May 15,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 9

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin with the routine proceedings, I would like to

welcome on behalf of all members to the House of Assembly, eight Skills For

Success ABE students along with their instructor, Donna Adams.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House today that the

Iron Ore Company of Canada and the United Steelworkers of America have reached a

new three-year contract which covers approximately 1,400 unionized employees at

the company's mine in Labrador City -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - and that the strike that started on

April 4, 1996 is now over.

The union voted on the new contract on Tuesday, May 14, 1996

and accepted the deal by a majority of 77 per cent. Employees started to return

to work as early as Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker, this new deal was arrived at following six days

of meetings last week after the parties were called back to the bargaining table

by a provincial mediator, Mr. Wayne Fowler, from my department.

Mr. Speaker, this industry and this employer is a major

factor in the economic base in Labrador, and my department is pleased that we

could contribute to the settlement of this dispute and assist the parties in

arriving at the new three-year contract.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Labrador

West, who has helped us out in this matter very much so, and who was very

encouraging in making sure that when the decisions were made to attempt to reach

a settlement he was very instrumental in helping us do that and I thank him very

much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We wish to join, certainly with the minister in

congratulating and being thankful that the strike in Labrador has come to a

conclusion, and to, I guess, thank any and all of the people involved, including

the minister and his department for ensuring that a large employer in this

Province and its employees have reached a long-term agreement which is unusual

not only in the provincial but federal context, and also to ensure that further

economic development and prosperity continue not only for the region of Labrador

but for the Province of Newfoundland as a whole.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi. The hon. member is asking for leave. Does the hon. member have leave?

By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the

Minister of Environment and Labour and the Opposition critic in congratulations

to both parties on a successful conclusion of negotiations leading to the

resumption of work. While this was a strike - and strikes and lockouts are also

a normal part of labour relations - I think we need to remind ourselves as well

that 99 per cent-plus of all collective agreements are signed without the

necessity of a strike or lockout but when they come this is part of the normal

process of reaching an agreement using the economic forces of the strike or the

lockout to achieve the result. I think we are all delighted that people are back

to work in the Iron Ore Company in Labrador and that the economic benefits that

flow from the iron ore development will continue to flow to the people of

Labrador and to the Province.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today

are for the Premier, they are about the Employment and Insurance Act that was

passed by the House of Commons yesterday. Despite revisions the act still means

fewer will qualify and those who do will get less. In fact the federal

government estimates that this Province will receive $105 million less in

benefits than it now receives. The measures begin taking effect this fiscal year

and will have implications for the Budget that is being brought down tomorrow. I

ask the Premier, has the government done an analysis of the impact of these

measures on the Province's economy and our budgetary situation? Will the Premier

table that analysis and will he assure us that tomorrow's Budget will adequately

reflect those measures?

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

Rural Renewal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of what has

transpired in terms of the amendments to the new legislation. While we didn't

get everything we would have liked to have gotten we are certainly pleased with

the amendments that have come forward, in part as a result of the presentations

that were made by this administration and the previous administration. We

recognize that there will be a reduction and the federal government is

projecting a reduction of about $105 million. Mr. Speaker, that is in fact in

the total Budget of $675 million that is coming into this Province for U.I. The

$105 million is, in fact, a reduction, but $85 million will come back to the

Province under the Employment Benefits program which, in fact, will see a

reduction of about $20 million, less than 3 per cent in terms of the overall

budget for the Province's U.I.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Finance now: Has the government done an

analysis of the measure of the Province's economy on the changes in the

Employment Insurance Act? And, if he has, will it properly be reflected tomorrow

in the Budget?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, the Province has done an analysis and, yes, it will be

part of the Budget. I should say, it will be reflected in the Budget.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Federal documents indicate that in the recent legislation

Ottawa has softened the blow to this Province by some $33 million with the

recent amendments to the U.I., the Employment Act, but are we going to be better

off? I know the minister just indicated, but this $33 million, I ask the

Premier, will this be subtracted from what we were going to get from Ottawa in

retraining? In other words, could the Premier tell us exactly how much

Newfoundland and Labrador now will be getting each year in retraining funding to

make up for the millions that we are losing in U.I. benefits?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what the

minister said a moment ago in assessing the impacts. I know the Leader of the

Opposition welcomes the changes that have been made. The Leader of the

Opposition knows that the original proposal by the national government would

have seen a U.I. system put in place where we would have had zero averaging,

zero income, in determining the average income of those who are receiving U.I.;

it was called a weekly system. We now have an amendment which says that U.I.

will be averaged over twelve weeks in a twenty-six week period. Therefore, the

problem that was evident, which he spoke about, which I spoke about, which many

people in this Province spoke about, of having those involved in seasonal

industries be working for four or five weeks, off for two or three weeks,

working again for four or five weeks, and having to average in zero for two or

three weeks they were off, that problem has been eliminated; and I know that the

Leader of the Opposition joins with members on this side of the House in

welcoming that important change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The Leader of the Opposition knows as well

that the original proposal tabled by the national government would have had a

divisor rule in the formula for determining unemployment insurance of twenty

weeks. That was the original proposal. The amendment passed yesterday has a

divisor rule; it is the insurable weeks required to collect U.I. in any region,

in the case of Newfoundland, twelve plus two, so the new divisor rule is

fourteen weeks rather than twenty weeks; that is a substantial and positive

change insofar as it impacts upon the people of this Province. I know the Leader

of the Opposition welcomes that as well.

The third area of concern to the Province was a question

called the intensity rule. I know members opposite are interested in the

details, because they are interested primarily, and that is why they are in the

House, for the welfare of the people of the Province. The intensity rule that

was proposed would have seen, for every ten weeks worked a 1 per cent reduction

from the maximum insurable earnings of 55 per cent down to a floor of 50 per

cent for every ten weeks worked. In the amendments proposed and passed in

Parliament yesterday, the intensity rule remains, but it is now a reduction of 1

per cent for every twenty weeks worked versus ten weeks, and there is a $26,000

cutoff against which the intensity rule will not apply.

Now, I know while that does not go as far as I would like, or

he would like, that nevertheless is another step in the right direction, and I

thank him for his interest and concern about the welfare of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier does not know what he is talking about. The

original one said one week lost for twenty. On December 1 your government of

which you are a minister indicated that one week for every twenty you would lose

1 per cent and not 10 per cent. That is in the original agreement of December

1st that I have here, and after 100 weeks over three years, it would decline by

1 per cent for every twenty to a maximum of a 50 per cent total reduction on

your insurable earnings. That is what was stated in this in December and that

has not changed, I say to the Premier. The divisor rule for Newfoundland was

fourteen weeks before January 1 and it was sixteen after January 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to the question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put some facts on

the table in this matter in which the Premier is misleading this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We understand that the Premier told the

media yesterday, and made indication today, that the revised Employment

Insurance Act before the Commons was somewhat better than the original act

proposed last year, and he has indicated that they still do not go far enough.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier how he can criticize this

act when as the minister responsible he supported even harsher measures in 1995?

Has not the Premier of this Province, the Province that is most vulnerable to

U.I. changes, been ineffective in lobbying Ottawa to ease up on these cuts

precisely because he himself defended deeper cuts to U.I. when he was a

minister?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the one thing about the

Leader of the Opposition is that he lacks subtly. It is very clear that his

interest here is not with the people in seasonal industries in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and is not for getting an improvement to the U.I. Act in Ottawa which

is a national program. His pure interest, transparent, is to see whether or not

he can score political points, by, on the one hand, asking me how can I

criticize the Federal Government because I used to be part of it, and on the

other hand, asking me why I'm not criticizing it more. Now, only the Leader of

the Opposition has perfected the act of swallowing himself whole on the floor of

the House of Assembly and trying to look normal in the process of doing it. I

won't try to emulate him.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, the facts are clear. I

say we have had an improvement over what was proposed. I say that we would have

preferred on this side that the changes had gone farther than they have gone;

nevertheless, important changes have been made. I think that is clear - far more

clear than the question of whether or not the Leader of the Opposition will

support the government on this side in seeking the passage of the amendment on

Term 17 before the House of Commons. He says his position is clear. We ask the

Leader of the Opposition: What is your position? Because we don't know!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is your position?

MR. SULLIVAN: My position, I say to the Premier, and I

will make it clear, is that you were given a mandate by the people on September

5. Get on with it and do what the people told you to do! That is my position and

our party's position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, I would like to get back to a question

the Premier referred to on intensity rule. The softening of the intensity rule

does nothing to help families with incomes below $26,000, total household

incomes. In fact, Doug Young has stated he has no respect for the term `seasonal

worker', or `repeat offender', as Ottawa calls them, and it is clear that no one

in government has changed his mind. In fact, I say to the Premier, that

amendments that went through the House of Commons yesterday on the intensity

rule will impact only to one-third of 1 per cent of the revenues coming into

this Province.

Will the Premier table any documents that he has sent to his

federal counterparts to try to convince them of the validity and the importance

of seasonal industries in this Province? Will he table any documents arguing

that seasonal workers, substitute teachers and other repeat users of U.I. do not

deserve to be punished for living in a province that offers few stable

year-round employment opportunities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the

Opposition and I, and indeed I think all members of this place share a similar

view that we want policy in Ottawa that does not discriminate against seasonal

workers be they in Newfoundland or any other part of Atlantic Canada or any

other part of Canada, and we will work as constructively as we can to achieve

that end and indeed we have been working hard to achieve that end, and we like

to think that a significant reason for the reforms such as they are which have

been announced and the changes which have been made, and those are substantial,

whether the Leader of the Opposition wants to dismiss them or not, is because of

the effective work done by the minister, by her department and by members on

this side of the House, including on occasion, the Premier, and to the extent

the Leader of the Opposition has contributed to that cause, I welcome, I welcome

that assistance from the Leader of the Opposition.

You know, let us be blunt here, let us be clear. Now the

Leader of the Opposition says: the government has a mandate, we should get on

with it, and I agree with him. The government has a mandate to pursue an

efficiency through a constitutional amendment in Ottawa, which will allow us to

save the dollars required, to divert money to pure education purposes and I want

to know, because the Leader of the Opposition still has not given a clear

answer. There was a referendum in the Province and despite the referendum in

this House, the Leader of the Opposition voted against the amendment; has he now

changed his mind and will he accompany me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - we will pay for his ticket to Ottawa -

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

PREMIER TOBIN: - to ask the national government to

proceed with this reform.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have answered that question on two occasions.

The Premier stated that significant changes on the intensity

rule, if one-third of 1 per cent of revenue coming into this Province on UI is a

significant change, when the Premier promised us there was going to be a change

in intensity, then I beg to differ on how significant that is. One-third of 1

per cent is very insignificant.

Now I ask the Premier, the UI fund has not only been

self-supporting, it has produced a surplus estimated at $5 billion this year.

Now, does the Premier really think it is right that employer and employee

contributions to this independent UI fund should be siphoned off by Ottawa and

put into general revenues and used for purposes other than job-loss insurance,

training and employment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

can carry on asking this question, I suppose from now to the end of this term of

office.

The reality is, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it and

his colleagues who sit on both sides of him know it as well. Every Government of

Canada, even Progressive Conservative Governments like the Government of Premier

Harris or the Government of Premier Kline in the Province of Alberta or a

Conservative Government in the Province of Manitoba; New Democratic Party

Governments in the case of the Province of Saskatchewan, Liberal Governments in

the case of Atlantic Canada including this one, Separatists Government in the

case of Quebec, all governments are faced with the responsibility of trying to

put their fiscal houses in order and every government of every political stripe

is engaged in that activity, it is no different anywhere in the country and if

the Leader of the Opposition were sitting on this side of the House, he would be

pursuing such a policy as well. So to stand up and suggest that Ottawa should

not seek to find any efficiencies whatsoever in the delivery of its major

programs is not being, may I say, Mr. Speaker, in my judgement, realistic, and

quite frankly not being fair and not being honest with oneself or with the

people of the Province, so I say to the Leader of the Opposition, to the extent

he wants to work with the government to try and improve circumstances beyond

those measures already introduced, we will work with him. In fact, I would

propose we try and arrange a meeting while we are in Ottawa together, to lobby

for Term 17's approval, a meeting with Minister Young and we can both put the

case for perhaps further changes to assist the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: There is a clear, generous statement on my

part. Can we get a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - clear statement from the Leader of the

Opposition, where he stands on Term 17.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope it will be a lot more productive than the meeting you

had with Minister Doug Young in Stephenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Compounded by deep cuts in federal transfer

payments and the phasing out of fisheries compensation, those UI cuts will have

a profound impact on the economy at a time when we can't afford to adequately

fund basic services like health care and education.

Doesn't the Premier agree that any government of this

Province would have an obligation to make a strenuous representation to Ottawa,

pointing out the severe impact of this UI reform on this Province, protesting

cuts and barriers to benefits and suggesting alternatives? The divisor rule is

still there. The intensity rule only, is going to benefit 13 per cent of

Canadians with this change and less in Newfoundland, and will the Premier table

all the representations that his government has made to Ottawa regarding this

employment insurance, and any proposals that the Province may have had to ease

the impact that UI reform has on Newfoundland and Labrador? We don't want lip

service we want to see the factual representation the Premier has made.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier agrees and the

government agrees that we have to make the most responsible representations we

can make to look for a system that does not discriminate against seasonal

workers and that is precisely what this government has done. I say to the Leader

of the Opposition in some important areas we have achieved, in consultation with

other provincial governments in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere in the country, we

have achieved some savings as a consequence.

The national government has left $365 million of their

targeted savings on the table, put them back in the pot because of the changes

they have announced. Now the Leader of the Opposition says we would like the

amendments to go even further and I would say to the Leader of the Opposition I

would like the amendments to go even further but you cannot refuse to recognize

that there have been some changes, there have been some improvements and those

improvements have come about because people have made a constructive effort to

make the case. Simply standing on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, with

no constructive suggestion beyond trying to score political points is not going

to realistically help the people affected.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition the whole Province now,

for the second day, is waiting - you have said you don't want fuzziness in

education policy, where do you stand I say to the Leader of the Opposition, on

the question of passage of Term 17 and will you come to Ottawa -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: - and speak to your Conservative

colleagues in the Senate?

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

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

think that every member in this House would agree that anything that negatively

affects the economies in our communities negatively affects this Province.

The question I ask to the Minister of Education is, recently

in his announced cuts to post-secondary education - in terms of college

closures, elimination of first year university courses - what plan did he

follow? Was there a long term plan that looked at the long term costs associated

with closing down colleges in communities in terms of how it would affect not

only communities in the social aspects but how it would affect government

revenue in the long term?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All of the decisions that will be announced in the Budget

tomorrow by my colleague the Minister of Finance have been factored into the

financial analysis, the projected future in the communities and in the Province

generally, with revenues that are expected to flow to the provincial treasury -

all of them, all of the decisions that we have made. We understand that the

short term decisions to close out particular institutions and in some instances

lay off some workers, that there is no question that that has a negative short

term impact.

The overall plan that we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, with

respect to education - and that has been the driving force behind these

decisions now - is to stabilize the education system so that we can go forward

into the future with an operational system in terms of a number of campuses, a

number of program offerings that we can afford into the longer term future so

that we don't have to have our students in the communities put through these

kinds of upheavals annually in the Budget. I guess the phrase that I have been

using, Mr. Speaker, is we are trying to retrench a little so that we can go

forward with a system that we know we can provide on an ongoing continuing basis

rather than wondering every year or every six months - based upon fiscal

re-projections - whether or not we can continue to offer services to students in

the range of locations that are now present in the Province.

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

Kilbride.

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

Over the last ten to twelve days - the minister knows full

well, he has travelled, he has met with communities, he has met with community

college officials, he has met with members on the opposite side who have

concerns representing communities that have been affected by his decisions and

the government's decisions, is he in a position today to outline clearly what

government's intentions are? For example, will or has government reconsidered

the closing down of Bell Island campus? Has government reconsidered

re-instituting first year university courses in the central region or through

all the regions that his earlier decision affected? Will government be reopening

some of the community colleges that two weeks ago he announced would be closing?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am delighted that

the hon. member asked the question.

With respect to campus closures, and the offering of first

year university options at a selected number of sites throughout the Island and

in Labrador a couple of weeks ago, the government decisions have been clear.

They have been announced; they are part of a Budget which will be totally

announced tomorrow, and they are not going to change.

What we have seen, to everybody's, I think, great credit and

merit, is the people in the local areas, the college boards, the communities,

coming forward with proposals themselves, not asking the government to give them

back the money, because they have been told and they understand that the $8

million, the reduction that caused those specific actions to occur, that the

government doesn't have any flexibility with respect to that amount of money,

and we have proposals from the college board for Eastern Newfoundland, from the

college board in Central Newfoundland, and from some of the communities in which

the campus closures are occurring, looking at options whereby without any

additional money whatsoever, with this new reduced amount, that they believe

they have come up with creative new ways to run some programs on a different

basis, with some different charges and different fees involved, but not asking

the government to reconsider its position at all.

The unfortunate part, I think, is that some of the media have

been portraying it as if the government is considering changing its mind. No,

the government is not changing its mind at all with respect to the budgetary

reduction of $8 million, but the people in the local areas, to their great

credit, have come forward with new proposals suggesting that even within this

new reduced budget limit, they can creatively offer some version of these

programs on an ongoing basis, and we have said that we think we owe it to them

to listen to their proposal, since they are not asking for us to change our mind

about the Budget.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, this is news, Mr. Speaker. Let me be

clear. The minister made commitments publicly, at public meetings that he would

seriously reconsider and revisit decisions, bring back the Cabinet to revisit

decisions that would negatively affect or scale back or close down community

colleges and the offering of programs. So the minister is now saying to the

House that the extent to which he, as Minister of Education, on behalf of all

the government, is willing to revisit the changes or the closures that he

announced, depends solely upon the communities affected to pay their own way to

keep colleges open, or to offer first year university courses, and the

government does not intend to claw back or to put back in first year university

courses. In other words, it is up to the people of the Province to come up with

their own solutions, and government will not revisit the decisions that they

recently made.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I appreciate the continuing line of questioning

because it does provide an opportunity to make sure that we all understand each

other, and it is clear, the reconsideration and the revisiting language that the

hon. member used is not my language. In each of the meetings I have been

involved in the people have come forward and said: Will you change your mind?

The answer I have given is: No, I don't have any flexibility to change my mind,

or go back to the government and ask to forget about the reductions that we have

announced and do something else.

What I have indicated each time, and what they have now done,

is they have brought forward proposals themselves saying: We know we are not

going to get $8 million back from the government, but will you at least let us

bring forward a proposal where we are saying to the government - not the

government suggesting to them, pay their own way; they are suggesting to us - we

know now that if we don't do something different the program is cancelled and

the campus is closed. Will you at least let us bring forward a proposal

voluntarily ourselves, suggesting to you that without the money from the

government, that if we can find a way, and if we are willing to do it ourselves,

will you at least consider it?

The answer has been: Yes, we are duty bound to consider it,

and then the people will have to decide whether or not that new proposal meets

with their approval in the local area, because the proposal now is that the

campuses are closed and that first year university is discontinued. They are

saying: We think we want it bad enough that we would like to come back and do

something different ourselves, despite what the government has done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

for the Minister of Mines and Energy. All indications are now that as of May 22,

Inco will officially become the developer of Voisey's Bay. Also, according to

reports from Inco, construction at that mining site could begin as early as

1997. Less than a year from now we could see development at Voisey's Bay.

Will the minister tell the House if the amendments which were

tabled by the previous administration will be brought back to this House in this

session, and will there be any changes to those amendments?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I expect, too, that on May 22

we will know for sure who the future owner of Diamond Field Resources will be.

The last time that we came close to a date for a vote by a board of directors

there suddenly appeared another proposal on the table from a different company,

when Falconbridge was about to get approved and Inco came forward. Until May 22

comes I'm not going to prejudge and say there will not be another offer come

forward. There may well be another offer come forward.

Inco and others have said they would like to move forward

with a rapid development. In my view there will be no development that quickly.

This particular development has not been registered with the Department of

Environment and Labour yet to get a complete environmental assessment. I cannot

see any way in the world that it would get through an assessment and see

construction by 1997. I don't think anyone should have that preconception.

In regard to the tax amendments, I gave the answer the last

time we sat in this House, that we as a government have not yet dealt with these

particular amendments but we do plan to. We are going to have consultation on

these particular amendments before we bring them back to the House. We are not

going to bring them back in this spring session of the Legislature but we are

going to have consultation over the next few months, and when we bring them back

it will be as a result of that consultation. So it will be in the future but

after some consultation.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to hear the minister

say that we are going to use consultation and talk to people in the industry.

But also, all indications are that Voisey's Bay will move quickly. Inco has said

it would like to move quickly. The Premier has stated they would like to see it

move quickly. The verbal rhetoric of saying that we will get our full and fair

share is just not enough for people in this Province any more. Many people

inside and outside the industry are asking: What is the plan, what is the tax

regime that will go in place for Voisey's Bay?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, get away from the verbal

rhetoric. When will people of this Province see in black and white what the tax

regime will be to develop the Voisey's Bay project?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member shouldn't

concern himself too much. There is a mining tax regime in place right now. We

have said that we plan to make some amendments to that mining tax regime. The

industry knows it, the Province knows it, the world knows it, and after

appropriate consultation on the amendments that were in place last fall, we will

be coming back to the Legislature. There is lots of time. People may have all

the urgency in the world in their minds but the reality is that we are going to

go through a proper assessment process after it gets registered. We are going to

have proper consultation with everybody concerned and in due course that will

get done. In my own view, I don't expect to see nickel from Voisey's Bay until

the year 2000.

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

Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister infers

that the world might know. Well, people in this Province don't know what is

happening in Voisey's Bay and they don't know what this government intends to do

to make sure we get that "full and fair share."

I ask a question of the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board with respect to the harmonization of GST and PST in this Province. Has

there been an analysis done by his department of the negative affects, and maybe

hundreds of millions of dollars lost, with respect to harmonization in the

development of Voisey's Bay?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Capital cost.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, no. There will be a tremendous

amount of money pumped into the economy as a result of the developments at

Voisey's Bay.

DR. GIBBONS: One hundred and eleven million dollars this

year in mineral exploration alone.

MR. DICKS: Yes. The hon. minister says $111 million this

year. The whole fact of harmonization will actually result in a loss to the

economy or to the government in terms of direct revenues of about $105 million.

We expect that money will translate into consumers' pockets.

PREMIER TOBIN: We have just given EDGE status to a mining

company in his riding. Does he want us to take it away?

MR. DICKS: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: I would table the annual report of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation for 1994-1995.

Petitions

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition

to present today to the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative

session convened. The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador that:

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power in passing corporate income tax

increases onto consumers would be defying government's intention of ensuring

that corporations dip into their own profits to help bear the cost of public

fiscal responsibilities; and

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders suffering from the fish resource

crisis, the general economic downturn, and deep government spending cuts, can

ill afford increases in essential commodities like electricity at this time;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House

may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to do

whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity

rates; and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, members in this House may become somewhat bored

with the continuous petitions that I intend to present on Newfoundland Power as

to the requested increase in electricity rates, but it is an important issue.

Prior to the House opening yesterday and when the House first opened after the

election, what we talked about was Newfoundland Power's suggested rate increase

which came from Newfoundland Power itself. They were looking for a 4.9 per cent

increase in electricity rates. But since the House has been open, some changes

have taken place.

This Provincial Government has entered into a memorandum of

understanding, or a memorandum of agreement, that would see the GST, the goods

and services federal tax, harmonized with the provincial sales tax, the PST, for

a complete tax of 15 per cent. Now, what does that mean to each and every one of

us, not only here on the floor but the people sitting in the public gallery?

With respect to Newfoundland Power, it means a 7.8 per cent to 8 per cent

increase in your electricity bill - it is as simple as that, a 7.8 per cent to 8

per cent increase in consumers' electricity bills. That does not include - and

it must be stated clearly - that does not include a rate increase by

Newfoundland Power.

If Newfoundland Power were granted right now by the Public

Utilities Board a 2.9 per cent increase, which they are requesting, down from

4.9 per cent, say 3 per cent for argument sake, to round it off, and on top of

the increased tax that will result in electricity rates as a result of

government's harmonizing of the GST and PST, basically what we will be looking

at as consumers and taxpayers in this Province is an increase of about 10 per

cent to ll per cent in our electricity rates. That is a hefty, hefty increase by

anyone's definition.

Now, I am sure that members in this House get many calls on

many issues, and I am also sure that many of the calls they received in the past

and what they will get over the coming weeks will deal with this specific issue.

How will people, for example, in rural areas, who have been negatively affected

by the downturn in the economy, who have been negatively affected by the closure

in the fishery, who will be negatively affected by huge government spending cuts

in order to get our so-called fiscal House in order, where will these people

find an extra 10 per cent or 11 per cent to pay on their heat bill?

Now, some of the arguments that have been tossed forward, and

what does that really mean, that I have heard on provincial radio from people at

Newfoundland Power, well, anybody who has a $100 light bill will now pay about

$110. I do not know personally very many people in this Province who have a

light bill of $100. I live in a three-bedroom home, an average home, and I pay

$240 to $250 a month, on average, if you amortize it out. I am lucky. I am

working and providing a living for my family. But there are many people who are

not working. There are over 100,000 people in receipt of social assistance, and

after tomorrow's Budget, how many?

MS J. M. AYLWARD: There are 72,000.

MR. E. BYRNE: There are only 72,000, not 100,000. I

apologize to the minister. There are 72,000 people, and my colleague, the Member

for Waterford Valley tells me 39,000 families are receiving social assistance.

The reality is, where will these people come up with an additional 10 per cent?

There are people on social services who are three or four months behind in their

light bill. Every member knows, because they should be getting calls from

constituents, that during the peak months, the winter months, the coldest

months, that is exactly what happens to people who, through no fault of their

own, are receiving social assistance.

MR. SULLIVAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I am certainly pleased to stand today and support the

petition presented by the Member for Kilbride. Of course, we have had a number

of petitions presented in this House on this very issue in the last sitting of

the House, and I expect we will see a number of petitions presented in this

sitting of the House on this very issue with respect to the rate increase that

Newfoundland Power has applied for. In the last sitting, I presented a petition

from Cape St. Francis with 800 names on it, opposing the rate increase. There is

a petition going around the Province now, I believe, with maybe thousands of

names to be presented in the House.

Newfoundland Power, as the Member for Kilbride mentioned,

requested an increase of 4.9 per cent. It says its studies show that it requires

the 4.9 per cent increase to give a proper return on investment to its

shareholders. Shortly after the Consumer Advocate was appointed, it dropped that

down to 3.9 per cent, and since then, it has dropped it even further. So,

basically what it is saying now, Newfoundland Power itself is saying to the

people of the Province that it lacks credibility, and it certainly does, Mr.

Speaker.

Last year I believe it made a profit of $27.8 million. In a

time of cutbacks and hardship that this Province is going through today, and the

people out there having a hard time putting bread and butter on the table, as I

said a number of times in this House of Assembly, for Newfoundland Power to be

requesting an increase is basically I would say, ludicrous, I suppose, to a

certain extent, but it is certainly disgusting to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

As I said, the Consumer Advocate has stated that possibly

Newfoundland Power now is charging too much to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is actually charging too much and now looking for a rate increase.

Again, it gets back to the credibility issue. I believe that if, in the fact the

consumer advocate can make a good case to Newfoundland Power and to the Public

Utilities Board, maybe the rates should be reduced, and possibly Newfoundland

Power may have to pay back some money to people in this Province.

Another point I would like to address, and the Member for

Kilbride did address it, is the tax harmonization with respect to Newfoundland

Power. In the sales tax harmonization memorandum of understanding, the

government has stated that the harmonization would apply to the monthly electric

bill and other consumer products within the Province. The tax would increase on

some items such as personal services, fuel and electricity, children's clothing

and books. If the people in this Province are going to start paying more money

for those services and those goods and to slap that on to the electric bills in

this Province, it is nothing less than (inaudible) to the people of this

Province.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has publicly

stated that the tax harmonization will actually put more money in the pockets of

the consumer in this Province. I really don't understand that logic. I looked at

his report and the information that was sent out, and what it is not applying to

is basically some of the items that

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Does the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture have a problem over there, I wonder? He should probably get up and

say a few words on this issue and show how he supports the rate increase for

Newfoundland Power. I do not see too many on that side of the House presenting

petitions or getting up and speaking and supporting the Consumer Advocate and

the reduction in Newfoundland Power rates, instead of an increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, and

I say it again, Newfoundland Power has a monopoly in this Province and it goes

to the Public Utilities Board for a rate increase. From what I see, it normally

asks for a rate increase more than it really wants or expects to get, and then

the same tactics that the government has used over the years is to put out the

negative factor and make it seem a lot worse than what it actually is. Then when

it manages to get something less that it expects to get and what it wanted in

the first place, it gets this sigh of relief from the general public.

I think the people in the Province are starting to get on to

that tactic and Newfoundland Power should, when it comes before the Public

Utilities Board - and the Member for Kilbride has requested often that the

government would step in and make a presentation to the Public Utilities Board

on behalf of the public of this Province, as they did with the commission that

went around the Province with respect to the electoral boundaries. They decided

to make a presentation on that when it was in their benefit to do so, Mr.

Speaker, but they will not make a presentation or they seem to refuse to make a

presentation to the Public Utilities Board to support the people in this

Province in trying to have the Newfoundland Power rate request refused.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I

will sit down.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Just a few words, Mr. Speaker, basically in

support of a public utilities board process. If we did not have an arms length

Public Utilities Board, arms length from politics, arms length from politicians,

arms length from government, we would have to invent it. In other parts of this

country where they do not exist that is what people are saying, we should have a

public utilities board that is arms length from government and operating

independently of government and making its decisions independently of

government. It does not need to be directed by government and we have said that,

as a government, we are not going to go in and direct the PUB -

MR. J. BYRNE: Nobody asked you to direct it.

DR. GIBBONS: Well, that is what the petition said. That

is what was read in the petition that we should go in and ensure. We allow the

public utilities board process to work. We allow it to work. We put in place a

Consumer Advocate, and I have to congratulate the Consumer Advocate for the

great job that he is doing this time. I think our Consumer Advocate is doing the

best job that we have ever seen from a Consumer Advocate since the Public

Utilities Board was put in place. Dennis Browne is doing marvellously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: He is representing the public, and I

encourage him to continue to represent the public. He is going to ensure that

all the facts are on the table. So anybody who has any facts to put on the

table, put them on the table at the PUB so that Dennis Browne and the PUB can

properly deal with it. But that Consumer Advocate is doing a wonderful job. I

think by the time we get through this process we will have what is a fair rate

based on the facts of the case in terms of what type of rate of return should

this company get, etcetera, etcetera, and all that evidence is put forward.

MR. J. BYRNE: You are a living contradiction.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. GIBBONS: So, as I said, we believe in the public

utilities process. We believe in the Consumer Advocate in front of the Public

Utilities Board and we believe in having the public have access to that Public

Utilities Board, but as a government we are not going to direct and tell, as

politicians, the Public Utilities Board what it should do. If we didn't have it

we would have to invent it.

A word about harmonization and the harmonization effects.

Every salary level of persons in this Province, who pay tax, will pay less tax

in the future after harmonization comes into effect. At every salary level you

are going to pay less tax. If you make $10,000 a year you are going to pay less

tax than you do today even with the broadened base, even when you start paying

tax on some of the other items that you don't pay tax on today. At every salary

level, whether you are a $10,000-a-year person or a $100,000-a-year person, you

will pay less tax. That is the fact of the matter, no matter what the situation.

In terms of the harmonization effect on electricity, the

effect that has on the earnings of Light and Power is being considered right

now. As a matter of fact, the PUB is requiring a special study on that effect

and will consider it in the rates. The light and power company will not get the

double benefit. Anything that flows through, as a result of harmonization, will

be considered in the rate settings by the PUB, that is a fact of life. The

harmonization is a tax break for this Province, the biggest tax break that we

have ever had. Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say on this petition.

MR. J. BYRNE: We shall see.

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

petition.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition to the House. I won't

read all the

whereas's and therefore's but the petition reads: To the hon. House

of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the

undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, that

WHEREAS Newfoundland Power has asked the Public Utilities

Board to approve an increase in electricity rates;

It goes on to put forward the

whereas's and wherefore's, Mr.

Speaker, as we have heard in other petitions that have been presented here to

the House before.

The minister speaking on the petition that was put forward by

my colleague, the Member for Kilbride, there is nobody who will argue with that,

Mr. Speaker. There has been no argument on this side as to the need for a Public

Utilities Board or the need for the Consumer's Advocate or the job that both are

doing. He is certainly doing a good job and there is certainly a need for the

Public Utilities Board but, Mr. Speaker, I think we can take the statement about

people paying less taxes in this Province with a grain of salt. It depends on

how you look at it. Sure, we are going to be paying less taxes as it relates to

now 19 per cent, almost 20 per cent, going down to 15 per cent, but when you

realize that this tax will be put on a lot more commodities that are essential

to everybody in this Province, then you will find, probably, at the end of the

year when the total tax is calculated of what it really cost us, it will

probably be many dollars more than what we are paying out there today.

Mr. Speaker, this particular utility last year made a profit

of $27.8 million, and now they are coming back looking for another 4.9 per cent

increase in electricity rates. When you add on the 8 per cent that we are going

to be paying on top of the 7 per cent, which will bring our taxes up to 15 per

cent, it won't be uncommon for most people's light bills, as we refer to them,

most people's utility bills, to have cost them $55 and $60 extra a month. When

you look at a lot of the older houses in Newfoundland that are not insulated and

not prepared, probably, to have electric heat in the first place, but people

were encouraged to put electricity into their homes a few years ago because it

was a cheaper rate, you will find those are the people who are going to be

penalized much more than anybody else.

I understand that Newfoundland Power today is sending out

letters to people, offering them a plan whereby they will wire their houses,

install electric heat, install insulation, if they sign a contract over a

five-year period; sign a contract to put in electric heat and they will provide

them funding. Mind you, there is an interest rate built in there, but this is

their way of going out and getting control of the market. This is their way of

competing with the oil companies.

I refer again to the thousands of dollars in television ads

that Newfoundland Power is putting forward on our local television channels.

Every time you turn on the television you see a fellow with a handful of money,

throwing it in a furnace and saying, `Here are your fuel dollars going up in

smoke'. Who is paying for that? You know who is paying for it, the consumers of

electricity, every last one of us in this Province today.

Surely we cannot forget a few years ago, when every time we

went to the mail, in every utility bill we got there was a little sticker in it

to put on your refrigerator, put it over your light switch, as a reminder to

conserve electricity. Now what we find is those same people who listened to

Newfoundland Power conserved electricity, and because we are using less, now we

are going to be charged more; they are going to penalize us for it. That is

about how much sense this whole application makes, and that is the reason why

many Newfoundlanders are out there today so upset and so disturbed over this

rate increase, and see government once again shrugging off its responsibility of

going out and coming forward and speaking on behalf of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, another excuse they use when they come forward

looking for their 4.9 per cent is, `We have not had a rate increase since 1992'.

How many civil servants out there today haven't seen a wage increase since 1982?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not many.

MR. FITZGERALD: Not many. I beg to differ with the

minister, because he knows different from that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a minute to conclude.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: How many people out there today are left

without a job? The Minister of Social Services corrected my colleague when he

put forward some figures of how many families and how many people - what the

caseload was in social services out there today. Well, the minister would also

admit, or she can correct me if I am wrong, that in the wintertime now most

people on social services, if the need is there, get something like $51 as a

fuel adjustment per month to offset the extra costs in using up extra

electricity to heat their homes in the wintertime. Well, this particular rate

will take the whole lot of that in addition to what they are paying now, and it

is not an option anymore for the Department of Social Services to go out and

help people with their light bills. They will give you a budget plan but the

option is not there to help them out in a `forgive the situation'. With that,

Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks and I thank the hon. member for granting me

leave.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am just going to take a

couple of minutes to, I guess, respond to some of the comments made by the

Minister of Mines and Energy with respect to the GST-PST harmonization.

Yes, he is right; it has been a great tax break. Four per

cent about 4.5 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am supporting his petition, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you speaking to a petition?

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. I am supporting this member's

petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is speaking to a petition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am supporting his petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

The minister talks about a great tax break passed on.

MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. TULK: While he is perfectly at liberty to stand up

and support the petition of the hon. the Member for Bonavista South, he cannot,

I think, use the guise of speaking to a petition, to stand up and to reply to

something that the Minister of Mines and Energy said. He has to confine himself

to the contents of the petition and he should do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Had the Government House Leader been

listening to the debate on the petition, he would understand that the Minister

of Mines and Energy responded to a petition presented to this House related to

Newfoundland Power, one that I presented, and I am supporting the Member for

Bonavista South's petition, speaking to his petition and outlining some of the

concerns that were raised and debated in the House. There is nothing out of

order here, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride,

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

The minister indicated that it was a tax break passed on to

consumers, a great tax break, 4 per cent. What he neglected to tell people and

outline clearly, was that the great tax break that was passed on, the base of it

will be broadened and each and every one of us in the Province will get a tax

increase in electricity rates.

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes we will.

MR. FITZGERALD: Sure, we will.

MR. E. BYRNE: We will be paying 8 per cent -

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: How is it, minister?

DR. GIBBONS: The total tax will be down.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

DR. GIBBONS: The total tax will be down.

MR. E. BYRNE: So you and I won't be paying another 7.8 to

8 per cent more on electricity rates, is that what you are telling me?

DR. GIBBONS: No.

MR. J. BYRNE: Pardon me?

DR. GIBBONS: No.

MR. E. BYRNE: We will be, won't we?

DR. GIBBONS: We will pay on the broadened base but our

total payments will be less.

MR. E. BYRNE: Our total payments will be less? I wonder,

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the 72,000 people who are in receipt of social

assistance will benefit from that statement by the minister. How ludicrous and

ridiculous! It will cost an additional $20 million, the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board told me with respect to this and, if we eliminated the harmonized

tax on electricity heat, it will cost government $20 million; if we eliminate it

on oil heat, $10 million. It is incredible!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now, three p.m.; it is Wednesday afternoon and we move

to Orders of the Day with, I believe, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape

la Hune.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape

la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to speak on the motion that I brought

forth on Aquaculture and basically, just to put it into the record:

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly support the present

and future initiatives of Aquaculture and Fish Farming for the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in an attempt to revitalize the once vibrant fishery.

Now, anybody in the rural part of the Province, people whom

we represent, all of us know the importance of the fishery to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, since the inception of the Province itself,

since John Cabot came here in 1497 and when we had our first colony in 1610, at

Cupids, up to a few years ago, the majority of the outlying communities in

Newfoundland and along the Labrador Coast depended on the fishery for survival.

However, Mr. Speaker, in the 1990s we have seen tremendous

pressure on the natural fisheries, as we would call it, where, about 70 per cent

of the world's marine fish stocks are currently in decline, or have already

collapsed, and are in the process of slowly recovering. And with that type of

dilemma facing us, we have a tremendous problem with employment for the

communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. So, to look at it, Mr. Speaker, from

the perspective of the natural fishery, the communities of Newfoundland and

Labrador have survived primarily, as I said, on fishery in one form or another.

Today because of the collapse of the natural fishery,

primarily the groundfish, cod and haddock stocks, we have a large number of our

people unemployed, and they will continue to be unemployed if we have to wait

for the natural fishery itself, the groundfish, to recover so that we can once

again employ large numbers of people. The government must, and industry no doubt

will, capitalize on the underutilized species, and that is being done in a

number of instances across the Province. Only recently, the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture announced an experimental fishery, primarily along the

South Coast, of the king crab. Other species will be announced in a short time.

To supplement the natural fishery, the Province - the

government, the previous administration to this, and it has been enhanced by

this particular government - initiated a plan to produce more aquaculture fish

in the Province. I am very pleased, I guess, to represent an area in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, primarily in the Bay d'Espoir area, where

aquaculture has really begun to thrive. It is because of this that I believe the

Bay d'Espoir part of the Province and the whole Southwest Coast will benefit

tremendously because of the aquaculture industry.

In particular, I look at one of the areas that probably a lot

of people do not recognize the community of Belleoram. Belleoram is one of the

probably poorest communities in my district when it comes to economics but it

has a tremendous potential there in the scallop hatchery. It is only in its

infancy but I have a clipping here from the paper which basically reads thus:

`Newfoundland may be behind the rest of the world generally in aquaculture

development but the Province is not without its triumphs in certain aquaculture

technologies. Newfoundland is the first place in the world to successfully

culture giant scallop.'

I must say, it is under the leadership of Dr. Pat Dabinett, a

former employee of Memorial University, who has been seconded by the Provincial

Government to go to Belleoram to work on this particular hatchery. It is really

worthwhile to go in and see what has happened there. It is really a work of art

and the latest in technology. In fact, in the hatchery in Belleoram -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: It is. There are five people currently

employed there. In 1995 they produced 1 million to 2 million seeds, and they

generated $25,000 in revenue. Because, remember, the Provincial Government put

up half-a-million dollars to refurbish this. But expected production this year

could reach 20 million seed with half-a-million dollars generated in revenue.

And fanning out from this particular hatchery in Belleoram is a farm that was

owned by local people in the area but it is now being bought out by a firm in

Nova Scotia. They are hoping to produce 3 million scallops in the next two to

three years, 2 million to 3 million. That firm will generate in excess of $1

million of revenue and will employ twenty people from that particular area in

the scallop hatchery.

That, Mr. Speaker, is a sign of progress and I believe that

is the direction that we have to go and find ourselves in. Aquaculture products

around the world - we are just starting to catch up. We are way behind what is

happening in Norway and we are way behind what is happening in Chile, and

probably, to some extent, what is happening in New Brunswick or probably even

the rest of Canada. However, we do have the potential. And really, up to now, I

suppose, some people could argue that for every step forward we took in the

aquaculture industry in the Bay d'Espoir area for the salmon and the steelhead,

we probably went back two steps because of the different problems associated

with it and the industry in its infancy. However, the Premier announced before

the election that the Bay d'Espoir area would receive the aquaculture scientific

centre for the Province, and that is where it should be built. It should be

built where the industry is, and that what is happening in New Brunswick. They

built it where the industry is. The Bay d'Espoir area and the Belleoram area is

where we have the greatest potential for aquaculture for shell fish in the whole

of the Province, and I am excited about what is happening in that particular

area.

In fact about three weeks ago I was in St. Alban's on a

Saturday when there was a tractor trailer loaded with steelhead fillets on its

ways to the Boston market. If you talk to some of the people who are associated

with SCB fisheries they are very excited about what is happening here. They have

orders from Chicago that they cannot fill; they have orders from Israel they

cannot fill. In fact Loblaws in Ontario cannot find enough of the product to

satisfy consumer needs. In fact it rates number four in order of preference by

the consumer in Ontario, so what they are trying to do really, I guess, is a

little bit of drib there and a little bit of drab there.

The whole idea is that we will double production in 1996 over

1995 and we are looking to double production in 1997 from 1996. I think there

are eight new farms for steelhead being put in the area this year, and the

people who are involved, like the man and his son and a friend of theirs from

the Hermitage area, were long-liner fishermen and put up practically everything

they owned so they could become engaged in the aquaculture industry. That is

where, in my opinion, we have to work to supplement the groundfish industry.

On the South Coast itself the natural ground fishery shows

promising signs of returning. In the exploratory fishery done earlier this year,

after only one day of having nets in the water, the fishermen had to take them

out because the cod by catch was so large. So I think we do have a future there,

and with the aquaculture industry helping then I believe it is really one of the

ways we can find work for the people we represent.

In the rural part of the Province, and it is no different in

Newfoundland and Labrador than it is in other provinces, like Nova Scotia and

New Brunswick, and I can use the area that I represent for all people in rural

areas, we once, in Newfoundland and Labrador had the highest birth rate in all

of Canada but we now have the lowest birth rate in all of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. LANGDON: Now, let me explain that a little further.

In the community that I know best, Seal Cove, Fortune Bay,

there are about 500 people and there have probably been ten, fifteen, or twenty

houses built there in the last five or ten years, however there is nobody in the

community who have families of nine, ten, or twelve anymore. They are having one

child, and two is maximum, so therefore we have fewer children being born in the

rural areas.

Again, for people in the rural areas, if you go and talk to

the people who are there, especially the younger people, even if some jobs were

provided for them in the small rural areas, the students, the younger people

tend to gravitate one step higher to an urban area. They want some of the

amenities that you can get in the larger area, therefore with those two strikes

against us we have to make sure that we have to have some employment for them,

whether it is in aquaculture or in the fishery. Now, whether they do or not, if

we provide the opportunity then they could stay, but if the opportunity is not

there for them then there is no reason for them to stay to begin with.

I think we do have a major battle on our hands for the rural

areas. It is a phenomenon that we go through. I remember back in 1962 when I was

in school in my own community there were approximately 130 kids in school but

today from kindergarten to six there are thirty-four, but there is not a lot of

out-migration as such.

AN HON. MEMBER: There were 9000 students who graduated

this year in the Province but four years ago it would only be about 1500.

MR. LANGDON: That is right. In fact at the meeting with

the people of Grand Falls on Saturday, the NLFM seminar we had there, the mayor

of Grand Falls - Windsor said that even with the closing of the Springdale

hospital, the Buchans hospital, and with all the paediatrics being done in the

Grand Falls region, in the year 1994, two years ago, for all of the central

region and all the South Coast area, there were only 324 children born in the

whole central region, out of that hospital, so basically, with these numbers we

are going to have a hard job to be able to support many of the outlying areas.

That is where we find ourselves, but I believe that the

people who are in these areas, some of the younger people who are staying in the

Bay d'Espoir area that I know, are employing in excess of 150 people in

aquaculture in Bay d'Espoir. Last year there were twenty plus houses built in

the area, so there is some hope for the people who live in the rural area.

In 1995 there were 1,000 tons of salmon and steelhead trout

from the SCB fisheries farm and hatchery in Bay d'Espoir for in excess of over

$2 million. In fact, only recently the SCB fisheries people are saying that the

hatchery that they have in Bay d'Espoir now has reached its capacity. They are

in the process of putting another hatchery into the Bay d'Espoir area this year

so that they can keep up with the demand. In fact, talking to some of the people

in the industry in Bay d'Espoir, right now they are having problems with

bringing in feed in the tractor trailers along the Bay d'Espoir highway. In

fact, if the industry grows much larger, probably by next year they will have to

bring the feed in by boat because the land capacity, like the tractor trailers,

would not be able to supply the demand in the area, so that in itself is a plus

as well.

Also, we are in the process with development in scientific

research to use the by-products of the fish and so on in the Bay d'Espoir area

to develop into feed for the aquaculture industry itself. If we can do that,

then that is going to be a tremendous plus for keeping the cost down in

production of the aquaculture fish in the area.

The South Coast itself, talking about the aquaculture

industry is, because it is strategically located, why the farming itself is

taking off so well. In fact, the Fortune Harbour Mussel Grower's Association

have developed, as you would know, a big farm in the Fortune Harbour area. Only

two years ago they did some research in the Fortune Bay Area, in the Harbour

Mill area, which is the hon. Deputy Speaker's district, the district of

Bellevue, and what they found was that the mussels growing in Harbour Mill in

Fortune Harbour grow three times as fast as they do in Fortune Bay, or in Notre

Dame Bay, because of the warmth of the water, water temperature, and serenity

and so on.

So there is tremendous potential in the aquaculture industry

in this Province, and I have not even scratched the surface of what we are

doing, but I am sure that the other members, in speaking today in the motion,

will be able to relay some of the things that are happening and to, in a sense,

support the government in its efforts to develop aquaculture products in the

industry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact today there are people from my area meeting with the

Premier, who are working diligently to bring a halibut hatchery to the Province

and to develop halibut for the world market. In fact, the halibut prices now on

the world market are in excess of $12 a kilogram, roughly $6 a pound, and it is

being done by people who have ingenuity, and people who care about their

communities. In fact, before my time is up in the opening of this, I would like

to, by the way of illustration, tell you briefly what is happening in the

community of Ramea.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. LANGDON: Just one second to illustrate this point.

In Ramea this past winter the people in the community donated

in excess of 400 sacks of cement to pour the floors in their fish plant, and

they did it all free labour. They painted the walls of their plant to put it in

tip-top shape. So people out there do have the initiative, people out there do

have the entrepreneurial spirit, and I believe that when government puts into

place programs to support the aquaculture and the fishing industry in this

particular Province then I see nothing but good, and I see nothing but

employment and job opportunities for our younger people and for the people of

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad to rise

today to speak on behalf of the private member's resolution as put forward by

the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape la Hune.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you support it?

MR. FITZGERALD: Do I support it? Well, I don't see how I

can't support it, but still when you look at the

be it resolved I don't see how

I can support it.

The first part of it, Mr. Speaker: "Whereas the fisheries is

in a state of transition in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador," no

problem with that, we all know that. "And

whereas the economic condition of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador has a strong correlation to the state of

the fishery," we all know that. "And

whereas the future of the Province's

fisheries lies in careful management, cultivation, and preservation of the

fisheries resource," we all know that, or we should know it. If we don't then it

is time that we got to know it and realized that is where our problems have

started.

But then it comes. "Be it resolved that the House of Assembly

support the present and future initiatives...." I ask the member, what are the

future initiatives? It is almost like signing a blank cheque. His private

member's resolution can almost be compared to that silly little clip that they

have on the radio which is the silliest thing that I've ever heard, and most

people - or I should say some people - here in the House of Assembly participate

in it. "I believe in Newfoundland and Labrador."

Do you love your mother? It goes without saying. This

resolution is almost similar to that. It is certainly vague, that is for sure. I

know that the spirit of the resolution came from the member who represents an

area where aquaculture is certainly very important, and it is going to be

important to all of Newfoundland and Labrador. I compliment the member for

taking the initiative to bring it forward. What the future initiatives are is

kind of vague because we don't know. But I suppose as it goes on it says: "...in

an attempt to revitalize the once vibrant fishery." That certainly I suppose

justifies us not knowing what the future of it all means.

A couple of days ago the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture announced a new fishery for Newfoundland and Labrador. He talked

about a new shrimp fishery and a new crab fishery, and he talked about the

Atlantic king crab. It will happen in a time where it will include a lot of the

small boat fishermen and it will happen in a time when there is not a lot of

activity taking place right now. That is exciting. If you are going to have a

fishery I think that it is the small boats and it is the inshore fishermen who

should be included. It is nice to have it happen at a time when there is not

another fishery taking place. Especially when you look at the months between

September and April as it relates to the Southwest Coast of this Province.

Then he talked about the shrimp fishery, another very

important fishery that has a lot of potential, and here again can operate with

small boat fishermen using pots, which is very important. I think it is time

that we got away from a fishery that continues to pull nets and other apparatus

over the ocean floor destroying habitats of shellfish and other fin fish in

order to prosecute a fishery.

First when the moratorium was announced back in 1992 in this

Province many of us didn't realize what the impact was going to be on rural

Newfoundland. We looked at it and some of us shrugged our shoulders and said: It

is only 5.5 per cent of our gross domestic product. No big thing. They figured

that once it was announced we would be able to shrug our shoulders, shake off

the dust, and go on and take

part in life as we had done up until that time.

Such was not the case.

The fishery of this Province as we see today is the most

important and the most vital sign, I suppose, that we have of being able to

maintain a livelihood and live in our respective towns in the rural areas of

this Province. Not only the rural areas of the Province. Because I think if you

go into some of the urban areas, you go into places like Grand Falls or Gander,

a place where a government wharf is an unknown thing, and talk to the business

people in there, they will tell you that they are feeling the affects of the

fishery as well. They will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as the fishery goes on

the Burin Peninsula, the Bonavista Peninsula and the Southwest Coast then so

goes St. John's, Gander, Clarenville and other areas of this Province. The

Member for Grand Bank nods her head because she knows full well, representing a

fishing district as I do, exactly what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. What we

are seeing out there today is devastation in its worse kind of way and unless we

create new hope and generate new activities then I fear what is going to happen.

I fear what is going to happen in some of those areas.

Mr. Speaker, the fishery as we knew it prior to 1992 was a

labour extensive fishery. There was in excess of 30,000 people employed in the

fishing industry. I worked in a fish plant myself and many, many times I would

stand and look out over the production floor and see all the production workers

there. You would only be able to see their heads or their caps that they wore

because they had their heads down and very, very busy working and I often

wondered what would ever take the place of such an industry should it be allowed

to disappear. Many of those fisherpeople, many of the fishermen and plant

workers, Mr. Speaker, made good money. It was not uncommon for people to make

$12 and $14 an hour in some of those fish plants. Their sons and daughters were

working there with them making $10 and $12 an hour and go home for dinner every

day. Now a lot of those opportunities have been taken away. We are looking for

new initiatives and new ideas where we can allow our people to go back and take

pride in what they have done, to take

part in another fishery and continue to

feed and support their families and live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of pressure being put on the crab

fishery as we know it today because I suppose of the amount of money that was

brought forward by this particular fishery last year. Fishermen got paid in

excess of $2.50 a pound. Some people on the government side wanted to bring in a

resource tax and tax the fishermen. They thought it was unfair that they should

be making so much money but I didn't hear many people say that we should come

out and write off their loans, pay for their boats and supply them with fishing

gear free of charge when they had the dozens of bad years, Mr. Speaker. In fact,

I think the crab fishery, in what we saw last year, was almost a fluke. The

reason why fishermen were being paid big dollars for their fish was not because

the markets are a steady market or is going to be there year after year, it was

because of the total collapse of the Alaskan market as it relates to crab. When

we have to go to the market and compete with the Alaskan crab, which everybody

tells me is superior in quality, superior in taste to the snow crab that we

catch off our coasts, Mr. Speaker, I can only believe them because I don't think

I have ever tasted Alaskan crab. I know that what we catch here, snow crab, is

certainly very tasty and demands a fair price on the market today although I

understand that there are very high inventories in warehouses, in cold storage

around this Province and in the Eastern Seaboard of the United States today.

Mr. Speaker, before I move away from the crab fishery, the

other thing that concerns me is the way that we allow our crab fish to be

shipped out of this Province and on to the Japanese market. Today we are letting

this crab leave this Province in a very, very raw state. Pardon the pun but, Mr.

Speaker, we are letting it go out in sections, we are letting it go out as whole

crab not being processed because we are saying that this is what the market

demands. I don't know if I can believe that or not, Mr. Speaker. I fear the

reason it is leaving this Province in such a state is because it is the wish of

the processors and it is a way for the processors to once again make a quick

dollar but you know who is suffering once again, it is the people out there who

are looking for work and unable, in most cases, to get enough contributions to

qualify for unemployment insurance to tide them over until they go back in the

crab fishery again.

A prime example of that is our lump roe, Mr. Speaker. When

you see our lump roe going out in 250-pound barrels, the lumps are caught there,

the roe is taken from them, carried back and put in barrels, there is a brine

solution added and is shipped out in barrels to a Japanese and Chinese market,

then it comes back. It goes the full circle and comes back to our stores again;

we see it on the store shelves, Mr. Speaker, as sturgeon roe and it is in a

little bottle, about a gram I suppose, for $4.50 and $5.00 so then we flock out

to buy it. So I think, if we are going to be sincere about our aquaculture

industry and if we are going to look at it creating some new opportunities and

some new employment levels, then we also have to look at value-added products

and we have to make sure that we get every hour's work for every pound of fish

that we catch in the waters off Newfoundland and Labrador because that is the

only way we are going to survive here.

The minister went on to talk about a shrimp fishery. A shrimp

fishery which is new, in the fact that we are using pots instead of- I think the

right pronunciation is the Nordmore net or the Nordmore apparatus that they drag

over the floor - this is a recent invention with a smaller kind of mesh that

would allow the by-catch, small cod, small halibut, small turbot not to be

caught up in this particular drag net but roll over the sides and away to go.

MR. A. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Well he should be here because he might

learn something I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and

the minister knows what I am talking about; he is coming in here now and he is

very familiar with what I am talking about. I will have to throw a bouquet to

the minister since he walked in because only a few days ago the minister was

invited down to my district to talk to, I would suggest, about 500 people

gathered at the school there, and on very short notice the minister agreed to

travel to Bonavista on a not very pleasant night, and I don't say that with the

feeling of the people but because of the weather, travelled all the way to

Bonavista and took

part in a public meeting and did a good job. He put the

position of the Province forward, the position of his government and spoke very

concernedly about the people's future in that particular area and I commend the

minister for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where should the crab licence go?

MR. FITZGERALD: Where should the crab licence go?

If you will allow me to put it where I want to put it, then I

will make the decision, but if you want me to make the decision as to where I

stand, and not have any input as to where it should go, then I will leave it

with the minister, but the minister knows, it is not a laughing matter I say to

the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, it is not a laughing matter. The

minister knows what I am talking about.

It is a situation where you have one town that had a fishery,

probably one of the first fish plants in Newfoundland and Labrador, and now,

because the plant does not look nice on the outside, because it does not have a

lot of cosmetics that we are saying that it shouldn't be there, but I say to the

member that the plant there in Bonavista is in very good shape, it passes all

its inspections, but a little bit of paint or a little bit of siding would do

wonders for it, and then we have another plant just a short distance away but it

goes much farther than the ten-minute drive as the minister knows. It means much

more than that, it means much more than a ten-minute drive; it means the

livelihood of that particular community and I commend the people from Bonavista

and I comment the people from Port Union and Catalina for fighting for their

communities, and I will stick with them and I will fight with them all the way,

I can guarantee you that.

When the time comes, you will not have to look upon the fence

for me, you will be able to look down, I will be on one side or the other, you

won't have to look up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, don't forget that now. So, Mr.

Speaker, going back to the shrimp fishery again. Right now, up of the Northeast

Coast of Labrador there is a shrimp fishery taking place and I understand - the

minister can correct me if I am wrong - that the amount of wastage that is

happening with that particular shrimp fishery, using the Nordmore net or the

Nordmore drag is absolutely ridiculous. For every shrimp that is caught, there

are another ten either codfish, or there are another ten turbot, or there are

another ten halibut, that roll over and are killed, or taken up on the boat and

shovelled off the deck, and here we are waiting for our fisheries to regenerate

and come back to the conditions that we once found, where we would be able to go

out again and earn a livelihood from the sea. If this is going to be allowed to

continue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a few minutes to finish up?

AN HON. MEMBER: You have one minute.

MR. FITZGERALD: One minute.

I call upon the Member for Fortune Bay - Cape la Hune again

to continue to work and promote this promotion of our aquaculture industry, and

I call upon the member as well to hold his Premier to the promise he made, the

election promise of creating a new research and development facility down in Bay

d'Espoir. Like he said, that is the place to have it, right where the activity

is happening now. The Premier of the Province announced $20 million over a

five-year period, and he should be held to that. I understand that in order to

build this particular facility it will cost between $10 million and $15 million.

Now, there is still a lot of planning and still a lot of other things that have

to go into that, so we might find that $20 million may not be able to do the

things that we want, but at least it will give us a facility.

I plead with the minister also to make use of the expertise

that we have in the building up on the hill here, up at the Marine Institute.

Use the expertise that we have. We don't have to go to Norway, we don't have to

go to Chile; we can use our own people right here, and I think that we can bring

forward an industry that will never, ever replace our inshore fishery - it will

never create our cod fishery, our Northern cod fishery as we know them - but it

can create some opportunities, and if we create twenty jobs, or 300 jobs, they

are jobs that we never had. I, for one, believe that our fishing industry will

return, and if it returns with some other activity, doing other things that we

never did before, then it has to be positive.

I call upon the member to work with his government, and to

put pressure on the Premier to make sure that this money is spent wisely, and

the people of his own particular district, and of all rural Newfoundland and

Labrador, will be able to take

part in this new industry, and be able to live

and support their families in the towns and communities where they choose to

live.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate and

Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the hon.

Member for Fortune Bay - Cape la Hune, and before I get into talking about the

aquaculture I would like to first talk a bit about what has happened in the

fishery in the Province over the past seven years, probably the worst time in

the fishery - well, it was the worst time in the fishery - in the history of our

Province.

Mr. Speaker, I have had more of a first-hand look at what is

happening, or what has happened in the fishery since that time because of the

position that I held, or the job that I have had in the past seven years. Almost

seven years to the day, May 29, 1989, I left a teaching position on New World

Island, an area that was based solely on the fishery, and took up a job with the

AN HON. MEMBER: Took a cut in salary.

MR. G. REID: Took a big cut in salary, $8,000 a year to

be exact, and took up a job as the executive assistant to the Minister of

Fisheries for the Province. That was on May 29, 1989. Within a month, the

biggest problem that the Department of Fisheries in the Province had to deal

with was a cod glut. Seven years ago the biggest problem we had to deal with in

the Department of Fisheries was a glut in the cod fishery, and we had people all

over the Province, fishermen all over the Province, dumping their catches. We

had CBC camera crews standing on the wharf down in St. John's showing fishermen

dump fish. We set up what we called a glut desk in the Department of Fisheries,

twenty-four hour a day phone line, where fishermen could phone in from around

the Province, tell us if they couldn't sell their fish, and we would point them

in the direction where they could sell it. Mr. Speaker, at that time we also

chartered the Polar Storm , a factory-freezer trawler, tied up down at the

St. John's Harbour, that bought fish from the fishermen, subsidized by the

Newfoundland government.

In 1990 there was a glut of fish in Black Tickle I think that

was never seen the likes of before. You could practically walk across the

harbour on the decks of boats. Again the Department of Fisheries helped with

that problem, sending collector boats up from Newfoundland. The unfortunate

thing about it is that the Government of Quebec was also sending collector boats

up from Quebec. I remember the premier of the day having to go down on the wharf

in Black Tickle and stand between the fishermen and RCMP officers who were about

to kill each other down there.

Even though there was a glut on in 1989 and 1990 the

officials in the Department of Fisheries knew that the fishery was in trouble.

The stocks were declining. It wasn't just the officials in the department, the

fishermen knew it. We made numerous representations to Ottawa and they made no

move, they didn't listen to us. They were saying that they were listening to

their scientists but in actual fact they weren't listening to their scientists,

because their scientists knew. They didn't have the political will to cut the

quotas at the time.

In 1991 they reduced the total allowable catch of cod from

233,000 metric tons to 190,000 metric tons. In 1991 they cut the TAC to 190,000

metric tons. In 1992 they closed the northern cod fishery totally on the East

Coast of Newfoundland. Reduced from 191,000 metric tons to zero overnight. I can

remember going to Ottawa with the Minister of Fisheries of the day to talk to

Bernard Valcourt, the Tory minister at the time, who would look at us and say: I

am not the minister of fish, I am the minister of people. Where are the people

today? Gone like the fish. They are out of the fishery. We fought with the

federal ministers. By the way, by the time I left the Department of Fisheries in

January of this year I had seen six new Ministers of Fisheries and Oceans come

through the federal parliament. Six in seven years. Not even seven years.

After the federal minister closed the fishery in 1992 the

foreigners continued to fish on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, up to as

many as 100 boats a year. On numerous occasions again we went to the federal

minister and asked him to stop the foreigners from fishing on the Nose and Tail

of the Grand Banks and we were laughed at. John Crosbie used to look at Walter

Carter and say: Wallie, you're crazy. He said: You're crazy, and actually

laughed hysterically when we asked him to send the gunboats out to protect our

fish stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. He laughed. But I will tell

you one who didn't laugh, was today's Premier. When we told him to send the

gunboats out, he did it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. G. REID: Anyway, you know where we have gone from

here, Mr. Speaker. I have over 4,000 people on TAGS in my district right now in

thirty-seven communities on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland. If the federal

minister had listened to the scientists and provincial people at the time maybe

we would still have a fishery, maybe a reduced one, but at least we wouldn't be

sitting around today complaining because our TAGS are going to be cut off.

Anyway, to get to aquaculture. In the job that I've had for

seven years I've had the opportunity to travel to a fair number of places with

the two Ministers of Fisheries I've worked with. I've been to Iceland where they

have looked at aquaculture sites, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward

Island, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and I've seen the displays of

aquaculture products in Boston seafood shows. I haven't seen anything in any of

these countries or provinces that we can't do here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. G. REID: Mr. Speaker, I didn't see anything that we

couldn't produce here in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What point are you trying to make?

MR. G. REID: The point that I'm trying to make is -

Norway and Chile. Norway produced I think somewhere in the area of 700,000

metric tons of salmon last year. Just think about it, 700,000 tons of salmon. At

the peak we only caught 260,000 tons of cod in the Province. Chile is going to

surpass Norway in a couple of years and take a bigger share of the market.

In New Brunswick, next door to us, they have a $150 million

aquaculture industry, $100 million in actual sales of fish and a $50 million

fish food industry and what do we have in the Province? We have a $4 million or

$5 million industry. Mr. Speaker, it is not because the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador has not tried to do something about that. We realize

the potential of aquaculture in this Province. In fact, Bay d'Espoir alone has

the potential in aquaculture to do nine times what they are doing in all of New

Brunswick. Nine times, Mr. Speaker. That is a billion dollar industry that we

could have in Bay d'Espoir. We have helped the people in Bay d'Espoir to get the

industry going. We have helped a number of other aquaculture industries.

The scallop hatchery; last year the minister at the time, Bud

Hulan, officially opened a scallop hatchery in Bay d'Espoir at the cost of

$500,000. There is an additional approximately $500,000 spent by the provincial

government along with Dr. Pat Dabinett of Memorial University to develop a giant

sea scallop unlike anything else that we have in the Province or in North

America. The market is good for it. We are producing lots of sprat that can be

grown out around the Province. There is an aquaculture industry in Port au Port,

there is a fishermen's co-op over there who are growing scallops for the market.

Mussels; I talked to a gentleman today from my district who

has a mussel farm and doing quite well. The only problem he has is that he does

not have the capital to increase his product. He has no problem whatsoever

selling it. We have mussel sites around the Province, Mr. Speaker, and we need,

I would say, hundreds more because the market can handle it.

Sea Cucumber; I don't know if any of you characters have ever

seen a sea cucumber, you probably would not want to eat it but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. G. REID: Sea urchins; I am not talking about growing

sea urchins. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about ranching them. We have

lots of sea urchins out there and the theory out there now is that you can take

these sea urchins, feed them kelp, let them grow and harvest them when you need

to harvest them.

Another thing that we are into is cod farming. Sea Forest

Plantation owned by a prominent merchant or a prominent business person here in

St. John's is doing quite well and making great strides in cod farming.

The Province has done its share, Mr. Speaker, to encourage

aquaculture in this Province. We have an excellent staff in the Department of

Fisheries and Aquaculture. Sometimes we don't speak favourably of bureaucrats

but I believe that the aquaculturalists in the Department of Fisheries are fine

people and that they do their best to help the people around the Province with

aquaculture. I don't think it is the government's problem, Mr. Speaker, that

aquaculture is not growing in this Province. We have done a fair share and we

are going to continue to do a fair share. I understand we have $20 million in

the fund from Ottawa that we are going to put into the aquaculture fishery in

the next three or four years. We need to do it but what sort of irritates me

about it all, Mr. Speaker - like the gentleman from Herring Neck who called me

this morning and said his biggest problem is capital. He worked in the fish

plant down in Herring Neck and over the years he has built up a small mussel

farm. He is doing quite well but he cannot raise the capital to continue on. If

you look at it though, Mr. Speaker, the majority of people who are into that

industry now are small business people.

The problem - like I was going to talk about earlier - that I

have about it is that for years, Mr. Speaker, we let big fish companies go out

and reap the benefit of the fish stocks in Newfoundland and Labrador, stocks

that basically are a public resource. Not one of them that I know of in the

Province, have contributed one cent or reinvested one cent into aquaculture. I

have talked to them over the past seven years, the large ones and the small

ones, of why they have not put any money into aquaculture. There is no money in

it they say. There is no money in it. Now tell that to the Connors Brothers,

that fish company in New Brunswick, when they have a $150 million industry in

New Brunswick. Tell that to the Norwegians. Tell that to the people in BC who

are selling millions of dollars of fish every year. Mr. Speaker, I don't know

but it seems to me that these people in the industry that we had out there, the

large fish processors, didn't ever think the day would come that there would be

no fish to catch, so they had no need to put money into aquaculture. Right now I

guess it is almost too late for them to put it in there.

A year or so ago the hon. Member for Pleasantville put

forward a resolution or something, or suggested, that we charge a tax on crab

sales. Maybe that is what we should have done fifteen years ago when we were

selling in the average of $400 million to $500 million worth of cod being

exported from this Province every year. If we had said to these producers: Take

1 per cent of your net sales and put it back into aquaculture, that would have

been $4 million a year that we could have been putting into aquaculture. We

wouldn't be in the state we are in today. There isn't enough room in there to

take care of the thirty odd thousand people who have been displaced by the

(inaudible) fishery but it certainly could have contributed to the employment we

have today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clue up by saying that I

certainly urge all members of the hon. House to support the Member for Fortune

Bay - Cape la Hune in his resolution that the Newfoundland government continue

to fund the aquaculture ventures in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a man from a good old fishing

district, Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Actually, I'm from Harbour Grace

originally, from Riverhead. That is where I came from originally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand today to

pass a few remarks on the resolution presented by the member for Fortune Bay -

Cape la Hune to say that I support wholeheartedly the private member's

resolution put forward today for many sound reasons, I believe.

I recall ten years ago when I was a university student the

Minister of Mines and Energy at that time wasn't in politics, he was a civil

servant within the bureaucracy. He came into a class that we had for about a

week, three or four classes. It was a class dealing with the economic

development of Newfoundland and Labrador. Economics 3020, I believe it was, I'm

not sure.

One of the things that we talked about in that class was

aquaculture. I guess with many students at the time the belief was that in

1984-1985, why should this Province be even concerned about aquaculture? We

believed, or many people believed at the time, that we stood and lived on the

doorstep of one of the greatest fishery resources the world has ever seen or

known, and less than ten years later it collapsed.

Had we begun to invest in aquaculture at that time then I

doubt very much today that we would be supporting this resolution, because there

would be no need to support it. What we would be discussing would be future

initiatives in detail. How would we improve our markets abroad, how would we

improve value-added products abroad, how many people would be employed in the

aquaculture industry today? That is what we would be discussing in the House of

Assembly today.

One of the hugest difficulties - I have some friends who are

into the aquaculture industry - that people have in getting into aquaculture,

and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture knows it as well, is the capital

investment, the time it takes to not only invest and start your aquaculture

industry, but the time it takes to reap its benefits and the time it takes to

get the product to market once established. That is where the Province has to

come in.

Every dollar that we invest in aquaculture today five to ten

years from now will reap benefits; will pay off in huge dividends, by about $10

for every dollar we invest. Not a bad investment. Some people have made huge

investments and huge dollars off another resource, Voisey's Bay, through

investment in Diamond Fields, Cartaway Containers, Castle Rock and others. But

this is a sound investment and one that pays dividends, and there are many

examples throughout the world. Some have been mentioned here today: Norway and

Chile, where they have done exactly that.

The opportunity that aquaculture presents for this Province

really is endless. What we choose to invest in, how much we want to invest, the

product that we can deliver at the end of the day, is very, very important and

can provide many economic opportunities and many jobs for people in this

Province, and it is only limited by our own scope of investment and our own

imaginations. Having produced a product on one hand, our ability then to market

it, our ability to sell it abroad, to get it into the world outlets, becomes the

challenge, but we must invest today, immediately, and continue to invest,

because twenty years from now, if the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

today can take an industry that is in its embryonic stage, really, in this

Province, and over the next four years, or however long he is there, and create

an industry that will provide thousands of jobs, then twenty years from now,

wherever the minister goes, he will be hailed and remembered for that, and so

will the government.

And any aquaculture initiative that government is willing to

invest in now, I certainly can say, will have my support, and any future

initiative that is going to create jobs for the people in this Province, in

rural Newfoundland especially, because that is where the opportunities are, to

create a quality product, to guarantee a supply of product, and to guarantee

that it will be priced competitively, because that is the challenge in the

marketplace, quality, guarantee of supply, and ensure that we are priced

competitively, if we can do that as a Province, and we can foster initiatives,

encourage initiatives, and, most importantly, for people who want to get in the

aquaculture industry, who have a high degree of knowledge, a high degree of

experience, but need help financially, then we must begin to help them

financially right now.

The Senate Committee, I believe, on banking, referred to -

that ACOA should not be investing in initiatives like aquaculture. Now that is a

typical centralist view of what this nation is all about. What we need here in

this Province, and particularly in Atlantic Canada, is a venture capital fund.

That is what we need, home grown, home spun, that can support industries,

growing industries like aquaculture, growing industries that in the long run

will provide revenue, will generate revenue, will provide a tax base for the

government, will create jobs, and will enable people to live and maintain

services that we have become accustomed to. It is not a magic stick; there is

nothing complex about it. The reality is, that is what we require and that is

what we need.

I am not going to belabour the point because there are other

people, I know, who want to speak on this resolution, but I will say to the

Member for Fortune Bay - Cape la Hune that this Private Member's resolution has

my support, and any present or future initiatives that are going to realize

benefits in terms of aquaculture for this Province will have my support as well.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo and LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: As opposed to being, I suppose, a fisherman,

I am a fisherman's grandson; but looking at the fishery, and growing up in Port

aux Basques, and the way that the fishery affected the economy of that

community, and the outlying communities that were supported by Port aux Basques,

the timeliness of this kind of resolution is certainly without debate, and it

makes you wonder. The effort that we are now putting into aquaculture is really

good, it makes a lot of sense, but if you go back to, say, over the last ten

years, we have obviously nodded off when we have allowed others to take this

aquaculture industry and run with it when we, as a Province, have fallen behind,

when we have the country of Norway, and other parts of Canada, doing so well in

aquaculture and we are far from a leader in that field. We have a lot of

catching up to do, and I think that this kind of attention to be paid to it is

certainly what we have to do, as a House of Assembly, in urging the government

and the people of the Province to continue to support aquaculture, and also to

go from here and support these initiatives that are being made under the

transitional jobs fund and other areas of government policy.

Now, the resolution speaks about the fishery being in a state

of transition, which is very true. We have gone through the shutdown of the

groundfish fishery. We have seen the problems associated with that and how it

has affected the total socio-economic fabric of the Province. We are now dealing

with what kinds of opportunities will be there for the people of this Province,

in the future, employed in the fishery, and we have to look at all the

possibilities. If we had to wait for, say, all of the livestock in a given

province to grow naturally without the attempt at farming or what have you, we

would not have an agriculture industry of any kind, if you look at the

harvesting of any other livestock, or any other animal that is used for human

food consumption. So really all we are doing in the area of fishing is to do

proper management through the farming method, the aquaculture method, of being

able to feed it and control it.

Some of the problems associated with it, a lot of the members

may not be aware of. It is a very capital-intensive area, a very high-risk area.

I have a lot of interest in my own district, individuals who have gone out and

started their own small scallop operations, who have ideas on what they want to

do in a variety of different aquaculture ventures, and the capital that is

required is very high. As the hon. member opposite just put it, the requirement

for venture capital is there, but you need someone with deep pockets to do

aquaculture in the right way.

Looking at Norway - and I have spoken to some of the

Norwegian operators of cod farms over there. A gentleman named Pierre Gunnar

Anderson, who operates the largest cod farm in Norway visited the Province and

has been down into my district and looked around. He suggested that if he had

any idea of the amount of money he had to put up to get involved in the first

place, he may not have gone into it. But once he was into it, he was committed

to it, and it cost a lot more to get up and running. He has had the occasional

loss of the stock due to disease and the various things that can happen when the

fish is penned into cages and this sort of thing, and you need to be able to

absorb these losses as a normal part of the overall process.

He has said now, with the amount he produces, he is the

largest cod producer in Norway, and looking at the commitment, it has been over

the course of about seven years, that it has taken to go from a very small

operation to a very large operation, that is in cod. There are so many species

that we can get involved in properly in the right areas of the Province. It is

not something that is open to every location throughout the Province. There are

certain areas that have been identified with problems associated with the high

fecal coliform counts in some harbours and bays, and along certain areas of

coastline, that would contaminate the seafood. You have certain locations where

it is possible and others where it is not possible and certain conditions that

will provide a really good opportunity for aquaculture.

The hon. member's district is one of those areas and there

are a couple of locations in my district, also on the South Coast of the

Province, where you do not have as big an ice problem and you do have the water

and shelter that is required to facilitate the proper farming - I know, Bay

d'Espoir, and there are some others, such as Belleoram, I say to the hon.

member. And these will, of course, grow with the right kind of support from

government.

If you look at the idea of fish farming, the hon. the Member

for Humber Valley tells a fine story sometimes about his start as a farmer here

in the Province. I have heard him say that he had to do it in spite of

government and not because of any help from government at the time. And really,

I think, those who are out there, the small operators in aquaculture now, once

they get through the regulatory process, they really have to go on and do a lot

of it on their own. Planning is only so much, the biggest part of the equation

is doing, and these people are eager and willing to try to do the things that

are necessary to provide the economic benefit for their business plans, to the

enterprise they have begun.

Hopefully, as we focus more and more on aquaculture and

seeing the minister's interest in diversifying the fishery of this Province, and

the interest that we have in committing resources to this, it is an area in

which we have to invest, commit money, as necessary, and leverage other monies

from the private sector through the venture capital programs, through the

variety of different mechanisms possible, to assistance in marketing the

product, through the overall professionalization and commitment to development

of the technologies that are required, these are the things that we have to do

as a government in supporting the aquaculture industry. And eventually, if we do

it right, if we plan it properly and we develop it in the right way, that would

be an industry to reckon with and it would equate with any other industry in

this Province, I would think, in the total dollars added to the economy in

keeping people working. Depending on how we go about it, it could be a very

valuable export commodity for many different things that are not even done here

now.

If you look in the back of some of the magazines that you

read, you can buy smoked salmon right from the midwestern United States, where

the salmon is brought in, packaged, vacuum-wrapped and everything and shipped to

you air mail. Now, you know, if they can do that in the midwest of the United

States, I am sure we can do it here in this Province and ship it to all points

throughout the world in order to guarantee those markets for the benefit of the

people here. So getting the value-added processing in there is a key aspect of

not just producing the raw material.

It is nice to be able to farm it but the raw material, the

fish that we have, putting that forward in such a way as to just replace the cod

fishery of the past where we were producing raw product, I don't think that is

going to benefit the people of the Province. We have to see what we can do to

take these products and again, add the value to them and get more employment out

of that process and keep more of that money that flows back into our economy for

the benefit of more people and not just for the less people at the top of these

organizations and companies.

Generally in the fishery, looking at the things that are

worthy of note, lately the announcement on the spiny and the king crab, spiny

king crab, it will be called now, king as opposed to spiny crab, and there was

some talk of the toad crab also, but I don't know if that one has gone ahead

yet, and the small shrimp pots that are going to be placed throughout the

Province. There are other efforts ongoing with Newfoundland companies involved

in silver hake. The Barry Seafoods of the Bay of Islands are very interested in

the silver hake market, and recent meetings we had with the Deputy Minister of

Fisheries from Ottawa, was very pleased at the progress on the Burgeo fish plant

and a number of the different species that will be required there for that

particular operation to reopen. So we are working hard to try to make sure all

of these things happen.

When an individual entrepreneur comes forward with an

interest in starting an aquaculture operation, we have to do what we can to back

him, support him and put him in touch with the right people, because a small

operator without deep pockets is not going to get very far. He is going to need

some support somehow or other, either from government or from private industry

that is involved in that area or that particular species, and that is where we

need to make sure that the ball doesn't get dropped on aquaculture again in the

future. It has been dropped for too long; we have to pick it up again and regain

the potential market share that could be ours. Because Newfoundland and Labrador

can be, I would say without a doubt, the largest producer of farmed fish of any

location in the world, partly because of the fact that we know what we are doing

with fish, but also because, if you look at the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador and how they go about in a very determined way any project they

undertake, I think that will speak well for the potential and future success of

aquaculture here in the Province.

I commend the hon. member for bringing this forward. I think

it is timely, and it is one of the key areas that we have to invest our monies

in over the next little while as we have to retract from certain areas of

government spending. There are certain key areas we have to invest in. This is

one of them. I support the hon. member's resolution. I would certainly seek to

see if we can't get some of these aquaculture-intensive industries established

in the District of Burgeo & LaPoile to go along with those already established

throughout the Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to just make a few comments about this today and

keep it brief, I hope, because I intend to return to talk to some students who

came in from the district today. I will make it brief because I think I can get

to the point very quickly. That is what I say about this resolution.

Of course, it is no problem to get up and throw accolades to

the member for bringing it forward and so on. I have no problem either in saying

that I support aquaculture and the initiatives by any government to move on

aquaculture. But the timing of this resolution is something I am going to

question. I am going to question why there is not a resolution from the

government side of the House on the U.I. changes that are going on right now in

Ottawa. I want to ask why there is not a resolution from the other side of the

House on the education cutbacks in the House while we have people outside this

House with emotions out there today that I haven't seen in the two-and-a-half

years I have been here.

That is what we should be debating in a private member's

resolution today, not aquaculture, not something as vague as this motion. What

does this mean? "Therefore

be it resolved that the House of Assembly support the

present and future initiatives of Aquaculture and Fish Farming for the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador in an attempt to revitalize the once vibrant

fishery." We say that every single day. Every member in this House says that

every day. What is specific about that? Of course, we support it. Now let us say

that and get on with it.

What we should be doing is bringing in specific priority

timing to this House of issues that are out in this Province right now that are

at a crisis proportion, I would say to the members of this House. The e