Bill Matthews

[Fisheries, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that just a few short years ago his department had a buyout program for commercial salmon fishermen in Atlantic Canada in the name of conserving the Atlantic salmon stocks.

Will the minister engage, if necessary, the help of external affairs, because we are dealing with France, and immediately start action to request that France stop the commercial salmon fishery?

I know the explanation the minister has given, but Atlantic Canadians have stopped fishing. They have sold their licences. The stocks are low. Will the minister take action to end this commercial salmon fishery?

[Fisheries, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Atlantic salmon stocks have dropped to crisis levels. The percentage of Atlantic salmon returning to our rivers this past year was alarmingly low. Meanwhile the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon still prosecute a commercial salmon fishery, intercepting salmon bound for Atlantic salmon rivers.

Will the minister immediately demand that France stop this commercial salmon fishery?

[Harvey Smith, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Harvey Smith is just 16 years old and already he has earned a place in the Newfoundland history books under the category of scholars.

The level three student at St. Bernard's All Grade School in St. Bernard's, Newfoundland will be off to Trinity College, Cambridge, England next September with a three year $90,000 scholarship. He won the Canadian Cambridge Scholarship last month beating out more than 450 other top Canadian undergraduate students in a rigorous test.

Harvey Smith is the first Newfoundlander to win this prestigious scholarship. He is also the youngest to win it and the first from a regular public school.

This is not the first award Harvey Smith has received for his amazing scholastic skills. Recently the Department of National Defence brought him to Ottawa to the Peacekeeping Monument where they launched a book Harvey had written entitled Siad . It earned Harvey the Prism award, designed to encourage young Canadians to write and national defence had 15,000 copies of the book printed for distribution to schools throughout Canada.

At Cambridge, Harvey will study biochemistry and molecular biology and hopes to one day contribute to a Canadian team of researchers in developing a cure for cancer.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get pulled into a debate between the hon. member opposite and members of the Reform Party. I think I will leave it to the two of them to agree or disagree.

They are ever changing times. Who knows in ten years what the situation will be in the country. Who knows what will happen to the population of Newfoundland and Labrador, what our student population will be, what the economics of our province will be with the new oil and gas industry, Voisey's Bay, and on and on it goes. It is very difficult to answer some of those questions.

I know that is why members are asking them. They know they are very difficult to answer.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, again it is very difficult to sort of respond. Yes, in 1987 the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador initiated a constitutional change that included the Pentecostal Assemblies. There is no question about this.

This is 10 years later. I guess if we could predict 10 years in advance on any issue what the situation would be, then we would avoid a lot of the problems, a lot of the very difficult decisions that we have to make in this country and in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

While the government of the day in 1987 thought that it was right and proper to include those rights in the Canadian constitution for the Pentecostal assemblies, there has been a lot of change since then.

As I mentioned, there have been a lot of changes in our province. There was the dollar crunch. The student population has declined tremendously.

The government of the province must have the right to govern and to make decisions. If the people do not like the decisions made, they deal with the government the time after.

I guess all I can say on that is that times have changed big time in Newfoundland and Labrador in 10 years, as they will be in 2007 from what they are today.

Maybe we will be changing it back in 2007, who knows. If I could look that far into the future with a crystal ball—

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member and his concerns.

Again to be honest, yes, I do have some concerns about that. We are talking about a very important issue. For me it comes down to the quality of education in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have gone through very tough economic times. We have gone through severe population changes, out-migration and other things. We have to weigh all these things in the equation before we come to a decision.

Education takes place every minute that we are awake. Some of the things which the hon. member alluded to such as prayer and other observances certainly can take place outside school. I am sure that will continue to happen.

If parents request it, then they will have religious observances within the school. They cannot be denied.

I do not know if I have answered the member in the way that he wanted but yes, I do have some concern about that. Again, the wording is quite clear in that there will be religious education courses developed and offered in the schools, but the courses will not be specific to any denomination. I think that is probably what the hon. member's concern is.

I am not as concerned about that, obviously, as the hon. member is.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want in any way to attempt to diminish the understanding that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had on this issue. They were well versed on it. They were better versed than anyone else in this country, quite naturally, because they were living it. They have lived it for eight or nine years.

To be very honest, which we all should be, I would say that there certainly were people who voted yes in the referendum because they were frustrated. They thought it had been dealt with in 1995 and then found out that it had not been, and here we go again.

I would have to be honest and say yes, there were Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who voted yes out of frustration. They wanted it to be dealt with. They wanted the educational reform of Newfoundland and Labrador to move forward and, quite naturally, I think there were some who felt like that.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I really want an opportunity to respond to that question, but the member made a suggestion and I will do my best.

Yes, I will use whatever persuasive powers I have to convince the other chamber to approve this without delay.

I have said from day one, when I made my position public on this issue, that I would not in any way be party to any tactic or any group or organization which tried to delay or stall this issue and I remain firm in my position tonight.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks on this very important issue for Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is not much more left to be said that has not already been said today and which has already been said in this House a number of times before. As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I have been wrestling with this issue for many years. I was an educator before I entered public life in 1982.

I debated this issue in the house of assembly, the Newfoundland legislature a number of years ago when then Premier Wells and his administration tried to move forward with educational reform in our province. To some degree they were partially successful. Then again Premier Wells' administration really did try to compromise. They tried to get an agreement between the churches and the government that hopefully was a workable solution, but we found out after it really was not a workable solution.

What we witnessed in 1997 in the September 2 referendum vote was a degree of frustration among Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They wanted this issue dealt with. That was certainly reflected in the 73% yes vote, frustration. They thought they had dealt with it in 1995 when 54.4% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians voted yes. They thought the issue had been put to bed then. They thought we were going to move forward with educational reform within our province.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians wanted to improve the quality of education inside the four walls of the classroom. That is what educational reform in Newfoundland and Labrador is about. It is not about turf wars or power struggles. To the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian educational reform is about improving the quality of education within the classrooms of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Reference has been made to the quality of education by a number of speakers today. Some have suggested that we rank third in the country. Unless we are number one and the best that we can be, then we will always have to strive to improve the quality of education.

There has been a big change in Newfoundland and Labrador over the last 10 or 12 years. There have been big shifts in population, demographics, out migration. Our student-teacher ratio has changed. Our student population has declined for a number of reasons. One is out migration and another is declining birth rate.

Our student population has shrunk so dramatically over the last 10 years that it has caused a different environment. There are situations where so few students attend some schools that consequently staffing allocations were affected and students could not access the programs they needed to pursue post-secondary careers. In essence, in many cases the post-secondary choices of students were very restricted by the course offerings in their schools. This is where we are in our province and that is why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians desire educational reform.

Some people questioned whether the 53% turnout in the last referendum was high enough. It was democratic. People were afforded the opportunity to speak on the issue. The wording was very clear. I held back on the issue for quite a while. People tried to pressure me in one way or another, that I should be behind the yes forces or that I should be behind the no forces. I told them that until I saw the precise wording of the new amendment, I would not make a decision. And I did not make a decision until I saw it and felt comfortable with it. But once I did see it, the wording was clear and I felt comfortable with the decision that I would support it and vote yes.

I have said before that if on June 2 there had been a 20% turnout of voters in the federal general election and 11% of them had voted for me, I would have been so grateful and thankful. I would not have found anything wrong with 11% of the votes. I would not have questioned it at all. If I was willing to accept that kind of a vote on June 2, how can I question 73% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who voted yes on September 2?

In the federal riding of Burin—St. George's there are six provincial districts and part of another in that great geographic area that takes in the entire south coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well over 70% of the people in that riding voted yes. All of the provincial members representing that riding in the Newfoundland and Labrador house of assembly voted yes. How can anyone expect me to come here tomorrow and vote any differently?

I understand that people have different points of view and different opinions, that they grew up in different ways, et cetera. I understand all of that and I respect everything that has been said here today and that will be said here later tonight. But the message is clear. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want this Parliament to deal with the issue in what they perceive to be a positive manner, and that is to vote yes. Let there be no mistake about what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want in this issue. They want this issue dealt with. It has gone on for eight or nine years. We thought it had been dealt with but it really was not dealt with.

In December 1992 in the Newfoundland legislature Premier Wells spoke on this very issue. All the church leaders of the province were sitting in the Speaker's gallery. I remember it very well. At that point Premier Wells thought they could reach a consensus, that they could reach an understanding on this issue. They thought they had done so but we have seen what has happened since.

In my view this issue is about governance. It is about governing the province of Newfoundland and Labrador which the present government was elected to do. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was hamstrung. It was handcuffed. It could not make the decisions about the education system of Newfoundland and Labrador that it was duly elected to make as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

If I were the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador or a part of the government administration for Newfoundland and Labrador, I would have done exactly what Premier Tobin and his administration did on this issue. They were not able to run the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the truth of the matter. They were not able to govern. They were not able to make decisions because every time they tried to make a decision or made a decision, someone challenged them and they could not move forward on education.

We saw it all this past year when schools were supposed to be closed and teachers were supposed to be redistributed in the province. Then it all went back up and we had to reopen schools. It has turned out to be a nightmare in Newfoundland and Labrador over the past eight or nine years as we have tried to get some sense of direction and bring about educational reform for the benefit of those people for whom we should have been debating it throughout those years, the students of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It got off track. The debate was not about improving the quality of education in all of those schools throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. The issue got lost. It was seldom mentioned. It turned into turf wars. I feel very strongly that the government had no choice but to deal with it. As part of the process the government went to the people for the second time.

Do not forget this was the second time that a majority of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador voted for educational reform, and this time overwhelmingly. So the people gave their blessing to this reform and to this question. I do not want to belabour the point here today and go on about it for the length of my time. I just want to say to hon. members here that I respect all their opinions and I respect the way they will vote.

It is interesting to note that within every caucus of every party represented in this House there will be people who will vote yes and people who will vote no. That tells us something about this whole process. It tells us about how seriously people take these matters. That is very good and I am proud of that. I am proud to be part of this Chamber and this Parliament which is so democratic and which is filled with people who are so strong in their convictions. I say that quite seriously here tonight. It is very interesting for me to be here and to witness this.

On behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and particularly the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I represent in Burin—St. George's, there is no question about what I will be doing tomorrow or whenever the vote is taken. I will be voting yes.

[Fisheries, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the fish I am talking about are inside of Canada's 200 mile limit.

I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans this. Why do these foreign nations have fish quotas of cod, red fish, squid, tuna, silver hake, argentine, turbot and capelin when our own fishermen do not have any fish to catch and our plant workers do not have any fish to process?

The minister knows that I have a request in to him for 5,000 tonnes of Argentine to put the people of Burgeo back to work. Japan and Russia today are catching 8,000 tonnes.

Why is the minister allowing foreigners to take the fish when we should be catching it and processing it?