March 22, 1995              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLII  No. 4


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries on a situation I pursued with the minister yesterday. In light of the Prime Minister's public statements yesterday which indicated to the people of this Province and the country that it is quite alright now for a reduced number of European community vessels to fish on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks even though they are taking 75 per cent or so of juvenile fish, even though they flagrantly overfished the quota, even though Canada has agreed not to take its full limit of quota in the name of conservation, does the minister and the provincial government support those statements of the Prime Minister, that it is okay now for a half dozen or so Spanish vessels to be fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Banks?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must have missed something. I did not hear the Prime Minister make any such statement, that it was okay.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You missed something.

DR. HULAN: I sure did. That is all I can say so I will leave it at that for now.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: For the minister's information the Prime Minister said there were forty-nine before but now there is a reduced number there so it did not seem to be quite as serious, which indicates to me that the federal government now is going to tolerate six Spanish vessels overfishing in an area where they have already overfished. Overfishing, taking juvenile turbot is quite alright now, backed up by a Spanish military vessel.

I want to ask the minister if he supports that position and those statements by the Prime Minister of Canada?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister stated very clearly that he had raised the issue of the four, or six, vessels that are out on the Nose and Tail of the Banks right now with the President of the EU. He made it very clear that he had raised the issue with the Prime Minister of Spain and there was no indication that the Prime Minister was indicating any tolerance to fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Banks again. To answer the other question... where do I stand? Mr. Speaker, very, very, clearly, this will not be tolerated from our standpoint and that our recommendation to the federal government would be to proceed with the action that was taken earlier if it does continue.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The one thing that is perfectly clear now, as indicated by the federal minister and officials, is that the Spanish are fishing today with the presence of a military or an enforcement vessel in the area. I want to ask the minister directly: Has the minister demanded that the federal government arrest Spanish vessels that are continuing to overfish in that zone? Have you demanded of Mr. Tobin and the Prime Minister and the federal government that they arrest those Spanish vessels and get them out?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did hear out of my right ear that someone wondered if I had been talking or had made the telephone call to the federal minister. Indeed, at approximately 5:45.5 p.m. yesterday, I spoke with the federal minister at length on this issue and I made this Province's position very clear, that we will not tolerate; we, as a Province will not tolerate and would recommend that the actions that were taken earlier be carried out again if it is necessary, if these vessels continue to have activity on the Nose and Tail.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has indicated he talked to the federal minister yesterday. I want to ask the minister: Did the federal minister indicate how long they are going to tolerate this inflammatory overfishing by the Spaniards, how long are they going to tolerate this? We know they are fishing today. How long will they tolerate this flagrant overfishing before we see action from the federal government, arrest those vessels and get them off the banks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. HULAN: Mr. Speaker, I have never been applauded so much from the other side of the House as I have today and it is very nice.

I am not in a position, Mr. Speaker, to dictate, as the hon. member across the floor has asked if I had dictated to the federal minister to take action immediately. Let us also remember that the vessels moved in on the Nose of the Bank yesterday afternoon some time, and I am sure in the good decisions of the federal minister up to this point, would not want to, within minutes of their arrival move out with boats to arrest them. But I am also equally sure that the conditions on the Banks, if they continue, action will be taken in a reasonable length of time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I mean, is the minister forgetting that just a week or so ago the federal government arrested the Estai and brought it to port here, has he forgotten that? If it wasn't all right to overfish then, why is it all right to fish now? That's the question. You arrested the Estai, one vessel, but you allow six more to go out there today and flagrantly overfish the stock which is in jeopardy of extinction.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There is a name to be put on what is happening, I say to the minister, there is a name to be put on it. Now I want to ask the minister directly, did the federal minister give you any indication of how long the federal government is going to tolerate this flagrant overfishing, taking juvenile turbot and other species from the water? How long will they tolerate this before they move in and take the Spaniards out? Can you answer that?

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

DR. HULAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes there is a name for what is going on, it is called responsible action on Mr. Tobin's part and the federal government's.

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

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

Approximately a year ago with much fanfare, Mr. Speaker, the federal government announced, along with the provinces and municipalities around Canada, an infrastructure program whereby the projects would be cost-shared on a one-third basis to provide jobs for Canadians, much needed jobs, Mr. Speaker. There has been some concern in the last couple of weeks - some comments made by the federal people that that money will be spread over five years instead of three. Could the minister confirm and tell the House today whether this is true and whether that final agreement has been reached?

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

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely correct, the member is correct. The federal government now is negotiating with the provincial committee which is headed up by Mr. Baker, maybe Mr. Baker should be the one to answer the question. They are suggesting that rather than the three year period, can we possibly look at spreading the same amount of money over five years. That is going to cause some problems for us. Exactly to what extent we are not sure because of the holdback on the Corner Brook civic centre which will go into the third and possibly the fourth year. We are debating that now. Mr. Baker is going to speak to his counterpart in Ottawa in the next couple of days and hopefully within a week or less we will have a solution to this dilemma that we are in at the present time.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Could the minister tell the House, then, because some grave concerns have been expressed to me about - you just mentioned one, the Civic Centre in Corner Brook which is needed in the very near future in order to get the Canada Games. In fact, they got the Canada Games - in order for it to be held here. We have seen examples, for instance, with the Caboto Centre here in St. John's, where that is probably not going to be ready now for 1997 because of some snarls by both levels of government. Because there have been tenders let, for instance the Lagoon system in Deer Lake and the Civic Centre in Corner Brook are two major projects in the Province that have been let. Could the minister now explain to the House what kind of effect that will have on those projects?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, absolutely nothing. The contracts that have been let, the announcements that have been made prior to, I guess, now, and most of them, I think, were made by the end of last year, it will have absolutely no affect. The Civic Centre in Corner Brook will proceed on schedule. The money will probably take longer than two years to spend, so that is what I was referring to. It will probably take two or three years, maybe four, before we can actually finish the project in Corner Brook. It has nothing to do with that particular project or the project in the hon. member's district.

The contracts have been let and they will be honoured. They will continue. The problem I have is that I have about $20 million - or I should say we have about $20 million - left in the infrastructure program. If it means that we have to reduce and save some money for year four and year five, that would come out of that money. That would come out of what is left, which would basically mean, then, I wouldn't have the honour of being able to get up in the House and tell certain members on this side and on that side that there is no money in infrastructure for them this year.

Thank you.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley, a final supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, if there was approximately $150 million allocated last year on a one-third basis by the feds, province, and municipalities, and it is going to be spread out over five years instead of three, that would mean there is approximately $20 million a year less to be spent on construction in the Province - less to be spent each year - so I don't know where the minister comes with regard to the $20 million that is left. I can understand if $20 million is left in the total infrastructure program and not called yet. If that if the case, Mr. Speaker, could the minister now tell the House that if that particular money is not going to be spent in the three years, it is going to be spent over five, could he tell the House now if the Province will come in with a major capital works program this year for municipalities around the Province?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what a tempting question for me to go into a charade of how much money has been spent over the last ten years in capital works. What a tempting question!

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with any of the $100 million-plus that we've already committed. It will not touch that. What the Federal Government has basically said to us is: Can you save $5 million for the fifth year of the program? Save $5 million. That saving could easily come out of the $20 million, $20-odd million that I have left. But I'm going to tell you this, Mr. Speaker - Mr. Baker is a great negotiator. I don't think for one minute that at the end of the day -

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. REID: The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is a great negotiator. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day that Newfoundland is going to have any trouble with our cousins in Ottawa when it comes to splitting up the few miserable dollars - and that is what I can call them - that we have left to spend in infrastructure funding.

I can assure you this - that with over $100 million gone into the infrastructure program directly financed by this government, for the $100 million that we've put in so far, I doubt very much if this government or this Province can afford to put any more money into any kind of a program this year, including a capital works program.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, if I may, that Mr. Baker will not have problems with his cousins in Ottawa, it's his brother in Ottawa he will have trouble with!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. There has been a lot of talk around this Province about the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and we are glad to see that the privatization bill has finally been taken away from the Order Paper. Unfortunately, it appears the issue is not yet over. Many people have questions regarding the next phase of life with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The Premier has expressed a term, `commercialization', that has caused some concern. I would like to ask the minister if he could explain exactly what is meant and what is involved in the commercialization of Newfoundland Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, personally, I don't use the word. We want Hydro to be the most efficient electrical utility that it can be for this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: - and we want it to do that with the board of directors it has in place, the management it has in place, and it can do that. There is nothing further to say on the issue.

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

MR. TOBIN: If the minister doesn't like the word `commercialization', I can assure him that the Premier doesn't mind using it.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister, as it relates to making it as effective and commercialized as he possibly can, has the minister or the Premier consulted with the union or the management of Newfoundland Hydro about exactly what this restructuring is and how many jobs will be lost?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have had regular meetings, occasional meetings with the union representing Hydro, the IBEW over time and trying to answer their questions about it. We have not taken any decision on the matter, frankly, as to what step we would take next. We have not taken any decision at all. I am aware that Hydro itself, the Hydro management and Hydro board have taken some staffing action recently that was not directed by government and not asked for by government. It is a matter that the board of directors took on its own.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Like the $7 million that has already been spent trying to privatize it. I guess you are trying to say now that that was all taken on its own by the board of directors as well.

Mr. Speaker, does the minister know it has already been announced that fifty jobs will be lost this year? We also understand that the union was not actually consulted, nor was management consulted except recently when they were called into a meeting - the union back a little while ago alone and just recently both of them were called in. So don't just say that it was all done by the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro when the Premier himself, and probably you, have been involved in it. Can the minister confirm, Mr. Speaker, or will he deny that fifty jobs have been cut? Can he explain exactly what the process was to choose which jobs would be eliminated? Are these jobs part of the nutrient program, an early retirement program or did the employees have no choice at all? I can say to the minister, I know the positions that are going to be eliminated.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, Hydro has been under restraint for several years like government has been under restraint for several years. In particular, for the last couple of years they have had a policy in place that if someone left the organization, for the first six months, no matter how essential that position was, they did not refill it. They did not refill it and any time that they did refill a position, it was done on a temporary basis in the last couple of years. They have now changed that policy because they have looked at the organization - because they had an opportunity to look at the organization from the top down.

In December, the president of CF(L)Co and the senior vice-president of Hydro took retirement. At that time, Hydro management and Hydro board looked at the situation and said, `It is an appropriate time for us to look at some functional rearrangements for the executive members of Hydro and the management of Hydro.' At that time, as they reviewed it, they said, Let's set it up so that we have a VP in charge of production, a VP in charge of transmission and distribution, etcetera, and let's look down through the organization to see what effect this might have on the organization and see what positions are essential and otherwise.' In doing this review, the senior management of Hydro have identified about forty positions that they consider to be non-essential. There are more positions than that in Hydro that are vacant. Of these non-essential positions, they are going to cancel them now and only eighteen of these positions had people in them and all on a temporary basis, eighteen people in them on a temporary basis. So they have now given notice to these people that on May 31, the temporary positions end. There are a number of - eight, I think, permanent people in the non-essential positions and these people are being told: We are not going to lay you off, we are going to move you into vacant positions in Hydro that are essential. That is what they are doing, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: May I have another question, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, members have three questions. I will allow the member another question.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister, first of all, didn't know anything about it - it was all done by Hydro, and now he (inaudible) it is temporary and all that. The minister was trying to hide something when he got into that game. Let me say to the minister that there are permanent people being laid off. The temporary people have been there for years. And the permanent positions have not been filled because the Premier, since he became Premier of this Province, intended to privatize Hydro and he would not fill permanent positions, he put them in temporary. There are people there as temporary who have been working for years with Hydro, I say to the minister.

Now, with all that bologna he got on with about the reorganization, the Vice-President, and everything else, let me ask the minister what that has to do with the jobs that are going to be lost in Roddickton, Cartwright, Rigolet, Hopedale, St. John's, Whitbourne, Bishop's Falls, St. Alban's, McCallum, Stephenville, and St. Anthony? What does that have to do with the jobs in those plants and those power outlets throughout the Province, the fact that there is a new Vice-President?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I was fully briefed by Hydro on Monday morning when they were taking their actions on this, fully briefed on it and given the positions, etc. What they have said is they are going to look for fifty non-essential positions in the next year. They now have forty that they consider to be non-essential, vacant positions at this time. These are not filled by permanent people and they are cancelling the jobs that are not filled by permanent people. If they don't need them they shouldn't have them filled, if they can run very efficiently without them.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today is to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. In 1988, Marine Atlantic was given operation of the St. John's dry dock and now that Marine Atlantic is experiencing losses, the Federal Government is putting strains on the federal Crown corporation to sell off the asset known as the St. John's dry dock to private industry. The union has been trying to find out exactly what is going on and has been unable to get a response, or even a meeting with the federal Minister of Transport. Perhaps the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will be able to shed some light on exactly what has been proposed. I now ask the minister: Has he been talking to his federal counterpart on the plans to privatize the dry dock, and can the minister tell this House what plans have been made?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Service and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Speaker, we have been told a number of months ago, the St. John's dry dock was stopped by the federal Crown corporation from bidding on an international project. Probably it was just a ruse or an way to put another nail in the coffin of the St. John's dry dock and the Newfoundlanders that it employs. There is a fear that the dry dock will be sold off to an offshore supply company, an oil company, that could be using the dock for a limited time, as long as the oil industry is viable. We wonder what will become of the dry dock and its employees when the offshore business is finished?

Mr. Minister, do you know the terms of reference, or the mandate to be fulfilled by the Federal Government with regard to this privatization, and would he please share with us what that mandate is?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in the federal Minister of Transport and in his terms of reference he has set forth in the privatization of the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I cannot hear the hon. minister.

MR. EFFORD: They are kind of testy over there today, no chicken today, hey?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: I hear, Mr. Speaker, that they have changed from chicken to submarines.

I have every confidence in the federal Minister of Transport in his proposed privatization of Newfoundland Dockyard, that he will do for the best interest of the Newfoundland Dockyard, the future of the Newfoundland Dockyard, and its people. I will not argue against the privatization of anything that private industry could do that government is now involved in. Surely the members opposite wouldn't argue that case either.

What the hon. member is talking about is pure rumour. He is acting on rumour, on assumption, of what may or may not happen. Let's wait and see. Privatization is where they should be going. Anything that privatization can operate, governments should not be involved in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. EFFORD: Probably, probably, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: I was led to believe one time, Mr. Speaker, that the minister had an open mind, but what I've discovered since I came in here is that it is only a vacuum. If the dry-dock is privatized and does go for the purposes of offshore oil facilities, a possible end, could result, would be the closure of the St. John's dry-dock and an eventual shifting of that business to other cities, like Halifax or Saint John, New Brunswick. The only one to be happy is the Irving group of companies that are situated up in Canada. Minister, do you have any concerns with regards to the future of the dry-dock, and how are these concerns being addressed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me inform the hon. member very clearly, and this is the only answer, because it doesn't deserve any more than this: Newfoundland is a part of Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A couple of days ago I rose here in the House of Assembly and I asked the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations if he would be kind enough to name the special committee of Cabinet that was constructed in order to look at the criteria that were brought forward in the emergency response program some weeks ago. The minister replied that there was no special committee of Cabinet. He said it was done by the whole Cabinet in general. I would like to ask the minister if he still stands by those words, please.

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

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I said to the hon. member was it was a Cabinet decision, and I will stand by that statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister said, and I think it can be found in Hansard, that there was no special committee of Cabinet. I have a press release here put out by the minister - I don't know if it was a typing error, or if the minister was misquoted, or if the minister misled the House. It was put out on February 2, Newfoundland Information Services. It says: Tom Murphy, Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, advises the special Cabinet committee appointed to look at the provincial employment creation program met late yesterday with the Minister of Finance, Winston Baker.

I would like to ask the minister once again, who was this special committee of Cabinet? Who is on it?

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

MR. MURPHY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if the hon. member is aware -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to take that, Murphy?

MR. MURPHY: I don't know. Somebody said one time that an empty barrel makes the most noise, I say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

What I said was, as the hon. member may or may not know, that at times certain situations require a Cabinet committee to look in more detail into a specific problem. At the end of the day Cabinet decides, and I stand by that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who were they?

MR. MURPHY: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was on the committee?

MR. MURPHY: The fourteen members of Cabinet and the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the truth! (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) misled the House.

MR. ROBERTS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Bonavista -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to a point of order?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman for Bonavista South has just accused my colleague, the Member for St. John's South, of misleading the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I've just reviewed the Hansard, and the member very clearly, the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is in his bullying, petulant mood today, but it won't stop us.

The hon. minister made it very clear there was a Cabinet committee. I would call upon the hon. gentleman for Bonavista South to withdraw the allegation he just made, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the problem here is that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations publicly told the people of this Province that indeed there was a special Cabinet committee appointed. He announced they met with the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. The Member for Bonavista South yesterday asked the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to name the ministers that were on it, that made up the Cabinet committee. The minister refused to do it and indeed said it was the whole Cabinet; he did refuse and said there was not a special Cabinet committee. We now have a press release from the government verifying the point, so why doesn't the minister just stand in his place and tell us the ministers who were on the Cabinet committee and that would resolve it? Why are the ministers who were on the committee so ashamed to be a part of the process, I ask the Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: I will look into the matter and make a ruling later.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. House Leader would read right down through Hansard and not only pick part of it out, he would find that the minister did say that there was no special committee of Cabinet, and I ask the minister again, Mr. Speaker, to name the people there. Is it because he is ashamed of the people who were part of that process, is he ashamed because those people, Mr. Speaker, give a kick in the teeth to the poor, the unemployed, in trying to make them not be responsible and respond to this program so that they will have to continue on the welfare rolls of this Province? Stand up and let people know who they were.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to the hon. member that this government provided this year, in very difficult times, $5 million as a bridging for Newfoundlanders who were unfortunate enough not to have - I ask hon. members in the House -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: Let me say to the hon. member, it was this government and this Cabinet action that brought about 2,700 positions in this Province; it is this government that did it and this government will continue to address it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Orders of the Day

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) John the Baptist (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You do it quite often, I say to the minister. You have done it too often.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Motion 4.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And Pontius Pilate and all the others - Judas, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist.

MR. SPEAKER: If I may interrupt, I offer my apologies. I should say that after recognizing the hon. member I realized I had forgotten to welcome some distinguished visitors to the House of Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No, I have stopped the time. In fact, he only had five seconds.

I would like, on behalf of hon. members, to welcome to the Speaker's gallery the Honourable Ambassador of the Netherlands to Canada, His Excellency Johannes Fietelaars, together with his wife, Leonie, and Mr. Jan Gerrit van Dam, who is the Consul General from Montreal for the Netherlands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it appears we are about to start the Private Members' business for the day and I understand, from seeing a note sent around by the Member for Pleasantville, that it appears there was a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation of the amendment to the Government House Leader's motion on Private Members' Day.

As I understood the Member for Pleasantville, he was proposing that all speeches be limited to fifteen minutes for Private Members' Day, and I understand that what the Speaker may have put, after reading Hansard, was that that exclude the first and last speaker. I don't believe that is what the Member for Pleasantville proposed, and I don't think that was what the Leader of the Opposition was referring to because he said he thought that all speeches, not only for Private Members' Day but for every day, should be limited to fifteen minutes. So we were all obviously talking about fifteen minute speeches for Private Members' Day, first, middle and last, but it appears - and I didn't hear this when Your Honour was putting it to the House, and I don't think anybody else heard it that way - but it appears that Your Honour put the motion to the House not in the wording proposed by the Member for Pleasantville and not in the wording as the House understood it. So I wonder if it is possible for Your Honour to put the motion once again in the means and the manner that the Member for Pleasantville put it so that we can consider that and perhaps ensure there be no confusion about what is going to happen when the Opposition House Leader gets up to speak on this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: If I may say, and I don't need to hear further on the point of order, I put the motion that it would only be the speakers other than the mover and seconder - the mover, rather - when he spoke first and also finished debate. I am satisfied in my mind that I was very clear, and the record will show that was the motion put. That was on an amendment to the resolution.

I saw the note from the hon. member and mentioned to him that if he felt there was some confusion and wished to change it, it was certainly open to him to make a further amendment, and I think he consulted and chose not to do so. So the procedure for today is that the mover would have twenty minutes to open and to close, unless someone should amend it prior to it, but I certainly cannot do it unilaterally. We would need a motion from the floor to do so. In the absence of that, I think we will proceed with the hon. member having twenty minutes.

I take it there are no motions, and I recognize the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure today in moving the Private Members' resolution for debate today, considering the very serious situation off our shores on the Nose and Tail of the Banks, a situation which took our full attention on Monday in a motion moved by the Premier, a motion which we unanimously supported, all parties supported in this House, because of the very serious situation, the very serious implications, for Newfoundland and Labrador and for Atlantic Canada, so it gives me great pleasure today to move and debate the following resolution, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS three years ago, on March 13, 1992, this hon. House unanimously approved a resolution calling on Canada to extend management jurisdiction to the limits of the continental shelf; and

WHEREAS NAFO is still utterly unable to stop international overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and in the Flemish Cap despite clear evidence that many fish stocks are being fished to extinction;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House once again call on the Government of Canada to extend management jurisdiction over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

It is a very serious resolution, Mr. Speaker, I say to all hon. members, it is a very serious situation. It has attracted the attention of not only Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Canadians but it has attracted the attention of the world, the situation that has developed on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks over the last few weeks particularly but, for the last number of years, it is a situation that has attracted, certainly, the extreme attention of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Atlantic Canadians and as I said three years ago, when I introduced an emergency resolution which was supported unanimously by all members of the House, that this matter has evolved over years.

First of all, we had a 3-mile zone then we had a 12-mile zone, 12-mile limit and then in 1977, we accomplished what we thought was utopia when it came to management of our fish resources; in 1977 when we accomplished and obtained control up to 200 miles, a 200-mile limit. The Member for Twillingate, as I recollect, certainly played a part in that, was involved in the process from the Ottawa scene and we were very delighted at that particular time. We were quite relieved, we thought it was going to take care of all our problems when it came to our fish stocks. We thought it was going to stop overfishing. We thought it would ensure the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada I say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He was in Opposition when we got the 200-mile limit. Well if the Member for Windsor - Buchans thinks that is significant, I will certainly recognize it but what I was doing, was paying tribute to an individual who certainly played a part in Canada achieving that particular goal, that was my point -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - not whether he was in opposition or government, that was not the point; I said he played a part in it and I wanted to recognize him for that, as did many other people -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I look forward to the member's participation in the debate later on today, I say to him. But, Mr. Speaker, as we know now, that did not completely take care of our problem. Two hundred miles for Canada was not quite enough because our continental shelf extends beyond 200 miles, and as I said back three years ago, the minority of coastal states, a 200-mile limit completely takes in their continental shelf so it took care of their problems, it took care of their concerns but for us it didn't, and I believe the number is that there are only five coastal states where their continental shelves extend beyond 200 miles and of course Canada is one of those.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in the world?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is what I understand. Five in the world of which Canada is one; so that is part of the problem. We are certainly in the minority when it comes to continental shelves and coastal states controlling continental shelves at by far the majority, 200 miles take care of their problems and their concerns so that is certainly a contributor to the problem but, Mr. Speaker, personally, I don't think any other action by the Government of Canada is going to address the very serious situation that is taking place on the Grand Banks today.

We have talked diplomacy until we are blue in the face. We have negotiated until we are blue in the face but the European Community still will not recognize the gravity of the situation with our fish stocks. They just refuse to recognize the serious situation and it is very difficult to understand when their fishing industry and their people are going through the same downturn, the same increased unemployment levels, the same decreased earnings, fish plants shut down, trawlers harvesting less fish, that they still refuse to recognize the very serious situation with our fish stocks. They flatly refuse to recognize it, and I think if there is one thing that will highlight that, is when you think about today, today, on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks there are Spanish vessels that are still fishing and catching 75 per cent to 80 per cent of juvenile fish, of fish stocks that are very seriously depleted.

MR. WOODFORD: It was wrong two weeks ago, it is wrong now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: As my colleague says, it was wrong two weeks ago, it is wrong now. When they arrested the Estai and brought it into St. John's. How can it be so wrong two weeks ago, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, when his federal counterpart and the Prime Minister and the federal government so rightly arrested that vessel and brought it to St. John's that today we have six vessels flagrantly overfishing? The federal government knows it, it is monitoring it. They are thumbing their noses not only at NAFO, but at the recent federal legislation that the minister piloted through the House of Commons, which the Member for Eagle River applauded on Monday, and which we applaud, and did applaud. But when you have the European Community thumbing its nose at that very legislation, what does that really say about the situation, I say to the Minister of Environment.

What does it really say about what is happening with the Prime Minister of this country and the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans? What does it really say about it all? I am not optimistic today - I have to say that I'm disappointed to say it - but I'm not optimistic that we will negotiate a resolve to this. Because how can we hope for a negotiated settlement when we have the Spanish vessels out there fishing again today when those sensitive negotiations are supposed to be ongoing? Are they out there, Mr. Speaker, today fishing because they think it is going to improve the negotiating climate? Are they out there today fishing because they think it is going to help the process, to resolve it?

Think about it. Why are they there today? Are they there because they want a negotiated settlement? Certainly not. If you were interested in negotiating a resolve to this very serious situation, you certainly wouldn't send your vessels out to overfish in an area that you've already overfished. So this action that Spain has taken in the last couple of days in my view is very inflammatory. They are sending a very strong message to the Prime Minister and the government of this country. In their own way they are telling the federal government really where to go, I say to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture. They are really telling the Prime Minister of this country, his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the entire federal government, and this country, really where to go on this issue.

The federal government has a choice. I'm very surprised, I say to the minister, and to other members in this House, that once the Department of Fisheries and Oceans realized that they had their nets in the water that they did not act. They did not act immediately once the nets went into water, which now I understand that they have verified. How could you a week or ten days ago arrest a vessel and bring it into St. John's, and today you ignore six vessels doing exactly the same thing? How can you do that? How can you justify that to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and to Canadians, I ask. How can you justify that to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who today are unemployed because of the depletion of our fish stocks, who are unemployed because our cod stocks have been depleted, that are unemployed because our flounder and flatfish stocks are depleted? That are becoming further unemployed, if that is possible, because our turbot stocks are at the state of decimation. Contributed very largely by the same people who are out there overfishing today, flagrantly overfishing, violating Canadian legislation, violating NAFO quotas. Even though the Government of Canada in its wisdom has agreed not to catch the full Canadian quota of turbot in the name of conservation.

A very bitter pill to swallow, as I said on Monday. A very bitter pill for me to swallow, to know that Atlantic Canadian fishermen, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, will catch less turbot this year and have less earnings this year because the European Community overfished. A very bitter pill to swallow, that fish plant workers, processors, will have less earnings this year because the European Community overfished. We, in the name of conservation, and with our good common sense, which I support, as bitter as it is, will not catch all of our quota because those people broke the rules. Our people are suffering because those people broke the rules. We will not catch all of our quota because of what they did.

Then to know today that those very same people who've flagrantly overfished, who are catching 75 per cent to 80 per cent of juvenile fish in their net liners, are back there today with their nets in the water. We can negotiate forever I say to members opposite. I would prefer a negotiated settlement. I wish that Spain, Portugal and the other countries would come to their senses but having been there four or five years ago and sitting down face to face in Brussels, Lisbon and Madrid with the industry people and talking this situation to them face to face, explaining to them what we were doing here, the pain we were suffering, the conservation measures that we had introduced where we had put on a moratorium on Northern Cod, put our plants out of business, laid off our people but they still look at you as if there is no problem even though their own industry is going through the same decline.

Now how can you be reasonable with people like that, I say to members opposite, to all members of the House? What do you have to do to impress upon them the gravity of the situation when their own people are suffering as a consequence and still today their vessels overfish? There is only way to deal with it, that Canada, as the coastal state nearest to the resource and nearest to the problem, has to take control. Extend jurisdiction to take in the Nose and Tail of the Banks and the entire Continental Shelf. There is no other resolve and I am convinced as I stand here today that the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, if not the vast majority of members opposite, the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want Canada to control that zone. They want the Spaniards and the Portuguese out. They will not refuse, I say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans. They will not flatly refuse to have them back when the stocks regenerate. We know they have traditionally fished, I am not ignoring that fact, they have been 400 or 500 years coming there to fish.

MR. SIMMS: Not turbot.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not turbot. They have only fished turbot since 1991, the Premier told us the other day. I looked at the charts after he spoke when I was over there speaking to him about a matter. In 1991 they first started to catch turbot and up it's gone. You should see the catch rates now. You should see the catch rates of turbot now by the European community when at the same time ours has gone down. Our catch rates have decreased just as significantly as theirs have increased and yet they are quite content to go out there today and scrape up what is left of that juvenile fish. When you think about 15 per cent of mature fish, how can there be a future to the stock if that is all that is left? Fifteen percent of mature fish with the potential to spawn and they still want to come over today, put their nets in the water and catch 80 per cent of juvenile fish.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are doing it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I know they are doing it.

So how do you deal reasonably, as much as Canada wants to, if there was ever a country in the world that attempted to be reasonable on the world scene to negotiate, to be the conciliator -

MR. SIMMS: It's us.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It's Canada and there are times you have to wonder if we really have it over the period of time - at times been a little too nice. We are still probably trying to be a little too nice today. Yes, we are being nice to the detriment of our own people. Now I really don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is too much going on in negotiations between the two countries. I am not convinced that very much has been achieved since they started a week or so ago to try and address this issue. I am not a believer that there has been very much materialized except that the European Community has told the Canadian negotiators, the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada really where to go on this issue. I just pray to God, Mr. Speaker, that they don't roll over and cave in on the issue. I hope they don't.

We all applauded their efforts of a week or ten days ago. I applauded their efforts. I applauded the strong action taken by the federal minister and the Prime Minister and I will applaud them again if they take more strong action which they need to do right now. Don't wait while they are out there today pulling in tons of juvenile fish aboard of those Spanish boats again. What are we going to wait for, to make their trip viable? Is that what we are waiting for, before we send them back home? Are we waiting for those vessels to fill up their holds with juvenile fish before they head back home so they pay for their fuel, they pay their crews and their boat expenses? We cannot afford for another juvenile turbot to be taken out of the waters out there. We cannot afford for another turbot to be taken out of the waters, and that is by Canadian domestic vessels as well as foreigners, and we had better stop it, and the only way we are going to stop them is to get them out of the zone. That is very obvious, isn't it? We will talk until we are blue in the face; we will talk until there is no more turbot out there. There will not even be 15 per cent mature fish there. That is what we are going to do; we are going to negotiate the 15 per cent of mature fish away so that there is no future for the turbot stocks on the Grand Banks.

I am very, very dubious if we are ever going to see a return of the cod stocks. For a long while I was optimistic and said: Oh, yes, it will come back; but with the scientific data that we are now receiving, it is getting very frightening. They just can't find any cod. The flatfish stocks are decimated, and now we are standing by and watching another stock being depleted - severely depleted - to the point of extinction. Yet, people say to us: Now, let's be nice and let's negotiate, and negotiate, and negotiate, and while we are doing it the people we are negotiating with are thumbing their noses at our federal government, thumbing their noses at our unemployed people, at our unemployed processors, and still continue to take that fish.

I think there is only one resolve to it. There is only one way we can resolve it, and that is to take control, extend jurisdiction over the entire Continental Shelf. Anything less is not going to work, I say to members opposite. As much as I would like to see it negotiated and settled, it will not work.

MR. SIMMS: They know.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, deep down within their own souls they know as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I told John Crosbie that.

MR. SIMMS: You told Mulroney, too.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I told Brian Mulroney that. I told Brian Mulroney in his office that he had better have a plan to go out there and remove them from the banks, because all of his diplomatic efforts were not going to succeed, I say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans, and I am sorry to say today that I was right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Diplomacy - I support diplomacy. I like diplomacy; it's the way to go, but you can be so diplomatic until there is nothing to negotiate, there is nothing to talk about, and that is what worries me out there on the Grand Banks. We are soon not going to have anything to sit down and talk and negotiate about, because it is going to be completely wiped out. It is the most serious situation we have ever faced in this Province, and we had better get the European Community out of there, and fast. That is why today I asked the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture what indication he has had from the federal government about this situation. How long are they going to sit back and watch the Spaniards overfish? How long are they going to tolerate the nets in the water? Seriously - and for anyone to think that the Government of Spain doesn't know what is going on when they have a military boat out there with them, who sent that out there? The fishing industry in Spain didn't send it, did they? The ship owners don't own military vessels, do they? The Government of Spain is sponsoring and supporting the vessel that is out there, I say to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And the sooner the Prime Minister realizes that, the better. What is he waiting for a call back from the Prime Minister for, I say? So he can tell him: I sent the vessel over with them. How smart do you have to be to realize that it is the Government of Spain that has that vessel out there, not the Spanish fishing industry. They don't own any military vessels. They are supporting the efforts of those Spanish vessels that are overfishing. Why else would they have it out there? They haven't got it out there to take them back home, or they wouldn't have been over here in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, I just hope that all hon. members realize how serious this situation is, and they realize just what is happening on the Nose and Tail of the Banks today, that they realize what is happening with the international dialogue and negotiations that are supposedly taking place. I just hope my worst fears aren't realized, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Spaniards are out of there before dark tonight, and that we do get this matter resolved for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Canadians, Spaniards and Portuguese, because we have a world food resource that we have to conserve and protect, and if we don't act soon there isn't going to be anything left of it.

I will conclude my remarks later on today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to be a part of this debate, and also interesting, I would say, in light of the fluid situation as it is now presented to us with respect to the ship that is allegedly fishing on the Grand Banks, according to DFO officials there are a number of ships out there. The latest reports I heard was that there was one NAFO patrol vessel, a Spanish vessel that was an armed vessel, and a third fishing vessel. That is the report I heard as late as last evening on this. There may have been some changes yet that I have been unaware of, but it is very interesting to hear the hon. Opposition House Leader speak of the difficult situation that we are now placed in, and that we should continue our non-diplomatic efforts, and continue our efforts in seizing these vessels, and that is one way of going about it. I think Canada took a stand recently and we will be seeking, I would suspect, next week at the United Nations conference on straddling stocks, we would be seeking changes to the management regime that would allow Canada, on behalf of NAFO, to undertake efforts to manage this stock on NAFO's behalf, and if that is gained for the country, for mankind, then we will be much better off for everyone's sake at the time.

In the interest of the diplomatic efforts that have currently been undertaken, in the interest of preventing those who oppose us on this issue, those nations that oppose us, from having the stick to beat us over the head with, so to speak, to prevent them from having an issue with which to say that Canada is only interested in its own management of the resources off our coast, these fish resources, and in the interest of making certain that we do not inflame the situation to a point, we have already taken a very giant step, a very strong step forward, that the hon. members opposite were not, of course, as interested in pushing the government at the time.

The hon. Opposition House Leader does state that he told the Prime Minister back when they were in government that they should do this. He told the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that they should do this, but again there was no public outcry, and what we see here today is the bandwagon effect, I could say. When the Opposition has decided, despite the efforts of trying to reach a diplomatic solution to this, now that we have taken strong action, the Opposition is intent on making sure that they get out in front of the parade should there be one.

They want to make sure that this issue is made as difficult for those of us who are trying to accomplish something in this situation, and in so doing their whole intent in this is to try to gain politically from the difficulty of the negotiations that will be undertaken. It is so obvious to see that they are in their position on this issue they are intent on bringing it forward in such a way as to say that the country of Canada, as they would put it, is now holding back, that there is but one way to accomplish this task.

Now, if there were but one way to accomplish this task the Opposition's methods of the past and the Progressive Conservative government of the past, obviously did not have the solution. The Government of Canada, under the stewardship of the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Fisheries, have taken a certain course of action, and I say to the Opposition that it is in their best interest and the best interest of the people of this Province that we support them in this initiative and allow the Prime Minister of the county, and allow the Minister of Fisheries to have a certain amount of latitude in trying to make this decision, and in trying to negotiate for us all the best overall resolution to the problem.

The hon. member is putting it forward in such a way so as to allow people to think that the government is now backing off, which is not the case.

The government is in the middle of negotiations. As you know and as you have supported in the past, diplomacy is a difficult situation, especially when Canada has taken a certain amount of effort up to this point, which is difficult. It is a matter where we've gone forward and seized a ship in the past, there a couple of weeks ago. We've seized this ship in light of our efforts to try to bring the issue to the forefront. I would suggest at this time, Mr. Speaker, that I would move an amendment, so I could put forward the rationale for the amendment.

I would like to move an amendment to the resolution put forward by the hon. Member for Grand Bank. This amendment is seconded by the Member for Eagle River. What we would put forward is that the resolution be amended by deleting immediately following the words "Grand Banks" in the second stanza, the words "and in the Flemish Cap," and in the final stanza that the resolution be amended by deleting immediately following the word "House," the words "once again," and all words following "Government of Canada" in the last stanza of the resolution, and substituting immediately therefore the following: to exercise for conservation purposes only custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of this amendment for you. The rationale of course for this is for us to go beyond -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry, I don't know if Your Honour has seen a copy of the amendment, the amended resolution or not. I'm just wondering if the - you can't alter the intent of the resolution. I'm wondering if Your Honour would want to reflect on that and just make sure that what the government is doing here, that it is not altering the intent of the resolution as I moved.

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

MR. ROBERTS: The amendment is intended to alter the thrust of the resolution. That is a perfectly appropriate and proper rationale for an amendment. Mr. Speaker, it puts before the House an alternate proposition which the House can accept or reject as it so wishes. To me that is the foundation for any amendment before the House. I could refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, but I suggest that is not really necessary.

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

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is just going to recess briefly to consult with -

MR. SIMMS: That is the only appeal I was going to make. That may be what the -

MR. SPEAKER: - the Table Officers on the....

MR. SIMMS: - House Leader on the Government side says in terms of his opinion.

MR. SPEAKER: To see if the -

MR. SIMMS: And the House Leader's opinion here might be different. So maybe if Your Honour was going to look at this, fine.

MR. SPEAKER: We will just recess briefly to see if the amendment is in order.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, just if I could, at this point, just to be able to read the motion as amended. If that would be helpful?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. RAMSAY: No. Okay.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair has a copy of the amendment as presented by the hon. member, so we will take it from there.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order raised by the hon. the Member for Grand Bank on the amendment to the resolution, the Chair has looked at the amendment that has been made by the hon. the Member for LaPoile and determined that the amendment is in order.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Speaker, just to try to put it in some perspective, the reason for the amendment, to consider the situation where foreign countries are now looking for some reason to have Canada look like the villain, to have our country be seen as the villain - of course, if we were to allow this to pass in its current form, the inclusion of the Flemish Cap, as one particular thing that would be a point in contention along with the bringing to the floor of the House here today, the wording of the final stanza would be inflammatory in the current stage of negotiations. So it is very important that we put it forward in such a way to allow the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to have some latitude in their negotiations and to hope that we are able to make some headway at the United Nations Conference on straddling fish stocks next week. So, Mr. Speaker, we put forward this amendment for that reason, not to try to change the intent in any way. It is entirely to make it more acceptable to the government at this stage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made reference to the intent of the resolution that we put there today as being inflammatory. I wonder what is more inflammatory than the Spaniards being back today fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible) firing shots across the bow.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Government of Canada went out there and - I support what they did and I wish they would do it again - fired shots across the bow of a Spanish trawler to get her to heave to, and so they should, Mr. Speaker, and I commend them for doing it. And today, a resolution in this Legislature calling to extend jurisdiction over the Continental Shelf, the Nose and Tail of the Banks and the Flemish Cap is going to blow negotiations apart in Brussels? Mr. Speaker, I don't share that view. My position, I say to the Premier, on this, is that if we were to pass the resolution that was put forth today by the Member for Grand Bank it would give strength to Mr. Tobin and the Prime Minister of the country in making the argument as to why they have to do it for Canada - here is a coastal province.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) Mr. Tobin (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: You should have thought about that when they fired the shots across the bow.

PREMIER WELLS: We don't have to cut the legs out from under them. You should be supporting them (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what we are doing here.

MR. TOBIN: I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of trying to cut the legs from under Mr. Tobin or the Prime Minister of this country. I support the actions today of the Prime Minister of this country and the Minister of Fisheries. I commend them, Mr. Speaker, for their action in bringing that trawler in and putting a halt to the flagrant overfishing by the Spaniards and the destruction of the turbot off the coast of this Province.

PREMIER WELLS: Then, agree with the resolution (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: But, Premier, the resolution today calls for jurisdiction, to extend control to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. Now, that is what the resolution called for.

PREMIER WELLS: Would the hon. member yield for just a moment?

MR. TOBIN: Sure.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The concern, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple, and I don't question for a moment the good intentions of the hon. members opposite in putting forward their resolution as it is, but Canada is treading a very, very fine line in international law, trying to maintain adequate support with as many nations as possible in the world for what it is doing. Many of them are saying, `Canada you are going outside international law. You're starting a war, you fired shots.' There is an argument in that direction. Canada is saying, `No, it is necessary for conservation purposes that we do that,' and that's our argument, and we are getting a lot of support around the world for that because we are doing it for conservation purposes.

The concern that I have and that Mr. Tobin has - and I have talked to him about it in the last few days - the concern that we have is that, if this House now passes a resolution that says: `extend jurisdiction', the European Community and everybody else who is of a mind to attack Canada on it, will say: See, we told you so. Canada in not interested in conservation, this is a jurisdiction and a resources grab. That's what Canada wants to do, get all this for itself, so don't let Canada fool you.

Now, that is the concern that we have and that would undermine the effort that Canada is trying to make and will make, starting again on Monday at the United Nations, the effort that we are trying to make to gather support from the maximum possible number of nations around the world. That's the basis of the concern. Now, I don't for a moment question the sincerity or genuine nature of the intention of the hon. members opposite, I just say to you that technically it is very, very harmful to Canada's world-wide cause at this moment.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, nor do I question what the Premier is saying, but I have to say to the Premier that, three years ago in this House that you were part - I would assume you were part of it because it was an unanimous resolution passed to the same effect.

You gave us a great lesson here the other day on international law and I listened very attentively as to how international laws developed and how they are formed; you went back to how they brought the slaves out of South Africa and these places. And that is where that law came from and I think the same thing happens, but I have difficulty accepting the fact that the Government of Canada could go out there two weeks ago and fire shots across the bow to make the Spanish trawler heave to, when at the same time, a resolution that we passed in this Legislature three weeks ago, is now going to cause problems on the international scene as it relates to this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Passing this resolution at this time - it doesn't matter what we said two years ago or three years ago - passing this resolution at this time, in this context of this fight with Spain and Portugal and the European Community, would undermine Canada's ability to maintain support with other nations on the basis of Canada acting for conservation purposes only, that's why the amendment was put forward as it was, to convey it in those terms. It essentially goes along with the principle of custodial management that the members are arguing for, I won't take any more time but just to clear the point.

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

MR. TOBIN: I am sure we can straighten up the time at the end of it, that is not a problem, but I say to the Premier that the intent of our resolution was done for conservation purposes, make no mistake about that, it was to extend jurisdiction for conservation purposes so that Canada would have control and would be able to conserve the stocks; because right -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) add those words.

MR. TOBIN: No, it does and I don't have a problem with that part of it but I do have somewhat of a problem personally, I don't know where caucus stands on it, probably not to the extent that I would vote against it or anything, but I do have some problem with the softening of our position to custodial management because, as I understand that, it is that we would be taking custody of it and managing it probably for the rest of the world or whatever the case may be. But I think -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) Canada.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Canada, too, but I am afraid, Premier, that what will happen, is the same thing that is happening today, that we will be managing it and allocating stocks through whatever form necessary, that will be ignored by the EU countries, particularly Spain and Portugal; they will thumb their noses as they have been doing for decades.

PREMIER WELLS: Management would include enforcement of rules, too.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I have some concerns about what is there. I think, and I know you are saying it for other reasons that you believe in, but I tend to disagree. I say to the Premier that I honestly believe we have to extend jurisdiction and take control of that as a country, because what we are seeing today - and I speak, representing a fishing district, a deep-sea fishing district, some of them who fished on the Nose and Tail of the Banks for many years; I come, to some extent, from a family with a fishing background in terms of people who fished the deep-sea fishery in this Province; and I have spoken to a lot of them in the last number of weeks, particularly since the arrest of that vessel, and all of them felt that the right decision was made, that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for this country is to be commended and that if one more Spaniard goes out there and does what they have done in the past, they should again be arrested and brought in.

Now, what has been happening there in the last twenty-four to forty-eight hours is something that should cause all of us concern, and I was a bit taken aback last night when I heard the Prime Minister of this country say - his words at the time: `Well, there are only two fishing there now, that is down significantly from the forty-nine that were fishing there last week.'

I don't care, Mr. Speaker, if it is forty-nine, 449, or one. If they are fishing juvenile turbot on the Nose or Tail of the Grand Banks, then they should be removed. They should be brought in. We should not tolerate it, because you cannot do what you believe is right one week and then ignore it the next week. You cannot do that. The vessels out there, the Spaniards, have to be taken to task. If you talk about what is happening, 15 per cent of what they are catching is mature fish.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

PREMIER WELLS: I understood they haven't found one single fish capable of reproduction. Something like 79 or 80 per cent was less than fifteen inches, and not one was capable of reproduction. This is what I am told was the situation.

MR. TOBIN: If that is the case, then it's 100 per cent, and now they are back there on the Grand Banks again today doing the same thing. I don't know - I really believe, and I say it in all sincerity, that the Minister of Fisheries should repeat the action that he initiated last week.

Now, I realize that Brian Tobin is not the only one who sits at the Cabinet table, and I would suspect there are opposing views to what he is doing. I would suspect that the officials in External Affairs and some of the ministers are not supportive of what Mr. Tobin has been doing. I commend him fully for the action he has taken, but I don't think he should back down one inch. I think he should go toe to toe with the Spaniards once again and arrest the vessels and bring them in, teach them the lesson that he started.

We talk about the fisheries, and the destruction of the fisheries, and who is doing it, and we are all there to point fingers. Make no mistake about it, let no one in this House make any mistake about it, the Spaniards are good fishermen. They know how to catch fish. The Spaniards, it is my understanding, were the ones who put the pier trawling together. When the Portuguese, even, couldn't get it to work, the Spaniards were the ones who got it to work, so they know how to catch fish - no mistake about that. Canadian boats, FPI boats on the Nose of the Grand Banks the other day were catching 1,000 pounds, I believe it was, in twenty-four hours, and they were catching 15,000 to 20,000 pounds, so they are doing something. We all know what they were doing. They were operating with a liner, but that is not strange to fishing either, operating with liners and cod-bags. The Spaniards can do just what they like in their own countries and in their own waters, and they can be good fishermen in any waters, but they should not be allowed to do what they like in our waters, on the Continental Shelf. They should not be allowed.

We talk about the destruction of various fisheries, you know, the haddock. Everybody seems to point fingers. The Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture is not here. I was going to say to him that the haddock disappeared in the waters back in the 1950s and early 1960s. There was lots of haddock - you could bring it in - but what you have to remember is that Canadians did not have the vessels at the time to destroy the haddock. There were a few trawlers. Penney's, I believe, had a few. FPI, the old Fishery Products had four or five, the old Zibet and Zerda, Zibet - well Zibet and Zibet are the same - the Zebroid, and a few of those. Those are the vessels they had that could probably carry 100,000 pounds of fish. Every vessel, particularly the Russians, came in fishing the haddock, and the Brits, in the Fair Trite boats, were the ones who came in. The haddock are extinct, but it was the Brits in the Fair Trite boats, and the Russians and others, who came in and took that haddock away.

I will tell you a little story. The Premier might be interested in this as well. There is one vessel, one of the Fair Trite boats, and a good friend, by the way, of the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture was captain on her - Chaytor. And he had a man who got broke up while they were fishing out in the Gullies. Mr. Speaker, they called for help. They were trying to get the man off her. The Russians were fishing there at the time, and the Russians had a doctor on board. They put the doctor on board the Fair Trite boat to take care of the man who was injured. And the doctor, when he got aboard, wouldn't leave. It became an international incident.

The Prime Minister of the country at the time, Prime Minister Pearson, I believe it was, got involved in this international incident because it was in Canadian waters, when the Russian doctor wouldn't leave that British ship. I'm not sure who was Prime Minister of England at the time but there was great discussion. The English Government called the Fair Trite boat back to port with the Russian doctor on board, and they had to give protection to the captain of that vessel and his family from the Soviet people from the Soviet bloc who were living in England. So there have been international incidents before on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.

At the time of these incidents it was when the Brits, the Russians and the Europeans were taking our fish. What we have today is another international incident where the Spaniards are out there raping our fish. And the resolution here today, Mr. Speaker, is a cop-out! It is lacking the courage to be strong and to stand up for the people of this Province. I don't know how someone like the Member for Eagle River, who professes to be a great defender of the people of Newfoundland, can come to this House and, rather than stand and vote against the resolution, they amend the resolution and he seconds it.

It is childishness on the part of this government to think that a resolution brought before this Assembly is going to cause a major international incident in negotiations in Brussels. It is shocking what is taking place. How can the Member for LaPoile, representing a fishing district, and the Member for Eagle River bring an amendment to this House abolishing an original resolution calling for the extension of jurisdiction and control over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap? You lack the courage to stand up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Listen to your House Leader and listen to your Leader.

MR. TOBIN: I listen to myself. I listen to the fisherpersons of this Province on fishing issues. That is who I listen to. That is a cowardly act, Mr. Speaker, that is what it is, to bring in that amendment. Why can we not have - how can people who understand the fishery not agree to extending jurisdiction? You have the Prime Minister up there now who is involved in a cop-out, who has become - basically, I hate to say it, he was very strong on the international scene a few weeks ago when he gave the okay to go out and fire the shots. He was very powerful on the international scene. But you can become a wimp on the international scene rather quickly, as well.

I would say that despite - I would like to know what happened today. I would like to know what has happened in that caucus this morning on this resolution. I would say something happened in that caucus this morning on this resolution. Because I spoke to members who were willing and ready to support this resolution yesterday evening. I spoke to members who thought the resolution was a good resolution - and today they are here with an amendment?

What we have, let there be no mistake about it, and let the word go out -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has already made allowance for the hon. member to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, then, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I think it is regrettable that this government has decided not to support a resolution calling for the extension of jurisdiction over the Nose and Tail of the Bank and the Flemish Cap, that this government has decided not to support this resolution. They brought in an amendment that totally eliminates extending jurisdiction to the Nose and Tail of the Banks and asks for custodial management.

There is a great difference, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous difference between extending jurisdiction and custodial management. It is a tremendous difference and I say it is a darned shame, a shame that the Member for LaPoile and the Member for Eagle River decided to sanction an amendment, that was a cowardly act, and not to support extending jurisdiction to the Continental Shelf.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about what has been going on on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, or in the fishery in Newfoundland over the last ten years, at least, since I have been in the House. I found it interesting, as I listened to my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia there, making his impassioned speech, and no doubt he, like all of us in this House, has a very grave concern about what is happening in the fishery in this Province.

Coming from Placentia Bay, as I did myself, I am sure he is aware of what effect the fishery has had on Newfoundlanders down through the centuries. Where I grew up in Placentia Bay was on an island called Long Island in a place called Haystack. Now, on that island fifty years ago it was the centre of the bank fishery in Newfoundland, and for comparison sake now, fifty years ago in Harbour Buffett, Kingwell, and Port Royal there were more people lived right there than lived in Marystown. It was a bigger community than Marystown. Haystack and Spencers Cove were bigger than if you took Rushoon, Parkers Cove, Baine Harbour and put it together because it was the centre of the bank fishery for Placentia Bay.

Twenty bankers fished out of there and the average banker crew on a four dory boat was twenty men, so all told, I would say, you could take, with the bigger boats and all, there were 600 people on Long Island who were dependent on the bank fishery. I am old enough to have seen not only the bank fishery decline but I have also seen the one that followed, because from 1945 to 1950 the bank fishery disappeared, hence Long Island is now deserted. It is nice place to go back to in the summertime. Those of us who lived there some years ago go back and look, and say, here is a community that was here fifty years ago because of an offshore fishery.

Mr. Speaker, there was a change in the offshore fishery and in 1948 we started processing fresh fish in Newfoundland and the district I represent, the district of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, 50 per cent of that district existed on an offshore fishery. It was there in Burgeo and Ramea that the fresh fish industry was started. It was there that the plants were open in 1948 and started to produce fresh fish which saw the decline of the banker fleet that made the island of Long Island viable for 2,000 people from our beginning, from the 1800s up to the 1950s when the island disappeared.

Mr. Speaker, this motion that we have here today is so vitally important that we have seen now another way of life and another offshore fishery disappear. The trawler fishery has disappeared. It has disappeared, not like the banker fishery because of a technology change, we went from bankers, to trawlers, to salt fish, to fresh fish. The fishery that we now see disappear has disappeared because of a mismanagement, because of the fact that we didn't manage it and we didn't conserve the stocks. We didn't look after what we had there. Ten years ago it was almost unheard of to think that we would be in a position in Newfoundland today where there wouldn't be a fishery.

That is the same way it was forty-five years ago out in Placentia Bay and Long Island where there was 2,200 people living. Nobody ever could envisage that by the year 1960 or 1965 there wouldn't be anybody living on Long Island. We saw a way of life disappear. A bank fishery disappeared to a technology change, trawlers, and there was no reason for Long Island to stay.

Mr. Speaker, we are down to the fact that due to this technology and the mismanagement, and not handling the stock that we had, and not being conscious of the environment and what we had there, we have now reached the stage that I wonder, if we don't do something about this, if we don't take control of the Continental Shelf and don't take control of the conservation measures to maintain what we have there, will someone in fifteen years' or twenty years' time, will the Island of Newfoundland be the same as Long Island out in Placentia Bay?

Because that is how important our fishery is to us. It is that important, that the environment - if we don't protect this fish stock that we have there, it is gone. Nobody has questioned the motion. It is the intent of the motion that right now - and why the change came in here today. Because we can all sit here and say that - you know, last week we were all so happy to see Minister Tobin and the Prime Minister take the approach they did, took a very firm approach and arrested a Spanish ship. It should have been done a long time ago.

Just to show you how history - again, I'm in a little history lesson today, but I talked about forty-five years ago. Now I will talk about ten years ago when we were elected in Opposition first. From August to October in 1985 there was a crisis in the fishery in Newfoundland. The Liberal caucus, we took it upon ourselves - the members over there were then in government. We took it upon ourselves then to form a committee. I will name that committee now - because my colleague, the Member for Fogo is going to speak in a few minutes - just to give you an idea about what happened there.

That committee was made up of Beaton Tulk, the Member for Fogo; Walter Carter, the Member for Twillingate; John Efford, the Member for Port de Grave; and Tom Lush, the Member for Bonavista North. The inshore fishery that year had failed in the summer of 1985, was an abject failure. The Liberal caucus as Opposition, we decided then that we were certainly going to have a look at it, and we were going to go around the Province. We had twenty-eight meetings all over this Province and we listened to the fishermen. They came back and they put it in this report.

I can remember when we tabled this report in the House of Assembly. The members over there - the Members for Grand Bank, Humber Valley, Mount Pearl, Grand Falls, Burin - Placentia West - they were all there. I can remember the hoots of laughter and the scorn and the indignation with which this report was received when we first tabled it in the House of Assembly. They were laughing at us. I'm just going to point out some of the things we asked. We talked about here - we are here today debating a motion which those fellows put in over there, the members from the Opposition put in two years ago. So we are here again debating the same motion today concerning the fish stock, the management, the conservation.

Ten years ago when we presented this report - the first major package of short-term recommendations came at a meeting in Twillingate, which was incorporated into a resolution and forwarded immediately to Premier Peckford, Prime Minister Mulroney, Fisheries ministers Fraser and Rideout. It was unanimously passed at that meeting in Twillingate. Now, the recommendations - they talked about needing to have the UI regulations changed, they needed to relax the payments to the Fisheries Loan Board. They needed the fishermen's license fee changed but the long term recommendation, Mr. Speaker, is the one that is interesting in this report. It says, `a significant reduction in offshore dragging operations by foreign and Canadian fleets.' Now, Mr. Speaker, that was presented to this House in the fall of 1985. This is what the inshore fishermen around this Province were saying then. So I mean the main recommendation of this report, which was presented in this House ten years ago -

MR. WOODFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. GILBERT: Yes, but the thing about it, I say to the Member for Humber Valley, the salient recommendation - just again, I will just say it again, the single dominant universally accepted explanation among Newfoundland inshore fishermen for this years disaster in the inshore, and previous years decline in overfishing, is deep sea offshore fishery by foreign and Canadian fleets, especially as those fleets obtain what has now become known as the Northern Cod stock. Draggers, Canadian, foreign and foreign vessels are operating without regard to conservation and sometimes in violation of quota allocations with inadequate surveillance during a season when mother fish are in spawn and with the most rigorous harvesting technology now available. This operation comes close to land as well as far off shore and is the cardinal reason why fishermen this year fish with empty waters.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was ten years ago when this report was put in this House. So there is nothing new. When we were in Opposition we were conscious of what was happening there, we went and we listened to the inshore fishermen, we asked the then government to make a recommendation to the federal government at that time to take control and manage the fishing in the offshore area because the inshore fishermen were telling us what was happening, we didn't listen to them. We waited until - now we have the disaster that we have run into.

So this motion today - it is all very good to bluster and make a motion to say go with the gunboats. I think we should be commending the federal government for the action that they finally took. Unfortunately, they did not take it soon enough. It wasn't this government, the previous government, we asked you when you were in government, we asked the Mulroney government to take a stand and to take control of this stock. I don't think any of us here at that time saw the grave circumstances that we are in today but we felt there was a serious problem and we asked that it be addressed.

So when I hear my friend from Burin - Placentia West get up and make an impassionate speech that we are not doing anything about it, this government - in Opposition and in government - has done something about it. They have maintained a degree of sense about it. We have asked that the federal government carry out a management plan and to take control of our Continental Shelf. Now to do it for the sake that we want to protect this stock, not only for the Newfoundlanders because as I said earlier, if we don't do it the Island of Newfoundland is going to be like Long Island in Placentia Bay, in fifteen years there is nobody going to be here. The point we have to talk about now is a control to protect the fishery, to ensure that there is fish there, not only for the Newfoundlanders who harvest it but for mankind. We have to protect this protein stock for mankind in order to maintain a system that we, as man, are destroying by not managing our resources as we should.

So it is all very good to get up and say we are going to take the gunboats, we are going out there and we are going to take charge, we are going to drive off the Spaniards and we are going to fight this one and that one but the reason that we are doing it, Mr. Speaker, has to be the right reason. The fact is that we have destroyed it by our own mismanagement, by letting the foreigners fish and the world not being aware enough that this protein stock is being destroyed because it has not been managed. So I think that the steps the federal government have taken are the right ones. I believe that they have to carry on. They have shown now that they are prepared to put some teeth into what they are doing. I think the thing we must do in this House, as we did on Monday, is congratulate the federal government on the stand they are taking.

I hear from the media today that the Spanish are coming back to fish. The thing that we have to show, Mr. Speaker, is to show the world that those people are bandits. They are. By the very fact that we arrested that ship we have now proof positive that they are fishing with illegal methods. For this reason I think we have a case now where our federal government can carry on and protect and take the action that is necessary in order to protect that stock.

As I conclude this I say again that as the Member for the District of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir that if we don't take care, and if the federal government now doesn't step in, carry on the way they have started and take care of the conservation of this stock for the good of mankind - not just for the people in my district. Although as the member yesterday for St. John's Centre when he got up, he said there is a time, you know, you wonder who you are representing. I know, it is the people of my district. They are first and foremost. If the federal government doesn't protect this stock for the good of mankind, not only for the people of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir so that they can get a job, but so that we will have a stock that is there so that we can help to feed the hungry mankind of this world.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you, that has to be the concern that we all have here. Not the cheap political thing to -

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

MR. GILBERT: In conclusion, Sir, if you would for a minute. Not just to make a cheap political thing that we have to go with the gunboats now and back off. I think we should commend the federal government for the decision they made. Let's carry on with the conservation of that stock, so not only will Newfoundlanders be here in fifteen years, but we will be able to feed mankind. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy to rise today on this private member's motion as put forward by the Member for Grand Bank, and I might add, completely changed by the government. I don't know how the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir can get up and talk about conservation and the diplomatic process. What a difference a day makes. The Member for Eagle River was up chest-thumping, pounding on his desk, talking about how proud he was to be a Liberal, how proud he was to be a Canadian, and everybody was going: What a wonderful bunch we are, what a wonderful government we are, what a wonderful government we have up in Ottawa.

Look at them today. Hallelujah. Torn to pieces. Now they are going back and extolling the virtue that the other government brought forward. We have to get back to the diplomatic process. Leave the gunboats in the harbour, let them go aground on the meat bones up in Halifax, leave them in the harbour, let's not take them out, we can't go firing bullets over the bows of the ships. It may not work. We have to control the stocks. We will allow them to fish, we will allow them to use smaller mesh, we will allow them to use liners in their nets, we will allow all this - because now the hon. Brian Tobin is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and our cousins and our brothers are up in Ottawa and we have to support them.

I say, shame. Shame on the government on the other side, shame on the government in Ottawa. If you are going to start something, then let's finish it, let's go all the way. I think it was on the 9th of this month we went out and our people arrested the Spanish trawler, brought it back to the Harbour here. We all went down, 10,000 of us. The Premier didn't go down because he was afraid the people in Newfoundland would be unruly, he didn't trust them, couldn't go near them. Stay away from it, don't take part in it. You may not be able to control your emotions. I went down and I know there were people from the other side went down, from government side. I saw them down there, proud, happy, as proud as I was. Forget the blue and the red, put away your political stripes, and let's go out as true Canadians and true Newfoundlanders. Because this is our lifeblood. This is the reason why we are here. This is the reason why we exist, our fish. If we lose sight of that then I'm afraid that it is all over.

Getting back to that. We arrested the ship, the Spanish trawler, brought it into our port here. Recognized and identified all kinds of rules being broken. Undersized mesh, liners in their nets, a hidden hold where they had fish stored that they couldn't catch, two log books. If it was one of our own trawlers - if FPI owned that trawler they would have Vic Young down there now being fed behind bars, I can guarantee you that, or National Sea.

Let me tell you about a little thing that happened down in my district the other day. It is very slim in comparison. A couple of people went in the woods logging, went in the woods cutting domestic firewood. They went in and cut their wood and piled it. A couple of days ago they went back with their skidoos and bikes to bring it out. Forestry showed up, took their bikes, took their skidoos, and haven't even laid a charge against them. They haven't found anything to charge them with other than to say that they had a log among their wood.

AN HON. MEMBER: A log?

MR. FITZGERALD: They had a log. Apparently there was something there that could make a piece of 2x4, so they took their bikes, they took their skidoo, and they went back looking for it. These are reasonable people, Mr. Speaker, who wanted to cut their firewood for the winter. Apparently they had permits. Forestry went and took their bikes, took their skidoos, and said: We will let you know when you can get them back, and we will let you know what you are charged with after we do an investigation - guilty until proven innocent.

Here we had a ship out breaking all of the fishing rules and regulations, out breaking them all, taking advantage of our stocks, allowed them to come into the harbour, put up overnight, put them up in hotels, $500,000 - a $500,000 bond - and we allowed the boat to sail out of the harbour, back on the high seas again, probably one of the boats today that is out there scraping the bottom, tearing up the habitat, catching our fish, no respect for conservation, and here we are saying that we believe in conservation. In fact, we rewarded them. We went and said: What we will do is take this quota away from our own people. We will take it away from Newfoundlanders, we will take it away from Canadians, in the name of conservation. That is not good enough for me. I don't think you can go down and talk to the people in my district, where 90 per cent of them make their living from the fishery, and expect them to accept that.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation got up here the other day and talked in this debate in support of the resolution that was brought forward by the Premier. The minister got up and talked about how, for the first time since the moratorium was announced, he has seen hope in people's faces. I have witnessed that same thing myself, but I don't think there is much hope there today. I think today we have gone back to exactly where we were before. I think we are probably gone back further because we allowed a little hope to creep in, but now it has disappeared.

When the PC government was in Ottawa it always talked about diplomacy, being diplomatic; it doesn't work; we have to go out and do something different. I agreed, and I remember the day that the Prime Minister and Minister Tobin came here in the hallway of Confederation Building, and I think it was Mr. Etchegary at the time who brought forward a giant petition that was taken up from all across Newfoundland and Labrador. At that time the minister spoke, and the Prime Minister spoke, and they talked about how they were going to take control of the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks, and they realized how important it was to us as Newfoundlanders. The federal minister himself, I think, stated that within ninety days he would start the process of taking back the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, getting those foreigners off the Continental Shelf, bringing it once again back to Newfoundland and back to Canadians where it belongs.

Now I suppose 200 miles is a long distance, and in most countries 200 miles is certainly sufficient to take in the shelf around the perimeter of the country. Ours is a little bit different, and it extends beyond 200 miles, and some of the richest fishing grounds in the world - or at least they were - were those areas known as the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks. Today, after going through the whole exercise of creating some hope, bringing some hope to our people, we are seeing again those foreigners, those criminals, Mr. Speaker, returning to those fishing grounds again and I can be certain as I am standing here, using the same fishing procedures as they used before.

Mr. Speaker, we are not asking for anything out of the ordinary over here on this side by asking to extend jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile limit, beyond the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks, we are not asking for the world and I don't believe for one minute that if this resolution was passed as it was presented by the Opposition House Leader, that it would have any effect on what is happening over in Brussels today. I don't think anybody over in Brussels today is tuned in to the radio, trying to pick up VOCM on the satellite to see what Bill Matthews has to say here in the House of Assembly. I don't think it will have one iota of bearing on it and I think we are being led down the garden path by saying that it will.

We are being taken for fools, Mr. Speaker, we are being taken for fools, and what we should all do here today, is, stand up as Newfoundlanders, represent our people and show the world that we will be responsible and that we are Newfoundlanders and that we will fight for our right, because if we allow those things to happen off our coast, if we allow those people to come over here, reap our seas, tear up the habitat of our spawning grounds, then we will never survive. We will never survive, Mr. Speaker. It is time for friendly words and it is time for being the nice guy, being the nice people - The maple leaf, Mr. Speaker, signifies many things. We are known as law-abiding people, we are people who go out and instead of causing disturbances we usually go forward and try to settle strife and settle disputes, but I think it is time for us as Newfoundlanders to revert to what our forefathers would have done and take control and allow our people to live with respect and dignity.

I fear what has happened since the 9th of this month, Mr. Speaker, I fear that up in Ottawa we are losing ground again - what do we have, seven MPs compared to -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Silent Seven.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Silent Seven, call them what we want, but I fear that the heavy hand of Ontario, the heavy hand of External Affairs, Mr. Speaker, has suddenly taken hold and the minister of whom we were so proud, the minister of whom we spoke so highly, put him on a pedestal on Monday, Mr. Speaker, has fallen (inaudible) to that heavy hand. I am not happy today to stand and say that, I am not happy to stand here and say that; I would like to see the harbour down here full of Spanish trawlers, if they are out there breaking the law, bring them in. There is no point in having one down in the harbour and having another thirty-eight out fishing. There is no point in saying that a boat has returned to fish when there are probably six boats out there fishing.

If our own people, if FPI and National Sea cannot go out on the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks, Mr. Speaker, and make it a paying trip, go out and bring back enough mature fish in order to make it a paying trip, pay their expenses, pay their men, pay their costs, then, Mr. Speaker, how in the hell can the Spanish do it? How can they do it without going and doing the things they were just caught red-handed at?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier talks about custodial management. Custodial management. I do not have a clue what it is. I have no idea what custodial management is, and I do not know if anybody over there does, other than it is popular to be said because the Premier said it. I have not heard the Minister of Fisheries talk about custodial management. I do not know if he knows what it is. If he does I would be glad to listen to him and have him explain it because I do not know what he means when he talks about custodial management. What I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, is ownership. I know there is a vast difference between custodial management and ownership. There must be or it would not be brought forward. If you have management of something and you do not have ownership then that means somebody else must have their finger in the pie, somebody else must be picking what is out there. You must have to go to somebody else to get rules to find out what you can do and what you can't do.

Let us go for the ownership of it and let us control it, Mr. Speaker. We owe our people nothing less. The time for conciliatory action is gone. The time for being conciliatory and the time for being diplomatic is gone. It went the other day when that ship was arrested. We made our move so why are we being backtracked now? Why are we backtracking now because somebody up in Ottawa said, little Newfoundland, Brian Tobin, you must listen to us.

Just listen to us, Mr. Speaker. We have to trade this, we have to trade that, and we cannot stand to say we are going to save a few fish for the sake of this country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I will just be one second.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to take part in this debate, and I must say that in the long number of years I have been in politics I have lost track of the number of such debates I have engaged in. My memory goes back to 1968 when I first became a member of the Canadian House of Commons, and one of the first actions taken by the then members of the House of Commons representing Newfoundland was to engage in an undertaking to have Canada recognize the rights of the coastal states, especially Canada, and to extend jurisdiction to the edge and the slopes of the Continental Shelf.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we pay attention to that because when Canada became part of the agreement for an extension of the Canadian 200-mile limit in l977, that was a tragedy. When Canada agreed to a 200 mile extension that was a real tragedy because it soon became obvious that 200 miles did not accommodate Canadian fishing interests on the Canadian Continental Shelf.

I do not want to bore you with history or maybe some small part that I might have played in the events of the day, but I recall being a member of the Canadian delegation to Geneva, to the Law of the Sea Convention, wherein we tried to get Canada to fight for, not 200 miles, but to extend jurisdiction to the edge and to the slopes of the Continental Shelf. Obviously, our efforts in that respect failed because unfortunately the member nations of the Law of the Sea, there were 135 of them, 130 were quite served by a 200-mile limit. The United States, for example, had no need for anymore than a 200-mile limit. In fact I think less than 200 miles would have satisfied their needs.

The great little country of Iceland that fought so valiantly back in the late 1960s to defend its rights, it had a fifty-mile continental shelf. As a result, of course, they didn't need 200 miles. All but a handful of countries including Canada, I believe Argentina, I believe India, and one or two other countries, had continental shelves that extended beyond 200 miles.

I say a tragedy happened in 1977 because in my view - and having been part of it at the time, I think it would have been just as easy, had Canada pushed hard enough, to have had extension of our jurisdiction to the edge of the Continental Shelf as 200 miles. There is nothing sacrosanct about 200 miles. It could just as easily have been 300 miles. The unfortunate part about it is that 200 miles served the needs of 90-odd per cent, 95 per cent, of the member nations of the Law of the Sea.

I remember very well that Canadian delegation at the time was headed by a man named Alan Beesley. A very fine man, but certainly not my choice for that kind of a position. He was a very mild-mannered, typical Ottawa bureaucrat, who would rather not fight. Mr. Beesley, who chaired all of our Canadian meetings at the time, got to the point where he couldn't bear to look at certain of us: Cabot Martin, for example, who was also a member of the delegation, and myself and others. When we would continue to harass Mr. Beesley and his committee about the need to forget the words 200-miles, drop it from your vocabulary, because we knew then that it would not suit Canada, it would not fill our needs. Mr. Beesley being the very timid person that he was wouldn't think of it. He kept saying: Look, we are doing alright. We've gone from three to twelve and now from twelve to 200. Given time then we will make a case and hopefully we will get it extended out to the edge of the Continental Shelf. We are finding out now, much to our sorrow, that maybe we should have fought a bit harder. We should not have allowed Mr. Beesley and his little cadre of bureaucrats and diplomats from External Affairs to get away with it. Because we are paying a big price.

AN HON. MEMBER: Still at it.

MR. CARTER: Yes, and they are still at it. At no time, Mr. Speaker - and I was very much involved in the issue, as a Member of the Commons, not playing a major role, but certainly a peripheral role. I introduced in the House of Commons in July of 1975, twenty years ago, a petition calling for Canada to protect the marine resources - now hear this - not 200 miles, but to the edge of the Continental Shelf.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: But 200 miles was not in our vocabulary. Every time we talked about it.... I should point out, by the way, that in addressing the House at the time in my motion, I made reference to the people who had already signed the petition. I said the petition is signed by the premier of the Province, Frank Moores - now hear this - signed also by the leader of the Official Opposition in Newfoundland, Mr. Ed Roberts. So you see our very learned House Leader, the Minister of Justice, was in the forefront then doing what was right for Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, my petition was presented and it contained 100,000 names. I spent an entire summer travelling the Province just soliciting peoples names on the petition. I don't know what effect it had, if any, but I can only tell you that during that period there was a lot of interest in the need to extend some kind of jurisdiction. Whether it was custodial management, just plain Canadian jurisdiction or what, but we knew what we wanted and we went after it.

I recall during the so-called Icelandic cod war going in the House of Commons and getting up and asking the then-Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Jack Davis - and my question went something like this: In light of the action taken by Iceland to protect its natural resources from overfishing by the British - at the time - would Canada consider taking the same kind of action to protect the Newfoundland fisheries against foreign overfishing? A good question. Of course the Prime Minister and the minister of the day waffled around it and gave all kinds of reasons why Canada could not be seen to be taking that kind of action.

Well, one of the advantages in having asked that question is that by the time I got back to my office that afternoon there was an invitation there from the Premier of Iceland. The Prime Minister of Iceland had invited me and three of my colleagues, through the ambassador in Ottawa, to come to Iceland at their expense to hear and see their side of the story. Of course, we immediately accepted the invitation and the four of us left the day after. We went to New York and got the Icelandic airline, a flight paid for by the Icelandic Government, to Iceland where we were met and actually given the red carpet treatment. The Prime Minister, himself met us at the airport, because they were so delighted that parliamentarians in Canada were supporting their cause. They were pretty well standing alone then. They didn't have too many friends, certainly not in Europe. So we went to Iceland, we were given the royal treatment, we listened to what they had to say, we visited their fish plants, we went on board their gun boats that were out shooting across the bows of the British war ships and we have pictures to prove it. During our trip to Iceland in 1969 -

MR. TOBIN: Were there any other Newfoundlanders with you?

MR. CARTER: Yes, there were four of us, Jim McGrath, John Lundrigan, Jack Marshall and myself, four Members of Parliament.

While in Iceland, we were invited by the then Minister of Fisheries for England, Lady Tweedsmuir, to come to England at their expense and hear the British side of the story, and we were doing pretty well. Of course, we listened to what the Icelanders had to say and we had a press conference. In fact, there is a bit of humour in this story in that Richard Nixon, by the way, had visited Iceland the day before and we had our press conference in the evening as he left in the morning. The next morning our story got billing on the Front Page and brother Nixon's came up on page 3, I think it was. So we thought that was - by the way, it was all written in Icelandic,so I still don't know what it said, but at least it looked good. Every once in awhile I would see my name `Carter' and a lot of Icelandic afterwards so - but anyway, we went to England at the invitation of the Minister of Fisheries, were wined and dined by the British, met at the airport by the little fellows in bowler hats from the Colonial Office, they met us at the ramp of the aircraft, had people there to look after our luggage, took us in a huge car, to the best hotel in London, put us up, everything at their expense, everything. There was nothing they couldn't do for us. They provided us with a guide that took us around London to do some shopping for our wives.

If the President of the United States had gone, he would not have gotten better treatment. We were quite happy but not feeling too good about it. In the meantime, Lady Tweedsmuir invited us to a press conference that she had called, but just as we were getting ready to go to the press conference, we were told by one of her assistants that the Lady had to withdraw her invitation. The reason she gave was because, how could she possibly justify inviting Canadian Members of Parliament to her press conference and not invite their own Members of Parliament? She was presenting Britain's White Paper on the cod war. We weren't too disappointed because,in the meantime,we had our own press conference planned for the same afternoon, which we held. We took a strong position against Britain on that one. We came down on the side of the Icelanders. That night, Lady Tweedsmuir and her husband, Lord Tweedsmuir, hosted a steak dinner for the Canadian Parliamentarians who were visiting. I sat next to a gentleman who was one time Prime Minister of England, as a matter of fact, at the head table.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. CARTER: Sir Douglas Hume.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, for goodness sakes!

MR. CARTER: Then he was the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Pardon? I can't hear you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: No, no, he was our advisor back in Canada.

Anyway, we were sitting down having a delicious meal, with all of the pomp and pageantry that you would expect on such an occasion. We ate at Manchester House. Sitting next to me was Sir Douglas Alec Hume, the one-time Prime Minister of England, and I recall, he looked up at me - he was a small man, not too impressive - and said: `I say, old chap, what would you do if you were in my position?' I said: `Sir Douglas, if I were in your position I would tell the British Navy to get the heck home. They have no right in Icelandic waters. They are making shows of themselves, letting Great Britain down.'

I will never forget him. He looked up at me and grinned. He said: `I say, old chap, that is precisely the advice that I gave Heath this morning.'

Strangely enough, the next morning, the headline in The London Times was that Britain was now withdrawing its navy from Icelandic waters - I don't know if it was because of my representation or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: To make a long story short, there is a bit of humour in this. We were invited to Britain, at their expense, to hear the British side of the story. We had a press conference, and we came down on the side of the Icelanders. I told you a moment ago that when we arrived we were given the royal treatment. We were met by huge automobiles, Rolls-Royce, given the royal treatment in the biggest hotel in London, but when the news hit the street that we were supporting the Icelanders, we went to the airport in a Volkswagen. We were lucky to get a bicycle to take us to the airport.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member doesn't have leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just to clue up.

MR. CARTER: I will clue up. I apologize. I have maybe gone back too much in history, but there is a very important -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member doesn't have the leave of the House.

MR. CARTER: You have missed a real good story.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a shame that some people got carried away today and got willy-nilly, and we have to debate a watered-down version of a good motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Willy-nilly.

This Federal Government whom we supported, and whom the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, as well, supported in their efforts just two weeks ago, now are letting the Spaniards shove it up our faces - and other parts as well. They are over here in a place, raping it, cleaning it out. What is more, they have an armed ship with them. They are armed, and they are ready for trouble, because they know that we aren't going to do anything about it.

When it was taken out of the hands of some people in the Federal Government and put into the hands of the diplomats, we all knew what was going to happen. The people with the manicured hands and who talk so nice, they want to keep on good terms with other foreign diplomats. They want to go to the cocktail circuits where they are used to being. They should have left it with Fisheries and the Prime Minister to work it out, and probably the Defence Minister; that is where it should be, not in the hands of these nice little proper people who are allowing the Spaniards to come over us again. Now, we have the Portuguese out there, as well, and centuries ago Portugal broke off with Spain and the Spanish government has not recognized Portugal since, but the two of them in conjunction are out there raping what is left. The Spaniards are still there and our people are told they can't fish? They are told whole bunches of stuff. They are over-regulated and under-employed, a resettlement program that they are not being paid to resettle for.

They talk about custody. Well, custody is debatable. Custodial management, what the Premier says, is like when a couple divorce and there are children involved. You don't own the children, nobody owns the children. They are yours in a certain fact of life but the custody, whoever is the better parent - it is argued in favour of whoever is the better one to look after them. Well, I am telling you right now, it is not Spain, definitely not Spain, and definitely not Portugal who are going to be the better ones to look after the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks or the Flemish Cap.

Canada, after hauling in her horns over this past couple of weeks and going back to the weakened diplomatic way she has been for years, should exercise her rights as a country, stand on her hind legs, and challenge Spain for what they are doing, challenge them the only way they know how. We had men a few weeks ago who went out under the direction of the Federal Government, Newfoundlanders and other Canadians who went out on the Canadian boats and were given instructions to fire across the bow of them. They were on the front lines as well as the special unit of the RCMP.

I don't like to see confrontation, I don't want to see people hurt, but when we have our people here in this Province regulated by monies, the moratorium money, that are being cut off the TAGS program, they are finding ways and means to cut them out, and some people who fished can't on it because of some technicality or other, and we are allowing those Spaniards to fish again, allowing them to probably get a bumper crop of small fish again to make it worthwhile, to go home and report what they have. They use two sets of books, we found out awhile ago. They had more tonnage hidden in a false hole in the ship, small nets, and the European Union supports them because some of the countries are frightened to death of what the Spanish will do to them if they are driven out of over here.

They are willing to hunt down to the last fish, and if that were us at that, as we have been classified by some people as barbarians because of the way we hunted seals, by the Bridgette Bardots and these people whose star was starting to fall, so they had to get their publicity some other way.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask hon. members to my left to keep the level of conversation down. I am having difficulty hearing the hon. the Member for Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: We didn't hear much support from Ontario. We have been sold out for them, have we not, over the years? Wheat from Saskatchewan, trade-offs, us with 2 per cent of the population. We don't have much support from those either.

It is sad today when you hear a good resolution that had been supported three years ago had to be watered down because someone got cold feet. Just imagine thinking that what we are going to say here today was going to frighten someone in Brussels.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, I do, Sir, I wouldn't be saying it if I didn't believe it. The only thing sprouting out of Brussels is support for the Spaniards.

I will conclude my remarks and leave it to my colleague to finish.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I guess now I will conclude the debate on this resolution which has been amended by the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh no, but I mean, I know I have twenty - I'm surprised that there wasn't some other member opposite who would rise to speak on the situation, I say, Mr. Speaker, on such an important debate - members opposite who try to tout themselves as being concerned about the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, try to tout themselves as the defenders of the people of the Province.

The Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture for the Province did not participate in the debate, I say to the minister. The Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture didn't stand in his place. The Member for Eagle River, who seconded the amendment, didn't stand in his place to participate in the debate. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the great defender of fisherpersons in the Province, didn't stand in his place to participate in the debate - champion of the cause. Last time he opened his mouth about the fishery, which was the first time for four years, was on the White Hills, and he has not been allowed to open his mouth since. Put in his place in the Cabinet room, drove the people from the boardroom, get out - told who was the Minister of Fisheries for the Province, that it wasn't him; we haven't heard a whimper from him since.

All he has said since to the Premier is: Yes, Premier. Yes Premier, I support being weak-kneed about the future of this Province. I agree with weak-kneed activity on behalf of the Federal Government, Mr. Premier, if that is what you want, Sir. If that is what you want, Mr. Premier, to be weak-kneed on this important issue, I will support you, I will be weak-kneed, too. The Member for Eagle River: Yes, Premier, I will be weak-kneed. I will wimp out with you, Mr. Premier.

We have to fall in line with the Prime Minister of the country who last night started to wimp out when he said: It is not too bad for a reduced number of vessels to fish on the Nose and Tail of the Banks. Last week it was so bad we had to arrest the Estai, but this week: It is not too bad, there are only six overfishing - only six, not too bad, only six out there scraping up the fish, juvenile fish. Not too bad, the Prime Minister said, not too bad at all.

It is amazing what has happened on the other side. It is totally amazing what has happened on the other side, when three years ago those very same members voted unanimously to support the same resolution I put forward today. You know the excuse they are using? The excuse they are using - you talk about excuses, weak-kneed excuses, jellyfish excuses - is that the resolution debated in this House today might interfere with the negotiations between Canada and the European Community.

Can you believe what power we have? At the very day we are here debating this resolution that three years ago all hon. members supported when the Spaniards came over here and told us where to go and are still overfishing, what do they decide in their caucus this morning, at the wish of the Premier? To water down the resolution. To water down the resolution at the request of the Premier, water it down.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Because the Premier is afraid we jeopardize the negotiations which are not taking place I say to members opposite. There are no negotiations ongoing. The Canadian people have been in Ottawa for the last two or three days.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Tory caucus in Ottawa?

MR. SIMMS: More backbone than a jelly fish.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Tory caucus in Ottawa we are told have more backbone than the thirty-six of you put together, I say to the member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: My oh my, oh my, oh my. What a man to talk about backbone. He has been browbeaten into submission by the Premier once again. I believe you enjoy being browbeaten I say to the member. Oh my, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Premier, yes, Premier yes. Yes, Mr. Premier, we will agree with watering down the resolution. Can you believe them this morning, all nodding and agreeing with the Premier? Yes, Premier, yes, Premier yes. I think there must have been promises of Belgian chocolate or something; it must have been something.

MR. FLIGHT: What did you say to Crosbie and Mulroney (inaudible)?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I told them to send the boats out and get them off the Banks.

MR. SIMMS: You know what he told them? You know what he told them?

MR. FLIGHT: He didn't say it in this House.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, he did so say it to this House, yes he did so.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I told him in his office -

MR. FLIGHT: Oh in his office, yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - and I said it here.

MR. FLIGHT: Do you have any records?

MR. SIMMS: It is in Hansard, March 13, 1992. Look it up afterwards.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Can you believe and can't you see how serious they are about the problem, can you believe, Mr. Speaker, they are very, very serious about the situation, but you know why they are like they are today, because it is their federal cousins who are governing the country. It is quite alright now for the Spaniards to overfish; it is alright now for the Spaniards to use net liners that are taking 80 per cent juvenile fish when they have already overfished; it is alright now because Jean Chrétien says it is not too bad to have a reduced number overfishing you know, it is not too bad.

It is unbelievable, custodial management the Premier wants to talk about. Custodial management. It is like putting your child in daycare while you go to work; take your child off the daycare while you go to work. That is what it's like, and can you believe I say to the Minister for Tourism and Culture and the Member for Windsor - Buchans who seems to find it all so funny about it all. Yes, you are some serious, what bluffs, what bluffs I say, what bluffs! I never saw the like in my life. The Premier told them to shut up and toe the line. The Premier said: shut up and toe the line. Fall in line with the Prime Minister and Brian Tobin, let the Spaniards fish, let them overfish, Mr. Speaker, let them overfish, let them clean up the turbot, let them clean it up, we don't care, we are falling in line with our federal buddies. Yes, Premier, yes, we will fall in line Premier, we don't know what's in it for you Premier but there must be something, but we want to get rid of you so badly that we will support you, we will support you in your quest to be a judge. I can understand their wanting to get rid of the Premier but not to the detriment of the people of this Province.

MR. EFFORD: You haven't walked on a wharf in the last (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have not walked on a wharf in how long?

MR. EFFORD: For the last thirty years.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I walk on a wharf every weekend I say to the minister. I recognize a wharf when I see one, I say to the minister, I recognize a wharf when I see one.

MR. SIMMS: He knows ten times more about fish than you make out you know.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is twenty years since you have had any backbone, I say to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: All a big bluff, a big show. He has tried to do in every Minister of Fisheries that is over there for his own cause - up ranting and roaring on the White Hills the other day - now what does he do today? He says it is acceptable for the Spanish to overfish. He stays in the Caucus and supports the Premier. That is what is going on over there, when rural Newfoundland is going down the tubes, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and to the Minister of Fisheries, rural Newfoundland is going down the tubes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, by the Tories. I drive through my district every weekend and I tell you I can see what is happening to rural Newfoundland since this government came to power. Rural Newfoundland is collapsing since this government came to power. Rural Newfoundland is collapsing. Municipal infrastructure is falling apart. I see the Member for Fortune - Hermitage over there, I can understand why he screws up his face, it must be painful for him as it is for me. Every time he drives through his communities on the south coast, it must be just as painful for him.

MR. TOBIN: There is only one good thing about all of this, is that you do not have too long more left in government.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, poor old Bill. I say poor old people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have seen all their - provincial government led by the Premier who is willing to accept foreign overfishing, willing to accept it, willing to close a blind eye to Spanish trawlers overfishing an already over-fished stock. Can you believe that this morning they agreed with the Premier, we have to be careful, we have to water it down? Why? Why didn't you ask him? Why? Where are you coming from? It is something that we all voted for three years ago, today you are telling us we can't vote for him we have to vote for something watered down that is so important to this Province. Did anyone over there have the guts to ask him that, what it is really all about? Talking about jeopardizing negotiations that are not even taking place, with six Spanish boats out there thumbing their noses at us, telling Brian Tobin where to shove his legislation. All of you accept that this morning because the Premier came in and told you that is what you had to do. Now you try to convince me - some of you then out on the stumps around this Province, that you are interested in the fishery and the people of this Province. Yes, you might convince some people -

MR. TOBIN: You're a bunch of cowards.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - but try and water it down to knock out the Flemish Cap as if that was not important to us. The nursery area of the Grand Banks, you want to take that out. You don't even want that in the resolution. You amended it to take the Flemish Cap out, why? Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) it didn't matter to you then.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It matters now more than ever, I say to the member, go out over it and have a look at it. You big bluff. You got a mouth bigger than the Flemish Cap. It is a nursery for fish stocks that is why it is important. Don't you understand that? It is a nursery for the fish stocks, that is why it is important.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now don't the Member for Windsor - Buchans talk about me finding out about phrases, please. Please don't you get into a debate with me about phrases, pronunciations and other things. Please, I don't want to get really unkind with you today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, with the amendment to take out the Flemish Cap is one thing but then to talk about custodial management for conservation purposes only - What is it all about if it is not for conservation purposes, to have the stock sustained for generations of mankind so that we can fish? For conservation purposes only, that is what it is all about isn't it? Extending the jurisdiction is about conservation measures, about conservation and there is only one way we are going to guarantee conservation, Mr. Speaker, and that is for us to have jurisdiction, not an arrangement where you have to - Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) to restrain himself.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, because if you don't there is another way to restrain him.

Mr. Speaker, talking about conservation, there is only one way we are going to guarantee conservation. That is if Canada has complete control, not in another arrangement of custodial management where the other countries have input into who is going to get what fish. That is why we are in the mess we are in now with NAFO, and custodial management will not be any different. Let's not kid ourselves; the Premier likes custodial management. Why? Why doesn't he like extended jurisdiction? Why doesn't he like Canada having control over the Continental Shelf, which should be ours?

If you are really concerned about conserving the fish for Canadians, and Atlantic Canadians, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, why don't we have jurisdiction? What is so bad about that? What are you afraid of? Are you really afraid that we will have fish for the future? Why else can you argue against it, I say to members opposite? Why do you want to water it down?

Mr. Speaker, I can't support watering down the resolution because nothing else is going to work. Nothing else will work. Custodial management will not work. The NAFO agreements and conventions will not work. There is only one thing that is going to work if you are really concerned about conservation, which you say you have the amendment for conservation purposes only, and don't anyone suggest that the Flemish Cap is not important.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But it's not important enough for us, as Canadians, to control. That is what you are saying. The Flemish Cap is not important enough for us, as a country, to control; is that what you are telling us, Member for Eagle River? Where are you coming from, anyway? Why don't you go up in the House of Commons, where you want to be, with -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You will get control of nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, my God, it is unbelievable.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: How brainwashed is he, Mr. Speaker? How badly does he want to get into the Cabinet of Clyde Wells? How badly does he want to get in there? He would kowtow to anything. He would give away the Flemish Cap and the Nose and Tail of the Banks and let the Spaniards rape it out of self-interest. Never mind Newfoundland and Labrador; look after me - me, the Member for Eagle River, who wants to be a minister. That is what it is all about, do anything to become a minister. Never mind the people of the Province who are unemployed, and rural Newfoundland collapsing because of what is happening offshore. Water it down, Premier; go along with the Prime Minister, Premier; leave the Spaniards to overfish, Prime Minister. It doesn't matter as long as I look out for me, as long as I get ahead, as long as I have a good income. That is all that matters to me, Premier. To hell with the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Flemish Cap is not important. It is only the nursery of all those stocks. It does not matter. Let the Spanish go out and fish it. Let the Portuguese fish it. That is the problem, and you did not have the intestinal fortitude to tell the Premier this morning where to put his amendment. You did not have the intestinal fortitude as a group of parliamentarians to tell him where to put his amendment. That is the problem, because you do not think it is important enough.

Well, I tell you one thing, those of you who stood up a few days ago with your great applause are going to eat crow before it is over because I guarantee you with every passing hour the chances of Canada taking action against those Spanish vessels diminish. With every passing hour that they have nets in the water, and the Government of Canada does not act, with them scooping up juvenile fish, the chances lessen and lessen that Canada is going to take any action. So what does that tell us? We are going to close a blind eye to a reduced number of European community vessels overfishing our stocks. Is that what we are up to? I think that is what is going to happen.

What is your custodial management going to do then? What is your custodial management amendment going to do then? Only one thing is going to settle this situation and that is for us as a country to have control of the whole Continental Shelf. Nothing else will work. Put whatever names on it you want. I do not care what you call it. Extended jurisdiction is the key. We must have control of the entire Continental Shelf if we are going to resolve this problem, if we are going to conserve fish stocks for future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, of course, we are going to put divers out there to swim with them. Is that what they are going to do with the submarines I say to the Member for Eagle River? They were going to use submarines a few days ago to do surveillance out there. What has happened to the submarines?

AN HON. MEMBER: They are all over at Memorial.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, they could all be over at Memorial. I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that his federal counterparts, his cousins, have chickened out on the (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But they gave me leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, leave, okay.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, I wouldn't worry about that, if I were the Government House Leader.

It is a very serious situation, I say to members opposite. We have the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, who hasn't even participated in the debate. Really, it is very serious, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, no doubt. I was aware of that, or else I wouldn't have been able to move the resolution. I am very much aware what day it is, very much aware that it is Wednesday, Private Members' Day - I wouldn't have been called up to debate the resolution - but the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture should have been on his feet today. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation should have been on his feet today - well, he should have been but he wasn't allowed to be; otherwise you would have been. You would have been up on your feet. The reason the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is not on his feet is because they are not sure what he would say if he was on his feet, because I don't think for a minute that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation wants to tolerate for one minute six Spanish trawlers out there overfishing today and taking juvenile fish that is already overfished, that we have given up some of our quota to tolerate. That is why the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - not that he hasn't wanted to be up on his feet. He has wanted to be up.

MR. TOBIN: I would like to have been in that caucus this morning.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, there's no doubt, you would have learned something in caucus this morning.

Now, I want to say to hon. members before I sit down that if you are really concerned about the future of this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: We are.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will see in a minute just how concerned you are about this Province, and the future of the people of it. I will see that, that you will defeat the amendment as proposed.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am certainly going to vote against the amendment, I say to the Member for Eagle River, and I don't care who I tell. I will tell the people of this Province why. Don't go using any lame excuses on me why you introduced a resolution saying that what I did here today might endanger the negotiations, inflame the situation, when you have six Spanish vessels flagrantly overfishing the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, taking undersized fish, and you are telling me that because we are debating this here today we are going to jeopardize the situation? How stupid do you think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are, I ask the Premier, who suggested it in the first place? How stupid is he? How stupid does he think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are to swallow that?

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want control of the Continental Shelf. They want total control over our fish stocks. It is the only way. They are pointing up to the eighth floor, all of them. They are waving to the eight floor.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against the amendment because it is a weakening of our position, a weakening of a position taken three years ago by every member of this House. Three years ago you unanimously supported the same resolution and today you are weakening the situation. You have become jellyfish. You are spineless. You have become spineless. You have been browbeaten on something so important to this Province.

I want to leave that thought with the members.

MR. SIMMS: Beaten into submission.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You have been beaten into submission. For what reason, I ask members? How can you today stand and defeat that resolution, when the situation is far more serious today than it was three years ago? far more serious. Three years ago we didn't know that our turbot stocks were threatened. We knew our cod stocks and our flounder stocks were threatened and now it is our turbot stocks, and even though the situation has worsened, the position of the Provincial Government has weakened on the issue.

Now, that is the truth of the situation and I can't believe that enough members opposite, with us, will not vote to pass the resolution. I can't believe that, Mr. Speaker. I thank members for leave and I now adjourn the debate.

Motion as amended, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there are no other motions on the Order Paper, so I assume the House will agree to adjourn two or three minutes early.

Tomorrow will be Budget Day and members will recall that the order of business on Budget Day is simply to begin with -

MR. TOBIN: I predict that it is going to be the Premier's last budget (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, it may be the hon. gentleman's last Budget as a member, too, when we have the election.

Mr. Speaker, the order of business on tomorrow, as members will recall, will simply be the reading of the Budget speech, and when that finishes at about six or seven o'clock, as my friend, the minister tells me, we will then adjourn and go home.

Anyway, the Budget will be the order of the day tomorrow and the House will not sit on Friday. On Monday, we shall meet and hear from, I assume, the Member for Mount Pearl in response to the Budget, and on Tuesday we shall begin the Interim Supply Debate and carry on with that in the usual way. With that said, Your Honour, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 o'clock.

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