves and go on. Life would go on, life would

continue, we would survive, and something else would happen and we would

prosper.

When you take 30,000 people and put them out of work, then

something has to happen. We found out very quickly that it was much greater than

what the percentage of our gross domestic product reflected. You take 30,000

Newfoundlanders, you could take 30,000 people on an island with 500,000 people

and put them out of work, and I suppose in most of our communities, especially

in rural Newfoundland, it was maybe 80 per cent, 90 per cent of our employment.

All you have to do is go down in my district today. Go down to places like Port

Union, Catalina, Bonavista and Duntara and see what is happening, and see what

has happened to those particular communities since our fishery closed.

The Member for Trinity North stands there and I think he can

pretty well verify what I'm saying. You drive down through Port Union today,

especially, a once very vibrant town, and if you were there when the bell rang

or when the whistle went off for people to go home to dinner, boy, you better

get out of the way. Because everybody was on the move.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: People were on the move, Mr. Speaker.

They were going home for dinner. The hustle and bustle was there and people were

working and people had money. They were going to Clarenville and other places.

They were buying skiddos, buying new cars. They didn't know what it was to be

without. They were making very good money. Most fish plant workers who worked

for a couple of the giant companies, FPI and National Sea, most of them were

making anywhere from $10.50 to $14 an hour. That isn't too bad considering you

had your son, probably your daughter in some cases, and a husband and wife, and

home for dinner every day.

The Speaker knows. I spent a good many weeks down in his

district in the town of Lewisporte when a company that I worked for was involved

in a joint venture with Northcotts. They had a fish plant there and people would

come in from Embree and Brown's Arm, and from Lewisporte down to Campbellton.

They would all come in there, boy, and they were eager workers, wanting to get

extra time and wondering if there was any work on the weekend. All of a sudden

that was taken from them.

The reactions that we saw the day that John Crosbie announced

the closure of the fishery down at the Delta Hotel - at that time it was called

the Radisson - what we saw then wasn't Newfoundlanders out to tear down a door

or to get at John Crosbie, or to get into a fist-fight. What you saw was the

frustration experienced by proud people who saw their livelihood being taken

from them.

The livelihood was taken from them not because of any of

their doings, for the most part, because most of those people were inshore

fishermen. Most of those people had gone forward before and told the politicians

of the day and told their leaders what would happen if they didn't stop

destroying the stocks off our shore. It wasn't the inshore fisherman, it wasn't

the fellow with the hook and line, or the fellow with the cod trap, who

destroyed the fishery. It was the people who were fishing, the harvesters that

were out exploiting the offshore stocks.

When restructuring took place back in -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member would take his seat for a moment.

It being Thursday and 4:00 p.m., I would like to read the

three questions that we will be addressing in the Late Show.

Question number one: I am dissatisfied with the answer

provided by the Minister of Government Services and Lands concerning my question

on rate increase for Crown lands. That is the Member for Cape St. Francis.

Question number two: I am dissatisfied with the answer

provided by the Government House Leader concerning my question on school busing.

That is from the Member for St. John's South.

Question number three: I am dissatisfied with the answer

provided by the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods concerning my

question on marketing of local vegetables. That is the Member for Bonavista

South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The third question was from the Member for

Bonavista South: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods concerning my question on marketing of local

vegetables.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if I could continue. The

people I just referred to were consulted many times, and in many cases, our

fishermen begged for them to stop what was happening offshore.

Then another turn of events took place, where you had the

restructuring of certain fish companies in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think of

the giant fish company of FPI, formerly called Fishery Products, the giant fish

company of Fishery Products International came out of that restructuring, and

adjoining with Fishery Products at the time was John Penney and Sons, the Lake

group, H.B. Nickerson and Sons, and I think there was one other one. It just

won't come to me now, but it was a combination of four or five fish companies

and they all joined together under one big multi-national - no, it wasn't a

multi-national - well, it is a multi-national now, because FPI is into a lot of

other countries. But at that time it came together as one giant fish company

known as Fishery Products International.

It almost seemed like there was a big competition on the go

between FPI and National Sea. That is what seemed to have been happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Nickerson's was around.

MR. FITZGERALD: I used to be with Nickerson's, I say to

the member. I worked four years with Nickerson's. In fact, I travelled the

Labrador Coast very often in the summertime. Almost every two weeks I would be

down the Labrador Coast and I would go to places like Williams Harbour, where we

bought salmon, and I would go to places like Black Tickle, and Smokey, Mr.

Speaker, and down around Domino and those places.

Since you brought up Labrador I will go back and I will just

take you back to that particular area to talk about quality. I remember going

down there, and at that particular time we were buying turbot down the Labrador

Coast. Down in Labrador I think there was probably a small cold storage there in

Black Tickle that might have been capable of holding three, four, five tons of

fish. We would hold it there until the coastal boat would come in. Then it was

put in cold storage on the coastal boat if there was one coming within a certain

period of time; or if not there was a charter arranged and it was sent down to

Cook's Harbour.

I remember going on the wharf down in Black Tickle many

times. They used to have pen boards nailed around the wheel wells on the wharf.

That is where the fishermen would come in and dump their turbot. It would be

there three and four feet high. The sun would be sweltering down on it, it would

be covered with flies. That would be there for days. Then we would go, we would

either put a little bit of ice on it and ship it over to Cook's Harbour, or it

would be probably just dumped over the wharf. That was the wastage that was

allowed to happen in those times.

Getting back to FPI again, getting back to the draggers,

National Sea, there was a competition: who could catch the most, who could show

the best bottom line at the end of the year, who could make the most profits. It

wasn't hard to make a profit in those days after the restructuring took place.

The value of our Canadian dollar went down and that was a plus for us, when you

are going into the United States market. The price of fuel went down to almost

an all-time low in recent times, considering what we use today. The price of

fish went through the roof. The price of fish was better than they had ever seen

it before.

As a result of that, we were catching fish, bringing it in,

putting it in the quickest form possible, and shipping it out to market.

Shipping it down to Danvers, to Boston, Mr. Speaker, where secondary processing

was taking place - but we were happy.

We were happy because we were working, we were happy because

we were making a dollar, but we never stopped to realize that we probably could

have had three times as many people working, Mr. Speaker. But I don't know if we

have learned that particular lesson even up until now, and I commend the

minister when he talks about new, innovative fisheries, where they go out and

have developed a new pot which is environmentally friendly now to go out and

catch shrimp, a wonderful idea. But, if we are going to survive and if our rural

Newfoundland communities are going to survive, and if we are going to fish, then

we should get every dollar we can and every hour of work for every pound of fish

that we catch or we are all doomed in this Province, I can assure you, or at

least in rural Newfoundland. Because the Voisey's Bays of the world and the

possible oil discoveries on the West Coast, all good things, all things that

will employ some people and create some economic opportunities, but it will

never allow us to survive in rural Newfoundland. The only way we are going to

survive there is by surviving on what brought us there in the first place and

that, Mr. Speaker, is the fishery.

When the moratorium was announced in 1992, 30,000 people were

displaced and were told to go home. Go home, there will be a pay cheque there

for you. It started off, I think, at $225 a week and people almost rioted in the

streets because it wasn't enough, and it wasn't enough. A lot of people out

there thought the fishermen had it made, but I can assure you, there are not

many fishermen that I know out there today who have it made. There were not many

fishermen out there in 1992 who had it made, as far as I know.

So, then, the minister of the day and the government of the

day became a little bit compassionate and they looked at what the fishermen made

and what the fish-plant workers were making and they boosted it; I think the top

rate was $406.

Then up went the big cry: The fishermen are making $406 a

week and I have to go somewhere else to earn a living. The fishermen, Mr.

Speaker, are getting too much. In fact, I heard the Minister of Health say in a

meeting that we attended one time that the fishermen should not be treated any

differently from the people in his district who were janitors and were laid off.

Mr. Speaker, there is a vast difference. When the government of the day comes

out and tells you that you are not allowed to work and they implement

legislation, making it a crime if you go to work and do what you normally did,

then somebody has to be responsible.

Responsible they were; the sad part about it is, that again,

they didn't listen to the fishermen, and Mr. Crosbie, the Minister of Fisheries,

at least had enough foresight that when he brought in the NCARP program, he put

it in the hands of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, people, Mr.

Speaker, who understood the fishery, people who had a heart, people who were

about to deal with the same people they were dealing with every time they went

to work for themselves, knew the industry, knew the problems, knew what had to

be done. It took a while to get some of it straightened out, took a while for

the right people to be getting the right amount of money, took a while to get

some of the people who should never have been involved in it, out of the program

altogether. That took a while but finally it did get straightened out.

Then we had the Premier of the day, Mr. Speaker, introduce a

whole new program called TAGS. The first thing he did, was come in and slash 6

per cent off what the fishermen and the fish plant workers were getting, took 6

per cent away from them and said: Now, you have to apply again; your application

before is not acceptable anymore, we want you to apply again and we are going to

put you on a new program called TAGS. Well, all kinds of new rules and

regulations existed and finally, Mr. Speaker, they developed some policy through

HRD. It was taken out of DFO and put with HRD, and it should never have happened

because now, you are dealing with people who are bureaucrats, who only believe

in policy and rules and regulations, no feelings whatsoever, that is what it

says and that is what you do, and because of that, there were all kinds of

problems.

So then, they were going to train the fishermen, which was a

brilliant idea. There is nothing wrong with training fishermen. You will get

nobody in this House to tell you that education is not a good thing. A lot of

the fishermen and a lot of the fish plant workers went back to school and did

things that would help them get back into the fishery again. Some of them took

small engine repair, some of them went out and learned net mending, and did

navigation, good courses. But when you see them come out and force people who

are fifty and fifty-five years old back to school, and not have a choice, to say

that it must be done because if you don't we will take your source of living

away from you, we will take your pay cheque away from you, then that cannot

work. You