June 2,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 9

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of all hon. members I would like to welcome to the

speakers gallery the following visitors from the Republic of Vietnam: Dr. Huynh

Cong Hoa, the Vice Minister of Fisheries, who is also Chairman of the Vietnam

Fisheries Association, and President of Fishery Products Exporters Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Nguyen Van Hung, Assistant to the Vice

Minister of Fisheries of Vietnam and Mr. Nguyen Van Quang, representing the

International Investment and Trade Corporation with offices in Montreal and

Vietnam.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to

make a statement about Environment Week which actually begins next week. As I

will be out of the House on government related business I am announcing it

somewhat earlier than I would under normal circumstances.

I am indeed, Mr. Speaker, pleased to announce that next week,

June 5 - 12, 1993 has been set aside as Canadian Environment Week.

Community involvement, individual action and awareness of

environmental issues are important factors in keeping our environment healthy.

The theme for Environment Week, 1993 is "This Week. Every Week". This

theme reminds us that it is important to be environmentally aware and to adopt

environmentally conscious practices at all times throughout the year. It reminds

us that there is a need for a balance in the relationship between ourselves and

the environment and that everything we do has an impact - positive or negative -

on the well being of the environment.

Each year, Environment Week is celebrated nationally during

the first full week of June. It "celebrates" our precious resource - the

environment. The water we drink, the air we breathe, the land and natural

resources we use, are all critical for our existence. But as we rely on the

environment for our survival, so the environment relies on us for its survival.

Mr. Speaker, we all must take an active role in the

preservation and protection of our environment. In this regard my department has

teamed up with Environment Canada and the City of St. John's to organize mall

displays during the week. As well, my department and the Department of Forestry

and Agriculture are cooperating to deliver elementary school presentations at

their Mount Pearl Tree Nursery. A beach clean up has been scheduled in the St.

John's area for Wednesday, June 9. As well, staff of my Grand Falls - Windsor

office will be voluntarily cleaning up a one kilometre stretch of the Trans

Canada Highway this coming Saturday, June 5. Activities such as these set an

example for both residents and tourists. It tells them that we are proud of our

Province and we accept a responsibility for its cleanliness.

One Tuesday, June 8 my department, in association with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes will host the Newfoundland and

Labrador Environmental Awards ceremony. The names of the award winners will be

announced at the ceremony. The Newfoundland and Labrador Environmental Awards

Program recognizes those who have contributed in a meaningful way to the

preservation, protection and restoration of our environment. Established in

1990, the program is sponsored by my department and by the Newfoundland and

Labrador Women's Institutes. There are six categories of awards: Individual,

Citizen's Group or Organization, Education, Youth, Business and Municipal. The

awards selections committee is comprised of staff of my department, Environment

Canada, the Newfoundland and Labrador Women's Institutes and other professionals

who have a background in the environment. Recently the committee met, and I am

pleased to say that we have winners in each of the six categories, and that an

Honourable Mention will be awarded this year. Mr. Speaker, the aim of the

program is to educate, inform and encourage all citizens to play an active role

in the present and future environmental health of our Province. Considering the

number of nominations received each year, the program has been very effective in

reaching its mandate. As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we each need to take

action in cleaning up our environment - not just this week, but every week. In

doing so, we show visitors to our Province that we are proud of the natural

beauty with which we have been blessed.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to proclaim the week

of June 5th - 12th, 1993 as Canadian Environment Week and I encourage all the

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador to get involved in their local

Environment Week activities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

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

On behalf of the opposition, I am pleased to support the

minister in her proclamation of June 5th - 12th as Canada Environment Week. I

agree, we must all take an active role in the preservation and protection of our

environment. In her statement the minister mentioned that there is going to be a

beach clean up in the St. John's area and a one kilometre stretch of the

Trans-Canada Highway to be cleaned up, and just on a point of information just

this past weekend, St. Francis of Assisi school in Outer Cove had a clean up on

the streets and roads in Logy Bay, New Cove, Outer Cove and they picked up

approximately two truck loads of tin cans, pop bottles and that type of thing,

so I am very pleased that that was quite timely with respect to the minister's

proclamation.

I am also pleased to see that the people in groups and

organizations are getting recognition for that type of endeavour and I am

pleased to see that the minister is encouraging this type of thing and is

actually helping to educate the students and children within our Province to

keep our environment clean and on that note, Mr. Speaker, I will say, thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to acknowledge

along with the minister the National Environmental Awareness Week -

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

the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Environment Week, of

course, is a very important opportunity for all Canadians to recognize the need

for environmental awareness and concern. I commend the minister for bringing it

to the attention of the House. The concern I have is that the government must

also recognize that its actions in the area of the environment, and the minister

in particular, is not merely a public relations exercise, that there must be

action.

We have seen in this particular government a refusal to

provide legislation to prevent the importation of garbage into this Province, a

matter of great concern to environmentalists here. We have seen no real action

on the issue of beverage containers by this government, which had been called

for for many years. We do see continuing inaction even on issues such as getting

a recycling project going in this House of Assembly, in this building,

Confederation Building.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: So, while I acknowledge Environment Week, I

ask the minister to be more pro-active.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I announced in my fall Ministerial Financial

Statement that, consistent with the objectives of government's Strategic

Economic Plan, we will be reviewing the operations of a number of Crown

corporations to determine if they currently serve a significant public policy

objective and should therefore continue to be government-owned or, on the other

hand, if government should consider turning some of them over to the private

sector.

One of the Crown corporations that we have been reviewing is

Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services Limited. Today, I want to inform the

House that after considerable discussion within government, with the management

of NLCS, and with the knowledge of the staff of the company, it is government's

intent to make the assets of NLCS available for possible purchase by the private

sector. In newspaper advertisements scheduled to begin appearing tomorrow, NLCS,

on behalf of government, will be calling for expressions of interest from

private organizations or firms to purchase the assets and operations of the

company.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I met with the staff of NLCS to make

them aware of what is happening. In that meeting and in my comments to the media

I said that I did not know for certain if the company will be sold. This is the

case today. In making this announcement to the House, I am confirming that

government will offer the assets and services of NLCS for sale to an appropriate

buyer who can meet government's objectives. This announcement indicates that

government is willing to sell NLCS as a going concern but will do so only if its

strategic policy and operating objectives can be met. The purpose of the call

for expression of interest is to determine if there are organizations which have

the interest and ability to acquire the company, and more importantly, are

willing to make the kinds of commitments to the future of NLCS which will ensure

that information technology rapidly expands as a significant industry in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, NLCS is the single most significant organization

in the information technology industry in our Province today. The company was

originally incorporated in 1969 to service the needs of the Provincial

Government, Newfoundland Hydro, Memorial University and the Medicare Commission,

and other provincial Crown corporations and agencies.

The service has been extended to include all publicly-funded

organizations in the Province, including some agencies of the Federal

Government; however, it has offered services to the private sector only in areas

not served by private sector suppliers in the Province.

The assets which will be made available for sale primarily

consist of the full complement of IT services currently offered to NLCS clients

- the operation of a mainframe computer system, certain capital assets, and the

skills and expertise of nearly 200 IT specialists who work with that company.

It is assumed, Mr. Speaker, that potential buyers will also

recognize as an asset the potential to continue providing significant

information technology services to the government - some of which are limited in

terms of local supply.

It is also government's assumption, Mr. Speaker, that upon

review of all the information which will be made available to those seriously

interested in submitting an expression of interest, that they will also

recognize the opportunity to develop private sector national and international

markets as well as certain niche markets in the marine and ocean resources

sector.

I must emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that government has a number

of very specific objectives which would have to be met when considering the sale

of NLCS. First of all, we would have to be sure the company would continue to

provide government with the information technology, staff and services needed to

properly service the public. These are critical services and NLCS is an

invaluable source of IT expertise for the government. Secondly, we would have to

be ensured that the bidder would add value to the IT industry in Newfoundland

and Labrador by introducing or developing leading edge technologies, finding new

markets, and developing existing opportunities.

In short, Mr. Speaker, we will want to know that the

potential buyer plans to preserve a local company in it services and plans to

expand it so that it has a positive impact on the growth of what is still an

underdeveloped information technology industry in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Strategic Economic Plan identified

information technology as one industry requiring continuing and aggressive

development. It is government's intent, by this initiative, to evaluate whether

the private sector can add value to the NLCS asset for the betterment of the

entire information technology industry in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want, first of all, to thank the minister for giving me the

opportunity, ten or fifteen minutes prior to his reading of the statement, to

have a look at it.

Mr. Speaker, there is not much new in this particular

statement. It is something that has been out on the street for the last couple

of weeks, that government is interested in selling off this particular asset

that the people of this Province own. The sale of this asset is supposedly to

garner in some dollars that government finds itself short of because of there

mismanagement over the last four years of the provincial economy. Now, they are

going to sell off some of the assets of the people of this Province to cover up

some of the huge mistakes these people have made while they have been in office

for the last four years. I would caution the minister that while on the surface

it may look good in the sense of selling this particular asset off to the

private sector so that it can expand in the private sector and thus create more

opportunities for this Province to compete in the private sector, especially the

Atlantic Provinces, through the procurement deal we have arranged with the

Atlantic Provinces, but I would caution him that we do not get gobbled up if

this particular asset is not sold and the job is completely lost to this

Province because they cannot compete competitively with people from Atlantic

Canada specifically, and Halifax, Mr. Speaker. I would also caution the minister

that the people who are presently employed there, the 200 people, that those

people have to be given consideration. They have provided a good service to this

Province over the last twenty years or so in this particular company and they

should also be considered on the sale of this particular asset.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave of the House?

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would welcome an approach which would encourage people of

this Province to view Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services as perhaps a

vehicle for not only providing services to government as it has done over the

past twenty-odd year in areas where no private sector service was available but

this group has brought together talent and put together a team of people who

have provided tremendous service to the government and government agencies in

this Province, but my concern here, Mr. Speaker, is that if government decides

that it wants to see a computer information technology company provide some

leading edge activity, new software design perhaps competing nationally and

internationally, and if we are successful in doing that then what we are going

to have perhaps is a company that will disappear and go elsewhere. I would

prefer, Mr. Speaker, to see the mandate of this company expanded and increased,

rather than to try and sell it off and hope that somebody else might want to

make something good of it. I have the same concerns as the Member for Menihek

with respect to losing the -

MR. SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, since this is National Access

Awareness Week, this morning at the breakfast, which many of us enjoyed, there

was an issue that was raised and which I promised to raise today in the House of

Assembly.

In the government's March Budget they callously cut the VRDP

funding, which made it easier for students with disabilities to attend

post-secondary institutions. During the election - in fact, on April 8,

according to a newspaper report at least - the Premier himself promised to

review that particular cut, along with some others I believe he talked about at

the time. Nearly three months have passed since the Minister of Finance brought

down his Budget and since this issue was first raised.

I would like to ask the Minister of Social Services: will the

minister take advantage of National Access Awareness Week and announce today

that he is restoring the funding for the VRDP program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

has misstated the circumstances. Part of it was correct, that there had been

reductions announced in the Budget. That part of it was correct. Subsequent to

that we met with representatives speaking on behalf of the VRDP program and we

talked to them about the problems. They agreed with the government that there

was substantial waste and substantial expenditure that was unjustified and the

amount by which the government cut the expenditure could be properly cut, but if

we spent the remainder of it in a different way we would achieve an objective

acceptable to them.

So we put in place a committee that was to meet with the

Minister of Social Services at the time and that committee has in fact met. To

the best of my knowledge they are making progress towards achieving a resolution

of the problem. I think their expected time to achieve a resolution was before

the end of June. Now I wasn't sure that the Minister of Social Services had that

specific knowledge so I wanted to make sure that the minister had that made

available to him. What meetings the minister may have been having in the last

couple of weeks or so he can now answer for himself.

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

MR. SIMMS: I thank the Premier for giving his minister

now the right to answer the question, so I'll ask the question to the Minister

of Social Services. I understand the Premier's explanation. My concern with it

is, nearly three months have passed since the Budget came down. Nearly two

months have passed since the Premier met with this group in April. April 8 I

think was the date that he met with them. Students and parents who are affected

by the cut made by this government to that program cannot wait any longer.

That's the point. They have to make their plans. They have to go through the red

tape and the bureaucracy, all of which takes time. Some of those students have

to make arrangements to attend post-secondary institutions outside the Province.

Indeed, some outside the country. So they need to know whether or not they can

afford to continue their education.

So I want to ask the Minister of Social Services: he is aware

of it, surely he's aware of it, as a member of the House, and now as the

minister. Why isn't the government, why isn't he, why isn't his department,

treating this matter with more urgency in view of the fact that there is this

problem that I just talked about? People raised that with me this morning. The

Premier can smile all he likes. This is a serious and important program and

problem for young people and adults with disabilities. Will the minister at

least promise to bring a decision to this House by the end of this week so that

these people, who already have difficulty in their lives, will be able to get on

with their lives?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I can't add much more substantive

information other than what the Premier has said, other than to say that we are

treating the matter with as much urgency as possible. A lot of things have

transpired since the Budget came down, among them, an election, but my

understanding from my department officials is that the meetings are progressing

and that both groups are very pleased with what is taking place. As to how soon,

whether I could do it at the end of this week, I cannot make that kind of

commitment to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, other than to say that we

will do it as expeditiously as possible.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the minister if he

would make this commitment: Will he seek a meeting with his staff tomorrow

morning to get fully briefed on this issue so he is fully familiar with the

situation, and make a statement tomorrow in the House of Assembly as to what

these students can expect and how soon they might be able to expect some

response? because there is a lot of concern out there.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that there is

not a lot of concern, and I can tell the hon. member that I have met with my

officials as a result of earlier questioning on this topic. The only matter on

which I am not up to speed is with respect to the time that we are going to

announce this, whether it will be tomorrow, or on Friday, or next week. I can

only tell the hon. member that we will do it as expeditiously as possible.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister

responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

In 1989, the Department of Municipal Affairs changed the

municipal operating grant system to mainly four components - the equalization

component, the local revenue component, the household component and the road

component. Every year for the past four years, Mr. Speaker, the road component

has been cut from the original $2,000 a kilometer down to $89 a kilometer in

last year's Budget.

Could the minister now confirm to the House that this

particular part of the road component has been cut yet again to $39 a kilometer,

and could the minister tell the House how he expects councils in this Province,

who have to submit balanced budgets by December 31 of each year, to properly

operate when, for the past four years, six months into their fiscal year they

are told that they have a budget cut?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Let me thank the hon. member for the question.

It is a question that comes out of last night's estimates, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the road component grant this year will be reduced to

$39, as the member was told yesterday.

MS. VERGE: Shame!

MR. REID: The problem with it, of course, is that each

year we send out, early in the year, usually some time in the latter part of the

Summer, September or October, asking councils to identify their budgets for the

following year and to make known to Municipal Affairs their revenues. Then, it

is on what they return to us that we base our MOGs, and quite often councils are

- I do not know if the word `lackadaisical` is the proper word, but for reasons

that I guess they know themselves, it is quite late before they get those

reports back to us.

I understand what the member is saying, and I made the

commitment last night to the member and his colleagues and some of my colleagues

on this side of the House. I understand fully, sometimes the dilemma that some

councils find themselves in around the Province. I was mayor of a large town

myself for seven-and-a-half years, and I understand exactly, that changing, I

suppose, in mid-stream some of the components or the grants that the

municipalities receive from the Province sort of throws things a-skelter. I do

appreciate what he is talking about.

I have made the commitment to him that I would do my best, as

a new minister, to see that councils abide by our regulations by getting their

reports and financial statements back to us on time, and I would then try my

best, as the new minister, not to interfere with the MOG process or the

budgeting process. I hope that would be satisfactory. I can only do my best in

that regard. I can't make any commitments because, really, I don't know what can

happen from one day to the next as it relates to the MOG.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full-well

that when the budgets come in at the end of December - December 31st - all he

has to do is look at the municipalities' budgets and know what is going to

happen in the next year. That is trivial.

Could the minister now explain to the House why, then, even

with the cuts to the road component, the actual total value of grants, monies

allocated for grants and subsidies to municipalities in the Province, were lower

this year by approximately another million or $2 million, even based, when his

decision - all he had to do was look at councils' budgets and tell what they

needed. There is no excuse for that, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister now explain

to the House, why that, particularly, is cut?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the whole Province is going

through a period of economic hardship and restraint. I think everybody in every

sector of the Province have been asked, not only by government, but by private

industry, to take a serious look at our economic condition and the situation we

are in. I can only say that the cuts to municipalities are basically shared. My

department was shared or given a certain amount of cuts as well as Education

was, Health and Welfare, Social Services and all the others. I can only say to

the hon. member that we are living in hard times and let's hope and pray that

things get better so that we don't have to make any further cuts.

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

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: It is obvious now, Mr. Speaker, that the

road component of the MOG will be gone after this year, it will be history. Will

the minister now tell the House what other component of the program will be cut

next in order to accommodate the cap on municipal funding?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: It is incorrect, Mr. Speaker, to say that the

road component will be gone as of this year, based on what we have left over

from other sections of the MOG. As well, it looks like this year will be a much

better year for municipalities than last year and, of course, next year is the

final year, which should see some tapering off. If there is money left over from

other areas, then that money, presumably - that is the direction we are taking

at the present time - will then be left in that fund and transferred to the road

component.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

As the Premier knows and members who were at the Hotel Newfoundland this morning

know, this is National Access Awareness Week - an important opportunity to make

legislatures, both at the municipal and provincial level, and the public, aware

of the needs of persons with disabilities to access services. My question is,

Mr. Speaker: Why is it that Newfoundland and Labrador, only, of all the

provinces in Canada, does not make any contribution to this program that is so

active across the Province. Every other province makes some contribution, the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador makes none. Could the Premier explain

why his government doesn't make any financial contribution to this program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The government is very supportive of the

program. I don't know that we make or do not make any direct financial

contribution, but programs don't absolutely need government financial support to

be successful. The National Access Awareness Week Program in this Province is

quite successful. That doesn't mean that the government can say, `Well, let us

give you some taxpayers' money.' Taxpayers' money is pretty scarce in this

Province at the moment and we are not about to throw it at people simply because

their particular group doesn't get taxpayers' money for some purpose; that would

be grossly irresponsible.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The information

provided to me, Mr. Speaker, was that with even a nominal contribution from each

government, the organizers of this would be able to say that all provincial

governments are contributing and it would help them access corporate funding to

improve this program. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, having a particular province

not even make a nominal contribution is certainly difficult. Can the Premier

commit the government to looking at providing some sort of financial

contribution to this program for the coming year to enable them, as an

organization, to get further funding from other sources?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can't understand members of

the opposition pressuring the government to spend taxpayers' money. We have to

try to provide public services with the least reasonable tax burden we can for

our people. Now, the hon. member may point to this and say, that is not very

much but that taken together with all the other things is a lot, so we are going

to look after the interests of the taxpayers and protect their interests. Now

the National Access Awareness Week Group in this Province gain a lot of public

attention and get a lot of support. I believe the majority of members of this

House were at the breakfast this morning to give it attention and support. They

do not need to spend the taxpayer's money on top of that. I do not know if the

hon. member thinks he is really impressing taxpayers by pressuring the

expenditure of their money in ways that are not strictly speaking very

necessary.

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

final supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If hon. members, as did the Member for Terra Nova and I,

stayed for the panel discussion after the breakfast this morning they would have

heard a speaker talk about how, because of the existence of one of these

organizations, he had saved the government $24,000 by not ending up in hospital,

where he had been before, by having support from this particular group. We see

this, Mr. Speaker, as ways in which not only is the government by contributing

to this contributing to awareness, but also contributing, in fact, in the

long-term, to government saving by supporting institutions, non-government

organizations which are doing the work of government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Will the Premier not admit that in the long

run by spending a few dollars the government can save dollars in the long run by

providing proper services to people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Not by spending the few dollars the hon.

member is asking.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I have a question for the Minister of

Finance. The minister has recently come back from a meeting of finance ministers

in Ottawa where there was apparently, according to media reports, some consensus

on how to deal with government deficits right across Canada and some

co-operative effort. Would the minister like to tell us what kind of

co-operative effort the ministers are talking about and what impact that will

have on the way the minister plans to operate the finances of this Province for

this year?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Almost all of the provincial governments have brought down

their Budgets for this year and in these Budgets it was obvious that there was a

common theme and that was that perhaps at this point in time in our history the

greatest danger to the public services of this country is the explosion of debt

and the accumulation of debt, and running up larger and larger deficits. This is

the greatest danger to the provision of services in the country. That

recognition is there. It was discussed at the meeting and it was agreed to that

first of all, before we go one step further, we have to guarantee the financial

integrity and stability of the country. That is an objective that has to be

reached.

The second part of that is, in spite of the fact that

expenditures must be controlled, in spite of the fact that deficits must be

lowered, and eventually the total debt lowered, and rather quickly lowered as a

proportion of GDP, in spite of that we have to be very conscious of the recovery

that is now underway, that we do not dampen that recovery, and the fact that by

working together we can perhaps assist the recovery in our economy. Now, I know

that is all very general but what we have done is, we are putting our officials

to work during the summer on a variety of topics. There will be another meeting

in the fall when the Governor of the Bank of Canada will be available and so on

and we will discuss monetary policy as it relates to fiscal policy. At that

point in time the specific things that are being worked on, like government

overlap, like the dampening effect of some of the measures on the economy, and

so on, the reports will be brought back to the minister, so it is really an

agreement to a series of working sessions during the summer with officials to

report back in the fall.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I do not think anybody could disagree with

the objective of the finance ministers. Perhaps it is a methodology that we are

concerned about. The Premier has been quoted as saying, in fact, he criticized

making enough cuts. Would the minister like to tell us, in light of the

Premier's approach, any suggestions that he might have made to the federal

and what impact in fact that might have on our own deficits here?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we had bilateral discussions

outside of the regular meeting at which a lot of these issues were discussed. We

are currently pressuring for and receiving a lot of support for a change in the

equalization formula to more correctly address the objective, to provide

reasonably similar levels of services in all areas of the country without undue

taxation, so changes in the equalization formula, that we are finding a great

deal of acceptance for. The second thing is, one of the issues that we are

working on, again bilaterally, has to do with the tax back on the Hibernia

project and this also relates to potash out West, whereby we lose, according to

the system that was put in place for us, we lose one hundred cents of every

dollar that we gain from Hibernia revenue, and the change in that tax back

regime would result in us losing only seventy cents for every dollar, which is a

more appropriate amount because that is the way that it works with all other

type of activity in the Province, so these are two issues that we are

specifically working on with the federal government.

The purpose of the meeting was not to tell the federal

government what to do. The purpose of the meeting was to reach consensus on

general direction because it is important we do; if one province does one thing,

another province does something else, the federal government takes a totally

different direction, then we will dampen any recovery that is under way in this

country.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well

that 60 per cent of federal expenditures relate to transfer payments to the

provinces through equalization payments as he discussed, through health care,

clearly, there is going to have to be some change to the formulas for those. The

minister talked about equalization, could the minister tell us does this

government support reductions in transfers for health care and education to this

Province and in particular, what impact might that have on education and health

in this Province, and as a second part of this supplementary question, can the

minister tell us now how he is going to deal with his own deficit in view of the

long-term strategy that we seem to be dealing with here?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The second part of it first, how we are going to deal with

our own deficit. Mr. Speaker, that will be obvious in a very short time. In our

Budget we indicated exactly how we were going to do it this year and further

details will be forthcoming shortly. In the immediate future, we plan to

eliminate the current account deficit and in the medium term, we plan to also

eliminate the capital account deficit, so this is the direction in which we are

headed. Whether we can totally eliminate it or not remains to be seen, but that

is the direction in which we are headed.

In terms of the federal government, Mr. Speaker, I did not

discuss with the federal government anything that would mean a reduction in

transfers. There is only one taxpayer and the problem is a national one, if it

were sectoral it would be different but the problem is a national one and if

money is cut down to us, then somehow we either have to raise money or cut our

expenses and we are getting to the point where we cannot cut expenses too much

more, although there is some leeway, so, we do not support cuts in transfers;

what we do support is that the transfer arrangements be more in line with the

constitutional commitment for equalization, that is what we support.

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

for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: On a point of clarification, it is an

interesting point the minister just mentioned, talking about eliminating the

capital account deficit in the medium term. Is the minister saying that capital

works will now only be constructed out of current account in the medium term,

that there will be no borrowing program to put in place facilities that will

serve the Province for fifty or 100 years?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will go back to my first

answer. If the important problem is accumulation of debt in this country, and

there is agreement that that is the major problem that has to be solved first,

right? If that is the problem -

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: -then somehow - no, the accumulation of debt

at this point in time. Somehow as a country, we have to try and first of all,

slow down the growth of that debt but to reduce the debt at some point in time.

Now, if that is to be done, then we have to pay our way at some point in time.

Now how quickly can we pay our way? I do not know.

I'm hoping that as the economy turns around it'll be sooner

rather than later. We'll stop adding more and more money to our debt in this

Province and burdening the taxpayers of the future more and more. We can't

continue to do that. So I'm hoping that the economic growth will allow us to

balance our Budget totally at some point in time in the future. That's the

objective we must have and that's the objective that all governments must have

at this point, to hope for a future where we can pay our own way for a change.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

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

for the Premier. In the Saturday Telegram the Premier expressed some concerns

about loan arrangements between Enterprise Newfoundland - I think short-term

bridge financing - to Triton Airlines. However, certain arrangements were

entered into. The principals of that airline did some business in Ireland on the

weekend based on financial arrangements already arrived at. Today they find

themselves in the offices of Enterprise Newfoundland dealing with a whole bunch

Rumour has it, the pipeline says, the orders came down from

Confederation Building to throw a spanner in the works. I'll ask the Premier:

did he or his ministers or senior officials direct Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador to disrupt or cancel the done deal with Triton Airlines?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it's been a long time since

I've heard such utter tripe as what just came from the hon. member. Now the hon.

member may honestly believe that. I don't know. He may be genuinely misinformed.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

To start with, I did not suggest that it would be

inappropriate to help Triton Airlines. Somebody asked me a generic question

about whether or not ENL should be giving financial assistance to an entity that

might be competing unfairly with somebody else. I expressed a general opinion on

that. They referred to Triton Airlines. I asked the minister to provide me with

the information on which the decision to assist Triton Airlines was made. That

information was provided. I also responded to an urgent request by Mr. Roberts

to meet with him, I believe, on Monday of this week. Monday morning he requested

an urgent meeting that be held he requested before that day. So I met with him

before the end of work day on Monday. I reviewed the letter that had been

written, the original offer of assistance.

They explained to me the basis on which they gave the offer

of assistance. I can understand ENL offering that assistance in the

circumstances. I have no quarrel with it. They showed me the terms. They showed

me something else. They showed me Triton Airlines' acceptance of the terms and

conditions. They signed the acceptance of it and sent it back. Then they showed

and considered it and agreed to further accommodate Triton Airlines. They varied

accepted it.

To the best of my knowledge there have been no change

whatsoever in those conditions. They were as they were originally put forward,

as they were accepted by Triton Airlines, except to the extent that Triton

Airlines specifically requested a change. All of which has been signed and

endorsed by Triton Airlines. So the hon. member will now understand why I say

it's been a long time since I've heard such tripe as he just proposed in the

House.

MR. HEWLETT: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, the information I had this

morning - and I was speaking to one of the principals of Triton Airlines, an

extremely exasperated individual who claims that a number of variances not

coming from Triton Airlines but coming from ENL had all of a sudden come into

the picture. That was the question I asked the Premier. Has there been a recent

change of heart on the part of the government to cause variances from the point

of view of ENL?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. There was one variance to

Triton Airlines and specifically acknowledged by Triton Airlines. So if the hon.

member is getting that nonsense from one of the principals as he says, then he's

getting fed a totally untrue line from the principals.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

Section 49, Paragraph

II of the Financial Administration Act, I wish to table the attached list of

temporary loans raised under Sections 48 and 49 of the Act between the period

March 4, 1993 and May 19, 1993.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question asked

by the hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday, and the question was relative to

a letter he had sent me some time ago requesting information that had been

requested under the Freedom of Information Act, I now table the information and

attach to the information being tabled the letter to the hon. Opposition Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, under the heading `Answers To

Questions For Which Notice Has Been Given`, yesterday I asked the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture a simple question - namely whether the animals, the

genetically superior swine produced at the Western Swine Breeding Station, still

exist. The minister said he would have to take that question as notice. I still

have not gotten an answer. Do those animals exist?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the hon. minister.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had adequately

answered the question verbally yesterday in Question Period, but if the hon.

member thinks that I should provide some information that I did not provide

yesterday, I will take that under advisement and provide the information; but

certainly I do not think I am under any particular deadline to provide

information requested by the hon. member.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3. I understand that the hon. Member

for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir will be leading Private Members' Day.

The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I get into the Private Member's Resolution that I am

going to discuss today, I suppose as is customary this is the first time that I

have had an opportunity to speak since we have been back in the House this time,

so I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election,

to welcome back my colleagues on both sides of the House who have been

reelected, and to welcome the new members who were elected for the first time.

It reminds me of a little story that someone told me. First

when I was elected they said that when you stand up to speak in the House when

you are first elected you will realize very quickly that you are speaking to an

audience of one; but, they said, when you are reelected the second time you will

begin to like the audience; but by the time you are elected the third time you

will love the audience.

I am now into my third term here and I would like to take

this opportunity to thank the people of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir who did me the

great honour of electing me again for the third time, and with the majority that

they gave me this time. My pledge to them, as it has been in the three terms

that I have been elected, is that I will serve them in the best way that I

possibly can.

I heard some of the members stand up, and the new members say

that is the only thing they ever promised their constituents. I tell them that

is a good promise. If you can live up to that one you will be very, very well

rewarded and you will get elected again.

With the pleasantries over, Mr. Speaker, I will now start to

talk about the resolution that I have brought forward today. I would like to

thank my friend from Eagle River who let his motion stand aside so that mine

could be debated today. The reason for it is the fact that this is a very

pressing problem to the West and South Coast and to the Straits of Belle Isle -

the problems that the fishermen are experiencing there - because as of today, or

as of May 31st, I suppose, their unemployment ran out. Many of them do not have

any way now of making a living, and they heard the federal government make an

announcement some time in April, which was a very broad sort of thing - `there

is going to be something.' We heard the federal minister say that they were

going to spend $190 million to look after the fishermen in five provinces, Nova

Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick, the Gasp Bay part of Quebec and the South Coast of

Newfoundland. So they were waiting with bated breath to see what happened.

Sometime in May, the Federal Government issued a news release saying that they

had now solved all the problems, and all the fishermen had to do was contact the

DFO or the Canadian Employment Office. It happened that one of the employees of

the Federal Government gave me this book with fifty pages of instructions that

were given to the Federal Government as to how to answer the questions that were

going to arise because of this simple program that Mr. Crosbie had announced for

the South Coast of the Province. So, when I saw that, and then, with the calls

that I have been getting from my district, I thought it was fitting that we

should discuss this problem here in the House and see - and again, I don't want

anyone to get the idea that we are needlessly bashing the Federal Government,

because the Federal Government -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, you wouldn't do that.

MR. GILBERT: No, no, the Federal Government, themselves,

are solely responsible for the fishermen and I wouldn't do it. I just want to

say what the feds are saying about why the groundfish have declined. But in this

document, on page 18, of one of three sections, is a question that the Federal

Government published for their employees - a question they were going to be

answering the fishermen: Why have the groundfish stocks declined? Answer:

Scientists do not fully understand why stocks are declining, but certain factors

are known. Some of these factors are abnormal environmental conditions such as

colder water temperature, fewer younger fish entering the commercial fishery

since the early 1980s, a decline in the average weight of fish, irresponsible

fishing practices such as dumping, discarding and misreporting. Now, this is the

answer that the Federal Government told their employees to give to the fishermen

when they called in. So, this leads me to the first `Whereas' in my resolution:

`WHEREAS the traditional cod fishery on the South Coast has

deteriorated due mainly to mismanagement by the Federal Government;

Now, the Federal Government, themselves, have admitted that

they have known about these problems since the early 1980s and they are the only

ones who had any control over it. So, Mr. Speaker, if they knew about it since

the 1980s, why are they waiting, right now, to try to correct some of those

problems?

What they have done with the package that they have just

announced, under Mr. Crosbie's new joint management deal that he is talking

about between the five provinces; Quebec, New Brunswick, PEI, Nova Scotia and

Newfoundland, is, they have put $190 million in to solve these problems. They

knew there was a problem in 1980. They talked about, you know, why were we

standing up and saying there is mismanagement in the fishery? when the Federal

Government, themselves, knew there was. We are talking about right now what

caused it. That is history. It is great to stand here, we can - my colleagues,

both on that side and this side, have talked about foreign overfishing. That is

a good one, you can always blame it on the foreigners. Well, you can blame it on

our own Newfoundland mid-distance fleet, I suppose, our local sixty-five footers

- we licensed 200 of them to go and fish anywhere - the mobile fleet, we like to

call them. We could blame it on them, and I am sure they have contributed

somewhat to it. We can blame it on the trawlers that the Federal Government

forced the fish companies to get involved with, in the late 1970s and the early

1980s, and telling them, `Look, there is this great supply of fish, the Northern

Cod is there and if you don't get ready and go out and harvest this, the

Russians are going to come and harvest it and you are going to be left behind.'

So, most of the crisis that was started in the fishery, with the fish companies,

in the early and mid-1980s was brought about because again the Federal

Government told those people, `Go and modernize your plants; get ready to take

this supply of fish that is there, this one that we can't catch enough. There is

going to be 485,000 metric tons by 1987, so you must have your plants ready for

this. You must have your plants geared up, you must have new trawlers available.

This is what the Federal Government was telling the fish companies in

Newfoundland. Most of them got in trouble by doing this. The fish plant in Ramea

is one of those that is in jeopardy this day. It started, Mr. Speaker, because

again, the Federal Government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GILBERT: That's what it is, he doesn't enjoy the

audience.

Anyhow, it started, Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that

Penney's were told: Upgrade your plant and build some new trawlers. They spent

millions of dollars getting a trawler upgraded in the plant in Marystown, they

spent another $15 million getting one built in South Africa. When they came back

they didn't have any business left, there was no fish to harvest and the plant

has been in trouble ever since. So that, again, is federal mismanagement. And

let me tell my friend from Humber Valley that no matter which government it was,

either the federal Tories or the Liberals, they have mismanaged the fishery. The

only thing is, since 1984, the fellows who have done it are the ones who are

there now and they have to take the blame for what has happened since 1984. I

have no problem with that.

Now, we talk about the imponderable in the fishery and where

the Federal Government mismanaged it. We can talk about our friends, the

scientists, and the seals, both of them together, and I do not know which one

should get the most blame at this point. But, you know, they talk with forked

tongues and they don't tell you - the seals don't talk but the scientists do,

and I am telling you right now that sometimes I think it would be a lot better

if we listened to the seals, because they have been catching seals on an

experimental basis along the South Coast for the last ten years, and what that

has turned up, is that - I think it was a member from over there who said

originally, they found out that seals really don't eat hamburgers, they eat

anything. And from the stomach content of the seals that they have found along

the South Coast in the last eight to ten years, they will tell you, yes, seals

eat anything. They eat cod fish, they eat flounder, they eat crab, whatever

happens to be there, they eat it. So that is another one of the reasons where

everybody have put their heads in the sand and said, We can't say anything about

the seals because we are going to get Brigette Bardot and the Greenpeacers out

again.

But we are going to have to look at that, because that is one

of the problems with our fishery - if it is ever going to rebuild. The seal

population is built up. I talked to the federal scientists, not too long ago,

and they tell me that, well, they really don't know the current population of

the seals, but they know there is an increase in the seals that come down around

the South Coast of the Province. In the district I represent, the district of

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, in the waters off the coast there, they never saw any

seals until the last five or six years. Now, it is not uncommon for fellows, in

their lump nets and in their nets to haul up ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty, forty

seals a day, where they never saw seals ten years ago. So that is another one of

the things that is a mismanagement; I don't care who wears the hat but the

Federal Government has the control and the management of the fishery, so if the

seal population is building up and they are not doing anything about it, that,

again, is another example of mismanagement.

Now, if you want to talk about a local one, and one that is

nearer to home in mismanagement, and one about which I have become very

concerned, if you want to see a real example of why we should have joint

management of the fishery, there is a situation that has evolved in Burgeo over

the last four years. In 1989, we had the Federal Government, without any

consultation with the Provincial Government, enter into a deal with a fish

company from Nova Scotia and Barry's, a fish company from Newfoundland; I don't

know the name of the - a fellow, Blaize in Nova Scotia. And they formed a

company called Seafreez Inc., a deal that was put together so that the fish

plant in Canso, which had been closed in 1987 because National Sea didn't have

any fish to keep it open, and the fact that the plant itself was defective due

to the fact that it had been built with the freon system built into the walls

and if there were any leaks in the freon system it meant they had to pretty well

tear down the plant in order to repair it, as it was just too expensive to

operate as a fish plant. Initially, it was not the fact that National Sea did

not have the quota, it was just that the plant was not an efficient operation.

We had the federal government, a man by the name of Mr. Valcourt who was the

Minister of Fisheries at the time, and a man in Nova Scotia who was the federal

minister for Nova Scotia by the name of Elmer McKay decide that they had to come

up with a plan. They thought there was going to be a provincial election in Nova

Scotia so they had to come up with a plan to open up this Canso plant and put

400 people back to work.

Now, what is the best way to do it? Oh, now they came up with

it. National Sea has a plant in Burgeo. When National Sea closed an unproductive

plant in Canso in 1988, the same year, in December of 1987, they came into

Newfoundland and they paid the Newfoundland government back $8 million that was

loaned to National Sea on the plant in Burgeo, they paid that plant off in

December 1987, and then in 1988 they closed up the plant in Canso. Now, all of a

sudden they came and said to National Sea in 1989, we have a political problem

here we want to solve. We have a plant in Canso that needs to be opened. You

have one in Newfoundland that you do not owe any money on. National Sea owes the

Nova Scotia government $13 million so what about if we cut a deal here now? If

you decide to open the plant, Seafreeze, we will give you the benefit of

reducing your loan, letting it be paid off by grants over the next six years. If

you keep the plant in Canso open for six years and employ 400 people the loan

will be forgiven, the one you owe the Nova Scotia government.

Now, in order to make this a viable deal so we can sell it

National Sea will now sell the plant in Burgeo to this company Seafreeze. The

Burgeo plant is debt-free. National Sea in Canso have $13 million but by giving

you the benefit of the write-off in Nova Scotia that will make it a good deal.

What we will also do in order to make the plant in Nova Scotia efficient we are

going to give you $8 million to upgrade that plant and fix the problems with the

Freon and all that, to do the job that has to be done on that plant there. Then,

after that is all done we will take 20,000 metric tons of fish that is normally

processed in Burgeo and will give that to this new company, Seafreeze, which is

to be produced 50 per cent in Newfoundland and 50 per cent in Canso.

Now, as everybody is aware that deal did not work exactly

like that. Right now we have the fish plant in Burgeo that is closed down

indefinitely, we have the one in Canso open, and we heard Mr. Crosbie say the

reason for it was that the plant in Burgeo was now not a viable entity and could

not be economically sustained. Anyway, a couple of weeks ago I received a letter

from Mr. Crosbie saying this was the reason, that it was not viable to keep the

plant open so now the one in Canso is open.

That reminds me of the sort of thing, was it Aladdin and the

lamps, the old lamps for new, and we got the new one here in Newfoundland but

that is the one that is closed. They got the old one in Nova Scotia and that is

the one that is open, so we have some serious problems there. The thing that

really makes me mad about that is that when Mr. Crosbie had his meeting with the

editorial board of the Evening Telegram a week or so ago one of the points made

was that there was a positive reason why Mr. Crosbie wants to have this five

member management board with the man from Nova Scotia, the man from New

Brunswick, the man from PEI, Gasp, and one from Newfoundland managing our

fishery. This Burgeo deal was touted as one of the things that was very

positive, because of the fact that this deal was put together this was the sort

of thing this management team would be doing so I assure you there seems to me

to be something awfully wrong with a five member board that would think that

this was a positive thing for Newfoundland. I think it points out again another

example of the mismanagement of the federal government of our fishery. Those, I

suppose, are some of the mismanagement things.

Go to the second `whereas': and

whereas the people involved

in the fishery along the South and West Coast and the Strait of Bell Isle of

this Province are unsure of their future. Let me tell you, it's not only the

plant workers in Burgeo and Ramea who are unsure of their future, but it's the

inshore fisherman. The fellow who's been fishing in the twenty - to thirty-foot

boat along that coast. I'm speaking now particularly of my district, because I'm

sure my colleagues who will be speaking on this will become parochial as I am.

When you go and talk to the inshore fishermen in Ramea,

Burgeo, Grey River, Franois or McCallum in my district, they'll tell you how

unsure they are. They've been telling everybody for the last nine years that

I've been the member there how unsure they have been. They've been telling them

that because this thing hasn't happened overnight, Mr. Speaker. The fishery

along the South Coast has been a gradual dying thing that has eroded down

through the years. You have seen the fishermen along the coast telling everybody

who would listen - their unions, the people who work with the provincial and

federal Departments of Fisheries - everyone who was there. I as their member for

the last eight years have made this statement many times in the House.

As a matter of fact, it was about this time last year I was

debating another private member's resolution talking about the fact that the

fishery was a failure on the South Coast and asking Mr. Valcourt would he extend

the unemployment. I wrote him in April of last year, I got a letter back in

September telling me he wasn't going to do it. So obviously they don't listen

very much.

The fishermen along the South Coast have been telling

everybody what problems they have experienced. It wasn't this year or last year.

It was 1985 and 1984 that this thing started. They saw that they were using more

gear to catch half as much fish. Right now, this year, it's reached the stage

where no matter how much gear they use they're not catching any fish. I was

talking to Roy Giles from Ramea last week and he was telling me he was out on

St. Pierre bank, sixty tubs of gear, and he came back with 300 pounds of halibut

and 400 pounds of cod, or one or the other. Just to tell you, there is nothing

there. No matter what they do now there's no fish.

All of a sudden we have the band-aid treatment now that's

going to be put forward by the federal government to solve their problems once

again. Again it shows typical mismanagement on the part of the federal

government. The people along the South Coast have been forced, down through the

years, to change their methods of fishing. They're had to change from trawls to

gill nets. They've had to change to trying to catch different species, such as

lumpfish. They've tried experimental fishing. When this program was announced by

the federal government a couple of weeks ago, one of the things that was said

was that 50 per cent of their income had to come from groundfish - they wouldn't

qualify for this band-aid treatment they're getting anyhow. In other words they

were forced out of it.

I will submit that many of the fishermen along the South

Coast right now, because they had to try and make a living and because of the

fact that they've been saying for the last ten years that their traditional

fishery, the ground fishery, has disappeared - particularly cod, which was their

main one; and you know they had a certain by-catch I suppose, of haddock and

pollock and redfish - but the traditional cod catch has disappeared, and they've

had to resort to catching lumpfish and lobsters. I will say to you that most of

the income of the inshore fishermen along the South Coast, has been derived from

the non-traditional types of fishery, rather than their traditional fishery, the

cod fishery. So it means that a lot of them are going to be denied even this

band-aid treatment that was put forward by the federal government in this

program that they've put out there right now.

When you say they can go to experimental fishery, one of the

things that they talk about in this program that the feds are going to put out

is an experimental fishery. I understand that even the provincial government has

been involved a little bit in experimental fishery. I'd like to tell you a story

now just to prove that the provincial government is not lily-white in this

program

Last year the provincial -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. GILBERT: Last year the provincial government went

into Grey River.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. the -

MR. GILBERT: Would you like for me to tell that story

before you start, Bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the member has leave.

MR. GILBERT: Alright. Well, anyhow, seeing that I am

talking about the provincial government you will let me.

Anyhow, the provincial government went into Grey River last

year and told this fellow Ephram Warren - they said: Ephram, look, get involved

in an eel fishery here now and we will give you the money to take care of it. So

that was fine. He went ahead. Now he had caught and sold about $18,000 worth of

his traditional groundfish, and he had sold it to Ches Blackwood down in

Hermitage - and he had a loan with the Fisheries Loan Board. This is where I am

saying that the provincial government is not without fault in all of this. He

had a loan with the Fisheries Loan Board. He had an agreement that 20 per cent

of his net income was going to go to pay off his loan. Out of the traditional

fishery that he had last year, 20 per cent of that - out of that $18,000 worth

of fish that he caught - went to the Fisheries Loan Board.

The provincial government came in and said: We will pay you

$1,300 for your out-of-pocket expenses, Mr. Warren, to go out and have this

experimental eel fishery. He went out and incurred $1,300 in expenses. He sent

in his bill. When the provincial fisheries issued the cheque, what happened? It

was seized by the loan board.

I think this will be straightened out, because I did go to

the Minister of Finance and he is saying that he thinks this is wrong and he

will be looking after this, and hopefully I will get the rebate back for Mr.

Warren; but why, in the name of God, in the one government could we not have

made the arrangement that that money had gone out to the man? It seems to me

that there are ways that we could straighten out those problems too.

Anyhow, I will sit down now, Sir, and you can carry on.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few

moments to participate in the debate, to the Private Member's resolution put

forward by the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. There are a number of other

members on this side who want to speak. I do not know if there are others on the

other side, so I will not take the twenty minutes allotted to me. I will just

make a few remarks dealing directly with the members' resolution.

There is not a lot, I guess, that I can take issue with in

the resolution. Where the member says that the traditional cod fish on the South

Coast has deteriorated due mainly to mismanagement by the federal government -

no one can refute that. That is the case with the fishery all around our shores,

regardless of the coast. The federal governments in succession have mismanaged

the fishery and we are now paying the consequences.

I want to say to hon. members that my greatest fear, and I am

not the first one to say this - there are other members of this Legislature

before me, and others outside, who have expressed the grave concern that exactly

what we are doing to what is left of our fish stocks -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Member for Fogo mentioned -

yes, we heard some alarming statistics yesterday morning, I say to the Member

for Fogo. It is not only with the cod stocks either, I say to the member.

If you follow what has happened with the fishery resources,

first it was the caplin - and we did not seem to take a signal or a message from

the Province with our caplin. Then, of course, it's the Northern cod stocks, and

we did not really take the message from there either because now we see a severe

decline in our flounder stocks and Fishery Product International and others are

having trouble catching flounder. Then we know what is happening to our turbot

stocks. So it is our entire fishery that we have to be concerned about here, and

I think that if we do not stop fishing altogether we are going to totally

eliminate and decimate and do away with the Newfoundland fishery in its totality

and that is - I do not want to sound extremist or alarmist, but I really think

that is where we are headed if we do not stop all fishing for a period of time.

In the second part of the member's resolution, where he says

the people involved in the fishery along the South and West Coast of this

Province are unsure of the fishery, no one can take exception to that remark.

That is certainly true. Anyone involved in the fishery, regardless of where they

are located in this Province today, are certainly very unsure of their future.

Those who do not have form of income are the people who I

guess right now are most affected. The anxiety levels are certainly very high. I

do not know where they are going to find enough money to keep body and soul

together. That is exactly what we have along the South and Southwest Coasts of

our Province.

Whereas the compensation package announced on April 23, 1993

is not yet meeting - I say to the Member for Burgeo Bay d'Espoir, I do not know

if he did this intentionally, but he said: Is not yet meeting the needs of the

people involved in the fishery. Then: we call upon the Federal Government "to

implement a fair and equitable compensation package".

Mr. Speaker, I did a bit of research. Being fairly familiar

with the program anyway, having extensive experience with the NCARP program, and

now with this - we call it the newer package announced for the South - well, for

the Atlantic fishery - of $191 million. There are certainly some problems that

have come to surface with this program. When do people qualify? is one of the

big concerns. People have to go on job creation projects or activities to

qualify. A lot of those make-work or job creation projects have not yet been

identified. So that is making for a lot of uncertainty. People are not quite

sure. They don't know when the program will begin. There is a training component

supposed to be attached to the program.

I don't think people take too great an exception to the

training component. It is just that our past experience with training components

as they pertain to the job strategy programs sometimes have left a lot to be

desired. It is not that anyone resists training or upgrading, it is just really,

a lot of times those training components are not all that pertinent to what

people have done in the past or what they would like to do in the future. So,

while no one resists it outright, there are some very serious concerns about the

training component.

This recent package does not cover off early retirement.

There is no provision for early retirement in this package as there was with

NCARP. There is no licence buy-out provision, which has caused more concern, or

another concern, amongst a certain segment of the people who would like to have

early retirement or would like to take advantage of a licence buy-out to get

them out of the fishery. These seem to be the obvious weaknesses, I guess, I say

to the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, of the program, as far as I can

determine. I am sure the member will have others and he will probably highlight

them before he concludes the debate before 5:00 p.m.

The other thing we really have to recognize here is that we

are really not dealing with a moratorium here on this new package. It is not a

moratorium such as is covered by NCARP. There are those who will argue that it

should have been a moratorium, and I tend to support that it should have been a

moratorium, when you look at what is happening to what's left of our fish

resources. But it is not a moratorium package - really, it is a quota reduction

package. Consequently, the program is looked at in a different light. I

understand there is some vessel support, as well, as a component of this

program, some limited vessel support. Whether or not it is extensive enough, I

guess, is open to debate, as well.

The weaknesses I see in it are: people don't know when they

will qualify for the benefits; there is no early retirement provision; and there

is no licence buy-out provision. I think these are the three major flaws in the

program. There is a lot of uncertainty, I say to the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir, and others, a lot of uncertainty about the program, a lot of unknowns.

In Montreal we have an occupation, I believe, of DFO offices by people concerned

about the program.

MR. GILBERT: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. GILBERT: Every province in Canada has them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, but I know, yesterday, there was

some news out of Quebec where people have occupied some offices there and

protested the program, trying to get some improvements. I know there were some

discussions that took place yesterday on this particular situation.

As I was reading The Evening Telegram last night, somewhere

back fairly far in the paper, I read where Mr. Valcourt made a statement

yesterday that said they have some - `Improvements to the package are under

consideration,' he said. But he said that the Federal Government would not be

pushed into making decisions because people have occupied offices in different

parts of Atlantic Canada.

But at least, I thought it was encouraging that the minister

had made a statement saying that they were considering improvements to the

program. Now, how much consideration is being given to improving the package, I

don't know, but at least that is a good sign, as far as I am concerned, that at

least they are considering that. I think most of us will agree that there

certainly are improvements needed for the package, so hopefully, before too

long, we will see that.

I want to return, Mr. Speaker, to my original comments. That

is, for, I guess, the state of our fishery. Others have said it before, both

inside and outside the House, most of us came here, were re-elected or elected

for the first time, to try to make our Province a better place in which to live.

I think that is why most of us came. I am sure all of us came here for that

reason. We thought that we had some contribution to make and, by our actions

both inside and outside the Legislature, we would make this Province a better

place in which to live.

I want to echo the remarks that have been made on a number of

occasions by the Member for Port de Grave. The Member for Port de Grave, in a

number of speeches here, on a number of occasions, has said that we come here,

we debate resolutions, three or four people get up and speak, and that is where

the concern seems to stop. That is where the concern seems to stop.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You know, I share his concern. Because

what we are talking about again here in this resolution, and previous

resolutions, and the resolution that will be brought forward by the Member for

Eagle River, and others this Spring or Summer or Fall - we are talking about,

really, the future of our Province and we are talking about us as a people. And

I don't know - it is kind of difficult to get the message out, but unless we

take immediate action - in my opinion anyway - to curtail whatever fishing

activity is taking place, both inside and outside the 200-mile limit, then I

think our future as a Province is very bleak - and I say that very sincerely.

Our future as a Province is going to be very, very bleak. Because we know the

fishery is the backbone of our economy. We know we have to diversify and try

other things, but any way you cut the cake, when it comes down to the bottom

line, the fishery is the backbone of the Newfoundland economy, and unless we

take immediate, swift, strong action to cease all fishing activity -

MR. TULK: I wonder if it is too late now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You wonder if it is - yes, I can say to

the Member for Fogo that usually I consider myself to be a realist. I am

cautious by nature, but I can tell you, for awhile I thought that yes, our fish

stocks will recover; but for the last twelve months or so I cannot find it

within myself to be so optimistic, I say to the member. I share his feelings and

his views that I wonder if we haven't gone too far, and really, if we are going

to see a regeneration of our fish stocks. I have to wonder out loud now if we

are really going to see it. The member knows the statistics that were tossed

around yesterday. The Member for St. George's was there, and the Member for

Humber Valley, the Member for Baie Verte and the Member for Trinity - Bay de

Verde. When you heard those statistics, that a spawning biomass of the Northern

cod stocks went down to 70,000 metric tons and it was, what - 1.2 or 1.3 million

tons?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We have 70,000. That is right. So that

tells you just how critical that spawning biomass has become. Now, as I said

before, it is not only the Northern cod stocks - it is the flounder fishery; it

is the turbot fishery; whatever fish stock or whatever fish species you talk

about, they are in trouble. When I talk to people at FPI who have been flounder

fishing for so many years and they tell me that they are unable to find flounder

this year, in areas where they caught flounder last year, then that tells me

that that flounder stock is, as well, in very serious, very grave danger.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) there somewhere.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Government House Leader, it

started with the caplin and we practically ignored that; then came the Northern

cod - we didn't ignore that - and now it is the flounder, and we know the turbot

has been in trouble for years.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman would agree with

(inaudible) observation that those who ignore their histories are condemned to

repeat them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There is no doubt.

So I guess what I am saying, and I don't want to take up any

more time, because other speakers want to speak, but my honest-to-God feeling on

this is that we should stop all fishing activity - all fishing activity.

Because, while it is very popular to blame the foreigners for doing all the

damage, we know it hasn't been all foreign effort; they have certainly

contributed, but the seals have contributed and we have contributed. We, being

Newfoundlanders, Labradorians and Atlantic Canadians, we have to take our share

of the blame, but having said that, unless we stop all the fishing, I don't

think we are going to recover.

AN HON. MEMBER: The big problem is to stop the foreigners

from (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: The really big problem is to stop the

foreigners from (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The big problem is to stop it - yes, I

agree, I totally support that. As I said, I think it was last week or the week

before, I think the Minister of Fisheries made some statement here about the

reduction in the foreign effort by twelve or fourteen boats. I said at that

time, let's not be bamboozled by that, because 100-plus foreign vessels fishing

on the Continental Shelf are still far too many and we have to stop it. Now, how

we go about doing that, how we deal with it, is certainly a federal

responsibility. It is an international matter and the Federal Government

certainly has to be very strong on it. But, having said that, I think that we,

as fifty-two members of the Provincial Legislature, have to take our

responsibilities, as well, and we have to press the message as strongly as we

can. It really comes home to me now - because it is not too often in here that

too many people listen to you when you speak. Some of us in this House never

speak about the fishery, and I say that of both sides; some members never stand

in their place and talk about our most important industry and the crisis that it

is in, or what it means to the future generation of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. That tells me something. Because we, who are elected by the people

to represent them, if we do not get serious about this issue, then how can we

expect anyone else to get serious about this issue? I say to members. This is

the most serious problem we have facing our Province today. You can talk

deficits, which are a problem and have to be dealt with; you can talk about

problems in health care and education, Mr. Speaker, which are important and have

to be dealt with; you can talk about employment and unemployment, you can talk

about the future of youth, but I guarantee you -

MR. TULK: All the (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes all that I have mentioned, the

Member for Fogo is correct. Everything that I have mentioned is directly

connected to the state of our fishery, and if we, as elected members of this

Legislature, don't become stronger and more vocal on this issue, then there will

not be a need, I say to members, for this Legislature much longer, because there

will not be a future for our Province. Now, that is just how serious it is -

that is how serious I think it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't need a member for your

district.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I won't need a member for the

District of Grand Bank, there won't be a need for one. There won't be a need for

fifty-two members here and eventually there won't be a need for the House of

Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador. So, we all had better start thinking

about that and we all had better start talking about it. We have to be very

strong on this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough about that and I

think a lot of members agree with me, but I just want to say to the Member for

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, whose resolution we are debating today - it gives me a

great chance to talk about the fishery in general - that I have no great

difficulties with his resolution. I know there are obvious weaknesses in the

program. I hope there will be some improvements announced before too long. I

hope the federal Minister of Employment was serious when he said that he is

considering improvements. I hope that is the case. I hope there are some

improvements to this program. I know the weaknesses of the program. In calling

upon the Federal Government to take immediate action to implement a fair and

equitable program, I have no difficulty whatsoever. So, I guess, really, what I

am saying is that, in essence, I agree with the member's resolution.

Just in concluding, I don't know if the member is aware of

this, but Nova Scotia and Quebec have brought in their own provincial programs

to complement the federal program. I don't know what areas they are going to

complement in, but at least they provided a few dollars to go along with the

federal program to take care of some of the difficulties that have been

encountered. I don't know if there has been any suggestion or thought by the

member with the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Finance or the Premier or

the Cabinet or whatever, along those lines. And I am not trying to take any

responsibility away from the Federal Government, but I am just wondering if

there has been any consideration, perhaps, given to some small component from

the Provincial Government to complement the federal program, and maybe that

would be a way of dealing with some more of the difficulties that are

encountered in this program.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to compliment the previous two speakers, the hon. the

Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, for the timeliness in putting this issue

forward, and also to the other hon. member, the Opposition House Leader, who

certainly is one of those who are very knowledgeable about the fishery, who

speaks with the voice of a Newfoundlander, and not necessarily a political

voice, in his dealings with the fishery, and it is that kind of thing, I think,

that makes this House of Assembly speak with a common voice on issues such as

the fishery, when we can put our own differences aside, and see that the efforts

we make here as legislators and as representatives of the people of the

Province, are put forward in a lot stronger fashion when we speak as one.

The resolution, itself, is similar in text and in intent to

the resolutions that have been offered by myself in this House in the past, in

dealings with the people of my district and other districts so affected, through

the problems with the Gulf cod stocks and other fish stocks in that area. And,

as well, the issue is the same with people who are having income problems

because of the problems associated with the state of the fish stocks out there;

and if we look at it, it is a continuing problem since I have been elected. Over

the last four years and even prior to that, the problems associated with the

Gulf fishery have been the most pressing issue in my whole district.

Entire communities which based their livelihoods on the

fishery in the isolated communities along the coast that I represent, are very

similar to the ones represented by the hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir, and no less than those that are represented by the hon. the Member for

Eagle River. And others here, of course, such as Fortune - Hermitage, which is

right next to Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, have a number of these isolated

communities. It is that kind of thing, I guess, that brings home as to the

future of the isolated communities in our districts, in the Province, for that

matter, the future of those involved in the fishery and the future of the

Province, if you extrapolate it, to the point, where we have to see just how it

will affect the provision of public services that we try to provide for the

people of the Province and the provision of a society, within which the people

of our Province will function.

Now, to look at the situation that has arisen because of

mismanagement of the fishery - there are those who will say that we, as a people

of the Province, have to take some responsibility. Of course, through the

electoral process, with the process of electing governments here in the country,

we have to take our fair share of the burden for the problems that are there now

in the fishery, the problems that we are dealing with. But to suggest, I think,

that it is a problem that the fisherpersons, those who are involved in fish

plants, those in the industry, would have to share their part of the burden, I

think it is unfair to suggest that the responsibility lay anywhere other than

with those who are in charge of management in the fishery. The responsibility

has to lie somewhere. We share our burden as electors of a Federal Government

who, in turn, do have the constitutional responsibility to deal with fishery

questions and problems and the future of the fishery, as far as what

opportunities may lie in it for the future are concerned.

Now, some time recently, a compensation package was

announced. I do feel that efforts that were made on behalf of the people of this

Province, through this Legislature and through the Minister of Fisheries in this

Province, and the people of the Province who were so affected, did have

something to do with this compensation package that was announced by Minister

Crosbie and Minister Valcourt. I think that had something to do with it but I do

feel that this compensation package was driven part and parcel because of the

Nova Scotia situation where Nova Scotia was very adamant that something had to

be done, that they had been left out of the Northern cod moratorium package, and

therefore something should be done to accommodate their fishermen and plant

workers. If you bring that to the necessary extension you will then see that we

were included by virtue of being a part of the gulf fishery region and not

necessarily because of our people being hard-hit. The problem was ignored during

the period of time under which NCARP was brought in, from the period in which

NCARP was announced until this particular time, so what is the rationale for

that? I don't think there is one. I think it is just a matter of dealing with

the problem because of the public issue that was made of it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to look at why the wait was there. During

the last two or three years, as the member representing the district of LaPoile,

I was dealing with a lot of people who over that period of time were protesting,

people were writing letters, petitions, offering them to the federal minister,

and again as the hon. member has suggested you would get a four month delay,

four months before you would get a reply from the federal minister in response

to your concerns. Likewise some of these people had yet to receive a response

the last time I spoke to them about the problem. It is not the kind of thing

that it seems that protests of any kind are ever again going to allow the

problem to be dealt with as a public issue. Protests, other than something very

inventive, other than something that is substantive in some way, will not give

the required public attention to the issue, so what do you suggest to the people

of our area that you do?

We as representatives of them here in this House of Assembly

can bring the issue up, deal with it in this way, try as hard as we can to get

the public attention through the media but again it is the old story, if there

is anything with the words NCARP on it, it is in the first page of the

newspaper, in the second page of the newspaper, and all over the place. It

receives full coverage. Anything to do with the gulf cod stocks, mainly because

it is on the West Coast, I do not know, but I have been harping on this for the

last four year, receives little or no attention in the media in comparison to

the Northeast Coast and the rest of the Province, and that is a problem

associated with where our population sits in the Province.

I suppose they focus on issues which affect the majority of

people of the Province, so if we look at all of Atlantic Canada we get better

coverage on this issue on the ASN news out of Halifax, and we would, because it

is a problem associated with the rest of the Atlantic Provinces, so in that way

the West Coast does have a reason to believe the overpass syndrome, the idea

that if it is outside the overpass it is not going to be paid attention to and

henceforth the reason why groups and Crown corporations such as CBC when they

need us to support the issues of the day such as issues of closing down a CBC

office in Corner Brook, in Labrador, or what have you, they are right there to

look for our support, but when we need them to make a public issue of things

like this they do not pay as much heed to it. If they feel I am wrong in what I

am saying then I ask them to challenge it, but I certainly feel this is the kind

of thing that deserves the necessary attention in order to become that public

issue.

Now, we as legislators and as members representing the people

of our districts do need to offer some solutions. What kind of support can we

offer to these people in representing them in trying to get the federal

government to respond in a manner that would be favourable, would give then some

improvements in the criteria to get the federal government to shut the fishery

altogether as was mentioned by both previous speakers. Just as an example. I was

speaking to a gentleman this morning. This man was distraught. His unemployment

benefits will terminate in the next couple of days. He lives in the community of

Isle aux Morts. He's my own age. The gentleman is just thirty-two years old. A

young man with a family, plant workers, he and his wife as far as I know both

work in the fish plant. Little or no income coming in right now, and nothing to

look forward to in two or three days' time.

He said: I don't know what I'm going to do. Can you tell me

what the federal government is doing? Really, I couldn't tell him anything. I

know they developed a criteria. I said: we're trying to get the information from

the federal government as to exactly what it is. They've decided to go back and

try to make some changes. They sent out application forms to DFO offices. They

then asked them to send them back again. It's a real hodgepodge. You would think

they would have gotten it right by the time they had dealt with the NCARP

program. That they would know some way of doing it.

What I think is happening, in my estimation of it, the NCARP

program will be headed the way of the program that they're trying to implement.

They're doing stage two on our Coast and in the rest of Atlantic Canada. This is

what NCARP will turn into. They're going to weed people out of the fishery

through making the criteria so restrictive that those people will then be dealt

out of it by having certain requirements made of them. By having the criteria

made more restrictive. By requiring them to go and do some fishing and using the

NCARP or the compensation as an income supplement type program, but only after

they go out and find out that they can't earn anything.

This is the way that it's going to work on the Coast, as I

understand it. They'll be required to do some fishing. They'll be required then

to supplement their income through participation in some of the programs which

are going to be good for the overall social fabric of the area. Improvements in

literacy, improvements in training people for other occupations that they would

be interested in. But there's going to be a lot of upheaval.

I note for hon. members' attention the headline in today's

Evening Telegram. It says: Fishermen lambast minister. The Minister of Fisheries

for the Province is out around. He has the difficult task of going around and

explaining to the people of the Province in a lot of these communities just how

difficult it will be in the future. We're offering up some of the possible

situations that may arise, things we have to deal with, decisions we have to

make. It is not going to be easy. He is then going to be the one of course who

will create headlines like this by virtue of going out and talking to the

people, and being a lightning rod for some of the frustration that's out there.

I tell you it is - I met it head on in the election campaign.

Although I was re-elected by an increased majority, the people are extremely

concerned. They don't know where they're going to turn. I have fishermen out in

my area who are scrambling to try to make a living. One gentleman for instance,

who is known as the `Highliner' in his community, is trying to purchase the

vessel that he's fished on for years. I've been working on that for that

gentleman. I give him all the power in the world. Anyone who has the guts, in

this day and age, in our area, to go and buy a sixty-five foot long-liner, hook

and line vessel, and do some gill nets, what have you, and go out and take on a

task that from what it would look like - he does some halibut as well - I mean,

it looks like an impossible task for someone to take on the fishery.

Because unlike those who have experienced a decline in the

northern cod area over the last - you're talking about a situation that would

warrant a moratorium over the last five to six years. It's not something that's

just crept up in the past short while. It's something that has been like this

over that period of time. Some people have been able to go out and make a

living. Some of the otter trawl, the mid-water fleet otter trawls from the

Northern Peninsula - there's a few on our Coast as well, but they congregate in

Port aux Basques and fish the winter fishery - they've been able to do okay. I

say "okay". Their quotas have been lowered to make them marginal enterprises.

Also, they've had to rely on catches of very small fish. Sixteen inch rule, if

it was enforced to a `t', I'm sure all of them would have been a lot worse off

over the last number of years.

There were problems such as dumping of fish and problems

associated with using the liners in the cod end of the trawls, and this sort of

thing, but those are not the problem. They're I suppose a symptom of the problem

more so than the problem itself. So to look at those as contributors to the

overall problem, yes, but to say that is one of the key contributing factors, I

would not say that it is a key element of the overall situation.

Those vessels - they licensed somewhat more than they did in

the rest of the Province. I think there are 115 or 113 vessels licensed of the

Otter Trawl fleet - most of them steel, some of them fibreglass and wood, but

most of them steel - that are out otter trawling in the area, in the Gulf winter

fishery. These vessels perpetrate their fishery trying to do well and make a

living. Occasionally you have one vessel fishing two quotas in order to make

enough to make an enterprise function. This kind of a situation has really made

it difficult for the fish plants not only along our coast but fish plants on up

the Northern Peninsula that depend somewhat on the quotas that these vessels

bring in to provide work for the fish plant workers.

Now to look at the - and I suggested this on the way through

- what will we do as legislators? The only thing that I can see that we can do,

along with the representations made by the Government of Newfoundland on behalf

of the people of Newfoundland, specifically for the Gulf fishery, is to take the

issue on in a legal sense. If this could be done I would strongly support and

work with the people in the Gulf fishery to take some kind of legal action to

say that if the rest of the Province is being treated a certain way, the fishery

mismanagement is Province-wide, so why do you have one group being treated one

way and another group treated as poor cousins, a different way? It just does not

make sense to have our Province with a line running down the middle because

there are two different federal fishery management zones, because one is run out

of one office, one is run out of another, and then all of a sudden you have that

imaginary line running down through the Province dictating as to what people in

a given area of the Province will receive.

It is a discrimination issue. It is an issue where the people

along the South Coast and up the West Coast and the Straits of Belle Isle have

been discriminated against and it should be rectified with the assistance of the

Province. I have written a letter to the hon. Minister of Fisheries along these

lines, looking for some indication as to whether this kind of issue could be

fought in a legal sense, and I hope to have the Ministry of Justice - because

we, as members here in this House, do have a responsibility to the whole

Province.

Now if people are suffering, along the South and West Coasts,

immeasurable hardship because of the lack of proper federal compensation, then

we will all suffer here in the rest of the Province financially through the tax

revenues that are dealt to the Province. So it is the same argument that is used

to justify the NCARP program that we have to use to see to it that people along

the South and West Coasts are compensated adequately - and again through the

rest of Atlantic Canada.

The compensation has to be there. It is a matter of damage

done to the fishery. If I understand correctly, the NCARP program was brought in

as a payment for damages incurred, and not necessarily as an income replacement

program. So therefore the same kind of damage has been wrought on the people of

our coasts, on the South and West Coasts, and they should be compensated

accordingly. I will be following up on that and I would encourage all hon.

members to work with us in trying to take the legal route if the public issue

route does not seem to work, and through the pressure applied that way, maybe

that will help our case. It is certainly an issue, that the whole fishery is a

problem right now with the state it is in, but the specifics along our coast, I

think, do need to be addressed. If they are not addressed there will be so many

more people to suffer hardship and again the whole Province will suffer because

of the extension of the problem and how it will affect the provincial Treasury

and the overall social fabric of our area, causing untold hardship for the

families, difficulties that will have a tremendous impact on the future

generations with people being displaced, with children having to suffer because

of the fiscal problems of their families, and children having to suffer because

of the inherent social problems that go along with that.

I would urge every hon. member in the House to support this

resolution put forward by the hon. Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, and also,

if they have any suggestions to help those of us who are working on the South

and West coasts on behalf of people there, I would appreciate the suggestions,

the input and the help of all hon. members in trying to get this issue resolved

in the best way possible.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will allow someone on the

opposition now to have a few words.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few minutes to make a few comments

pertaining to this resolution. I think it is a good resolution, I think it is a

timely resolution. In his first

Whereas, the member says: "WHEREAS the

traditional cod fishery on the South Coast has deteriorated is due mainly to

mismanagement by the federal government; I think, Mr. Speaker, that the member

could carry that a little further and say that:

Whereas the traditional cod

fishery in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has deteriorated due mainly

to mismanagement by the federal government, and as the member stated earlier and

the other member stated and members in the past have said, on both sides of the

House, that it is not due primarily to one specific culler. This has been going

on for some time and it is not only because it is a PC government in Ottawa

today or the past eight years, it is going right back, I can remember the days

of Romeo LeBlanc; I can remember the days of Michael Kirby, coming in and

suggesting that we should take 350,000 tons and it is rather ironic and it is a

sad and cruel irony in some of that, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the dates

that he gave-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That is right, he went higher than that,

and predicted the figure we should take, 350,000 tons either this year or last

year, I just forget exactly the year but that was the prediction so, Mr.

Speaker, when we look at the predictions, the evidence of scientists and so on,

I like the old saying that you used to hear years ago and we still hear it every

now and again out around the bay: the eyes believe themselves and the ears

believe other people, and I think the time has come when we have to believe what

our ears tells us and what our eyes tell us because we cannot go by other people

anymore.

We have to take the bull by the horns, as rough as it is, and

as sharp as they are and as hard as it could be, we have to start doing

something about this. Hon. members opposite, this is a very serious topic and I

would not want to make light of it. Mr. Speaker, some of the evidence and some

of the talk we are hearing lately, is frightening. Why the whole fishery in the

Province is not closed down is beyond me, why a moratorium on Northern cod? Why

close the South Coast, why not the Gulf and the whole area in this Province? We

were told, I have heard it the last couple of months and I heard it yesterday in

spades what the biomass is for the Province, what the biomass is for the cod, it

is unreal. Do we realize I wonder, do the people of this Province realize that

the minimum biomass should be out there for the cod, for spawners, seven years

old and up for spawners should be at least a minimum of 1.3 million tons? and,

Mr. Speaker, do you know what is out there today?

The latest statistics show that there is a miserable,

pathetic 70,000 tons - 70,000 tons. Just imagine, if that had anything to do

with any other parts of the world, if that had anything to do with a moose

population or an elephant population or a lion population, it would be

considered an endangered species, and do not touch it. The areas would be

closed, it would be off-limits, you cannot touch it, do not go there you will be

fined and sometimes you will be shot, in some parts of the world, but here, we

have a tendency to endure this type of punishment for a long time before we

really get down to where it hurts and where it cuts. You can cut to the bone,

Mr. Speaker, but where do you cut after? As far as I'm concerned we are to the

bone when it comes to the fishery in this Province, and what do we do next?

A few comments on the package. I have to make reference to my

particular district. Because I've got a fishery in the White Bay part of my

district, namely in Jackson's Arm, Sop's Arm, Pollards Point area, and somewhat

smaller in the Hampden area of the district. I've witnessed and experienced

first-hand what came under the moratorium package that was announced there just

last year. We've got to be very careful and we have to stress to the powers that

be, and especially in this case the officials at DFO, they are the people who

will determine whether a plant is designated.

From my understanding, the processing plant may be designated

if at least 25 per cent of its total through-put in 1991 and 1992 is from

specific groundfish stocks subject to quota cuts in 1993.

I had a situation under the so-called package whereby all

plants in the Province in order to be designated had to have at least a 10 per

cent through-put of northern cod. Now I had two plants in my area - namely Sop's

Arm Fisheries and the White Bay Ocean Products plant - that were designated by

DFO to come under the program. Eight months after people got the NCARP payments,

after people became eligible for those particular payments, payments coming in

every month, all of a sudden DFO rules that the plant in Jackson's Arm should

not be designated.

I don't have to tell any member of this House or any person

in this Province what that means to individuals who have absolutely no other

income. They were told all of a sudden that they were off the package because

the plant is not designated. All it took was a phone call by someone in the

office of the DFO to P Janes and Sons in Hant's Harbour or White Bay Ocean

Products in Jackson's Arm to tell them that there wasn't a 10 per cent

through-put of northern cod. About two minutes work.

What happens to those people today? I had forty-eight plant

workers in that particular community who were taken off overnight, told that

they did not qualify. Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes. They were getting it for eight months.

What I'm afraid of in this, and members opposite should take note, that if you

know of any plants in your district that you know full well don't reach that 25

per cent - because a lot of other people knew it - don't let the people get

right up to their necks in debt and get those payments. Because if the plant

hasn't a 25 per cent through-put they're not eligible. Never mind the criteria

for the job creation on the other end of it. Just look at the criteria for the

plant to be designated, and don't let the plant workers in your communities be

sucked in by DFO or anybody else. Because that's what's going to happen. I've

witnessed it first-hand, I've witnessed it in spades, and my people today are

hurting because of it.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I think other members - members

opposite have mentioned it already, is other species. We have a tendency that:

northern cod, the groundfish or whatever, there's a moratorium on northern cod,

groundfish and so on, on the South Coast and in the Gulf and somewhere else.

What do we do? All of a sudden everybody is interested in underutilized species.

All of a sudden we're going to hit the underutilized species. All of a sudden we

had fisherpersons and communities and fish plants around this Province that

could never fish underutilized species: we can't catch them, we need a program

or a grant to do it. All of a sudden everybody and everything is after it.

You know what's going to happen now. The same thing that

happened to the groundfish, and, as the hon. Member for Fogo said, a lot of it

doesn't exist. You know part of it is because of the by-catches all along. They

were catching this and throwing it away years ago and up as late as a couple of

years ago before the announcement on the suspension of the Northern cod, I mean

this was going on for years. Now, we are out there and we are going to catch the

flounder, we are going to catch the hake, we are going to catch the grey sole

and we are going to do wonders. I have a plant in my district, I think it is the

only one in the Province that has been given an offshore quota for squid, a

1,000 ton quota for offshore squid. All kinds of sales but more sales now for

the dried squid. You cannot get anybody to touch it. I am in a real dilemma now,

people in my district are in a real dilemma now.

Another example of this is that people who are on NCARP,

fisherpersons who are drawing their UI are finished in May, UI is finished in

May. Now, I do not know about other members but I know in my area and along the

North Coast and I think down in the Member for the Straits district, and Eagle

River, I think they are socked in down there now, all up my way, socked in with

ice. Jackson's Arm, White Bay socked in, Hampden socked in, Pollards Point

socked in, they had their lump nets out and had to take everything in. So, what

happens now is that the fisherpersons who did not come under NCARP and getting

their UI are finished. They have absolutely no income. The people who are on

NCARP can go right back on NCARP and still get their checks. The people who are

drawing UI are out to pasture, out to lunch, forget them. What do you do?

Here we had the caplin fishery announced the other day, by

the minister, now I know it does not open in White Bay until June 25th, the

caplin fishery until June 25th. The ironic thing about that, Mr. Speaker, is

this the only place on the island last year that there was a caplin fishery was

in White Bay. It was the only place that there was a caplin fishery and they had

to watch it on the end of it. I say to members, to the DFO officials that they

better watch it when it opens this year because on the end of that catch last

year there were some very, very small caplin. Sparney's, when you see little

trout in the river we used to call them sparney's years ago, sparney or

whatever, that is what it looked like to me. Mr. Speaker, they are going to have

to be very careful because I am afraid.

Last year when the caplin came into White Bay all along the

shoreline outside of Jackson's Arm there was a body of caplin, when they went

out for two kilometres, there was absolutely nothing and just outside of that

there was a larger body of caplin. What they were doing was swimming down

inside, they would not cross it. The water temperature was seven degrees

different in the matter of two kilometres. That is what it had dropped, seven

degrees in the difference and the caplin would not swim through that particular

body of water. They went further on down the Northeast Coast and then came in to

shore and that is why they referred to it at that time, the fishermen were

referring to them as a bay quota, bay stock instead of the offshore stock of

caplin. I had never heard it before until then but fishermen have been saying

that for years, that there are two different stocks, that is the first time I

have heard it.

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to take up too much time because

other members wanted to speak. I will say to the member opposite, the Member for

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, that it is a timely resolution. I can go on talking about

the fishery and especially as it pertains to my particular area for some time

but I would like to give other members a chance, at least another member a

chance to speak and I commend the member for bringing in this resolution. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

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

very pleased today to rise in this debate. I am very pleased to support the

resolution so ably put forward by my colleague from Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and I

might also, Mr. Speaker, say that I am very pleased and impressed with the

support that the members of the Opposition have given this resolution. I believe

their hearts are in the right place, and I think that all of the people of this

Province would be happy to know that we are in here today debating this

resolution in the spirit that we are.

I want to support the resolution, Mr. Speaker, but

particularly I want to focus on the mismanagement of the fishery - the

mismanagement of the fishery that has taken place over the last number of years.

I will not belabour that aspect of it, but I will address the mismanagement of

the future that will occur if this Atlantic Fisheries Board is put in place

which the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is advocating, that he now has

into the House of Commons in Ottawa to become law.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the inaccurate statements and

totally misleading statements that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has made

up to this date in relation to the structure and resource allocation aspects of

this legislation. I do not want for a minute to understate the importance of the

two things that I just mentioned - the structure of that board and the resource

allocation aspects of this piece of legislation.

I want to premise my next few minutes on two things. Earlier

this year the Premier of this Province said: Mr. Crosbie is going to have to

answer to future generations for the devastation of the fishery of this Province

if he proceeds with what he is proposing today. Mr. Speaker, shortly after that

The Evening Telegram came out and said, in an editorial: This is not a partisan

issue. It is an issue of Newfoundland's survival, and people here know it. It is

time the fisheries minister recognized it too.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the premise that I want to set out

today, to talk about the aspects of that board that is so critical, because just

last evening in the meeting in Bonavista a couple of fishermen have been quoted

- and I know one fishermen in particular has been quoted as saying that he is

not aware of some of the factors that are involved in this piece of legislation.

I guess he has been led to wonder why there has been such an outcry from Mr.

Crosbie, such utterances that we have seen in the paper and on TV, that he is

going to take such actions. Why is he doing this when there seems to be such a

consensus and such a cohesive position taken by members of this House and the

Premier in particular?

Mr. Speaker, I want to set out the situation and let all hon.

members judge for themselves how this situation could impact upon our future and

what exactly this situation is, first of all in relation to the structure of the

board. The structure of the board, as far as the Premier is concerned, on May

20th said: The proposal of the federal government would provide for the

management of fish stocks by a board constituted of representatives from Nova

Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, PEI, Newfoundland, and one from the Government of

Canada. This will leave this Province with one voice in six in management of the

waters surrounding this Province.

That is what the Premier of this Province said to the people

of this Province, and it was one of the main reasons - one of the two main

reasons - that he has noted, since this board has been put in place, why he is

so opposed to it and why this government is so adamant about seeing that

legislation killed.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Crosbie, the federal minister, in reaction

to this statement, has gone on record in a statement that he made to the Rotary

Club on May 25th. He says, and I quote: "It would favour no province and create

a degree of stability, certainty and predictability in allocations that does not

exist today."

Now, Mr. Speaker, obviously here we have two different ideas

of what that board would mean, what that structure would mean, and if, in fact,

it is as is said by the Premier or if it is as it is stated by the minister. I

am sure that the people of this Province would like to know.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now look to the Act itself, Bill

C-129. I do not say that many members of this House or many members of the

public have had a chance to see this piece of legislation, but if they look on

page 6 of this Bill,

article 10(1), which governs the residency of the Board.

I quote: five executive members of the Atlantic Fisheries

Board must be ordinarily resident in Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince

Edward Island and Newfoundland respectively at the time of their initial

appointment to the board. He also goes on to say that: the governments of

Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland may at

any time submit to the minister a list of names, but the Governor in Council

may, but need not, appoint as an executive member a person whose name is

submitted by one of these governments, Mr. Speaker.

I submit to the people of this Province that those are the

facts. That is the law as it's proposed right now in Bill C-129 on the floor of

the House of Commons that Mr. Crosbie has staked his political future on and the

is in fact law before he is finished as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in

Ottawa. I submit that the people of this Province have every right to be

concerned. Because it is clearly in this Act that we will be only one voice in

five. We will only have one say at that