April 27,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 31

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome three

groups to the public galleries. The first is a group of twenty-five participants

from the Improving Our Odds course in Upper Island Cove, accompanied by their

instructor's Mr. Wes Gosse and Mr. Todd Crane. The second is a group of nineteen

students from an Improving Our Odds course in Hodge's Cove, Bellevue district

accompanied by their instructor's Catherine Smith and Maxine Green. The last is

a group of sixteen people from the District of Trinity - Bay de Verde involved

in an Improving Our Odds course with their instructor's Carolyn Pike and David

Eddy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind hon. members present that

tomorrow, April 28, is being observed as a Day of Mourning to remember persons

killed or injured in the workplace or afflicted with industrial disease.

The government, through the Occupational Health and Safety

Branch of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, encourages safe and

healthy workplace practices in this Province. In acknowledging the Day of

Mourning, I ask that everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador commit themselves to

the goal of working together with government, employers and workers to improve

the health and safety of workers and encourage accident and illness prevention

in the Province's workplaces. I ask also, Mr. Speaker, that we remember the

families of victims of workplace accidents or diseases and those who have paid

the supreme price while trying to earn a living.

Mr. Speaker,

an Act Respecting a Day of Mourning for Persons

Killed or Injured in the Workplace was passed in the federal House of Commons

and April 28 has been set aside throughout Canada as a day of observance. Our

Province has observed this Day of Mourning for a number of years. Tomorrow, the

Annual Wreath Laying Ceremony observing this day of mourning will be held at the

Ocean Ranger Monument on Confederation Hill at 12:30 p.m. In addition,

government will fly the Day of Mourning Flag throughout the day. I invite all

hon. members to participate in this ceremony. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

We on this side of the House would like to be associated with

the comments provided to us today by the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations and acknowledge as well the tragedies that have happened in our

workplaces. We will be there tomorrow to commemorate the day with the government

in honour of people who have died in the workplace or have been injured but, Mr.

Speaker, I must say this, that for injured workers in this Province, all this

government has done since it came to power is offer them sympathy and very

little of that. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased that the minister has taken the time to

acknowledge the workers Day of Mourning for people killed or injured on the job.

It's a recognized fact, Mr. Speaker, that many, if not all, workplaces in the

Province are dangerous places to work and that there are unfortunately accidents

and injuries, and to emphasize the need for continued vigilance in this field is

proper and appropriate.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform this hon.

House on the matter of domestic wood supplies for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and in particular as it affects the Eastern Region of the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, most of us do not realize the huge demand that

fuel wood places on the forests of this Province. About 25 per cent of the

annual harvest is for this purpose, for the purpose of firewood cutting. In this

we not unlike many other parts of the world, although in some nations the demand

for wood as fuel far exceeds even the demand for industrial uses. It is

therefore extremely important that we manage our forests and our harvesting so

that our people will be able to obtain adequate supplies of fuel wood for as

long as the need exists.

Mr. Speaker, in the Central and Western parts of our

Province, and in parts of Labrador, there are more than adequate supplies of

fuel wood. My department directs fuel wood harvesting to hardwood stands of

birch and aspen, and to non-commercial softwood stands or fire-killed, or

insect-killed areas. Nevertheless, in some areas we still see good spruce and

fir pulpwood material, and even saw-logs, in woodpiles. It is very important

that our people realize that such waste cannot continue, and I call upon all

members of this hon. House to assist in spreading the message of better forest

management and greater environmental awareness.

Mr. Speaker, I would specifically like to inform the hon.

members of the House of Assembly of an initiative taken by my department to

reduce over cutting of wood in Eastern Newfoundland. These revised measures have

been put in place following a review of the timber supply situation in this

region by departmental officials and after consultation with the general public.

Mr. Speaker, the volume of wood to be issued on a domestic

cutting permit will be on a need basis up to a maximum of six cords on the

Avalon Peninsula (District 1), and eight cords on the Bonavista and Burin

Peninsula (Districts 2 & 3). As well domestic cutting permits will be issued for

a four month period instead of year round. No cutting of wood will be permitted

from May 15 to August 31 which is our forest fire season. With regards to other

areas of the Province no changes are being made to existing policies at this

time.

These measures, Mr. Speaker, have been taken towards reducing

the over cut, improved management of the forest ecosystem on the basis of

sustainable development, improved utilization, increased effectiveness in

monitoring our forest operations and reducing the risk of fires.

Mr. Speaker, enforcement alone is not a solution to the over

cutting problem. We seek and must have the co-operation of the public to ensure

there is a wood supply for future generations of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

The timber supply situation in the Eastern Region is acute,

and the Eastern region refers of course to the Avalon Peninsula and the

Bonavista Peninsula, and will most likely require further adjustments over the

next few years. My department will closely monitor the situation and I will

advise the public and the Members of the House of Assembly of any additional

changes that may be required.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I would like to thank the minister for giving me

a copy of the statement just prior to the House opening.

Now, I will mention to the minister that all of a sudden he

had to change his regulations after listening to the people, after consulting

with people, and I have to first of all commend our Member for Bonavista South

and the people of Bonavista South for the petitions and raising it here so that

finally somebody came to his senses and used common sense to rectify a mistake;

and that's what we did, rectify the mistake.

The people on the Bonavista Peninsula, hopefully, the eight

cords will be sufficient but I still have to ask the minister, and maybe he will

respond to it later about the timing of the four months. I still don't

understand that part of the statement and I am wondering if he will expound on

that when he gets the opportunity in the House, but I would like to thank the

minister for taking the time to listen to the people and maybe use the

consultation method with some of the other issues, like Hydro on the other side

of the House, maybe we can reconsider those too.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. Member for St. John's East have leave to

address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a serious situation looms on the

horizon I guess in this Province. In the next two weeks or so all of the

Province's public sector unions will have strike mandates and will be in a legal

position to strike and there could very well be for the first time in our

history I guess a general strike.

I would like to ask the Premier if his government is prepared

to allow that situation to happen, and I would like to ask him once and for all,

answer those people who are saying, and there are many out there who are saying

it, that in fact you, the government, want a strike to occur, obviously to save

money. What do you say to those people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I say to the hon. member that he is doing

the same kind of fearmongering that he did yesterday with Abitibi-Price. I spoke

to Mr. Kerr, and he told me that it was the hon. member who called him and

suggested that this was a problem that he should be concerned about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: That is what Mr. Kerr told me. I don't

know whether it's true or not. I can only report to the House what Mr. Kerr told

me. So it's the same kind of fabrication of problem again.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it's not, now (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, the President of the

Council is carrying on negotiations with those public sector unions that are

prepared to negotiate. I understand there have been significant negotiations and

discussions with NAPE and CUPE. I am not sure of the situation with the nurses.

I know they are in the process of taking a strike vote.

With the teachers, I am advised by the President of the

Council, there had been no negotiation because the teachers don't want to

negotiate - or at least it seems they don't want to negotiate. They just appear

to be posturing on the issue, and I could only conclude, on the basis of the

information that the President of the Council gives me - I have no personal role

in this, but the President of the Council keeps me advised of the matter - I can

only conclude on the basis of the advice that I get from the President of the

Council that the teachers just seem to want to have the strike they didn't have

last year. They have had no negotiations, no discussions whatsoever. There has

been a conciliation board recommendation that the parties start negotiation, and

I believe that was unanimous?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

PREMIER WELLS: It was a unanimous recommendation,

including by the teacher representative, but they still don't want to negotiate.

Now, the government can't force the NLTA to negotiate, they

have to be prepared to carry on collective bargaining in good faith. They may

not like the offer that came from the government, but at least sit down at the

table and tell the government how they think it ought to be adjusted. That, I

think, would be a proper course and that, I understand from the President of the

Council, they have not done.

Mr. Speaker, the government does not want to see any of its

employees on strike. It does not want to see on strike any of its indirect

employees, including the nurses and the teachers, who are employed by the school

boards and the hospitals. We would like to resolve the matter, but as far as the

teachers are concerned, it is just impossible because they absolutely refuse to

negotiate at all, I am told by the President of the Council.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: I know the Premier has been trying his best,

over the last few days, to isolate the teachers. Everybody in the Province can

see what he is up to, but I am asking him about the general public service - the

total public service.

Now, in his government's Budget, he stated that they want $50

million in compensation savings from all public service unions - not just the

teachers, from all. You go on to say, they are currently the subject of

negotiations.

I want to find out how genuine the negotiations are by asking

the Premier this question specifically: Is the $50 million amount negotiable, or

do you intend to take it away one way or the other, by a strike or by

legislation, if you can't get it at the bargaining table?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

correct the hon. member. The $50 million that we have talked about that has to

be saved in terms of government total compensation package is not the amount

that comes from the unions, as he put it. That involves members of the House of

Assembly, it involves all executive and management in government, it involves

the doctors and the agreements that we have with doctors, it involves Memorial

University and so on. That amount is not correct in terms of the union

agreements. I would like to correct that misstatement first of all.

Secondly, we are currently having discussions with the

NAPE-CUPE coalition. As late as this morning at about 11:00 they presented us

with a counter-offer to the offer that we put on the table about a

week-and-a-half ago, and we will respond to that counter-offer. So, negotiations

are occurring. In terms of NAPE-CUPE, our offer a week-and-a-half ago was

significantly different from our opening position, so certainly there is a great

deal of flexibility in government's position and that has been demonstrated.

In terms of the teachers' union, they have consistently

refused to even start collective bargaining. I have informed them in writing as

well as in person that government is very flexible in terms of its opening

position. As a matter of fact, within the last couple of days I informed them

that we are flexible on all matters in the opening package. So, Mr. Speaker,

government has flexibility, if only we can start the negotiating process.

Mr. Speaker, government is serious about collective

bargaining and we believe that as we go through this collective bargaining

process, we can reach - we certainly hope we can - reach arrangements that are

satisfactory to both sides.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I almost dozed off listening to

the minister's answer there. I apologize. May I ask the minister a supplementary

question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Too busy (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Because, Mr. Speaker, if I was wrong, I

deeply, deeply apologize and have no hesitation, for using incorrect

information. I got my information from the perception from what I thought was

said here in the House - and so does all the media. They are using the figure

$50 million. Now, can I ask the minister then, what is the amount of money, if

it is not $50 million from the public sector unions, in compensation savings

that the minister wants?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is

again trying to confuse the matter for people listening. I did not say that

there was anything wrong with the $50 million figure. I said, as the press

correctly reports, generally, that the $50 million is from the total

compensation package which includes far more than the unions. When the hon.

member got up he said the $50 million we want from the union contracts. I

pointed out to him that is totally incorrect and he should not try to confuse

matters.

Mr. Speaker, from the compensation package of the unions that

we are negotiating with, the amount probably comes somewhere around $42 million

to $44 million.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry to add to the confusion

but I believe the minister himself has now created confusion. Because after what

he just said - I mean, does he not realize in his own document that he presented

on Budget Day to everybody in the Province - media included - the Budget

Highlights 1994 document, page 2, he says: "The main elements of the 1994-95

Budget strategy are" - first item - "A $50 million reduction in compensation is

under negotiation with public sector unions." Why wouldn't the people of the

Province think the amount is $50 million? It is not because of questions I've

asked. It is because of the false information that he is putting out himself.

I want to ask him the question, I didn't hear - did he answer

the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he never answered the question.

MR. SIMMS: I want to ask the question. I think he said

$40 million to what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Around $42 million I believe is what he said.

MR. BAKER: Forty-two million dollars to forty-four

million dollars.

MR. SIMMS: Okay. So then the original question that I

asked him basically still stands. What I wanted to know is, do you intend to be

flexible? If you intend to be flexible, why are you demanding major concessions

on non-monetary issues? Why would you demand major concessions on non-monetary

issues if you are obviously not prepared to trade off on the monetary issues? It

doesn't make any sense, unless it is an attempt to break the union or force them

onto the streets. So if you are genuinely interested in good faith bargaining

why wouldn't you withdraw those non-monetary item demands?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is

hopelessly out of date. Probably he hasn't been concentrating on this issue. He

certainly has no concept of what is going on. We presented opening packages to

our unions. In cases where there have been some negotiation and contact there

has been some movement. As far as I know at this point in time there are none of

these non-monetary issues he is talking about that are still remaining on the

table. It simply at this point in time does not exist with the unions that we

are negotiating with. It is as simple as that. The hon. gentleman is way out of

date. He obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. There are no such

things on the bargaining table.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Finance. On March 3, March 4, March 7, March 24 and March 25 the President of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association wrote the minister asking for

a meeting to deal with the matter of severance for teachers. The minister

refused to hold such a meeting and so therefore negotiations - or what might

more appropriately be called confrontational and hostile face-to-face

take-it-or-leave-it sessions - have been ongoing with the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers Association since mid-January or earlier than that.

Government, under disguise of budgetary constraints, have

tried to strip the teachers' collective agreement, including many items that

have purely non-monetary implications. Mr. Speaker, will the minister today

agree to withdraw the non-monetary proposals so that meaningful negotiations

with the monetary issues can begin in earnest.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount is totally incorrect in the dates he gives. There was one letter, I

believe on March 4, from the NLTA to me, concerning the fuss about severance

pay, which was totally blown all out of proportion. I suggested, in a previous

letter, a way that this could be solved, and there was one line in it which said

something like: If you want to give up on your position, then give me a call.

Mr. Speaker, there was no request for a meeting. There never

has been a request for a meeting. The only request for a meeting with the NLTA

occurred in the last three or four days. It came from me. The meeting was held,

and they are still holding to their position that they will not, in spite of the

conciliation board report, will not negotiate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

I have all five letters here, which I am quite prepared to

share with the hon. member. I will just quote from the one on March 25. It

reads: I repeat my request that we meet in search for a solution.

That is signed by the President of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers Association, Peter Sutherland.

Mr. Speaker, on February 25 the President of the Newfoundland

and Labrador Teachers Association wrote the hon. the Premier on the matter of

the teachers' pension fund deficiency problem. They requested, at that time,

having laid out the history of the problem, that the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers Association meet with the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet

so that they could share with the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet

some information, or have some dialogue direct. The Premier wrote back on

February 25, in which he said he would not meet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HODDER: I ask the Minister of Finance if he could

address those issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before I recognize the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon.

member indicated he would table the correspondence. The minister indicated he

wished he would do so, and I think perhaps the correspondence should probably be

tabled at this point - if you would table the letters.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will do better than that, Mr. Speaker. I will get the total

correspondence from the NLTA over the last couple of months, and I will table it

in this House and then we will see who is right.

Mr. Speaker, to the point in question, the member again is

totally wrong. Last year - a year ago, or almost a year ago - when we reached

agreement, when an agreement was signed on this current year, a committee was

put in place - a committee to examine the unfunded liability of the pension

plan, and to come up with suggestions as to how this unfunded liability could be

solved. It had nothing to do with this collective bargaining process, I will say

for the member.

This committee has been meeting and doing good work for a

number of months. We got to the point where the government representatives on

the committee tabled a proposal at that committee as a way of solving the

unfunded liability of the pension plan.

I will repeat again, this is a committee that is working

outside the collective bargaining process. It has nothing to do with the

collective bargaining process.

Mr. Speaker, the NLTA had promised to respond to our proposal

to solve a very serious problem, to solve the unfunded liability of the pension

plan, but instead of discussing it with the committee they wrote this letter.

The Premier quite properly responded: Look, in the committee discussions,

government has put forward a proposal and you should discuss the response in the

committee before you come to a conclusion that the whole committee can bring to

the Planning and Priorities Committee, because simply it was done that way

because that was part of the agreement. That was in keeping with the agreement

that we had with the NLTA. This has nothing to do with a request for a meeting

about this round of collective bargaining. The hon. member knows that, and he

shouldn't try to portray it as something it is not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the

Minister of Education.

Given the high probability of a Province-wide disruption in

the school system by mid-May, has the minister and his officials begun to

develop strategies to minimize the impacts of the impending labour dispute on

the student learning's of all grade levels and, in particular, on the evaluation

procedures for those eligible to leave the school system at the end of the

current school year?

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

Could the minister tell the House the total number of

applications that his department has received from municipalities in the

Province and the total dollar value of the applications received from

municipalities, and also from the private sector?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

As of Monday, and they are still coming in, we have received

in excess of 600 applications and the total amount of those 600 applications is

approximately $600 million. From the private sector, I am not quite sure; I

can't really answer that, I would have to look up the information for the

member. In those figures that I just gave him, the private sector would be

included in that as well, but right off the top of my head I can't tell him

exactly how much the private sector are asking for.

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

Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform the

House when he will announce the successful applicants, the people who will be

getting some of this infrastructure money and, could he tell the House, what and

who will be given priority? What types of applications will be given priority?

For example, would municipalities that have applications in pertaining to

environmental concerns in their particular areas be given priority over someone

else?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I can take this

opportunity to inform the members that there is a third party involved here with

the municipalities around the Province and with the Province there is a federal

jurisdiction. The federal people are putting one-third into this program, as

well as we are - the other two; and we have to rank our proposals from a

provincial point of view and then pass those proposals on to the Federal

Government. What we have done is created a committee of federal and provincial

people who will make recommendations to both the Provincial Government and the

Federal Government.

We have, Mr. Speaker, as of Friday past, because of pressure

and, I suppose, common sense, based on the fact that we have such a short

construction season in Newfoundland, we felt that we must move almost

immediately so that in the next few days we would be able to announce a number

of projects. We have recommended to our federal counterparts, last Friday, a

total of some $22 million-worth of work under the infrastructure program. I am

hoping that the Federal Government will be in a position, or the federal members

will be in a position, maybe by the middle of next week, to make some

announcements together with, of course, myself and other related ministers, so

there will be some announcements going out.

I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that after that, within a matter of

two weeks, the remaining applications for infrastructure will be processed

through the same type of system, and the Federal and Provincial Governments can

make the announcement. I will say, quite honestly to the member, he is

absolutely right; we had to move. There were some $20 million - $22

million-worth of projects going out. I will say this to the member, that all of

those projects that will be announced in the next week or so, were based

primarily on environmental and health concerns and I can assure him that each

and every one of them, under our ranking system for capital works, ranked really

high.

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

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there

was such a demand from municipalities in the Province for funding under this

program, and in view of the fact that there were no monies allocated for a

capital program this year under Municipal Affairs, would the minister consider

asking his colleagues in Cabinet to increase the funding in this particular

program?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is not fair to say that the

Province is not having a capital works program this year. As I announced some

weeks ago, we, the Provincial Government, will be responsible, and it looks

right now as if it could go as high as 50 per cent of the total $150 million

because of the system we are using. A large number of municipalities, for

example, will avail of the infrastructure money and it won't cost them one

copper because they have reached the $330-per-household limit that we use to

evaluate for capital works.

It is also not fair to say that there won't be a small

capital works budget - I am not sure at this particular point in time. There are

a number of projects in the Province that will not qualify under the

infrastructure program, and I will have to look at those projects and possibly

go back to Cabinet in the future - I don't know how soon - and ask Cabinet to

consider doing some of those projects that wouldn't fall under the

infrastructure program. If that happens, we can assume, then, that we do have, I

suppose, some sort of - I don't know at what level - capital works program for

the year.

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

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

On Friday past, I asked the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, could he confirm, or was he aware, that eighty to 100 welders from

outside this Province were being hired at the Newfoundland Dockyard? In his

response, he said to me, `The effort we are undertaking' - his department, he

was referring to, `is to try to find a way whereby those welders who do not have

this particular designation can be tested to see if, in fact, they can reach

those qualifications and be certified as being CWB-tested and have the

particular ticket, and then be eligible to be hired at the dockyard. That

information is being gathered at this point in time and I hope to have a more

complete answer later in the day.' My question for the minister is, does he have

that information, and if so, can he inform the House today as to what that

information is?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the potential employer involved, being the

Newfoundland Dockyard, as a result of follow-up, not only from ourselves in the

department, as an interested party, but also from the individual workers

themselves, representatives of the union and others, have indicated that they

will do everything possible, as other employers always do on a regular basis

within Province, particularly with respect to welding, to try to find a

mechanism whereby Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have the basic journeyman

welder qualification and who can do these jobs, except for the need to be tested

for this CWB designation, that they will find a mechanism to try to do that as

expeditiously as possible.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me provide some more

information, then, for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Ten days ago, ten welders in this Province wrote the CWB

designation test, and the results of their tests were then sent to Halifax to be

graded. The individual who is grading the tests has gone on holiday for two to

three weeks, and, as a result, ten welders in this Province will have to wait

two to three weeks to find out if they have the CWB designation. What is even

more infuriating, Mr. Speaker, is that we, as a Province, have the technology

and the ability to grade those tests here. Let me ask the minister: Why are

tests for CWB designation being sent outside this Province when we have the

ability, the technology, and the professionalism in this Province to grade those

tests here?

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

labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

The issue is clear. The normal procedure for CWB testing is

done by the Canadian Welding Bureau, which is an industry group. It is not a

government group. It is the industry, itself, setting the standards for itself,

in their own industry, which is the way it should be.

These welders have already met all the qualifications

required by the training programs, by the apprenticeship board in the Province,

and so on. They are looking at a special designation, determined by the

industry, for people working in the industry. The normal testing, unless it is

done at the work site, where it can sometimes be tested and evaluated, on the

site, within a day - the normal practice adopted by the potential employer, in

this case being the dockyard, and having nothing to do with the Provincial

Government and so on, was to have them tested and have it evaluated in the

normal way, which is to send it to the CWB in Halifax.

The representatives of the unions and the representatives of

the workers, since again the normal period of time for that is about two weeks

under any normal set of circumstances, and since there may now be a further

delay, are asking if some of the testing can be done, and evaluated and graded

on site, so that the people can find out, that day, whether or not they have the

designation. That is still being worked on as we stand here now, but again, it's

the Canadian Welding Bureau, which is an industry group setting industry

standards with a member in the industry, an employer in the industry. They,

themselves are working through the program as they should, and they are trying

to make sure that the Newfoundland and Labrador qualified welders are certified

so that they can take these jobs as soon as possible.

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

for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the minister may wish to leave

the impression with the House of Assembly, and thus, the people of this

Province, that the CWB designation is the responsibility of some Canadian

Welding Bureau board. That is not the case. Let me inform the minister what his

responsibility is. He said in this House on Friday that it was his concern and

his government's concern that every opportunity would be maximized to provide

opportunities - in this case, welders without the CWB designation in

Newfoundland - that they would have the opportunity -

MR. SPEAKER: Question?

MR. E. BYRNE: - I have a question; I'm just leading up to

it - that they would have the opportunity to get employment at the dockyard. My

question for the minister, then, is this: Will he commit today to look into this

situation to ensure, when a CWB designation test is given in this Province, that

it is corrected in this Province, and that people will know immediately if they

have the designation and therefore have the opportunity to go to work in their

Province and not watch somebody from outside the Province come in and take that

job from them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I appreciate the question, because the hon. member

opposite does know, as well, that depending on the circumstance and depending on

the employer, as I answered in response to the last question - there are

employers in Newfoundland and Labrador who, when they have determined that their

need is to have someone on the site the very next day, with the appropriate

designation, working, they arrange with the Canadian Welding Bureau to have the

testing done on site, graded and evaluated on site, and for the individual

person, a welder in this case, have it determined immediately as to whether or

not he has the designation to go to work the next day.

The employer in this case, being the Newfoundland Dockyard,

did not feel that sense of urgency. They were aware, and they were working with

everybody involved to make sure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, qualified

welders, who came forward but did not have this designation, were given an

opportunity to write for the designation. They did not feel any urgency, and the

hon. member opposite should know as well that it's not a matter of giving an

undertaking today. We've been dealing with this issue on a daily basis since it

was raised, before it ever came to this Legislature over ten days ago.

The members opposite would know that a constituent of the

hon. the Member for Placentia had brought it to my personal attention several

days before that and we have been working with it daily since then. The

dockyard, as the employer, is doing everything possible to make sure that the

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who are journeymen welders, are given the

opportunity to get the CWB designation as soon as they can, with them paying for

it, so that they can go to work at the dockyard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has elapsed.

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

Speaker's Gallery the Ambassador of Austria to Canada, His Excellency, Mr.

Walther Lichem, who is accompanied by the Honourary Consul of Austria, based in

Halifax, Mr. Michael Novac.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to questions for which notice has

been given.

MS. VERGE: Where are those Western Memorial Hospital

reports?

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a

petition on behalf of a group of people from the Central Newfoundland area,

namely, from the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I would like to present a petition, Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of a group of people from the Norris Arm area, the Norris Arm

South area mostly, who are concerned about the government's decision to

privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I don't know - I'm sure the member

representing that area certainly wants to speak on this when the opportunity

presents itself.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is that?

MR. TOBIN: Well, Norris Arm, Mr. Speaker, Bishop's Falls,

Gander -there is one from Gander - the Central Newfoundland area.

MR. MURPHY: How many?

MR. TOBIN: On this sheet here, Mr. Speaker, I have

twenty-one. I say to the Member for St. John's South that the twenty-one men and

women who signed this petition against the privatization of Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro are just as important as any other twenty-one people in this

Province. He shouldn't smirk at the numbers. Because the people from Norris Arm

South have as much right to have their objections raised in this House as the

people from any other part of the Province, I say to the Member for St. John's

South.

What is happening here is that people are continuing -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Member for St. John's South shouldn't get

too arrogant about not worrying. He is in here with less than 50 per cent of the

support of his constituents.

The people of this Province are continuing to speak loud and

clear through petitions, through letters to the editors, through the Open

Line programs and through whatever vehicle is available, to let this

government know that they oppose the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. Some of them we know - now there is available a 1-800 number. I don't

know if there is anyone phoning in to the 1-800 number above and beyond those

who were sent letters by the Liberal Party - not by the government, I say, the

Premier corrected me on that already. They were written by the Liberal Party and

asked to express their concerns and their views. I don't know how many letters

were sent out asking people to phone in to the 1-800 number. I don't really

know.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can check with headquarters

(inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that? Check with headquarters?

MR. HARRIS: Are you allowed to phone in more than once?

MR. TOBIN: Well, that is a good point the Member for St.

John's East raised. Are you allowed to call in more than once? Or do you

continue to call? Do you put people on a line all day in an office and ask them

to phone the 1-800 number? The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that the people of

this Province somewhere on the other side of 70 per cent have and continue to

support Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as it exists and do not want to see it

privatized. That's where we are coming from, Mr. Speaker.

There are letters circulating in this House every day.

Another letter here to the Member for St. John's North requests him to have a

meeting to discuss the issue of privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro. As a result, in that district alone, 97 per cent of the voters approached

signed the request for public meetings.

AN HON. MEMBER: A reasonable request.

MR. TOBIN: A reasonable request - sure, it is, and I'm

delighted that the people have done it, because the member refused to do it on

his own. He stood up down in the Holiday Inn when the Member for Pleasantville

had his meeting and he was asked: `When are you going to have your public

meeting?' He didn't see a need for one, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, yes, it is.

MR. TOBIN: It is true. You didn't see a need for one.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is a reasonable request. Well, the

people should not have to beg the Member for St. John's North for a reasonable

request. He should have said to them that night: Sure, I will have a meeting.

What is happening is that the people on that side of the

House are not taking a concern -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, like you addressed the wood-cutting issue

when it was raised by the Member for Bonavista South.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's North, like all other

members over there, has been following the leader, and you have been following

the leader very blindly, I say to members opposite, because the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador do not want to see their electricity bills going up.

They cannot afford to have their electricity bills skyrocket, which will happen

with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - and don't think it

won't.

When the Premier admits that electricity rates will increase

in this Province, then you can be assured that the increase will be significant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I support the

petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was tempted to rise on a point of order to try to set the

record straight as to some of the information that the hon. the Member for Burin

- Placentia West was giving in his presentation with respect to the petition,

the statement being that the hon. the Member for St. John's North refused to

hold a public meeting in his district for the residents to be heard with respect

to the Hydro issue.

I want to tell the House, and clarify it, in the unlikely

event that the hon. member really believes what he says, that that is not

factual; that is not the case. As a matter of fact, I have long indicated that I

have no problem with holding public meetings.

MS. VERGE: When is it going to be?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I have no problem with even attending

public meetings in districts where there may be some manifested opposition to

the Hydro thing. So, to the extent that the member indicated I refused to hold a

public meeting, I say that is inaccurate.

To the statement that the members on this side of the House

are following the leader, I would confirm absolutely, that is what we are doing.

If the member on the other side has any illusions as to think that we should not

follow the leader, I would ask him: Who does he think we should follow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Your constituents.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: With respect to the issue of Hydro, a

lot of leaders have manifested themselves outside of the House, and have

purported to be representing the majority view of the people of the Province.

Well, I want the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West to understand that I

have no intention of following leaders, or the advice or the direction or the

wishes of leaders, who sprout up out of the ground, who come home from Toronto

for a short period of time when it is advantageous in a public way to manifest

themselves.

There is no reason to think that I should follow people who

come in from the university and take unto themselves, when they couldn't get

elected to represent people in the House, as being their representative outside

of the House.

So, with respect to the fact that we follow our leader, of

course, we follow our leader, and I intend to do that not only on the Hydro

issue but on any issue where I believe it is appropriate to do so.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) a meeting?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) denominational education issue,

too?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I will follow the leader to the extent

that the leader is leading in the right direction, and I have seen nothing to

indicate in the tenure and the Premiership of the leader of this party, that he

has so far not gone in the right direction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: And we will continue to see, I think, as

time goes on, directions taken that will be generally accepted by the people of

this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - and that will work to the greater good

of all the residents of the Province that we live in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise in support of the petition presented by

my colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, and to say to the Member

for St. John's North, I am pleased to hear that he is going to follow the

leader, and certainly he made no doubt about that. However, I'm sure that the

good residents of St. John's North will weigh all of that in the balance and he

will be found wanting very soon when he goes back to the electorate. He will be

like the biblical character that was weighed in the balance and found wanting

because, like the other person in the Bible, he says, `follow me.'

Well, I tell you that in this particular case the Member for

St. John's North should know that it was the people in his constituency who

elected him. He was asked by the residents of St. John's North, 269 or 279 of

them, `Would you please convene a public meeting whereby we can express to you

our concerns, so that you can share them with the government and with your

colleagues in the House of Assembly.' Now, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the

good people of St. John's North to judge the member and we will be reading the

transcripts and will make sure they are circulated at all the appropriate times.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier a few days ago on public

television said that he would not proceed with privatization legislation if the

majority of citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador are against it. Since then,

the Premier has been carrying out an aggressive campaign on radio, television

and in the print media - meetings held with selective people so that he can get

the responses back that he hopes will indicate there has been a change of heart

in the minds of some of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Premier and members of this

House that there has been no change of heart. The people who are going

door-to-door picking up the petitions, are saying loud and clear - the people of

Norris Arm have been saying loud and clear that they do not agree with

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, in spite, I might say, of all

of the Premier's efforts to re-educate them. In other words, he has said: What

you've been hearing is all false. Now, you better listen to what the government

is saying because we are going to put you through a process of re-education, and

after that we're going to give you a little test and if you say that you now

agree with privatization, then you're going to be in the passing category. Now,

Mr. Speaker, that's what's happening. We are trying to hoodwink the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, trying to persuade them that they should change their

minds and, of course, the response that we're getting back from our constituents

is that nobody is being persuaded, nobody is changing their minds. The people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, about 80 per cent, a month ago, said that they did

not agree with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They said

that a month ago, they're saying it today and let me assure all hon. members,

they will say it a month from now and a year from now as well. They will also

say it in 1996 or 1997 when they get a chance to judge all hon. members here

and, in particular, they will judge my colleague, the Member for St. John's

North.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if there are no further

petitions, perhaps three minutes early we could begin the debate on the

resolution by my friend, the Member for Grand Bank. The rules, as you know,

require you to call the motion at 3:00 p.m. in any event, so let's call it now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I had a petition to present on behalf of some 140 people from

the district but with a couple of minutes left I thought, what's the point? I

wouldn't be able to do it justice.

MR. FLIGHT: What's the petition about?

MR. SIMMS: It's about firewood, something you know

nothing about.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm not presenting a petition, I say to

the minister, he should go back to reading the stock market reports.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution that I put forward today in

Private Members' Day is the first chance that a private member or anyone in the

House has had a chance to put forward a resolution pertaining to last Tuesday's

announcement by the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Mr. Tobin, and by

the federal Minister of Human Resources Mr. Axworthy, so we have had a fair bit

of interaction and dialogue this week and last week as it pertains to the

implications and the fallout of about 23,000 people in the Province because of

the new TAGS program, so the resolution I put forward, Mr. Speaker, is:

the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, now referred to as TAGS for fishers and fish

plant workers in this Province, based on a formula designed to adjust

approximately sixteen thousand people out of the fishery by May 16, 1998 whether

or not they are able to find alternative employment; and

under the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy over the next five years, then they will

recoup from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over the same time period in

Unemployment Insurance benefit reductions, over and above what this Province

would have lost had the UI reductions been shared among provinces fairly on a

per capita basis;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this honourable House condemn

Atlantic Groundfish Strategy to provide adequately for persons and communities

that have depended on the groundfish industry for their economic survival.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having said that and read the resolution,

last Tuesday, I went to Hotel Newfoundland to take in the press conference, a

very important press conference, very important announcement for the people of

this Province. There were several hundred people there; fishers, fish plant

workers, industry representatives, people who are involved in training programs,

people just out of interest, wondering what the implications for this new

program will be for our Province; and I guess, to a person, he left the Hotel

Newfoundland somewhat confused and somewhat let down because of the vagueness,

the lack of specifics of the announcement by the ministers. There were no

specifics given; I refer to it as a slick political show. The minister certainly

opened up the room to whoever wanted to come in which was wise, but he did not

give them the specifics and if he had, there would not have been such a pleasant

ending to the event.

People left very suspicious, grumbling amongst themselves,

sort of worried that they were not going to have too much longer left receiving

benefits under the new program. So, Mr. Speaker, once we knew the financial

figures, once we knew what numbers had been allocated we did our own sort of

numbers crunch, we, being the Opposition with our research people, and we said

at the time that our estimation is, not being privy to the information that the

officials and the federal ministers were privy to, that we said in the fifth

year of the program that there would be roughly 5,500 people left getting some

compensation; 5,500 people we said, based strictly on the numbers crunch.

Looking at what happened to NCARP, how many people were

involved, looking at the new expenditure proposed under TAGS, we said about

5,500 so I think we did reasonably well when, the numbers start flowing from the

working groups, the target numbers of some 6,400 started to surface so we

weren't that far off with the information we had, so I think to be safe we are

talking probably 6,500 people who will be left involved in the fifth year of the

program. Everyone knows now that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

has confirmed, the Premier has confirmed, federal minister has confirmed,

federal officials have confirmed as late as a couple of days ago, that there

will be 3,000 people come off the program, will be eliminated at the end of

December, 1994. That's a given now, we all believe that now.

Where there is still some debate left is how many will come

off each successive year after that? Our estimation is that by May 15 of '95,

which is a year from now, there will be roughly 10,000 people eliminated from

the program, 10,000 people in about a year's time. As I said, there is some

debate over that. There may be a few less, there may be a few more. We are

saying around 10,000 by May 15.

The other thing that people were somewhat confused about, Mr.

Speaker, is they thought when they all have to reapply those who were deemed

eligible from December 31 they thought they had two years from that date, which

they don't. They have two years from May 15 of this year. People should be aware

of that.

We estimate that there are approximately 16,000 people who

are going to come out by May 16 1998, to leave some 6,000, 6,500 people in

looking at - there are 23,000 people from Newfoundland and Labrador now

receiving some form of compensation under NCARP and AGAP and the others.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I think it is ninety-eight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Should be - no, at the end of the fourth

year, I'm saying to the member. At the end of the fourth year, which is May 16

1998, that is all who will be left to get benefits in the fifth year. Okay?

Alright? The member is trying to divert my attention but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, and once you asked me and I looked

at it I said - but no, that is what will be left at the end of the fourth year

to receive benefits in the fifth year leading up to May 16 1999.

MS. VERGE: He is still revved up after this morning.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he is still worked up after the big

meeting this morning, the Estimates Committee meeting. No, it is a legitimate

question, I say, and I can see why the member would ask it. Because a lot of

people are confused about that as well.

The other point of the resolution, Mr. Speaker, is talking

about the unemployment insurance benefits reduction, the flow of UI money coming

to this Province as a result of the federal government's recent changes. There

is going to be $262 million less per year for the next five years coming into

this Province as a result of the recent changes to the unemployment insurance

program. When you compare that loss over five years, the total amount, when you

look at what the TAGS program is going to cost over the next five years, the

amount is almost identical.

Again of course the federal government would like us to

believe that this is all new money you are getting for TAGS but it is not new

money. It is money that has been siphoned off. So either way you look at it the

economy of this Province is going to be further damaged, hurt, shrunk, because

of the loss of a large amount of money. Two hundred and sixty million dollars is

a lot of money to come out of the provincial economy when you look at how

fragile our economy is right now. While we know that - and people will argue

that - there has to be more to your economy than unemployment insurance benefits

and payments - we realise that, and we want to get away from it - but when you

look at how fragile our economy is today and you take $265 million out of it per

year for the next five years, it causes me great concern. I don't know how the

Minister of Finance is going to keep it all together with the other problems

that he has. I say that very sincerely.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is 50 per cent of what is allocated

under the program. One point nine billion. In five years, they will have $1

billion back.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes. I think the figure works out to

$1.190 billion that we will get from TAGS that is supposed to come into

Newfoundland and Labrador. Looking at the 77 per cent, the way it works out.

Remember, it is not $1.9 billion, by the way, it is $1.7 billion. Two hundred

million is getting the program up to May 15. When the federal minister announced

a $1.9 billion program a number of weeks ago, included in that was the couple of

hundred million dollars to get us to May 15 when NCARP ends. There is $1.7

billion in the new TAGS program, not $1.9 billion. Then, when you break that

down by percentage to what should flow into the Province it is almost identical

to what the losses in UI will be.

That is the other concern - and of course the concern that

we've raised, and the Member for Kilbride has raised in questioning the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations. We are taking more than our fair share of UI

reductions when you do a calculation on a per capita basis. Much higher than any

other province in the country. We are taking it on the chin.

When you look at our economy you have to ask the question,

why us? I have a note here from my colleague which says that 16,000 people will

not qualify for UI as a result of the UI changes, 13,000 will receive less

benefits, and 8000 to 10,000 more people will end up on social assistance. These

are statistics from the federal Department of Human Resources. So, when you

factor all that into what is a very fragile economy, with a very high

unemployment rate, that is why I said I have very, very grave concerns about

what the implications are for the Province, for the Minister of Finance, the

government, and the people.

Mr. Speaker, the last BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this

under the Atlantic groundfish strategy, I think it is incumbent on every member

here to support this resolution. I am not saying that for any light reason. I do

not think that the federal government should get away with what they announced

last Tuesday. I do not think it was good enough to fly into St. John's, give

very few details, then fly back to Ottawa and let it all unfold over the last

week without being upfront and telling the people, telling them the criteria.

To hear people say that the criteria was not developed on

Tuesday when the minister had his press conference, when Monday there were

officials from all the regional offices of human resources in this city being

briefed on the criteria. Then it was announced that 3000 people would be

eliminated as of December 31, but then you have to ask the question, how do you

know that 3000 people will not quality for the new program if you have not

developed the criteria? How would you know if it were 3000, 2000, or 10,000 if

you did not have the criteria already developed. That criteria was established

and developed when the federal minister sat in Hotel Newfoundland and pretended

that the next six to eight months -

DR. KITCHEN: Not true. Not true.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the unhealthy Minister of

Health that it is true because I was at the press conference.

DR. KITCHEN: I am perfectly healthy.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, I certainly tell the minister that

is not true, that he is perfectly healthy. That is one thing we know is not

true.

But to leave an impression with all of those people at the

hotel, all those that were linked in by media from PEI, New Brunswick, Nova

Scotia, and Quebec, that in the next six to eight months we were going to see

all of this consultation take place, with all the fisherpeople, the plant

workers, the union, and the processors, to develop the criteria.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: To see who is eligible for the program.

Everyone was going to be paid until the end of December.

MR. TULK: That is not what he said.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, I see. Well, maybe the member heard

something I did not hear. Perhaps he did. I listened very intently to what went

on down there. He left a clear impression, even those of the media, even those

hosts of the famous fisheries broadcast, I say to the Member for Fogo, even

those people, once it suddenly struck home to them, the game that had been

played with them, they were very taken back. Then, of course, what did they do

on Wednesday? They got Mr. O'Neill from human resources on and questioned him.

Of course I got the transcript from Mr. O'Neill's statements on the fisheries

broadcast and I read it, and those people has reason to feel somewhat taken in

because Mr. O'Neill went through the criteria in great detail. The federal

minister, particularly, our minister I will call him, played a pretty smart

little political game, which is going to get him in the end, because one of

these times he is going to come back to this Province and people are going to

corner him, because they do not appreciate what he did to them.

MR. MURPHY: What about John Crosbie?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: John Crosbie told them upfront I say to

the Member for St. John's South. He had the intestinal fortitude to tell people

what was happening, and what they could expect, and they almost beat the door

down at the Radisson as we all know, but I guarantee you one thing, if Brian

Tobin had told the people last Tuesday what they know now, there would have been

no doors left at Hotel Newfoundland. That is just what would have happened. Now,

I am not advocating that. I do not support that, but I support the minister

telling them exactly what the criteria was.

Mr. Speaker, my time will soon be up for this twenty minutes,

but I want to say to members opposite that there is a lot of concern and anxiety

out in this Province, and members on both sides know that. They go to their

districts, they meet with groups, they talk to fisherpersons, plant workers, and

store owners and teachers and nurses.

I had an invitation to Improving Our Odds group on Monday

morning in my district and the only time I could do it was Monday before I drove

back here to the House of Assembly, because by the time I got home Friday they

were finished. I went in to talk to them, they identified the topics they wanted

me to speak about. The first one quite naturally was TAGS. The second one was

income supplementation and the third one was Hydro. I tell you, they are not a

very happy lot. They are very concerned, very worried, about their future. They

are even more worried since Mr. Tobin's announcement. They are worried because

of the talk of the industry renewal boards and the reduction in processing and

harvesting capacity to a minimum of 50 per cent. They are very worried about

that. They are wondering if their fish plants are going to remain open or if a

decision will be made to close them.

They really can't plan the rest of their lives unless that

decision is made. That decision has to be made. A decision that is now, right as

of today, it is 100 per cent provincial governments. The provincial government

has 100 per cent control over the processing sector. The Province has

procrastinated for two years since the beginning of NCARP, the moratorium. They

have procrastinated for two years and have not been willing to make a decision

about the future of fish plants in this Province. People are very concerned and

they want answers. They need to know.

How are they going to plan if they don't know if they are

going to be employed in their plant next year or the year after, or if they are

not going to? How can they plan? How can they choose training? They sit around

day after day talking about their situation and themselves, talking about how

they can improve their situation and wanting very much to do that. The group

that I talked to on Monday, I know every one of them personally. I know where

they live. I grew up with a lot of them. They want to know that. They feel very

let down, by the way, I say to members, they feel very let down by Mr. Tobin as

of last Tuesday. They feel very let down by the Province because it is very

wishy-washy on the processing side of things.

For the last two years the Minister of Fisheries and the

Premier have said: Let the market forces decide and dictate which plants stay

open and which close in this Province. I have consistently said and I have

consistently called for the Province to make decisions to ensure that there is a

regional presence of processing in this Province. Every region of this Province

must have a processing presence, I say to members. In case people don't realise

the importance of that, can you imagine the region of Labrador without any

processing capacity, I say to members opposite. Can you imagine the region of

Labrador without one single processing plant, which is very possible if the

market forces decide what plants are going to stay open in this Province.

I see the Member for Eagle River, and I know he is listening,

I hope. It is very possible that if it is left to the market forces and if it is

left to total financial viability that we are going to have regions of this

Province without any processing presence or capability. I think that would be

devastating for all the reasons that we all know. Both employment, both

opportunities for fishermen to sell fish, for quality, for all the other things

that we are supposedly so interested in.

I have another few minutes to conclude the debate at the end

of the day but these are the remarks that I wanted to start with. I was hoping

that the Minister of Fisheries would be here. I was hoping that he would

participate in the debate, actually. I think it is very important for our

provincial Minister of Fisheries to speak out and to speak up and to give, I

guess, the Province's reaction and the Province's opinion on one of the most

vital decisions, most vital announcements, that has been made in this Province

for years.

There are thousands, Mr. Speaker, of people out there who are

wondering where the Province sits in this whole situation. Are they supporting

the federal program, and what are they going to do about the processing plants?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Let me first of all in addressing this

resolution that the Member for Grand Bank has put forward congratulate him on

bringing forward such an important resolution. If I were to be completely

partisan I would say it is great to see them finally get off being (inaudible)

and becoming somewhat involved in the fishery.

He made the point in his speech, Mr. Speaker, that there is a

lot of concern and there is a lot of anxiety, especially in outport

Newfoundland, and in the smaller areas of Newfoundland. He is absolutely and

totally right. There is a lot of anxiety and there is a lot of concern about

what's happening with the fishing industry. Let me also say to him, I don't

believe that there is a member in this House and I can say to him that I am one,

certainly - who will ever agree to moving 16,000, 19,000 or 20,000 people.

Plucking them out of their environment as he - I don't think he used the word

plucking but moving them out of their environment, out of the fishery, without

first of all their having some say about where they are going and what they want

to do, let me assure him of that.

Let me assure him also, that we will not, on this side of the

House - I do not believe there's a person in this Legislature that will ask

those people to move without them finding suitable, alternative lifestyles and

incomes, let me assure him of that. So in that regard I say to him, I think this

House is as one.

Mr. Speaker, he gets into this issue that the Member for

Kilbride brings up about the unemployment insurance. He says that's a great

issue where it's going to cost the federal government more now then it would if

they had given us what he sees as our fair share of UI. Well let me say to him

that I used to make the point - I wasn't a member of the House when John Crosbie

initiated his program - by the way, I'm not going to be critical of John Crosbie

because the day he got attacked down at Hotel Newfoundland I got on Open Line

and congratulated him on having the fortitude to do what he did and to

congratulate him on being a Newfoundlander and doing what he did in Ottawa. So

I'm not going to get into that act but let me say to him that the federal

government by and large saved you some of the money then that was allocated for

unemployment insurance and make-work programs. It was just channelled into a

program of compensation for fishermen under NCARP.

Mr. Speaker, he has raised some concerns and let me say to

him, it gives me the opportunity as a private member to express my concerns. For

that I'm grateful to him, that he had at least the foresight to do that. Mr.

Speaker, I have very little problem with his concerns. What I have problems

with, Mr. Speaker, is the resolve part of his resolution. The hon. member is

obviously playing politics, when he says: BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this

funding under the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy to provide adequately for persons

in communities that are dependent on the groundfish industry for their economic

survival.

Here's where we

part company, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman

would have been much better off, Mr. Speaker, if instead of using the word,

`condemn', he had been far more positive and said let us use the two years that

has basically been given to the people of this Province with an income support

for at least most of them in this Province - most of the fishers and the fish

plant workers - let us be positive and put forward our concerns to the federal

government. I think by the way that's what the Federal Minister of Fisheries was

saying when he said there's going to be a great deal of consultation over the

next six months. Mr. Speaker, he also gets into this idea -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We've already had two.

MR. TULK: We've already had two and I say to the hon.

gentleman that the last two years, in terms of what's happening with the

restoration of the cod stocks and so on, has been a pure waste. There's been

nothing in this Province that has happened to put the fishery back on a sound

footing. All we've done is just fed people money and nothing has happened to put

the resource back to where it should be.

Mr. Speaker, he also gets into this idea that the federal

government is not allocating sufficient funds. I say to the hon. gentleman that

I do not believe there is a person in this country today that knows what

sufficient funds are needed to solve this problem. There's not a person in this

country who knows what the sufficient funds are necessary to solve this problem.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when I'm finished he will see where I'm coming from. I

believe, Mr. Speaker, that basically we have two years, from May 15. Now it's

estimated that some 3,000 people who are marginal - and we'll have to watch

that. As members of this House we should watch that and defend our constituents

when necessary. There are some 3,000 people who will come off the NCARP package,

the TAGS package or whatever you want to call it, by December 31. Maybe, Mr.

Speaker, that's right, that is the way it should be. Maybe those 3,000 people

have very little attachment to the fishery anyway. Maybe they are using up funds

that rightfully belong to somebody else.

Mr. Speaker, if we lose people through retirement, of their

own choice, that is fair enough, I say to the hon. gentleman. There is no

problem with that. Other than that, I believe that we have two years from May 15

to work out some of the problems and some of the concerns that we have, and I

say to this House that I do not believe, as I said before, there is a person in

this Legislature who will see Newfoundlanders and Labradorians uprooted, plucked

from their homes, or left as welfare recipients.

I say to the hon. gentleman - and I use this with the

greatest respect to the people of Davis Inlet - I do not believe there is a

person in this Legislature who will see Newfoundland and Labrador become the

Davis Inlet of North America. I do not believe that either, but I do believe, as

I have said before, that we have two years to either right the wrongs or put the

systems in place to right the wrongs. As I said, I won't condemn the federal

government for that any more than I would condemn John Crosbie when he announced

his program.

I say to the hon. member, if he would listen, that I could

say something about the ensuing patronage that took place in terms of review

boards and so on, because as I had to represent some of my constituents I got

sick and tired of looking at former EAs to ministers in this government, and

some MHAs, sitting at the table as a result of the largesse of the federal

government.

Mr. Speaker, let me express my concerns. Let me express the

concerns that I think people on this side have - people who are in fisheries

related districts and so on. The overriding concern, I say to the hon. member,

in this whole issue is what happens to the fish that was in 2G, 2H, 2J and 3Kl -

in other words, that body of fish that is more or less known as the Northern Cod

stock. What happens to that? What happens to the other groundfish species that

are in those areas as well? Can we get that back?

That's the key question that faces this Legislature and faces

this Province, not whether we are going to get $216 as opposed to $230 - as

important as that is - but the overriding concern has to be: Can we get that

stock rejuvenated?

Mr. Speaker, there are people who will tell you that that

stock is today close to extinction. That stock is close to, if not, extinct. I

do not believe that it takes any great genius to figure out - you can put in all

the economic diversification programs you like; you can have all the NCARP

packages you like; you can have all the TAGS programs you like - I don't believe

it takes any great genius to figure out that unless we rejuvenate and rebuild

that 2J+3Kl fish, and 2G and 2H in particular, because I believe the Gulf stocks

are not yet decimated to that point; I believe they will come back on their own.

Maybe 2J+3Kl will, but it is doubtful, in my estimation, whether that is the

case or not; but unless we can do that, as a country, as a Province, then you

can make up your mind that the face of Newfoundland will change regardless of

what aid programs we bring in. So that's the overriding concern; the stocks have

to be restored.

Whose responsibility is that, Mr. Speaker? Well it is

certainly not the responsibility of the fishers and fish plant workers up and

down the northeast coast. I can say to the hon. gentleman that it's certainly

not the responsibility of this party, because in 1986 we told the then

government of the day what was going on, as a result of twenty-two meetings with

fishermen, and I don't believe we can say it was the responsibility of the

Government of Newfoundland from 1979 to 1989, but it was certainly the

responsibility of a federal government - central government responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind, as I stand here

today, that if suddenly all the topsoil in Saskatchewan, say, became a dust

bowl, the federal government would immediately undertake plans to see that it

was put back in place and grassed and reseeded and so on, I will get back to

that later.

This House has consistently said, for the past ten years, the

first thing that has to happen is that foreign overfishing has to stop. I think

the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is now saying that it has to stop

immediately, as soon as he can get legislation on the books, and Ottawa is

prepared to see that it does.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe - and I ask hon. gentlemen to

listen - I believe that this House, this Legislature, should hold the federal

minister to doing that as quickly as possible. But it is not necessary for the

Member for Grand Bank to play his partisan games and condemn anybody - just hold

them to their responsibility.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another problem here, another very

real problem. I said to this Legislature just now that we don't know whether the

stock is extinct or not. If ever there was a resource in the world that had a

weak scientific database, or where the scientists did not know what they talking

about - and I am not talking about individuals, I am just talking about the

database from which they work, the research that they have been able to do.

If ever there was an indication of a science that is down

there then it is the fishery science field in this Province and in this country.

We don't know for sure what happened to that Northern cod, we say it was all

caught, maybe it was, but what about the Barents Sea issue? As members are

aware, a few years ago, the cod was all gone to the Barents Sea; now it's back

and they have increased their quotas this year from what they were last year, so

we don't know. Maybe that is some of our cod, who knows? Will it come back? We

don't know whether the problem is primarily water temperature, we don't know if

it is overfishing, but there is a legitimate question that we have to ask and it

is a legitimate question that we have to put to the Federal Government, the

central government, never mind the partisan politics.

Can we reseed that ocean? If that stock is close to

extinction or if, through the efforts of Spain and Portugal primarily, and other

NAFO countries, that we have overfished and caught small fish to the point where

maybe it cannot rejuvenate itself, can we reseed it?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see in today's Evening

Telegram , for example, that there is a gentleman at least in the provincial

Department of Fisheries who is thinking in the right way and this House should

encourage the Federal Government to take him up on it. David Vardy, the Deputy

Minister of Fisheries has had this idea for some time. He says: `Province

pursuing idea naturally to rebuild stocks', and if you read the article, you

will see exactly what I am saying is true, that Mr. Vardy says there are a

couple of ways you can do this but we are not sure, the scientific database is

not there for us, to tell us whether, indeed, it will succeed or not; so that's

another thing that we have to press the Federal Government to do over the next

couple of years. We have a couple of years to do it and we should do it. Maybe

it is a source of employment, Mr. Speaker, for some of the people whom we are

now saying should work for their NCARP packages. I have some trouble with that

myself but I will get to that another time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a concern, too, I say to the Member for

Grand Bank, but if you take 19,000 to 20,000 people out of the fishery, what are

the demographics of that? Where are they going to come from? And that concern is

on this side of the House, where are they going to come from? Are most of those

people going to come from, say, Fogo Island? Are they going to come, as the hon.

gentleman said, from Labrador? We don't know, but we have to know, and we have

to plan for what is going to happen here.

Mr. Speaker, there is another thing we are doing here,

another concern, this retirement package that we have on the go, and that's

great, it is great to see those people with that kind of income for life, so at

least they are taken care of for life when they find themselves in a situation

through no fault of their own. But the other concern obviously has to be, Mr.

Speaker, that we are taking out of the industry the experience base that those

people possess, and all we are leaving there are young people who are still

learning that industry.

We are here talking about the fishery of the future and about

the number of people who can be employed. I say to you today that the number of

people we are going to be able to employ in that fishery of the future will

depend on whether the resource can rebound, and to what extent it rebounds. How

many thousand tons of Northern cod will we see in the year 1999? If I could come

back to my scientific database again, we don't know - we have no idea. How many

of our people, Mr. Speaker, can we employ by further diversification in the

fishery, by further secondary processing?

Mr. Speaker, all of those things depend on our rebuilding a

scientific database, and I say to my friend, the Member for Grand Bank that we

should not waste the next eighteen to twenty-four months condemning whatever

government is in Ottawa, and condemning whatever government is in Newfoundland.

We should, as a unit, put forward very positive proposals and work to develop

this industry. Never mind planning people's lives. Never mind standing up and

saying, Minister Tobin did this, Minister Crosbie did this. I say to the hon.

gentleman, I think we are extremely lucky to have had Crosbie in Ottawa and we

are extremely lucky to have Tobin in Ottawa, regardless of what stripe the

government is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, but if he has something to say he should be

allowed to say it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He said what a difference a day makes.

MR. TULK: Why a day?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, I just said to the hon. gentleman, and I

maintain that, I maintained it all the time, that John Crosbie did what he could

in terms of the fishery in this Province. I don't doubt that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another thing we have to take a

look at. It has been brought up in this House, and, I think, last week it was

brought up by the Member for Eagle River, and that is the seal fishery. I think

last week it was unanimously passed in this House that we have a - I don't know

if it is a full-fledged sealing industry or not, but I think it was downgraded

somewhat to say a sealing industry. Again, we have arguments going on saying

they are destroying the stocks. I think everybody in this House believes that as

well, and everybody in Newfoundland believes it. I think, as the Minister of

Health said at one time, or somebody else said here in this House, I don't think

seals eat Kentucky Fried chicken. I think they eat fish, so I think they are

destroying the stocks. Just to what extent? But, let us look at it another way.

How big a resource, as the resolution pointed out last week, can they be for us?

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. There aren't very many people - I

made a presentation to the federal Senate Committee on Fisheries some two or

three weeks ago and in the process I mentioned seals. This gentleman from the

senate committee, the Chairman, I think his name was Ronald MacDonald from Cape

Breton, the lost Newfoundlander.

MR. ROBERTS: Not the Ronald MacDonald?

MR. TULK: No, not the Ronald MacDonald, but a Ronald

MacDonald from Cape Breton, a lost Newfoundlander, on his way up along, I told

him he was. He asked me the question: What do we see as the future of the

sealing industry? I said, `Do you know, Mr. MacDonald, that we are sitting on

the finest leather in Canada, in the Newfoundland Legislature? He said, `Are

you? I said, `Yes.' This was television so we had to do it back and forth. He

asked: `Where did that come from?' Well, obviously, here it is, the best leather

you can find anywhere, and it is made out of sealskin.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: A couple of minutes, actually.

MR. TULK: In any case, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St.

George's, for example, the biochemist, can tell you about products that can be

made from seal that makes the seal almost worth its weight in gold, but we have

to have, I say to the Member for Grand Bank, and I know he agrees with this, I

think he does, we have to have a positive approach where both governments push

to develop those products and push to put those kind of products in play. And we

have to somehow destroy this - it is not very often I agree with the Globe

and Mail , but I think it was in today's Globe and Mail that there is

an

article on Brian Davies, a friend of Newfoundland. `Animal welfare group

keeps finance a secret', is the title. Each year in the spring, a U.S.-based

animal rights group -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: One minute.

- headed by a former Lance Corporal in the Canadian Army sets

its well-financed sights on the annual seal cull off the East Coast of Canada.

It is worthy of note that Mr. Davies did not want to meet with the Globe

because he said they have treated him unfairly in the past. It is also worthy to

note that of all those people who contribute to him, his salary is $169,265 U.S.

a year. His wife Gloria is his executive assistant and is paid a salary of about

$40,000 by the IFAW.

MR. SPEAKER (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, if I could conclude in a sentence.

Let me say to the hon. gentleman that I support his concerns, as does everybody

in this House, but I will not support this approach that seeks to condemn,

rather than be positive and seek to improve. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure

to rise and support the resolution here that indicates that the Government of

Canada has not allocated sufficient funding for people who are dependent on the

groundfishery in this Province for economic survival. When the PC Party was in

power - and I presented a resolution here in this House, in my third day here I

spoke on a resolution - I condemned the Federal Government and every federal

government that mismanaged the fishery of this Province. I will condemn them

today for doing it. And hopefully, by condemning, they will see the light and

they will try to manage the fishery properly in the future. We wouldn't be in

the dilemma that we are here in this Province today, I say -

The Member for Eagle River on that side of the House

continuously condemned John Crosbie and the Federal Government for what they

did. I say, thank God we had John Crosbie then. Because right now we have Lloyd

Axworthy and we have a program that has gone out of the hands of DFO. It has

gone to a minister out in Manitoba. It has gone to a Human Resource Development

Department and we have lost control of the Newfoundland fishery forever, during

this term. That's what's happening in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will deal with the specifics of what has

happened in this program now and deal with generalities, too, in this program. I

think it is a downright shame. The minister has lost control, doesn't have the

political clout, to be able to speak up and stand up for this Province, and we

have a Premier here who is afraid to stand up for the fishery of this Province

because he doesn't think it is important enough for this Province. Well, this

Province grew and developed on the fishery. This Premier sold out this Province

with this program here that people participated in as a working group. He sat

with Lloyd Axworthy and Brian Tobin and Marcel Mass and a team of four federal

ministers and he played a

part in this TAGS program that has come down. This

Province's Employment and Labour Relations Minister has been kept abreast of it.

They have tried to keep the facts from the public. I am going

to touch on some facts first of all, and then I will get into some generalities.

In the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy program - and here is what is going to

happen. Any member who represents a rural riding in this Province should listen.

Here is what is going to happen to the people who have been thirty years in the

fishing industry. Here is exactly what is going to happen in twenty years and

fifteen years. There is not one person out of around 1,800 people in my district

of Ferryland who is going to be on this program at the end of year five. Here is

why.

I could say, maybe the Member for Eagle River would be in the

same category, and right down the northeast and eastern coasts of this Province,

I do not see anybody who is going to be on the program. I spoke with over 200

people in the last two days in my district. I have a meeting tomorrow night in

Ferryland, Monday night in Bay Bulls, and I've yet to find one who is going to

be on this program after year five. People have spent thirty years in the

fishing industry, 100 per cent of their income. Here is why they won't be on the

program. Because the fishery from 1987, the late 1980s and early 1990s, has been

on a decline in this Province. People were lucky to get ten weeks of insurable

earnings. Because of a provision implemented by Revenue Canada in the 1970s -

AN HON. MEMBER: What years?

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get back to that; it is in Hansard

if you want to read it. Because of a provision implemented by Revenue Canada in

the 1970s, fishermen and fisherwomen can now average their income over any

period that they choose and when they make their last sale they can do an

averaging. Usually they average it over ten weeks, the minimum requirement.

Now, here is what happens. I will use an example of a

thirty-year fisherperson in my district who received the qualifying weeks for

the last five years in the fishery, who has received 100 per cent of employment

income for the last thirty years in the fishery, who received ten weeks every

single year to meet the minimum requirements, who will only get forty weeks

credit per year now under this new strategy program brought down. For five years

that is 200 weeks. That is three years and forty-four weeks. Over 80 per cent of

the people are going to be dropped off the program after the third year and the

forty-fourth week. Because there wasn't fifteen weeks available. Had they got

fourteen weeks every year they would get five years.

Because the way it works, in case everybody is not familiar,

the first six to ten weeks in the fishery, you get forty weeks credit. If you

work eleven works in the fishery, you get an extra three weeks - that's

forty-three. If you work an extra week, forty-two, you get forty-five, and

thirteen, you get up to forty-nine weeks, and on the fourteenth you get

fifty-two. So if you got fourteen weeks every year, 1987-1991, you will get

fifty-two week credits per year for five years, and you will be on this program

at the end of year five.

There is not one single person we could identify, and after

Monday I will know if there's one, because I am meeting with the entire

district. I have met with numerous people already. I could not think of one, and

people who worked in fish plants and fished were at these meetings - could not

think of one person, and that's not unlike other parts of this Province.

My district had a very successful trap fishery, 1989-1991,

three of the most successful years. What about the people down in 2J, the

Northeast Coast of Newfoundland further along, who had a failing fishery for the

last few years? They are in an even worse situation. They are even worse - the

South Coast, all around. It has failed before. They are not going to meet it.

Here is who is going to meet it, trawler men who have been twenty weeks, and

fifteen and twenty-five, some larger plants, offshore operations may meet it. It

is those people who are going to meet it, the sixty-some hundred that are left

on it. I can assure you, it's another part of a plan to phase out the rural

inshore fishing communities in this Province, and the Premier participated in

that process, and he agrees with it because he believes that we have to

centralize everything, bring everything into urban areas of this Province, and

that's the future way to go based solely on economics.

Well, I believe strongly in economics. I believe very

strongly in economics, but I also believe very strongly in maintaining a social

fabric in this Province, and in the preservation of rural communities in this

Province, and the preservation of jobs for people who spent thirty years in

industry. That's what is wrong with this TAGS program. The federal minister lost

control. He didn't have the political clout. John Crosbie had it; he said it

stays in DFO. He pushed the people in CEIC at the time the wrong way. They had a

turf war, but they won. DFO won, and they kept that program. Now they have lost

the turf war. It is now in the hands of the Human Resource Development

Department, and that is bad news for this Province. It is bad, bad news for this

Province.

He lost the fight for 10 per cent groundfish; it is up to 25

per cent in your operation. We are going to lost 500 plant workers off that. We

are going to lose 2,500 fisherpeople who are going to be dropped because of that

provision in the new program. That's what is going to happen there. We have out

there numerous other instances in regulations where we are going to see people

dropped by the wayside.

It's pretty sad when a person left school in Grade VIII to go

fishing, at thirteen years of age, and fished every year right up to the

moratorium, and qualified for U.I. every year they had U.I. available, and got

100 per cent of his income for the fishery, who is going to be dropped before

year four in this program - people who did not get a high school education,

people who are now in their forties, and there are twenty-five year people in my

district who know nothing else but fishing. In order to upgrade them to a

certain level of a high school education would take several years in some cases,

and to go training them then for some other job, they are in their fifties, they

are ready to retire, there are no new opportunities, and they are not there in

the hundreds, I can assure you, in this Province, they are there in the

thousands.

The Minister of Education talks about the illiteracy rate in

this Province. The reason is because the fishery supported and encouraged people

to go out and work, and leave school to help support their families and earn an

income. And we are in a dilemma now where we don't have anybody out there

reaching out, to be able to stand up and help. That is where the problem is, and

the crunch is not coming in this year, or next year, or the year after, but in

year four and thereafter, year five, we will be seeing devastation in this

Province like we have never seen before.

Let's think for a minute. Let's look at it in an economic

sense, where the dollars are going. There is $1.9 billion allocated to this

program. There is $200 million to carry it to May 15. That leaves $1.7 billion.

There is $300 million for industry renewal boards, that is $1.4 billion; 77 per

cent in this Province, that is down to $1 billion.

Look at who is on the program now getting a cheque - 23,000

people. Give them close to $300 a week for one year; that is $690 million.

Double that, there is not enough to keep the people who are there now for

one-and-three-quarter years on the program; and you see how the numbers are

going to drop. The numbers are not there. Anyone who wants them, I will give

them the numbers and show them calculations why the money is not there to carry

this program, and that's why they are going to dump people. They are going dump

over 3,000 people by the end of December - 4,000 people. They are going to add

on a few new people who meet the new criteria. There will be a net loss of 3,000

people. They have acknowledged that. Both federal departments have acknowledged

that, and this government sits down and doesn't fight. You and the Premier

should be standing up fighting for this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Brian Peckford didn't let it happen. He

fought for rural Newfoundland; he fought for the preservation of a culture in

this Province and for the economic standing throughout the entire Province.

Now if we look at the numbers they're talking about and you

work out the numbers - let's take our 23,000 people who are there now and

multiply it by the average income, work it out, $282 is the average they're

telling us now. Work it out for one year and see what you have. You'll have

$680-$690 million. What have you got left for the rest in this Province? You got

about $310 million. That's because they're going to keep everybody on it for a

year or two so they can have transitional inter-training programs and hope

people will take early retirement. They'll drive them into that which, if they

want to take it, fine. That's going to happen. We'll see it happen and at the

end of year two, there will be now less than 13,000 - between 12,000 and 13,000

people left in the industry.

When you look at the numbers there's going to be

9,900-and-some as projections left after year three, down to 8,000 and down to

sixty-some hundred people and put a dollar figure on each of these during those

years there and that'll add up to more then is allocated under this program.

They're going to need new money to carry these numbers. You don't need a

mathematician. Ask the department, what's the average they're receiving now?

It's there, on NCARP there's 26,500 people, 17,500 got a cheque the last time.

The other 8,000-9,000 people are out working, getting UI or currently working

who are eligible but not receiving it. Work out the figures in the payrolls,

they're there for everybody to see. That's what's happening in the industry.

This government sat around, tolerated, participated and

recommended worst, what's happening to the federal UI program. Here is what

happened - we all know the income supplementation. I'm not going to waste time

talking on it because it annoys me just to talk about it. To see this government

sit by and defend pulling $262 million in the federal budget in February, out of

the economy of this Province, it is more money then is going to be given on an

average basis over the next five years on NCARP. It is more than that and not to

cry out, we had almost $1 billion UI into this Province and it's going to drop

by $262 million by the figures provided by the Human Resource Development

Department and Department of Labour. We couldn't get them from this government.

Nova Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick scampered around assessing

the impact on their provinces and went public. This Province didn't know. It

will only impact close to $20 million on our Budget - the Minister of Finance

said on our Budget. Well I'll tell him what it'll impact on their Budget. It'll

impact more then double that amount on the Budget and year one is only the

phase-in. Anyone who qualified before April 3 could qualify under the old

program. April 3, if you filed, you're on the new program. You'll see the

affects new year, they'll be even more devastating and they're talking now about

cutting it back even further. Lengthening the period to qualify and reducing the

period to receive benefits and it'll be worst. We've got a major economic crisis

here in this Province and this government is playing along with the federal

government.

The Premier on one instance - and I'll get into that now - on

industry renewal boards in this province, he stood in this House and he didn't

know the role of industry renewal boards. He was asked a question by the Leader

of the Opposition, I believe - the Leader of the Opposition asked the question,

he didn't know. We won't participate in that because, Mr. Tobin told me that

there's going to be renewal boards for the future of the fishing industry. Well

that same day or the day before it was released in a press release by the

federal government, the role of industry renewal boards is: manage an industry

consultation process - maybe he didn't like that word, consultation - he said

develop, coordinate and recommend regional capacity reduction subject to federal

and provincial review in terms of complying with policy and criteria and number

three, implement capacity reduction plans.

Its sole purpose is to rationalize the down-sizing of the

industry and he played along or got sucked in by Brian Tobin and went along with

it. When he was asked the question he didn't realize, we pulled the wool over

his eyes. So what did he do? He said I wrote Brian Tobin then, that evening. I

wrote Mr. Tobin and told him I will not participate in a board that is not going

to look at the future of the fishery. Now that's what he said. Do you know what

he's going to do? He is going to hold the people of this Province, the people in

the fishing industry in this Province, as ransom to get joint management or some

say in the management of the fishery of this Province. Getting some say in it, I

endorse it, but I don't endorse it by holding people ransom to do it, that's

wrong.

He came reeling back and then he said today I believe, or

yesterday, whenever he said it, he said: I won't participate in one that is

solely involved in down-sizing the industry. He wasn't going to participate in

down-sizing at all the day before. The next day one that is sole purpose, so

he's mellowed already. Brian got a hold of him, had a chat with him and said:

we'll find something that's agreeable for this Province but we have to keep the

other provinces happy too. That is the dilemma he is in now, that is the dilemma

he has to face.

We've got Lloyd Axworthy who controls this program. The

bureaucrats in Ottawa are doing this on an economic basis. There is a budget

crunch coming in this Province and Newfoundlanders are bearing a

disproportionate amount of that responsibility. We have absorbed 11.1 per cent

of the UI cuts in this country when we only have 2 per cent of the population.

The Province of Quebec, the Province of Ontario - let's look at Ontario, for

example. They have 37.4 per cent of the population and they bear 23.4 per cent

of the cuts in the UI program. The `have' provinces are the ones which are not

bearing the responsibility. The `have-not' provinces are getting hit harder.

Another province - Bob Rae is even crying out in Ontario and fighting and taking

on the federal government, and we have a premier down here with his buddies and

won't even take on the government, and we are getting massacred down here in

this Province. It is devastation in this Province and there is no one to stand

up and fight for the people in this Province to stop that onslaught what is

happening.

There are too many other things pressing. Not to use my full

time here today. We have a marginal fishery trying to develop in this Province.

We have the supplementary crab fishery that is occurring, we have lump roe

fishery now, and there are people trying to get involved. There were some

incentives for these people to go out and have 50 per cent claw back. Right now,

beyond 50 per cent of benefits it is all clawed back now after the 50 per cent

now. Used to get a 25 per cent and then 50 per cent after that. Anybody who is

familiar with the claw back process sees now, you file up like UI for from now

on. The new program, you get your cards in the mail and your check every two

weeks. You fill out your card, what you made for two weeks, you send it back,

and what you made then is deducted. Just like the UI program. It is run exactly

like the UI program and that is the way it has taken. It is out of the fishery.

Here is something that is going to happen in industry. Those

people - and what do these people do? I throw this out to anybody who has

fishing people in their district, plant workers. What do you do when you are

dumped from a program after year three or year four and spent all your life in

the fishery, and when they down size the fishery they are going to determine how

many licenses are going to be out there. You lost your income probably two years

or a year before they decided who is going to be in the new fishery of the

future. If this program is extended for a year or two, who are they going to

carry on the program?

Those who are left after year five. If a person entered the

fishing industry in 1987 they could stay on this program for five years if they

got fourteen weeks a year. Someone who went on this program back in the 1960s,

and even in the 1950s are out still fishing, and in the 1970s, who qualified for

UI from fishing every year, are not going to be on the program. It is stated in

here in the regulations what they stated, that: Your attachment to the fishery

will determine your period, your duration of benefits. That is a pile of crap.

That is not in the bureaucrat regulations that are there and

they are going to apply. If thirty years isn't attachment to the fishery and you

get dumped in year three, there is something drastically wrong with the criteria

that have been developed under this program. There is a flaw in that aspect of

the criteria and it is wrong.

Some of the eligibility criteria I can agree with. Make no

bones about it. I went through this in great detail in the previous criteria on

all the programs. I'm very familiar with it, on the eligibility criteria, and I

had an opportunity to - in over 200 cases I personally attended under the appeal

board myself, in person represented people -

MR. TOBIN: How many?

MR. SULLIVAN: Over 200 cases in person at the appeal

board I represented and I became very familiar with the aspects of the criteria,

and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would have listened, I believe, they

would have listened to the proper... and see that the fisherpeople and plant

workers in this Province were treated properly. The bureaucrats in the Human

Resource Department didn't. Brian Tobin lost the fight to get control of the

fishery and to have a say in what is happening here.

That is the sad reality of the situation. The Premier of this

Province, who participated in this number reduction, and the Employment and

Labour Relations Minister, sat by the wayside and didn't fight. How many plant

workers and fisherpeople are in his district? How many are in the Premier's

district? How many people are in this Province? They have responsibility for the

entire Province. What did they do? They ignored the people in this Province.

Now, talk about what is happening in overfishing. Here is

what is going to happen in overfishing. They are bringing in legislation in the

House of Commons to deal with the 20 per cent of the people out there who are

flying flags of convenience. You might think the seventy boats are out on the

Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks today, the boats that are out there are 80 per

cent the Baltics, Russia, Spaniards and the Portuguese. What the federal

legislation is going to do - and believe me and you listen and that will come

through - the federal legislation would regulate the flags of convenience. The

flags of convenience are being flown for Portugal and Spain. They will pull them

out of the system and talk about a great victory.

At the same time the 80 per cent caught by these people, they

will increase their catches and they are delighted because it is all going back

to these countries anyway. That's what is going to happen; it will be a cosmetic

piece of legislation to show or sell it to people that we are doing something

about it, like bringing in a Canadian registered boat, the Christina Logos. I am

delighted they did so, I completely disagree with the devastation, the size of

fish they are catching and breaking the rules that are there.

It was a piece of public relations work, that's all it was,

no more than I get into a boat and go out and start jigging a few codfish now

and violating Canadian law, that's all that boat did because she is Canadian

registered. We didn't catch any foreigners, we projected an image of doing it,

and we are not going to deal with the Province on the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks until we get international understanding and appreciation and support to

deal with it otherwise it will be a smokescreen there to try to hoodwink the

people that we are doing something about it, because -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave to finish up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the

opportunity to make a few remarks in this particular debate.

It took me a little while, as the hon. Member for Ferryland

started speaking, to relax again because the approach that he took had me, I

would admit, a bit irritated for a while because I think it borders on being

irresponsible, particularly, Mr. Speaker, from the point of view that he gets up

and quotes some numbers, and the other time I have seen the exact same thing,

either this time he doesn't know the difference yet or he knows the difference

and still for totally political reasons, wants to portray something completely

different than what it is; it is one or the other and I will spend a few

minutes-

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I will spend a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, if I

could speaking about the issues, and again, as the hon. Member for Fogo pointed

out and said, it is the right issue to be debating in the Province, it's the

proper motion to be on the floor of the Legislature for debate today because it

is a very important issue in terms of the adjustment measures that are available

for people in the fishery, particularly the groundfish fishery in Newfoundland

and Labrador over the next five years or so.

But the manner that the Opposition have decided to go about

it in terms of: let's state that we should all condemn the federal government,

and the hon. member for Ferryland -I don`t have any particular argument with the

hon. Member for Grand Bank in his representation because he has stuck pretty

close to the facts and talked about genuine concerns, but it is the hon. Member

for Ferryland who just finished, Mr. Speaker, who caused me some real problems

because of the approach.

The first thing he tries to say is there is something remiss

or something different or something wrong here because of the fact that Human

Resources Development in Canada along with DFO is actually administering this

program, and that's some sign that it's not important as a fisheries issue and

so on, that there is something to be read into that, that we have lost control,

that Mr. Tobin has lost control, that the fishery is not an important issue to

the federal government and so on, and the same comment will come up because I

rose in this debate to speak because my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries,

who had intended to speak was late getting back into the Legislature because of

another commitment, and because I had followed the remarks and he didn't have

time to be briefed on exactly what was said in the debate.

He knew what he wanted to say about the resolution, to say

oh, we don't care either because the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

who sits on the committee with the Minister of Fisheries and with the Premier

and with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology because we feel it is

that important, that that is some signal that this is not important in

Newfoundland and Labrador because the Minister of Fisheries doesn't speak in the

debate. The very tone of it, Mr. Speaker, I find disturbing and upsetting,

talking about how terrible it is that we have lost control at the federal level.

The reality, this government did not condemn Mr. Crosbie even

though it was another government doing the thing. Mr. Crosbie had a lot of

support for delivering the money on an emergency basis once the moratorium was

put in place. He got a lot of credit for delivering the money under very

difficult circumstances. Everybody knows - and the Auditor General in reflection

now a year and a half or two years later - on reflection that a lot of mistakes

were made. Everybody is willing to say: We are willing to forgive that. Because

there was a crisis, there was an emergency; it had to be done quickly. It had to

be done without the total amount of planning that should have been put into it.

But the need was great and the response had to be given.

So even put all that aside. Put all that aside and say: Yes,

the man did a good job. He exercised some influence in Ottawa; he got a program

in place. Then the federal government now and the provincial government here and

the industry - FFAW and FANL - have had since last October, everybody knowing

that May 15 was coming, and that this time around nobody was going to be excused

for saying: There is another crisis upon us on May 16, we didn't know it was

coming, so we better slap something in place for May 16. It had to be planned,

it had to be structured, it had to make some sense for the long-term.

There is a lot more information in now, Mr. Speaker, with

respect to the state of the stock, the biomass, and what is the real

expectation. When might we realistically expect to return to a renewed

groundfish fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador? All of the reality is starting

to set in and people know that it is not two years like Mr. Crosbie announced.

There has been two years. There has been no sign of recovery. As a matter of

fact, there is an increased moratorium. In other areas the groundfish fishery

has been shut down. It has gotten worse. It hasn't improved.

Now there is a five year plan to carry us on a planned basis

through the next five years. There are certain things in it that some people

would like to have different and better and all of us agree with that. But at

least there is a five year planned approach which will be seriously looked at

and monitored every step of the way with adjustments that can be made as and

when necessary as we continue on.

But no, the approach from the Opposition is to say: Never

mind that, put all that aside. Because of the fact now that they want to try to

make some phantom tie-in between some other necessary changes that had to happen

with the UI system, which we agree have left an impact that we need to address

in the Province. To try to make some phantom tie-in between that and the TAGS

program and say: This and this were done in concert and here it is, look, they

subtracted here, put it over there, and there is your program. Absolutely no

relevance, none whatsoever. The approach is: We will jump up and say let's

condemn them.

I say again that the hon. Member for Fogo had it right. There

are concerns. There will be difficulties. There are individuals who would like

to have something done differently. The government might like to have some parts

done differently. The union representatives might like to have some things

approached differently. The processors and the people in the industry, they

would probably like to have some things done differently. They are going to keep

working at it, trying to make adjustments as we go along.

But they didn't decide to come out - FFAW, representing all

those individuals who the members opposite espouse or propose that they are

speaking on behalf of, so sincerely from the heart - FFAW is not out saying:

Let's condemn Mr. Tobin and the federal government about this. FANL is not out

saying: Let's condemn Mr. Tobin and the federal government about this. They are

saying: We have some areas of concern. We know that people are going to be

fairly well taken care of for at least two years, and we will work at the areas

that are problematic.

That is the difference in approach, and it is a difference in

approach that we took when Mr. Crosbie made his announcement. Because we said:

While this may not be perfect we certainly appreciate his efforts. We commend

the man on putting at least that kind of an emergency program in place, and now

we have no choice but to go forward on a planned, systematic basis. Mr. Crosbie,

while he did a good job of providing the emergency compensation, there are a lot

of people opposite, and maybe a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador, who

said that he, like other federal Ministers of Fisheries, did not heed advice

about the state of the stock. Maybe he didn't do a very good job in terms of

managing the stock. Because he was the minister responsible.

Because everybody who was in Ottawa - Mr. Crosbie, those

before him and so on - they listened to the advice, except for one group.

Nobody, for some reason, listened to the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador,

who have been telling people for twenty years that the cod stocks are in

trouble. The fishermen have been telling them year after year, after year, and

we are at the point now where Mr. Crosbie had to make the unfortunate stand to

say there is a moratorium on Northern cod, and Mr. Tobin had to come out and

say, not only Northern cod but there is a moratorium on codfish, period. That

happened because successive federal ministers did not listen to the fishermen

who were telling them that for years, and years, and years. It is not a point of

condemning any particular person, or any particular government, Mr. Speaker, it

is a matter of saying, what is in place now? Have we planned on some kind of a

reasonable basis, and