May 8, 1991                       HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS           Vol. XLI  No. 45


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

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

My question is to the Minister of Mines and Energy. I wonder if he can tell me if the Government has been advised by Wabush Mines that the original five-week shut-down scheduled from July 1 to August 5 has now been extended to September 15?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have been advised that the shut-down at Wabush Mines is going to be from July 1 to September 3. On September 4, Wabush will be going back into operation at half capacity until September 15, after which time, it will be running at full capacity. I understand there will also be a short shut-down at Christmas.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, concern has been expressed by the employees of Wabush Mines and the residents of Wabush about the continued viability of that particular mine. Has the Minister met recently, not only with the local mine management, but with the owners, to ascertain what their plans are, not only in the short-term, but the long-term viability of that particular mining property?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, my last meeting with the manager was, I think, in early January when I was up in Wabush, but we do have a meeting scheduled with the top people of Wabush and its owners for May 29, here in St. John's. They will be coming to St. John's on May 29.

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

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

I understand that the Minister has received a request for a meeting with local steelworkers' representatives. I wonder if he can tell me if he is prepared to meet with local steelworkers' representatives as soon as possible, he, the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, and the Premier?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I talked to the President of the union local at Wabush just before lunch and we have agreed that we are going to try to get a meeting arranged for twelve o'clock on Monday coming, with myself, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and the Premier.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, Sections (3) and (9) of The Municipalities Act state that Cabinet may order the amalgamation of towns or communities only on the recommendation of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and that the Minister, prior to making his recommendation, must order a feasibility study. I want to ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, has he recommended, or is he considering recommending the amalgamation of all cities and towns on the Northeast Avalon into one supercity? Since the Minister is required by the Act to order a feasibility study before proceeding to a decision on that proposal, when does he propose such a study take place?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this time is that very shortly, I will be making a statement in the House.

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

MR. SIMMS: That might be fine. I am glad to hear you might make a statement. Can he answer the question, Mr. Speaker? The question is: When is the Minister going to order a feasibility study on the much-talked-about super city proposal? When is he going to order a feasibility study on that concept?

AN HON. MEMBER: Never.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, some year-and-a-half ago, we ordered feasibility studies on the Northeast Avalon. Those commissioners' reports have been received by my Department, and certainly, by Government, and that process has been followed as outlined in the Act.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister would not consider the feasibility study that he ordered nearly two years ago to be a study into the feasibility of the supercity concept? Did that study not deal with Government's original proposal to amalgamate twenty communities on the Northeast Avalon into six municipalities? Is that not was in that original study? Is it not also true that none of the municipalities that made presentations to the commissioners, including the City of St. John's, recommended a supercity? If that is true, how then can the Minister claim that the affected municipalities have already expressed their opinions on a proposal which was never presented to them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in the feasibility process, which involves some seventeen main points, if I recollect correctly, the seventeen municipalities made written briefs to the commissioners, four groups of commissions with two commissioners in every case, one common commissioner and three appointed by the towns and cities. I would suggest that almost every possible scenario thinkable was talked about, debated and options and so on were discussed in the hearings process and throughout the feasibility hearings.

So, Mr. Speaker, that process has now been ongoing for a year-and-a-half. I do not think anybody would argue we have had considerable debate both internally and externally. As I said earlier, I will shortly be making a statement to the House.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the same questions to the Minister: Has he now rejected his initial amalgamation proposal for the north east Avalon, which was the subject of the feasibility study, has he rejected that; has he rejected all the alternatives supported by some municipalities which did not include the supercity and has he rejected the recommendations of the feasibility study which also did not include the supercity?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we considered in my Department, and of course as the Minister considered, every option that was available; I had the benefit of the year and a half of study and dialogue with the communities and with those community leaders, and certainly with representation from the public and interested groups.

The benefit of that knowledge and my own input of course, will eventually involve a recommendation and Government will make a decision and I can only repeat for the third time that I will eventually be making, based on the rationale I just gave you, a statement to the House.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps he could tell us when he is going to do all this; secondly, I want to ask him this: Is he comfortable with the Premier's position to bring a resolution or legislation before this House to force amalgamation on the north east Avalon question, and, since Cabinet cannot act without a feasibility study, according to the law, how can the House be forced to make such a decision without the benefit of such a study?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, until Government makes a decision first of all, and then decides on the procedure that Government wishes to take to implement that decision, I cannot comment any further.

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

MS. VERGE: My question is for the Premier. The Premier has clearly indicated that he intends to bring either legislation or a resolution to this House of Assembly, to force the amalgamation of municipalities on the north east Avalon. How does the Premier intend to proceed with his amalgamation plans for the hundred or more municipalities outside the north east Avalon area, does he intend to deal with them at the same time and in the same manner as he proposes to deal with the north east Avalon?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I have not indicated that I intend to bring legislation or a resolution before this House to deal with the north east Avalon. It may be that tomorrow we may do so, but at this point in time I have not made any such indication.

The second question was, how do we propose to deal with other amalgamations? We will deal with other amalgamations and the issue of whether or not other amalgamations should take place in due course, whenever it is appropriate to do so; just a couple of days ago, two or three days ago, we received a report on Corner Brook for example on Massey Drive and Mount Moriah. The Government will require some time to review that report and we will make a decision as to what we do with it. In any other case that is appropriate for consideration, if it is appropriate to arrange for it by arrangement with the municipalities, we will do so, if it is appropriate to bring legislation or a resolution before the House, we will do whatever is appropriate at the time.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the Premier. Over 100 municipalities in Newfoundland and Labrador have been worrying about the Government's proposal to amalgamate them into various combinations and permutations for almost two years. How much longer does the Premier propose to make these municipalities and the citizens of the municipalities wait, before the Government makes a decision? How much longer is the Premier going to dither?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it may take us more than one, two, three or four terms, I do not know, before we correct the total mess that the former Government created. It may take us a fair amount of time to really restore this Province to a sensible basis.

We are going to start out, Mr. Speaker, operating on a reasonable basis. We have put forward proposals, invited discussions. We had some degree of success, very notable success in the case of Grand Falls and Windsor, and we are very proud of that achievement. Spaniard's Bay and Tilton, and there were two, three or four other groups that got together - communities that got together and amalgamations took place.

We would hope, Mr. Speaker, that over the next few years, perhaps over the next few terms that we will be in office, we will achieve a greater level of amalgamation to ensure that we provide good quality public service both on the municipal and provincial level to the people of this Province. We will proceed in an orderly and disciplined way and we will not be stampeded by any of the jibes from the opposite side, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I detect in the Premier's answers this afternoon that the Premier is retreating from his previously stated hard-line position. Has the Premier, indeed, now ruled out using his Liberal majority in this House of Assembly to force amalgamation down the throats of citizens who do not want it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not ruled out anything. But I am not about to go into a panic just because the hon. Members opposite want to try and make things more difficult, want to try and make the governing of this Province in a sensible way more difficult than they have made it by their seventeen years in office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Government remains the same. Our preference is to persuade municipalities to agree voluntarily to amalgamate where it makes good sense for them to amalgamate. In situations where for their own reasons that promotes their own self-interest - and I understand self-interest -I am not critical of people saying: it is better for us in our little municipality - take Wedgewood Park, for example - I am not critical of the people of Wedgewood Park saying: it is better for us to protect our own little municipality, totally surrounded by St. John's, because we are better off and we have lower taxes and so on. I understand their wanting to protect what is essentially a kind of a privileged or special position. I understand that. But the Government must govern in the overall best interest of the people in the area concerned, and in the overall best interest of the people of the Province as a whole. Now in some cases where we are unable to persuade municipalities that the right thing for the overall is to amalgamate, then it may well be that we may have to ask this Legislature to act.

What I have committed from the very beginning was that the fifteen people who occupy the Cabinet would not sit in that room and in secret make the decision without disclosing to the people of this Province the basis on which the decision was made. That we would in a forthright, frank and principled way come before the House and say: Members of the House, here is what we propose should be done. Let's hear the pros and cons. Let's act in the best interest of the people of the Province. And we are prepared to justify to this House any action we take.

Now we think that that is principled. We understand that the Members opposite are grossly embarrassed by this kind of open, principled Government. The Member for Kilbride keeps, like a trained monkey, beating on his chest. I do not know what he -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Displaying all the intelligence, incidentally, of a trained monkey, beating on his chest. He has not the competence or intelligence to speak for himself, he has to keep beating on his chest.

And I would remind Mr. Speaker that no Member of the House is entitled to hold up a sign that says anything that a Member is not entitled to say on his own, and I request -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) take off my Mount Pearl pin too?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Wink at the gallery now while you're at it.

MR. SPEAKER: When the Speaker is standing, please, hon. Members know the procedure. I stood to remind the Premier that he was getting rather lengthy in his answer and I would ask him to conclude very shortly, please.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the noise from the trained monkey opposite, and that is the only way I could do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Premier is hurting now when he has to resort to such lows, let me tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier told the House in response to my question that he would not agree to hold a plebiscite in the city of Mount Pearl prior to an attempt to impose annexation on the city. Yet on November 15 of 1989 his Minister of Municipal Affairs told the House, and I quote: to go through the procedure of a plebiscite without hearing from the people, letting them have their say for or against amalgamation, letting them have their say in the form of a written brief where they may want to make different representation than is proposed by the Government, would be denying them their democratic rights. And to proceed with a plebiscite without any hearing process would be wrong and against the Municipalities's Act.

In view of the fact that the supercity concept, as my colleague has just said, has not been the subject of either a feasibility study, public hearings or a plebiscite, will the Minister now stand by his words and assure the people of Mount Pearl that they will be given their democratic rights before any such resolution is brought in to this Chamber?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Mount Pearl is very conveniently extracting some words out of a statement I made speaking in the House.

The point I was making quite clearly, if you were to read the rest of it, is that the process of a feasibility study with the seventeen main points I mentioned earlier which identify all the critical criteria that are needed to assess the situation of whether amalgamation or annexation should proceed, are vitally important as opposed to the emotion of a plebiscite. And I made the point at that time, that it was important that the feasibility process be followed. I was not speaking for or against the plebiscite. I was simply making the point that the importance of having a feasibility process in the Act, which includes public hearings, was far more important, and important that that be carried out. I did not speak for or against the plebiscite at the time.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have also extracted these words that the Minister said on June 19, when he said: one large city for the north east Avalon is an option, and it is probably what the future will see. Whether it will be this year or five years or ten years from now, it is probably in the future. The point that I was making is that it is the ultimate solution and could very well come sooner or later.

Will the Minister now confirm in fact that this statement shows a clear bias, and that the Minister's objectives are clear and were clear well before any of these processes were begun in the region, be it supercity feasibility study or feasibility study on any other option? His is a predetermined decision, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, once again the Member is taking things out of context. Clearly what was meant by that statement - the word 'supercity' was never coined by me, it was used by the press to describe an option at one extreme. And the point I made then when I made that statement was, at one extreme we have the option of putting together all seventeen communities. And whatever you want to call that is your choosing.

At the other extreme you can do nothing. You can leave the seventeen communities alone. And the point I was clearly making is that somewhere in between there is a solution. That is the point and the statement I made at that time. The fact of the matter is, yes, it may be true. History may see that eventually we may have a community that would encompass all seventeen communities. This is going to take some time. We have the rural communities that are relatively unserviced, some of them without any servicing at all. In fact, someday we may see a community stretching beyond the seventeen communities. Someday.

So all I was saying was at one extreme we have an option where all could come together, at the other extreme we can do nothing. In between there is a solution. I think that is a very valid statement.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister, we may well see that some day but we will only see it when the municipalities themselves desire it and not when it is forced upon them.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier a question. Yesterday the Premier indicated that he had not decided on whether or not, should this issue in fact ever come before the House, a free vote would be allowed in this Chamber. We all recall, Mr. Speaker, the Premier's strong stand during the Meech Lake debate, where he insisted that Newfoundlanders be given a right to their say and not be governed by the majority view of the rest of Canada. Will the Premier, Mr. Speaker, apply his national form of democracy at the provincial level and allow the citizens of Mount Pearl to exercise their democratic rights, and allow his own caucus to exercise their democratic rights and responsibilities? Will he show by his deeds, Mr. Speaker, that this is a Government by the people, for the people, and of the people?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed considered what is the appropriate way to proceed. We have ruled out only one method and that is by Order of Cabinet. We will not be proceeding by Order of Cabinet. Whatever is done, whatever decision is taken, we will not be proceeding by order of a secret meeting of Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, other than that there are a variety of alternatives. There could be an overall plebiscite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is a noise in the House that sounds distinctly like a trained monkey beating on its chest. It is not very intelligent, it makes no contribution to any kind of debate, so I ask Your Honour to direct that it cease.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: What cease, the noise? Do not be so silly.

PREMIER WELLS: It is the Member's childishness that is immature. It is no wonder they are where they are in the polls, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Members have an obligation to see that there is the right atmosphere in the House for the asking and answering of questions. I am sure the people of Newfoundland would want that, and every Member has the responsibility to ensure that we are measuring up to that expectation.

I ask the Premier to conclude his answer, please.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have told the House that we have ruled out one option only, and I have told the House what that is. That leaves therefore the possibility of a free vote, and that is certainly possible. It leaves the possibility of a Government measure if we decide to act on whatever we decide to do. There is also the possibility of an overall plebiscite in any area that was concerned. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has already -

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member wants my answer instead of his own voice I will give him my answer. I again ask Your Honour to direct the Member for Kilbride to stop beating on his chest and making the noise that is distinctly like that of a trained monkey. I find it difficult to answer the questions that have been asked with that kind of noise going on. The Member is displaying, perhaps, even less intelligence than one might expect from a trained monkey.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is not aware of what is going on. If there are - I say again - any acts of irresponsibility I ask all hon. Members to please -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I now recognize the hon. Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. On April 16 I asked the Minister when she would be responding to a letter sent last November from the Transport and Allied Worker's Union requesting amendments to the Labour Relations Act to make it possible for the union to be certified as the official bargaining agent for independent truck operators. Has the Minister responded to that request?

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

MS. COWAN: The item is being worked on, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for recognizing me. The item is being worked on and I am in touch with the union officials, in fact I was speaking to the President of the Teamsters local only yesterday, so, my critic can be assured that the matter is being given attention.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will remember that I cautioned her at that time, that we could see a re-occurrence of the road blockages experienced in previous years if she did not act. Is the Minister aware that yesterday, 120 independent truck operators, 120 independent truckers converged on a road construction project near Argentia and that the police have been called in?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that my critic is so courteous when he does not have any one in the galleries to be performing for. Yes, I am aware; the union with which I am establishing very cordial relations had the politeness or whatever you would want to call it to call me and inform me of what was going to take place before it happened.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: The Minister, apparently did not hear the question. How long does the Minister intend to wait to resolve the issue to allow these truckers their democratic right to collectively bargain, or, does she intend to sit idly by and allow the present construction season to be disrupted and interrupted while she does nothing.

Now I mean she has not yet responded to the union; I have been in touch with them and they have not had any correspondence from the Minister, how long does she intend to wait before she takes action on this very important matter?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, there may have been no written correspondence, but as I indicated earlier, we are in touch by telephone and I would rather put the time into considering their request rather than into a letter, especially when I am actually in conversation with these individuals and my officials are, as well.

The hon. Gentleman knows indeed that there are many issues that have to be addressed in this whole dilemma with which the truckers find themselves facing. I am moving on the item as expeditiously as possible, trying to take into account the many considerations such as the economy, the rights of contractors, the rights of the people who own the trucks and so on, it is a complicated issue but I am moving with dispatch, I feel on it, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, but before I do that I might say that even trained monkeys do not lie.

Mr. Speaker, last weekend the Federation of Agriculture held their meeting at Gander to discuss the Task Force Report on Agri-Foods and at that meeting, the Chairman of this Committee said that there was a financial implications report prepared along with this report; can the Minister confirm that there is such a report available?

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

MR. FLIGHT: I am not sure as to what the hon. Member is referring. I have the Task Force Report, the Task Force Report has been tabled; I am not sure as to what the hon. Member is referring, maybe he can clarify it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, during the discussions on the Task Force report, the Chairman of the Task Force, Mr. Bud Hulan, in answer to a question from one of the producers, one of the farmers at the meeting, said, in conjunction with this Task Force report, he prepared a report which showed the financial implications of the Task Force report, and that report has not been released. Can the Minister confirm, as I said again, that there is such a report available, and why was it not released when this report was released?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I received from the Task Force, a costing of - of the two hundred and something recommendations in the Task Force report, some of them, probably fifty or sixty, carry cost implications, and the Task Force undertook to do a very preliminary report on the cost of the various recommendations. At this point in time, there is a committee of senior civil servants looking at the Task Force report, reviewing it, doing cost estimates on the various recommendations, and, I would think, shortly, that committee will report to me on their findings with their recommendations. They, of course, would have the report provided to me by the Task Force, indicating the cost of the various recommendations as determined by the Task Force.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Kilbride. There is time for a short supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the Minister would not release this financial implications report because it showed that this report, in itself, would be devastating to the agricultural industry? How does the Minister expect that the farmers in this Province can make decisions and have proper discussions on this report - which was prepared on their behalf, I might say - if they do not have the facts and figures of the financial implications of the report in front of them so that they can discuss it?

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how the cost of the various recommendations could be devastating to the report. Anyone would know that if the Task Force were making a recommendation, it would cost this Province money. Nobody expected recommendations - for instance, one recommendation is that we look at the building of a new abattoir, price tagged in the vicinity of $14 million, to replace the old one at Newfoundland Farm Products. I do not see, Mr. Speaker, how anyone could assume or say with any credibility that providing the costing of the projects would devastate the report.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like, at this point in time, to raise what I consider to be a very important issue in the House, as a matter of order. It has always been very important in terms of democratic parliaments in the world, and it is commonly accepted, that certain behaviours are parliamentary and certain other behaviours are unparliamentary. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to state that point. The reason for it is simply that unless there is some distinction made between what is accepted as being parliamentary and what is not accepted as being parliamentary, Parliament, perhaps, would cease to function in a civilized manner; and that is the reason for indications that certain customs and practices are parliamentary and certain customs and practices are unparliamentary. I think it is very basic to the operation of Parliament itself.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to Your Honour that according to Beauchesne, Paragraph 489, page 144, "Since 1958, it has been ruled unparliamentary to use the following expressions:" and it takes up page 144, 145, and I think there are twenty or thirty references about the phrase `deliberately misled', and `dishonest', there are another ten or fifteen references; but you come to the word `lie' and you find there are thirty-eight separate references to that particular word as being unparliamentary.

Paragraph 490, is the reverse, and it is put there for a reason, to show that certain expressions sometimes have been ruled parliamentary and sometimes have not; but there is a list of expressions that have been ruled parliamentary. "Since 1958, it has been ruled parliamentary to use the following expressions:" and sometimes it has been ruled parliamentary to use the word `deceive', and so on, but, Mr. Speaker, you will not find one single instance where it has been ruled parliamentary to use the word `lie'. Then, Paragraph 492 goes one step further and says: "The following expressions are a partial listing of expressions which have caused intervention on the part of the Chair," which means they are even more serious than normal and ruled as being unparliamentary. You will find the word `lie' there, as well, Mr. Speaker.

Now, a Member of the House has, for two days, now - and I was hoping that after one day he would have made his silly little point and would stop breaking the rules of the House and being unparliamentary - has been wearing a button which says that another Member of this House has lied, and was carrying a picture of that Member of the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to Your Honour, if it is unparliamentary to use that word in the House, then it is also unparliamentary to have that word held up so that everybody can see it in the House. It is exactly the same principle. It is exactly the same principle. There are some customs that are accepted in democratic parliaments in this world and some customs that are not accepted, and I suggest to Your Honour, in this point of order, that the Member for Kilbride is clearly unparliamentary and should be directed to cease and desist from being unparliamentary in the days ahead.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have an idea the Government House Leader reluctantly stood on that point. I think he might have got a nudge from somebody to his right, because if ever I saw a weak attempt to try to put forth a point of order that is invalid, that was it, and he certainly knows it.

There are two points I want to bring to Your Honour's attention, if I may. First of all he talked about the use of the word, 'lied' and all of that. Your Honour well knows, better than any of us, that you cannot make a predetermination on injurious reflections upon Members in advance, or throughout. It depends on the tone quite frequently in which it is used and all the rest of it. Your Honour is quite capable of restoring order and has shown it and proven it to us time and time again, and we have shivered in our shoes frequently when Your Honour has stood to tell us we were out of order, but to suggest somehow - and I think he was trying to say the Member for Kilbride said that the Premier lied - that is not what the Member said at all. Your Honour is aware also of the pious words of the Government House Leader talking about unparliamentary language. In the same reference, Paragraph 488 of Beauchesne's 6th Edition it is also noted that words like 'lacking in intelligence' have been ruled unparliamentary by Speakers. I wonder who has used that reference in this House, Mr. Speaker, on a frequent basis? Also, there are other words there that Your Honour is fully aware of, including one on Page 147 which says, 'trained seals' has been ruled unparliamentary. Now, I agree with the Government House Leader that the use of unparliamentary language should be brought to the attention of the Members of the House by the Speaker, and certainly it should have been done today when the Premier used the words, 'trained monkey, acting like a trained monkey', so you talk about unparliamentary language. But the more important point, Mr. Speaker, I believe, is his final point, about the wearing of a button in the Legislature. Your Honour would be aware that on Page 152 of Beauchesne's 6th Edition, Paragraph 50l says, "Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the Chamber." That is accurate, but Paragraph 504 goes on to say, "Political buttons and similar lapel pins do not constitute an exhibit." All that has happened, Mr. Speaker, I think, clearly, is that the Member for Kilbride has done something that has taken somebody over there by surprise. The usually cool Members opposite have been irked and have been upset by it, but I draw to the attention of the Government House Leader that one of his own Members, the Chairman of the Government Services Committee, Mr. Penney, in an interview today in the paper, in fact, and I know from knowledge that when there was a meeting the other night in this Legislature of the Estimates Committee dealing with the Department of Finance, there were a number of people who sat in the gallery, for example, with all kinds of material, hats, caps, posters and banners, and he did not rule that anything like that was unparliamentary, so he was certainly not offended by it, so I cannot see how the Government House Leader could be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Well, the point of order, clearly, is that it is not a point of order. I assume that the Speaker will consider the references I have quoted for him rather than the foolishness that the Government House Leader referenced.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Before Your Honour rules, the Member for Kilbride has been sitting in his seat for the last couple of days with a button on showing my picture - I have no complaints about buttons -showing my picture claiming 'Clyde lied'. Now everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, that it is unparliamentary to call any other Member in this House a liar or to say that any other Member in this House is lying. It does not matter whether you do that by holding a sign on your chest and keep tapping on it in this way to draw attention to it, or you do it directly - the Member is demonstrating the kind of intelligence there is. Now, Mr. Speaker, if this is the behaviour to which this House is to be reduced, if Your Honour is to rule that this is the acceptable standard of behaviour, if Your Honour is to rule that this is the acceptable behaviour for this House, then I suggest to Your Honour that you will reduce this House to an animal zoo. Because that is the way all the Members will behave if they adopt the same approach.

Now Your Honour, above everybody else in this House, is aware that ever since I came to this House I have tried to maintain a reasonable level of decorum and proper behaviour in the House. But to see that kind of behaviour, that kind of insulting comment by another Member in this House, saying that a Member has lied or portraying a poster claiming that another Member is lying is, I suggest to Your Honour, totally unacceptable behaviour and I ask Your Honour to so rule before this House does indeed get reduced to a zoo.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is very interesting to note that the last time a Premier stood to his feet in this House and tried to intimidate and browbeat into submission the Chair, it was a Liberal premier. And this Premier is following in his footsteps. This is the most brazen attack that I have seen a leader of this House take on the Chair since I have been here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Speaker, all that is wrong with the Premier is that when he has his own way, when he can manipulate and manoeuvre and be smooth-talking and say what he wants to say, then the world is unfolding as it should. But when somebody in Newfoundland and Labrador - be it a union leader, be it an ordinary citizen in Ming's Bight or be it a Member of this House -

MS. VERGE: Or be it a Liberal backbencher.

MR. RIDEOUT: - or be it a Liberal backbencher - when somebody in this Province has the audacity to speak up and say that they do not like what the Premier is doing or do not like what the Government is doing, the Premier loses his cool and his skin dissipates into nothing only wrath on anybody who would have the audacity to suggest it.

There is no point of order here. What is before this House is the fact that this Premier can give it but he cannot take it. Well, he had better learn how to take it or get out!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. All hon. Members would know that if there is one Member who is concerned about decorum, it is this hon. Member. The matter we are dealing with is not a matter of concern politically. When we are talking about decorum in the House it is a matter that concerns all hon. Members and it is a matter, I am sure, that concerns the people of this Province - they want their Members to represent them with dignity and with respect.

The question that I have to ask myself; because it is a bit of a new question. The question that I have to look at, and all hon. Members have to look at, is to whether or not any hon. Member would want that kind of symbolism brought into the House; as whether any hon. Member would want another hon. Member to bring in a symbol that represents something to the extent that this does. This is the question that I have to reckon with. Politics aside, all hon. Members have to ask themselves the degree of respect and dignity this kind of symbolism represents and whether it does anything in this House to enhance and promote the level of debate.

These are some of the issues that the Chair will have to deal with when dealing with this particular point of order, and I shall take it under advisement and do some extensive study on the matter.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: I notice Your Honour referred to the other issue that has been raised. But I wonder would Your Honour rule or at least take under consideration the point of order that I raised in the discussion, about the Premier's use of unparliamentary language, 'acting like a trained (Inaudible).'

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was not aware that the hon. Member was on that point of order. I thought he was on the point of order relevant to the symbolism to which I have just alluded. I thought he had just raised that matter in terms of supporting his debate.

If he wants to make it a point of order, again, this Chair is always very concerned when people get into certain levels of comparison. And I think the hon. Member mentioned something about the Chair intervening. The Chair will intervene when the Chair thinks it is absolutely, positively unparliamentary. As hon. Members know, parliamentary language many times is difficult to define, because one takes the context, the tone of voice. And if the same comment was made in a rather malicious manner than there is no question, the Chair would have stood.

But in the sense that much was said and the Chair did not obviously stand, but the hon. Member asked me to rule on the point of order, and we have had it mentioned that 'trained seal' is unparliamentary. We have also had 'trained seal' used in the parliamentary sense. As I have said, it depends on the maliciousness in the way it is raised. The content and in the terms in which the Premier raised it, it seemed to have lacked the maliciousness that I would intervene on. But it is not a term -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would advise hon. Members as well that when the Chair is making an interpretation, it is not proper for hon. Members to respond. If hon. Members want some other way of doing it, they have another way, but do not interfere while I am carrying on with my ruling. When the Chair or the person in the Chair is speaking, there is supposed to be silence at all times - silence, silence, silence. No problems at all, they are replete, and I am not going to debate with the hon. the Opposition House Leader - I am not permitted to. And I am not going to debate with him other than to say that when I am making a ruling I want silence from both sides. I would ask the hon. Opposition House Leader, further, to stop debating with me right now.

As I have said, it is difficult many times to determine parliamentary language. This is something in reference to animals, it is not something that this Chair promotes. It is not something this Chair promotes, but as I said, in terms of intervening, if I had thought in the sense of the Premier's maliciousness I would have stood, and since I did not stand, I will not ask him to withdraw it at this point in time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I was asked a question in the House by the hon. Member for Grand Falls regarding the employment breakdown at the Bull Arm project. I do not have the full information that he requested because it is not all on computer yet, and it will probably be another month before it is, but I am going to table what information I have. I think it will be of interest to him and to any other individual who has questions in that area.

His other question regarding the hiring of nurses I hope to have an answer for tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, Private Member's Day, the hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a privilege to rise again in this hon. House and to speak on a very serious issue affecting the people of my riding and all along the coast of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, if I were to say that the Grand Falls paper mill was closing down today, or if I were to say that the Stephenville paper mill was closing down today, I would be only saying the same thing by coming here today and saying that 828 people as of next Thursday will be without a cent of income on the coast of Labrador for a very indefinite period. That is the seriousness of the issue that we are dealing with here today, and I know hon. Members are familiar with it. I know they have dealt with it on a number of occasions before, but I believe it is incumbent, Mr. Speaker, to deal with it again today, and I would want to, over the next number of minutes, to lay out the case that is before the Government of Canada and lay out the case as it relates to the people on the coast of Labrador. I want to indicate what exactly the situation is. What exactly the basis for concern is, and to offer some, what I believe are very reasonable solutions, to the problem that we have at hand.

The situation, Mr. Speaker, is that the unemployment insurance system for fishermen on the coast of Labrador is set up as such that from November 15 of each year to May 15 of each year, all fishermen are eligible for that degree of income support. The unemployment insurance benefit they receive is based upon the 60 per cent of their earnings that they have in their previous fishing season. They have a fixed period in which they can receive this income support, Mr. Speaker, and there is no way they can get around that particular regulation. It affects the people from L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain. All these communities, some twenty-six communities, permanent communities from L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain are affected. These fishermen, and particularly the fishermen from Lodge Bay to Nain, have to have two residences, Mr. Speaker. They have to move outside in the Summer, they have to move back again in the Fall, so that they can go back there and get their houses back in order in that time of the year.

Now the situation this year one would argue, as I am sure other Members will, that we have heard this story before. We have heard the situation on the coast of Labrador before, but I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that this year the ice conditions are indeed the worse they have been in recent memory, it does not take any scholar to find out. As a matter of fact if you were to just call up Canada Coast Guard and get a map which would outline the presence of ice along the coast of Labrador you will find that there is indeed a very late Spring on the coast of Labrador. Indeed all communities from Lodge Bay north have yet to have their bay ice leave the communities and certainly from Nain north to this side of Bell Isle there are some 180 miles of ice stretching along that coastline.

So, Mr. Speaker, the presence of ice is documented, the presence of ice all along the coast is fully documented. In the Labrador Straits for instance, the ferry is supposed to come on the 1st of May of each year. I can tell you today, Mr. Speaker, that the Labrador Straits is blocked with ice. The ferry is stuck on one side of the Straits of Bell Isle and there is no way she will be getting over there in the next little while.

Mr. Speaker, here we are with a situation that is beyond the control of the people on the coast of Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services on a point of order.

MR. EFFORD: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member because this is a very important resolution he is putting before the House of Assembly, not only important to his District but important to Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole. I have been trying to listen and to understand, but it is absolutely impossible when Members on both sides are carrying on conversations. I am sure he must be finding it very difficult himself to speak to a group such as this.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I call upon hon. Members to please be mindful of that, because when Question Period is over there is a tendency for Members to relax a little but we still have Members speaking. The point is well taken.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would appreciate silence while I am talking about this particular issue because as I indicated earlier if it was announced today that the Pulp Mill in Grand Falls was closing down or the Stephenville Mill was closing down, this House and the people of this Province would be in an uproar, Mr. Speaker, and justifiably so. What I want to impress upon the people of this Province through this honourable House today is that that is the same thing that is happening on the coast of Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Eight hundred and twenty-eight people from L'Anse-au-Clair to Nain on May 15 will have absolutely no income support and no alternatives for income support from then until - in many cases, Mr. Speaker, particularly from Lodge Bay to Nain, it will be eight weeks before they get income and if the season is anything like it was last year, Mr. Speaker, in Black Tickle it will be somewhere around the 15th of August before there is a codfish landed on the Coast of Labrador. So you are talking almost ten weeks, Mr. Speaker, before we get a set of income into the heads of the families in 828 situations on the Coast of Labrador and sometimes, I must admit, Mr. Speaker, we seem to be desensitized, I suppose, to put it lightly, to the plight of individuals in this Province, particularly individuals in the extremities of this Province who have to go through tremendous hardship but are not able to get before a television camera or take a bus load of their fellow-citizens to come in here and let the people of the Province see exactly what they have to go through. Sometimes there is a desensitization to that, and I think it is really detrimental to the whole situation in which we have to work, Mr. Speaker. Be that as it may, I would like to outline what I feel is the basis for my concern. As I indicated earlier, from Lodge Bay to Nain, Mr. Speaker, on this part of the Coast every one of the fishermen have to move outside. They have a permanent residence in the inland communities and then they move outside some fifty or sixty, sometimes as much as eighty miles away from their permanent community. They have to move outside and there are something like thirty-five seasonal communities from Lodge Bay to Nain, whether it is to go up to Okak in Northern Labrador, or to Occasional Harbour out in Central Labrador, or to Henley Harbour in Southern Labrador. Right from that end down to Nain, we have some thirty-five or thirty-six seasonal communities, and come 15 May, Mr. Speaker, they have to go to their local merchant. They have to go to their local merchant today, as they have always done since they have been on the Coast of Labrador, and try to convince the local merchant to give them their basic bread and butter to take to their outside communities. That is what we are dealing with. There is no way they can save money when they are on unemployment insurance. There is no way they can have the kind of financial ability they require to be able to go and save some money by buying their groceries in bulk, or their fishing supplies, Mr. Speaker, or any of the other needs they may have. Even basic gas - to take their snowmobiles and their supplies out on the bay ice, even the gas, at some ninety cents a litre, is a tremendous hardship on the people who are on this kind of income support. As I indicated earlier, there is absolutely no other alternative for the people on the Coast of Labrador at this time of the year. There are no other employment opportunities on the Coast of Labrador. There is no tourism, no mining, no forestry. All we have, as anybody knows, and I am sure most hon. Members who have visited Labrador this time of the year know, there is one blanket of white snow from one end of her to the other, and this year it is going to be there well up to the middle of June, and in Northern Labrador, certainly, much longer. You have absolutely no opportunity to go out and get that extra income, to be able to go out there and compete like other people in a more urban area, for any kind of cash that might be available.

Mr. Speaker, the income supports we have on the Coast of Labrador are just not working. I think in 1985 we had a special committee of this House that went and looked into the cost of food on the Coast of Labrador, just basic food prices, and the conclusion was that the people on the Coast of Labrador have to pay 25 to 30 per cent extra on their cost of food. A number of things have contributed to that, but certainly, one of the most contributing factors is the fact that we do not have a highway and the inventory cost for local merchants is so high that they have to pass on the interest to their consumers.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that sometimes, in this hon. House, and indeed, in this Province, the needs of the people on the Coast of Labrador are overlooked, that we do not get the right kind of attitude and will demonstrated, and, I guess, the biggest example of this is in the unemployment insurance system as it relates to fishermen on the Coast of Labrador. The Federal Government has known about this in the past, and certainly, since the Conservatives have taken over, it has been one monotonous response after another. We have had the same kind of response from Minister after Minister, and now, Mr. Speaker, we have Mr. Valcourt, the new Minister of Employment and Immigration. Mr. Valcourt obviously demonstrated his sensitivity to Labrador when he was the Minister of Fisheries. I would only hope that the crash that happened at the press conference down at the White Hills may have again desensitized him a little bit, and hopefully he will see the wisdom in making a correction to this particular regulation.

For the record, I would like to point out that in the early 'eighties when there was an unusual presence of ice along the Coast of Labrador, and even at the same time when the migratory pattern for the inshore fish stocks in that area was much more aligned with the fishing season and the unemployment insurance programme, that the Liberal Government of the day did extend the unemployment insurance benefits for the fishermen there. They did not do it every year, but they did do it in the early 'eighties.

So, there is a precedent for it and there is a mechanism to get it changed. As I mentioned, there are some, I believe, concrete solutions to be looked at. The primary one, in the short-term, is obviously that there should be some adjustment to the regulations. And the Minister can do that. It is not like there has to be a great debate. There does not need to be any Royal Commission. Everybody must quickly come to the understanding that you cannot fish where there is ice, and you also cannot fish even if the ice did move away and the fish is not at your shore. If you are working in a twenty or thirty foot boat you cannot just go to the Virgin Rocks or anywhere that you would choose, because there is just no way that that technology can allow you to do so.

This is something the Federal Government can do with the flick of a pen, something they can change by a simple Order in Council or the Minister may be able to do it, actually, without even an Order in Council.

I guess, one of the other things we have to try to change is the attitude the Federal Government has towards unemployment insurance. There is absolutely no doubt that today we have prevailing in this country the most right-wing Government we have ever seen in our history. We see today in the Federal Government, a number of Ministers who are bent on destroying the unemployment insurance system as it relates to fishermen and as it relates to anybody else in this country. We have seen through their regulations and Bill C-21, the direct attempt - and as a matter of fact it is now legislated - that the Government of Canada have wiped their hands away from the unemployment insurance system. They have said to the people of this country who need that income support so badly, `Okay, you are on your own.' That is what they are telling the people on the Coast of Labrador, that is what they are telling anybody who is associated with the unemployment insurance system. They are telling us that you have to pay for yourself, you have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps, and if you do not, then that is too bad. We are not going to help you. If there has to be some kind of assistance to the unemployment insurance fund, then we are going to make sure that you pay for it, you, the person who has got to work as hard as you possibly can for a living, and certainly, the employer who has to balance his books, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is one of the most glaring examples of the right-wing philosophy taking hold in this country and one that must be fought with all kinds of opposition and the kind of social conscience that must be prevailing if we are to be a caring society.

I realize I just have a few more minutes at the opening of this particular debate. I look forward to the remarks from my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House, and I hope that at the end of the day we will be able to pass a resolution in this House unanimously demanding that the Federal Government change this regulation and also that they change the programme. In my concluding remarks on this debate today, I will outline what I believe are some very reasonable changes to be made, particularly what can be done in terms of a guaranteed annual income or what can be done under a possible court challenge to this particular system as it relates to the equality rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I will close my opening remarks at this point, and look forward to the debate. I hope that all hon. Members will be able to reflect upon this issue and give it the serious consideration that I know the people in Labrador expect from this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon in the legislature to debate this Private Member's resolution put forward by the hon. the Member for Eagle River. It is a resolution that I have no difficulty in identifying with. It is a resolution that I have no difficulty in supporting, I say to the hon. Member, because, coming from a fishing area of the Province, I know full well the hardship that is being experienced by fishermen throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. He makes reference, of course, his resolution is about the ice conditions in Labrador that are preventing fishermen from going fishing to make a living, and consequently, their UI is expiring in just a few days. I want to say to him that I support his resolution. It is a worthy resolution. My only serious wish is that the Federal Government, particularly the Minister of Employment, now, Mr. Valcourt, will accede to the request made by the hon. Member and to the request made by myself, to address this very important issue. I want to say to the hon. Member that I only hope Mr. Valcourt does not read a transcript of the Member's comments today, because it is not going to do very much for the fishermen of Labrador, for the hon. Member to continuously rise in the legislature and lambaste the Minister.

We know, a number of us were not too pleased with Mr. Valcourt's performance as Minister of Fisheries. A number of us are on the record as having said that. I think, now that he has been moved out of that particular portfolio, and we have a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, the hon. John Crosbie, as Minister, we can look forward to, hopefully, better and brighter things; not that Mr. Crosbie can solve all of our problems, because he cannot manufacture fish, but at least, we will get decisions from the man. He understands Newfoundland and Labrador. He understands the people and he understands the problems, so I think it is in the best interest of all of us. We hope that Mr. Valcourt, with his change in responsibilities, will have a change, I guess, of attitude, and that he will identify very quickly with the needs of these people in Labrador and in other parts of the Province, I might say to the Member for Eagle River. It is not only those in Labrador that have ice problems, there are other areas of our Province, the Island portion, that are blocked in solid with ice and people cannot fish, so they have the same needs as his constituents do, and I only hope that the Federal Minister deals with it.

Having said that, I want to inform the Member that I have spoken with Mr.Crosbie's office on this matter, and requested that they very quickly look at it and put some pressure on Mr. Valcourt's department to look favourably upon the requests that have been made by a number of people in the Province. I would like to say to the Member, as well, that the preliminary information I received back from Mr. Crosbie's office is that their belief was, the last time there was an extension for this reason was in 1985. Now, I cannot argue if that is correct or not, and it does not matter, but the information I received back from the gentleman I talked to when I called, is that his impression was, the last time there was an extension for ice was in 1985. Whether it was before that, I do not know, or if, indeed, the date is correct, but that does not matter. I think what is important is that apparently it has been done before, so it is not that this would be precedent-setting. If something has been done before, then why can it not be done again? I think it is very, very justifiable that the Federal Government look upon this very positively and do it quickly, because these people are running out of benefits in a just a few short days.

I want to say, as well, to the Member for Eagle River, that he touched on another number of issues. He talked about the need for a change to fishermen's UI, some changes that have been talked about and some that have taken place over the years. It is an issue that I feel very strongly about, as well.

There are a number of changes that are very, very necessary, Mr. Speaker, in the whole realm of the fishing industry, particularly the inshore, small boat fishery in this Province. It was only last year, in my own area of the Province, early in the fishing season, that we had a substantial gear loss; the fishermen lost lobster pots, lump roe nets and so on, and, in essence, right from the start, their season was a disaster.

We called upon, and at the time, I, as fisheries critic, called upon the Provincial Minister of Fisheries to implement a gear loss programme, but I say to the Member for Eagle River that his Minister of Fisheries was not receptive to that. In the Liberal campaign of 1989, in the Liberal manifesto of `a real change' - there were talks then on how they would work - this Government, when they were campaigning, hoping to be the Government, said, `We will work to develop and implement a workable catch failure insurance or assistance programme to relieve the hardships suffered by those who work full-time in the inshore fishery, but experienced poor seasons and substantial reduction of income, or sometimes even a total loss of income.

I would like to remind the vocal Member for Eagle River, a great promoter of the fisherman, involved in the fishing industry of his district, to remind him of what his own campaign manual was about in 1989 and just say to him that this is another Liberal campaign promise that has not been kept, like the school tax and a number of others that have not yet been addressed by this Administration. So, maybe with his influence with the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier, he can bring about some programme for catch failure insurance or some other compensation of assistance to fishermen who have low catches for whatever reason, whether it is gear loss, ice conditions, or whether it is just that the fish are not there. That is something he should pursue with his own Government.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I totally support this resolution put forward by the Member for Eagle River. I tell him that having already been in contact with Mr. Crosbie's office - and the reason I have done that is I think that if there is going to be something coming through for the fishermen of Labrador and the fishermen of the Island portion, it will come as a result of the intervention by John Crosbie. It will not come because Mr. Valcourt gets telexes or telegrams from the Member for Eagle River, or he receives a phone call from me as the Opposition Fisheries critic, it will come because John Crosbie puts in the request and puts the pressure on it at the federal level to get it, and I am only hopeful that this will come about.

I just want to finish by saying that I fully intend to follow up on the matter again within the next twenty-four hours with Mr. Crosbie's office, to see if anything has happened in discussion with Mr. Valcourt's office pertaining to this problem. I conclude by telling the Member and all Members of the House, and the people of Labrador, that I fully support the Member's resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. KELLAND: I do not want to take up a lot of time. I just want to speak a few minutes to reinforce what my colleague from Labrador has said about the situation that exists in Labrador for Coastal Labrador fishermen.

What the hon. Member is looking for, and what all Members of this House, I would expect, support, is not an emergency measure that occurs on a one-time-only basis - and I want to make that point - this is an annual occurrence in Labrador. It is not a question, as it is in some parts of the Island part of the Province, where wind and tide conditions and certain particular weather condition cause a problem any given spring, which may not occur for as many as four or five years subsequent to a problem year.

This is not an emergency measure one-time-only shot that we are talking about here; this occurs every single year on the Coast of Labrador where the benefits are cut off on the 15th of May, and in certain parts of Labrador it is well into July, often in July before fishermen get their gear in the water. And, you know, you are talking about up to two months of having no income for a family.

Now, I personally believe - and I have spoken on this before, when we were Members of the Opposition, that I believe this is an unfair and cruel treatment to the people of Labrador. It, also, as the hon. Member for Grand Bank says, applies to the Island part of the Province on occasion, but not on a regularly occurring basis, which is every single year, as it happens on the Coast of Labrador.

I expect the present Federal Fisheries Minister would be very sympathetic to the cause. His family history, for example, would indicate that he has a great knowledge of the fishing industry in this Province. He is aware of the hardship and the trials that fishermen go through in this Province, and he is certainly aware of the problems that fishermen on the Coast of Labrador experience with respect to loss of income. I have spoken to him years back on a similar subject when he was involved provincially, as well.

When the present Federal Fisheries Minister is thinking about the situation, and when he receives an application for consideration by various Members, the Member for Eagle River, the Member for Grand Bank, and others, he would have to think, how would he feel in a similar situation. I am not suggesting anything other than normal thinking processes when I talk about what the Federal Minister has to go through, but how would anybody, how would the Federal Minister, or anybody else, feel, if every year, on a regular basis, recurring over and over, and over, not as an emergency one-time-only situation, your family income were cut off for up to two months? What do you tell your family? What do you tell your wife and children, as to what you are going to do? These are proud people we are talking about here in our Province. They are fishermen of long tradition. Our entire tradition in the Province, I suppose, is rooted in the fishery. They are proud people who do not wish to be forced into a situation of social assistance. Now, the unemployment insurance question is something they have earned and contributed to. No one wants to look at their family and say, sorry, we have no income and we have to go on welfare in order to feed you for the next couple of months. I do not think we should subject our people to that kind of soul-destroying situation. Again, I reiterate the fact that it is not an emergency situation we are dealing with here, although it is an emergency; but it is not an emergency situation which you must deal with piecemeal, once every now and then. This is something that occurs every single year on the Coast of Labrador. What I am suggesting is that we do pay strict attention, and every Member of this House should support the resolution by the hon. Member for Eagle River, my colleague for Labrador, and that we should give everything we can in our efforts to try to alleviate the situation, and have some changes made. As the hon. Member suggests, it is not much more than a flick of the pen on behalf of the Federal Minister, with the precedents currently in place.

I would like to add my voice, and not take up the time of the other Members who wish to speak in favour of this particular resolution, Mr. Speaker. A strong voice from every Member of this House will send the proper message up to Ottawa.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say a few words about the resolution so ably presented to the House of Assembly by my hon. colleague for Eagle River. I want to speak from two points of view, one as Minister of Social Services, and one as a person, by the mere background of where I was born, I guess, in Port de Grave, a very large fishing community in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which gives me some insight into the problems that are encountered by fishermen, not only on the Labrador Coast, which this particular resolution deals with - and so it should - but all across the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador, and about the implications on our present UI situation as it affects fishermen, as a whole, especially at this time of year.

First of all, I want to make a comment on the statement made by the hon. Member for Grand Bank, concerning the present Minister of Fisheries. I, too, agree, and I hope that the present Minister of Fisheries is going to be good for Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the confidence he is going to be, and I think he carries with him, not only a genuine interest in the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also a long history of working for the people. I know, from time to time as politicians, and as people opposite to his political views, we sometimes criticize the hon. gentleman, and so we should. We all should be criticized from time to time. But I think if we were all to be honest in our criticisms, whether they be criticisms for the sake of criticizing, or constructive criticisms, we all should have a great deal of respect for the hon. John Crosbie and for the dedication and service he has given to Newfoundland and Labrador in his term of office, not only in the Provincial Legislature, but also in the Federal Legislature.

Members are going to be surprised, their eyes coming open, and saying, What is Efford doing, changing his politics? No, I think I give credit where credit is due, and John Crosbie, being a Federal MP and Minister of Fisheries, with the staff he carries with him, is going to be great for Newfoundland and Labrador. I suppose we could put it down to one point. If ever we had a chance to get something for Newfoundland and Labrador, for someone to really get inside and see what the problems are, the opportunity and the chance are certainly there now; because I am a strong believer - and I guess it is only natural, and everybody should be of the same view - that you cannot solve problems unless you first recognize that problems are there.

The biggest problem we have had with Ottawa's attitude toward Newfoundland is their not giving the Newfoundland fishery the respect it deserves, and the importance of it for the Newfoundland and Labrador communities in relation to the economy and the jobs for individuals related directly to the fishing boat and to the fish plants. If Ottawa had given us a little more respect over the years, we would not be dealing with and fighting so many problems as we are today.

I know, when this issue came up last year, one of the things that I found a problem, as Minister of Social Services, was the number of hardworking people, the salt of the earth, as we refer to these people out around home, as individuals, being reduced - and my hon. colleague, the Minister of Environment and Lands, spoke about it - to going to Social Services, people who genuinely work hard for most of the year, in season. Through no fault of their own, nature plays an important role in when they can go to work and when they can not. And, if they are lucky enough when the ice does leave and the season comes when they can fish, then we have the other problem to deal with, the shortage of stocks.

So, they are true Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, dedicated to the fishing industry, dedicated to their families and making their living, who, through no fault of their own, are reduced to going and looking for social services to buy the essential things they require for their children. Now, I want to say very clearly, I do not think there is any shame in anybody who is really dedicated to working, hardworking people, having to go to Social Services; but try telling that to an individual who has probably spent thirty-five or forty years, working hard, who never went to a Social Services office to get a light bill paid or to get enough money to buy groceries or the essential things for their family, to get up in the morning and look in their cupboards and see no food there, no money to buy with, and have to go to Social Services for the first time in their life. It is a very, very hard thing to do.

I remember, a couple of years ago out in my own area, a couple of people got reduced to that. They were fishermen, by the way. I remember one man telling me that he got up one morning and knowing he had to go, he went over to the local Social Services office in Bay Roberts. He got out of his car on the parking lot and walked back and forth three or four times across the lot. Emotionally filled up, he got back into his car again and went home. He could not reduce himself, as he said, to going into the office and asking for money. I mean, you are taking away a person's dignity and pride and self-respect. And that is the way hardworking Newfoundlanders really are. We get blamed for wanting the easy way out of life, for 10-42, and getting on the UI, a great thing that we can get for thirty or forty weeks a year.

But I believe, and I am convinced of this, that 99.99 per cent of the people who find themselves in that position, if they had a choice of working twelve months of the year or going on UI, they would much rather work twelve months of the year. It is a very small percentage of the people who find themselves quite satisfied with the system of working ten weeks and being off for forty-two. But our economy does not dictate that. We do not have the factories of Ontario and Central Canada and the other opportunities that people have of going to work. So we have to recognize the fact, as we have for the last 400 or 500 years, that we have to work seasonally. But the problem is the Federal people, the administrators, and the politicians in Ottawa are not willing to pay some attention and recognize the fact that that is the way of life here in this Province for most of our labour force, that people living in Coastal Labrador and around the coast of Newfoundland, and who depend on the fishing industry, have no other choice but to live that way.

I thought it very ironic that last year when there was a problem out West with the farmers, the Federal Government was not too long in giving $1 billion - not $1 million, not $100 million, but $1 billion to the fund for the farmers when they had the problem out West when the drought was on. And I do not disagree with that. I think the farmers should be helped. They are a very important part of the country of Canada, for the food supply of the world. I am not saying they should not do it, but I cannot understand, as a native Newfoundlander and a Canadian, why we have to get down on our hands and knees every time there is a problem here in Newfoundland, and they do not recognize it up there; and the more you beg, they just shun you, as the hon. Member for Eagle River explained, in confronting the Minister of Fisheries, in the way in which it was put down, and the way in which he had to arrange a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries.

We are all Canadians. Because we live in eastern Canada, because we live in coastal Newfoundland and Labrador, we are no less than people living in Ottawa or BC or no less than the rest of the people, the farmers and the other industrial people, the labour force in Canada. We are just as important to the country of Canada as everybody else. We are just as important to the world food supply. In fact, I do not know but we are more important. The amount of food that has been taken off of the Grand Banks in the last 300 to 400 years, I wonder what would happen to the world if that food was no longer there.

So it is about time that the people in Ottawa started to recognize the value of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and what it means, and how we have to survive here in this Province. It is not just good enough to present a letter to Ottawa once in awhile and for somebody to stand up in the House of Assembly or someone to go to Ottawa. That is not going to change things. It is no good putting a band-aid on it now. It is good for this year. Putting a band-aid on it and let's give it a few extra weeks after you get down on your hands and knees and beg for it. That is what really sickens my stomach. When we have to beg, as Canadians, for our natural rights, that we have an important part in it. We belong to this country. And we should not be reduced to begging. No more should good hardworking Newfoundlanders and Labradorians be reduced to having to go to social services for two or three months of the year to get money for the little kids to go to school. And that is what is happening here. It has happened in years gone by and it is happening here today.

So we are not calling on the people of Ottawa to put a band-aid solution - only, I should not say. We are not only calling on them to put a band-aid solution on what we are asking for now. We want them to recognize that this is an ongoing problem in this Province, along coastal Labrador, along all of the fishing areas of Newfoundland. Sure, out in my area where I come from there are a number of boats that fish the Grand Banks right now and they are making some money. But, equally as well, there are another fifty-five or sixty crews who will not be able to catch fish. The ice is in Conception Bay now. The cod fishery usually does not open until the middle of June. The caplin is coming in at about the same time. And it is until then before they can earn any money. So they find themselves, year after year, going from May month until June, and sometimes the first of July, before they get a pay cheque.

Now after coming off the year before just making enough money to put themselves through the winter, and we all know the cost of living this day. You do not get by on $4,000 or $5,000 or $8,000 or $10,000 like you could twenty, twenty-five years ago. The cost of living today, the cost of putting your kids in school, an unemployment cheque does not serve the purpose for most part of the time, and I commend the people who live in this way of life to be able to survive and provide the basic essentials on what they receive from unemployment insurance. But when you take that amount of money away, then just imagine the stigma on those families. And having to go over and put their hand out.

So it is time for the people in Ottawa to recognize that this is a major problem. It is not a problem that you are going to hand out $1 million or $2 million this year, and it is not going to go away. What we have to do, we have to change the system. We have to give the people who are dependent on the fishing industry the same rights as everybody else in the labour force. If I am working in a factory in Ontario and I get laid off, what do I do? I draw UI for whatever the number of weeks are, I am not too sure, probably about thirty-five weeks, depending on what part of the country you are living in. Because the statistics of the labour force I think change as the amount of weeks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Canada Works programme (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: And Canada Works programme. My hon. colleague makes a very good point. A Canada Works programme for ten weeks, you draw for the remainder of the year. Why should fishermen be reduced to any less than that? If they are allowed to draw UI for x number of weeks, when they start earning money, the fishing season opens up, they are automatically terminated from the UI. They put in the amount of money they earned. Why can they not be treated like that? If that is the answer then so do it. If it is bringing in income security, do it. But at least let's bring in something solid that we can solve this problem with.

Another problem I find with the fishing and the UI benefits for fishermen, fishermen in my area, there are a number of fishermen probably making as much as $150,000 a year, some of them I know last year made a quarter of a million, the skippermen. They draw UI benefits. Yet we have a fisherman living in Port de Grave or living in Eagle River along the coast of Labrador who earned $3,000, could not get ten weeks, they do not get UI.

What sense is in that? What mentality up in Ottawa drew up those regulations? And it is not something that is identified in 1990 and 1991, it has been going for years since the UI for fishermen was brought into. And the more you talk about it the less people listen up there. What do you have to do? Get down on our hands and knees and crawl up. "Oh, Mr. Ottawa, give us a few more dollars because we are hungry?" And that is what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to do every time there is a problem down here and it is not that we do not have politicians bringing the message up there because if they listen, my hon. colleague for Eagle River has certainly done it enough himself over the last few years that the problem should be solved and the problem should be changed and I am sure, many politicians before him and since that time has certainly brought it to Ottawa, but the fact remains that they are not willing to listen, because the whole problem with Ottawa is that they are dealing with a mentality that Newfoundland is a thorn in their side, trade relations with all the rest of the world matters more than the fishing industry, give them a few measly dollars whenever you cry out and that will keep them quiet and what odds about it.

I remember back when the Meech Lake talk was on, I forgot the gentleman's name who said it: cut Newfoundland off and let it drift out to sea. I know he probably said that in the heat of debate, I have no doubt about that, but I am going to tell you one thing, that is about the mentality of most of the federal politicians. It is not just the one individual and I do not think any Newfoundlander and Labradorian regardless of what side of the House you sit or what your political views, can argue against that particular attitude that is in Ottawa; it is there, it is real.

I only hope and pray that at some point in time, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to see some attitude of change and I think if we ever had the opportunity to get some change in the attitude we have now in hon. John Crosbie, being recently appointed Minister of Fisheries, I think he can bring the message that we need brought to Ottawa the way in which we need it brought up there, with a strong voice. I have the confidence, I do have the confidence that he is capable of doing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: It has nothing to do with politics, this is what is real for Newfoundland and Labrador. It gives me a little pain to know that I am complimenting a Tory and it is not very often I do, but when you see a man with the respect and the criteria of the work load he has carried over the past twenty or twenty-five years in the political forum, you have sometimes to bend a little bit although it gives me a pain here and there, but you have to compliment him.

But I have to have confidence because I keep saying that Newfoundlanders are going to be treated the way in which they should be treated some time by Ottawa, so if ever there is a time, if ever there is a time to get that opportunity and get that message through, it is now; if we do not get it through now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is going to happen.

The Newfoundland fishing industry is on the decline; the people are being demoralized, young people are not getting involved in the fishing industry the way I would like to see them, there is an attitude to close out the inshore fishery completely, there is a mentality to do away with things and I suppose that is one of the reasons they are not improving the UI benefits in that they do not want to encourage people to get involved, but I do not know - I do not know what would happen to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador if we lose the fishing industry; I do not think we have any future.

I do not think Newfoundland, as much as we have Hibernia, as much as we get the mining area, as much as we get the forestry or the waters of the Hydro Development, I do not think Newfoundland has a chance to survive in the future if we do not develop and maintain the rights of Newfoundlanders to be able to fish off the whole coast of Newfoundland and Labrador; I believe that very, very strongly and I think we should be placing just as much emphasis on keeping the youth attracted and educated towards our fishery and interested in becoming part of it in the future as we are in maintaining the number of people around the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador today, I think that is very important.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to give a lot of people an opportunity to speak; I say very clearly the hon. Member knows that we, on this side of the House and I am sure all Members in the House, will support him in making his comments and his views known to the federal people in Ottawa. I will be very interested, when I sit down, I see my hon. colleague for St. John's East Extern, old anti-confederate himself, is going to get up and give us a few words and I am sure, it is going to be positive in support of this particular resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to have a few words to say on this resolution and certainly I do not think there is anyone in this hon. House today or any day who could dispute what this resolution is saying. Mr. Speaker, the only thing I do dispute is some hon. colleagues speaking about UIC. UIC as we all know it, Mr. Speaker, is just that - an insurance, and I do not think that there is a need to broaden that insurance, but I do think that in the instance like we are seeing now, not alone in Labrador, but in many other areas of Newfoundland and Labrador we see a need, we see the way that UI should be acting. When there is a need, UI should step in as an insurance to make sure that people do receive the benefits necessary for them. I am a firm believer of that, Mr. Speaker.

Now the only query that I have with the hon. Member for Eagle River is that every time he stands in his place in this hon. House he confines himself to his own district, and rightly so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Just a moment now. Just a member now. And rightly so, he should, but he also should elaborate just a little, I think, on the rest of Newfoundland. Mr. Speaker, the situation in Labrador is bad, and we all know it. The hon. Member is coming in now, and I am glad he is because I would not want for him to think that I was talking behind his back. But, Mr. Speaker, there are problems all over Newfoundland and Labrador because of the ice situation, especially this year, and for other years the problem has been there. I know that the problem is great in Labrador, and I can appreciate the Member's feelings on it, but he has to appreciate too that there are a lot of us over here who represent districts with fishing communities, and a great percentage of mine is. The problem down there is just the same now as in Labrador. What I am saying is that you isolated the resolution to Labrador. Now as far as I am concerned the resolution should have read 'areas of concern or areas where there is concern' because there is concern right along the whole northeast coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, but what I am saying is it should be here in the resolution. It should be in the resolution for the whole of Newfoundland - to have that as a problem area.

I want to remind the hon. Member for Eagle River - I read an article in the paper where he said that, and he said here in the House as well, that there should be a quota for Labrador. I agree with him, perhaps because of adjacency and because of history, that perhaps Labrador should get a quota. But I want to remind the hon. Member that up until 1988 FPI had no problem raping - reaping, I mean - raping too, I suppose, the resource in 2J. But since -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say raping.

MR. PARSONS: I said reaping.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said raping.

MR. PARSONS: I did so. I also said that; reaping, I said, and raping.

Anyway, in 1988 they caught their quota, but in 1989 I think they caught about 15 million pounds and there were 5 million pounds of the quota that they could not catch because of ice conditions. Now this year there is not any, there has not been any caught up there at all because of ice conditions in 2J.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I am getting to that. I do not know what is wrong with the hon. Minister over there. I do not know what is wrong with him. Did you have something for your dinner today that you did not like? (Inaudible) got some good fish.

Now what I am saying to the hon. Member is that I agree with his resolution, but I think it should be in a broader sense to involve all the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador who are in need of help from the Federal Government when the need arises. I do not think that UIC - I would be lying myself - I would feel bad about it if I said that UI should be given to everyone. I mean increase it up to twenty weeks, thirty weeks, fifty weeks, no, UIC was brought about as an insurance to help people when the need arose, when people were unemployed.

Now, let me say this to the hon. Member for Eagle River, I told him I agreed with his resolution, but the UIC of all the fishermen I represent ends 15 May as well. Every one of them ends 15 May. Now, he said all he can see in Labrador is a white coat of snow. What can the Member for Fogo see only the same white coat? What is a fellow in Joe Batt's Arm going to do when his UIC runs out the 15 May? What can he do? And we can come closer to home, what is the fellow in Pouch Cove going to do 15 May?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: We are going to do something. Do not worry about that. I want to remind the hon. Member that I have already interceded for my constituents. I have already spoken to the people in Ottawa, not today, two weeks ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak to the motion.

MR. PARSONS: I am speaking to the motion, but every time the hon. Member gets up he ridicules the Federal Government. Today he got up asking that UI be extended, and then he vilified, he criticized, he ridiculed the Minister to which he is going to send, whatever he is going to send, his telegram, I suppose, to Valcourt, Minister of Immigration and Employment, the new Minister. Whether you like him or not is immaterial, but if you are here today to seek help for your constituents, then I do not think you should get up and lambaste that Minister. I do not think you should, but you did. You have to play the political side of it. You are a politician, boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: He did not? No, not much.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say to the hon. Member that time, that this year there has not been any fish caught out there. I want to say to the hon. Member, and I have the opportunity today because we are on a fishery resolution, that I agree with him when he talks about adjacency and historic rights as far as Labrador is concerned, but there is only one thing I would like to ask him, where is he going to get the quota from? Only this year has FPI not caught its quota, so where are you going to take it from? Who are you going to take the tonnage from to give to the residents of Labrador? You talk about underutilized species.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: That is an international matter that you would not understand. It is just a matter of not understanding. You think out there on the ocean you can do what you like, you can cut it where you like, and you can tell this one they have no relevancy. International treaties have to apply. You do not believe in treaties.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. PARSONS: Underutilized species?

AN HON. MEMBER: Why is it underutilized?

MR. PARSONS: Because a great amount of it cannot be caught. No one can catch it up there now because they are not fishing up there. FPI with their reinforced trawlers cannot get up there to catch the fish they have now, cannot catch their quota, so who is going to catch it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: There are still six or seven months of the year.

MR. PARSONS: The hon. Member says there is six or seven months of the year. What was the average accumulation of stamps by the fishermen in Labrador in your district last year? How many stamps did they have?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Probably ten or eleven.

MR. PARSONS: And in some instances six or seven.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes.

MR. PARSONS: And how great was the stamp? Was it what we call a top stamp?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Two hundred dollars a week average, I suppose.

MR. PARSONS: Is it viable? Is it viable for those people? I know what you are talking about. You are talking about a quota that would be caught by large ships and landed in Labrador.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, by our own fishermen, the same fishermen.

MR. PARSONS: By your own fishermen?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Right.

MR. PARSONS: What I am saying to you is, for this year the big company, FPI, which is the largest company we have, could not catch theirs so how would the Labradorians catch theirs under the same

weather conditions. Now they may catch it in July and August but you are still going to have no more that ten stamps -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Why? The inshore fishery closes as of September 15, they could be going from September 15th to the last of November or December.

MR. PARSONS: The answer was, Mr. Speaker, the answer to all this was, what you people, the hon. Members on the other side, what was in their campaign policy, what the hon. Member for Grand Bank reminded you people of today; and I urge the hon. Members, I urge the hon. Government Members, the Minister of Social Services and all - Mr. Speaker, this is what the Government, the Liberal manifesto said: The Liberal Government will work to develop and implement a workable catch failure insurance. This is what you told the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; this is why the Member for Eagle River was elected; this is why the Member for Port de Grave gets up and shouts, he said: I received more votes than half of you over there -

AN HON. MEMBER: Because of promises.

MR. PARSONS: - because of promises. Let me read the rest of it, Mr. Speaker; a workable catch failure insurance or assistance programme, to relieve the hardships suffered by those who worked full time in the inshore fishery, but experienced poor seasons and substantial reduction of income or sometimes, even the total loss of income.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I think that you should go to the Minister and look for extra UI benefits, but, you should sit down and talk to your own Minister of Fisheries, you should sit down and talk to your Premier and say: Mr. Premier, the time has come, it is a disaster in Labrador, now, Mr. Premier, things that we said during the election campaign, we are going to have to fulfill and then there would not be a problem -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in Ottawa.

AN HON. MEMBER: He does not know where it is at.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is not allowed to talk to him.

MR. PARSONS: Now, that is the answer, that is the real answer, a workable catch failure insurance and when the people cannot get out and fish in Labrador, that is a catch failure, Mr. Speaker, and there is not even a great problem.

The President of Treasury Board, who is a part of this Liberal philosophy, will certainly agree that it is time to implement their promises.

They have broken so many but I do not think they can break their promises to the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, so, I suggest very strongly, very strongly, very strongly to the Minister of Social Services, very strongly to the Member for Eagle River, to get together with the President of Treasury Board and the Premier and your Minister of Fisheries and point out to them, on page thirteen, what they promised the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - what they promised the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There were going to be no more problems in the fishery, they were going to bring in a programme that was going to solve it all; we would not have to go to Ottawa.

The Minister of Social Services said we should not go to Ottawa on bended knee, I do not say we should and we would not have to; all you have to do is implement on page thirteen, paragraph three, which says we are going to bring in a support programme -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who read it for you?

MR. PARSONS: - a support programme. I just read it for you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, you did not.

MR. PARSONS: You never even read it, it is only what the Premier told you, and that is what you went out and fought your election on. What he told you he was going to implement and the people believed what you told them, but the point remains, they will not believe you any more, because they believed you so often and you - he is not allowed to say it, Mr. Speaker, that forbidden word, that I am not allowed to say, that is on the buttons, that is on the caps is very evident in this here as well. And -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him to take you on.

MR. PARSONS: Do you want to take me on?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to take me on?

MR. PARSONS: Do you want to take me on?

AN HON. MEMBER: It does not make any difference.

MR. POWER: If you really want to get beat up, come down and take me on, if you really want to get beat up badly, come down to Ferryland, we will have a real go and a bit of fun.

MR. PARSONS: You know, I sympathize with the people of Labrador, I really do, I sympathize with them and I know there are people in Labrador, like people all over Newfoundland and Labrador, that the last thing they want to do is go to look for welfare, to look for help in that sense, but if the conditions are such, well then, there has to be an avenue, in this day and age we cannot let people suffer because of conditions that they have nothing at all to do with it and cannot control.

MR. WOODFORD: Tell the truth! Tell the truth!

MR. PARSONS: Once you start telling the truth, the Hon. Minister of Social Services just cannot take it. It gets too hot and he leaves the kitchen.

AN HON. MEMBER: So they should, because all they are doing is disrupting the House.

MR. PARSONS: That is all they are doing. The Premier took the House on his back today.

MR. SIMMS: And he talks about decorum.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, about decorum. That is all they are doing, taking the House on their backs.

MR. SIMMS: Trained monkeys, all of them.

MR. PARSONS: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that.

MR. SIMMS: You can.

MR. PARSONS: No. I do not know how many minutes I have left, but I have to say one thing in the House. I do not like to ever do anything that hurts anyone, but I was here the last day that the hon. Member for Eagle River spoke on a resolution, and that day he said a word, and he said something to a Member of this House, that I found very, very offensive. For that hon. Member to utter that word, I thought was disgraceful. I do not think it becomes that hon. Member. I think that perhaps he was not thinking. He called a Member on this side of the House - and everyone knows who it was, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition - he called him despicable. With all the decorum in the House, Mr. Speaker, I do not find one word that irritates me more.

I have to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, that he kept his cool that day, because I am not sure that I could take it. I am really not sure, because there comes a time -

MR. SIMMS: I cannot believe the hon. Member for Eagle River said that. Did he say that.

MR. PARSONS: Yes, he did. Why I mention it now, is because they started in about decorum. I respect the hon. Member for Eagle River today, and I think that he got sort of overenthusiastic at that particular time. He got carried away with himself. I am going to ask that hon. Member today to get up, like a man, like an hon. Member -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is he a monkey?

MR. SIMMS: A trained monkey.

MR. PARSONS: No, I cannot say that. I cannot even say he is a trained seal, because that is out of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Monkey is not.

MR. PARSONS: A trained monkey, Mr. Speaker, is not out of order.

MR. SIMMS: He is untrained.

MR. PARSONS: I would have to say that he is an untrained monkey, and he will always be a monkey in my -

MR. DUMARESQUE: Deal with the resolution.

MR. PARSONS: I am dealing with the resolution. I am dealing with the Member who brought in the resolution, and I am saying to that Member, that he should cool down a little bit now. Relax! Relax! They must have had a tough caucus over there this morning. Boys, it must be rough when they get into the amalgamation bit. I will bet you there was not much conversation on your resolution this morning at your caucus. Very, very little! I doubt very much if you knew who was going to speak to your resolution when you came in here.

Now, getting back to your resolution, I hope that Mr. Crosbie, the Minister of Fisheries, does what we all expect him to do, and that is look after Newfoundland and Labrador. That would be nothing uncommon for that hon. gentleman, because he has been doing that since he started his political career. I have said it before, he is a credit to Newfoundland and Labrador. But when I see all of those crawling back now, after I heard the Members on the other side rake down the Hon. John Crosbie: They were no good. They were doing nothing for Newfoundland and Labrador. Himself and Reid were misfits, and now they are crawling back. Every one of them are singing his praises.

MR. DUMARESQUE: What about when Crosbie was a Liberal. Did he do good then?

MR. PARSONS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did Crosbie do good when he was a Liberal.

MR. PARSONS: That is an unfair question.

MR. SIMMS: He was never a Liberal, that is the point.

MR. PARSONS: That is a political question. Well, I will say to the hon. Member for Eagle River now, when you get on your feet I want you to tell the hon. House what a great man Mr. Crosbie is. That is what the Minister of Social Services did.

I want him to repeat it because the more often he repeats it, it makes me sensitive to what he was saying three months ago.

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

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. PARSONS: Crosbie was no good, and Reid was no good. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will support the resolution. Thank you very much.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the vaunted wicked attack of the Member for St. John's East Extern had me pinned to the wall back here, and I am not so sure I am going to be able to even get my words out, but I must say that I have great respect for that hon. Member, and I have great respect for his views and I always will have. I may beg to differ with his views, but I have the greatest respect for them. I think he said he is going to vote for the resolution so I am happy to hear that and I am sure that at the end of the day he will vote to support the resolution. I want to say that it is also the right of any private member in the House of Assembly to bring forward a resolution concerning whatever they feel is important, and if that private member chooses to do so that resolution can concern his district, it can concern an issue in his district, it can concern whatever that hon. Member thinks is important. The hon. Member for Eagle River has brought forward a very good resolution, one that is very timely, one that is very important for the people of coastal Labrador, and I believe that it should be supported by all Members of the House, and I certainly do not think that the right of that Member should be downgraded or said that he cannot be able to undertake to do this. It is his right, he has done so, he is serving his constituents extremely well by doing so, and hopefully it will have some effect on the new Minister of Employment and Immigration, the hon. Bernard Valcourt.

Now the reason he is bringing this in is, of course, because he wants ammunition so that the hon. Minister, the new Minister, will respond because obviously the hon. Minister now of Employment and Immigration who used to be the Federal Minister of Fisheries and who I believe was not a very good Minister, great Minister or effective Minister in understanding, at least, Newfoundland's concerns, I believe that he is in a position now where it is as important or more important for the Province with the position he now holds, so I would hope that the hon. Minister as he now undertakes his new duties will undertake to understand better the Newfoundland position and the Province's position, and the problems of the Province, especially the Province's fishermen who are having a very difficult time in this time of crisis. You normally would think it would be timely, Mr. Speaker, that the new Minister of Employment and Immigration is coming from the fisheries portfolio. You would think that we would all be excited, at least, to know that the Minister should have a good background as to this Province's economy and understanding of the crisis that we are presently going through and that we would feel good about that, and that we would feel good about that and that we would think that the Minister will completely understand the problems and it will not cause the havoc in the problems that we have had in the past by trying to get the simple things to correct the problems that are out there. I would only hope that the federal Minister, Mr. Valcourt, would act quickly on the request the Member for Eagle River put forward to deal with the fishermen's problems. They are serious problems, they are ones that need to be addressed, and this is a short-term solution to a long-term problem. It is something that the Federal Government who has the jurisdiction at this time have not undertaken very seriously to resolve, and I would hope that they would do so over the next two years. Unfortunately, the previous Federal Minister of Fisheries was unable, I believe, to be effective, and unable to really address the crisis of the fishery in this Province.

What always poisons me, Mr. Speaker, I must say, when it comes to the fishery in this Province, what poisons me, I suppose, on the national scene, is that when the farmers in western Canada get into a problem, Mazankowski and everybody else in the west, they all go to the Cabinet table and figure out a new plan, or another way, another scheme to deal with the farmers problems. The most recent one that I saw only a number of weeks ago was a plan to provide income support for the farmer. They have an agreed upon plan, they have an agreed upon amount of dollars, they have criteria laid out, and what I do not understand, and I know that it has been a problem for quite a number of years, but the Federal Government can work out the criteria to bail out and help out farmers in Canada, but they cannot work out a program or criteria to give an income support program for fishermen. It is beyond me. They can use the same criteria, probably, and I look forward to the Member for Eagle River's presentation at the end to see what solutions that he offers the new Ministers of Fisheries and Employment and Immigration in Ottawa. The Federal Government can figure out a way to deal with the farmer who has a mortgage and machinery that he operates and payments that he has to make. They can figure out a way to do that. And they can figure out a way to help them out and ease them through a time of increased supply in grain industry -

AN HON. MEMBER: And they do not get UI.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: And they do not get UI.

MR. K. AYLWARD: And they do not get UI, no. But they can work out a way to do that but they cannot work out a way to provide income support for fishermen. And fishermen do not want UI, they would rather be able to make a living on their own. But here we are. We still can not work out a way to provide an income support programme.

Fishermen in this Province have always been entrepreneurs, people who went out and have been in business for themselves. They have been entrepreneurs for the 500 years they have been in this Province. They go out and create a living for themselves. And the problem that we have at this point in time is that the regulations and requirements that have been brought forward by the Federal Government have really put the fisherman into a situation, a straitjacket, where he can hardly make an income worth living on. And it is time that it was reviewed.

One of the proposals made by the Provincial Government to the Federal Government has been the possibility of setting up a Canada-Newfoundland Fisheries Board, something with jurisdiction to deal with some of these problems and invent some of the solutions, and some of the solutions are not so complicated. They can be resolved, I believe, if both levels of Government want to resolve them.

There was a mechanism being proposed to do that. There is a new Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Crosbie, who I welcome into the portfolio. Who as a Newfoundlander I hope will certainly make every effort, and I am sure he will, to deal with the problems. I would only hope that his sensitivity to the problem will be brought to the Cabinet table and that maybe for the first time in a long time we may see some real progress made in dealing with this long term problem that we have had for a long time. It is long overdue, it is something that can be addressed, it is not an idea that is a wild idea, that is something that is a dream that we have or an ideal that cannot be worked out. There are problems that can be fixed. They can be fixed if people cooperate. And I would ask - I am asking the Speaker today - that when we send up the resolution to Ottawa after we vote on it that our Government make further representation to the Federal Government to deal with this problem and to help provide some solutions.

We have had a number of studies done in the last year or two on the crisis in the fishery. They have identified a number of problems especially on the west coast of the Province, in southern Labrador, all over the Province there have been some major problems. The experts have put together a number of recommendations that can help resolve some of the problems in the long term.

I believe the Fishermen's Union under Richard Cashin has provided some proposals on the west coast and southern Labrador - west coast for sure I know of - on income support to the previous Minister, who is Bernard Valcourt, when he was in the Fisheries portfolio. Hopefully Mr. Valcourt, who is now familiar with those proposals from his previous experience, will help deal with that proposal from his new position of Employment and Immigration. Hopefully I am going to make some representation of my own, and I would ask other Members to do so. I am sure the Government will do so. The west coast is having serious problems over there and it needs to be protected and properly managed.

The other thing that I am very pleased to see is the hon. John Crosbie is in that portfolio now, at least he can bring some seriousness to the portfolio in dealing with the issues. The overfishing has really taken a toll on this Province. The Federal Government has done little or nothing to protect us. I would hope that the new Minister will try to emphasize to his Cabinet colleagues that the time has come to help protect this wonderful resource which we are so dependent upon. Because they certainly have not done that. It is not as important as grain is to Canada. Fish is the second or third or fourth or fifth priority. It is certainly time that the Federal Government put an emphasis and the importance where it should be on renewable resources, on a resource such as this, because fish is equal to grain is equal to other resources that we have and we certainly have not been getting the serious concerns addressed by the federal Government.

The Member for St. John's East Extern, who I have great respect for, talks about -

AN HON. MEMBER: You do!?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, I do, I have great respect for all Members and their views. I may differ on their views but I have great respect. Now, he talks about what have we done, the Liberal Government. I tell you, twenty months is what we have been here so far, two years, and we are trying to resolve a lot of problems. It is going to take a little while, I think. We are going to make some mistakes along the way. You cannot move ahead and not make mistakes. You are going to try things out that may not work. You might try this thing, and it may not work. Like Sprung - you tried Sprung, and that did not work. There are a few other things that may not work, but you have to try. If you do not try, you will never know. For example, catch failure insurance, I think, is a very good idea. The Government proposed to the Federal Government last year when the crisis was on a joint program, funding from the Province and funding from the Feds, to deal with the crisis in the fishery, not only for the short-term but for the long-term. The Federal Government decided to not even listen, not bother, or even sit down and talk about it, and went on their own.

So, we are trying to do what we can. We are also trying to get a board formed, a Canada/Newfoundland fisheries board, an excellent initiative. I think it would be superb, number one, but again, whether or not the Federal Government is going to listen is another question. We are trying to be pro-active and trying to help resolve the problems but it is going to take some time. We cannot just do it overnight. In politics, two years is not a very long time when you are trying to resolve long-term problems that have existed for fifty, sixty, or one hundred years. They have existed for a long time, and the time is getting short, patience is being worn out, and the problems that fishermen experience, such as the fishermen of Labrador, it is time for those problems to start getting dealt with. In Canada, we are all supposed to be equal, but, unfortunately, and maybe it is just due to population and so on, the Federal Government pays more attention to the West. That is fine and dandy, but we have serious problems, they deserve recognition, and they certainly deserve to be dealt with. The Federal Government certainly has not done that, and the Opposition, who used to be the Government here, provincially, can complain to us about not doing this and that, but what they have done previously, well, we are in the situation where we still have to resolve these problems. They were not able to resolve them. We are trying our best to resolve them and we are going to continue to do that. It is difficult to do that. You have to have open ears, and in Ottawa, we are not so sure, but hopefully, Mr. Crosbie will try to wake them up. I would exhort his colleagues on the other side to keep talking to this new Minister of Fisheries and ask him to do what he can to address the problem. We are only here two years, we have a lot of work to do yet, and we intend to do a lot more. We come into Government and we are in a crisis in the fishery which we did not invent. We get in and the first thing we face is a crisis in the fishery, and we hear, How come you did not bring in a new program? We are trying our best. We are trying to bail out fish plants and we are trying to keep everybody going.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a federal responsibility.

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is a federal responsibility, yes, but we are even saying to the feds, we will give you money but get us a program, and they hardly want to talk to us. I am hoping that the new Federal Minister of Fisheries is going to be, and I am sure he will be, very responsive to the Provincial Government, and to its concerns, and, hopefully, the political differences that we might have in some other issues can be put aside to deal with the problems that can be rectified, because there are solutions to these problems; but you have to have the political will on all sides to do this. Hopefully, that can be done.

The problem of overfishing is something that the Federal Government, as a Government, because we are part of the nation of Canada, have to deal with. We can only exhort them to do that. We did not invent the problem, it was invented before we got here. We are again making representation on that. The Provincial Minister of Fisheries has done so and it is time that the Federal Government responded.

I totally support the resolution put forward by my hon. colleague for Eagle River. His concerns for fishermen and fisherpeople in this Province are well-known. Bill C-21, which he referred to earlier, has taken the Federal Government totally out of the Unemployment Insurance Program. They do not throw a copper into the program anymore. They said, `Go private sector, you take it,' and employees of Canada, the workers of Canada, have now contributed to this program jointly without Federal Government involvement. Now, they have to decide how to run the program. The Federal Government has gotten out of worrying about whether people are employed or unemployed, for that matter, and it is most unfortunate. I think the representation on C-21 was made a long time ago. It obviously did not have too much effect on the Federal Government, and hopefully, that problem will be dealt with in the next election.

I think, Mr. Speaker, there are many things that can be done, there are problems that can be resolved, but it is going to take co-operation on both sides. This Government is willing to co-operate. This Government has put forward solutions to the problems but, unfortunately, we have to have the ears open to listen. I can only hope that the new Federal Minister of Fisheries is going to work on Mr. Valcourt and get him to understand the problems that we have, because they are very serious.

We are a society in this Province, Mr. Speaker, that deserves the same recognition as Western Canada. We are a society that deserves the same treatment and equal treatment, and I think it is long overdue. I think the problems we have had are problems that can be overcome, but it is going to take some time. This Government is trying to take that action. It is being pro-active even with the Budget problems and the Budget crisis and the lack of money we have during a recession. Everybody is going through the same problem in Canada. We did not invent that either. Recession - we did not create the interest rates. I am sure that as the economy gets better - and this Provincial Government is trying to help that - we will see an improvement, and see an improvement, hopefully, from the Federal Government's point of view in dealing with this important issue.

The fishery of this Province is what makes this Province, what has always made this Province, along with other resource industries, and I think it is long overdue. This resolution is something that we almost annually have to bring forward to get the Federal Government to understand the problems that our people face, and I hope that next year or the year after that, we will not have to bring forward another resolution, or a private Member will not have to bring forward a resolution to have to deal with the problem.

I can remember the previous government, Mr. Speaker, when I was in Opposition. There were resolutions brought in the same way, trying to deal with this problem, and I think it is long overdue. I think it is time, and I believe that this Provincial Government has put forward the views to the Federal Government to try to resolve it. It is something to which we only hope the Federal Government will listen. They have to listen to the problems of the people of this Province. This Province is a big contributor to the economy of Canada, it is a big contributor to the spirit of Canada, and it certainly does not deserve to be ignored by a Federal Government, it certainly needs to be paid attention to. We are certainly going to take action to make sure that they do, but it will take everybody's effort and hard work to ensure that it does.

As I was saying earlier, Mr. Speaker, the fisherpeople of this Province have been entrepreneurs for hundreds of years, and they deserve the support of this Government, of all Members, and of the Federal Government. They are entrepreneurs, people who take risks every day. They go out and practice their trade, trying to make a living. Unfortunately, the regulations and the management of the fishery have put a strait jacket on them, and limited their access to a resource and limited what they were able to undertake to do and to carry out their business. If a normal entrepreneur in business was strait-jacketed the way the fishermen have been strait-jacketed, they would be very upset and certainly would be protesting, and also bringing representation to help deal with the problem.

So, as we look at the problems of Eagle River and Southern Labrador, and of the Province, in general, the problem is one of removing that strait jacket and allowing the Province's fisherpeople to carry out their trade in a manner that is befitting, that allows them to make a respectable living. I think that is the aim of the Government, that is the aim I believe of all Members, and I only hope it is the aim of the Federal Government.

Up until this point we have not seen that. I hope we will. I think the hon. John Crosbie is going to be, I think he will, hopefully, be a person who will listen. He certainly has the background and understands this Province. Let us hope that some things are going to change when it comes to the way they deal with this Province and its fishery problems. I think we have to look seriously at making further representation and I encourage the Provincial Minister to keep doing so. Some good solutions have been brought forward, but a lot of solutions are brought forward sometimes, for a problem, but the problem is they never get listened to, unfortunately, or they are passed over or not even looked at.

I hope, for the betterment of all fishermen in this Province, that these proposals that this Government has proposed will get considered and evaluated, and that action is taken so that we are not here next year trying to resolve the same problem. Previous governments were the same, and we are the same, trying to get a short-term solution right now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Is this your resolution? I thought you were going to close the debate on me or something.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make a few remarks on this particular resolution, this evening.

I suspect, if anybody went back and checked Hansard over the years, in some form or other, this resolution has been before this House many, many times. It is not new, certainly in my memory. In my sixteen years here, I have seen this resolution, or some form of it, come from the Opposition of the day; I have seen this resolution or some form of it come from Government backbenchers of the day. It is a resolution that keeps re-appearing for a very good reason, because of a very frustrating problem that can be solved if there is a will to solve it.

Before I get into the general remarks, I want to carefully have a look at the resolution, but before that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say clearly, for the record and for anybody who wants to hear, that we support this resolution. We have no intention of politically trying to embarrass the Member who put it forth or anything of that nature, we support it. How could anybody not support this resolution, Mr. Speaker? It is almost beyond belief that it could not be supported. We will support it, because the circumstances - I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Federal Tories would not support it.

MR. RIDEOUT: I do not know. The circumstances are such that you have to support it, Mr. Speaker; it is a bread-and-butter, motherhood resolution that deserves the support of every Member of this House and it deserves action by the Federal Government. Now, as I said in my opening remarks, this kind of resolution has gone forth to Ottawa practically every year for the sixteen years that I have been here; it has gone forth to Liberal Governments, it has gone forth to P.C. Governments and we still have the problem. I hope that somehow, sometime, some day, somewhere, the solution to the problem will be forthcoming and will be addressed, because I believe it is easy to address it.

I am not sure you are going to address it by the demanding, I am not sure you are going to address it simply by passing resolutions in this House and then nothing happens after that; it is going to take a concentrated effort intergovernmentally, Government to Government, to try to bring about some change to this problem that keeps resurfacing in some part, I say to the Member, in some part of Newfoundland and Labrador, practically every year.

I do not know if there is a part of this Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, every year that you do not experience somewhere, this kind of problem.

Let us, for a moment, Mr. Speaker, look at the resolution and the first WHEREAS:

WHEREAS the fishermen of Labrador depend solely on unemployment insurance benefits to meet their basic needs from November to May of each year;

Quite true, I mean, that is an absolutely truthful statement, but it is also an absolutely true statement for Fogo or White Bay or Green Bay or St. Mary's Bay or the West side of the Northern Peninsula. This statement applies to every fisherman in Newfoundland and Labrador; it applies to every fisherman in Atlantic Canada; that is the rule as it exists now. Unemployment insurance is payable from the 15th of November to the 15th of May, except in areas like the South Coast, where the winter is the fishing season and the unemployment insurance is paid for the same amount of time in what is our summer, so that is the only variation, but the amount of time that you can draw for the vast majority of fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador is the 15th of November to the 15th of May, but recital is absolutely correct. We have no difficulty with it, Mr. Speaker, except to say that it applies to thousands of fishermen in practically every part of this Province, so it is not only a Labrador problem. It is a Newfoundland and Labrador problem. The second recital, whereas ice conditions have been documented to be the worst in recent memory along the Labrador Coast. Again, I do not quarrel with that at all. I am sure it is so, but equally so, Mr. Speaker, are the ice conditions as bad along the northeast coast of Newfoundland, the Island part of Newfoundland? I have heard experts on the Fishermen's Broadcast on a number of occasions over the last several days say that the band of ice that surrounds the Province, and I am saying the Province now of Newfoundland and Labrador, is the worst in many, many years, so it is true in Labrador, yes, the hon. Member is correct, but the problem is also a problem for White Bay, Green Bay, Notre Dame Bay, Placentia Bay, Trinity Bay, St. Mary's Bay, and right up through, I guess, pretty well to Placentia Bay. It is a problem for fishermen all along the northeast coast. I had a call from my brother who is a fisherman in Holyrood just two nights ago, and normally in Holyrood you are fishing the first part of April, sometimes the latter part of March, and they have not as yet been able to get a lobster pot or any other piece of fishing gear in the water. For one of the few years in the twenty-six or twenty-seven years he has fished out of Holyrood he is looking at not being able to fish by the time his unemployment insurance runs out on 15 May. He has fished out of that community for twenty-six or twenty-seven years and it is one of the few times since he has been there that he has not been earning income from the fishery by the time the unemployment insurance expires for fishermen on 15 May. The hon. gentleman is correct, we have no quarrel with his recital but I just want to say, for the benefit of the House, that it is a problem that this year, in particular, is a problem for thousands of other fishermen along the Island part, of particularly the northeast coast of Newfoundland.

The third recital is this, it says: whereas on 15 May, 828 fishermen will be without income for four to six weeks. That I have no doubt is true. The hon. Member knows the area and he has come up with 828 fishermen who will run out of unemployment insurance benefits because they cannot go fishing because of ice conditions by May 15. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I must hasten to point out that unless things change dramatically over the next week or so, and we do not see there is any evidence of that because of weather conditions at the moment, unless things change dramatically over the next week or so, those 828 will be joined by 10,000 or 12,000 other citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who will be without income. How long they will be without income I do not know. It might be a week, it might be two weeks, or it might be three weeks. It has happened in White Bay where it has been July on the odd occasion by the time you can get fishing, so we might be like the hon. gentleman.

AN HON. MEMBER: In 1974 it was July 5th.

MR. RIDEOUT: I remember that. July 5, 1974, so we may be in the same boat that the hon. gentleman's constituents are, but that is immaterial. The point is, his recital is absolutely correct and my proposition is absolutely correct, that there undoubtedly will be this year, thousands and thousands, maybe ten or twelve thousand other fellow citizens of this Province who are full-time fishermen, depending on the fishery for an income, who will not be able to draw further benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. We are totally seeing eye to eye with the hon. Member, we are cheek to cheek with the hon. Member, we are jowl to jowl with the hon. Member, and I could say we are something to something else with the hon. Member, but I will not say it. We are 100 per cent in favour of the resolution, the proposition, and the recitals that have been put forth to this House by the hon. Member for Eagle River. And we are fully and totally in support of the: be it therefore resolved, be it resolved that the Federal Government extend unemployment insurances for however many weeks it takes. If it is four weeks in White Bay then four weeks is fine, if it is six weeks on the coast of Labrador, if that is what it takes, then fine, if it is eight weeks and that is what it takes, well fine. The hon. gentleman's point is, until those fishermen can begin to earn income from the fishery. That is what he means, I am sure, so we have no difficulty with that whatsoever. And change the program to stop discriminating against fishermen of Labrador, I again have no problem with that, but I must ask that you change the program to stop discriminating against all fishermen. The fishermen of Labrador, yes, but the fishermen of White Bay, yes, and the fishermen of Placentia Bay, Conception Bay and Trinity Bay, whatever bay they happen to be in because the unemployment insurance program is discriminatory against all fishermen and it has been since its inception. Now there are those who will argue that fishermen are the only self employed people in the country who have access to the unemployment insurance benefits. That is true. But having given them access, having made the decision back in '59 or whenever it was to implement a program called Unemployment Insurance for Fishermen, having made that decision, for God's sake make it an even playing field. Make sure that the fishermen have the same rights under the act as regular workers or plant workers, for example, who process the fish that fishermen bring in. I know that argument has been made time after time, year after year, by successive provincial Governments to successive federal Governments. I know the argument has been made, and I think in this House, I assume in this House to a man and a woman we would support that. There is nobody in their right mind in this House who would not agree that there is discrimination in the UIC program as it presently exists and it should be corrected. And if the hon. Member's resolution goes any distance at all to correcting the discrimination, then great, as I said we are 100 per cent in favour of it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out, not by way of being derogatory, by the way, not by way of taking anything away from the hon. gentleman's resolution, not by way of trying to change one tittle, one iota, one comma or one dot of an i, I would not want - because this resolution is important to the hon. gentleman and the constituents who he represents. I have no intention of doing anything other than support it 100 per cent. But, Mr. Speaker, there are other citizens of this Province who are exactly in the same boat as the constituents represented by the Member for Eagle River.

MR. SIMMS: The northeast coast.

MR. RIDEOUT: The northeast coast I have said. I mean it is socked in. There is a band of ice 150 or 160 miles wide, I think, coming down to 50 or 60 miles off St. John's. This time of the year it is unheard of. So we do have a major problem on our hands and it is going to be a major problem in many communities, not only in Labrador. It is going to be worse up there, I realize. It will probably last longer up there, I realize, but it is going to be a major, major problem for many Members who represent coastal, rural fishing district in this House.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, in supporting the hon. Member's resolution it is only fair that we vote for the hon. Member's resolution to a person, and it is also only fair that we vote for the rest of the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who find themselves in the same boat.

So I have an amendment to propose, Mr. Speaker. It is an amendment that will not distract whatsoever. I am not proposing to change one iota, I am just proposing that we add on. The Member's resolution will stay exactly as it is without a comma or a tittle being changed. I am proposing, seconded by the Member for Grand Falls that we add on the following: and be it further resolved, because it is be it resolved there now, I am proposing that we add on the following: be it further resolved that unemployment insurance benefits be also extended past May 15 for fishermen on the Island, because the first part deals with Labrador. My part will add on fishermen on the Island who are also affected by ice conditions and are unable to fish. I move that, seconded by my colleague for Grand Falls. I have a copy for Your Honour, I have a copy for the mover of the resolution and anybody else who wants a copy there is a copy here. I would ask Your Honour to rule that it is in order.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's resolution is perfectly acceptable to me, but what I am doing, I hope, within the rules, is making this resolution more acceptable to everybody in the House of Assembly. I am not taking away anything from the hon. Member's resolution, I am simply and purely adding to it, and I would hope Your Honour would be able to rule that it is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment appears to be in order. The Chair rules that the amendment is in order. It meets all the requirements of an amendment.

MR. SIMMS: Unanimous.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now we would have, as I said to a person on this side, voted for the resolution put down by the Member for Eagle River even if the Government - and I hope they will not on this issue today - does not support our amendment. We are big enough on this side of the House to still vote for the resolution put forward by the hon. gentleman for Eagle River. Because we believe the issue is important enough and deserves the support of every Member in this House.

But I would hope that the Member who proposed the resolution would agree with me, I would hope that Government Members will agree with me, that we can accomplish two things here. We can do exactly what the Member for Eagle River wants to do in his resolution, and we can also combine in that the fate of thousands of other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will find - not Labradorians, because the Member's resolution covers that - but the fate of thousands of other Newfoundlanders - who find themselves in a very unusual - not that it never happens - circumstance this year because of nature. It is not anybody else's fault. You cannot blame it on Tories or Liberals or NDPers. The fact is it is nature.

Now you can blame it on governments that there is not a plan to be able to take care of this. We should not have to come into this House every year with resolutions begging for some changes. The system should be flexible enough to be able to allow those changes to be made with the stroke of a pen or a Ministerial decision - or whatever. But having said that, let me say this in closing, because I only have a couple of minutes left.

My colleague, the Member for Grand Bank and I, had an opportunity on Monday, I believe it was, to meet for, my gosh, almost two hours I guess with the new Federal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Crosbie. And I want to say that it was for me - who has had the opportunity to meet with many Federal Fisheries' Ministers over the years - it certainly was a refreshing experience to sit down in a meeting with John Crosbie and talk about the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I mean, that man did not, obviously - and you would not expect him to - have to be 'briefed up,' as the bureaucrats say, on the problems that we face in the fishery down here. He knows them, he has experienced them, he has experienced them politically for several years, and I think he has a - he will not perform miracles, of course he cannot - he is the Minister of Fisheries for Canada. But I think he can make decisions that have a unique compassion and understanding for Newfoundland and Labrador. And we were able to talk to him about a dozen issues including the issue that is the gist of this particular resolution here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do - my time is up - hope that the Government -we are going to support the resolution, whatever happens. But I do hope that the Government will agree to the amendment so that all off us together in this House can support one resolution.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the next fifteen, twenty minutes, I would like to elaborate on the issue that is before the House today. But before I do I would like to say a couple of words about the amendment put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

And I must say at the outset, it is refreshing that this is not ending up to be a political question. It is refreshing that Members of the House, especially the Leader of the Opposition, are willing to deal with this on the basis of the merits of the issue and on the basis of the implications for so many people on the island of Newfoundland and on the coast of Labrador. Because it is not a matter of politics, it is not a matter of being a Liberal or PC in Ottawa, it is a matter of good government. It is a matter of reacting to a critical situation for people, families, heads of families, fishermen all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

And I might take this opportunity to say to the Leader of the Opposition that while we have had our differences on different issues, and I am sure we will continue, I would say that certainly from my position I extend my wholehearted support for the amendment. I think that it is a very responsible amendment, and one, I am sure, that the people of the Province would welcome and I would hope that all people who are going to be acknowledging this debate, whether it is DFO or Employment and Immigration will say to themselves that indeed the Members of the House of Assembly on this day went above partisan politics, they got above the kind of display that we have seen at different times in this House of Assembly and we got down to dealing with an issue of critical importance to individuals in this Province, Mr. Speaker, no matter where they live.

However, I would like to point out that the point has been raised before by the Member for Naskaupi, and I think that it is a very pertinent point, and it is important, this is not something that has happened one time in Labrador.

The hon. House Leader, pointed out that, yes, there was indeed a time in 1974, that it happened in White Bay, where they did not get out until the 5th of July, he pointed that out, but, Mr. Speaker, what has to go on the record here and what has to be acknowledged is, that this is a systematic occurrence on the coast of Labrador, a regular occurrence on the coast of Labrador and one that is never ever going to change because of where we live, unless the ozone comes completely off her and we have to warm up much quicker than anybody is even projecting, Mr. Speaker. The ice is still going to be -

MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker?

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

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

MR. HARRIS: The hon. Member says this is a non-partisan issue and it does not matter whether you are a P.C. or a Liberal in Ottawa; he makes it a partisan matter by failing to mention the New Democratic Party -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: - which would also support this resolution both here and in Ottawa, so I ask the Member to acknowledge that, that he should not make -

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

MR. HARRIS: - it a non-partisan issue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - by acknowledging the fact that he is also supported by the NDP.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, while we might have at times heard clamouring for recognition in this House by a Member of this House, there are only two recognized parliamentary groups in this House and they are the Liberals and the Conservatives and, Mr. Speaker, I would not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: I mean this is a motherhood issue and I do not know if we should always assume that motherhood issues are going to be supported by the New Democratic Party, because, if you look at Hibernia and what that meant for this Province, and the position that the NDP took in Ottawa, we cannot take anything for granted, Mr. Speaker, from that party. So you know, Mr. Speaker, you cannot be too presumptuous about assuming that the NDP are going to be behind something so fundamental as social justice in this country, you cannot be too presumptuous, Mr. Speaker. But Mr. Speaker, in the remaining few minutes that I have here, I would just like to elaborate on some of the options and I think some of the things that have to be seriously addressed on the social and economic agenda of this Government and indeed the Government of Canada over the next number of years and particularly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the need and I would hope that there will be a concerted effort, a real conscious effort to come to grips with the guaranteed annual income for Canadians, no matter where they live, and I know that in recent days we have seen a possible implication for the guaranteed income for especially the poorer children of this country.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that is a very sensitive and very socially conscious initiative that I hope comes about. I hope that we move in the direction to fight poverty and fight the disparity that exists amongst the rich and the poor in this country in a meaningful way. But I believe, Mr. Speaker that all people in this Province must acknowledge that with the high cost of living in Labrador, with the kinds of income support programmes that we have, social services, just cannot be expected to provide the economic security to the people on the coast of Labrador as they might be in other parts of the country where the treasury is much more full.

The Social Services programmes are not working in Labrador to the point that it must because the limits that they have on what you can get is just not high enough to be able to have people meet their daily needs in Labrador, and as we point out now, the unemployment insurance programme is not meeting the needs of the people of the coast of Labrador and in many parts of this Province. So I believe that it is time that the guaranteed annual income be visited for a strong, solid and meaningful discussion, and I believe that it must be forthcoming to the people of this country.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, I said that social assistance and the Social Services Department has not for years, and I am sure under the financial restraints that we have in this Province, there is no way that the social services money - the funding that is available and the parameters that are around that - there is no way that a family of four in Black Tickle can be able to live on the kinds of income support that are forthcoming from the social services budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Absolutely, absolutely.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) for years and years and years. It hasn't been adequate. No, not adequate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: The people of this Province have got to see a progressive agenda followed by this Government as well as the Government of Canada. I believe that it is time that everybody put their ideas together and looked at a way to recover the work ethic that I believe has been systematically destroyed in this country. I believe that the work ethic has suffered because of make-work programmes and because of a dependency on the UIC system and other income support programmes that we have in this Province.

I believe that the time has finally come where we bring in a level of income for all our citizens that will be able to guarantee that they will be able to meet their basic needs. That it will also be brought in place to have the kind of initiative, the kinds of encouragement that are there, that people will be able to go out and work but not lose dollar-for-dollar as they would in any other kinds of the income support programmes. They must be able to look forward to each year, not whether the fish can come in or whether the ice will move out, but they will look towards having at least a regular pay cheque coming in so they can at least plan to have a certain level of support for their families all through the year.

And whether this is at the same level as they get now, that is something that we can all try to grapple with as we work within our financial abilities. It is encouraging for this House to have debated this issue this afternoon. It is encouraging that we have seen, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader as well certainly indicate to us his support for this particular resolution.

I might take a minute, Mr. Speaker, to speak about the new Minister of Fisheries. There has been some alluding to the fact that I have had different matters of opinion with the new Minister of Fisheries and probably I have. I do not recall being at loggerheads with Mr. Crosbie, I have found him always to be fairly co-operative. I must say, since he has got into his portfolio as of ten or twelve days ago, Mr. Speaker, I think he has done more in ten or twelve days than Bernard Valcourt did since he was there - in the short time he has been there, Mr. Crosbie has done more for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think he must be congratulated for that, and I would think that anybody in this Province who does not recognize that is certainly not looking out for the best interest of their constituents. He has done that on the salmon management plan indicating that Labrador must be protected under the commercial salmon fishery. He has done that under the Salt Fish Corporations saying that Labrador is a unique case, and that he will see that it is put in place or continue until there is another appropriate vehicle put in place to address the needs of the people on the coast of Labrador. He has done that when he has talked about reviewing the 7,000 ton allocation of northern cod, another fundamental switch, Mr. Speaker, in policy, and certainly a fundamental indication of the kind of sensitivity that this Minister has for the problems of the fishery.

Certainly, another thing that has come forward in the last couple of days is his statement on the principles that he will follow on the underutilized species program. Again, another very significant change in policy and a very fundamentally beneficial move to the people on the south coast of this Province and to the coast of Labrador.

So, certainly at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but congratulate the Minister on these initiatives and look forward to seeing more sensitive moves on his part to put in place programs and initiatives that will give to the people of the day we are sent here to serve, the kind of dignity that they deserve and the kind of economic security that everybody is in here fighting to put in place, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island is, of course, showing his encouragement and is anxious to see that this debate is put to rest and see that the resolution is passed, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: The ice is in the Tickle.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, because of the ice in the Tickle between Bell Island I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, where he is coming from. I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, on the note that I thank all hon. Members again today for showing their consideration for the people on the coast of Labrador, I thank the Members of the Opposition, I thank the union. I know this morning the Fishermen's Union was indicating publicly that they have sent their support for this kind of initiative on to Ottawa. Our Minister of Fisheries has already had his documented support for this resolution sent to the appropriate Federal Minister, so, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that and at the same time, as I said, I welcome the opportunity for meaningful change for all Newfoundland and Labrador, and I hope that if we move today to pass this resolution it will have a significant impact upon a chance to come to grips with the guaranteed annual income concept and a chance to extend our social agenda in this Province.

Without further ado, Mr. Speaker, I would move that the resolution that I put forward, and the amendment as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition be accepted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We are voting on the amendment.

All those in favour of the amendment 'Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

The amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: We are now voting on the resolution as amended.

All those in favour of the resolution 'Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tomorrow I will be calling the Committee of Supply again. We are getting down to the point where we do not have a lot of time left on that but we will see how it goes. We are calling the Committee of Supply. I would like to remind hon. Members that there are things I have indicated I would like to get to at some point in time, and we will be getting to. There is a money bill on the Order Paper, pensions legislation, and some justice legislation that we would like to get to as quickly as possible. We will see how things go tomorrow with the supply bill.

There is also a meeting of the Estimates Committee of Forestry and Agriculture tomorrow morning in the House, and Justice tomorrow night in the House. Mr. Speaker, these are the two meetings. Also, tomorrow night Municipal and Provincial Affairs in the Colonial Building, I have just been informed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes, Colonial Building. So, Mr. Speaker, I think these are the upcoming events tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

Do we agree to call it 5:00 p.m.?

MR. SIMMS: We agree to call it 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.