The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Does the minister know or can he inform this House, on average how long does it take for a review commissioner to prepare for a hearing, hear the hearing and actually write up the decision? Does he have any information on the number of hours? Is it two hours, ten hours, twelve hours? Is the minister aware of how long it takes?

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

MR. MURPHY: I suppose the member might ask how long does it take to get to Holyrood? I suppose it depends if you are in a car, on a bike, on a slide or a skidoo or whatever the case might be. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I have absolutely no idea. As the member should know, it would vary depending on the circumstances surrounding the appeal. It could take I suppose, and I say this in a broad sense, it could take anywhere from a day-and-a-half to two days to two or three hours.

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

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

On Friday of last week on CBC Here and Now the chief review commissioner said that it takes between five and six hours on average to prepare for a hearing, be present at the hearing and write up the decision. Then on Monday on an open line show he said that my allegations demonstrate that my knowledge of what is taking place is very limited because I really don't understand, he said, how much time it takes or how much time commissioners put into the system. Mr. Speaker, maybe I don't but then again maybe I do. Taking Mr. Gullage's own information, the chief review commissioner, in the month of December he rendered seventy-eight cases, seventy-eight decisions billing out $39,000 for one months work and by his own admission, if you take those number of cases by the number of hours he says it takes to prepare he would have had to work sixteen hours a day for the entire thirty-one days of December. This is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, does he find this acceptable? What will he do about it?

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

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you very much.

In listening to the hon. member over the last week there is no reason for me or any other hon. member to trust his scenario either, I suggest to him. However, let me say this in all fairness, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board on Monday, made his statement in the House regarding this situation and the investigating process is starting to take place in dialogue with the minister and of course, the member knows that we will inform him as promised by the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board when that investigation is completed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my information comes from the mouth of the chief review commissioner and from the Review Division in terms of the statistics that were rendered in December. This comes from the Review Division, not something that's fabricated, made up or concocted. These are actual figures, actual numbers.

Let me ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board this question: How is the investigation going and when can we expect some information from him to be tabled in this House on that investigation?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have already dealt with that in a statement to the House. As soon as it's completed, then the information will be made available to the House. I can't comment on the accuracy of the hon. member's information and I will have to wait until I get that back; I am not doing it myself this is being done by someone else.

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

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

As I said in the House, or through the media to the public some days ago, I will be conducting my own investigation of the fifty-four or fifty-nine cases and let me see if the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board - and I will table this so he can have a look at it and see if he can comment on the accuracy of this - to date, from September 28, my research is not complete, but I have fifty-four cases done, from September 12, '94 to December 7, '94. I have examples here of fifty-four cases that were heard, postponed and then heard again, double billed, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to table this for the minister and ask him again: Will he look into when the investigation will be completed and have it done before this House leaves for Easter?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kilbride has talked about he himself doing an investigation; I am sure it is going to be an impartial investigation he is doing.

Mr. Speaker, I am taking a different approach. I am having this done at arm's length; I am having people look into it. I believe in total there were fifty-nine postponed cases, not fifty-four -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: - so I am sure that the information will be used in the process.

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

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

I have a question for the Premier pertaining to the continued blatant overfishing by the Spanish on the Grand Banks.

We had the arrest of the Estai; we had another Spanish vessel where the federal authorities cut its nets; we've been negotiating now for a couple of weeks, and still today there are fourteen Spanish trawlers flagrantly, blatantly overfishing a fragile stock, taking juvenile turbot.

Can the Premier explain for the House, as I'm sure he has had continued discussions with the federal minister, and maybe even with the Prime Minister, why is the Federal Government tolerating this situation with fourteen Spanish vessels today still flagrantly overfishing that juvenile turbot stock?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I'm sure the member appreciates the difficulty of trying to achieve the objectives that both the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland have at this matter. Spain sees the situation through its own coloured glasses. They don't consider their actions to be flagrant overfishing; they consider their actions to be quite acceptable. They are totally unacceptable by any measure of judgement. Any aspect of humanity on this planet who would look at what they are doing, would never give it anybody's blessing. So we have to try to deal with the difficult situation with Spain as a member of the European Community. The discussions are going on with representatives of the European Community and I've no doubt that they have their difficulties trying to bring Spain onside. I don't want to say anything that doesn't acknowledge for all, the degree of difficulty involved in achieving success.

My most recent discussions with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicate that he is hopeful of reaching an agreement with the European Community. Once that is done, we are hopeful that it will provide overall good results, not just for the turbot stock, because what we want to achieve is full-time 100 per cent observer coverage on every single vessel. They would be observers who are not residents of the Iberian Peninsula, neither Spain nor Portugal, so that we could have a higher level of confidence in the reporting that would be done.

If we do that it will be beneficial to all of the fishing that is taking place out there. Frankly, as nearly as I can judge from all the information that I have, if we have that, fishing will stop period. Because you can't catch enough fish to pay a fraction of the cost of the fuel if you use legal size mesh. So economics is going to stop the fishing, rather than laws enforcing it. So long as the basic rules of NAFO are followed and obeyed in terms of mesh size, I don't think anybody fishing out there can catch enough fish to pay a fraction of their fuel cost, let alone make any profit by it.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I agree with that. I said a few weeks ago that the only reason this Spanish effort could be viable was because they were using the liners to catch the juvenile turbot; otherwise, they wouldn't make enough money to pay for the fuel.

Hopefully, Spain will come to their senses, but apparently the Prime Minister of Spain has indicated to our Prime Minister that there will be no agreement. I am just wondering: Has the Federal Government given any indication whatsoever - because if we don't stop the Spanish before long, there will not be any turbot left, so there will be nothing to talk about; there will be no turbot to divide up. Has the Premier had any indication at all if they are just going to let the Spanish fish until they fill up their boats and go back home, or if there may be some target date set by the Federal Government and officials to move in and get them out of the zone?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No doubt, the Federal Government has a time frame within which it wants to see conclusion of these discussions, and provisions put in place to protect what is left of the turbot stocks.

I ask hon. members to remember that the Federal Government has performed very, very well in relation to this whole matter -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: - first, in bringing the legislation to the House of Commons last year, in getting it there, and then finally in actually implementing it against the European Community, which many people in this Province argued they would never do; so I give them the full credit for doing that. That doesn't make it an easy task, and while we would all like to see the Spanish out of it yesterday, that is probably not a realistic expectation. They are pursuing their discussions and, as nearly as I know, they are close to an agreement. I have no reason to believe that there will not be an agreement, although I must frankly admit that is a possibility. I cannot deny that failure to reach an agreement is a possibility.

Everything that I have heard from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans leaves me to believe that he expects there will be an agreement with the European Community, and it will then be up to the European Community to ensure that Spain complies with it. If it does not, we will have to face that circumstance if, as, and when it arises.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

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

I, as well, have applauded the actions of the federal minister and the Federal Government in what they have done in the last few weeks. I realize it is a very complex situation, as I realize that a number of years ago it was very complex, and I knew the players we were dealing with, particularly Spain and Portugal; they are not very easy people to deal with. The situation is, I am not optimistic that there will be an agreement, particularly with Spain. They seem to be just determined to overfish and wipe out the stock.

If they continue to overfish, and we don't reach an agreement, what recommendations will the Province be making to the Prime Minister and the federal government to deal with this situation? Can the Premier inform us of that and what actions really does he anticipate the federal government will take if Spain continues to overfish as they are now doing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is a hypothetical situation and I don't want to be speculating on what advice I will give in a circumstance that does not now exist and may or may not exist. I would remind the hon. member that the advice that I have been giving the federal government now for some six years is to seek custodial management of those stocks out beyond the 200-mile limit on the Grand Banks, my advice has been no different. What they did with respect to this legislation comes as close I guess as we can get to custodial management without having it totally in place. It comes pretty close to it. My advice to them has been clear all along. I don't see any reason why my advice would change if the Spaniards continue to fish in the way in which they have fished in the past. That has to be stopped and if it cannot be stopped by international agreement, achieved through the United Nations or by bipartisan agreement achieved between Canada and the European Union, then it has to be stopped by Canada unilaterally and thus far the federal government has indicated its willingness to do just that if it becomes necessary.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in Gander the Road Builders Association and construction association members met to discuss their grave concerns with the fact that government has no capital program this year. Construction companies, engineering companies and consultant companies, Mr. Speaker, say that there will be thousands of seasonal jobs gone. In fact, some of the members of the association have stated already that they have started to lay off some of their more permanent employees because of the bleak outlook for construction jobs this summer. Could the minister tell the House if his department or any other government department has done a study or a review to determine how many seasonal or permanent jobs will be lost this construction season?

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the member for his question because it is going to give me the opportunity today to tell you exactly how much we are spending this year in capital construction as compared to previous years. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will be spending $70 million in construction in agreements between the federal government and the provincial government, $70 million this year in Newfoundland as a follow through from last years infrastructure program. We will be spending, municipal and Provincial Affairs, $50 million. Plus if we can get the agreement with the federal government in regards to the $15 million I referred to yesterday, that will be an extra $25 million, $27 million. So my department alone will be spending some $75 million in the Province.

In regards to figures, last year the staff did an analysis on the infrastructure program and they predicted that there would be approximately 2,200 people employed last year. That figure went to approximately 2,400. I'm expecting this year to be the boom year in the Province for construction, so I'm hoping it is going to create at least 3,000 jobs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Make no wonder then the construction associations figure they are going to be in trouble when the minister figures that this is going to be the boom year in construction.

The figures that the hon. minister just quoted, especially as it pertains to transportation, it is mostly all federal money, all tendered, all out since early January. Nothing from the Province only a measly $5 million. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs Department has $13.5 million left over form last year. The federal infrastructure program has been cut back by one-third this year, $15 million. He doesn't know yet whether they are going to get the other $25 million off the feds. He doesn't know how many municipalities will take the $20 million or $25 million, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister now rise in his place and let the House know and let the members know, and the people of the Province, especially the construction associations' members know, how many municipalities do you really think - if you come out with, say for instance, a $25 million program - will really avail of that opportunity this year to take some funding?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the first question, and the question I believe was: How much money is the government actually putting into capital expenditure for this year, and will there be a capital works project budget. The hon. member, and I think most members in the House realize, that when the federal government announced a $150 million or thereabouts program, when they announced that, the hon. member understands that within that $150 million, which was divided on a one-third, one-third, one-third basis, we as a provincial government will pick up almost $100 million of that $150 million. Which will be about two-thirds. Last year we put out $127 million in contracts. Out of that $127 million in contracts there was approximately $70 million spent last year, which leaves about $50 million for this year. So I don't know what the hon. member is referring to.

I also think the hon. member is probably misinterpreting some of the questions and some of the comments that came out of Gander yesterday from what he referred to as an association meeting. They were more concerned about what was going to happen next year. I spoke to a number of them yesterday and the day before, and they are more concerned about what is going to happen next year. As the hon. member and every member of this House realizes, who can predict what is going to happen next year. When we get into budgetary processes next year we will determine then at that particular time how much money will be spent on capital works and the creation of jobs in the Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister stated in his answer that I asked how many municipalities would partake of this program this year if they were offered. He really didn't answer the question. In any case, he said that they spent - $100 million of that $150 million will be financed by the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs through the Municipal Financing Corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, the Province. But the municipalities, Mr. Speaker, whatever is there with regards to roads will be a 60-40 program the same as the other. The only one where there will be 100 per cent financing through the Municipal Financing Corporation would be anything to do with water and sewer.

I ask the minister again: How many municipalities in the Province will be able to take part in any construction jobs this summer, or anything that his department offers with regards to a capital program, after just saying in the House yesterday that approximately 237 or 247 municipalities in the Province out of the 287 would not be able to take any money? Could the minister stand in his place today and tell that?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not making myself clear yesterday, apparently. When I made that comment in the House yesterday about municipalities not being able to avail of funding, I meant any capital works funding or other funding other than - other than - the infrastructure program. There are some 180 communities out there that would be eligible this year for the infrastructure funding, which amounts to $25 million or $27 million.

The funding that we are providing in the Budget and in the Budget Speech for capital projects, we don't know yet how much that total would be, but the funding that we are providing there we are providing to the communities such as St. John's and Mount Pearl and Corner Brook, mostly the larger communities who are paying their own way, though, 100 per cent of the funding. Basically, what we are doing to them is saying: Yes, you can go and borrow what money you need to complete the jobs you do as if it was a normal capital works year.

I am sticking to water and sewerage on that because the Province cannot, at this particular point in time, because of the amount of money we have put into the infrastructure, go into deals on 60/40 arrangements because the Province, then, would have to pick up the cost.

Now I hope that makes the thing clear. The majority of communities in the Province, with the exception of about fifty, every single one of them can qualify for either infrastructure money or capital works money.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

The night before last, at the Estimates Committee Meeting, I asked the minister for details of a trip to Gaeta, Italy, the birthplace of John Cabot, by members of the Cabot 500 Corporation. I was informed that the Chairman of the Board, the Mayor of St. John's, and the Mayor of Bonavista took the trip. I have learned over the past couple of days that several other members of the committee also travelled to Gaeta. I would like to ask the minister: How many persons took this trip to Gaeta, and at what cost was it to the taxpayers of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I gave the information at the Estimates in some detail to the hon. member a couple of nights ago at the Colonial Building. We were exploring further questions that the hon. member had raised in the House on Monday where he suggested that all kinds of money had been spent on dinner meetings and travel. As a matter of fact, one of his phrases was that that's the way the group have been utilizing the majority portion of the committee's budget.

I think the review has shown since then that less than 3 per cent of the budget of this particular corporation, with its nineteen board members from around the Province who are trying to do their very best to do something good for the Province in 1997, has been spent on the running of the board and travel, the meetings, including the one in Gaeta, and meetings in Bristol to finalize a deal for the travel of the Matthew to Newfoundland and Labrador.

I answered the questions at the committee because those are the only travel for which any charge was made to the Cabot Corporation. If there was anyone else who travelled to Gaeta on that particular visit, a joint visit of the Cabot 500 Corporation meeting of the committee in Newfoundland and Labrador with its parallel partner committee in Gaeta, which is the birthplace of John Cabot, then they didn't make any charges to the Cabot Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, at our Estimates meeting I asked the minister and his staff about the public accountability of the Cabot 500 Corporation. After all, they spent $3.8 million last year, and are looking for the same amount again this year. The minister informed me that audited statements were available, but the chairperson of the committee took exception to detailed accounts of travel and meals, et cetera, because the committee was made up of volunteers. My opinion is that taxpayers' dollars should be publicly accounted for, whether they are spent by government people or volunteers. I would like to ask the minister: Does he agree with the chairperson of the committee or myself on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Myself, on behalf of the government, the Premier, and everybody else on this side of the House, has repeatedly stated that if the members opposite, or anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, has specific questions about the expenditures relating to the John Cabot 500th. Anniversary Corporation, we would be delighted to give the answers.

The answer to the previous question with respect to travel to Gaeta, whoever else - if there was anybody, and I am not sure because the kind of suggestions that were made here on Monday certainly weren't accurate in terms of what was presented by the hon. member opposite - but if there were other people, they did not make any charges to the Cabot 500 Corporation. They did not spend money that was paid through this particular corporation, and when and if there are any kinds of questions that people want answers to, we will provide the answers.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Minister, there were other members of the committee who travelled to Gaeta, I will have him know.

I would like to ask the minister for a detailed breakdown of the staff positions and the salaries of the Cabot 500 Corporation, from the CEO on down the line.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly we will provide that particular information if he wants to break out all the staff positions. As I indicated in answer to the previous one, if he has questions specifically about the government approving expenditures for the Cabot 500 Corporation, ask the questions, we will provide the answers.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health, and concerns the decision by the Red Cross to stop accepting blood from residents of Conception Bay North.

Mr. Speaker, thousands and thousands of Newfoundlanders are insulted by this policy and I want to ask the minister why his government is tolerating this kind of blatant discrimination against people on the basis of where they live and ignoring any other risk factors.

Is the minister prepared to tolerate further discrimination by the Red Cross against MUN students for example, there is a blood donor clinic at Memorial, to knock out people who happen to be from Conception Bay North or, if there is a blood donor clinic at Confederation Building, to single out those people who happen to live in Conception Bay North or have summer cabins in Conception Bay North, is the minister and his government prepared to tolerate that kind of discrimination without, in the face of criticism by local doctors and by the Red Cross medical people themselves, that this is not going to stop HIV getting into the blood system?

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

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

The question of the acceptance of recommendation 10, of the Krever Commission by the Canadian Red Cross has caused some concern inasmuch as they have applied it to a particular area within this Province where they have made a decision not to go in and hold blood donor clinics. I think the whole situation has to be put into perspective.

First of all, we have to understand that the Canadian Red Cross is in and of itself an independent agency or body out there, that is not directly or indirectly, I would suggest, controlled by this government or any other government. They are out there, they have had for many years of long-standing, a record of collecting blood and blood products within the country, we rely on them as a government at this point in time to be the resource from which we purchase blood products for use in the health care system and in that context, the Red Cross, as an organization, has a responsibility to develop policies such that they feel are appropriate to ensure to the maximum of extent possibly, that they can deliver blood products to the Province and to the country generally, in as safe a manner as possible.

We, as a government, have not yet reflected officially on the forty-three recommendations in the Krever Commission, but I can tell the hon. member this, that we would be hard-pressed to question the judgement of the Red Cross given the fact that they are the ones who have responsibility to develop the policies under which they operate and we cannot, at this point, say their policy is incorrect. We can say this, that they are the ones who made it, they are the ones who will have to answer and justify the reasonableness of it, but we rely on them as a resource for blood products and if we are not confident that they have made the right decision, in effect, we are saying that we are not confident of the supplier that we have for blood products and that would be a consideration -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the minister to finish the answer.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: The Department of Health and the government are in involved because, as the minister says, it is a supply of blood that is used in hospitals in this Province and throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, there are people who have given blood to the Red Cross for decades from Conception Bay North, who are insulted by this policy, and what level of confidence can the government have in the blood supply if they are going to accept that you cannot collect blood from Conception Bay North but you can collect blood from people from there at Memorial University in the City of St. John's, at Confederation Building or anywhere else. It is a policy, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't make any sense in the context of Conception Bay North in this Province and the government should not be supporting it and I want to ask the minister: Is he prepared to ask the Red Cross to reconsider that decision and develop a different policy that really recognizes the risk factors that may be involved and doesn't go on insulting people in this Province?

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

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

This government is not unmindful of the sensitivity of the matter. We are not unmindful of the feelings that have been generated, not only as a result of this incident but as a result generally of being highlighted in Newfoundland as having a circumstance of high incidence of HIV in a particular area. We are more than sympathetic, we all are I am sure, to people who live in Conception Bay North and any other area of the Province which is so identified. We have great feeling for the anxieties and the probably inappropriate statement in a big picture that it is making but it is a circumstance that is there. We will as a government make an appropriate commentary on the decision, if, as and when we feel the decision is deemed to be inappropriate, until such time as that I will not comment further on it, Mr. Speaker.

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

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly eight Scouts from First Vanier Troups, accompanied by their leader Mr. Keith Bowden.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question about staffing for the Employment Creation Program and I table that today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today and present a petition on behalf of just over 200 residents of the community of Shoe Cove on the Baie Verte Peninsula:

We, the people of Shoe Cove, do petition this hon. House of Assembly and ask the provincial Department of Works, Services and Transportation and the Provincial Government to do immediate repairs and upgrading to our community road and the road connecting us to Highway 414. Over the past month, this road has become deplorable, causing damage to automobiles, and much sickness, especially for children travelling on the school bus. We find it unacceptable to live with this situation and request that an urgent decision be made regarding these road conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here of over 200 names. This morning I had numerous calls from that community, and also from the communities of Middle Arm and Burlington. As we look at the numbers that unfold here in the House of Assembly, the real numbers, we find the truth is that this Provincial Government, under the minister, will be allowing for approximately $15 million in provincial roads upgrading this year. Let's just compare that to 1989 when it was $48 million.

The minister knows. If he stands in his place he will tell you that $15 million will not come near what is needed to be done in this Province this year. We are talking about a road here, which, time after time, these students travel over. We are talking about three kilometres of road, not about a causeway to Prince Edward Island. We are talking about three kilometres of road that takes them twenty minutes to half-an-hour to go over on the bus. I have also letters here that I received this morning right after the petition came in, from students who wrote me.

One of the students: `Mr. Shelley, we have a serious matter here that needs to be solved. I feel, along with many others, that our roads need to be upgraded as soon as possible. Please do what you can to help.' From Reneé Mitchell, Grade VIII student in Burlington.

Here we have: `Dear Member: I am a Grade VIII student at the St. John Thomas Pentecostal School in Middle Arm. I'm wanting you to help us, in the fact that our road is full of potholes and is driving us crazy. This is a serious matter. Please take it into consideration to do something about this matter. I gotta go now, write later.'

Mr. Speaker, these are students who have phoned me themselves this morning. Of course, no teachers or parents want to have their children out of school, but the truth is, they told me they are sick and tired of every morning getting up to travel over three kilometres of road that is going to take them anywhere from twenty minutes to half-an-hour, depending how fast the bus can weave across this road. They described it. One of the descriptions was, it is like one of those old-fashioned scrub boards, and the last few days it has gotten worse and worse.

The minister knows - I've met with him on many occasions with people from my district. We have talked about that Shoe Cove road, and about the Middle Arm road, and at one meeting with him and his officials, the officials agreed that the situation on the Baie Verte Peninsula - we have thirteen communities out of twenty-one in which people still drive over gravel road. And here it is, 1995, Mr. Speaker. It is just unacceptable to see the amounts of money that are going to be spent again this year.

The point to be made here is that these people are not even, at this point, looking for the pavement. What they say is that the graders go back over it - with all deference to the depot there in the district. They do as much as they can with what they have, and I don't put any blame on them. What I am saying to them, and the truth is, and the minister has agreed with me, is that it is no good to grade this road again. What they do is grade the same thing over and over.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Now, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is telling these 200 people on this petition that there is no need to grade it either. You are going to stop the grading, is that what you are telling them? Is that what you want me to bring back to them? Is that what you are saying, as the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation? I hope you are not. I hope he is not, Mr. Speaker.

This is a serious matter. It is okay to joke about it right here, but we have people going every morning and then every evening coming back over that same bloody road and they are getting sick and tired of it. Three kilometres there, another five kilometres in Middle Arm. What I would ask the minister here is that consideration be given for at least upgrading, so that a grader that is commissioned from the depot on the Baie Verte Peninsula be sent back and at least be able to grade something there.

Because, as many of the residents in the community say, it is no good for the grader to come there and grade something that is not there to grade. They are just down to bald rock. All they are looking for is an upgrade on the road.

Mr. Speaker, I will also read a letter here from one of the teachers. It says: `Dear Member: I am writing on behalf of the staff of John Thomas Pentecostal School to express our disgust and disappointment with the roads in the communities of Middle Arm, Burlington and Smith's Harbour. In this day and age, there is no need for roads to be devoid of gravel, let alone unpaved. Graders no longer gravel gravel, just ballast rock.' And that's the point I was making. It's no good to send the graders back on something that is not there to grade.

`Several students have come to school complaining of headaches and various other ailments. We talk about improving the education of our children, yet we fail to consider their trips to and from school. Is this not part of their daily schooling? Please do something about these roads.'

I ask the minister here today to give this petition some serious consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted today to rise in support of my colleague, the Member for Baie Verte, about a situation that is happening in his district. Before long, we are going to hear the likes of this echoing throughout other districts of this Province; it doesn't matter whether it involves government side members or Opposition side members. The roads in this Province are atrocious, and getting worse.

These 200 names on this petition today cry out for help. The roads are down to bedrock, and these are gravel roads. A grader is not going to do anything with the situation there. Maintenance, road construction, we are down to a diminished amount of money, moreso than we ever were before, just so the books could be cooked a little bit better, that the Premier probably could ride off into the sunset and say it is the first time there has been a balance here since 1949.

Is that the way to run a business? No, but that is the way they are running the government, and that is the way they are running the people of this Province.

There are road hazards out there, and the biggest road hazard is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. He is a hazard to the driving public of this Province. With the little amount of money that he could successfully get through Cabinet this year -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, I didn't stand much of a chance last year.

MR. EFFORD: No, nor next year.

MR. CAREEN: No, nor next year, but you will be gone before long.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: You'll be gone - and when they read this tribute to the voting boundaries, the people of Island Cove and Spaniard's Bay will be waiting for you, Sir.

In the meantime, these people from Shoe Cove need help, and they need help today, and those students - not only the students, the other driving public. What about ambulances? With ambulances, a minute or two could make the difference in a person's life. They are not airborne. They have to drive over our roads, and the roads in this Province are bad and getting worse, and the minister should do the proper thing now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MR. CAREEN: Resign.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear the two hon. members over there standing on their feet complaining about the gravel roads and the lack of interest by this government in building and maintaining roads.

The Member for Baie Verte said, number one, it is no good to grade the roads. Then, when I said, `Okay, I won't grade them', he got all upset about it. It is quite obvious that the hon. member can't make up his mind.

Now, let me tell you, one time the Department of Works, Services and Transportation did have a $40 million budget every year, but when this government came into power, the first thing we had to do was deal with a $7 billion deficit, where we pay out $585 million a year in interest payments. You give me 5 per cent of that $585 million and I can do a lot of paving and building of roads in this Province, but unfortunately, seventeen years of mismanagement by this crowd over there caused me not to have any money in my budget this year to spend in the area over there, and there lies the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I spent four years in Opposition, and the district of Port de Grave never got one penny for roads in four years. There was no concern over there then about the bad roads in somebody else's district. Mr. Speaker, we will take care of the roads when it is right to take care of the roads and not by the dictation of that crowd opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the comment that just came from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, that the work would only be done in a Liberal district - I am not so sure if he is speaking on behalf of the government or if he is speaking on behalf of himself, but I would say to the Government House Leader who was here today, that if that is the policy of the Liberal Government, that they will only do what the minister just stated they would do, that is, do roads in Liberal districts, then I think the hon. thing for this government to do, Mr. Speaker, is go public and tell the people of the Province what the Minister of Justice said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will give the Government House Leader -

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West is the last person in the world to lecture anybody on decorum. He has done more to lower the decorum of this House in the three or four years that I have been here than all the other fifty-one members put together. I heard no improper comment from my friend, the Member for Port de Grave. I heard nothing like the twisted, distorted version of remarks attributed to him by the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I would say to my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, the mote is in his own eye.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I didn't hear what the hon. minister said, as alleged by the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I don't know if I need to check the - I say, I didn't hear it. I didn't say that I doubted the member; but I would say that had the minister said what the hon. member says, is not a question of order for the House, although it may or may not be a question of government practice. In any event, even if it were said, it is not a point of order. So it is not something that I need to make a formal ruling on in that sense.

Are there any further petitions?

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

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

MR. LUSH: I probably should have raised this earlier, Mr. Speaker, but I thought to do it before we get to Orders of the Day. In relation to Question Period, the hon. Member for Kilbride tabled a document and I think that the House should make a ruling on this and get it straight. We do have rules to follow and tabling of documents is a rather important item. Documents can be injurious to the public, damaging to an individual and that is why there are some pretty clear rules made regarding the citing of documents. I refer hon. members to Beauchesne, 6th Edition, page 151, clause 495. Clause 495 deals with documents cited and hon. members can read them. The major one for this particular discussion is 495, subsection (6) which says, "A private member has neither the right nor the obligation to table an official, or any other, document." Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear and Erskine May states the same thing equally as clear. I am not able to give the exact quote, but Sir Erskine May does make an equally clear assertion when talking about documents cited. I would suggest that Your Honour take a look at it and -

AN HON. MEMBER: What did Maingot say about it?

MR. LUSH: I don't think Maingot said anything in particular about this particular item, but clearly, Beauchesne does, as does Sir Erskine May, and I point out to hon. members that it is an important item. I am not debating what the hon. member did today, but there could be a time when there would be a document that would be injurious to the public and hon. members, we cannot have it both ways, we have to be firm to say that Private Members do not have the right to table a document or that a Private Member does. I clearly point out what Beauchesne says and ask the Speaker to look at it in view of the importance. There was a member in this House, I would say to the hon. member, who at one time tabled just about anything and, it did get us in trouble from time to time, so I point out that particular ruling to hon. members.

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

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

Just to the member's point of order, yes indeed, I think a former Leader of the Liberal Party at one time tabled a codfish or something in the House, I say to the Member for Bonavista North and he was probably a member of the caucus who probably supported it at the time, it wouldn't surprise me. The member is right when he references Beauchesne, paragraph 495, but as well, in 495 (2), it goes on to say that: It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. Now I think that reference is to a minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I will say to the hon. member that, members here read -

MR. LUSH: I was talking about Ministers.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry, Efford? Efford tried to table a bucket of water.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, a big bucket of water.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he tried to table a bucket of water. We would all have been better off if he had drunk the bucket of water, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but it has become a fairly common practise here, Mr. Speaker, is the point I want to make, for members who are up and referring to documents and quite often, members on the opposite side, depending on the member who is on his feet, would shout: `table it, table it'! I mean, they get annoyed and upset if you are reading from something and they say well, table it. Of course, the reason they do that is that they are not quite sure that you really have anything there, I would suggest to members. They are really not sure if I quote from this piece of paper that there is really anything on it or, that on this paper what I am saying is on it. You can't have it both ways, I say to Member for Bonavista North and he is here long enough to know that.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I am not referring to this member, I am referring to members opposite, but the Member for Kilbride today, certainly had a very legitimate reference, taken directly from the appropriate division of Workers' Compensation, which showed the list of cases, the case numbers and the dates and so on and so forth, so I say to the Member for Bonavista North, while I appreciate his concern about the tabling of documents, I think it is a little bit late. I say it is several or perhaps, ten or twenty or thirty or forty years late for the hon. member to get in his place now and today argue against a practice that has been so widely accepted in this House and for most parts that is requested by members when they ask an hon. member to table whatever they are referring to so with that I just conclude my submission.

MR. TOBIN: If I could?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: I could make a brief comment on that. If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Speaker, it was probably the Member for Bonavista North, when he sat in the Speaker's Chair, if not, it was the Speaker prior to him who made a ruling in this House at one time, that a Private Member who was reading notes, reading his speech, I remember distinctly who it was, he was reading his speech, Mr. Speaker, and he was advised by the Speaker at the time, and I am not sure, but I believe it was probably the Member for Bonavista North, who told the member that if he continued to read his speech he would have to table it, so I don't know where people are coming from in this Legislature, but I remember the member, a new member in this House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I don't know what to say, but I am saying that there was a member in this House who was reading his speech and he was reminded by one of the hon. gentlemen opposite that he was not allowed to read his speech in the Legislature, and the Speaker at the time did not instruct him to table it but told him he was not allowed to continue to read his speech; if he did so, he would have to lay it upon the Table of the House. I remember that but I don't know which Speaker it was, but I remember it distinctly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, no, I don't know if the hon. member was referring to me, but I can assure him that I made no such ruling, that I never -

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't remember that.

MR. LUSH: Oh yes, I can surely remember. I wouldn't make such a ruling Sir and I can tell the hon. member but that's irrelevant. I can tell the hon. member what my usual response to that was that I don't think the hon. member is reading his speech, he is just quoting from copious notes. That was always my `pat' answer, all the time, regardless of whether the member was reading or not, but, Mr. Speaker, just on this final submission on this point of order, I say to the hon. member, when he was reading the reference, that it refers to ministers and everywhere there are authorities on this, it has been referenced to ministers.

As a matter of fact, I will tell the hon. member that the most famous ruling made in that regard was made - I won't say by which Speaker, but the matter was the tabling of a book written by Mr. Smallwood and the person who quoted from the book was Mr. Neary and Mr. Neary didn't want to table the book because he didn't own it. The book belonged to Mr. Smallwood and Mr. Smallwood was absent at the time but the government of the day insisted that he must table the book because he read from it and Mr. Neary protested. Anyway, it was in the Committee that the ruling was made and Mr. Neary refused, so as hon. members know, he reported back to the Speaker so the House was called out of the Committee, back to the House and the Speaker read from Beauchesne, read from Sir Erskine May, word for word, quoting that only a minister was required to table a document, but on the basis of that quote -

AN HON. MEMBER: Required.

MR. LUSH: Yes, only a minister was required to make -

AN HON. MEMBER: Required

MR. LUSH: Required. Yes, only a minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: - only a minister was required or obligated to table a document and proceeded to make the member table the document based on that particular ruling and it was clear that Sir Erskine May was saying that it was only a minister, so I say that in tabling of documents, Mr. Speaker, that it is only a minister who is required to table a document and quite clearly, Erskine May points out that a Private Member has neither the right nor the obligation.

MR. SPEAKER: I will recognize the hon. Member for Kilbride then I will hear from Government House Leader.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Bonavista North for raising the point because it raises another issue which I think, you, as Speaker, should take into consideration and advise all hon. members. At which point when asking questions or participating in debate, if we have relevant information that can cause other disclosures or shed more light on a situation or a subject - I seek advisement from the Chair as a member of the House - to say when and at what point can I do that and I would appreciate it - I don't know if you understand what I am saying -

MR. SPEAKER: No. I am sorry, I don't (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I seek advisement. If, as a Private Member, I am unable to table documents in the House, especially when it's on an issue that may shed more light to which the public is paying attention; as a Private Member, am I to disclose or am I not allowed, based upon what the Member for Bonavista North says, that I am not allowed to table a document in the House or, should I seek the Chair's advice before tabling documents in this House? I am looking for direction, basically.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I shall be very brief but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my hon. friends opposite. It is not often they recognize wisdom although it is often proffered to them.

My friend for Bonavista North has once again shown his mastery of the rules of the House. The rules are quite clear. A private member may neither be required to table a document nor be permitted to table a document. That is the rule. We can change the practice if we wish, but the rule is quite clear.

MR. TOBIN: That doesn't make sense!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have given up trying to make sense of the hon. gentleman for Burin - Placentia West, or to make sense to him. What I am saying is that in my submission the rule is very clear. My friend for Bonavista North referred to Beauchesne, and it is quite clear. My friend for Burin - Placentia West referred to really quite another issue. The rule is, one is not allowed to read a speech in this House, and that is obviously the situation to which the Speaker was addressing himself when he made the ruling to which my friend for Burin - Placentia West referred. My friend for Bonavista North in my submission is completely correct. His point is well taken and I would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, Mr. Speaker, only ministers or those who speak for ministers may table reports. That is quite in order as well. Or with one exception. Committees report to the House, but that is under a different Standing Order as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Private members have no right to table reports. Private members may table a document in behalf of the minister but are doing so in behalf of the minister.

Your Honour, I will draw this to a conclusion, unless Your Honour wishes to carry on, because the rule is at 3:00 p.m. on a Wednesday we get on with the private member's motion, in this case the one standing of my friend for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) briefly, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Very briefly?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is very serious. If this drags on it is very serious, what is taking place here. (Inaudible) example the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir stood in this House and tabled a report on behalf of the Government Services Committee, as a private member. What we are saying now is that the committees that are out there right now that are holding hearings are not going to be allowed to come back before this House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible). Are not allowed, Mr. Speaker, as a private member, to come back in this Legislature and table reports. If the Speaker is to listen to what has been said by the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: So, Mr. Speaker, what the Member for Bonavista North and the Government House Leader are doing here today, is trying to shut up the Member for Kilbride who has tabled documents that will probably cause embarrassment to the government. What it is doing is preventing and prohibiting this House from doing its work if private members are not allowed to table reports of committee of which they chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is 3:00 p.m. I will take the question under advisement. It is an important one, as members realize, and it is a question of what may be tabled in the House and by whom. I will report back to the House as soon as possible.

It is now 3:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes will be speaking to Motion No. 3. I now call the motion.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I introduce the following I would just react to the comments of the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. It looks like it is going to be an interesting afternoon, since we started before I even got to start. I say to the minister, it is not the exact wording as the Member for Fogo when he brought forward a private member's resolution, but it is in the same spirit. The only difference on this side of the House and the other side of the House, we are allowed to bring forward our resolutions when we see fit. There is a sense of freedom on this side, no shackles holding us back. I say we don't get stifled on this side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, someone to write it? I say the writing is on the wall, I say to the minister.

I would just like to bring forward the following private member's resolution, Mr. Speaker:

"WHEREAS the fishing industry has been, and will continue to be, the cornerstone of the culture and economy of Newfoundland and Labrador;

AND WHEREAS the fishery moratorium has placed this Province in a very critical situation;

AND WHEREAS the present situation demands a new sense of direction and strengthening;

AND WHEREAS the amalgamation of the Department of Fisheries into the new Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture weakens rather than strengthens efforts to revive the fishing industry in this Province;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly strongly urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and its Premier to reinstate a Department of Fisheries concerned solely with fisheries and fishery related matters; strengthened and revitalized; and, separate from the Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture announced by the Premier on August 26, 1994."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the minister, we look forward to his remarks later on this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, my only concern today, or my only set-back today, is that the Member for Fogo is not present, because I am sure he would like to stand up and support my petition if he was in the House. I look forward to some support from the other side of the House.

As most members are aware, I represent the District of St. Mary's -The Capes. It has been known for hundreds of years as a fishery district. The culture and the history of the District of St. Mary's - The Capes is settled around the fishery, from the community of St. Bride's, out on the Cape Shore, right down to Trepassey, Portugal Cove South, communities like St. Mary's, Mount Carmel, right throughout the district; for hundreds of years these communities have depended upon and have thrived because of the fishing industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for LaPoile is raising a point of order.

MR. RAMSAY: If I could, just for a second, for the hon. member's sake, I did want to explain that the hon. Member for Fogo is away because of a death of a close friend of his family. I just want to make sure that is on the record along with the remarks. I think the hon. member is aware of that, but I just wanted to make sure it was noted in the remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, as the hon. member realizes. He is using the occasion to put information before the House. I will recognize again the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was aware of where the Member for Fogo was, and I appreciate that he cannot be with us today, but I am sure -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: We have a lot of new speakers in the House today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will go back now almost 500 years, when John Cabot came here to Newfoundland, and in a couple of years time we will celebrate the arrival of John Cabot. I will go back, as history tells us, to when they lowered the baskets and filled their baskets with fish and, upon his return to England, when he reported that the waters off the `New Found Land' were teeming with fish. It took us almost 500 years to bring this great industry to a standstill, and I hope that over the next couple of years we take the right direction and make sure that we bring back the fishing industry to what it was a number of years ago, and bring back the industry for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I don't intend to stand here today and play politics with such a serious issue as this. We are talking about the most important industry in this Province, an industry that we have lived upon and have survived upon for many hundreds of years. It has created a good life for many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I won't use the word `good'; I will say it has created a `great' way of life for the many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have made their living from the sea. The bounty of the sea has made us a proud and prosperous people over the years, and I think it is a shame that we now, for some reason or other, have looked at it - the Premier, in his wisdom, or so-called wisdom, has looked at it - and put this industry, as far as I am concerned, on the back burners of the government in what they have done in taking away a full-fledged Department of Fisheries and rolling it into a Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

I think at this time in our history, when this great industry has been brought to its knees, and all you have to do is drive around my district, or many districts in this Province in rural Newfoundland, and you can see for yourself that this industry, as I said before, we are so proud of, has really brought the outport way of life to its knees. I see it every day as I drive around my district. I see the impact that it has had on the communities. I see the impact that it has on social life, along with the economic way of life. I see the impact it has had on families. I see the impact it has had on individuals, and I believe that over the next couple of years we are facing a very serious situation in this Province in relation to rural Newfoundland, the way of life of outport Newfoundland, and I believe that only by putting fisheries front and centre can we have the opportunity at least to make sure that the concerns are raised about the fishing industry, and that those concerns are brought forward in the manner that is non-partisan and is on behalf of the people of the Province.

I say right now we are in a present crisis here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that it affects everybody. The people who concern me the most, as I look around my district, are the young people. I look back just a few years ago, and I can remember young fellows in my home town of St. Bride's making upwards of $300 and $400 a week down on the wharf cutting out tongues. I would see 150 people working in the fish plant there, several other indirect jobs in the community because of the industry, Mr. Speaker. When I look at those young people now trying to find some dollars to help them out to get to university or to post-secondary education, whatever the case may be and there is nothing for them to fall back on, Mr. Speaker, in regards to finding some work in the community, as young people. Like I said, I can remember when thirteen and fourteen year olds were out making dollars and putting it away for school to help their parents out, for clothing or whatever the case may be, to help with text books. I think that the fishing industry helped everybody, from the youngest in the community to the oldest. It helped everybody, Mr. Speaker.

It is sad to see, this crisis now that we are facing in this Province, what it is doing to outport Newfoundland. What I see every day, Mr. Speaker, is sad and I think that right now there is not enough concern - there is a lot of concern now over the past few days about the turbot stocks out there and I applaud the efforts, I had no problem in doing so. I applauded the efforts when the time was right, the efforts of the federal government and Minister Brian Tobin on his actions on the Grand Banks. I had no problem anytime standing up and supporting those efforts.

I believe that very critical negotiations are ongoing now and hopefully over the next few weeks something will be solved that will save the turbot stocks. I believe that if we had to do that with the cod stocks back a few years ago we might not be in the situation that we are in in this Province today. That is why I believe now, Mr. Speaker, and why I bring forward this resolution today, not on behalf of the people of St. Mary's - The Capes - even though like I said before, it is a full fishery district - but on behalf of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe if there was ever a need before for a full fledged fisheries department in this Province, the need is now, Mr. Speaker.

I am very concerned when I look around the Province. I go out to people in my own district and other parts of the Province that I travelled over the past month and people ask me - and I don't mean this in a negative way but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, people ask who is the Minister of Fisheries. I mean people have asked me. I was up on the Northern Peninsula a couple of weeks and somebody asked me at a meeting I was at: Who is the Minister of Fisheries? I think that is sad, Mr. Speaker, and I don't mean that in any negative way. I just say that now because of the way the Premier has decided to roll in the Fisheries - food and Agriculture people are not really sure who is the Minister of Fisheries. When the Member for Twillingate was the Minister of Fisheries everybody in this Province knew who the Minister of Fisheries was, I say to the minister. This is nothing negative against the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture now. I say to the member that people really don't know. Because the departments are rolled in together people are not fully aware of who is the Minister of Fisheries.

They asked down on the waterfront when I was down as an Opposition member in the House of Assembly supporting the efforts of the federal government on the waterfront - when I was down people asked then where was the Minister of Fisheries. When you had thousands of people on the waterfront supporting the efforts of Brian Tobin and the federal government people asked where was our provincial Minister of Fisheries. I say that I think it is sad, Mr. Speaker.

I think that when the Premier goes off on his trips to New York or Washington to talk about the fisheries to the world, to talk about the fisheries to other countries on behalf of the government, I ask him, why doesn't he take his Minister of Fisheries with him? Why doesn't he take the Member for Eagle River with him? No, if the Premier wants to be Minister of Fisheries he should be Minister of Fisheries but he should not. I say to the minister, what I am trying to get across is that because of the way the departments are rolled in together many people in the Province think that the fisheries department is on the back burner, that the main concern with the minister is agriculture and because of that people really do not know who the Minister of Fisheries is at the time. People are asking questions. I am just putting forward the concern that the people have raised with me, Mr. Speaker, and I say in all honesty that people have asked: Who is the Minister of Fisheries? I think it is a sad commentary on the government, it is a sad commentary on Newfoundland and Labrador, that has been built around the fishing industry that people out in the Province are asking who is the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is sad.

Like I said before, we were down on the waterfront, Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, to support the efforts of the federal government. The hon. Member for Port de Grave was on the waterfront showing his support for the federal government on their initiative and so were many people down on the waterfront that day - and I say this in all honesty - like the words of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations yesterday, he said: `In all honesty and sincerity, I say to you that people were asking on the waterfront that day: Where is our Minister of Fisheries?' They asked: `Where is the Premier?' for that matter. But they asked: `Where is the Minister of Fisheries?'

I say I believe in my own heart and soul, Mr. Speaker, that if the Member for Twillingate were the Minister of Fisheries he would have been on the waterfront that day speaking up for the people of the Province, at least on behalf of and supporting the efforts of the Federal Government. I was down there as an Opposition Member in the House of Assembly, supporting the efforts of the Federal Government. But again, there are no shackles on me, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the fishing industry has built Newfoundland and Labrador. It is very important that it be highlighted here in the House of Assembly as much as possible. I believe that many times we find other issues of concern here that are put on the - and place our fisheries issues on the back burner. As I said earlier, I believe, and I'm sure the people in many parts of Newfoundland and Labrador believe, that there is a need for a full-fledged Fisheries Minister in this Province right now, more than ever before.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) bring back the fish.

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Eagle River, how often did I hear the Member for Eagle River shouting out about the fishing concerns. I don't want to get off on that today. I'm not here to talk about party politics or anything. I'm talking about the concern of the people in this Province. The concern is that we do not have a fully-fledged Department of Fisheries in this Province. That is the concern that people have. It was addressed here.

The Member for Fogo, if he were here today, would be able to stand in this House and tell me - he has told me in private, he has told other members in the House about the telephone calls that he received. He sent petitions around this Province that he has failed to bring forward in this House today, over the past number of months, from thousands of people in this Province who have brought forward the concerns they have, fishermen and fisherwomen throughout the Province who are concerned that our fisheries, for some reason or other, seems to be put on the back burner.

Over the past couple of weeks, yes, the concern has been highlighted by the Premier and other members of the government, because of the turbot dispute, but I believe that we should have a full-fledged Department of Fisheries in this Province simply because of the history of this Province right now, because of the crisis that we are going through. People are looking for answers. I get several calls to my office on a daily basis concerned with fisheries issues and concerns. I talk to people over in the department, but for some reason or other it doesn't seem that there is a hands-on approach within the department. I believe that is wrong for the people of this Province now who have been surviving on the fisheries for so many years.

I believe that the resolution today - I look for support from the other side of the House. Maybe because of the shackles that are on the members on the other side, they will not stand and support. I know from private conversation with some of the members opposite that there are several of their members who think that there should be a full-fledged Department of Fisheries. Whether they stand up here today in the House and support the resolution and bring forward a unanimous consent that there should be a full-fledged Department of Fisheries remains to be seen.

I look forward to hearing comments from the other side of the House, and from the colleagues on my own side. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have listened to a lot of talks in my lifetime, but never have I sat through twenty minutes of mouthing of the same twenty-six words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: That was very interesting indeed.

I am indeed delighted to stand in this House and address the resolution that is on the floor of this hon. Assembly today, that has been put there by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, or maybe it was some other member. The resolution states that the fishing industry has been and continues to be a cornerstone of the culture and the economy of this Province. Now, the member stood in his place today and spoke to his resolution, and yet he did not speak to his resolution at all.

On the issue of being a cornerstone, I can assure you that you will get no argument. This Chamber will get no argument, this Province will get no argument from this minister as to whether the fishing industry is the cornerstone of this Province, because indeed it is. It has been for 500 years and it will be for the next 500 years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, to the private members' motion, obviously for these gentlemen on the other side of the hon. Chamber, it is getting a little too complicated and they are starting to make certain sounds that I referred to in this House earlier. Mr. Speaker, the private members' motion calling upon government to reinstate a Department of Fisheries concerned solely with fisheries and fisheries-related matters, separate from the Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture -

MR. FITZGERALD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, we just went though about fifteen minutes here in this House of Assembly talking about people reading speeches here in the House. I would like to tell the Speaker right now that the hon. minister is reading, Mr. Speaker. He is not taking it from notes, he is actually reading, and I ask that you correct that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the Chair had no indication, or it didn't appear to the Chair, that the hon. member was reading a speech. There is no point or order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Again, my reference to my notes is so that we have a reasonable delivery in this Chamber and not a mouth full of words that mean nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: When you have people elected in this Province who are basically so illiterate that they cannot write a resolution, this is a sad day in this Province - a sad day in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, all I say is that the minister is lucky that he is protected by the Chamber, he wouldn't say it to me out on the street. I say, Mr. Speaker, I don't have a Ph.D. I speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, like a lot of speakers here. I don't have a Ph.D, but the people of St. Mary's - The Capes elected me to represent them in the House of Assembly and I say that I am far from illiterate. I may not have a university background, Mr. Speaker, but I have a background from living, working and making my home in rural Newfoundland, and I will put my background up against the background of the minister any day at all, on any street in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I submit there is no point of order. The hon. gentleman, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes has written a resolution which speaks for itself. The fact that my friend, the Member for St. George's, the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture has characterized it as being of a certain type is not an insult to anything, it is just that the thing speaks for itself. The hon. gentleman should either have pride of authorship or sit down and be quiet, but in any event he should not raise specious points of order. He should let his arguments speak for themselves. If they have merit they will be heard, if they have no merit, as appears to be the case, then his raising specious points of order will not help him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think a very valid point of order has been raised by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. The Government House Leader can twist it how ever he likes but what the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture said was that it is unfortunate that we have people who are so illiterate that they cannot write a resolution. He referred to the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes being illiterate, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think - I don't have Beauchesne in front of me, but I would suggest to Your Honour that to refer to another member in this Assembly as an illiterate is not acceptable conduct, Mr. Speaker, or acceptable language coming from the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. I say to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, probably if he went the route you did, he would have a Ph.D, as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the Chair will take the point of order under advisement and check Hansard to see exactly what transpired and then make a ruling later.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Ph.D while you are up.

DR. HULAN: Do you know what it stands for?

Anyhow, the resolution that is put forward to this House, Mr. Speaker, is based on the premise, is based on a false assumption, that the integration of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture weakens rather than strengthens the efforts of the department, and the efforts with regard to rebuilding the fishery.

I should also note at this point, however, that government, in integrating these two great and critical important resource sectors of our economy, fully recognizes that the fisheries industry has been and will continue to be the cornerstone of this Province - it will continue to be. Indeed, the real purpose of the integration is for the strengthening of linkages between the two great food industries, fisheries and agriculture. That is the real reason for the linkage, ladies and gentlemen. If some members don't understand, fish, indeed, is food; vegetables are food. Therefore, we have a great department that links those two great sectors in one, as a Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

Also, it is interesting, and I should make note of this in this House, that the largest organization associated with the fisheries in this Province, the Fisheries, Food and Allied Workers, have already been integrated along those same lines of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the Premier -

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. HULAN: The Premier and I have enquired as to the view of the industry with regard to this integration.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you are supposed to sit down when someone else is recognized, I say to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Fisheries to call me -I wouldn't interrupt the minister except for the statements he made here this afternoon regarding another member, and because of the point of order that was raised earlier today by the Member for Bonavista North, but the member, the doctor, the Ph.D graduate, is continuing to read a speech in this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, is that allowed or is it not? Is it permissible under our Standing Orders and the rules of this Legislature, for the minister, who got up and referred to another member as being illiterate, and had to get up and read notes that I suspect someone in the department wrote for him - it is either one thing or the other; practice what you preach, throw away the notes, or apologize to the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, there is no Standing Order or any rule which prevents a member from referring to notes when he is making a speech.

The Chair understands that the hon. member has some notes, but whether he is reading or not, the Chair doesn't understand it to be that way. The hon. member has copious notes, I guess, and he is referring to them from time to time, and there is nothing against that.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I were reading, I would be reading. Obviously, the hon. gentleman across the way does not know, referencing to notes versus reading, the difference thereof.

I believe the common response that we have received from the industry, both the Premier and I, has been not whether there is a separate Department of Fisheries, or a combined Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. The question today is restoring the strength and rebuilding the industry, whether it is under a combined name tag of a Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, or a separate name tag of Fisheries only.

Integration of the Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture has a clear mandate, and that is to provide strong leadership in all aspects of food production. Indeed, there is no doubt that my department and government has a clear sense of direction for the fishing industry of the past, a fishing industry that will not be the fishing industry of yesterday. It will no longer be a fishing industry of the hunter and the hunted. It will be an industry that is based on education, on science, on technology, on managerial skills. It will not be the industry of yesterday, of the hunted and the hunter, and when the hunted is diminished, no longer does the hunter have a supply of work available to him.

There are those individuals participating in all sectors of the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker, who clearly understand, very clearly understand the linkages between Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, because the great fishing industry out there has a clear understanding that, yes, indeed, fish is food, the same as Agri-food products are food. Indeed, many, many of the concerns and challenges of the fishing sector are also common, very common, Mr. Speaker, to the challenges and the problems associated with the Agri-food industry. We are dealing then, Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, with two established industries that have one common goal and that is the production of food, and has a common goal for the production of that product out in rural Newfoundland where employment is the greatest. They are rural-based industries and they will remain as rural-based industries, and indeed, together as a food movement, they can rebuild the economy of rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to comprehend why those opposed to the establishment of the Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture interpret the decision to represent a weakening of government's commitment to the fishing industry. It states right in the resolution, Mr. Speaker, that we should take a new direction for the fishing industry of this Province. Well, I ask you, with what my department has focused on, secondary processing, value added aquaculture, are we not taking and leading us into the 21st Century with that new direction? I submit to you that we are, because we are also going to develop this industry, this food industry in this Province, keeping in mind the need for healthy food for Newfoundlanders and the generations to come and the effect that healthy food and health eating has on good health in the body.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

DR. HULAN: Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for Humber Valley -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

- I would like to welcome to the House, on behalf of all hon. members, thirty Level II students from Canon Richards High School. Their chaperons are: Mr. Calvin Mitchelmoore, Ms. Johanne Hughes and Ms. Elizabeth Gould and are from the district of the Strait of Belle Isle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words pertaining to this particular resolution put forward by my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's -The Capes.

Mr. Speaker, this, to me, is a very important resolution; there are a number of `Whereases' contained in the resolution that deserve more attention. It is not only the `Be it resolved' part of the resolution, or of any resolution, that deserves attention, but in this case, as it pertains to the resolution and as it pertains to the `Be It Therefore Resolved' that there will be a separate Department of Fisheries, or should be a separate Department of Fisheries, like it was, previous to last year's Budget, well, then, to some extent, Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with it.

Now, I just heard, from the Minister responsible for Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, some of the comments he made pertaining to the fishery. Our fishery is not down; our total value of fishery is not down. The way we catch fish is down - our groundfish is down, way down - no question. But other commodities and other species of fish are up. In fact, our total value last year, of fish, is up. It is up! But the numbers that are employed in the fishery are way, way down. The days are gone when thousands and thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be able to pursue the fishery and be able to take a good and sensible living out of it. The days are gone, in the sense of going off to sea and reaping the benefits of the fishery. They are gone!

In aquaculture, yes, there is all kinds of business available, and there are all kinds of opportunities available in aquaculture. But the fishery as a cornerstone in communities and rural areas of this Province has pretty well had it. There is a number of - I can speak for my district: the community of Jackson's Arm. I will start off with Sop's Arm, which was primarily depending on groundfish up until 1989, mainly depending on groundfish. The industry closed out, went bankrupt, and Sop's Arm Fisheries is no more. But the community of Jackson's Arm for years depended on pelagics, primarily on pelagics - some groundfish over the years, but since 1989, none whatsoever.

What happened last year to some pelagics around this Province and in some areas of the Province? What happened to some species, like mackerel, herring, crab? sales of crab, way up, total value landed, way up. But mackerel, herring, caplin, last year, was a dead loss. Caplin experienced the most dramatic decline within the pelagic species, with landings falling from 47,000 tons to just 1,800 tons last year; 1,800 tons, from 47,000 tons in 1993.

And you wonder what happened, for instance, to a community such as Jackson's Arm in my district. Only for crab prices being up and the catches being up last year in that particular area, it would have been a tragedy. It would have been just as detrimental to that community as with the groundfish to other communities around this Province.

But the values - this is why I think we have great potential. The importance of the fishery is no different today in this Province than it was yesterday or yesteryear - no different. It is just as important. It is just that, like I said, the volume is not there, the groundfish is not there. There are certain species now - we are gone into underutilized species. Just for instance, to give an example: between 1993 and 1994 in shellfish, in the tonnage there was 66,420, versus 1994, it went up to 78,870. In total value landings in shellfish it went from $117 million - (inaudible) in 1993 - to $190 million in 1994 alone. That is what brought the value of total fish landings in the Province up, last year, to a total of $212 million, versus $194 million in 1993 - so it is approximately $20 million. It mightn't sound much, but it is up on the total value landed, and that includes groundfish, pelagics, and all shellfish, including crab.

I guess it proves that we are going after the underutilized species. We are spending more time going after underutilized species. It is bringing in - I know that the company, P. Janes and Sons, last year had great sales, all kinds of sales, for mackerel and herring, whatever they could bring in - squid. One of the only plants and companies in the Province that has an offshore quota for squid is P. Janes and Sons. They had 1,000 ton offshore quota for squid given to them - I don't know, probably five or six years ago, but everybody knows what is happening to the squid. But if the mackerel and the herring had been good this year, and squid and caplin had been good, that community would have prospered, providing hundreds of jobs to individuals and families in that particular area.

So, the importance of the fishery in the Province as a whole is obvious. It is obvious, I think, that there should be more emphasis put on it. Maybe the minister can, like he said, get up and explain that there is just as much emphasis put on the fisheries today by his department as there was two or three years ago. Maybe there is, but I think the emphasis now has to be in a different area. It has to shift towards conservation; it has to shift towards aquaculture; it has to shift towards -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Now, I know the hon. the Member for Eagle River would just love - he is almost the same height - to be down in the seat that the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture is occupying now; there is no question about that. I would say that is his dream, and maybe some day he may realize it, as long as he stays quiet and doesn't interfere with the minister and what he is doing. Give him a few tips, but don't interfere, and you just might slip down into that seat some day and occupy that particular chair - or the position, I should say.

Mr. Speaker, in a district such as mine, I am blessed with the fact that I have pretty well everything when it comes to resources in the district. There is a little bit of everything. That is why we often refer to communities and towns around the Province about being diversified. The district of Humber Valley is diversified in the sense that it has involvement in the fishery pretty well of all kinds, even including aquaculture, because a young fellow from Deer Lake has an aquaculture farm, Arctic char, up in Grand Lake, one of the largest cold water bodies, and one of the coldest water bodies in the Province, a great place. He is having a few problems, but, nevertheless, who doesn't? that could be a success.

We have the fishery in White Bay South. There is forestry all throughout Humber Valley and White Bay South; there is tourism; there is agriculture; mining and transportation, you name it and it is there - the crossroads for the Northern Peninsula, east and west - and the opportunities are there to do whatever people would like to do, provided they are given a chance.

The Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, of which the hon. member now is minister, is going to have to put more - I talked to a gentleman from the district of the hon. the Member for Port au Port, last Saturday, at the Dominion Store in Corner Brook. He has a scallop farm out there - I just forget the gentleman's name.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I think that is - he had some beautiful, beautiful scallops there at the Dominion Store in Corner Brook. You could try one or two, or whatever. They were there for sale. It is the way of the future with regard to the fishery in the Province, no doubt. And I would like to ask the minister - I never got a chance to look at the Estimates with regard to aquaculture yet, we will have an opportunity by Monday to look at them, to see what the Province is doing to try to help out people in that particular field, and companies and so on. Don't put impediments in their way. Don't put blockages there to stop businesses and people from trying to get into the industry. There are enough impediments there now to stop anybody before they even get to first base. There are all kinds of excuses why you shouldn't do it. There are all kinds of people there saying why you can't do it. You will never find anybody there to say, `Well, this is the way you do it,' or `We will help you get started.'

I hope that one of the priorities in his department, by his officials, will be to try to take some of those people and lead them through the quagmire that we find in this Province, especially as it pertains to bureaucratic red tape. It is there, regardless of what ministers say, or what anybody says. They are there, and that is going to be one of the biggest obstacles that any government department is going to have today to try to overcome, because those people are there - we are the ones, I said it before, who have to knock on doors every four years. Everybody else in those government departments stay there. They are answerable to no one only whoever their minister is or deputy minister or whatever. We are the ones who have to knock on doors, they haven't, and if there is an application that comes in to do anything they are the first ones to say: Sorry can't do that. They have never probably moved outside the office, never got up from the desk and don't know what it is to shovel a bit of dirt or to get their hands dirty. They make a decision because a lot of people got the idea here but they cannot get it on paper. Some of them do both, they got the idea and they can get someone else to help them put it on paper and then someone in here will say: No sorry, no good. So I say to the minister that he is going to have to take a personal approach, a first hand approach and give directive to his officials to make sure that anybody who comes forward with an application to do anything, whether it is in fishery, whether it is in agriculture or whatever it is in, to give them a chance and give them a hearing. At least give them a hearing.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned about the crab, the shell fish. Last year it jumped to its highest level in fifteen years. Its highest level in both catch and price of crab last year. Now that was because of certain factors, there was a low catch I believe in Alaska, notably in Alaska and reduced supplies available to US markets created by other local production problems in other places but that made a big difference last year alone, just that.

Now there is another concern that I have. I have heard that the federal government or DFO is in the process of probably allocating some more crab licenses to probably inshore boats. Now this is usually what happens. It is the same way with everything, no matter what kind of a quota you have, no matter what you have, there is always someone who tries to get in on the bandwagon. Now I say to the minister, through his department, make representation. Although I would like to see more quota for inshore, especially for the smaller boats, they are going to have to be very careful with that. I heard that they were going to try to issue 134 new licenses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to speak in this debate. I am very pleased to speak against this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it has been some time since we saw a resolution come before this House that so clearly distinguishes between Tories and Liberals. So clearly distinguishes between what the Tories believe and what the Liberals believe. Mr. Speaker, obviously we have seen from the other side today, in the presentation given by the hon. member, that the Tories are showing their typical regressive, backward and weak nature, Mr. Speaker, in very dramatic form. There is no doubt about it but on this particular occasion of the formation of this particular department, staffed by this minister, we are seeing a very progressive Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. That is in line with how we feel as Liberals. We have new ideas. We are not afraid to go out and try to integrate our ideas and be able to make something bigger, Mr. Speaker, to make it better. We are not always going to have our heads in the sand and get up and talk about the days of the past.

When we are going to talk about John Cabot putting his nets over the side of the boat and how you think that the Department of Fisheries if it stood by itself, is going to bring back John Cabot, bring back all the fish that was there before. How silly, Mr. Speaker, how silly but obviously quite in keeping with the principals of Toryism, Mr. Speaker. How backward can you get? But we are not seeing any backward motives here, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing visionaries at work over on this side of the House. We are seeing visionaries that are taking science and technology and applying it to the fishing industry as it was never done before.

Yes, we were the hunters and the hunted. Yes, when we brought the product on the shores, when we took it up in the nets, yes we sent it off somewhere else so that people could get the jobs out of it, Mr. Speaker. We were not getting the kind of value - and that obviously was started in 1989 with the previous Minister of Fisheries but obviously it is still continued and in a more, I think, significant fashion now with the addition of this minister who brings his credentials to this department and is applying science and technology more to this particular area of government than it has been before. Simply because that is the way of the future. That is the vision of the fishery of the future.

Our fishery of the future we know is not going to have the same 360,000 tons of northern cod. We know we are not going to have the same supply of American plaice and flounder and grey sole. We know we are not going to have the same supplies of redfish and turbot and shrimp. We know we are not going to have all of that, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Because of the federal government mismanagement of those resources in the past, that is why. Aided and abetted and done by your Tory colleagues in Ottawa over the years, Mr. Speaker, namely the biggest yellowtail flounder of all, the hon. John Crosbie. He was one of the foremost who applied their regressive, backward, weak principles of Toryism to fisheries policy in this country and in this Province. Obviously we are seeing here now progressive policy, we are seeing a visionary policy of the fishery of the future. We are seeing courageous action on the part of this government.

I mean, if you want to talk to the member over there, you would believe that just because there happens to be a Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa that that stopped Brian Tobin from doing what nobody else did in the history of this country, and take over custodial management of the Nose and Tail. Do you think that that stopped them? Did that stop him? Because he had Oceans in the department name, that stopped him from doing what no Tory ever could, ever had the courage, the vision or the guts to do. No one, not to this day.

Here we are now into the crab industry. In three years we've seen the price of crab go up ten times, from $0.31 cents. If we were to believe the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes it is not supposed to happen with Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. It is supposed to go from $0.31 back to $0.03. No, that is not what has happened. Nothing has stopped the fishery from prospering in that particular section, and nothing will stop the fishery from prospering in other parts of the section.

We are going to see fisheries policy move forward. We are going to see the value of our fishery significantly increase. We are going to see a future of the fishery that will bring security to our people. We are going to see our fishery diversified. We are going to see our rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador get into the other species, so that when the house of cards comes down on one species it won't mean that rural Newfoundland and Labrador will be on its face like it is today simply because that was the regressive policy of the Tories opposite that was followed for the seventeen years they were in power. They believed that we should do nothing only build cod plants; they should do nothing only try and take some cod and put it in and give it out to the Americans then, or to the Japanese. That was the policy that was put forward. They never tried to diversify our fishery, they never tried to see that we got access to that northern shrimp resource, they never tried to see that we got access to the other species that are out there that can provide security.

It came to us, it was us who went down into Port au Choix and saw that the shrimp was landed there, and there is going to be another investment there now to FPI and to others. It was us who took the initiative on the northern shrimp that I know is going to bring to fruition, asking for an inshore northern shrimp fishery, to be able to bring into Canada for the first time ever. Those are the kinds of policies that we are going to offer. It was us who went to the Connaigre Peninsula and put the money into the aquaculture down there. I suspect that we are going to see more significant, substantial moves made in aquaculture as a result of this department and the energies of this particular minister.

We are looking at the ground swell of support that is out there now for a new seal fishery. It is a result of this department. It is a result of the actions of this minister that we are seeing a new renewed focus on the sealing industry that we never saw before. We see an opportunity now where we are going to get the value from that animal that was never even thought of before. I am hoping that we are going to get the approval and see a situation where we can have a floating abattoir so that we can deliver a first-grade, high-quality seal meat, and a seal skin, and also the use of the oil that was never done before. That is coming about as a result of the research and development that this minister has done, and the emphasis that he is putting on this aspect of the fishery. It will create jobs, it will create substantial jobs, and long-term meaningful security to our communities that we've never seen before.

It was us who went to the Coast of Labrador and got the crab industry and made it a productive enterprise, making money, giving 140 jobs to the people in Cartwright that they never had before. It was the Liberals on this side and it was the visionaries on this side of the House who did that. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that the people out there now are calling them yellowtail Tories, it is no wonder that the people out there now are saying: where are they now? They feebly get up - the Member for Grand Bank feebly gets up and says: Well I don't think they will go away tomorrow, I don't think they are all going to leave tomorrow, I don't think they are going to move as fast as they want to, Old Chicken Little, is at it again, Mr. Speaker.

Six months ago, we saw him in fine form, brought in the legislation, within twenty-four hours it went to the House of Commons then it went to the Senate, got Royal Assent - never done in the history of Parliament, he got up in the House and said: It's not going to do anything, it is only going to take a look at the few vessels of flags of convenience vessels, that's all. Then they arrested the Americans, then they arrested the Spanish and then they arrested everybody who was in there doing things they weren't supposed to do. That was courageous action, that was watershed legislation, that was Liberal visionaries backed up by this minister and this government and we will have no apologies to make for our actions in this department and the future fishery that we build for all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, none at all, none at all.

We have nothing to learn. Take the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, and he will say, change the name of the department, put it back to the Department of Fisheries and that will mean automatically, overnight, the northern cod fishery is going to start jumping on Cape Shore, the northern cod will be climbing up the banks of Trepassey, it will be doing all kinds of things. Oh yes, you can imagine now, National Geographic going out seeing the backflips the cod are taking simply because the Department of Fisheries is going to be brought back. They are going to be singing the songs, the whales will be coming up singing all the songs, can't believe that the Department of Fisheries is back. How silly do you get.

We on this side of the House were re-elected on the basis of our actions, on our merits and on our polices of providing good government for our people and we will continue doing that in the fisheries department with this minister and with this focus as we have in the past number of years and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when the next election is called, I have absolutely no doubt that they won't turn to the yellowtail Tories, they will turn to the red Liberals, the visionaries, the people who said that we are going to tackle the issues, that we are going to put plans in there, we are going to put money in there, we are going to put ideas in there, that we were not going to hide under our tables, we are not going to run down under the rocks around the coves and shores of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are going to go up there and boldly challenge the Spanish, we are going to boldly challenge anybody who takes our fisheries for granted. We have nothing to learn from the yellowtail Tories opposite, not one thing, not one iota, not one sentence, not one idea if even there was one put forward, Mr. Speaker, which there isn't.

We listened for fifteen, twenty minutes at the beginning of this and not one iota of policy - obviously the fisheries critic over there does not even believe in the issue, never wanted to bring it forward, couldn't bring this resolution forward, the fisheries critic wouldn't bring it forward, obviously because he knew that he would lose his credibility - the little that he has - he would lose that if he brought it forward. He walked away from it, he ran away from it, he skirted around it, he went out and poked his nose in the door once or twice today because he definitely did not want to be associated with this particular resolution.

He told the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, that if you put forward this resolution, I tell you, you know, the credibility of our policy, I mean the visionaries that we have there now, Loyola and Lynn Verge, the Loyolas of the world who are going to be the saviours of the fishery, the Bill Barry campaign manager for the fishery, the Bill Barrys of the world who are going to solve all the fisheries policies of the world.

I am anxious to see how much influence the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes is going to bring on the Member for Ferryland. I am anxious to see if he is going to support the kind of policies that that member has been talking about for the past few months, where his vision of the future of the fishery is to have four or five plants in this Province working twelve months around and the hell with rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, that's not our policy. We will not accept it and we will build our future fishery to give the security to the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador that they never had before and never had the hope of having before while they were at the tiller. That is the result. They know what the record is. They know where we are going. We have laid it out in fine fashion. In the foreseeable future, the near future, I hope, we will see the release of another significant document from this minister, outlining our view of the future of the fishery in this Province, and I believe the people of this Province will again be proud of what we are doing. They will again be able to look at us and say: Yes, indeed, again we have people who have a plan. Again we have people who have some commitment. Again we have some people who have the courage, the guts, the will, and they are not supposed to hide behind a Tory banner or a Liberal banner. We are hiding behind nothing but good, solid government. That is what we are doing, and the people of this Province, I am sure, will respond positively to that particular record when we are about to go and tell it to the people as we see it.

I am happy to be able to come here today and enunciate the policy in support of this minister, and in support of this government's actions on this issue, and if I had another thirty or forty minutes, I would love to be able to talk about some of the other famous yellowtail Tory policies that we have been so accustomed to seeing over the last twenty years. I wish I had the time today to be able to talk about the kind of stuff that was done in Ottawa that was supported by the members opposite, but I know other members want a chance to speak today, and I would be only too happy to sit back and listen to them. I will listen to the member clue up over there when he has a chance, and tell us where the future of the fishery is according to the yellowtail Tories, to the `Loyolas' of the world. We will see where the future of the fishery is, and I submit that the future of the fishery, in the minds of those people opposite, is 400 years old, and that will not be accepted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: That will not be supported; that will not be enunciated by this minister and this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I was going to say, before the Constable leaves -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Before the Constable leaves, I want to say to him, I was watching the Member for Eagle River; I would like to meet him halfway on the old Grand Bank soccer field, or the old St. Lawrence field, with the ball coming out of the air. There is no doubt you would just hear one big grunt, and there would be two people run out and grab him by a leg each, and they would say, `Pump him, pump him', and they would be pumping him, trying to get the air back into him. `Pump him,' they would say, `Pump him.' That is what I was thinking about, how I would love to see the courageous Member for Eagle River with the ball coming down center field in Grand Bank, two of us going for it - can you imagine? We would see who was the yellowtail then, I say to the Member for Eagle River. He wouldn't flick like a yellowtail or a turbot, because there wouldn't be any flick left in him. There wouldn't be a flick left in him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Flatfish.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A flatfish, yes, a real flatfish. What a tirade, I say to the Member for Eagle River! How childish and how juvenile the member gets!

The resolution that the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes put forward was the same resolution that the Member for Fogo gave notice of. The Member for Fogo gave notice of the same resolution, and went all over the Province gathering thousands and thousands of petitions from fishermen and concerned people - thousands of petitions - going to present them in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then `Bud' challenged the member out.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Imagine, the resolution, and the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture jumps up, yes, insulting the member, challenging him out.

MR. TOBIN: What about all the signatures he had?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: All the signatures, and then the Member for Eagle River getting up and calling us yellowtail Tories. The people of the Province know -

MR. TOBIN: Wait now, `Bill'; did he sign `Beaton's' petition where (inaudible) the names.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he signed it. He signed the petition calling for a separate Department of Fisheries. Nine of them over there, sitting in those benches, signed a petition supporting the resolution put forward by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes that indeed there be a separate Department of Fisheries. Nine members on the government benches signed the petition.

The Member for Eagle River talks about our lack of vision. Then he talks about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, why is he so testy? Why is the Member for Eagle River so testy? Why is the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations so testy these days? On and on I could go. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation for a week hasn't shut up, yapping and putting people down. Why? What is it all about? Are they trying to make an impression amongst their own members, to show their own members that they are courageous?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) testy (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, that is a good point, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. If I had his worries I would be testy, too.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If I had your worries I would be testy, too, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I don't know how the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board keeps so cool over there. He stays pretty cool, very cool. I don't know what he is like inside, but he appears as if he is cool, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Health wasn't too bad in his answers today, I must say. He was pretty calm and collected - very good answers, I say to the minister. I have to commend him; very good answers you gave today. You handled yourself very well on the issue.

MR. EFFORD: On the fish?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it has nothing to do with the fish. The minister knows what I'm talking about. I'm talking to the Minister of Health, I say to the testy Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

The Member for Eagle River talked about the lack of fish. He can't go back beyond John Crosbie for some reason, you know. You don't have to reflect back very far to the days of Pierre Trudeau and Romeo LeBlanc and Pierre DeBane, you know. Every second day you took up the paper you read where Canada had given more fish to another country as part of a trade deal, thousands of tons of fish. I remember picking up the papers years ago. We had entered into arrangements for fish to be taken by other countries - really. The biggest giveaways - if you want to call it giveaways; if you put the terms on it that the Member for Eagle River would - were during the Trudeau years. During the Trudeau years were the years that most of our fish was given away to other countries, if that is the way we want to term it, phrase it, `giveaway'. Pierre Trudeau (inaudible) and that crowd. They are the ones who gave away most of our fish. They were the ones who entered into the treaty with France and all the other arrangements that there were. How shortsighted the Member for Eagle River is! He can't go back beyond John Crosbie. He hated the man so much he must dream about him.

The other interesting thing is how the member talked about the control Brian Tobin has over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fourteen trawlers out there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, absolutely amazing! How you can make yourself believe anything! Fourteen out there today fishing as we speak, flagrantly overfishing; arresting the Estai - brought her to St. John's, cut the net off another boat, took the net to New York, and still there are fourteen overfishing today out there.

MR. TOBIN: At least fourteen.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: At least fourteen overfishing today, fishing a very fragile stock that will soon be completely wiped out. Yet we say: We have to keep negotiating and talking. Talk until what? until there is not a turbot left in the water to share up. That is what we are headed for, Mr. Speaker, as sad as it is. There soon won't be any turbot to share. We won't have to worry about the figures coming up on the CBC television screen of what they are proposing to give away because it won't mean a row of beans; there will be nothing to give away - nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the resolution. We, as a party, have never entertained anything but a separate Department of Fisheries - never. As a party, we have never entertained anything but a Department of Fisheries is a Department of Fisheries is a Department of Fisheries, not that we have anything against agriculture or food, or Agri-Foods, nothing whatsoever. It is important, and maybe the minister has some strengths in the Agri-Foods industry, I don't know. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say he does. Let's give him credit and say he has some strengths in that area, but we still cannot support anything but a separate Department of Fisheries that deals strictly with fisheries and fish issues.

I would say, if you gave the minister his choice, he would rather not have fish. I would say he would rather not have fish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: He would rather have potatoes?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I don't know about potatoes.

What amazes me is that there were so many members opposite who felt the same way. There are so many members opposite who really still don't agree with this move.

AN HON. MEMBER: Including the Member for Eagle River.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who still don't agree with this move, I say to the Member for Eagle River. Given all the semantics and the arm waving and the shouting and the testifying that some of them do over there, there are still a fair number of members over there who do not agree with what the Premier has done by amalgamating those departments.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former minister doesn't agree.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Certainly the former minister doesn't agree. You know he doesn't agree with it. It wouldn't have happened if he was there. You would have to question what it is all about, I say to the minister, so don't knock the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes for bringing forward a resolution that, in essence, was given notice of a year or so ago by the Member for Fogo, with petitions somewhere, thousands of signatures somewhere, supporting this resolution, that have never yet been presented to this House - not yet presented to this House.

I want to say to the Member for Eagle River that it is sort of unparliamentary and unacceptable for a member to attack another member of the House who is not here. I want to say to him that the comments he makes about the Member for Ferryland, and about Mr. Barry, are really unwarranted. I say to the Member for Eagle River, you should be careful of what you say, alright?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And it might be hurting the campaign; it just might be hurting the campaign, I say to the Member for Eagle River, and if that brings him some pleasure and delight, well sobeit; that tells me something else about him. Unfounded, false allegations that have been spread throughout this Province by certain people about the connection between the Member for Fogo and Mr. Barry, false allegations from one corner of this Province to the other, that the Member for Eagle River at least once a week gets up and fuels and fans the flames on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a contributor.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He is a contributor to it, but those who live in glass houses should not throw stones, they say.

This government, and the direction it has taken - we know who is influencing this government when we look at the Trans City deal. We know who is influencing the policy of this government when we look at the Trans City scandal. We know the names, I say to the Member for Eagle River. The member is speculating about what kind of impact Mr. Barry is going to have on Mr. Sullivan - he is speculating - but we know the impact that Mr. Hickman and company has had on the Premier who now leads the government. We know the influence. We see the evidence, millions and millions of dollars. We see the influence certain people have had on the Premier and the government with respect to the privatization of Hydro, when we see one of their top bag men, a law firm, getting $1 million in legal fees, I say to the Member for Eagle River, so he should slow down a bit and not get so hyped up about what influence someone might have on someone else. He should slow down a bit and not get so carried away in debate. He might say some things that just may come back to haunt him one of these days.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude my remarks by saying that I support the Private Members' resolution put forward by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. I have a great affinity for the fishing industry of this Province. I have a great feeling. I am saddened by what has happened about this Province directly as a result of the decline and devastation of our fishery.

When you go back to your area of the Province - as I do every week now when the House closes on Fridays - and look around the communities in my area of the Province, I tell you it is not a thing to be proud of, not only because people are unemployed, that is bad enough, but because of what is happening to the infrastructure in those communities. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs alluded to it yesterday -the financial state of a lot of our communities and our people - there is no doubt. It is not a pretty sight to go out there and drive around anymore.

The Member for Baie Verte talked about the road in his district where the kids stopped the buses because the road was so rough. That in reality is what is happening out and about this Province, mostly because of the state of our fishery and the decline, the reduced landings, the reduced number of workweeks because of a lack of fish to process. Because of reduced taxes in our municipalities councils find themselves strapped and they cannot provide the services, they cannot fix up the roads and they cannot participate in government's cost-shared 60/40 program to get their roads paved. In the town where I live I have never seen streets so bad, I say to members, never seen them so bad. As a matter of fact, the asphalt has had to be taken off a number of streets, taken completely off.

MR. DUMARESQUE: What's that got to do with the price of fish?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: What's it got to do with the price of fish? It has everything to do with the price of fish, I say to the Member for Eagle River. It has everything to do with the lack of fish. We are talking fish today, I say to the member, we are talking of the importance of fish to this Province, we are talking of the importance of a department devoted solely to the fisheries, I say to the member, that is what I am talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What do you know about the fisheries? You had to get someone to get you a job over at the fisheries college.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: That is what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, and somehow the Premier and the ministers of this government have not yet drawn it together. They have not pulled it together to realize just how important it all is to this Province. We still do need a separate Department of Fisheries, a department and a minister devoted solely to fisheries in this Province, to develop what is left of the fishing industry and there still is a very significant fishery in this Province, as the former minister always used to remind us. That is one thing I give him credit for because if you listen to the doom-sayers they will say there is nothing left in the fishery in this Province. He always took the positive side of that, I have to tell him that. He always could tell us that the fishing industry was worth so many millions of dollars in sales and landings. We don't hear that anymore, I say to the former minister, we really don't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Our fishery can be made more valuable, Mr. Speaker, with what we have today but I want to go on record as supporting the resolution put forward by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. The same way, by the way, as I would have supported the resolution if it had been brought to this House by the Member for Fogo. I would have supported it then and I support it now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise here today and participate in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I state at the outset that I bring no great expertise to the matter at hand other than the fact, like most Newfoundlanders, especially a Newfoundlander from the rural part of the Province, my roots are in the fishery. I grew up hearing about the great fishery of the Grand Banks of years ago which my father began to participate in at the age of thirteen as a dory mate with his father and in more recent years with two of my brothers who have pursued careers in the fishery. As a young person growing up in rural Newfoundland I grew up around the boats, as all of us did and spent most of my summers at it when I was a young boy - and also I remember distinctly while a student at university, spending the summers engaged in fishing activities with my brothers, assisting them in that venture.

Subsequent to that, I had occasion as a community worker and working as a volunteer in my home community and in the district that I now have the privilege to represent, working to try to promote the fishery generally and to enhance the facilities that are available to the people who participate in that venture in that area, and during that period of time I had the occasion in my own district to witness the rise and fall of this industry, even in advance of the present catastrophe that we are all witnessing and experiencing.

I recall in Port au Port, back in the 40s and 50s, when the American base started up, the people who had pursued the fishery abandoned this venture and became employed at the American base. The base closed in the 60s, and during this period of time the fishery was virtually non-existent except for a small number of people who continued to participate. Then in the mid-60s when the Americans made their decision that the base at Stephenville was no longer required, the technology had advanced to the point where they didn't need a base for refuelling stops; we were into the age of the intercontinental ballistic missiles and in terms of defence or offence, they felt this base no longer fit into their plans, a decision was made to close it down and many of these people who had been employed at the base now found it necessary to try to return to the fishery and found it was not an easy task. For most of them it meant having to retrain, but retrain they did and many of them prospered in the fishery, up until the recent state in which we find ourselves now.

I also had occasion as a volunteer in the area to work in trying to develop harbours for the District of Port au Port. Anyone who is familiar with that area of the Province, one of the things that will strike you is that there is a total absence of natural harbours and as a result it is very difficult and has been very difficult over the years for people to pursue the fishery. One of the things that I am pleased and proud of is the small part that I did play as a member of the development association and the CESA organization which existed in Port au Port back some years ago. Our purpose was to secure funding to open up a saltwater pond and to create a harbour in the area of Blue Beach, a beautiful, little, small boat shelter which is there to this day. But, Mr. Speaker, the irony of all ironies is that the year we completed the work on the harbour in Blue Beach, was the first year that we basically saw a major decline in the fish resource, and even more ironic, is the fact that the year before the moratorium was declared in the Gulf stocks, after about ten years we had witnessed in Port au Port in certain areas in my district, the best inshore fishery that we had seen in ten years, so it came really, as a shock to many people in the district when the decision was made to close down the fishery.

I was also pleased to hear the Member for Humber Valley reference in his remarks today, that in Corner Brook, just this past weekend he had occasion to talk to one of the representatives of the scallop farm and to look at some of the product they are producing there. This is a venture which the development association in Port au Port was instrumental in initiating and developing to the point now where there is a co-op consisting of some ten aquaculturists who are pursuing the development of this and as the minister pointed out in his remarks, this is very much in line with the fishery of the future, where fishermen become less hunters and more farmers because that way you are assured of supply and that way you have a better opportunity to control the markets.

Also, for just a minute, if I may, since I did reference the moratorium and the difficulties that came with this, in particular the compensation program, the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, which many of us here in this hon. House have been directly affected by insofar as we have been lobbied by our own constituents to try to assist them in securing benefits under this program. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that it certainly has been frustrating going through the appeal process with people and sitting down when I first saw the reports, after spending up to six hours working on one appeal and going and giving up an afternoon to sit in with the person at the appeal, and sit down and watch the news that evening and hear the news report saying that only about 5 per cent of these appeals were being approved, that was not very encouraging or very motivating to someone to want to continue on with this. So I was very pleased when this government decided to send a delegation to Ottawa to lobby the minister and his officials to try to bring about changes.

I am also pleased to see that as a result of that intervention government has decided to institute an extra level whereby now there will be a Level III, where there is a panel that now, my understanding is, will look automatically at any reports that went forward from Appeal II, if the recommendation was to approve or grant compensation, these will automatically be reviewed. I am hoping at this level, this time around, we will certainly meet with a little more success, because at this point in time I have to say that there are still quite a few people out there who are in need of assistance.

Mr. Speaker, the question that is being addressed right throughout the Province today, as we sit here, and as we discuss this very important issue before us, is a broader concern, and that is a concern with the rural areas of the Province. People are wondering, and indeed they have the right to wonder, can there be a future for our Province? Personally, I have no problem whatsoever in answering in the affirmative. Not only is there a bright future for our Province, but I also feel strongly that there is indeed a future for rural Newfoundland. The fact that we have existed for so long, with this stubborn determination which has helped to sustain us for 500 years, I feel pretty confident that it will see us through this crisis as well.

At this point I would just like, if I may, to recognize the efforts of the rural development associations, and the important part which they have played in recent years and, in my opinion, the very important role which they can and will play in getting us through this crisis with which we are presently confronted.

Just this past weekend the Member for Placentia and I had occasion to be present in Gander at the annual meeting of the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Development Council, and to talk and listen to some of the people there expressing some of the concerns that they had with regard to the future of rural Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: Yes, indeed, I do travel with Tories, especially when they are covering the cost of the trip.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Friendship goes back a lot further than politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SMITH: I have gathered that much in the short time I have been here.

In our discussions in Gander, we were hearing from a number of people there saying: Well, what's going to happen to us? Are we going to be around? Will the development associations continue to exist?

My response and advice to them is no different today than it was then, that the rural development associations in this Province were not created by government, so government can't do away with them. The only way that the rural development associations would disappear is if they decide of and by themselves that they no longer have a practical role to play. In that light I am pleased to see that they came out of the meetings in Gander invigorated. It has also been reported to me that the minister, in his address to them on Saturday night at their banquet, gave them confirmation that indeed government was committed to their cause and would continue to cooperate with them in funding or whatever else they required to ensure that they did continue on into the future, and my understanding was that people left there on the weekend feeling very, very encouraged.

Mr. Speaker, while there is concern in my own district, in my opinion the concerns that I see, and I have to be quite honest, in the people that I have talked to, is not with the fact that the new department is now called Fisheries, Food and Agriculture; that is not where the concerns are. I say that in all honesty. I am in my district all the time, and I talk to people, but those are not the concerns that I get. In fact, from my own perspective, I feel that it is a logical application, since in the most obvious sense historically, the fishermen in this Province were fishermen-farmers. They had no difficulty with that practicality back then, and I feel that consequently, they have no trouble with the reality now. That is certainly what I'm seeing in my own district of Port au Port.

Many years ago, another politician in another debate, immortalized a part of my district when he referred to the last forgotten fishermen on the Bill of Cape St. George. I am proud to stand in this House today and state that I have the privilege of representing all of the interests of the people of my district, including today's last forgotten fisherman on the Bill of Cape St. George.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you and to the hon. members of this House, and to all the people of my district, that I believe strongly and firmly in the future of our people, but we must work together to bring it about. I look forward to the day when the people of this Province will have available to them work with dignity, when young people will not have to leave our Province to pursue their futures elsewhere. I know this is a concern to all of us. As a parent, I presently have two of my own children living on the mainland.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to this House that whether this will come about will not be dependent on whether we have a Department of Fisheries separate from all other government departments, but will in fact be dependent on whether we have the will to make it happen. I, for one, am completely confident from the people who I talk to and from what I see on a day-to-day basis, that that will does exist. I certainly don't see in the people in my district - and I have to say that today there are some things there that give cause for some optimism, outside of the regular routine. We've been fortunate in the sense that the mainstay of our economy in recent years has been the shellfishery. We've had a lucrative lobster fishery. Also, now, we are very encouraged by the oil exploration in the area.

Also, beyond that, is the fact that the development association in my district has been the driving force behind trying to recruit to the area and establish a plastics operation, which I'm hoping that we are going to be signing the final deal on within days. That will mark the beginning of a whole new industry in that area, and I think will point the way and indicate that there can indeed be a future for the rural areas of our Province.

Therefore, in conclusion, I cannot support this resolution, for I feel that the time of the hon. House could be better spent in debating ways in which the recovery might be facilitated rather than focusing on the name change of a department. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me say that I listened with interest to what the Member for Port au Port had to say. I'm somewhat disappointed by the fact that he decided not to support this resolution but, at the same time, I want to say that if only the Department of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture had him as minister, I believe the people of this Province would feel a lot more comfortable with the fisheries aspect being dealt with, than the present person who occupies it.

I say it without malice, but the present Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture doesn't have one click about the fisheries in this Province. I would think the Member for Port au Port has forgotten more than the minister will ever learn. I mean, the way they present it, the words today - the Member for Port au Port made a complete show, a complete embarrassment, of the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture and the Member for Eagle River. He was genuine, he was sincere, and he articulated well the points that he wanted to make in saying what he believed.

I disagree with the fact that he shouldn't support that, but I only say that I and my constituents would feel much more comfortable if that hon. gentleman were the Minister of Fisheries, than the person who occupies the position. I say that without any malice. I believe that, and the minister has given me every reason to feel the way I do.

Mr. Speaker, notice of this resolution was given to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador by the Member for Fogo. This resolution was not, in the first instance, given notice by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes or by anybody else. I just noticed in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, another distinguished gentleman who occupied a seat in this House in a very honourable way, like the Member for Port au Port. Mr. Speaker, at the time, there was a press conference called by the Member for Fogo, press conferences called; there were petitions circulated throughout Newfoundland and Labrador; there were people signing up left, right and center in this caucus over there to become part, and I hope today when this vote is called, that the people who signed their names to the petition from the Member for Fogo, will stand up and vote with the member's resolution.

I don't know who they were, Mr. Speaker, I don't know who all of them were, I know who some of them were. I don't know if the Member for Eagle River signed it or not, he was probably a parliamentary assistant by then. Probably the SPCA was after him by then, Mr. Speaker, because he wasn't in Cabinet. But the bottom line is that this petition was signed, not only by the Member for Fogo, it was signed by nine other members who said they were against putting Fisheries into - not a dual department, a triple department in this case, that the people believed there should only be a Department of Fisheries. We have had it since 1949, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Port de Grave, I wonder how he feels about this? The Member for Port de Grave is something like the Minister of Health; he would sell out anything for a Cabinet post in this Province, including his beliefs and what he stands for.

MR. EFFORD: Take your hands out of your pockets now, boy.

MR. TOBIN: I will put my hands where I like, I say to the Member for Port de Grave. Mr. Speaker, at least, they are in my own pockets, they are not in someone else's like he is used to doing. At least they are in my own pockets, they are not picking someone else's like he has spent a lifetime at.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the Member for Port de Grave stands on this resolution. Does he support Fisheries being thrown in with Agriculture and other departments? Is that where the Member for Port de Grave stands? The great saviour of the fisheries spent the last four years trying to knife - with the knife stuck in the back of the Member for Twillingate. The last four years when the Member for Twillingate was Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Port de Grave did everything he could to undermine the Member for Twillingate; we all know that on this side and I am sure they all know it on that side, as well.

Mr. Speaker, who signed the petition? Have the members opposite the courage of their convictions? Have the nine members who signed up with the Member for Fogo, the guts to stand in this House today and vote for the member's resolution, or are they going to perform a cowardly act and scuttle from this Chamber like a scalded rat, or will they have the courage to stand up and say: yes, my name and my signature were on that petition and I believed in it then and I believe in it now? Or will we see nine cowardly rats run out, scuttle from this room today, Mr. Speaker, the same as if someone poured Javex on them? That's the question we have to that.

The Member for Eagle River gets up in his sanctimonious way talking about the fisheries. He knows nothing about the fisheries, I say to the Member for Eagle River. He makes out he knows something about it because someone got him a job. Someone gave him a job a few years ago where he could go around the coast of Labrador dealing with the fisheries. That is the expertise, Mr. Speaker, that he has developed in the fisheries. I would say that the Member for Eagle River has never hauled a cod trap, has never set a trawl, has never hauled a gill net and has never seen a cod end untied, I say to the member.

Now, Mr. Speaker, like the Member for Port au Port, I, too, have my roots in the fisheries. My grandfather was a fisherman, my father was a fisherman for many years, my brothers were on trawlers, my uncle was a captain, my first cousin was a captain, all of them on trawlers in this Province and elsewhere. Everyone belonging to me, Mr. Speaker, was involved in the fisheries.

MR. DUMARESQUE: You should be ashamed to be a Tobin.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that I am not ashamed to be a Tobin. I am proud to be a Tobin, I am proud of my name, I am proud of my roots and I am proud of my family, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible) in Ottawa (inaudible) a Tobin down here.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Tobin in Ottawa is doing a good job - has done a good job, but I can tell you, I know him well enough to know that he doesn't take a lot of advice from the Member for Eagle River. I can say that much, too, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. TOBIN: No, well, I know it is true. There are people he takes advice from - but one of the people is you and the other is the present Minister of Fisheries, I say to the Member for Eagle River, that I would say the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa doesn't take advice from.

Mr. Speaker, I remember when Trepassey - where I grew up - was a little cosy inshore fishing village that had nothing but inshore fishermen for many years. Then, on the last of it, in the 1960s, the trawlers from Burin landed fish in Trepassey.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't doubt that, and if I had a face like that, I would scrub it a lot, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, in Trepassey we were talking about how the Member for Port au Port spoke about how fishing communities were developed. Trepassey was an inshore fishery, people from St. Shotts, Portugal Cove South and all of these places sold their fish to Trepassey, and my friend, the Member for Twillingate knows probably more about it than I do. I believe it was in the 1960s that Fishery Products decided to land their trawlers there and it was the Burin trawlers at that time that came in and landed their fish in Trepassey. There was no transportation home then either, Mr. Speaker, they had to stay, in a lot of cases. In a lot of cases, the crews of these trawlers landed their own fish, iced the trawlers, then went back to sea.

I remember in the days when the haddock were plentiful on the Grand Banks and trawlers would be gone for two or three days, and they would be back loaded again, trying to land their fish. Mr. Speaker, at that time, the trawlers that seem to get blamed for basically everything these days, were not large enough and did not have the technology where they could go out and harvest and reap the great portion of that fishery. It was fished from trawlers from foreign countries, particularly the Russians, and the trawlers from England, and the Fair Trite boats. The first factory-freezer trawlers to be introduced to fishing the North Atlantic were the Fair Trite boats, I believe, from England, that came over and fished, and produced the product at sea, and they were the vessels with the technology that harvest more fish in one year than the trawlers in this Province, in this country, harvest in twenty years, and we are seeing the same thing today. We are seeing a situation on the Nose of the Grand Banks today where there are fourteen trawlers out there fishing.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) fifty-four.

MR. TOBIN: There could be fifty-four. There could be 1,004, but what I say to the Member for Port de Grave is that it doesn't matter how many trawlers are out there fishing. When we go back to the haddock situation, it was the people from England, and the trawlers from the Soviet Union and other places, that came and fished within twelve miles of the land, who fished the western and eastern gullies for years, and today we are seeing the same situation on the Grand Banks. And we did not have the technology at that time to compete with the trawlers that came over from the European countries, nor do we have the capacity today to compete with the trawlers that are fishing the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks - 700 fathoms of water. That is what they are fishing in, 700 fathoms of water, and if you were to use the 3-to-1 ratio, that means you would need twenty-one fathoms of warps, and I don't know of any trawler - probably the Zandvoort and the Zandberg may have the capacity on their drums to handle twenty-one fathoms of warps. There are not any other trawlers that I am aware of in this Province, or in Nova Scotia or anywhere else, that can handle twenty-one fathoms of warps, can roll them up on their drums.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is not our problem.

MR. TOBIN: That is not our problem. That is what I am saying. That is the point I am making. I am saying that back when the haddock disappeared, we didn't have the technology or the capacity to harvest the haddock to the extent that the Europeans did. We were at it. Today when we are talking about turbot and other fisheries on the Grand Banks out in the deep water -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We still don't have it.

MR. TOBIN: We still don't have the technology. So they cannot blame it on Newfoundlanders, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: In conclusion?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) give him a minute.

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that this resolution is a good resolution. This resolution was signed by nine members of the Liberal caucus.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Dave Gilbert said he never signed it. He can't remember what he signed.

MR. TOBIN: I don't know if the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir signed it or not. But I say that I hope the nine who signed it and others will stand today and vote with us in asking the government, the Premier, to reinstate the Department of Fisheries.

I say again, as I've said before, that I've said nothing with malice towards the minister or anyone else, and I hope that nothing has offended anyone. If it did I would apologize. But I would say, and I believe very strongly, that one single Department of Fisheries would do this Province a lot more good than putting it in with any other department, despite whoever the minister may be. It could even be me, I would say to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. But the worst `scenario' was the present minister - no, I'm sorry, even worse than that would be the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, I would like to welcome to the public gallery the former Member for St. John's North, the former Minister of Education, Dr. Phil Warren.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In closing off the remarks on the resolution, I would like, first of all, to thank the several members who stood in their place and spoke today. I thank those who supported the resolution. I also thank a couple of people on the other side of the House, especially the Member for Port au Port who, even though he is not supporting my resolution, he stated, I believe, in all sincerity, that the concerns that he put forward as they relate to rural Newfoundland were, as you would say, from the heart. I have known the Member for Port au Port for a good many years before we came into this Chamber, and I realize that when he speaks, he speaks sincerely. I wish I could say that for several other members on that side of the House, but at this time I cannot.

I would also like to make a comment, if I could, on the Member for Eagle River who got up and made some comments on the resolution. He talked about the District of St. Mary's - The Capes, from Trepassey up to St. Mary's, and into St. Bride's on the Cape Shore. I say to the member, the only thing that he ever gave to the St. Mary's - The Capes district was much, much pain. When he was travelling with the Member for St. John's West on her last election campaign, he brought much pain into St. Mary's - The Capes, I say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: He brought so much pain into St. Mary's - The Capes, that we are still reeling from the Member for Eagle River making his last visit to St. Mary's - The Capes. We are still reeling from the St. John's West MP that he brought in. All he did for St. Mary's - The Capes was to bring us more pain.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Member for Eagle River, if there had to be a full-fledged Minister of Fisheries, where you are so close to the Premier now, you may have been the minister - you may have been the minister.

I was more or less surprised that the minister - and I have to give credit, if I could, to the Member for Eagle River in the case that at least the Member for Eagle River leaves it to politics when he gets up to speak. He will talk about the Tories; he will talk about the Liberals; he will leave it to politics. It is sad to say that the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture couldn't leave it to politics; he had to get personal. I say to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture to keep looking over your shoulder. Your day will come. As the Member for Grand Bank said, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Mr. Speaker, I brought forward this resolution today not on behalf of the people of St. Mary's - The Capes, but indeed on behalf of the people throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for many of the reasons that were touched on by the Member for Humber Valley, by the Member for Port au Port, Grand Bank, Burin - Placentia West, et cetera, about the problems that are in rural Newfoundland today. I brought this forward as a concerned Member of the House of Assembly, as a person who believes in rural Newfoundland, who has roots in rural Newfoundland, and made my home in rural Newfoundland.

I look forward to the vote later on, Mr. Speaker, just to see how they come forward and support this resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the resolution is in the same spirit as the resolution that came forward from the Member for Fogo, but he, like yourself, has shackles on now and he can't come forward and stand up like you did on stages and on wharves and on roads across this Province. You, Mister, are a bluff, sir! You don't have the guts to stand up and support the resolution because the Premier has the shackles on your feet like he has them on the feet of the Member for Fogo.

Thanks be to God, I say, there are no shackles on my feet, and I bring forward this resolution today on behalf of the fisherpeople. You went around, Mr. Minister, and codded them. You codded them, I say to the minister. You hauled the wool over their eyes. You are a bluff, Mr. Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: This resolution is brought forward on behalf of the people of rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, and I tried to bring it forward in a serious manner. I didn't stand up here and get into politics. I stood up here on behalf of the people of the District of St. Mary's - The Capes, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in a serious manner, to bring forward what I consider to be a serious resolution.

I have no problem with somebody disagreeing with the resolution. I have no problem with somebody voting against the resolution. I do have a problem with people standing up and lambasting me personally for the resolution that I brought forth. I have a problem with people who don't have the guts to stand up like they did a few years ago on wharves and roads and stages in Newfoundland and Labrador and champion the fishermen of this Province, and now don't have the guts to stand up and support the resolution on behalf of fishermen in this Province. I refer to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

As I said before, I came from rural Newfoundland, I made my home in rural Newfoundland, and I spend much time in rural Newfoundland. I go back and forth every day and I see what the cod moratorium has done to this Province. I see it in the eyes of the people of my district, I see it in the eyes of what were once proud and happy people, who now have a look of loss in their eyes. They have a look of no hope. I bring forward this concern today, and the concern they have is that the Premier and his government have put fisheries on the back burner.

I say it has been brought forward over the past number of weeks as the Premier travels to Ottawa and down to the States and everywhere else on the coat-tails of Brian Tobin, I say to the minister. On the coat-tails of Brian Tobin, the Premier has made fisheries a big concern again. The moratorium has placed rural Newfoundland in a very serious situation and I believe a situation that demands that there be a full-fledged Minister of Fisheries in this Province, that demands that someone should be speaking up for us on fisheries issues, not the Premier. The present Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture only gets to speak on the fisheries issue when the Premier doesn't want to speak on it himself. He will pass it back to him, when it is not so serious, you can speak on it. He didn't trust him enough to bring him to New York with him.

MR. CAREEN: He never even got on the wharf in St. John's, he never even got down on the docks in St. John's.

MR. MANNING: Some people said to me last week: How come the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture wasn't in New York with the Premier? I said: My God, how could he get on the barge in New York when he couldn't get on the wharf in St. John's? How could he? How could he get to the barge in New York when he couldn't get to the wharf in St. John's, and it comes down to shackles on their feet again. I know there are members on the other side of the House, who if the truth were known today, would stand up in their place and vote for this resolution. I know there are members on the other side of the House who support a full-fledged Department of Fisheries in this Province. Mr. Speaker. I would like to see the Member for Fogo, if he didn't have shackles on his feet, bring forward the thousands of names that he has in petitions up in his office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I was just saying that I would like him to bring forward the petitions with the thousands of names of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and that would include several members on that side of the House who signed that petition at that time, Mr. Speaker, because the people on that side of the House as much as the people out in the Province have the concern of rural Newfoundland at heart, have the concern that the fishery is the backbone of this Province and is the cornerstone of the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and they believe in a full-fledged Department of Fisheries. They believe in having someone they can call a Minister of Fisheries, not a Minister of Fish and Chips, I say to the Speaker, not a Minister of Fish and Chips but a Minister of Fisheries. We don't want a Minister of Fish and Chips, we want a Minister of Fisheries and, Mr. Speaker, that is what the people of rural Newfoundland are saying.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to bring forward this resolution on behalf of the people of the Province, on behalf of the people who are concerned with the fishing industry in this Province, truly, truly concerned, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, not concerned with the benefits for themselves but truly concerned about the fishing industry in this Province, truly concerned about the future of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and I say that many members in this House would like to stand and support it if they had the opportunity to support it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I can't hear him, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I can't hear your trap, Mr. Minister.

I say Mr. Minister, I am pleased today to bring forward this resolution. I thank the people who spoke in support of the resolution. I thank the people who spoke and supported rural Newfoundland and know how important the fishing industry is to this Province. I hope that the resolution sees the light of day here and that we will see a full-fledged fisheries department before we form the next government, Mr. Speaker, and that the Premier in his wisdom puts a full fledged Department of Fisheries in place so we can get through this crisis together and have fisheries as it should be, full, front and important to this Province and not on the back burners as the Premier has decided to do with it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to adjourn the debate. I look forward to the vote that will be taken in a few minutes on the resolution and I especially look forward to the people on the other side of the House who I know will support this resolution. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the vote?

All those in favour of the motion please rise.

CLERK: Mr. W. Matthews, Mr. Tobin, Mr. J. Byrne, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Manning, Mr. Careen, Mr. Woodford, Mr. Harris, Mr. Carter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: The hon. the Government House Leader, the hon. the Minister of Education and Training, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Environment, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Mr. Lush, Mr. L. Snow, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Dumaresque, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Penney, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Anderson III, Mr. Smith, Mr. Whelan.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, eleven `ayes,' twenty-four `nays.'

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the resolution defeated.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the clock is stopped for a moment, but before we call it 5:00 p.m.....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I can't hear the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If you would. I can't hear the Government House Leader.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we call it 5:00 p.m. may I bring it to members' attention that tomorrow we shall be asking the House when we come to government orders to go back into Committee of Supply to carry on with the enthralling, stimulating and altogether enticing debate on the Estimates that are dealt with here in the Committee of the Whole.

With that said, I move the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.