June 10,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 25

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour.

MR. K. AYLWARD: As minister responsible for Workers'

Compensation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I am pleased to

present to the House of Assembly the 1995 annual report of the Workers'

Compensation Commission.

The Workers' Compensation Commission is responsible for

operating a no-fault work injury compensation program that provides benefits to

workers injured on the job and to dependants in the event of a fatality. The

Commission has an independent board of directors consisting of seven members

with a chairperson and an equal number of employer and worker representatives.

The Commission reports to the Legislature through me as the

Minister of Environment and Labour. The annual report presents the Commission's

financial statements, claims statistics and funded position. The funded position

is the amount of money the Commission holds in reserve to cover the cost of

claims for 1995.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell my hon. colleagues today

that the Commission's funded position has increased from 59.2 per cent in 1994

to 66 per cent in 1995. Such an increase means the Commission is in a better

position to pay the future benefits that workers are entitled to. This increase

represents a substantial improvement from a low of 42 per cent reported in 1991.

It is anticipated the unfunded liability will be eliminated by the year 2012.

Mr. Speaker, the improved funded position was due to a number

of factors including fewer claims accepted in 1995 compared to 1994, a 10 per

cent reduction in the average weeks paid for current year temporary earnings

loss claims, and a 21 per cent reduction in average weeks paid for prior year

temporary earnings loss claims, increases in the assessable payroll in the

Province and an 18 per cent increase in the Commission's assets, Mr. Speaker.

The report states, and I concur, that the improvements

realized throughout the year were possible because of the co-operation shown to

the Commission by workers, employers and health care providers in the Province.

I am confident that this co-operation will continue so that additional

improvements can be realized in 1996.

Mr. Speaker, also, the Injured Workers Association has been

doing some good work in advising the Workers' Compensation Commission. They have

been in to meet with me a couple of times and have contributed greatly to the

improvements that have been made.

Thank you.

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

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

I thank the minister for providing me a few minutes

beforehand a copy of the Statement he was about to read. Mr. Speaker, a few

factors he decided to leave out: the reality is that there were fewer people

working in the fishing industry, as one example, fewer claims made there, fewer

people working in the construction industry, an industry that has higher claims,

fewer jobs. The other factor in terms of the Workers' Compensation Commission,

he mentioned that the Injured Workers Association, worked hard in advising the

Workers' Compensation Commission. It is too bad that the Workers' Compensation

Commission does not take the advice that has been provided by the Injured

Workers Association, and I hope when the minister announces his Legislation

Review Committee of the Workers' Compensation Act that he will also announce

that a member of the Injured Workers Association will be sitting on that review

committee.

Thank you.

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

Quidi-Vidi. Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank

the minister for providing me with a copy of the Statement.

I am delighted to see that the financial position of the

Commission has improved but I am sorry to note that it is done as a result of a

decrease in the amount of funding to workers and a decrease in the amount of

people actually employed.

It has been shown by the City of St. John's in particular,

that by beefing up your Occupational Health and Safety rules and your commitment

to Occupational Health and Safety, you can decrease the claims and decrease the

cost of workers' compensation. This is the approach that should be taken, Mr.

Speaker, not the reduction of benefits.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier.

Premier, you now have had time to review the Newfoundland

Supreme Court of Appeal decision on the award of a multi-million-dollar contract

to Trans City in violation of the Public Tender Act. Premier, you were not a

part of this, and I ask you to be careful about being drawn into this mess. Do

not be part of a cover-up. Will you order a judicial inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the

Leader of the Opposition that he, the Leader of the Opposition, ought to be

careful.

The Leader of the Opposition has just used the words

`cover-up', and I would say that the Leader of the Opposition, if he takes

seriously his role in this place, would want to provide either in the House or

outside the House, and preferably he would want to do it in both places, any

information that in any way, shape or form would indicate any criminal activity

on the part of any individual involved in the issuance of this contract. And

frankly, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, because as I said last week, I

believe him to be an honourable man, that he would want to think carefully

before he continues to use those kinds of words.

As I understand it, I say to the Leader of the Opposition,

there is nothing in the decision handed down, which is one of a question of

liability, that suggests any wrongdoing or impropriety or criminal activity on

the part of anybody. This is a question of whether or not the Public Tender Act

MR. E. BYRNE: Was violated.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes. The Public Tender Act, in the

judgement of - in a public, by the way inquiry, called a court case, has been

fully complied with, and if it hasn't been, has there been a liability suffered

by an individual involved? That is the question dealt with by the court and

frankly, you can't have a more public inquiry or examination of the facts than a

matter that has been dealt with, not once but twice before the courts, and so,

no. On the basis of what I have seen, I see no basis for a commission of inquiry

simply for the sake of having a commission of inquiry with all of the attendant

costs that would go nowhere.

Now, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he has any

evidence, if he has any evidence whatsoever, of any wrongdoing, table it here,

right now, today, and repeat it outside these doors of the Chamber.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to be diverted by the Premier trying to move

away from the decided liability. You did not decide whether there was political

interference. Now, Mr. Justice Orsborn, in his original statement said, `Much of

the evidence suggests unusual conduct. Some questions, particularly related to

the document trail, remain unanswered. Viewed as a whole, the evidence before me

is sufficient to raise suspicions that the award of the contract to Trans City

Holdings was influenced by factors unrelated to the substantive contents of the

bid.' Now, Premier, do you know what these factors were that influenced this bid

process and can you now tell us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to

the Leader of the Opposition, I say to the Leader of the Opposition if he has an

allegation or a charge to make, either inside the House with the protections of

the House or outside the House without the protection of the House, he should

make the allegation. I will tell him that if he has an allegation to make and

some evidence to bring forward, we would be happy not to have a Commission of

Inquiry but to refer the matter to the RCMP for an investigation and for charges

to be laid if charges are appropriate but let's not malign reputations by

innuendo, sitting in your chair safe from any prosecution, safe from any

liability yourself when you are not prepared to go outside and make specific

allegations and name names.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know the Premier

to be an honourable man. Premier if you do not know what those inappropriate

factors were, referred to by the judge, that influenced the contract bid, don't

you think you should know? Don't you think the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador should know? So will you call an inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the Leader of

the Opposition that if he has any evidence, any suggestion of any criminal

activity, he not only has a duty, he has more than a duty, he has an obligation

to make that information public here and now. He has an obligation to call the

RCMP and to report such information and to call for an investigation. Mr.

Speaker, if I were in possession of information of that sort, which clearly the

Leader of the Opposition is not, I would not call for a Commission of Inquiry I

would call for a criminal investigation. You either now, I say to the Leader of

the Opposition, have to put up on the subject or I suggest, with all due

respect, the people who aren't here to defend themselves and whose reputations

are being maligned, put up or shut up.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is

trying to divert from the real issue. In view of the fact that the highest court

of this Province has made a finding that there was a bad faith award of this

infamous contract, the Trans City Holdings, and in view of the fact that the

court has concluded - on page 34 of the judgement - that the contract was made

on the basis of an undisclosed preference and in view of the fact that this

amounts to a startling revelation of bad faith, involved in the handling of

public funds by ministers of the Crown -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a supplementary, I

would ask him to get to his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: - for hidden purposes. Will the Premier

acknowledge the seriousness of these findings, and the absolute necessity to

hold a public inquiry to disclose the reasons for these preferences and the

mishandling of public funds?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition again, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to think about what he is

doing here.

We have two matters that have gone before the courts. The

court is as public an inquiry as you can have. The proceedings are open to the

public, all of the evidence is available publicly, and findings have been made.

Nobody, during the course of that process, has made any suggestion that I know

of - and I would be happy to be corrected, and if you are reading the mind of

the judge - that there is any reason for the RCMP to be called in to do any kind

of investigation of a criminal nature. That suggestion has not been made that I

know of.

If, for one moment, the Leader of the Opposition believes

that to be the case, he has not only a duty but an obligation to give that

information he has, or believes he has, to the RCMP and to call for a criminal

investigation; but I say to the Leader of the Opposition, it is easy for all of

us to sit here in this place and make reference to an administration that is no

longer here, and the members of that administration who are no longer here, to

call into question their integrity.

Now, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I ask you here

and now, in a public place, the most public place in this Province, name names;

name one name; make an allegation; make one allegation. Substantiate this

character attack that you have now launched on people who are not here to defend

themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will get to that in a minute, I say to the Premier.

Will the Premier give assurances that he will forthwith

confront the ministers in his Cabinet who are directly implicated in the

disposition of these public monies in bad faith for questionable purposes to

ascertain the appropriateness of their continuance as members of his Ministry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

Opposition would come up with his snorkel out of the gutter long enough to name

one name, to make one allegation, because the Leader of the Opposition right now

is engaged in character assassination; he is engaged in innuendo. He has not

yet, through several days of these kinds of questions, produced one name of one

individual he believes is guilty of some wrongdoing. He has not yet produced one

substantial piece of evidence, or even an insubstantial piece of evidence,

either in this House where he has total immunity, cannot be prosecuted, refused

to go outside the door of the House last week and name one name or make one

allegation, but he continues to sit there, and I think in a fashion that shows a

lack of backbone, making allegations but refusing to put down one substantial

fact. Now I tell him, if he has real information this Premier will act, but I

won't act on the basis of allegation, innuendo, given in such a cowardly

fashion. I ask him to stand up and be counted now if he has something

substantial to say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will get to that

in due course, I would say to the Premier. Is the Premier prepared to assure

that the public inquiry mandated by these findings will include an inquiry as to

whether the bad faith that was practised gives grounds for the scrutiny of

ministers' conduct? Is he prepared to acknowledge that the court decision does

not bring the matter to an end, but rather dictates a further inquiry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I'm

prepared to acknowledge is that the Leader of the Opposition knows no bounds in

his pursuit of a cheap headline, including the total abuse of his position and

his immunity in this place. The purpose of parliamentary immunity is to allow

members on all sides of the House to speak without fear or favour, but that

right that we enjoy to speak without fear and favour also confers upon us a

certain responsibility.

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition - I've repeated

it many times in this House - I believe him to be an hon. gentleman, I believe

that he wants to act for the public good and in the public interest, but I say

to him to cast aspersions - because he knows he is talking to a premier who was

not in office, not part of this Cabinet and not part of this administration, not

part of this caucus at the time these events took place. He wants to say to me:

Oh, but Premier, since you weren't involved let's just throw out a big broad

smear and call for a public inquiry and smear the reputations of all those who

were here. I say to the Leader of the Opposition it takes no courage to make

those kinds of allegations. What it takes is some integrity to substantiate them

or to apologize for making them.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Three ministers of

this government - the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance and Treasury

Board, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology - sat on a committee

that rendered advice and made decisions on the award of this contract, the one

that violated the public tender act and raised the judge's suspicions about

inappropriate influence. Is the Premier prepared to give a report to this House

within forty-eight hours of the fitness of the ministers involved to continue in

their posts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have to stand up and tell

the Leader of the Opposition that I have confidence in each and every member of

the Cabinet, and I have confidence in each and every member who sits on this

side of the House, and I question whether the Leader of the Opposition really is

fulfilling his obligation and his responsibility with this kind of innuendo.

I don't know; perhaps this foreshadows what we can expect

from the Leader of the Opposition, but he really ought to ask himself whether or

not this kind - well, members opposite can giggle, but he ought to ask himself

whether this kind of innuendo, this kind of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, and now tell us, I say to members

opposite, what the specific allegation is.

I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to make his report

to the RCMP to specifically indicate what crime he thinks has been committed, to

pass along the evidence, and to call for the police investigation, because the

Leader of the Opposition now is in the mud, he is in the gutter, and he hasn't

the courage of the allegations he is making to back them up with substantial

information.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Three ministers of this government, the Minister of Justice,

the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, sat

on a committee that produced a Cabinet document that I have here, Appendix to

Works, Services and Transportation 91-,91, a document dated forty-four days

before the contract was awarded, a document that recommended re-tendering the

contract, a document that we are told never made it to Cabinet and never

surfaced until part-way through the court case.

Why will the Premier not hold a judicial inquiry to get to

the bottom of the questions unanswered about the minister's actions, left

unanswered by this civil court case?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

can repeat this comment over and over. He can repeat this cowardly accusation

over and over. Until the Leader of the Opposition has something more than these

kinds of comments, which are not founded on any sense of fundamental justice, or

any respect for process, but rather only on a desire to produce a cheap

headline, until the Leader of the Opposition can do something more substantial

than that, I am not prepared to stand here and see the reputations of people

both here or not here - no longer here - maligned by the Leader of the

Opposition.

I tell the Leader of the Opposition, in public life we all

have to stand up to an incredible degree of scrutiny, we all live in a glass

bowl, but we should all expect that if our reputations are going to be called

into question, if individuals are going to be maligned, that those who make the

accusation at least stand and substantiate it, because it is very easy to stand

here when you have Parliamentary immunity, when you cannot be sued, when you

cannot be held liable, and make these kinds of accusations. I challenge him to

go outside that door and make those accusations, so that people present in this

Cabinet, and people no longer in this Cabinet, can respond to him in a proper

place.

Last week when you were challenged, you walked outside the

door and lost your tongue. It will be interesting to see what happens today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier, what I say in this House I will repeat

outside the door, and I say the members -

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't last week.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is on public record.

AN HON. MEMBER: What were you saying?

MR. SULLIVAN: Premier, it is on public record. It is in

the court records there, and it is public, and I will say anything that is there

in public, and I will name the fourteen members of Cabinet. I know several are

in your government, and I made reference to it.

Now, I don't consider it a trivial matter when tens of

millions of dollars of taxpayers' money was wasted to give a bid to friends of

the Liberal government. That is not a trivial matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: And you were found liable by the highest

court in this Province, and that is not trivial, I say to the Premier.

Now, are you afraid to have an open, public inquiry by an

impartial body empowered to summon witnesses and documents, and get to the

bottom of this seamy affair? What are you afraid of, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I thought there were any

reason to have an open, public inquiry, or I thought, more importantly -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is.

PREMIER TOBIN: Well, the fact that the members opposite

say there is, and that they would like to have one, is not a reason. You have to

produce something more than the desire and the want and the notion that you

would like to go fishing for the summer to substantiate a public inquiry. Public

inquiries cost a great deal of money. The reputations of people affected should

not be played with for some trivial, partisan reason.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if there are

substantive reasons, good and valid reasons, solid information that the Leader

of the Opposition or any other party wants to bring forward that would justify a

Commission of Inquiry, we would have a Commission of Inquiry.

More importantly, if there were substantive reasons brought

forward to suspect any kind of improper or criminal activity, we would call in

the RCMP instantly. I suspect that the courts, which have dealt with this matter

on two occasions, would have caused such action to occur. But to have the Leader

of the Opposition standing and maligning reputations, making statements that

cannot be substantiated, merely because it guarantees you are going to have a

headline in the paper tomorrow or you are going to have an

article on the

television or on the radio, to do that, I say to the Leader of the Opposition,

takes no courage, takes no character and takes no integrity.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Attorney General is primarily an officer of the Crown and

is, in a sense, an officer of the public. An Attorney General is also the head

of the Bar and represents the Crown in all matters in which rights of a public

character come into question. I ask the Minister of Justice and the Attorney

General for this Province once again, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of

independence and in the interest of not only justice being done but also being

seen to be done - and that is the issue, Mr. Speaker - would he remove himself

forthwith from any further involvement in the decision-making process as to

whether or not a public judicial inquiry ought to be held in this matter?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member who has

just put a question, what I said to the Leader of the Opposition. If there is

reason, valid reason, if there is information that the member has or the Leader

of the Opposition has, I invite them to take a short cut, to place a phone call

to the RCMP, to place in evidence before the RCMP any valid information which

would warrant any further activity by the RCMP and subsequently to bring about

any further court action which the member might believe is reasonable in the

circumstance.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't have any information available to

me, as Premier of the Province, which would warrant that kind of action. I have

been asking now, over several weeks when this matter has come up, for the Leader

of the Opposition or perhaps the member who has just spoken, who is a member of

the Bar, to produce either in the House, with all of the protection of the

House, or outside of the House - the member cannot be charged in this place;

nobody can drag him before a court and seek any redress in this place. He has

the total protection available to a member here and now. If something needs to

be said, will the member stand now and say it or will he apologize for maligning

the reputations of those against whom this attack is directed?

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

John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is the decision of the Court of Appeal - page 34 of the

decision of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Newfoundland, the highest

court in this Province. It refers to, for example, protecting the integrity of

the bidding system, discusses the terms good faith and bad faith and what these

terms mean in contract law. I now direct my question, Mr. Speaker, to the

Premier. In view of this decision doesn't the Premier view the decision by the

Attorney General and the Minister of Justice not to withdraw and therefore to

totally disregard the principles of the doctrine of conflict of interest as

unacceptable? Will he now step in, Mr. Speaker, and make the appropriate

decision to ask for the removal of his Attorney General and Minister of Justice

from any further involvement in this Trans City affair?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the member again - the

member has reached across, the Leader of the Opposition has given him a stack of

papers -

AN HON. MEMBER: A court decision.

PREMIER TOBIN: - a court decision, and he has rifled

through the papers and managed to make reference to a few words on the bottom of

page 34. I remind all of those who are listening, as I have said to the member,

I say again: If you have an allegation to make, make it. You have the full

protection of this House. If you have information that ought to be communicated

to the RCMP for further investigation, communicate it. The member opposite is a

member of the Bar, and I say to him, he has quickly learned the game of an

unsubstantiated allegation, but he is also a member of the Bar, he understands

that reputations should not be maligned without cause or reason. I ask him to

join the Leader of the Opposition outside this place and to make a specific

allegation. And I tell him, when he makes one that is substantial, I will see

that whatever action is required is taken. If that is to call in the RCMP, the

RCMP would be called in. If a Commission of Inquiry would do any good, beyond a

political fishing trip, that would be looked at; but so far, all we have had are

accusations by members opposite and absolutely no evidence whatsoever to

substantiate those accusations.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I ask the minister if he would inform the House if there will be another

opportunity for the 112 commercial salmon licence holders in Newfoundland and

Labrador to have government buy back their salmon licences.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had the opportunity

over the last three or four days to have a chat with the Minister of Fisheries

and Oceans or any discussion with him regarding the buy-back of salmon licences.

Certainly, will the Province be participating in buy-back? No, we will not, in

any financial manner whatsoever. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has stated

his case very clearly, but no doubt I will be having further discussions with

him to see what position - how firm it is, and will there be any change in the

future. From the full understanding I have, there will be no change in the

minister's position.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand, Minister, from talking to fishermen around the

Province that salmon stocks have increased significantly since the moratorium on

the commercial salmon fishery was introduced some four years ago. I ask the

minister if he would consider supporting a sentinel salmon fishery to see

exactly what the condition of those particular stocks really is.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear the information

the hon. member has is exactly that, of a few fishermen. There is no sound

evidence that I have seen about the return of the commercial salmon fishery.

There is a lot of research and a lot of counting going on on a regular basis.

Could a sentinel fishery take place? That again would have to

be a decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada. It is

something that we will discuss in all the fishery conservation matters that are

coming up in the next year. To jump out and say there should be one? I am not

prepared to do that. I am not prepared to make any comment before I have fully

discussed anything with the federal minister. But we have to be very concerned.

Conservation is number one in all fish stocks, and until we are satisfied that

the fish stocks are sustainable to a commercial fishery, then we will just hold

the line and make sure that conservation places first in any decision that we

make.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, it seems as though all the effort and interest

these days in talking about this particular stock is directed towards the

outfitters and the recreational fishermen. I ask the minister if he would assure

the House today, if this particular fishery is allowed to be reintroduced, that

he would lend his support to ensure that the commercial salmon fishermen out

there today will get their fair share, as well as the recreational fishery.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the outfitters, as the hon.

member refers to, is in the recreational fishery that is supported by both

levels of government for the reasons why and the number of fish, that

catch-and-release program.

Would I support a commercial fishery? If I were totally

satisfied that the salmon stocks were renewed to a sustainable harvest, yes, we

would support it. But we have to remember, nobody can guarantee us that. The

evidence is not there to support a commercial salmon fishery, which the hon.

member is asking for. We would like to see every Newfoundlander and Labradorian

who could possibly be, involved in the fishery, if all the fish stocks were

there to a sustainable level, but that is not a fact. The fact remains that we

want the stocks to be there to the satisfaction of its being a sustainable

commercial industry. Only when evidence is very clearly put forth by all the

people - the fishermen themselves, the scientific community - and the decision

can be made with total confidence that the stocks are there to sustain a

commercial fishing harvest; only then will I say I will support it.

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture,

also.

A lot of people around Newfoundland and Labrador today are

upset, frustrated, and appalled again to hear that a food fishery will continue

again this summer in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and

Quebec. This minister - I would like for him to tell the House and the people of

this Province that he is discriminating against Newfoundlanders when he does not

allow a food fishery in this Province.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that I am Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland, but I wish, at the same time, I had

the power of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for all of Canada but I don't;

I have the responsibility for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The hon. member knows full well I don't have the right to

make that decision but I do have the right as a Newfoundlander and as a

minister, to be concerned about the situation of our cod stocks. What happens in

PEI and New Brunswick is of little concern to me as Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture in Newfoundland and Labrador. What I am concerned about is the

future industry in this Province; satisfy me that there is enough fish stocks

out there to sustain a commercial fish harvest and I will make whatever

representation to the federal minister that is necessary to support a

recreational fishery. Until then, we will hold the status quo.

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

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware as the

minister knows that the decision comes from DFO in Ottawa, which came from the

now Premier who was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans at the time, not to

allow a food fishery in this Province. I am not talking about a commercial

fishery I am talking about a food fishery.

Now, can the minister also confirm to me that St. Pierre &

Miquellon, only three miles off the coast of the Burin Peninsula, are allowed to

have a food fishery this year? As a matter of fact, they were allowed this for

the last couple of years and they have never been turned down for a food fishery

in that area, Mr. Speaker.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was just reminded, and quite

rightly so, that this was a major issue in the most recent election. Evidence is

very clear on what the people of this Province support. Look on this side and

compare it to over there, it is very clear where the numbers are.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to remind the members opposite, we

have tens of thousands of people in this Province not working. Thousands of

people coming off the TAGS Program, where do they turn for employment? We have

to be conscious of the fact that people in this Province look forward to a

future in the fishing industry. Are we going to be so careless as to say that

recreational cod jigging comes before people working? I am not going to be a

part of that.

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

supplementary.

MR. SHELLEY: I can assure the minister that he should ask

the former provincial Minister of Fisheries which I made an issue of this in my

district where he is now.

Now I will ask the minister again: Why are the people in St.

Pierre & Miquellon, just three miles off the coast of the Burin Peninsula,

allowed to go out and jig a fish to eat? We are not talking about a commercial

fishery, we are talking about a food fishery. Are you telling me they are

different stock or are we just blatantly being discriminated against?

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to tell him it is

a different stock at all, nor am I going to tell him and to argue over the fact.

I don't hear the hon. member opposite talking about the destruction to the cod

stocks that the seals are making. We argued over the years, were seals eating

fish or not?

The hon. member stands day after day talking about

recreational cod jigging, no concern about the stocks regrowing, no concern

about conservation measures, no concern about people working; simply putting a

jigger in the water and hauling a fish out of the water to put in a frying pan.

This goes to show you, Mr. Speaker, why they sit over there and we are here

because we are concerned about the future of this Province and not going out

having fun on a weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, I ask that on tomorrow I will be

granted leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the conservation and protection of our environment is

of paramount importance to our lifestyle and heritage in Newfoundland and

Labrador; and

WHEREAS it is the duty of government to implement and

maintain adequate regulations and enforcement to deal with the disposal of solid

wastes throughout the Province; and

WHEREAS there is a stewardship requirement on the part of

companies which package consumer and other products consumed in our Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED the House of Assembly encourage the

Ministry of Environment to implement a packaging waste program that will ensure

a reduction in the amount of solid waste committed to our landfills throughout

the Province.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the last day the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked

several questions about the agreement between the federal and provincial

governments on the $130-million variation of Term 29.

I have to table with the House two letters. One from the hon.

Paul Martin, the federal Minister of Finance to myself dated May 15, 1996

setting forth the terms of the agreement and also a corresponding reply by

myself to him of the same date.

He also made reference to the Newfoundland Additional

Financial Assistance Act. We mentioned at the time that it is our understanding

that there need not be an amendment to the act and that it could be done by

agreement, and that is in fact the case if we believe the Department of Justice,

in which I have some degree of confidence. As the hon. member may know, but may

not, Term 29 allows for a variation of the terms by agreement, which is

essentially what we have between the provincial and federal governments, so both

those letters I am about to table, and if the hon. member has further questions

I would be delighted to answer them.

Petitions

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in the House today once again to present a petition

on behalf of the Crown land users who wish to voice their opposition to the

change in Crown land fees. Again, I remind the minister that during our meeting

last week there were approximately 300 people and many of them had a chance to

voice their opposition to this publicly. Many of these people are unable to cope

with the burden of having to come up with the money to purchase their Crown land

on such short notice, and the people who are unable to come up with this type of

money on such notice, some of these people are also in the position where they

are unable to purchase their land over a five year period. This is an

unnecessary burden, one of many unnecessary burdens brought forth in the most

recent provincial Budget, and I am proud to stand in the House today and present

this petition on behalf of the Crown land users.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I had the privilege of attending the

public meeting that was referred to by my colleague the Member for St. John's

South last week, at which some 300 people attended and participated in voicing

their concerns with respect to recent changes in government policy concerning

Crown grants and Crown leases for both recreational cottages and residential

leases. As this House is aware, and as was made public, the minister was indeed

in attendance and attempted to answer many of the questions and concerns that

were raised by those individuals present.

Having attended that meeting, Mr. Speaker, it is clear what

people want first and foremost is time. There was not an extremely violent

opposition to the rate proposals or the rent proposals. What people want is

time. They see the October deadline for 1996 as being far too short, far too

unreasonable, and does not allow the average Newfoundlander who is affected by

these Crown leases to come up with the funds that are required in satisfaction

of the policy which has been purported by the government.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in support of this petition I ask

that the government, through the minister's department, reconsider the time

element. This is what people want, that and nothing else. They want an

opportunity to be in a position to raise sufficient funds so they can pay off

the balance of their leases over an extended period of time, and then it would

seem to me in response to, from the concerns that were raised last week, it

would seem to me that the majority of individuals who attended that meeting

would accept the changes, if in fact time was credited to them.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask once again that the

minister take seriously the wording of the petition and take seriously the

objections of literally thousands of Newfoundlanders who are caught under these

changes, and will take seriously the recommendation that there be an extension

of time to allow these average down to earth, hard working Newfoundlanders the

opportunity to come up with sufficient funds in timely fashion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition that reads: To the hon.

House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened. The petition

of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador:

WHEREAS many Newfoundlanders who do not use Newfoundland

Power delivered electricity to heat their homes and instead use wood furnaces

because they cannot afford to do otherwise, and

WHEREAS differential rate increases, while penalizing the

poor for not using electric heat would do nothing to provide them with the money

they need to pay for electric heat so as to increase the company's

competitiveness, but will force many to dip into their food budgets to pay for

the electricity they need for lights; and

WHEREAS Newfoundlanders on low and fixed incomes, who use the

smallest amount of electricity since they have the fewest electricity-run

amenities, and it is therefore the poor who will bear the brunt of a

differential rate increase;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the hon. House

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

whatever is required to prevent an increase in Newfoundland Power electricity

rates.

Mr. Speaker, this again is a petition being put forward by

the people of my district speaking out against the application by this giant

utility to look for a 4.9 per cent increase in electricity rates. This is coming

from a utility that has a monopoly in providing a particular service, a utility

that made $28 million in profit last year, now applying to the Public Utilities

Board for another rate increase. One of the reasons they use to justify that

particular rate increase is that they have not had a rate increase since 1992.

That is certainly no justification to go out today and bestow this hardship on

so many of our native Newfoundland and Labrador people who can ill afford to

face another increase in their electricity rates. It won't be uncommon for

people to be paying well in excess of $400 a month for a normal home if they are

heating their house solely with electricity.

The other thing that we have to keep in mind when we consider

this rate increase that is being sought by this particular utility is that it

was only a few short years ago that when you got your light bill, you got your

utility bill in the mail, there were all kinds of little stickers put in with it

encouraging you to post it on the fridge door, put it on your light switch, make

sure you turn down the thermostat to a certain level at nighttime, encouraging

us to conserve energy, which is still, as far as I am concerned, an excellent

idea, but now this particular utility company is going out and penalizing those

same people that they were requesting to do the conservation of energy just a

few short years ago, because the people today who use less electricity are going

to be saddled with a higher percentage increase than the people who go out and

use a greater amount of electricity. So they are penalizing the people they had

encouraged to conserve and use less a few short years ago.

Mr. Speaker, many of the older homes in rural Newfoundland

are not insulated as well as some of the new modern homes, and it is not

uncommon for those people to be already saddled with electricity bills or hydro

bills in excess of, like I said, $350 to $400 a month. When you consider the

harmonization of the GST and the PST, then you are going to see those same

people, many of them living on a fixed income, if they are fortunate enough to

have an income at all other than social services, paying $55 to $70 a month more

on their electricity rates. This comes after the fact that the Minister of

Social Services decided, in her wisdom, when this particular Budget was brought

down, that she, in turn, was going to take away $61 a month from all the people

out there who had a special need, whether it was for their health, or whether it

was to provide funding to pay for a commodity which is certainly essential; it

is not a luxury any more. She has already taken back $61 from many of those

people, and now those same people, the poor and the suffering, the lowest income

earners in this Province, are going to be faced with another $60 or $70 a month

increase, a cost that they cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, when you drive by the roadside in the

wintertime, and in the spring, and in the fall of the year, and you see people

with their trucks parked, and you see them in the woods bringing out firewood,

they are not doing that because they want to have some exercise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: They are doing that because they have no

other choice. They have no other choice but try to supplement their heat bills.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today, as I have now on a number of occasions,

to support the petition brought forward by my colleague, the hon. Member for

Bonavista South.

Mr. Speaker, today in his comments the hon. member mentioned

the impact this proposed increase would have on the very group of people that

need their members to speak up for them. Those people who have fallen through

the economic net. Mr. Speaker, many of these people are unemployed and have been

unemployed in some cases for many, many months and indeed in some cases many,

many years. These people find themselves in a very awkward position. These

people are being told that next year their cost of electricity may go up even

higher than it is now. Mr. Speaker, these people have little understanding nor

should they have understanding of the position put forward by Newfoundland

Power.

Mr. Speaker, these people know what it is to do without. Many

of them have been waiting many years to have the kind of homes that some of us

take for granted. Mr. Speaker, as the member has just said, these people very

often live in the older homes. They live in various parts of St. John's and

Mount Pearl and throughout this Province, in homes that are not properly

insulated, in homes that are very poor in terms of the quality of construction

and in terms of the kind of windows and doors that they would have. Mr. Speaker,

these people don't have the luxury of going out and just fixing these things.

They don't have the financial resources to do so and now in the last while we

know that their situation is becoming increasingly more acute. Now they have to

stretch their disposable dollars even further because of the actions of this

government in removing the $61 of emergency funding. So, Mr. Speaker, these are

the people who the member is talking about today. He is putting a plea out that

we consider the very poorest families in our society and that we have not failed

to hear their voices and hear them loud and clear because in reality, when we

help out the very poorest people, then we are ensuring that our society

functions in a meaningful and progressive manner.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague it won't matter

how many more petitions he presents he will find a voice on this side of the

House that is supportive because it is the ordinary Newfoundlander out there who

is concerned. We are not talking about those people who can afford. We are

talking about those people who worry every day about feeding their children,

about getting their children ready for school in September, about trying to put

food on the tables and now they face the prospect of an increase in their

electricity. So, Mr. Speaker, we implore the House to listen to the prayer of

the petition, to listen to the impact it will have on the people out in the

Province who cannot afford any further increases in their cost of living

expenses and to do all we can to ensure that their voices are heard when the

application comes before the review commission and the Public Utilities Board.

Thank you very much.

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

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

again of course to present another petition, as I have done every single day

since the House has opened. I will read the petition for the sake of some

members of the House.

To the hon. House of Assembly convened in Newfoundland and

Labrador the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador,

known as the Fightin' Nfld'ers, Mr. Speaker - not many in this House I would say

according to Question Period today - ask for the House of Assembly to accept the

following prayer;

We, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador,

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

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

Newfoundland families or close a food and recreational fishery to all other

Atlantic Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as you read today's headlines in this paper I

cannot see how one member in this House of Assembly cannot support a food

fishery as long as (1) that Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec and New

Brunswick -

MR. G. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Finally, we have somebody speak and say

something, the Member for Twillingate, what I have been saying for two years

now, finally somebody spoke a little bit of sense over there. That is exactly

what the petition says, I say to the Member for Twillingate. Mr. Speaker, just

to add a bit of fuel to that fire today, just think about it, in St. Pierre &

Miquelon, three miles off the boot, the Burin Peninsula, three miles I say to

the member from the Burin Peninsula, they can go out and jig a fish, and we

can't do it in Newfoundland.

Now, it was bad enough before when the discrimination was

over P.E.I. and Nova Scotia and so on. Who believes that the fish know what the

boundaries are, that when they get to the line they stop and swim back? Who

believes that, Mr. Speaker? Then, of course, they say it is different stocks. I

have information from DFO that tells me that fish that were tagged off the South

Coast of Newfoundland were found in the Bering Strait. Who tells those fish

where to go? Nobody does.

We are being blatantly discriminated against. And to make the

matter worse, to read this today is appalling and disgusting that anybody only

the Newfoundlander - and the minister says it is the job of Ottawa. He is right,

but how the heck are we going to fight Ottawa in this if our government, our own

Premier, our own Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, do not stand up as

Newfoundlanders? Fightin' Nflders, it says. Imagine, you can go in a boat three

miles off the Burin Peninsula, out in French waters, they say, off St. Pierre -

Miquelon, but we can't do it here. Maybe we should all learn how to speak french

and take our boats off from Burin and go to St. Pierre to fish.

What ridiculous nonsense is going on here! It is blatant

discrimination of our own Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. And the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture keeps diverting attention away from it by saying I am

talking about a commercial food fishery. I am not talking about a commercial

fishery - I am talking about a food fishery: catch ten fish, go eat them. I am

not talking about processing, we are not talking about any biomasses offshore,

why we are in this moratorium. I don't support any government, the previous

federal, Tory, Liberal, whatever they were, who put this fishery in a mess to

begin with. What I am supporting is the Newfoundlander, the eighty-year old man

who looks at me and says: I can't go down over that hill and catch a fish to eat

when there is plenty of them in the bay.

Mr. Speaker, I was told just a few minutes ago, that just

last week, off the Baie Verte Peninsula, in a lump net there was cod galore -

and a seventy-four pound cod caught in that lump net. There are fish coming from

somewhere. I was just told that today -a seventy-four pound cod.

MR. TULK: Good!

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, it is good, I say to the Minister of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods. So come to your senses and open up a food

fishery so that a man can go out and jig a fish, and don't be so darned

ridiculous! It just doesn't make sense. Like I told the Premier and the Minister

of Fisheries and Aquaculture, yes, it was an issue in some districts and it

wasn't an issue in some other districts. I don't really care. I don't even know

what the popular support for this is. Maybe only 10 per cent of the population

supports it. It isn't a popularity contest. I started this three years ago when

it happened first. I don't know, maybe 5 per cent support it.

The principle is, if Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick and Quebec, and now people from another country, France, in our own

waters can go out and jig a fish, then Newfoundlanders darned well should be

allowed to do the same thing. That is the point, and not to deflect it by

talking the foolishness the minister talks about with the commercial fishery. It

really upsets me, Mr. Speaker.

I got calls again today. People from all over - I am telling

the members on the other side of the House, because they know I am presenting

petitions every day - from all over the districts. Maybe it will become a big

issue or maybe it won't. The principle will remain the same. We don't want bus

loads or another demonstration. God knows, we have enough of them out there. We

don't want another demonstration out there. Just dig down into your hearts and

do the right thing as a Newfoundlander, as a fighting Newfoundlander.

You know, besides the point that it will put a meal of fish

on the tables of people who need it to eat - and if you don't believe that, go

out to rural Newfoundland and visit some homes. If they can get thirty or forty

fish to put in their deep freeze, that will help them through a miserable winter

that they are going to have. That is one point. The second point is, it will

boost morale in this Province, and God knows, we need some support and morale

boosting -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: - around this Province.

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

MR. SHELLEY: So, for two very strong reasons, every

member here should support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I have sat and listened to my colleague, the Member for Baie

Verte for the past two weeks presenting petitions on the viability of a food

fishery in this Province. I have also sat and listened to the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Government House Leader stand up and whack him

over the head with the notion of conservation - that somehow, a person on this

side of the House, because he supports a food fishery, he is not a

conservationist; that somehow, because he articulates on petitions that have

been given to him by people in his district, he is somehow not preaching

conservation, and that he is politicizing the role in this House.

Mr. Speaker, after what I have seen today and heard in the

local press and on t.v., I am compelled to stand up. By what notion does the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture believe that he has the monopoly on care

and concern for the people in this Province? The people in Baie Verte and

Kilbride are just as important as the constituents whom members opposite

represent. The notion here that people in Quebec on the North Shore, that people

in P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick are allowed, on the one hand, to go out

and use a food fishery for personal use, with the caveat that it is only for

personal use, and that people on the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and any

of us today in this House can go to Point May, steam three miles off the coast

and catch a cod and DFO officials are not allowed to prosecute us, that that is

somehow right, that that somehow makes sense - by the mere fact that the people

on the rest of the coast of this Province cannot, something is wrong, Mr.

Speaker.

I say to the people of this House and the people of the

Province, what is sauce for the goose should indeed be sauce for the gander.

Now, either there will be a food fishery in Atlantic Canada or there will not be

a food fishery in Atlantic Canada.

The Member for Twillingate said the people in PEI, Nova

Scotia and New Brunswick should not be allowed to have a food fishery, and that

I would agree with, there should not be a double standard. The reality is that

politics sometimes is a deadly game and this is an example of how deadly it can

be. Politically, the Federal Government cannot afford to send a message to the

rest of the European fishing nations and the fishing community of the world that

says that 24,000 Newfoundlanders are allowed to go out and catch fish for

personal use.

Now, that is the problem here - but it is politically okay,

politically correct, for the people in the rest of the Atlantic Provinces to do

so. There is something fundamentally wrong with that, and whether members in

this House support a food fishery or do not support a food fishery is not the

issue. The issue here is whether there is going to be an equal standard applied

to each and every Canadian in the Atlantic Provinces. That is the issue, and the

lack of commentary from this government on this issue, on the basis of

discrimination, frankly is appalling. There is an onus on government, being

government, elected to be government, to stand up and say to the Federal

Government on this issue, if there is going to be a food fishery, if there is

going to be a catch limit of ten fish per person per trip out, then it will be

applied equally to each and every person in Atlantic Canada, or otherwise, the

converse is true, Mr. Speaker, that if there is not going to be a food fishery

for people in this Province then there should not be a food fishery for people

in other provinces. That is the principle that is being compromised in this

case.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before moving order of the day, I

move that this House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House do

not adjourn at 5:00 p.m., carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, Order No. 3, the Concurrence

Motion, Social Services Committee and Resource Committee - the Resource

Committee first.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 3, the Concurrence Motion, Social

Services Committee.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte adjourned the debate.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I get up to make a few more comments in the Resource

Committee debate. I made quite a few remarks on Friday and I will continue with

more today. Some of my colleagues want to say a few things. I finished off on

tourism, and will pick up on the same point. I agreed with the minister in our

meetings that it is the untapped industry of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I

think with the Cabot 500 Celebrations onstream that indeed, Newfoundland will be

a site for the world, not just for Canada, but a worldwide site for tourism, and

there is so much that can be done, especially in rural Newfoundland.

Of course, our best resource, as I have always said, is our

people, so that we can get people to come to the Province and see what we really

have here. Also, to encourage - and I have said this to the minister, to

encourage people in rural Newfoundland to look at what we have around us and try

to take advantage of that, Mr. Speaker, with outfitters, tour boats, and the

whales and the icebergs, of course, that we talk about so often. In my district

things like Copper Creek Mountain which was just developed, a new park in La

Scie, and so on.

There are so many things, that we as Newfoundlanders should

encourage rural Newfoundlanders to look at tourism from a different side. We

have always looked at the fishery, the forestry, and so on, but everybody can't

go back to the fishery, and of course, things are tightening up in the forest

industry so we have to look at some alternatives and tourism is one of those.

Newfoundlanders with their hospitality and so on have much to offer the rest of

Canada and to the world, so we have a lot to do in that department. I want to

talk about forestry and mining when I return again, but right now I will sit

down and let my colleagues make some points. I will return to this debate a

little later on in the day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to stand today and talk on the

Resource Committee. I guess I will start off with the Department of Tourism,

Culture and Recreation, then I will move on to Industry, Trade and Technology.

The Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation: We had a

lengthy discussion, actually, during the Resource Committee sitting on the

Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; overall, I think it turned out

relatively well. I know that there is a number of areas within the tourism

department where they have had cuts, such as the Salmonier Nature Park, but I am

not quite sure why they are cutting that area. That was brought up in the House,

as well, during the Ministerial Statement on the Salmonier Nature Park, on the

opening of that park.

Tourism marketing in the Budget has taken a cut; it is down

almost $500,000 and that, you know, is a little discouraging considering tourism

is one of the up-and-coming industries in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is an industry that we are going to have to rely heavily on in the

coming years, especially with the struggling fishery and so on.

Tourism planning also took a heavy cut; it is down almost

half of the revised numbers from last year. You know, again, that is a little

discouraging considering, again, that tourism is going to be one of the most

important industries in our Province.

The Arts and Culture centres, as well, have taken a hit. The

Arts and Culture centres are down almost $300,000 and the Arts Procurement

Program, as well, is cut from $120,000 to $100,000 that is a drop of $20,000

over last year, again, a little discouraging considering we are doing everything

we can or we are supposed to be doing everything we can to stimulate interest in

the Arts community. It is good to see that we have taken a cut on Marble

Mountain, however, that has been an area where we have pumped in several dollars

in the past and it doesn't seem to be paying back, so I am glad to see that the

government is taking the initiative to have restraint in that department.

Overall, I guess the tourism department, while it is has

taken a number of cuts, we are starting to expand in a new area such as the

Parks and Trailway or the Linear Park, which is encouraging as well. This park

spans the entirety of the Island and I guess, gradually, over the next number of

years, we will develop the Linear Park so that it can be utilized and all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can seek the benefits of the Linear Park. I am

sure that, as well, will be quite interesting and would be a great tourist

attraction for anybody who likes backpacking and that type of thing.

In the Industry, Trade and Technology sector, that was

another area that, well, of course, you all know I am the critic for that area

as well. That is another area that I found quite interesting during the

discussions at our Resource Committee meeting.

The EDGE program, it appears, is producing some benefits to

the Province. It is helping with job creation and there are a number of

companies that have applied for EDGE status and have been granted EDGE status,

so that is quite encouraging. Voisey's Bay, as we all know, is going through

some turmoil right now with the Diamond Field Resources and the Inco takeover

regarding their pending lawsuit out of Texas, but Voisey's Bay promises to be a

great employment generator and a great source of income for the Province for

many, many years to come, as does, Hibernia, and hopefully, the prospects of

Terra Nova coming on also.

The Marystown Shipyard was a topic of hot discussion in the

House over the past couple of days, whether or not the government - I have not

heard the announcement today, but it is rumoured that there is an announcement

today on the $45 million loan guarantee. Hopefully that was granted to the

Marystown Shipyard to keep that up-and-running, to keep that alive.

The Newfoundland Dockyard was again an area of hot debate, an

area of interest in the House over the past couple of weeks. I guess we are

waiting now on the federal minister, David Anderson, to come back and let us

know whether or not the Newfoundland Dockyard is actually going to be granted

the right to stay open until they iron out the details of an employee takeover.

It is unfortunate they were not granted the contract on the Henry Larsen ,

or not permitted to bid on the Henry Larsen ; however, we will hope that

gets resolved in good faith, and that the federal minister and Rod Morrison will

both allow the Newfoundland Dockyard to continue to operate, as that again is a

very important area in our economy. It is a basis of anywhere from 400 to 800

jobs, and it is a potential for great economic spin-off to the City of St.

John's and to the Province as a whole.

Also in the area of industry, trade and technology, it is

quite encouraging to see that the government are working very closely with

Newfoundland Telephone and Memorial University to develop the information

highway and the fibre optics network across the Province. I feel that if we are

going to compete, especially into the new millennium, that we, as a Province and

as a people, have to invest heavily in technology and fibre optics, as the

information highway is going to be definitely a source of great employment into

the future, as we can see now with many calling centres opening up throughout

North America and in Atlantic Canada. Hopefully within the coming years we will

start to see our fair share of calling centres in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador as well.

We also touched on the Argentia base during the Resource

Committee discussions, and my colleague brought up the cleanup of the Argentia

base just last week in the House. We will hope that the proceedings with the

federal government and the American government turn out in favour of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will receive enough funding from the American

government to do an adequate cleanup of the Argentia base as well as other areas

that the American government occupied during the First and Second World Wars,

and I guess in subsequent years from that.

I guess another area that has been in the news lately as well

is the trans-shipment site. It appears there were discussions and media releases

just this morning that Labrador is out of the running for the trans-shipment

site, which is kind of unfortunate, I guess, for the people of Labrador, as they

are actively fighting for their fair share in our Province; however, I guess as

long as the trans-shipment site is placed within the Province that would be a

benefit.

Moving on to the Department of Mines and Energy as well, the

Department of Mines, during our Resource Committee discussions, was quite

interesting. I found it very informative. The Department of Mines is not an area

I am as familiar with as I would like to be, as it is not one of the areas that

I am a critic for; however, we did go over in great detail a number of areas in

the Department of Mines, such as Voisey's Bay and the Baie Verte site, as well

as the oil out on the West Coast and so on. It all seems to be very prosperous

looking for the future. We will hope that we can manage our resources a little

better in the future than we have been managing them in the past, and hopefully

the Department of Mines and Energy will pay great dividends to our Province in

the years ahead.

In the fisheries department, that's another area, I guess,

today with the food fishery and so on. It appears from fishermen out fishing

that they are starting to catch much larger cod than they have over the past few

years. Hopefully this is an indication that our cod fishery is starting to come

back. However, in the fisheries department there are several other species of

fish that the Province has been actively pursuing and looking at developing the

fishery for the other species of fish. While this is encouraging I think that we

most especially have to look forward to secondary production of the fish product

here in our Province as opposed to sending it off to Asia, the United States and

European countries for secondary processing. It is terrible when we go into the

supermarket and we buy a species of fish that we catch here off our own

coastline and it is actually produced in Ontario, down in the United States or,

as I have said, sometimes even in Europe. That is very discouraging to

Newfoundlanders when employment is an area that has been suffering now over the

past number of years and we can look for ways of producing greater employment

here. We should be looking at opening up industries to produce and have the

secondary production on our fisheries and that type of thing.

We are putting a lot more money into the forestry section. We

are putting a lot more money this year into the spraying of different insects

and so on, which is encouraging, and we will hope that that will pay off as well

in the future as our pulp and paper industries here are a source of great

employment also. One thing that I find kind of peculiar is in the forestry

section, we have the Salmonier Nature Park again which is - one would think that

that would be confined solely to the tourism division.

The wildlife conservation and habitant

section in our Budget

this year had an overall increase of $143,000. Most of that was in the salary

section and in purchasing and supplies. I guess that is encouraging if it

actually means that we are employing more people and not putting up the actual

amounts that we are putting out in salaries.

The wildlife research area in the Budget had an overall

increase of almost $500,000 and most of this was in transportation and

communication. I find that a little odd but I guess I wasn't overly satisfied

with the answer we got during the resource committee meeting on forestry

resources but I guess that is an area that is still open to question.

In the salmon enhancement area in forest resources, again an

area you would think would be solely confined to the fisheries but in the salmon

enhancement area we had an increase in the grant and subsidy. So I guess that

would mostly pertain to the forestry outfitting companies and the outfitting

companies perhaps in Labrador and so on which is a great area of employment as

well and tourist generation for people coming in from the United States and

other areas of the world to take advantage of our environment and our fisheries.

I guess overall the resource committee meetings, as they were

the first resource committee meetings that I have attended, being a new member,

I found to be very educational and while I asked many questions and got many

answers there are still some questions that are left unanswered but as I

mentioned it was very educational. Next year when I sit at these resource

committee meetings or whatever committee that I should be sitting on at the time

maybe I will be better prepared to put together some more questions in search of

the answers.

A lot of times the Resource Committee and other committee

meetings that we have, as I'm sure many of my colleagues have found out, are

sometimes more informative in the fact that you get straight answers to many of

the questions, and you get a sincere answer from the ministers and the

ministers' staffs.

Whereas in the House a lot of times they tell you that they

will take it under advisement. They will put it off and you get a run-around

answer. In that regard I found the Resource Committee meetings were very

helpful.

The Resource Committee I guess as a whole was satisfied with

the answers and what came out of the Resource Committee meetings. However, as

I've mentioned there are some areas that are still unanswered and areas that we

were told we would get back to. I'm sure that the ministers will do everything

that they can to get back to us with those answers, the answers to the questions

that we asked during the Committee meetings. We will hope that through the

course of this year, and I guess through the course of the Budget, that we can

stay on track and we won't have to dip into the $30 million that we have put

aside in reserve. We will see how well the present Administration has planned

ahead and how well it has put its numbers together. I guess time will tell on

that.

Other than that, I guess I will pass it on to my colleague

and he can ask some questions on the Resource Committee meeting once we have

done. I thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

add a few comments on the Budget debate as it relates to the resource sector

which took in I think it was five different headings. I must say, the meetings

were very well conducted and very well attended. I don't know if there was

anybody absent. I think most of them went to the limit. Some of them could have

went much farther, but the ministers - even the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture - what a different man in a meeting where he has his staff and where

you take him outside the House setting. A different man altogether, and I

congratulate him for that. Very partisan in here and likes to shout and holler,

but a real pussycat when you get him out and get him with his staff. That speaks

well for him I guess, because it shows the other side of him.

In fact, I went to a news conference he had a couple of weeks

ago when he announced the new king crab fishery. I never saw the minister any

more accommodating. Offered me a piece of crab and was there: Roger, can I help

you with this? Or: Do you have all the information, or do you need that? A

different man altogether. I guess the difference, and I suppose what it was, it

was leading up to the excursion that he was going to take last weekend when he

talked about getting out of here in a hurry and going out and getting aboard his

boat.

I will tell this little story before I go on with the debate.

How the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, he was the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation at that time, and he knew very well what the roads

were like, and that is why he would never drive over them. You would never see

the minister driving his vehicle over a road. He always took the helicopter or

he took his boat. Last year it was he went out in his boat and decided he was

going to go down and tour Bonavista Bay. Got down off King's Cove and he had

some trouble. Didn't have a clue where he was. He thought he was coming into

Torbay, until one of the fishermen from King's Cove went out and towed him in.

As you know Mr. Minister of Health, the fishermen out around the bay know how to

repair their boats and they know all about diesel and outboard motors. They went

out and towed the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation into the

harbour and they spent all day repairing his boat for him. He never offered them

any money, he never offered to do them anything in kind. I suppose he said thank

you, but that is all they got out of it. They got the boat in order again and

away he went, out the bay. Then, we had to go back and bring him down to look at

our roads a couple of months after that. We took him down to King's Cove to look

at the roads and passed by the same fishermen who had towed him in, and he

didn't even say hello to them. And they made a solemn vow, then, that the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation could get broke down, or need to

be towed in, they didn't care if he sculled ashore; I tell you, they won't tow

him in anymore, after the reception they gave him when he flew down there in

helicopter and wouldn't help them with their roads, wouldn't help them solve any

of their problems whatsoever. In fact, he got on in a very partisan way and

there for awhile, even started talking about the Sprung greenhouse.

One of the headings that comes under the Resource sector is

mines and energy. I brought this up to the minister there in conversation, and

in Question Period, and the thing that concerns me in my district, one of the

things that concerns me, is the prices of gasoline, especially in the lower part

of my district, down in Bonavista. The minister goes on to say that it is set by

the individual distributors; they are the people who control the prices at the

tank, as far as one being sixty-three cents and the other being sixty-two, or

whatever.

I notice there is a petition going around down in my district

now because down in that particular area, the cheapest price you can get

gasoline is in excess of seventy cents. I think it is seventy-three cents a

litre for gasoline, ten cents a litre more expensive than you pay here in the

city. There for a while, at one particular time, even from Clarenville down to

Bonavista, there was a difference of something like six or seven cents a litre.

I don't know who controls the prices but I have a suspicion that it is the oil

companies themselves and not the individual distributors.

I know there is a mark up there and I think it is an

understood thing what return is expected on a gallon of gasoline, or a litre,

but it seems that the oil companies decide what the price is going to be, and as

a result of that, many of the consumers out there today are paying very, very

unfair prices for gasoline. I don't think it costs an extra eight or ten cents a

litre to ship gasoline to Bonavista as compared to St. John's, for example.

I know the oil companies have changed the way they do things

as far as distributing gasoline is concerned. At one time, the local

distributors had holding stations and the tankers would come and fill up the

station, and that distributor then would take it in his own truck, carry it

around and distribute it to the individual gasoline dispensers, but that doesn't

happen anymore. It is now all done by tractor trailer. The tractor trailer goes

and fills the tanks up at the distributorship and I don't think, or at least I

am not convinced, that there should be that much of a spread in gasoline prices

from one area to another at such a short distance. It appears to me that the

consumers are getting a raw deal and now they are starting to speak up and ask

questions as to the reason why.

Mr. Speaker, another topic that, I suppose, continues to come

up in this House, and the minister again seems to want to have a hands-off

approach. He has justifiable reasons, I suppose, at least they are justified to

him, as to the reason why he shouldn't intercede, and that is the petitions you

see being brought forward as it relates to Newfoundland Power, a utility in this

Province that is operating a monopoly and looking for a 4.9 per cent rate

increase. Some of the reasons and some of the justifications they use in seeking

this particular increase are certainly not justified, especially when you

consider the economy that we are living in today, when you look at what people's

incomes are and what this particular utility made just last year, a profit of

something like $28 million.

Mr. Speaker, we all realize that a particular utility like

this expects to have a certain return on their money in order to generate

investments, in order to create economic activity within the company itself, but

I can assure you that their 13 per cent in excess return on their investment

should certainly be an ample return on their dollars.

When you look at the utility company in New Brunswick, the

largest Crown corporation in the Atlantic Provinces, coming out and saying that

they are going to make changes in the way that they do business; they want to be

the utility company of choice rather than the only utility company, rather than

having a monopoly in the area. And they are saying: We are not looking for a

rate increase, we will not be going out and laying off people; we are not

talking about privatization, what we are talking about is doing business in a

different way, running a leaner, meaner business and providing a service to the

people so that we will be the choice of the people.

Mr. Speaker, that is not what is being done here. When you

see some of the cutbacks that this particular utility company has brought about

especially in rural Newfoundland, this past number of years, when you see the

number of people whom they have laid off and when you see the number of people

whom they have moved from one particular area to another in order to maintain

costs, which is important, you should never forget that, Mr. Speaker, they

certainly should not be looking for a rate increase with that kind of profit and

with that kind of a return on their dollar today.

I know, in the area where I live there were always two Light

and Power employees stationed there and if you had a problem, if there happened

to be a fire or if there were some reason why a house had to be disconnected,

all you had to do was pick up the phone and within half-an-hour, they were

there. It was a service that they were providing and it was an excellent

service. Now, all of a sudden, in order to get the same service, you have to

call Clarenville, twenty-eight to thirty miles away, Mr. Speaker, and until they

get a fair amount of work, if it is something to do with street lights in the

town, until there is enough out to warrant them making a trip down, they don't

want to be bothered with it; you still the pay the price.

If you have 100 street lights and if you are paying a set fee

for them, you don't see ninety-eight on the bill this month and sixty-eight the

next month, it is still a 100 whether they are shining or whether they are gone

out, but they will decide when they come and when they repair them and how often

it is done. They would decide that and in the case of an emergency, then you

have to wait for that particular utility truck to travel from where they are

located, which, in this particular case, is Clarenville, all the way down on the

Bonavista Peninsula, and in the winter, that can be a trying experience

sometimes, at best.

We talk about Hibernia, the Hibernia project, where there are

so many of our Newfoundlanders working and doing very well, making good money,

and it makes me happy every time I drive by there to see the glow in the sky or

see the cars going back and forth there, because it is one of the very, very,

few bright spots in this Province today. I don't know what would have happened

to this Province if we didn't have Hibernia, when we see so many of our people

being able to work keeping our economy going and creating a little bit of

optimism, Mr. Speaker, especially in the area where I live. It is the only ray

of hope that is there, and the people there are making very good money and it

seems like the government of the day stands up and refers to the thousands of

people out there and so they should, but I think we could have seen a lot more

people working at Hibernia. I don't think it should ever have been allowed to

have people out there working seventy, eighty and ninety hours a week, Mr.

Speaker, making seventy, eighty and ninety hours a week, making double-time when

they should be working forty hours a week.

Mr. Speaker, if it is a private company and somebody is

willing to go to work for sixty hours or eighty hours and it is private dollars

being spent, then there is nothing wrong with that. It is none of anybody's

business. That is between the private owner and the individual working for him,

but when you are talking about taxpayers' money being spent and you are talking

about people working and making in excess of forty dollars an hour while other

people who are very capable, quite capable and quite willing to take part and do

exactly that same job for straight time, then I don't think that is being very

fair. So if we had 1,200, 3,000 or 4,000 people working there I think we could

have had more.

I have had calls from people working on the Hibernia project

who worked twenty-eight and thirty days without a break, twelve, fourteen,

sixteen hours a day, and went and asked for a day off but was told: If you take

a day off, don't come back tomorrow. I brought that up, Mr. Speaker - in fact, I

brought it up here in the House in the last sitting and put out a news release

on it. The next thing I knew, the fellow in charge of public relations at

Hibernia called me and told me I didn't know what I was talking about. He called

me from a cellular telephone. We had a conversation and I told him that I did

know what I was talking about. I told him the sources of where it came from. I

didn't name the individual but I told him the department he worked in, what they

were doing there. And that particular night, I had five phone calls from people

who had picked up the telephone conversation, and said: You are one hundred per

cent right in what you were saying, because here are other incidents. So to me,

Mr. Speaker, sure it is a wonderful thing to have thousands of people working

out there but we could have had more. Instead of people making forty dollars an

hour they could have been paid twenty dollars an hour, which they are all pretty

well getting in straight time work out there and they would have done very well.

Then this same individual called me back and said, `Boy, we

can't hire any more people because we don't have any accommodations. We don't

have any accommodations there for people to stay.' So my answer to him was, you

tell me how many people you want to hire there as labourers or any other trade

that I am familiar with, and I can assure you that I know of lots of people who

would be willing to take their lunch can and return home every night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: It doesn't matter what they are, I say to

the minister, every Newfoundlander should have a right to go to work and every

Newfoundlander has the wherewithal about him to go out and try to find a job to

put bread and butter on the table. It is human nature, it was bred into us, I

say to the minister, to want to work. It was bred into us, as Newfoundlanders

and that is why I think we all find it so difficult when we have to leave home

to find a job, that we can never settle down. Because there is always a place

here in this Province when after you do your days work, you can still, having

the initiative, go and do other things, whether it is to improve on what you

have or to increase what you have in your community. There is always something

for you to do if you don't mind supplying the elbow grease to do it.

So, Mr. Speaker, those are some of the things that we have to

look at when we speak of Voisey's Bay and we see the many opportunities that

will surely be there for many of us. It won't be an opportunity there for all of

us, that will never happen, but some of us will get a job there and will do very

well. But we should make sure that we identify what it is that is going to be

happening there and we should make sure that we have our own native

Newfoundlanders trained and prepared to take on whatever jobs are available

there. Because that hasn't happened at Hibernia either, Mr. Speaker. Many of our

people there - and I suppose you can't shout loud about it because as

Newfoundlanders we have always been very transient people. We have had no other

choice in order to find a job but to go to Toronto or to go down in the States

around the Eastern Seaboard or out to Western Canada. We have always had to do

that, Mr. Speaker, there has never been enough work here for all of us to be

able to stay at home and find a job. We have, most of us, gone away, and have

done very well. I suppose that is why we have to be a little bit careful

sometimes when we talk about not allowing other people to come into the Province

and take advantage of our jobs. That is why we have to be very, very careful,

but, Mr. Speaker, in most cases you will find that as Newfoundlanders went to

other places, and took

part in jobs, and as they were hired, when work became

scarce, because they were travellers, and because they were from other

jurisdictions, they were always one of the first to get laid off. They were the

first to get laid off because people knew they were from another Province, and

especially if they were involved with a union agreement. That is the way it was.

But out at Hibernia, and I am sure the minister can back me up in this, many

people have come here to go to work on the Hibernia site, many contractors, and

they align themselves up with a Newfoundland contractor to give it the local

content, especially as it relates to some of the commissioning work out there,

brought in their own people and allowed them to go to work while our own

Newfoundlanders were out knocking on the door trying to find a job.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: But there were no people supposed to come

there and do hands-on work. The only people who were supposed to have been

brought in were supervisory people, or people -

MR. EFFORD: No.

MR. FITZGERALD: From my understanding. You can correct me

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) where did the Newfoundlanders go?

MR. FITZGERALD: That is what I -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Ontario, or wherever there are

jobs. (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Minister, that is exactly what I am

saying, but there is also a site agreement, a union contract. The site agreement

out there - I know; I worked there; I worked there for two winters - that is why

it has been successful. That is why they have not had any problems out there

with the work content done by Newfoundlanders, I say to the minister, compared

to some of the frightening things that you had heard about work that was done in

other countries and brought back here. I don't know if it is true or not, but

you hear all kinds of stories, but the work that was done out there by

Newfoundlanders was second to none, I say to the minister, and we had

Newfoundlanders out there quite capable of doing the supervision work as well,

and if we did not then I think it is shameful on us by not making sure that we

had our own people trained and our own people being able to access the courses

and the information in order to prepare them for Hibernia, because we were not

prepared.

As we speak here today and we talk about the hundreds and

thousands of Newfoundlanders who are unemployed, we have people out there

working from other provinces who are brought in because we do not have our own

tradesmen qualified enough, or enough of them in this particular trade, in order

to go out and access the work there. I am talking about the insulation trade

right now, and the same thing with some of the other trades as well, some of the

welding trades that went ahead there.

If we are going to ever survive here in Newfoundland, and if

we are ever going to take advantage of the Voisey's Bays and the Hibernias and

the Terra Novas and the White Roses, then we have to prepare ourselves and we

have to identify what opportunities are there and make sure we train our people

for them. That is the only way that we are going to survive, and I think the

onus is on us, as a government sitting on the other side the onus is on each and

every one of you, to identify the needs for those particular industries and to

make sure that this kind of thing is not allowed to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I am not finished.

Fisheries and Aquaculture was another topic that came by for

discussion, and some of the questions that were brought up, and one of the

concerns of the people out there, is the processing sector. The minister

continues to say: I wish I was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Then I

would be able to answer your questions because I would be in a position to make

the decisions that would be effective. Well, the minister has every right, and

he is in the position to make the decisions as they relate to the processing

sector, but what is he doing? He is sitting on his butt and allowing that to go

by the wayside as well, saying: Leave it alone; I am not going to make the

decision. I am not going to tell you which plants are going to open, which

plants are going to close. We are not going to get involved in that.

MR. EFFORD: Are you suggesting that is (inaudible) worth

of fish?

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, what I am suggesting is that

the minister should show some leadership.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister should show some leadership, and if there is too

much activity in the processing sector then the minister should identify where

the excess is. The minister should identify where the excess is and go out and

have public meetings. This is the process that should be taking place now.

Involve the people. That is what should happen.

Mr. Speaker, it isn't allowed to happen. Here today we have

people who are laid off from our fish plants, they have been off now since 1992,

four years they have been off, and they know no more about their future or where

they are going than they did back on that July day they were told to go home

because there was no job for them. They don't know. I think they have a right to

know. I think the onus is on the minister to go out and involve the players.

Talk to the people out there.

MR. EFFORD: Brian Mulroney and John Crosbie (inaudible)!

MR. FITZGERALD: It doesn't matter who caused it,

Minister, the problem is there. The problem we have is trying to get it solved,

not worrying about who caused it. If you are going to go laying blame on

everybody's doorstep and saying you are lily-white yourself, then how are we

ever going to get out of where we are today?

The minister should show a little bit of leadership there and

deal with the things that he is capable of controlling himself. He should go

out, Mr. Speaker, and involve the people. Identify the need there, identify the

area where we expect the fishery to be vibrant again, identify the plants, and

say: Here is what we are going to do here and here is what we are going to do

somewhere else. Not to do what he is doing, hiding behind over there in his own

little kingdom and hoping that the problem will go away or the fish will come

back or the people will all go to British Columbia. Because that won't happen,

Minister. We have to go out and we have to involve the stakeholders and we have

to involve the people. When we start making decisions don't go and say: Because

there is a plant in one place and there isn't one somewhere else then you must

go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Unlimited time, I say to the minister,

because I'm making sense in what I'm saying. Minister, it isn't enough to go

down to Bonavista and drive around the plant and see a few scales off or see a

bit of wooden siding there and say: Boy, that is an old plant, I don't think

that one should stay open, sure that is all wooden siding. Then drive up another

ten or twelve miles and say: This is the one that stays open, and I don't know

why you are complaining because you have to drive eleven kilometres to go to

work. Minister, you are missing the point. That isn't the way it is at all. You

are missing the boat, Mr. Speaker. The minister is missing the boat.

What he has to do is to go out and find out how long that

plant had been there, find out what they have done, find out what they put back

in the industry. Why should the plant in Bonavista or Port Union have to close

when Mr. Joe Smith up the street just recently got issued licences to open up

another plant? If you are going to make decisions like that then take the last

in and make them the first out, I say to the minister. Look at the people who

are there, look at what they have contributed, look at what they have to offer,

look at the area where they fish and where the fishery will be when it does

return. That is the way those decisions should be made. Not go and make some

guess because somebody told you that the plant should close or the plant was old

or something else.

Don't get dictated to by the processors either, I say to the

minister. When you go out to make your decisions - and I'm sure you are going to

do that - I'm sure you are going to put a board in place and you are going to go

out and get all the information you can, because it will eventually be laid at

your doorstep. That is where it will be laid. You will have to make the

decision. I don't know if you will be around at the time to make it. I don't

know if you are going to get all tangled up in this web now that is happening

here. You can see it unfolding. There will be four or five in the front bench

moved back. They will be moved back, Minister. Whether you are caught up in that

web again I don't know. Right now you are clean, you've kept your nose clean

since the last time you got into a little bit of trouble. But the potential is

there for the minister to be moved back again. There is no doubt about that.

Minister, you haven't seen anything yet. Wait till you see

the phase-out of the TAGS program, and you sitting here and saying: We aren't

allowing you to go fishing because scientific evidence tells me that there isn't

enough fish out there to support your livelihood. That is when you will see it.

That is when you will see the true Newfoundlander speak up, when you go and try

to take away his livelihood and say that you can't go out and do what you

ordinarily did, and we aren't going to support you any more, we aren't going to

give you a pay cheque. Now you must go to the Department of Social Services.

I say to the minister, that is when he will have to make a

decision, because you are dealing with a very proud, hard-working group of

individuals that you know and I know are not going to stand for that. They are

going to want to go out and do what they normally did, and they are going to

want to be able to take

part in this particular fishery.

The minister gets up and talks about the food fishery, and he

ties it all in with the commercialization of the same thing, and I am the first

one to agree with him. If it came down to either having a - and the word I don't

like is a `recreational' fishery. That is the one that bothers me. People talk

about a recreational fishery. There is a big difference, a vast difference,

between a food fishery and a recreational fishery, but when you hear the stories

today of what is happening out there, and the amount of cod that is around our

shores, you have to believe part of it.

One of the biggest fishing enterprises from the minister's

district called me the other morning about this thing with the Newfoundland

fishermen landing up in Nova Scotia. One of the biggest fishing enterprises -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, no, fishermen, one of the biggest

fishing harvesters -

MR. EFFORD: Called you from my district?

MR. FITZGERALD: Called me from your district and

questioned some of my thoughts on it because he wasn't sure where I was coming

from, but he understood after - he understood quite clearly what I was saying -

and he went on to talk about the amount of codfish, and the amount of salmon

that is out there. I don't think he has a salmon licence, so it wasn't a

situation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Oh, I know him, and the minister knows

him, and he knows him very well. In fact, I would say he is probably a big

supporter of the minister's.

Mr. Speaker, he went on to talk about the codfish that he saw

that are on the Grand Banks, and what he has been finding when he is out there

taking

part in other fisheries. He said he has never seen the like since he has

been fishing.

When you hear tell of people, Minister, going out on the

wharf and taking their rod and reel, a little wharf that when the water falls

you can walk around it with a pair of goat rubbers on, being able to go out and

cast out a lure, I say to the Member for Twillingate, and have to pull it in

around and catch fish like that, that is a good indication -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: There you go. That is a good indication

that there is something happening; and, Minister, I don't believe that it is

only the bay stock. That is an argument -

AN HON. MEMBER: What are goat rubbers?

MR. FITZGERALD: You know what goat rubbers are; you wore

them many times, I am sure.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that is something we have not seen

before. You could always go down to the wharf and fish for conners, and you

could fish for tom cods and a few black-backs, flat-fish, when the caplin would

be in, but you would never get codfish off a wharf. You would never be able to

go out on a rock and cast out a lure and bring in fish like that - unheard of.

So I don't know what is happening out there. I don't know if it is a situation

where the stocks have replenished to such an extent that the fish have no other

choice but be swimming around shore in order to find something to eat, or if it

is a situation where we should believe the scientists in saying that the little

bit of fish you see around the wharf in Clarenville, or down in Bonavista, or in

Stock Cove, or in Twillingate, is the only bit of fish that is in the bay. I

don't believe that. When you hear this fisherman calling and saying that out on

the Grand Banks he is experiencing the same thing, then there is something

happening.

When we talk about the salmon fishery that they closed down,

I think there are 112 commercial salmon licences left in Newfoundland and

Labrador, but the only thing you hear tell of is the recreational fishery. That

is the only thing you hear tell of. Nobody speaks about the fishermen who went

out and caught salmon as part of their livelihood, as part of their income. What

we talk about is tourist dollars. We have to get such an outfitter so many

salmon licences, or we have to give him access to so many rivers so that he

might be able to bring in some tourists from the United States to spend their

money.

There is nothing wrong with that and we should encourage it.

It is good business and I am glad that they are doing very well but we should

never allow it to happen at the total expense of the commercial salmon

fishermen. We should never allow it to happen where those people who always took

part in this particular fishery in order to put bread and butter on their tables

- and some of them made some very good money, made some very good dollars in the

salmon fishery - we should never take it completely away from them and not allow

them to go back and take

part in that particular fishery again at the expense of

those people just to build up another trade.

Aquaculture, Mr. Speaker, another industry that is happening

right here in this Province. I suppose it is something that is happening because

we could not go out and take

part in the fishery so we had to look at doing

other things. One of the natural things to do, I suppose, is to take

part in

farming fish. If you cannot get it in the wild then you farm it. The minister

holds great hope for this particular industry and I do as well. I think it is

going to give us a whole new industry. I think it is going to provide many of

our people with a chance to be able to survive and live in their rural

Newfoundland communities but, Mr. Speaker, I question the sincerity of

governments again, as it relates to this particular industry because it is not

an industry that you can go and take

part in today and start realizing money

tomorrow. It is not like going and opening up a convenience store where you open

the doors, here is the product, come in and buy it and you are making money.

That is not the way it is.

For most people to take

part in the aquaculture industry, you

are talking about a fairly large investment of money and you are talking about

an investment that you will probably not see a return of any kind for probably

two, three or four years at least and here is this same government that is

saying that we believe in aquaculture, coming out there a short time ago and

saying that we are going to be taking some services away from you now. We are

not going to allow you to be able to access the water studies, the water testing

that would normally cost me, if I had a farm, $7,000 or $8,000 that was provided

by government now that is being taken away. So how sincere are we to go on one

hand and say what you are doing is good, what you are doing is going to give you

an opportunity, it is a new industry, we will help you and take every bit of

support away from them that we can, give them no help along the way and most of

the people you will find will throw up their hands in frustration and say that

this particular industry, that I thought was going to be there for me, is an

industry now that I cannot afford to take

part in. That is what is happening out

there today. I don't think that government has the commitment, I don't think

that they are putting the commitment into this particular opportunity that they

should. If they did they certainly would not be taking away this extra spending

in order to give the aquaculture industry a boost in the arm. Something is

needed.

One thing I would commend the minister for, and I know he did

not do it, it was not his baby, if you would, and that is the

professionalization of fishermen. He stood up here in the House and tried to

take full marks for it and said what a wonderful thing it was and it is a good

thing. That is what happens when you consult people. You don't get any negative

feedback from over here. You don't get it from the media. You consulted people

or somebody did. I don't know if it was the minister but somebody consulted

people and the result was a good piece of legislation, not the same tripe and

not the same foolishness that the same minister brought forward. He did not know

what he was talking about and did away with vehicle inspections, I say to the

minister, something that he will always live to regret because it is going to be

brought right back in the House again. I was talking to the minister the other

day and he is going to be re-introducing it in the House, and it will go through

with flying colours and the minister will hang his head in shame and know that

he was the one who was responsible and he was the one who kept the lights

burning in this institution here, night after night, when we were telling him

how bad and how negative it was but he wouldn't listen to the people.

This particular piece of legislation that his predecessor

brought in, this piece of legislation that the former Minister of Fisheries and

Agrifoods brought in is a good piece of legislation; it was done with

consultation with the union, the fishermen and I believe, I firmly believe

minister, that if you use and take advantage of this group of people whom you

are going to put in place here, that they could be the people who would be a

great source of information for you; they would be able to tell you what the

fishery is all about and they could enlighten you, and make you a different

person if you cared to listen, but I suppose you won't, you will go on in your

own ways with your head up and your nose down and pay no attention to anybody

other than to think you know it all yourself but, you will see the light one of

those days.

Mr. Speaker, the other foolishness I suppose, that is

happening within the Department of Fisheries today, is this process of having to

go to a fisheries office and buy a seal license. Now, who ever heard tell of

anything today, I suppose you could almost consider it a pest, as far as our

people getting back to work, who ever heard tell of having to go and buy a

license -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Adopt a seal program.

MR. FITZGERALD: Adopt the seal program yes. Buy a license

and only be allowed to go out and kill six seals, and the minister stands here

and he talks about the destruction they are causing and talks about the billions

of tons of fish they eat and how they grab the fish and eat the liver and they

give the fish the shake, and they knocked everybody who took

part in the program

in trying to save it, but minister, you are trying to save it yourself.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. FITZGERALD: You are trying to save it yourself. Why

do you need a license to go out and kill a seal? Smarten up b'ye. You should be

down on the beach handing out ammunition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. EFFORD: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion -

MR. EFFORD: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: I will rise again, I say to the minister.

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

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin my few remarks - one of the

issues that the hon. member raised about the processing licences and harvesting

in the Province, if you are going to stand in the House of Assembly and use the

time in the House of Assembly to represent the people in the Province as a

whole, what I would like to see is the hon. member at least being somewhat

productive and somewhat, in some manner, passing some information along that we

can at least use in making a decision.

Now, what the hon. member was talking about was the number of

fish plants that we have here in this Province. This is an example of the

processing in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Each and every one of

those buildings is owned by companies or a company. In other words, somebody has

invested a substantial amount of money in each one of those plants. Now, we know

where they all came from, as a result of Tory decisions made for the seventeen

years while they were in power in this Province, where most of these numbers of

plants came from, another Tory decision.

Now the hon. member is saying that I should go out and point

at the owner of one of these plants and say: You, close your fish plant.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I didn't say that.

MR. EFFORD: That's what you said, it is recorded in

Hansard. You, close your fish plant; you lock your doors. Somebody who has

invested a lifetime's earnings, probably a family fortune in some cases, into a

processing operation here in this Province. That government should place itself

in the position of saying: Mr. Smith, or Mr. Jones, you close your door.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to say to the hon. member opposite,

for seventeen years of Tory government that is the type of attitude that we had

over there. Never anything sensible, nothing productive. Counter-productive is

the word we use. Nothing ever for the best interest of the industry, and haven't

got any further with it today. An example of what is happening in the Province

and we are supposed to go out there and tell these people: Close your doors.

What I would rather do is wherever the opportunity rises is

to go into an area, a region of the Province where there is a possibility of

operating a fish plant in a multi-special operation, can sustain full-time

employment, to people living in a particular community or region of this

Province where there are species of groundfish or species of underutilized

species available, shellfish available, to make an operation sustainable to the

long season, long-term operation. That was never ever done in the past.

Processing licences were given out in the past with no

thought and no planning into the future operations of what we have around this

Province going into it, and never ever was there any firm consultation with the

operations, with the community, with any interested parties on what was

available. It was based on a particular need or a particular request, in most

cases favouritism. In a lot of the cases favouritism of what was happening in

the political circumstances of the day.

This government is not going to operate in that manner. This

government is going to operate in a manner which is going to be in the best

interests of all of the people involved in the industry for the long term. If

that requires a decision in working with 10 per cent, 15 per cent and 25 per

cent or all of these plants in making sure that decision if fulfilled, then

sobeit. But no way are we going to walk into any one of those regions or areas

or communities around the Province and say to any one of those people: Your

doors are closed.

Let's talk about the other issue that the hon. member raised,

crab licences. Here we have the number of crab operations in this Province, all

on the northeast coast. We have seventeen licences, from up in (inaudible) right

down around to St. Mary's. Then you go up the Burin Peninsula, you go right

around the South Coast, Southwest Coast and the West Coast, right up to St.

Anthony, and not one licence. Not a licence in all that area. That is the type

of operating in the crab processing that is going on here in the Province.

One of the major problems that arises out of that type of

decision making is we have crab being caught over on the West Coast, and over on

the Southwest Coast, and up in St. Anthony, and trucked for twelve, fourteen,

sixteen, eighteen hours to get to a processing plant on the Northeast Coast. As

a result last year, because of that happening, we had 40 per cent of crab going

into the market processed dead. This is one of the reasons why we have a major

problem in the pricing of crab today, because we are never concerned about

establishing a prime product in the market. Get in, make a quick dollar, and who

cares about what happens tomorrow.

We have to bring some controls into the area. We have to

regionalize processing, we have to make sure that the shellfish - the main

factor is processing it alive - not handled in the manner in which it has been

handled for the last number of years. Thirty thousand metric tons of crab last

year, 40 per cent of the crab processed dead, 12,000 tons of crab, processed

junk, went into the market. We wonder why crab went down from $2.50 a pound last

year to an offer now under negotiations of $0.75 to $0.90 a pound. We have to

take the responsibility. We ourselves are not careful and interested enough

about a product, a fish, a species of shellfish that we take out of the ocean,

that we handle it with maximum care to get the best benefits out of it.

The attitude is not to rush in and make a quick decision to

satisfy somebody's mood for a given time. Put the proper planning in place, plan

for the future, plan for the best interest of the industry. I remember back when

I was in the Opposition sitting over there where the hon. members are now

talking about the quotas of groundfish that the then federal Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans of the same stripes and colours as the side over there now

made a decision. Wouldn't take scientific advice, wouldn't listen to the

fishermen, all they wanted to do was double the quota. In other words if

scientific advice came down that we should catch 100,000 ton put it up to

190,000 ton. Who cares about the fishery of the future? All we need to do is

satisfy a few friends close by today.

The other thing the member was talking about was the

recreational fishery, the food fishery. I cannot imagine how he can stand in the

House day after day, after day, in his goat boots. Where he got that terminology

- in the fishery you put on goat boots to go fishing? Just imagine now, goat

boots to go out fishing. Now, that is a good mixture.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is a goat boot?

MR. EFFORD: I ask the hon. member to explain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: It is hard to believe. It only goes to show

how serious we really are about the real problems. For anybody to argue for a

recreational or a food fishery, whatever terminology you want to put on it,

before a commercial fishery does not make any sense to me. A commercial fishery

is absolutely necessary in this Province. The hon. member is right about one

thing, about the TAGS program, that people coming off TAGS are going to demand

the ability to go out and earn a living. If that's into the fishery then you

cannot argue with people, they must have the opportunity to earn a living. Will

they go out and support anybody in Newfoundland today fishing for food,

recreational purposes, enjoyment or pleasure ahead of an opportunity for them to

go out and commercially harvest fish I cannot imagine. I cannot place myself in

the position of supporting that unless we know there are sufficient stocks there

first.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: The hon. member makes a good point. He makes

a good point. I am not going to argue. I intended to touch on that and was

looking for the point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: No, that is what I was going to say.

Mr. Speaker, there are facts here in this

article that may or

may not be