November 13, 1991            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLI  No. 69

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, today, I wish to inform hon. members of the House of Assembly that we have revised our estimate of the Province's budgetary position for the current fiscal year. This revision is based on performance during the past six months, on expected performance during the remainder of the year, and on re-estimates from the Government of Canada.

Hon. members will recall that in our 1991 Budget, we estimated a deficit on current account of $53.8 million and a net capital expenditure of $241.3 million, for a total budgetary requirement of $295.1 million.

For the first six months ending September 30 we outperformed our Budget. Our expenditures both on current and capital accounts were lower than anticipated and our revenues were $700,000 higher than we budgeted for the period. Retail sales tax revenues were down, but these were balanced by greater than expected revenues from other sources.

However, we now expect a deterioration in revenues during the second half of the year, both in own-source revenues and in transfers from the Government of Canada.

Economic activity in the Province will be slower this year than anticipated in the Budget. Poor performance in our primary manufacturing industries, particularly the fishery, has caused us to scale back our estimates of output, employment, and income. We now expect Gross Domestic Product in the Province to contract by 0.7 per cent this year, compared to our estimate in the Budget of 0.7 per cent growth.

We estimate that our-own source revenues will be down by the end of the fiscal year. The shortfall of $9.5 million in retail sales tax by mid-year is projected to reach $22 million by year-end. As a result of poor economic performance nationally, we are now projecting that the installment payments from the Government of Canada for personal and corporate income taxes will each fall short of our Budget estimates by $7 million. However, these shortfalls will be offset partly by $11 million from higher than expected receipts from the gasoline tax and from lotteries. Thus, we now estimate that at year-end our own-source revenues will be $25 million below Budget.

As well, we are estimating that equalization payments from the Government of Canada will be down by $30 million. We were notified officially in October that federal re-estimates of our entitlements under this program have resulted in a $17 million reduction. Our own calculations indicate that likely we will lose a further $13 million when the full impacts of the national recession are factored into payments this winter. However, Established Program Financing payments should be $2.6 million higher than Budget. In summary, transfer payments are now estimated to be $27 million below Budget by year-end.

Current account expenditures are now expected to be $11 million below Budget. The most significant saving of $28.4 million relates to servicing the public debt and results from lower than anticipated interest rates, from the high Canadian dollar, and from change in the timing of our borrowing program. The savings in current account expenditures will have been offset somewhat by higher levels of expenditure in a number of areas, including the employment stimulation programs implemented by Government in response to the downturn in the fishery.

Adding the $25 million projected decline in own-source revenues to the expected $27 million decline in transfer payments, and subtracting the $11 million savings on expenditure, result in a projected $41 million increase in our current account deficit over that contained in the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, we are now estimating that our current account deficit at year-end will be approximately $95 million. Our revenues on current account are now estimated to be $2.621 billion instead of the budgeted $2.673 billion, and our expenditures, $2.716 billion instead of $2.727 billion.

On capital account, our expenditures are now expected to be $4 million below Budget. Savings have been realized in a number of areas, including delays in the construction of health facilities and other infrastructure. On the other hand, Government will have experienced cost overruns and unanticipated capital expenditures, including $14.5 million to assume the net debt resulting from the sale of the Marystown Shipyard.

Mr. Speaker, based on the latest information available, we now expect net capital expenditure this year to be $237 million. This combined with our revised projected deficit on current account of $95 million will result in a total budgetary requirement of $332 million, $37 million more than estimated in our Budget last March.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the revisions I have outlined today, there may be further adjustments in payments by the Government of Canada before year-end. Government must continue to monitor closely this situation and continue to be prudent in our spending practices.

Other provinces are facing similar deterioration in their fiscal and economic positions. Premiers of the four Atlantic Provinces met recently and agreed to consider jointly short and longer term means to improve our budgetary positions.

Mr. Speaker, despite the increase in the estimated deficit, Honourable Members will agree that because of the restraint measures we implemented during the past year, our fiscal outlook this day is a great deal brighter than it would otherwise have been.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: My first comment, Mr. Speaker, is an obvious one. It is the same comment I have made the last two years. I told you so; I told you so; I told you so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: I thank the Minister for once again confirming that my estimates are far more accurate than his and his officials.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister should not be surprised that retail sales tax has dropped by $22 million, in spite of the fact that included in those numbers is the increase that was built into piggybacking RST on GST, which was a full 1 percentage point or .84 of a percentage point. That benefit, Mr. Speaker, is included in here, and still they are losing $22 million from the figure that they had estimated. We are now saying a $95 million deficit. In the Minister's statement he also says that he saved $28.4 million in the fact that interest rates have lowered so much, the cost of servicing the debt, so in fact he is looking at almost $130 million actual deficit on current account, versus the $53 million that he had predicted. The Premier can shake his head all he wants but he cannot correct the world with a shake of his head or any more of his pontifications, let me tell him.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is also a strong message here. The gross provincial product is down by 0.7 per cent instead of the plus .7 per cent the Minister had predicted. We told him he was being overly optimistic then. Either he was being overly optimistic or he was deliberately misleading the House, one or the other. Because he should have known, if he did not, that the economy of this Province was going to suffer under the national recession, which was predicted. It is no surprise to anyone. The Minister cooked the books to try to come up with a $53 million deficit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: On capital account the Minister is now telling us he is saving $18.5 million, in spite of the fact that he made a payment to Marystown Shipyard. Why has this Government deliberately delayed construction in this Province at a time when we so desperately need that economic activity and the jobs that would have been created by that? It is clear that both through the Department of Municipal Affairs, Public Works and Transportation, and through many of the Crown agencies that are not reflected in these numbers, that construction projects in this Province have been deliberately delayed to try to balance the books by saying: well, we are over a few million in current account but we are under a little bit in capital account, so it balances - balances nothing.

But the real measure of this Government's performance is the current account and the performance of the gross provincial economy. Mr. Speaker, this statement, if we ever saw one, is justification for the Premier to make another appointment from outside Cabinet, and call in John Kenneth Galbraith to help him out of his mess.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to advise this hon. House about an experimental shipment of pulpwood from Goose Bay to Stephenville. During the last couple of years my Department has been involved in a number of initiatives to improve the wood supply for the Stephenville mill. One of these was the study of various transportation systems for shipping wood from Labrador to the Island.

Mr. Speaker, as most of the Members of the House may be aware, there is no large scale permanent facility in Labrador for processing pulpwood. During the past few years pulpwood from Labrador has been exported mostly to Europe. Recently, that market did not accept the pulpwood because of an alleged pinewood nematode problem in Canadian wood. By the way, Mr. Speaker, this pest has not been recorded in Labrador wood so far.

Mr. Speaker, there was a necessity to market the pulpwood from Labrador and at the same time there was a need to ascertain the feasibility of using pulpwood from Labrador at the Stephenville mill. My department acted as a facilitator and committed to participate in a trial shipment which is currently under way.

Approximately 3,100 cords of wood have been loaded from Goose Bay. It is currently on its way to Stephenville. The sale of the wood is a private contract between Abitibi-Price and Eastern Wood Harvesters. Abitibi-Price will be responsible for any additional costs between the dock and the mill. My department's involvement through the Canada/Newfoundland Co-operation Agreement on Forestry Development is in the transportation part of this trial, specifically because of lack of any permanent facilities at the Stephenville dock.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this trial will lead to a better identification of the economics of using Labrador wood in Stephenville. Detailed information from all parties will be analyzed by my department both on the shipment of wood and the production of paper at Stephenville.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for a copy of his statement previous to coming in the House.

For years now, Mr. Speaker, the previous administration have been trying and doing some surveying with regards to the wood supply in Labrador. There is an excellent source of wood supply - and that is no secret - in the Labrador area of this Province, and it should be taken advantage of. I do not think there could be a better company in this Province today to take advantage of that than the Abitibi-Price mill in Stephenville, that is no secret. Also within the next five or six years they will be experiencing a real shortage of wood supply, especially wood with good fibre, and that is what is needed, particularly for the Stephenville mill.

The danger with this, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose we ought to thank the Federal Government too - this is under the Canada/Newfoundland Co-operation Agreement - is with the transportation part of it. I want to commend the Minister for at least doing something positive in this regard on taking the wood out of Labrador. This is a positive thing for the Island and for the whole industry in general. I want to go on record as saying that because we have some real problems in the industry today in this Province, and Abitibi-Price in Stephenville is one of the areas where they are going to be affected sooner or later.

Only just a couple of short years ago, Mr. Speaker, they would not ship wood from Roddickton to Stephenville. It was too expensive, not viable. Today it is one of the best industries that we have on the West Coast, the shipment of wood from the Roddickton - Main Brook area to the mill in Stephenville, because they finally realized and finally found private entrepreneurs to do it, which is a real asset to the mill in Stephenville. There will not be any new jobs created by this, Mr. Speaker, because, as I said before, the mills can only use x number of cords of wood. So there are really no new jobs, but there will be a commitment and a dedication, I suppose, on behalf of the department to try to sustain and keep the jobs we already have, especially pertaining to Abitibi Price.

I would also mention too -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceedings with Oral Questions, on behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the public galleries today twelve students from the Avalon Community College of Seal Cove, Conception Bay, accompanied by their teacher, Genevieve Murphy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Premier did the unthinkable and made the statement he did with respect to an appointment outside of his own caucus, he said, "He felt it was important to appoint a Justice Minister and an Attorney General who has considerable knowledge and experience in constitutional matters." That is a quote.

Would the Premier be kind enough to table before the House the constitutional credentials that Mr. Roberts has attained, specific to constitutional matters, which make him eminently qualified to serve in the positions to which he was appointed. Has Mr. Roberts been closely associated and closely involved with the Premier's own constitutional team over the last two and a half years, and is that where he earned his credentials, constitutional credentials?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask Mr. Roberts to speak for himself as to what his credentials are. I can only say to the House, Mr. Speaker, without meaning any disrespect to any other lawyer I am aware of in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or to most other lawyers that I am aware of across the rest of this Country, that I have not had a discussion about constitutional matters with any other lawyer - well, some other lawyers in other parts of Canada - in Newfoundland with the depth of knowledge of constitutional issues and constitutional law and the fundamental principles of the structure of a Constitution and the political science basis for it that Edward Roberts has. I have not encountered it in any other lawyer in the Province that I have discussed it with and I have seldom seen his equal elsewhere in the nation.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: The Premier, I think, is saying, yes, he will table the constitutional credentials of Mr. Roberts. Now, I want to ask him a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER WELLS: No, I didn't.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, you won't table it? Okay, I can understand why.

Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary to the Premier, as well. The former minister, the member for Humber West, said in recent interviews that there were several outstanding key justice issues still remaining, the Police Services Act, negotiations for RCMP services with the feds, the release of the Hughes Commission Report, new facilities for the court system, and the make-up of the Public Utilities Board. And there are others, firearms for the RNC, the Police Commission, all kinds of issues. But the former minister, himself, mentioned that those are the key outstanding Justice issues. He hardly mentioned the Constitution. Now, is the Premier saying to this House that he must bring in Ed Roberts to deal with those key Justice issues as described by the former Minister? Is he saying that the Member for Bonavista South is not competent to deal with those issues? Is he, in fact, saying there is nobody in that caucus over there competent to deal with those key Justice issues as described by the former minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying any such thing. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would like to put those words in my mouth and cause me to be saying those kinds of things, but that is not at all what I said. I simply refer him to the detailed statement that I made yesterday. Now, if he wants me to take up the time of Question Period rereading that statement or restating it in my own words, I am quite prepared to do so. I explained that we invited Mr. Roberts to accept the appointment of Minister of Justice and Attorney General because, in my judgement, that particular position is best filled by somebody with a fairly substantial background, knowledge, and experience in the legal profession in the Province. In this particular time in Canada, with the major constitutional problems that we have, and the burdens that I have as Premier of the Province, quite apart from the constitutional issues, I would very much welcome the assistance of somebody with Mr. Roberts' knowledge and capability in constitutional issues. There is no other lawyer in the Province with his level of knowledge and capability in those constitutional issues, no other lawyer in the Province whose judgement in those matters I respect more than I respect Mr. Roberts'. That is why none of the concoctions that the Leader of the Opposition wants to put forward - I know it would sound better for him politically if I were to agree with him, but he is dead wrong again, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, obviously the key issue for the Premier is the Constitution. Unfortunately, most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can't afford to be preoccupied with the Constitution like the Premier and Ed Roberts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it has also been suggested by the Premier, I think, in interviews outside the House yesterday evening, that there may be a Cabinet shuffle in January, early in the new year. Can he now guarantee the House and, more importantly, can he guarantee the members of his own caucus, his own backbenchers, Mr. Speaker, that whenever that Cabinet shuffle takes place, he will not be rejuvenating any Liberal politicians from the Liberal museum but, instead, he will appoint members of his new Cabinet from within his own caucus? Can he guarantee the House that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are several things that I need to address out of that, one of which is the comment that we can't afford to be engaged in these constitutional issues. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we can't afford not to be engaged and to do it with intelligence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: We cannot afford to have somebody like the members of the Opposition, with no competence or background or knowledge in the issue, to deal with it. Fortunately, we have people like Edward Roberts available to do it, Mr. Speaker. We cannot afford, if we are to have a future at all, in this Province, not to pay attention to it. Besides, what have they got against - are they frightened to death of Edward Roberts? Does he scare the pants off them? What have they got against bringing in Edward Roberts? They are frightened to death of him.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will guarantee the Leader of the Opposition nothing, except one thing, Mr. Speaker, that I will conduct the Government of this Province in a manner that is in the best interest of the people of this Province without regard to the political concerns of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is also for the Premier. There are a number of lingering questions with respect to the appointment of Mr. Roberts to the Cabinet as Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I don't know the answers, and that is why I would like the Premier to give them to the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has stated that Mr. Roberts is being appointed because he has expertise in constitutional issues, and that the Member for Bonavista South does not have that expertise. He goes on to say in Hansard, that the Member for Humber West, was appointed when we did not have a constitutional crisis. Is the Premier saying, that the Member for Humber West would not have been appointed Minister of Justice and Attorney General, if we had been in the middle of a constitutional debate, and that, possibly, Mr. Roberts would have been appointed at that particular time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying any such thing. Somebody asked me to name the differences, and I named the difference. Now, in front of the Member for Humber West, I say to him without hesitation - I have no hesitation in saying - that in my judgement, Edward Roberts has considerably more constitutional knowledge about the issues and fundamentals of the Constitution than the Member for Humber West, and he would be the first to agree with me.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I do not understand is, what is it that has the members in the Opposition in such a panic? I think I will call Norm Whelan and see if he will come into the Cabinet too, and that will scare the life out of them!

AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps he has already turned you down.

MR. SIMMS: Why don't you call some of your backbenchers?

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I almost detect an irritation in the Premier's response; nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, my question again is to the Premier.

Could the Premier explain why the Member for Bonavista South is competent enough to become the Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General until January, but will not be competent enough to hold that position indefinitely?


MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We will ask the Member for St. John's East Extern, to repeat the question.

MR. PARSONS: Could the Premier explain why the Member for Bonavista South is competent enough to become the Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General until January, but will not be competent to hold that position indefinitely?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I never said any such thing. I know the members opposite want to portray it in that way.

MR. MATTHEWS: You did say it.

PREMIER WELLS: I never said any such thing. I will tell the House, if they want to know, exactly what I said. I will tell them of my specific conversation with the Member for Bonavista South. I called him and told him of my concerns and my desire to have somebody fill that position who had a widespread experience in the legal profession beyond the level of experience that the Member for Bonavista South had, that this would be highly desirable. And, in this particular time, when Canada is embroiled in major constitutional issues, and this Province is greatly concerned about its constitutional and economic future as a result of that, it is also important to have somebody very knowledgeable in that area, as well. I explained that to him, and the Member for Bonavista South said, 'I agree with you. I understand your point of view and I am quite prepared to do what I can to help you out.'

Now, I give the Member full credit for his willingness to put the Province first, a lesson which the Members Opposite could take and use wisely if they are really interested in this Province; but for some reason or other they are in an utter political panic over the appointment of Ed Roberts and it is giving me a complex because they do not seem to be afraid of me but they are scared to death of Ed Roberts, and that is giving me a real complex.

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

MR. PARSONS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Premier that the importance of the constitutional debate across this Province, and indeed across Canada, has not been very promising. In fact, people are much more worried about their jobs than constitutional (inaudible).

My question again is to the Premier. Has the Premier really given us the answer as to why the former Minister of Justice resigned, when he said in the House yesterday, and I quote from Hansard, "The Member for Humber West was appointed at a time when we did not have the major constitutional issue in the country that we have at the moment." Is the reason why the Minister is resigning because he is perceived by the Premier as not being qualified in the present constitutional issues?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Where is all the concern about jobs and the economy now? Where is all this fake concern about jobs and the economy? Mr. Speaker, I do not know who wrote these questions, or who designed these questions, but obviously the Member for Humber West in an eminently qualified and able person, and performed very, very well in Cabinet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It was a great loss to me personally, to the Government, and to the people of the Province, when the former Minister of Justice tendered his resignation for entirely personal reasons, and no other. I asked him to think about it, but I would not ask him to change his mind, because I respect his judgement in putting his family concerns ahead of his own personal political position, and I could only accept his decision. I am not going to allow the hon. Members Opposite to cast spurious remarks in his direction now, which they are doing. This is really a new low, Mr. Speaker. It is hard to see it.

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

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

I have a question as well, Mr. Speaker - talk about a walking contradiction - to the Premier. In recent months the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries have made statements about the need for a joint Federal/Provincial Fisheries Management Board. The Premier, over the last couple of years, has been somewhat inconsistent on these issues as well, asking out loud if we could afford it, and other times saying we should have it. I would like to ask the Premier: has the Province presented proposals to the Federal Government, and are negotiations currently under way for such a joint management agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have to do what I did yesterday. There is the word 'management' and there is the word 'jurisdiction', and the two are quite different. The legislative jurisdiction that the former government wanted, we cannot afford. I have been consistent on that for years and years and years, and I say it again now.

Joint management we cannot afford not to have. We cannot allow ourselves to be pressured by the Federal Minister of Fisheries, John Crosbie; by the Prime Minister and others, into not having joint management. We need joint management! Jurisdiction we do not have the resources to cope with, and it is - well, I was going to say it is silly and stupid in the extreme to be promoting it, but they do not like those words, so I will not use them - but, Mr. Speaker, it is ludicrous to even think of our having jurisdiction. We cannot afford to exercise the legislative jurisdiction we have now. What are we going to do with having to provide the cost of managing 400,000 square miles of the North Atlantic Ocean? It is utter nonsense; but joint management, yes, we are pursuing it vigorously, and we intend to pursue it vigorously. Now let me remind the Members again - because I do not know whether they do not understand the difference between the two words or they deliberately want to confuse - we have always, always, always, insisted on joint management. We have always, always, always, resisted the proposition for legislative jurisdiction, and we continue to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Comparing the Constitution with the fishery and management and jurisdiction, this is the real thing that the Province cannot afford to stay out of if we are going to have a future in this Province, I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: If there is anything that is worth anything to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians this is it, our most important industry. I ask the Premier: are there any proposals presently before the Federal Government for consideration, and are negotiations under way for such an agreement? Has the Premier discussed the matter of joint management in relation to fisheries with the other Maritime premiers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the last time I met with the Prime Minister, which was just before the Federal constitutional proposals came down, which would have made it about late September, I spoke to him then about joint management and Newfoundland's concern about joint management. I have written him numerous times in recent months expressing my concerns and proposals for consideration of joint management. I expect I will be having further meetings with him in the not too distant future dealing with joint management. The Province is preparing a very thorough position paper on the fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

PREMIER WELLS: Is it about ready? It is about ready to be released publicly?

AN HON. MEMBER: Within days, yes.

PREMIER WELLS: Within days. It is about ready to be released publicly within days. One of the primary aspects of it is the proposal for joint management. We intend to do that. Yes, I have had discussions with other Atlantic premiers about joint management. I have had discussion with a particular Atlantic premier about joint management.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I think really that active negotiations was what I was trying to pursue and to get an answer whether or not active negotiations are ongoing on this very important issue for the Province.

Let me ask the Premier another supplementary then. In his discussion, he sort of indicates at least detailed discussions with one Atlantic premier. It is my understanding that a number of the Atlantic provinces, the governments of those provinces, are really not in favour of joint management arrangements. Is that a fact? Has the Premier run into any problems with any of the other Atlantic premiers that are opposed to a joint management agreement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Let me deal with the phrase "active negotiations" first before I get down to the Atlantic premier. One person cannot negotiate with somebody else who will not negotiate. Now, if the hon. Members opposite really wanted to do something for this Province they would use all of their considerable influence on their Federal colleague, the hon. John Crosbie, and pressure him to agree to discussions! He won't do it! He's consistently refused! Mr. Speaker, it is no good the Opposition badgering the Government to pressure them to seek joint management when their political cohorts in Ottawa refuse to participate in negotiations!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: How can there be active negotiations, Mr. Speaker, if the Federal Government is not willing? We have done everything we could: we have been nice to them, we have pressured them, we have cajoled them, we have pleaded with them, we have done everything, except we have not been on our knees to them, and I do not expect we will get on our knees to them. We will find another solution to the problem. Over the last year and more we have been doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's see the proposals, table them!

AN HON. MEMBER: Table your representations.

PREMIER WELLS: I have been writing the Prime Minister for the last year and a half on the issue, on a number of occasions on the issue. I have met with Mr. Crosbie. Every time I meet with Mr. Crosbie, virtually, I ask him about the issue, to try and move him off the stubborn position he is taking. He just absolutely refuses! And I cannot understand a Newfoundland Minister resisting! Let me tell you that he has announced publicly he is putting forward a proposal to revamp the structure of the Federal Department of Fisheries. And I said: before you do anything let's have a discussion on joint management. This is important. Structure it in such a way as to provide for joint management. He will not even talk to us.

Now if the hon. Members opposite are really sincere and not being simply politically mischievous, they will use whatever influence they have with their Federal counterparts, Mr. Speaker, to persuade them to move on the issue. Then maybe we can get active negotiations under way.

Now I believe the second part of the question had something to do with the attitude of the other premiers. The province that is most concerned, of course, is the Province of Nova Scotia. It has held out the longest, and they have been the most difficult to deal with. I had one meeting here with the Premier of Nova Scotia on that issue. I had another meeting in Halifax about four weeks ago with the Premier of Nova Scotia on that issue. I have not talked to the Premier of Nova Scotia about it in any detail. I mentioned it to him at the last Atlantic Premier's meeting, but I have not talked to him in any detail about that issue since that meeting about four weeks ago. I expect I will be talking to him within the next few days about it.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In the Tuesday edition of the Telegram the President of Treasury Board indicated that if the deficit for 1992-93 reaches $100 million, it could result in further cutbacks. Last Friday the Minister of Health said that the health system was revamped last year and that there would be no cutbacks in the next fiscal year. The Minister shakes his head, but he did say it. The NTA is protected by a 2 per cent savings clause in its contract. Since the Minister indicated there could be some potential cutbacks could the Minister of Finance tell us where it is going to come from since two sectors have already been excluded?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to - if Members Opposite are going to dig into the published papers and get their questions in such a superficial way as that then I do not think they deserve an appropriate answer. I question the validity of these remarks in the first place, and the second point is we are not about to reveal our Budget strategy to the Opposition at this stage in the game.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary to the same Minister. The Premier in the same report said that figures may be significantly different in January. Could he tell us what he means by this? Does it mean that there is going to be a higher deficit or a lower deficit, or are there going to be some changes as a result of Government introducing tax reform in January which will already add an ever increasing tax burden on the population of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Finance would want me to say what I meant by what I said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah ha, that means he is not allowed to speak.

PREMIER WELLS: No, no. He is quite free to speak, but I mean, the inanity of asking the Minister of Finance what I meant when I said something just boggles the mind, so I thought I would try and cover it up for the hon. Member.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, cover it up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it covers up the hon. Member's deficiency - I obviously have not succeeded - it has been exposed. Mr. Speaker, what I meant is that the Federal Government, as hon. Members are aware, change their estimates from time to time, and one of the periods of time when they do it is January or February. Now we have estimated the cash flow by way of Federal transfers based on the best information that we can get. We had done that earlier, but we got a surprise - well, not exactly a surprise, we got a revision this fall of $17 million and we are projecting it could be another $13 million in January. It might not. That figure might go down or that figure might go up, so it could change in January, and that is what was meant by the comment.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, it is readily apparent from labour unions and from Government that if the deficit is in the $100 million range there has been indication that there could be further cutbacks. Let me ask the Minister this then: has he given any consideration, in light of the fact that we could have $100 million deficit to impose in his second year of wage restraint in this Province, is there any consideration being given to that at this time?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to 'ifs' and 'ands', if this, if that. There is an old saying that if 'ifs' and 'ands' were kettles and pans there would be no need for tinkers.

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

MR. WOODFORD: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The Government has proposed, and I suppose in the next few days or in a week or so bring in legislation making the City of St. John's the regional authority for the northeast Avalon. For the City of St. John's and the northeast Avalon communities, Mr. Speaker, it is government without representation going back, as far as I am concerned, to the old colonial regime - taxation without representation.

Could the Minister tell me why the Government did not establish and will not establish a regional services board for the northeast Avalon?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the House in the Spring when we were debating the various resolutions concerning the northeast Avalon, we clearly had two choices, and one of those choices was to, in fact, establish a regional services board and have services delivered on a regional basis, administered by that board, with representation from the communities. It was a clear choice. The other choice we had was to have the largest municipality in the Province, the City of St. John's, with its considerable administrative structure and expertise already in place, provide the administration for regional services for the region.

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we chose the second alternative. We feel it is the right alternative. Rather than having a large administration, an extra administration, and what was deemed as another layer of government by the municipalities - they spoke out very strongly against it throughout the process of the feasibility hearings and the process itself. They clearly did not want what they perceived as another level of government. We chose to have the City of St. John's, as I said, be the administrator and facilitate the delivery of regional services on behalf of all the municipalities or most of the municipalities on the northeast Avalon. Where in fact they are recipients of those services they would participate and they will participate - and you will see this in the legislation - in discussions and in consideration of rates, costs and so on. They will be part of that process, but the administration quite clearly will be under the jurisdiction of the City of St. John's to deliver for the region.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last year the Minister and the Administration rushed the bill through on The Regional Services Board Act, even to the point of invoking closure to make sure that the bill was rushed and forced through the House of Assembly. To this day, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that regional services board legislation has been proclaimed.

Based on the answer the Minister just gave me, is this the actual reason why the legislation is not proclaimed and does the Minister think that from now on that particular act is no good to him?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, in the Spring, of course, the resolutions were brought before the House of Assembly, and the next step in the process is to have these resolutions debated by way of amendment to the various acts that are involved. That will start very shortly in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the regional services board legislation will not be required per se on the northeast Avalon, because we are not putting in place a regional services board. I am not sure of the Member's question relating to that legislation, but we are, in fact, asking the City of St. John's to deliver services and administration relating to regional costs and services on behalf of those communities that access a particular regional service.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

One of the questions I asked the Minister: Why was the Legislation not proclaimed? Why is it not proclaimed to this date, after passing through the House of Assembly last year?

Having said that, another question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister: Has the Government changed its mind now with regard to The Regional Services Board Act, and is amalgamation now the only means Government will use for regional municipal services?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the regional services board legislation, of course, is very necessary. We have not yet set up a board anywhere in the Province. We are having discussions with various communities, and I can give some examples where we are doing regional incinerators where four or five or six communities are co-operating to provide them rather than have each community, or two or three communities, with an incinerator, we are asking that as many as possible co-operate, and do it on a regional basis. We see, in some cases, a regional board would be very necessary to cost-share in the facility and to administer the facility.

I can give other examples. The treatment plant in Grand Falls - Windsor - Bishop's Falls will certainly require, in my view, a regional services board when that is finally started and finally completed, so we will be using the legislation. So far, we have not done so, but we will encourage that legislation or co-operation which we presently have; of course, as all members of the House know, we have co-operation now between communities, where they share services. The importance of the board is to have a legal entity in place where they can formalize their agreement and borrow money, if necessary, things they cannot do now with just committees.

So, we see that legislation being used widely, and we will also encourage amalgamation, wherever it is possible. That will continue to happen. We have several groups of communities, right now, asking us to consider them for amalgamation. We have many to complete which are presently under consideration and until we finish those we certainly cannot consider any others. But both amalgamation and regional services boards are very, very important.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before moving on to the other business, I just wanted to remind hon. members - and I am sure hon. members will want me to do this, particularly in the good will that has been prevailing in the last little while - that I have heard a couple of unparliamentary words sneaking into the debate, particularly from members' chairs, today.

Sometimes, it is difficult for the Chair to intervene when a member is making a comment, because, if a member is making a comment in the collective sense, then, of course, it is not unparliamentary. But when it is just an individual word that is clearly unparliamentary, the Chair has to be vigilant in this matter, and I wanted to remind hon. members about that, today.

A couple of words that were used were: 'deliberately misled', 'traitor', and there was one other, I have just forgotten it right now. If these words were used in the governmental or the opposition sense, in the collective sense, then they are not unparliamentary. But if such words were used in the individual sense, then they are clearly unparliamentary. I want to make that distinction to hon. members so that they be careful about their usage in the future.

Just before I sit down, since the word occurred to me, I do not know whether I said it - maybe I did - it was 'cover-up', I believe. 'Cover-up', 'traitor' and 'deliberately misleading' were the three terms I heard today. I ask hon. members to be careful in the usage of these words.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting Elections, Controverted Elections and Financing." (Bill No. 55)

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some questions were asked during Question Period yesterday that I took as notice and indicated I would get the information for the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

The first question related to the snow clearing on a section of highway between Bay L'Argent and Terrenceville. The member indicated he was an hour and ten minutes doing twenty-five miles. Mr. Speaker, that section of the road is the responsibility of two separate depots. One foreman left Boat Harbour at approximately 5:10 a.m. and drove over the road. At that point in time, the road was a bit slushy and wet, but, in the opinion of the foreman, the equipment was not necessary, so he did not call the equipment out. A second foreman from Grand Le Pierre depot inspected the road conditions at somewhere around 7:30 a.m. and, at that point in time, it was necessary, so the equipment was called in at approximately 7:50 a.m. So the vigilance of the foremen is obvious in this particular instance.

The second part of the question was whether this had to do with the winter schedule that was not brought in. My answer was, absolutely not, but that I would check into the circumstances and get back to the member. The circumstances are that the foremen are now, and have been since November 4, on the week on, week off schedule. In terms of the foremen going out and inspecting the roads, since they have been on that schedule since November 4, there is no problem there.

It is the foremen who are responsible for calling in the crews and the crews will be called in immediately that the foremen sense and decide that there is a need to call in the particular crews. So, Mr. Speaker, winter scheduling had absolutely nothing to do with the situation on that particular morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Private Member's Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, Private Member's resolution: I believe it is the Member for Port de Grave.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to start off my first twenty minutes, speaking about the importance of this resolution, not only to this House of Assembly, but to every man, woman and child in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today, and in the future.

I want to start by making it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I don't get a great deal of pleasure out of presenting this resolution to this hon. House of Assembly today, because of the seriousness of the situation with our fishing industry, in view of the importance of it to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the position we find ourselves in today, considering the fact that the total fishery, not only inshore and offshore inside our 200-mile limit, but outside the 200-mile limit, is near its end. The total depletion of the stocks is so close that it makes you shiver when you think about what is happening to the Province.

I want to read a very short paragraph from something I came across while going through my notes the other day. It is very simple but it sends a very, very strong message. It begins, Mr. Speaker, this way: 'We entered Confederation in 1949, and we were prepared to shut off our ties with the old homelands of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England, France, China, and other nations. We were ready to become Canadians first. We literally brought with us our industry and were prepared to join with other Canadian provinces who already possessed their own individual industries, too. We have respected their industries as their own and, in return, they must reciprocate the feeling. Newfoundland's fishing industry is indisputably historically Newfoundland's industry in spite of the fact that Canada godfathered us into the 200-mile limit.' Mr. Speaker, those are very simple words but very, very strong words, and what that gentleman is saying in this paragraph is that the industry belongs to Newfoundland. It is Newfoundland's industry, the industry of every man, woman, and child, the industry of our forefathers, our people today and our people in the future. Without the fishing industry in this Province, Newfoundland's economy cannot survive. It is the mainstay, the mainstream of the economy of the Province. We can develop small business - mines will come and go, oil industries will come and go, but the fishing industry can be here to stay if, with some basic common sense, we use conservation measures to protect the stocks. We cannot do that unless the attitude in Ottawa changes, Mr. Speaker. Ottawa's attitude towards the greatest industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishing industry, must change. If they respected our industry as we respect the industries of other people across Canada, the important auto industry in Ontario, the many manufacturing industries in Montreal and all over Canada, if they gave us one small portion of their respect in return, we would be a lot better off today. But, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that we have not received that respect, that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been treated as second-class citizens by Ottawa in making decisions on the fishing industry. Since Confederation, especially in the last two or three decades, you have seen our fish stocks on the Grand Banks, the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador, being traded off in trade relations with the rest of the world. Mr Speaker, if any in this hon. House of Assembly, or any in this Province do not believe that, then I have to say a very unparliamentary word to those individuals. Let me give you one example of what just happened, a very, very short time ago on the Grand Banks. A foreign ship was being approached by the Leonard J. Cowley with the intent to board that vessel to check it out, but when they reached it, they were told, 'No, you are not coming aboard.' The fisheries officers then called External Affairs, and were told by External Affairs, 'Leave them alone.' They turned tail and headed straight for the 3NO division on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador and arrested two small, under 65-foot, Newfoundland vessels and towed them into port. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not emotionalism, it is not exaggeration, it is reality; it is, in fact, what is happening on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador. And we wonder why the economy of this Province is in the mess it is in, with every man, woman and child wondering where the next job is going to come from. Even the people who are working are wondering if they are going to have a job next year. How can they not be in fear of what is happening when every Newfoundlander and Labradorian is being deprived of his basic right, the right to earn a living. I am amused at the talk about the number of people involved in the fishing industry. I am really amused at that. We have some 31,000 people today, in the fishing industry. We don't have control over the fishing industry at all, and we have 31,000 people deriving a living directly from the fishing industry. If we had some say in those stocks on the Grand Banks, how many people would you see employed? I say, without exaggeration, you would see at least 60,000 people employed if we were into half the stocks that are out there. I tell people that inside the 200-mile limit, Mr. Speaker, this year, alone, foreigners will take 356,000 tons of fish. The hon. member shakes his head, but it is a fact, it has been announced by the Federal Government: 206,000 tons of all different species and 150,000 tons by the NAFO countries. That is a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: Inside the 200-mile limit?

MR. EFFORD: Inside the 200-mile limit, that is a fact - 356,000 metric tons.

Let us say that foreigners should be in there at some point. If we could take 200,000 tons, or half, 175,000 tons, of that fish and have it processed in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - that we take 175,000 tons of fish - can you just imagine the number of jobs that would make for people in this Province, jobs directly involved in the processing of that 175,000 tons of fish? Can you just imagine the number of spin-off jobs that would result from the money earned in the plants and spent in the community? Can you just imagine the number of companies that would benefit from providing gear to the boats, the number of crews and their families who would be involved in the catching of that fish? It is mind-boggling to think of what we could have.

I hear people saying we can't have control of our fishery. The country of Iceland, half the size of Newfoundland - I heard it today - with half the population of Newfoundland, has control of their fishery. What happens in Iceland? The fishery makes enough profit in Iceland to pay for the cost of health, education and transportation. Everything else in this Province and this country is subsidizing the fishing industry. It is a disgrace, a shame, that John Cabot came over here and found such rich resources in our Province, and for some 400 years we have allowed to take place what has taken place, and we are still not benefitting, Mr. Speaker.

I am against foreigners fishing inside our 200-mile limit. Very simply, John Crosbie, the federal Minister of Fisheries, and other ministers, make it very clear that the only species of fish the foreign countries catch inside the 200-mile limit are species that we, ourselves, cannot use. That is total misrepresentation and a misleading statement for anybody in this country to make. Are you telling me, having given to Japan this year, a quota of 32,000 tons, 132 million pounds of squid, that we cannot catch squid in this Province? Are you telling me that caplin was caught on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland this year and off the Labrador coast by the Russians and many other countries, and that we cannot catch caplin? The 180 tons of tuna - one of the most profitable fish you can catch today, selling at some $15 a pound - are you telling me that we are not able to catch that tuna? Let me tell you what is happening out there: Newfoundland was given 107 tons, this year. They are only allowed to catch it by a hook and line, a single hook and line. Japan was given a quota inside the 200-mile limit of 180 tons of tuna and they are allowed to purse seine it. Why? Why is Japan allowed to purse seine tuna and catch all sizes, while we can only catch it by hook and line? Newfoundland fishing vessels have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they are able to go out there. They have the equipment, the technology and the courage.

A little Newfoundland fishing vessel, forty-two feet long, left Fermeuse about a month ago, with a twenty-seven-year-old skipper. Last year, he didn't have a job. He had the guts to put himself in debt and buy a forty-two foot boat and he sailed 140 miles out to the Grand Banks to fish. The "Leonard J. Cowley", the "Margarite", the war ship, and another boat boarded his boat, arrested him, and brought him into port, yet, they give the Japanese, the Russians, the Danes, and all of the other countries the right to go out and catch our fish. And we wonder why we have such a high unemployment rate in this Province.

We talk about diversification. Let's talk about diversification for a second. Let's talk about building an industry in Gaultois. Gaultois is a fishing community. The survival of that community depends on the fishing industry. It is their mainstay. Can you imagine building a new industry in Gaultois? Where are the people going to get the money to buy products in Gaultois? Are they going to build a shoe factory up there? Are they going to build a bottling plant up there? It is ludicrous! All that Gaultois and Port de Grave and Black Tickle can survive on, is fish. The product is there. You don't have to go looking for the product. The resource is, or was, there. It is not there now, the way it was, and it should be there.

Do you realize that last year, outside the 200-mile limit, the foreign countries were given a quota of some 150,000 tons total of all species of fish and they caught five times that amount, in excess of 800 million pounds of fish. They reported catching those quantities. God knows how much they caught beyond that. If they have the audacity to report to the Government of Canada that they took that much, how much did they take above and beyond that? This year, alone, on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, inside, in the 3L division, while our own Newfoundland fishermen were searching for fish and couldn't get any, were forced to go in the fog and the dark of night in the 3NO division to try to survive, do you know what Spain and Portugal did? Early this spring, they reported taking 140 million pounds of cod and turbot in the 3L division on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, where they do not have a quota for one pound, not one pound. They are known all over the world as the pirates of the sea. Tell me, how many vessels were arrested? Not one. Not one vessel was boarded, under the surveillance of Canada. Not one. That was 140 million pounds we know about. You fly out over the Atlantic Ocean on the Grand Banks in the nighttime, you look down, and you don't know but you are flying over the City of Mount Pearl. There are lights from factory freezer trawlers and ships all over the place. It is mind-boggling to see what is happening out there. They never leave the Grand Banks. They are out there 365 days a year. The fuel ships go out. The supply ships go out and take the product. They take the fish out of the water, process and package it, and ships come and take it and carry it to the home port. Mr. Speaker, no resource in this world can stand what is happening out there, and last. There is no way that you can keep taking, taking, taking, and putting nothing back, and expect it to survive. An end has to come to the fishing industry.

I am not talking only about cod. What really bothers me, really frightens me, is that when we talk about fish, everybody in the Province thinks we are talking about codfish. It is so far from the truth, it is unreal, to think that anyone would even believe or consider that to be a fact. There are so many different species out there, it is unimaginable, the money we could be making from it. You are saying if you stop the foreigners fishing inside the 200-mile limit, you will close certain plants. You will not close plants, because Canadians can catch those fish, and if Canadians do not have the boats or the nets to catch that fish with, well then let's buy them. How many people would you put to work if you allowed Canadians to catch all that fish the foreigners are catching inside the 200-mile limit? It is very simple, you would employ people and those people, those Canadians, those Newfoundlanders would keep those plants going. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to get back what is rightfully ours, and Canadians and Newfoundlanders must be given first consideration in catching those fish. We should not be the last to be considered. What is happening now is everybody gets first choice and we get kicked in rebuttal. And do not think it is not happening out there!

I am going to distribute this in this hon. House of Assembly to anybody who wants to see this. This is one of the most frightening things I have seen. I cut this out of a paper, The Fishing News International. This is a new jumbo trawl, an otto trawl, a dragnet, that Iceland just developed. Now, just look at this paper, anybody who can see it, and you can have it afterwards. This is Iceland's jumbo trawl, and they call it the new mammoth Gloria. That is the name of it. The mouth of this dragnet is so large - and it is shown here on this picture - that twelve - just think about it - twelve jumbo jets can fit in the mouth of it. Now, that is a fact. It is here. Twelve jumbo jets! And you wonder why the fish stocks are nearly at an end. And we are only talking one net. Multiply that times the number of boats times the number of countries fishing on the Grand Banks day and night, 365 days a year and somebody is going to tell me, if we do not start putting some measures in place to protect our stocks, that they can last, when you have one net that twelve jumbo jets can fit into the mouth of.

I am telling you, most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not realize how serious this situation is. I spoke to a group of people out in Mount Pearl recently, the Chamber of Commerce, and I spoke to a group of people at Hotel Newfoundland, the Association of Engineers, and after I finished telling them some of the figures that I have given here this afternoon, they came up to me and said, 'I did not realize that. I did not know that. I did not think that the industry was so important to my business.' Yet, in the same tone of voice, they said that their businesses had dropped 40 per cent this year, their sales had dropped 40 per cent this year.

The whole economy of this Province has dropped. Why? Last year, if I have my numbers correct, the value-added product to the Newfoundland and Labrador industry last year, the fishing industry, I think was in excess of some $700 million. Take that $700 million out of the economy and what do you have? You talk about 50,000 or 60,000 people unemployed now, you would have triple that amount, because it has a spin-off effect everywhere. People living in downtown St. John's or in Corner Brook or in Gander do not realize that the fishing industry is important to their survival. They think because they are not working directly at it or they do not see fish or they do not live along the coast that it is not important. Mr. Speaker, that is very, very far from the truth.

We are talking about training young people to become doctors and lawyers. We are talking about training them to become electricians and mechanics, and we are talking about keeping them here in this Province. If the fishing industry does not survive, Mr. Speaker, you will not keep one man, woman or child in this Province because there will be no economy here. Now, it sounds like an exaggeration, but somebody stand up in this House of Assembly and somebody in the Province of Newfoundland tell me that I am wrong. Tell me that I am wrong, that if the fish are gone on the Grand Banks it is wrong.

The most ludicrous thing I heard the other day was when I heard John Crosbie, the Federal Minister of Fisheries, make a statement saying the only problem, Mr. Speaker, with the fishing industry today is due to climatic conditions. I could not believe it, after I presented that Russian document to him, a factual document, that he still tells us there are no problems with foreign fishing, when that document that was given to me proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are misreporting, that they are catching species and quotas, as they are known for, inside and outside the 200-mile limit. The original copies were given, translated and non-translated, to the Minister of Fisheries, and he had his own people translate them, and he will still come out and say that the only problem with the fishery today, in 1991, is that we have very tremendous climatic conditions this year, and cold iceflows.

Can you imagine that his grandfather and his people, his father's -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: I will continue later on, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Opposition House Leader, just for the guidance of the Chair, I understand that we have entered into rather loosely, a ten-minute time frame rather than a time limit. If members would agree that the only thing the Chair can do when ten minutes have elapsed, is to tell the hon. member ten minutes are up, then the hon. member would try to clue up. We will not stop people. I think that is the understanding.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, the Opposition House Leader.

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

Let me just say that, yes, that is the kind of arrangement that we have for today because I understand there is a fair number of members who want to speak to this very important resolution as put forward by the Member for Port de Grave, and I want to say to him at the outset, that I commend him for the speech he has given so far, and I commend him for the efforts he has taken, particularly on the foreign overfishing issue over the last number of months in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the resolution that the hon. Member has put before the Legislature today, there is nothing in it that anyone can disagree with. It is motherhood, it is Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the hon. Member. It is the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. When I pursued the joint management issue today with the Premier, I did it for a specific reason, because, at least, over the last two years, I found the Premier of this Province to be inconsistent on really how much say in management this Province should have.

Initially, in the old Legislature, I remember the Premier in debate asking out loudly: what would we do if we had more jurisdiction? What would we do if we had more management? We cannot afford what we have now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. the Minister of Development can speak later on in debate, Mr. Speaker, I say to him, this is a very, very important issue.

I just want to outline for the House the inconsistencies I have heard coming from the Premier and I said to him in that particular debate that I felt that Newfoundland and Labrador could not afford not to have more say over our most important resource and I feel the same today.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, what I see - the Minister of Fisheries is here, he is listening and I know he will participate in the debate - is that there has been an inconsistency on the part of the Provincial Government, and if I were the Federal Minister of Fisheries or the Prime Minister of Canada on this particular issue, I would be somewhat confused as to really what Newfoundland and Labrador wanted as regards input and say in the fishery. I do not say that to be partisan. I say it because that is what I have observed as a Member of this Legislature, as a Member who represents a fishing district, as a Member, who, by the way, has seen the town where he was born and raised in, where he grew up in, worked in the fish plant, I have seen what has happened to my home town of Grand Bank as a result of the mismanagement, one way or another in the fishery, and particularly the foreign overfishing.

I can remember sitting in the kitchen in my house on Edwin Street in Grand Bank and there was one particular trawlerman by the name of Will Miller, not the fellow with the Irish Rovers by the way, but in my mind, just as big or bigger a legend, who used to fish the Grand Banks in the side trawlers. He would come back after being at sea - in those times you did not have to be at sea all that long before you came back with the boat loaded - and he would tell about the Grand Banks and would tell about how it was like a city out on what we now call the Nose and Tail of that area, the Flemish Cap, out and about that area.

He would talk about how it was lit up like a city. Of course I was only a boy at the time, and there were times I really wondered if Will Miller was telling me as it was or if it was the result of a few home brews that he had had with my father, because, as a young boy, it was hard to imagine that there were so many boats out that far at sea in that particular area that it would actually be lit up like a city. Now I say that because I want to refer to what the Member for Port de Grave said, when he talked about going back over the years.

This is not a problem that has been created in the last two or three years, or since 1984 when Brian Mulroney became Prime Minister of Canada, it goes back years and years and has been steadily getting to the point where we are today. It has been a gradual, progressive, worsening of our fish stocks that has been caused by things that Will Miller talked about when I was a boy.

Now having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is not all the foreigners' fault what has happened to our fish stocks. I want to go on record in this Legislature and be upfront and say it. Because I do not believe in saying things for the convenience of saying them, and for saying something that is popular at the time to say. A lot of the problems in our fishery and with our resource have been created by our own Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen and fishing industry, and the Atlantic Canada fishing industry.

I look at the first WHEREAS in the hon. Member's resolution, he talks about "foreign fishing inside the Two Hundred Mile Economic Zone..." and I concur with the hon. Member. As a matter of fact, I have had discussions myself with the hon. John Crosbie's office to try and determine exactly how much fish is taken inside of the Two Hundred Mile Economic Zone. I say to you that is why I question the numbers when I shake my head, when the hon. Member who now on two occasions has spoken in the Legislature. Because I have been trying to verify and determine how much has been taken by foreigners inside the Two Hundred. Because like the hon. Member I strongly believe how much of an economic benefit it can be for us, in my opinion, I am not comfortable with. I know there is some. I would like to think that it is a great economic benefit that could be there for us if the foreigners were put outside the Two Hundred and the resource, or part of that resource that they are now catching, could be utilized by our Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen and fish processing companies, and indeed Atlantic Canada.

Certainly there is some economic benefit there for us that we can catch, if not all, at least some of the species and the allocations that are being caught by foreigners. Bring that fish to Newfoundland and Atlantic Canadian ports and have it processed and create jobs. I concur with the hon. Member that that is something that seriously needs to be looked at. I hope that the Federal Minister of Fisheries will take this particular challenge, will look at it very seriously, and before too long I hope he will make a decision that is in the best interest, first of all, of the fishery and the resource. Because we are talking the future when we are talking that. But that he will indeed act on those foreigners inside of Two Hundred.

Because my fear is that if we do not take a very serious look at those foreigners inside of Two Hundred, and the species that they are catching - and for the most part not bringing to Canadian ports for processing - that what we now refer to as underutilized species is going to be in the same or worse state than our groundfish stocks. So that is another real worry. Whether or not there is enough - if we can take some of that inside of Two Hundred that is being taken by foreigners, well that decision has to be made. But we must remember, let's not do with what we refer to as underutilized what we have done with our groundfish and deplete it, or consequently there will be no future there.

Now I look at the situation in my home town where we are now hopefully going to get into processing of surf clams and scallops. For us that is different. I hope there is some real opportunity there for Grand Bank, and I hope there is some opportunity for Gaultois - hopefully they will get more redfish and can make the operation viable - and for Trepassey and all the hundreds of communities around this coast. This is the worst I have ever seen. Members in this Legislature must know that, considering the reaction to the fisheries response programme. I do not know about anyone else but I am driven out of my mind. Every year this time there is always a build up of calls. But I have never witnessed anything like I have this year, and it tells us how bad the situation is out there.

Outside of Two Hundred with foreign overfishing it is a very complex problem that has to be addressed but it is an international problem. Even if we enter into some kind of a joint management agreement with Ottawa, where we have some say over licensing and allocation in our own waters, the surveillance and enforcement and so on - I do not think that we really, as a Province, can afford financially to get into those aspects. I do not think that is what the hon. Member is referring to in his resolution, and I concur with him on that. But it is an international matter, something that has to be addressed, something that cannot be addressed overnight. I am sure the Minister of Fisheries, who was very involved in the movement to get the, as it turned out to be, Two Hundred Mile Economic Zone, how difficult and how long it is.

What we have to remember in this Legislature, I tell Members, is that there is a minority of countries in this world that are concerned about extending our economic zone beyond 200 miles. The reason for that is because there are a minority of coastal states. I think there are only five or so in the world where their continental shelves extend beyond 200. That is why we have 200 miles, Mr. Speaker, because the majority of coastal states` continental shelves went about 200 miles, so that was the limit which was set. Of course, we were so glad back in 1977, I think it was around then, to get 200 miles that we could not believe our luck, but as we find out today it was not sufficient and we should have gone further out.

I just want to say to hon. members that there is by far a minority of coastal states that are even interested in extending a 200-mile zone beyond, because they are protected by having theirs at 200. That is something we have to think about and when we call for an extension of 200, as important as it is and as much as I support it, Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that we are talking a very complex issue. It is an international issue and a joint management agreement between Canada and Newfoundland will not resolve that international issue. The Government of Canada has to take this one and I agree that time is running out. We cannot wait much longer to go off to Brussels, to go off to Spain, to Holland, to Portugal, and wherever else we go and be diplomatic. We are soon going to have to take some action. I understand that is why, in looking at the hon. Member's resolution, he talks about the date of January 1, 1993, that unless overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks is stopped by the foreign countries, or they are definitely going to cut out overfishing, that Canada then will take whatever action is necessary to protect the national interest, and specifically for us to protect the Newfoundland and Labrador interests.

I realize I have my notice, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I worried yesterday when we talked about ten minutes. It is hard to say what you want to say on this issue in ten minutes. It is for me anyway because it is something that means so much to me, as it does, I am sure to all members here, when we talk about a Newfoundland and Labrador joint management arrangement with Canada. That is why I asked the Premier today if he had had discussions with any other Maritime Premiers. I understand that some of the Maritime Governments are not interested in any joint management arrangements. If they were all interested you could conceivably have a joint management arrangement between Newfoundland and the Federal Government. You could have a joint arrangement with Nova Scotia, PEI, New Brunswick and Quebec. Really, Mr. Speaker, you could conceivably have five joint management arrangements. Now, when you really get down to the brass tacks of this I do not know how in the name of God that could be possible. That is why I asked the Premier, if in his discussion over the last few months, he has had any negotiations or discussions, preliminary or detailed, with the other premiers, because from what I have heard Mr. Crosbie say, the few times I have heard him react publicly, he says: well, what about the other Atlantic Provinces?

Of course, I know now where he is coming from because with five separate arrangements it would be very difficult. The last two clauses: BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal and Provincial Governments should immediately develop a joint management plan for the fishing industry. I say get on with it, and that is why I urge the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries to not waste any time. If we do not have a detailed proposal to put before the Federal Government let us get one there. That is why I pursued that line of questioning today. 'That improvements be made in the observer program in monitoring the Canadian dragger fleet.' Yes, and I think here, Mr. Speaker - and I will conclude on this note - I think here the hon. Member really is touching on what I said earlier, that it is not all caused by foreigners. I think the hon. Member touches on that and says, I guess, as much sometimes as you can say about it, that there must be an improvement in the observer programme in monitoring our own Canadian boats, because remember there is abuse. Everyone is human. Trawlermen are human, skippers are human and they are trying to make the best living they can.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I say I have no difficulty whatsoever. I commend the Member for bringing the resolution forward and tell other Members of the House categorically that, yes, I support it and will continue to support it. I can only wait for the day when this Province enters into a joint management arrangement with the Federal Government because then, I think - things cannot get any worse, and if we who are closest to the resource can have some say over the aspects that are Newfoundland and Labrador related, then the fishery will be better off and we as a people will be better off accordingly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say these few remarks on this very important and very timely resolution. Before I get into the resolution I would like to react very briefly to some comments made by my friend opposite, the Member for Grand Bank, about joint management. As the Premier indicated today a position paper is just about ready to go in place. A lot of work has gone into it and it should be ready to be made public within a very few days, and in that paper the Province's position with respect to joint management will be outlined. I do not want to take up too much time today discussing that aspect of our fishing industry because it really is not dealt with in the resolution. The resolution, of course, deals with that which I consider to be the number one problem today facing the Newfoundland fishing industry namely, of course, foreign overfishing, and Canada's lack of control over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and of NAFO's total inability to properly manage and control that resource.

I was being interviewed a few days ago by a Telegram reporter and he asked me to describe in my own words what I thought of NAFO. Well I did not want to be too unkind but I said that NAFO, in my view, is a toothless creature that does not have the intestinal fortitude to even discipline its own members. That, in effect, is what is happening. Now I support this resolution, and there are a couple of things here which I would like to draw to the attention of the House and to the attention of the hon. gentleman who introduced the resolution, and that has to do with the first be it resolved: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal Government take action to terminate all foreign fishing inside the Two Hundred Mile Economic Zone and give notice to all foreign countries that unless the overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the banks ceases before January 1, 1993, Canada will take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its national interests."

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. Member has been made aware of what might very well be interpreted as a slight flaw in the wording of that part of the resolution. That has to do with the part that says: "the Federal Government take action to terminate all foreign fishing inside of the Two Hundred Mile Economic Zone." Now that is a very noble ambition, I suppose, to try and impose that kind of restriction on foreign fishing within the 200-mile zone, but there are a few things that we must keep in mind. I understand that the hon. gentleman has been made aware of this and will probably in his winding up comments make reference to it. But as undesirable, as unacceptable as foreign fishing is within the 200-mile limit as it is unacceptable beyond the 200-mile limit, we must not lose sight of the fact that in some cases where we have foreign fishing within the 200-mile limit that certain economic benefits do accrue to the Newfoundland fishing industry, plus the fact, of course, we must not lose sight of the fact that under the terms of the Law of the Sea regime Canada, like all other coastal states, is now under an obligation, with which it must comply, to be prepared to allow foreign countries to harvest fish deemed to be surplus to their individual needs.

Now then what that says, Mr. Speaker, is that if Canada has within its 200-mile limit silver hake, which is out there reasonably in abundance, a fish that Canada is not harvesting, is not processing, and for a variety of reasons has been unable to secure markets, then that is a fish that is surplus to the coastal state's need, in this case Canada's need. So under the Law of the Sea conference, under the Law of the Sea regime, Canada has no choice, as undesirable as it might be, to see foreign ships, Russians and others, fishing within the 200-mile limit then there are cases where Canada, if it is going to comply with the terms and conditions to which it agreed, that the Law of the Sea must allow foreigners to harvest that which is deemed to be surplus to the Canadian need.

Also, we must not lose sight of the fact - and again I do not wish to be put in the position of defending foreign overfishing anywhere on the Canadian continental shelf, no man in this House or in this Province has probably fought harder or has had more to say about what has been happening on the Canadian continental shelf in the past fifteen or twenty years. In fact, I had the great privilege of being a member of the Law of the Sea conference in Geneva, in 1974, as part of the Canadian delegation that was then in the process of negotiating with the other hundred and thirty-odd countries, who were Members of that conference, negotiating a Law of the Sea regime. It is interesting to note - and the hon. gentleman for Grand Bank touched on it - the fact that only about five countries in the world have continental shelves that are not protected by the 200-mile limit. I forget what countries - the Argentines, I think, I believe, there are other countries anyway that, four or five, apart from Canada, whose continental shelf extends beyond the 200-mile limit.

At that conference the Canadian delegation, certainly my component of the Canadian delegation - I was then there as a Member of Parliament - made it quite clear that the 200-mile limit would not suffice. It would not adequately serve Canada's needs for the reasons that I have just given. That 200 miles did not in fact cover the entire continental shelf. But unfortunately the so-called powers that be, the experts then, did not see fit to fight, because there is nothing sacred about 200 miles, it could just as easily have been 250 miles but for the fact that, as the hon. gentleman opposite said, 200 miles happened to satisfy the needs of most of the coastal states that were involved in the Law of the Sea conference negotiations.

Anyway, unfortunately, our request for an extension to the edge and to the slopes of a coastal states' continental shelf fell on deaf ears and consequently we are now left with this very serious problem of overfishing. Overfishing in my view, certainly overfishing beyond the 200-mile limit, is like a cancer. If it is left unchecked it has the potential to destroy the economy of this Province and the lives and the livelihood of the tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders who depend on the fishing industry for their survival. Canada must, and I repeat, must take whatever action is necessary to gain management control over the entire Canadian continental shelf. Unless and until Canada is willing to do that then the fishing industry in Newfoundland - indeed the economy of Newfoundland, and to maybe a lesser extent the economy of Atlantic Canada - will be jeopardized.

Another thing we should keep in mind: while we look upon this as being a Canadian or a Newfoundland problem - I suppose because it does affect Newfoundlanders to a far greater extent then it affects any other area of the Canadian nation - but we look upon it maybe as a Newfoundland problem. Well, let me say this to you. Not only is it not merely a Newfoundland problem it is even more than a Canadian problem. This is a world problem because what is happening on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank is jeopardizing a source of protein that could be there forever and a day, to help feed the multitude of the thousands, the millions in fact, on this planet that need food for as long as this planet exists.

That is what surprises me. When the seal hunt was supposed to be endangered we saw this great hullabaloo by well know, world renowned personalities - movies stars, kings, queens, members of royalty and so on - out protesting the seal hunt, and very successfully brought it to an end. We have seen certain individuals mounting very aggressive campaigns to protect the rain forest of, I believe it is Brazil, all in the name of conservation. Yet, I have not heard any of those people utter a single word against what is happening on the southern Grand Banks just off our coast. But it is rather strange that that sort of thing is happening. Because in (Inaudible) view of what is happening on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland with respect to overfishing and the unwillingness on the part of the countries that are guilty of overfishing, their unwillingness to show any respect whatsoever for the resource or for its conservation, these people have not uttered a single word against what is happening. I think that is rather unfortunate.

But getting back to the point I raised at the outset, the fact that while we might not like -

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible.)

MR. CARTER: The hon. gentleman wanted to ask me a question, I think. Do you still want to or...? I apologize for not responding -

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

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) you were making reference to what has happened in Burgeo, sort of thing. That seems to be tied in to a foreign effort that they are benefiting from. I just wondered if that -

MR. CARTER: That, Mr. Speaker, I suppose is something with which we are going to have to live for awhile. The Newfoundland Government, and I as Minister, objected strenuously to the Seafreez proposition. I did so for what I still consider to be a very valid reason. That the whole deal involved too much of a giveaway. Not only that, it involved just a little bit too much activity on the part of foreign vessels to catch the fish that was so generously allocated to them by the Federal Government. We objected to it as we would object to any proposition that saw an onslaught of foreign vessels coming into our waters and catching caplin and other fish. But the fact remains, as much as we objected to it, and as undesirable as it might appear, unless and until the Seafreez Company in Burgeo can succeed in finding an alternate means of harvesting that resource, then I am afraid we are stuck with it.

In fact, I suppose the plant in Burgeo could not survive, it would not survive, if those vessels were terminated. If their use was terminated by the Federal Government the plant in Burgeo would cease to exist. That is why I say that maybe the hon. gentleman in that first BE IT RESOLVED would give some thought maybe to modifying the word "terminate" or maybe qualifying it in order to accommodate the inevitable. Accommodating that which we are now having to live with, at least in the short term.

But that is not to say that we should stand by and very passively agree to a continuation of that arrangement. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is strongly in favour of the full Canadianization of the ships that harvest fish within our 200-mile limit, and especially those vessels that have been engaged by various Newfoundland companies to harvest the so-called underutilized fish; for example, the Labrador Shrimp Company. My hon. colleague from Eagle River will agree; in fact, he took part in negotiations with certain interests where it became necessary, again for a variety of reasons, to secure the services of, I believe it was two foreign ships, that are engaged in harvesting and processing on board, their shrimp allocation. Now, in the case of these ships, I believe that, by and large, they have been Canadianized. Certainly, the crews on board those ships, while not entirely Canadian, I understand, a large percentage of them are Canadian, as they should be. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Province will not relax until all of these vessels engaged in fishing within our 200-mile limit have been fully Canadianized.

Mr. Speaker, while the problem of fishing within the 200-mile limit is a very serious one, the real problem is what is happening beyond the 200-mile limit. I suppose, in a sense, we have some control over what happens. When I say we, I mean the Government of Canada. We have some control over what is happening within the 200-mile limit, but we have absolutely no control whatever over what happens beyond the 200-mile limit, and that is what makes it so serious.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on August 21, there was a very important meeting held in this Province, which some pretty highly-placed people within the fishing industry and Governments attended. The Premier, of course, was there, as well as Mr. Crosbie, Ambassador Gherson, and key people in the private sector and the union. We met in the basement of the West Block in the executive board room for four, five, or six hours, and had a very free and frank discussion on foreign overfishing. Ambassador Gherson was invited here to brief the members of my Advisory Council and the Government, generally, on the status of the overfishing negotiations. At that meeting, Mr. Speaker, our Premier let it be known, in no uncertain terms, to Ambassador Gherson and to Mr. Crosbie and his entourage, that Newfoundland was not prepared to go on indefinitely without some action being taken by the Federal Government to put an end to the serious threat to our economy, namely, foreign overfishing. At that meeting, we served notice on Mr. Crosbie and on the Ambassador, as the hon. gentleman has done today in his resolution, that Canada, we said, should establish a date - we named the date of January 1, 1993 - beyond which Canada would not be prepared to go without taking some definitive action to bring to an end this raping of our resource.

Mr. Crosbie, at that time, expressed some interest in what we were having to say. While he did not commit himself to following that course, he did offer to undertake certain discussions with the then Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Joe Clarke, and others in his Cabinet, and have a general discussion on the possibility of Canada taking that kind of action. But, Mr. Speaker, to say that we must serve notice that by a certain date Canada will take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its national interest is, in my view, not going quite far enough, because I believe that Canada should serve notice on the international community, on the fishing nations of the world, that beyond that date, Canada is not prepared to go, and that certain concrete action will be taken.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that does not necessarily mean arbitrarily pushing the limit to the edge of the Continental Shelf. There are other ways through which Canada can exercise control and management over that resource. I am not sure if there is any provision within the Law of the Sea regime where a coastal state, in cases where you have straddling stocks, where you have areas not covered by 200 miles - I always had the impression that maybe there was some provision within the 200-mile limit regime, whereby the coastal state would almost automatically be deemed to be the most appropriate authority to manage, control and police that stock.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. CARTER: May I have a moment?


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

MR. CARTER: So, Mr. Speaker, if it is not there, or if we are not too clear on the wording of that part of the Law of the Sea documents, then I think common sense would dictate that the coastal state - in this case Canada - is certainly better qualified than any other organization or regime to manage that resource.

There are a number of ways that can be done. For example, it might very well be that NAFA would be willing to hand over its authority to Canada and allow Canada to become the custodial managers of that resource. That is not to say that we are going to just kick out everybody else and show a complete disregard for the long-established historic rights of other countries. Of course, we recognize that other countries have certain rights, too. But I think, first and foremost, our concern must be for the stock and for their rehabilitation. Then, having achieved that, we can sit down and negotiate with countries that have an historic interest in that area, in the Grand Banks. Then, we can set about to negotiate the allocation of a regenerated stock consistent with their historical usage and hopefully, then, we will all be happy.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is surprising how fast ten minutes can go, and you get up with great ideas and well-prepared, with some very good statistics here on what is happening, and you find that the time is not available to cover it. But let me conclude by saying that at the present time there are roughly forty foreign vessels fishing within the Canadian 200-mile limit. There are five Scandinavian vessels fishing shrimp on a short-term charter arrangement. As I said, part of that is with the Labrador Shrimp Company. Some, of course, are fishing for Nova Scotian-owned companies.

There are twenty-one other vessels, six Norwegian and fifteen Soviet vessels, fishing turbot in zero and 2GH. Well, I take issue with that, because if anybody who knows anything about the fishery in Newfoundland would deem turbot to be an underutilized or surplus stock, then it is obvious they don't know very much about what is happening out there. We object to turbot being deemed as a surplus, underutilized stock because, in fact, it is not. We have the catching capability, the processing capability, and the markets to accommodate whatever turbot can be harvested within the 200-mile limit. There are other vessels fishing out there, including three Japanese vessels, two Soviet vessels fishing for caplin, and on and on it goes.

It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that beyond the 200-mile limit, at this point in time, there are ninety-three vessels actively fishing. Some of these vessels belong to the European Economy Community. A large number of them belong to Spain and Portugal, two of the countries that have shown utter disregard for the rights of others and for the need to properly manage and conserve that resource. I suppose, if I was asked to name the two countries in the world that are probably contributing more to what is happening and to the depletion of that resource than any other, I would have to point the finger at Spain and Portugal.

Not only that, the other problem that we now have to contend with, is, not only are we now being plundered by vessels that are members of NAFEL, we are now subjected to the same kind of rape by a number of vessels that are flying flags of convenience.

In fact, ships flying flags of convenience, from Panama, Cuba and other countries, are guilty of harvesting, I believe close to 50,000 tons of fish, in addition to the 150,000 tons that are being fished illegally by other countries.

Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I have a lot more I would like to say but I do not want to abuse the privilege and the courtesy that has been extended to me, except to say that we welcome this resolution. I hope that the member, when he sums up, can certainly refer to some of the things that I mentioned as potentially troublesome if it is passed in its present form. Thank you very much.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to say, first of all, that I certainly support this resolution and I compliment again the Member for Port de Grave, who brought this resolution to the floor of the House.

I think we all realize and understand what is happening to our fishery and, certainly, it is an ongoing problem. Mr. Speaker, I for one, am very proud today when I stand here in my place and say that a number of people saw many years ago that the stock was being depleted. When we were being told by people who should know, professional people in the Department of Fisheries, and other recognized bodies, that there was an abundance of fish out there, we felt that they didn't know what they were talking about. At the time, certainly, I was a very small spoke in a great wheel. But it became a reality that the scientists really didn't know what they were talking about.

They said there were biomasses here and there; they had three, and then they brought it down to two, then they figured it was only one, and then there were two sources of supply from here, and whatever. Mr. Speaker, most of it was done from the desks by bureaucrats who did not have a clue as to what they were talking about.

Mr. Speaker, at that time, we had a gentleman who has since left this Province and left Canada, Dr. Keats, who did a study for NIFA. Dr. Keats said that if we were not careful, very careful, and if we didn't take the bull by the horns now, then the situation down the road would have drastic consequences for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am a member here today who represents a great number of fishermen, and a number of fishing communities, and I have to say, truthfully, to the hon. House today, that it has not always been lucrative in that particular area. I can remember back in the late 1930s, when my father - and there were thirty cod traps in Flat Rock at the time - was highliner, we called it then. He had the most fish in the community, twelve quintals. But the situation today is quite different. That was an isolated situation on a particular part of the coastline, while other areas had an abundance of fish, both to the north and south. It was just in that isolated area that the fish did not come in, and granted, a couple of years after that the fish were back again in abundance.

What we are seeing now, Mr. Speaker, is right from the Labrador Coast, areas that were commonly harvested by many people from Newfoundland who used to go to Labrador, where there was an abundance of fish - it is the same thing, to put it in layman's words or to put it in baby talk, I should say, as pulling down a blind. Mr. Speaker, you can pull down a blind on a map of Newfoundland and Labrador, and you can see, coming down, the fish is getting scarcer, with none in many areas. Again, we have been lucky in our neck of the woods here on the Avalon Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, when we had good seasons, both last year, the year before last and this year. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a 'splash' in the pan deal. How long can it last?

Mr. Speaker, we can put blame on both governments. We can say, 'yes, they are not doing what they should do,' but it is not as easy as that. We have the French who have an allotment of fish on 2J and 3KL. The right to catch that fish was given to the French in 1972. Now, there wasn't much thought at that particular time about giving the French fish, because they were told, the same as we were told, there was lots of it out there. This was only going to be a stopgap thing, give them a few fish and keep them happy. But the point remains now that the fish is not out there for the French, but they are still going to be out there trying to catch the few fish that are there. I agree with the Member for Port de Grave, that inside the 200-mile limit there should be a moratorium. Now, the Minister of Fisheries says, 'Well, we can't do it.'

I realize, too, after speaking to my colleague from St. Lawrence, that when Rose Ting managed the plant there in St. Lawrence, she tried her best to process silver hake. Silver hake is a fish, Mr. Speaker, that has to be processed immediately. You have to do it, really, with factory freezer trawlers. She failed. She had a 5,000 ton quota and it was a dismal failure. The point remains that it was tried and it failed at that particular time, but we have better technology now. If the factory ships can do it, perhaps, somehow or other, we could have someone out there doing it, bringing the fish back to our own plants, thereby serving two lots of people. You have fishermen working in the catching of the fish and you have the plant workers working in the harvesting of the fish.

Now, the Minister of Fisheries, and rightly so, pointed out other areas with historical rights that we have to think about. We certainly cannot go out and boot them out tomorrow. But what I am talking about, I think, is giving them a deadline. I think mostly all people are reasonable, and if they understood the plight of this Province, then I think they would take that into consideration. Say to them, 'Look, there are certain areas where you are not going to be allowed to fish, because the stock is not there.'

I go back again to the 1972 agreement, remembering in the latter part of it, one sentence that said, 'contingent on the state of the stock.' Now, I feel great justification in being able to stand here and say today that the Federal Government now should go back to France and say, 'The stock is in a state now where you just cannot fish. There are no fish to be caught.' I think that would solve that problem with the French.

Now, we talk about overfishing within the 200-mile limit. The thing that worries me - the Minister of Fisheries mentioned today about the shrimp trawlers. I was speaking to a gentleman who was in the know - I was never shrimp trawling and know very little about it - and he tells me that the by-catch alone on all those trawlers is astronomical.

Mr. Speaker, no one brought it up today, but I am going to have to just touch on it. It is a touchy question. Mr. Speaker, we have heard for this past while about part-time fishermen. Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record. Glory be to god! We are not going to take those few dollars out of our economy as well! The part-time fishermen could not catch as much in a hundred years as one of those factory trawlers catch in one week. And then Newfoundlanders are out there saying - we are sometimes our own worst enemies. We are relieving the obligation on the feds by saying that this is caused, in some aspects, by the part-time fishermen. Mr. Speaker, it is laughable. But the point remains, the point is being made.

I have to tell a little story, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps a lot of people have heard about it. In some instances we are our own worst enemies - I have said it before and I will say it again. The old story goes, that there was a man who went down to buy a lobster and the guy who was selling the lobsters said, 'What do you want to buy, a Newfoundland lobster or an American lobster?' The man looked at him and said, 'I didn't know there was a difference.' 'Oh, yes,' he said, 'there is a difference.' He opened the lid on the American lobsters and one lobster crawled up over the other and dumped himself out on the wharf. 'Now, he said, 'that is the American lobster. Now, this is the Newfoundland lobster.' I went over and took the lid off the box and the lobster tried to get out, and every lobster in that cage put up a claw to haul that lobster back.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a moral to that story. I have to do it because I felt obligated to touch on this foolishness which is going on about our own people depleting the stock. They have nothing to do with it, and all we are doing is playing up to some people out there who are going to try to force the issue for gain for themselves - no other reason. I mean this is nonsense. Here we are depriving Newfoundlanders again. It is despicable! I am surprised that politicians or otherwise would have such a thing in their mind, to take something away. Our economy is such now we are going to take a few thousand dollars away from the people who have the energy to go out and try to get it...? while we let the foreigners do what they like out there, take what they like. It is true what the Member said about the lights. I have not been out there, it is only what I have been told. We are going to deprive the few Newfoundlanders who go out and supplement their salary.

Let me tell you something about that. I have to go farther into it now, Mr. Speaker. I was speaking to a man who worked part-time at electrical work. There was no more work to do and he made about $5,000. $5,000 is a very small amount of money when you have a family, and he went fishing this year and earned another $4,500, which is no money again. But there was $9,500, and before he had $5,000 - can someone tell me, stand here and look me straight in the eye and say that there is something wrong with it? Now if there is no fish there the part-time fellows are not going to catch any more than the full-time fellows, but in areas where there is fish the part-time people have nothing. I think it is 1 per cent. The feds say about 4 per cent, but it is 1 per cent, that is all they are involved in. So I wanted to set the record straight from my perspective. It is an ugly thing, a dastardly act by people to imply that Newfoundlanders themselves are depleting this stock. And the Member for Port de Grave is right. In putting down the stipulation saying you are allowed to do it, where do we stop? Once they get in here they will do the same thing as what they are doing now. What they are doing now, Mr. Speaker, is doing exactly what they like.

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to a gentleman today - when you go back to our whole scenario as it pertains to the fishery. I was speaking to a gentleman today and we talked about the herring fishery. He said he remembered in St. Mary's Bay when they had the old bar seines, there were millions of herring, but we were not satisfied. We brought in the other seine - the purse seine - and millions and millions of pounds of herring were lost because of the purse seines because we killed them all. There was no way they could escape. And when we only wanted 1,000 tons and we had 5,000 tons the other 4,000 tons were dead. We defeated the purpose. Instead of doing it over the long haul, by creating employment over the long haul we, ourselves, played an integral part in destroying the resource.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has reached the ten minute mark.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, can I clue up by leave?

The other thing that I have to say today is my hon. friend for Grand Bank represents a district where the offshore plays a major role. I say to this hon. House today, Mr. Speaker, that I for one would have no problem supporting a resolution calling for a moratorium on all gillnetting and dragging for a specific time until our stocks could rebuild, especially, I believe, in the spawning area where we do untold damage ecologically to the fish habitat. I think it is going to spell disaster - and I think we have seen some of it today - Mr. Speaker, if we do not change our attitude as far as our own local people are concerned. The major problem we say again, is foreign overfishing, but we do have a problem locally, and I think that we have to stand on our own two feet and have the guts of our convictions and say what we believe, that we are some of the problem as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The situation which is brought up in this resolution today, as we all remember this Summer when the hon. Member for Port de Grave was so adept in taking the united fishermen who he was representing at that time to a great amount of public scrutiny, a great amount of publicity for the united fishermen at that time, and in bringing up the level of awareness that, of course, someone in his position as an MHA, not in the Cabinet or the Government, is able to do, having, of course, the ability then to speak out somewhat about things in a manner that does not have his hands tied to the problems of Government solidarity and that sort of thing.

I could go a little further into the actual resolution but in speaking of what we are looking at as far as discrimination goes over the way that Newfoundlanders are regularly discriminated against we can look at it a number of ways. One, we can look at why we have arrived at the situation we are now in from a Federal Government perspective. To look at the way that the Federal Government has managed the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or mismanaged is another point, the way that the fish stocks have been managed, but another is looking at the Department of External Affairs and the way that the Federal Government has seen to include and associate the two Departments, the Department of External Affairs and the Department of International Trade. Now, these two Departments at one time were two very senior ministries in the Federal Government's array of ministries they would use in developing policy with other countries, and also with respect to the way they handled trade matters with other countries.

If we remember back in 1984, September 4, when the current Prime Minister came into power he saw fit to draw these two Departments together. Now, it has not often been looked at this way but if you think of External Affairs as a solitude and that solitude is going to handle foreign policy, policy with other countries, you remember the former Prime Minister Trudeau and his fist-banging manner of dealing with the French - the French in France I am speaking of - in spite of the fact that in dealing with it in this way in some cases would cause an international kerfuffle, Prime Minister Trudeau at the time was able to deal with a firm hand and be firm in his dealings with foreign Governments as far as fishing went, and the mere threat of action of any kind by Prime Minister Trudeau at that time would be such that these countries would listen, and they would back off.

Then in 1984 when you draw together the Department of External Affairs and the Department of International Trade you see the trade-offs coming. All of a sudden the fish becomes a commodity to be traded back and forth in respect of a certain amount of grain or in respect of a certain amount of other commodities that are required here in the country. In making deals this Government of Brian Mulroney made sure that the two became one and therefore there was no check and balance, there was no balance of the Department of International Trade to External Affairs. John Crosbie, when he was sitting as Minister of International Trade, was but a junior Minister to the current constitutional czar, Joe Clark, and had to play second fiddle. Trade relations, of course, became subservient to what would be best for the public policy interest of Canada in dealing with other nations, and not the other way around. Canada's trade interests became secondary as it became a junior department and a part of the Department of External Affairs.

Now, in looking at the proposition that is brought in here in the form of a resolution by the hon. Member for Port de Grave we see in here a certain part which affects my own district and that part is, of course, the idea of terminating all foreign fishing inside the

200 mile economic zone. I expect, with the re-opening of the Port aux Basques Fish Plant this week, that some of this foreign fishing will benefit the Port aux Basques operation. It will be either through the idea of transfers, which is something that we all have some difficulty with, but those transfers in turn will allow for the operation of the Port aux Basques plant, either directly or indirectly, in allowing fish to be brought in there, sold and processed, through some kind of trade arrangement with the USSR. That, in turn, would be very difficult to see; that all that foreign fishing be terminated, to see it as some of the foreign fishing, of course, which is unnecessary, and which is excessive, and which is but a trade-off for what Newfoundlanders deserve as their part of the fishing quotas. I would certainly support that part of it, but again a certain amount of caution, because for the immediate solution to the problem there is a lot of short-term immediate pain that would have to be absorbed by some Newfoundland companies as well. So I just suggest that as far as the Port aux Basques Fish Plant goes, from a purely local standpoint, there are some extras that certainly have to be considered there.

Now, we also have to look at my own district, where the Federal Government has shown its certain manner of dealing with the public of the Province in a very caring manner by deciding that the people out our way just do not matter. They have unilaterally decided, without consulting the Province in any way as I understand, to deny the Emergency Fishery Response Program for the southwest and south coast of the Province. How, in the area where it is probably the most devastated area as far as fishery related disaster has gone over the last three and four years, how can they justify it? Labrador has had some problems. Labrador's problems were addressed this year, with the severe weather conditions, the environmental conditions, fine. We had severe problems last year, the year before, and the year before that, those problems were addressed. These people who still participate in the fishery fully did have their problems addressed, but this year for some ungodly reason, and I do not understand why, in their caring way, the Federal Government has decided that the 200 to 300 people on the south and southwest coast of the Province are not deserving of any assistance. How can you justify saying that my neighbour deserves it, but I do not deserve it. You guys do not deserve it, but these guys, because they happen to be across this boundary line here, deserve it. I am trying to wrestle with this. I figure these are intelligent people we have in the Federal bureaucracy, and these intelligent people-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: No, I have to give them that amount of respect, but I am still trying to fathom and understand how they can decide that the people on the south and southwest coast do not deserve the same amount of understanding, consideration and concern as those others throughout the Province. Is it because we were the only ones who needed a package last year? Last year, as I understand, there was about $1.6 million in emergency fishery response offered to the south and southwest coast - every bit of it. Four hundred and fifty people in that area were put to work through the various make-work efforts. Also, some programmes were developed for literacy training, very successful programmes. We saw on the TV a couple of nights ago, a graduation ceremony in the community of (inaudible) Islands where people had finally graduated with their Grade X11 Diplomas, very proud of their achievement, and through the assistance of the Federal Government in developing this programme, these people now have other opportunities. But there are still people who have solid ties to the fishery, and these people are the people who are now being left out; they are being discriminated against by the Federal Government, and I am calling on, along with some of my colleagues, the hon. Minister of Fisheries, John Crosbie, and other Federal Ministers, to meet with us and try to resolve this problem, because this kind of resolution that we brought in here today is the reason why these people are currently having problems. The foreign fishing vessels that are fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is decimated, possibly beyond repair - who knows if the Gulf of St. Lawrence can rejuvenate?.. who knows if the Gulf of St. Lawrence can manage to rebuild the stocks in order to allow the people who participate in the Gulf fishery to get back to work and get these people who are tied to the fishery back so that they can earn a good living and not have to displace themselves unnecessarily? With the proper kind of assistance from the Federal Government, sure, they can last in the area, they can manage to do more than just exist, and live out a subsistance living, but without the assistance that is so badly needed now, the people of my district, I fear, will be subject to nothing but a visit to the Social Services office and that is just not good enough.

The Federal Government promised there would be no one left in the Province without assistance if the need was there, that they would be looked after. John Crosbie himself made that statement on a fisheries broadcast, as I understand, and we should not let up until such time as they do come through with the funding required for the people of the south and southwest coast.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will be standing in support of the hon. member's resolution and I also would sit now and allow one of the members of the Opposition to speak. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me my ten or twelve minutes to speak to this resolution.

First, let me say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: No. Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague just had eleven and a half minutes so I just assumed I was invited to the same time. Let me say to my hon. colleague, if he continues to interrupt me, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I will probably take up twenty minutes.

However, let me say from the beginning that I want to compliment my friend and colleague for Port de Grave for bringing in this resolution. I think it goes to show that there is at least one member on that side of the House who is concerned about the fishery in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. So I want to go on record in making sure that our Party supports this resolution and furthermore, I think it was as the Minister of Fisheries said about six years ago when I brought a resolution into this House, the Minister of Fisheries, who was then the critic, the first words he said were: look, it is no good for us to be in this House talking about those issues, let us do something about it.

So, Mr. Speaker, I said and I said to my colleague, the same words that the present Minister of Fisheries said to the Government of which I was a part, five or six years ago: it is no good to come in here and talk about it, let us do something about it. Meanwhile, the Member for Port de Grave cannot do it alone, he is going to need the help of the Minister of Fisheries for this Province, and I believe that the Minister of Fisheries for this Province has to do a little bit more than he is presently doing and the Minister agrees, because I sincerely believe and I guess, knowing where the Minister of Fisheries has been for the last fifteen years -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: No, Mr. Speaker; I am not viscously attacking the Minister of Fisheries at all. I say to my hon. colleague for St. Barbe, the Minister of Development, that what I am saying is that it is no good to have the Minister of Fisheries there as the Minister of Fisheries unless he is allowed to do something. But again, he is not allowed to do anymore than the new Minister of Justice is allowed to do, because he is only just there and whatever the Premier says, will be done and that is all. So I want to compliment the Member for Port de Grave because this is a good resolution and let me assure him that he has my full support in bringing in this resolution.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just say a couple of other things. When the Member was speaking here earlier we were talking about the foreign draggers and the lights off shore in the nighttime and everything else. I want to tell my hon. colleague and also my friend from Eagle River that off the Labrador coast the people who I represent and the people who my colleague represents also see the lights off there, but they are not off 200 miles, they are not off 100 miles, they are not off fifty miles, they are not off thirty miles, they are only off twenty miles; but they are not the lights of foreigners, they are the lights of Newfoundland vessels. That is the problem, they are the lights of Newfoundland vessels that are up on the Labrador coast catching the fish - and here the fish plants are idle - and bringing it back to the Island. There is where adjacency comes in. My hon. colleague has said it time and time again. You know if the fish is off there twenty miles lets catch that fish and bring it into the fish plants in Labrador. But, no, this government under the present Minister is supporting Newfoundland fishermen coming to the Labrador coast catching fish, taking it off their door steps and bringing it back to the Island. On one hand my colleague for Eagle River says he does not want it, but when the resolution comes into this House he gets up and supports it.

MR. DUMARESQUE: That is not true.

MR. WARREN: You did so! You did so support that resolution there last year. You said you wanted the fish for the fish plants in Labrador first, but then again when the Minister, the year before last, had one of the provincial fishery boats that went forty-two miles outside off Nain and took the fish and brought it back to St. Anthony, you supported that idea. You supported that idea, Mr. Speaker.

So I say to the hon. Member for Port de Grave this resolution is good. This resolution does address the problem, but we cannot do anything about it unless we have more ministers in that Government over there who are as concerned for the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador as the Member for Port de Grave. That is the problem. The problem unfortunately is that there are ten or eleven ministers over there who have no concept and no regard for the fishermen in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as the Member for Port de Grave has, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague, the Minister of Development, if he would stay quiet for a few minutes because my hon. colleague has always tried to interrupt me when I attempt to give a speech in this Legislature that is of benefit to the people.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I see up there that there is a member from the media. I hope that he will also report that I have been interrupted continuously by the so called Minister of Development. I must say to the media that this young gentlemen here is making a fool of himself, and you should be ashamed of yourself because you are trying to interrupt another Member in this Legislature. In fact the only reason that you are doing it is because the Premier is not here to stop you from doing it. Why don't you get up and speak in the debate when your turn comes, and act like a man instead of a child?

MR. FUREY: I am not ashamed (inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Act like a man instead of a child because that is what you are acting like now. In fact you look like a child and you act like a child so what else can you expect.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me continue to go back to where I was. I want to say to my hon. colleague for Port de Grave, and also I say to my hon. colleague for Eagle River, that we support having jurisdiction over our fishery, having some say in our fishery, and management, but it all goes hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other, but unfortunately -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: That is Rog Grimes' phrase 'not true'.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague for Eagle River is scratching on the door, when he is talking about fisheries, wanting to get in that position, and he wants to get rid of the present Minister of Fisheries, but he is there for a while yet, however I think he can do a better job. I think the Minister of Fisheries could be standing up and shouting loud and clear on behalf of the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador, and if this Government is supporting the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador then I honestly believe that this Government has to have more say and has to do more.

Today in Question Period I looked across when the Premier was answering questions from the House Leader and I was amazed to see the dismay on the faces of a number of backbenchers when the Premier was answering a question from my hon. colleague for Grand Bank. The Member for Port de Grave was astonished that the Premier was trying to skate around the issue. The Premier is always trying to blame John Crosbie for everything, but the Premier failed to turn to his right and say, Mr. Minister, you are going to have to do more too. I go back to what my hon. colleague for Twillingate, the Minister of Fisheries said six years ago: it is pointless for us to come in this Legislature and talk about the problems, and talk about the problems, unless we do something about the problems.

The Minister has now been there for two years plus, but we still have our problems. My colleague for St. John's East Extern mentioned about having a moratorium on gillnetting. I would venture to say between the seal population - now let us forget about what the foreigners are doing to our cod fishery, they are a major contributor to our problem, but I do not know which is second, whether it is the seal fishery or the gillnetting. One of those two are second to the problem in our fishery. It is our own fishermen, including my relatives, and your relatives who are out there fishing and put their gillnet in the water and the gillnet is left in the water until next year without even being hauled. That is the problem. We as politicians have to say it, there are fishermen in this Province who are putting their gillnets in the water and they never haul them. Those gillnets are left in the water catching fish which are left on the bottom to rot. It is not part-time fishermen either, most of them are full-time fishermen. Until we can address that problem, whether it is on the Labrador Coast, whether it is in Trinity Bay, Placentia Bay, or anywhere else, it is those gillnetters who are leaving their nets in the water and only hauling them if they are not too busy at something else. Lets be fair and honest with ourselves. I support the fishermen but I do not support them in causing some of the problems.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is very short but I want to give you a story about what happened yesterday. We are talking about the seal population. Yesterday I flew from Goose Bay to Nain on a Labrador Airways plane with six or seven other people aboard, and three other politicians in this House besides myself. We flew low over the water between Hopedale and Nain and in those coves, I am not exaggerating, Mr. Speaker, but we saw in excess of 1000 to 3000 seals, old harp seals on top of the water in bunches of sixty or seventy all over the coves. Wherever you looked, if you looked through one window or the other all you could see were seals coming up to the top of the water, and this Government and the Federal Government are not doing one thing about the seal population in our waters. This is another contributing factor to our fishery problem. Unfortunately we never had a camera to take pictures of these harp seals in every cove, nook, and cranny from Nain right to Hopedale and naturally they were after the fish. Let us all play the game we are supposed to play, let us get out and find the markets for our seals. Let us find the handicraft industry. Let's find the seal meat for the fur farmers. There are all kinds of avenues we can do. But all we do in this Legislature, on this side as well as on that side, when we are in government and the same thing now. We are in here, we are talking. We love to talk, we love to shout, we love to say things. But I say to my hon. colleague for Exploits, I speak for myself, but surely to goodness you should speak for yourself, and if you are a Member of the Cabinet, also speak on behalf of the Cabinet too, which you are not doing, by the way.

So I would say, let's all get together and join forces and let's tackle the problem that is so dear and near to us, and that is the fishery which is the lifeblood of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have very limited time but I want to say a few words on the resolution that is put today by the hon. Member for Port de Grave.

There is no doubt about it that the resolution deals with a motherhood issue. We have overfishing outside of the 200-mile limit; we have overfishing south of the Two Hundred Mile Economic Zone by foreigners and by ourselves. Let's not kid ourselves, that the people from our own industry are drastically having an affect inside the 200-mile zone. I overheard a guy say not too long ago, one drag that they had in a dragger they took back about 40,000 pounds and they saved 5,000. The other 35,000 was swept overboard. That to me is a real problem. Probably we should address that another day, having a port quota rather than having a quota for cod or whatever the case might be.

As we sit here today the French trawlers from the islands of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon are dragging to within six and seven miles of the Pass Island on the south coast, and it is going back and forth on the grounds of the inshore fishermen. When they go back tomorrow there is no fish there because it has already been caught. It goes on to that, that the people in the area that I represent - in Hermitage fish plant their work hours have been reduced because of the overfishing. There is no doubt about that.

But how can we then achieve the resolution that is put out here in front of us today? How can we do it? I do not think time will allow me to address it properly, but I believe that the emphasis that we should put into solving that is in education. The curriculum that we have in our schools today does not address the fishing industry in the way that it should. I tell you right now, the fishing industry for our young people is nothing more than a taboo. They do not want to be associated with it. The reason why they do not want to be associated with it is that their parents, a large number of them, have been getting meagre incomes augmented by UI payments. They do not want this any more! They have had it up to here.

So how do we change? We change it through, I believe, introducing within the schools, a curriculum that will have our students first of all, the boys and the girls, respect and see that the fishing industry, as it said in the resolution, is the backbone of this Province's economy. This has to be done, and I believe that the Government, under the Department of Education, has started in the right direction. I believe the White Paper that gave the Fisheries Institute more credibility under the University is the right way to go. I believe that we can become a world leader in the fishery. I believe that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: If we become a world leader in the fishery then the technology that we have at our disposal will I believe bring stability to the Province, bring stability to the fishing industry, and will indeed allow the Newfoundland young people to be proud of the fact that they are associated with the fishing industry. If we do not allow ourselves to do that then I believe we are in very serious trouble.

As I said, there is no way that I can address it in the time that is allocated to me, but I certainly would allow my time now to be given to the Member for Port de Grave to finally address this resolution. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is now 4:41 p.m., Private Member's Day. I have to call on the hon. the Member for Port de Grave to clue up the debate unless arrangements have been made for other speakers.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to apologize to my hon. colleague over there but I have a few words that I want to say pertaining to this resolution. Not to the fishing, and with great respect. I know we have discussed it many times in the House of Assembly and my hon. friend over there has certainly brought the points out. But I need a few minutes to do this and I want to do it because it is probably one of the - I will not get the opportunity again in the near or distant future to have this opportunity to say what I want to say now, and before I do that, I want to say to my hon. colleague and friend who just spoke, in a very few minutes he said a lot of words; he said a lot with a lot of meaning and it is very, very important. It is to do, once the fish stocks are revitalized and rebuilt, the issue that he is talking about is of vital importance to the future of the fishery and I want to take a minute just to congratulate him and thank him for that support.

I also want to thank all the people who spoke this afternoon and thank them for all the support they have given, not to me, as it has nothing to do with me, but to the fishermen and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the importance that is placed upon it. I could never have the time, even if I took the next two hours to touch on everything I want to say, but I have to touch on the issue that the Minister of Fisheries spoke about this afternoon on the foreign fishery, because this is too important to overlook and to try to be argumentative and to try to build up some confrontation.

This has to be brought into the open. We have to discuss it and we have to put it in the forefront, because one of the problems with Newfoundland and Labrador, in the fishing industry, is that we are not all going in the one direction, and I find that very, very disturbing. If we are going to solve the problem in this fishery that we have in the Island of Newfoundland and in Labrador, we have to all go in the one direction; and I, as one member of this House of Assembly and as one citizen of this Province, a man, who in my childhood was brought up on the fishing industry, my father and my grandfather and my great grandfather, and all of them before me, were fishing in the community of Port de Grave and I too, fished until I had the ability to get away from home and try to start something else because of the way the fishing industry was turning down. But I know what it is to be brought up in a fishing village.

I know what it is to do without food and do without clothes and do without boots, and I do not want to see that happen any more in the future of this Province, and unless we take seriously the situation at hand, it is going to happen. Now I will never believe and nobody will ever convince me - you can do what you like and say what you like and you can argue what you like, that Newfoundlanders and Canadians cannot catch the fish out there on the Grand Bank equal to anybody in this world, and I do not care what country they are from.

Given the opportunity and given the technology and given the equipment, they can catch fish with anybody. If a foreign country, Denmark, Korea, Spain, Portugal or Russia can come over here and catch the fish, then we can catch it too. If they have nets 500 fathoms deep, that can go down into 500 fathoms of water to catch fish, then we can get those nets and we can catch fish too. That is exactly my point in stopping foreign fishing inside the 200-mile limit now. Put Canadians first. Start off at square one. Yes, there are species of fish out there that other countries need, but put Canadians first. Give Canadians the first opportunity to avail of all the species of fish that they are able to process, catch and bring into this Province, give it to them first. If there is anything left over, give it then to the foreign countries if they want it. Still with a stipulation that when we give it to them so much of it should be processed on the shores of Canada. Not only Newfoundland and Labrador but eastern Canada.

Do you realize that last year on Christmas Day, when we were sitting down eating our turkeys, there were 112 factory freezer trawlers on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador? On the Nose of the Grand Banks? One hundred and twelve, they never leave, 365 days a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is right. They were fishing inside the 200-mile limit, some 356,000 tons this year. That is important. We can catch most of that fish. If we do not have the equipment then let's make it, let's buy it, let's bring over the boats. If they have it over there let's get it from them. We are bringing the oil technology down in Bull Arm. Why can't we bring over the fishing technology? Why can't we use some of our own initiative?

That is what I mean. I would not want to injure any plant in this Province, I would not want to injure one worker. But if we do not do something about it now then there is going to be no work in the future for any plant. That is where I am coming from, Mr. Speaker, that is the point I am trying to make. We are so laid back, so docile. Sometimes I wish I had the guts my great-grandfather had. Sometimes I wish it. My father told a story: One time there was a fisherman who came down and he was down on his stage and he was clearing away fish, and this gentleman said something to him he did not like, and he upped fist and he gave it to him. More of us need to do that with Ottawa. More of us need to take matters into our own hands.

I can tell this hon. House of Assembly that the united fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador - and I will speak for them because they have told me a thousand times to say it - they are not going to go away. I am going to give you another message. They are not going to allow Ottawa to continue in the future what they have done to date. And if it has to be, they will take matters in their own hands. You saw it happen in Fermeuse a while ago, you saw it down here in St. John's. One of the most unfortunate things about this Province - unless somebody gets hurt no one wants to do anything about it.

That is what scares me most about this resolution this afternoon. Anybody with half a brain could bring in that resolution. Could put it together. If he or she did not have the ability, someone else could do it. Anybody can stand up and spend ten or fifteen minutes speaking, blowing their horn and get their name in the press. That is not the issue. Where do we go from here? What do we do from here? Is this just lip service? It should not be. The future of this Province, the future of every part of this Province, depends on it.

Look what happened in Labrador this year. People went down to Labrador from this Island and people on the Labrador coast this year couldn't catch a fish to eat. Do not tell me that is climatic conditions. That is utter nonsense! The fact and reality is, it is coming to an end. I can tell you what is going to happen here this afternoon. That resolution will come in and it will go off on the books, and somebody will tell John Crosbie that they had a great time in the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador and they spoke seriously. But that is not going to solve anything, because he is not going to move on it. Until every man, woman and child in this Province and every young person, every student in Memorial University, comes out and starts being a bit militant and telling them, 'We are not taking anymore of it,' nothing is going to change.

I can go from here to eternity, I can go to every community on this Island and all it is going to do, probably, is help get me re-elected. It is no good getting re-elected in this Province if there is no money to run the Government with and get the infrastructure that we need in this Province and the education programmes we need. What I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, is what happens now. We have a great day today, and I probably may be quoted in the press. My hon. friend over there should be quoted on what he said about the education programme. He should be. But it is not good enough, it is absolutely not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, I am scared, I am really, really scared. I have three children. I have one daughter in university and I have a son who wants to become a fisherman. He is nineteen years old, he is out in Port de Grave and he spent his whole summer out of school working on a boat. He wants to become a fisherman. I have another son who will be going to university and wants to stay in Newfoundland. Well, I am scared there is going to be no future. Just think about it. If we go into 1992 facing another year like we have now, with the economy the way it is, with the fishery the way it is, God forbid what kind of a mess there is going to be. What kind of mess is the Minister of Finance going to have drawing up a budget with nothing coming in? You can put all the taxes and all the tax measures you like in place, if there is no economy you cannot collect taxes.

Now, I am going to tell you, 1992, from what I hear in talking to the people who know best - it is not the scientists and it is not the people with all the academic education, it is the fishermen themselves. If the people in authority were to sit down and begin to listen to those people who are able to give you the answers to it, we would be a lot better off. But we are in 1991, Mr. Speaker, and we have had this on our doorstep for the last forty or fifty years, and it is getting worse each and every year; and the only way, Mr. Speaker, is we have to take action. It is time to stop paying lip service, if somebody has to get hurt over it, and I do not mean physically, but probably through their career. It is like I said a while ago, I said it in the press, and I said it in this House of Assembly, and I said it when I was appointed Chairman of the group, I am putting my career at risk. I may lose everything that I have put into myself in becoming a politician, because the steps and the measures I have taken have caused me some dissention in my own ranks and in my own friends, and has caused me some dissention in the Province. Some of my own people in the district have said, "What are you doing? The only people you support are fishermen." - because they do not realize and understand the importance of what I am doing, but I am willing to take that risk. I am willing to stand up, Mr. Speaker, for what I believe, and I only wish that this summer, when I was down on the waterfront trying to get those organized and help those fishermen, I would have seen every MHA in this House of Assembly down there.

Unfortunately, that is probably a little bit unreal, but at least more than were down there, because that is what we need, and it is no good to go down there and just say, " Hello, how are you doing John? You are doing a great job." I have received so many pats on the back this summer from saying that I am doing a good job that I have had to use rubbing alcohol to rub out the pain. How silly. How silly. What is the good of patting me on the back? The problem is not going to go away, Mr. Speaker. The problem is going to be here tomorrow unless we take action, and we are asking now, as I just had a note come across from my hon. colleague, that we should get all of the councils in the Province involved, and all the fishermen's committee's in the Province involved. We plan on, over the winter months, to take up a Province-wide petition, 150,000 to 200,000 names, and we are going to do it. We are going to do it. We already have it put in place. We have already sent letters and the resolution out to 330 councils in this Province, and we are going to hand-deliver it to the House of Commons in Ottawa. And if we cannot convince the Prime Minister of this Country to get off his laurels, and get over and talk to those leaders of those countries - you say, what can we do? Why cannot the Prime Minister in this Country place as much emphasis on the fishery of this Country as he does the third world countries in starvation? Go over and talk to the leaders, and impress on them how important it is that they base the fishery on conservation measures and not wholly and solely on economics, because that is all they are doing out there, basing it on economics, and not on conservation measures and protection for the future. They raped and pillaged their own stocks until there was no more fish in their own waters, and now they are over doing it in ours, and we are saying continue to give them fish? No, take it all from them. How can you allow them to rob the fish outside, and rape the fish outside the 200 mile limit, and reward them by giving them quotas inside the 200 mile limit? You are rewarding them for raping and pillaging our stocks, and at the same time, you are arresting the Newfoundland vessels. Does that make any sense?

MR. FUREY: Terrorism, scaremongering.

MR. EFFORD: Terrorism, my hon. friend, the Minister of Development, says. Yes, they are called Pirates of the Sea, out there. They are actually called pirates. How many people have I heard say that when you go talk to people in Spain and Portugal, they laugh at us? They actually laugh at us. They can't believe that Newfoundlanders are not allowed to catch their own fish. They can't believe that we have no say in the management and control of our own fish. And they can't believe that we would lie down and take it the way we have.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, if it were happening in any other country in the world - if we went over there and raped the vineyards in Italy or the orange groves in Florida, or we went out on the wheat fields in Western Canada and destroyed their wheat crop, what would happen? If we went over to Russia and took what they had over there, the gunboats would be out quickly. You wouldn't last twenty-four seconds, let alone twenty-four hours, over there.

What do we do? - say, 'Lay back, let the foreigners fish, we need them.' We don't need them. We have educated expertise and courageous fishermen in this Province, and they have the ability to do it, given half a chance. The insults we have had to put up with! Just recently the federal minister announced $800 million for the farmers. Now what did we get for Newfoundland? - $27 million, total, for the winter and summer, for unemployment and benefits. I was talking to my friend over there this afternoon about the number of people who are in trouble in this Province, who do not have a dollar to see them over the winter.

Do you know the criteria from the Federal Government, set down in the Canada Manpower office? If you had five stamps this year and did not work in the fishery last year, you don't get a job. If you need twenty and you have eleven stamps you don't get a job. It is discrimination, fishermen treated like Third World citizens. 'Ah, send them down a few social welfare dollars, they'll be happy.' That is the attitude of Ottawa, and I, for one, in this Province, am not prepared to take it anymore. And every fisherperson I have spoken to in this Province is not willing to take it anymore.

If anybody doubts that these fishermen are not ready to stand up and fight for what is rightfully theirs, then they are sadly left, because they are ready. I am going to tell you now, and it is not a warning and not a threat, you are going to see it happen on the shores of this Province next year. You are not going to see people starving, losing their full lifetime's investments, business going bankrupt, people losing everything they have accomplished over the last twenty or twenty-five years. It is going to change. And I am asking every politician in this House of Assembly to be a leader and to get out there and do something about it, in an area which he or she can manage, do something before that happens. Because I, for one, do not want to see anybody get hurt over it. But it can't continue on the way it is.

Our young people are not going to put up with it. They can't go to University and put themselves $25,000 or $30,000 in debt, and have no future, to come out with no jobs. How many people do each and every one of us know in this Province in this day and age who are out there with degree after degree and can't find a job? - when we should have every man, woman and child in this Province working who wants to work, if our fishery were handled in the right and proper way.

But it is fine to sit down in our little corners and talk about it, pass a comment and pat one another on the back and say, 'Boy, that was a great resolution. That was a great job.' But the time, Mr. Speaker, is gone.

I implore the Premier of this Province and the Ministers of Fisheries, provincially and federally, to do whatever is within their power. If it means fighting or upsetting somebody or treading on someone's toes, then so be it, Mr. Speaker, let's tread on some toes, because we have been trod on long enough. It is time to stop, time to change, and it is time to stand up and protect the future of this Province.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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


MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, nay.

In my opinion, the 'ayes' have it.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to simply remind hon. members that tomorrow we are starting Bill 22, which is the Lands bill.

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