November 21, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 33


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to offer congratulations to a small group of individuals in the Clarke's Beach area of my district who recently formed a national group of the International Friendship League. The first of its kind in this Province and indeed, Mr. Speaker, the first in Canada. The IFL is an international organization founded in 1931 as a non-governmental organization to promote a spirit of friendship among people of the world, with a view to peaceful cooperation in international affairs. With groups in over thirty countries the organization has strived to encourage peace throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, the newly formed group in Clarke's Beach is keen to support the IFL aims and build on the groups membership of eleven by attracting new membership. Their decision to form a group was spurred on by a desire to promote friendship, understanding, mutual respect and goodwill among all people, regardless of race and creed. Planned activities include conservation, charitable work, crafts, international guest speakers, pen friends and social gatherings.

I was privileged, Mr. Speaker, to be in attendance at the inaugural dinner of the Clarke's Beach International Friendship League to witness the presentation of the group to the President, Mrs. Joy Lake by Mrs. Joyce Roberts, a long-time member of the organization. The group meet on a regular basis and is a great source of social interaction for all members.

The executive members of the IFL in Clarke's Beach are: Mrs. Joy Lake, President; Mrs Joyce Roberts, Vice-President and Liaison Officer; Mrs. Joyce Dawe, Secretary, and Mrs. Mary Coffey the Treasurer.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, I join with all members of this Assembly in congratulating the Clarke's Beach group of the International Friendship League on forming the first group in the nation and in wishing them well in the years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the recipients of the Entrepreneur of the Year Awards that were presented by the Newfoundland and Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs. These awards presented at NLOWE's annual conference, "Landing Gears and Wings", was held in Gander on November 17 to November 19.

Five Entrepreneur of the Year Awards were given out to winners from each of the Provinces' five regions, as well as the Youth Entrepreneur of the Year Award and the Champion's Award. The awards are bestowed each year to recognize remarkable entrepreneurial spirit and unwavering commitment to entrepreneurship.

Lalena Burton, of Labrador City, is the recipient of the Youth Entrepreneur of the Year Award. The owner and operator of her own business, Designs in Bloom, Ms Burton is representative of everything that NLOWE's Youth Entrepreneur of the Year embraces: ambition, determination, originality, commitment and involvement.

Reverend Joan Short is NLOWE's recipient of the Champion Award for her long-term advancement, dedication, and commitment to entrepreneurship and economic development. She is the founder of Trelawney Bed & Breakfast in Colinet. Reverend Short has contributed immensely to the local economy by providing numerous employment opportunities and is actively involved with the Cape Shore Loop Tourism Association.

Five Entrepreneur of the Year Awards were also presented to winners from each of the Provinces' five regions. The awards for the Avalon region to Cindy Roma, owner and operator of world-renowned business Telelink; Labrador region, Barbara Wood, an artisan and volunteer with numerous artistic-related groups and organizations in Labrador; for the Eastern region, Darlene Mercer of Whitbourne, owner and operator of Knitter's Plus Emporium; for the Western region, Maxine Anstey of Corner Brook, owner and operator of Jennifer's Gift Shop and Restaurant; for the Central region, Rose Robinson of Norris Arm South, who is the proud owner of Central Food Mart, where she employs five full-time staff.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to clue up?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clue up by asking that all members of this House join me in extending our congratulations to these seven remarkable female entrepreneurs, who have each been extraordinary examples of how business and community development go hand in hand throughout our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Citizen's Crime Prevention Association of Newfoundland and Labrador has handed out two honours to the Clarenville area at their annual general meeting.

Cst. Duane Noel of the Clarenville RCMP detachment was named Officer of the Year, and Committee of the Year went to the Clarenville Area Citizens Crime Prevention Committee.

Cst. Duane Noel was noted for his major involvement in setting up the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program, known as D.A.R.E. This program is an anti-violence program that teaches children how to say: No, and make responsible decisions. It is offered to Grade 6 students in the area. Cst. Noel is well known in the Clarenville area for the time and effort he contributes to the Crime Prevention Committee, as well as the many other projects in the area.

The second award went to the Clarenville Area Citizens Crime Prevention Committee. This committee has won the Committee of the Year award no less than six times in its short fifteen-year history. Several of the committee's projects have, in fact, gone Province-wide.

Projects such as the peer mediation and the booklet, Lets Get Along developed by the committee have been picked up by other committees as far away as Nova Scotia.

Sgt. Tony Green, the district Commander of the RCMP, stated that one of the distinctions especially noted in the Clarenville area is the noticeable absence of youth crime. It is not a completely crime free community, but in comparison to other areas, Clarenville is one of the best for the lack of youth crime. The Crime Prevention Committee, which has being in existence since 1987, can certainly take some of the credit and responsibility for that distinction.

Along with winning Committee of the Year, the Clarenville Committee also won the award for Crime Prevention Project of the Year.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the Clarenville Crime Prevention Committee as well as Cst. Duane Noel.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in this hon. House today to extend congratulations to Nancy Riche on receiving the distinguished Persons Award for her contribution to the advancement of women's equality. This award is presented to six Canadian women annually for carrying on the work of the Famous Five, who fought for the women to be declared persons under the law.

Nancy's work as an activist, trade unionist, and feminist for more than thirty years were commemorated when the Governor General presented her with the prestigious Persons Award. Many people of this Province will recognize and associate Nancy with her involvement in the New Democratic Party where she served as Federal President for four years and also with the Canadian Labor Congress where she served as Executive Vice-President for fifteen years, and Secretary-Treasurer for three years.

Nancy Riche is the seventh woman from Newfoundland and Labrador to have been awarded this honour. Previous provincial recipients include Ella Manuel, Frances Laracy, Dorothy Inglis, Morag O'Brien, Ruth Flowers, and Phyllis Seymour.

Mr. Speaker, while we support different political parties, I feel it is important to acknowledge this award given to Nancy Riche, and also her contribution to women's equality both on a provincial and national level.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a moment to draw hon. members' attention, and indeed the people of the Province, to the twenty-ninth Annual Christmas Craft Fair which opened today here in St. John's at the Convention Centre. The Craft Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, which hosts the Craft Fair, is a Province-wide industry association representing some 300 professional members.

The Annual Christmas Craft Fair is the oldest continuous craft marketing event in the Province, and this year's show will have in excess of 100 craft exhibitors, and attract some 10,000 visitors over the four days, and generate close to $500,000 in sales.

I want to pay special tribute to Anne Manuel, who is the Executive Director, in the job that she and her staff and volunteers have been able to accomplish in seeing this show come to a full twenty-ninth year. The Christmas Craft Fair is open to everyone, and I am sure that all of us in the House of Assembly and across the Province will take advantage of this fair in order to garner their much needed Christmas gifts and help Santa Claus out, and help those in the craft industry at the same time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

 

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the recent reports out of Ottawa, regarding the potential closure of certain cod fisheries in our Province.

Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I heard via the media, of the briefing that the federal minister made to his Atlantic caucus regarding the state of cod stocks in the Northern and Southern Gulf. It was then reported there is a very real probability that these fisheries will close in the 2003 season. This is something which we have all feared for the past couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the concern of these past several years on the projected status of those stocks. I am offended, however, that the federal minister did not contact the Minister of Fisheries for this Province. That, basically, is simply unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I have great concern that the federal minister has made this judgement in the absence of consultation with the Province and other Atlantic Provinces, but more significantly, in the absence of the final report from the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council - an organization which consults with stakeholders and analyses scientific data for the purpose of providing advice to the federal minister on all of the fisheries in the Province.

The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council are, as a matter of fact, at this very moment, still conducting consultations throughout the Province on the very fisheries that we are talking about here today. It is offensive, I think, for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that the minister chose to make statements about the future of these fisheries prior to the recommendations of the FRCC being received after the present consultation. Rather, it would have been prudent and responsible for the minister to wait for his own scientific advice, prior to making these statements which are devastating if they are impacted and enforced in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As is always the case, Mr. Speaker, our main concern and priority will be protecting the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We will not wait for a year until the federal government is ready to turn its attention to those people and communities who will be gravely impacted by such a decision if it is implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled by the absence of any reference to compensation, and I can assure the people of this Province that I raised this matter this morning directly with the Deputy Prime Minister, who is in our capital city today, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Manley, and that we will be addressing this matter more formally and regularly and repeatedly with the federal government following the course of action that I think we have agreed to take here today, and are outlining today.

It is also very discouraging to see our federal minister continue to ignore the best interests of this Province's fishery. He has now on several occasions demonstrated his indifference to the interests of the fishery here. Just to recount: he rejected outright, our position on custodial management, and rejected that same recommendation from his own House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans; he accepted, just recently, the final report of the Independent Panel on Access Criteria, which was completely contrary to the position presented by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, on behalf of the people of this Province, and the proposals and recommendations that we put forward to that committee were dismissed out of hand; and most recently, Mr. Speaker, he appointed an MP, a Member of Parliament, from Ontario to Chair the new House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans - a position which heads the Committee which impacts our region and our Province, more than any other in the country.

These examples, Mr. Speaker, along with a continued inability to deal with foreign overfishing, shows clearly that the federal government is not managing the fishery in a manner which maximizes benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this is not now, and never will be, acceptable to our Province and to this government and our people.

This issue, Mr. Speaker, is much too important to be politicized - indeed, we must make sure that when these kinds of issues of this scope and nature arise that we put politics aside, and that we all come together to address the situation at hand.

Mr. Speaker, as Premier, I am calling on all Newfoundland and Labrador Federal MPs and Senators to come to the Province on an urgent basis for an emergency meeting with the Provincial Government and the Opposition Party leaders. It is vital that we have a comprehensive discussion for the purpose of developing proper and appropriate redress for those who will be most seriously impacted by this situation, if it unfolds as is now speculated. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful and confident that by working together, we can work as Province, as we face this time of potential crisis again in our fishery.

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes the government will put forward a resolution requesting that the House today suspend its regular business and proceedings to allow members to have an emergency debate on this particular issue critically important to the future of our fishery. I do understand that the House Leaders and the Leader of the New Democratic Party have consulted with respect to how we might arrange for such a debate for the remainder of today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for an opportunity to address this most critical and important issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident, from the demeanor of members present and even the faces on the people in the gallery of the House of Assembly today, that this is a very, very serious matter for the Province. I think when we all heard it yesterday afternoon, it was devastating, albeit rumour and albeit not in a formal manner. It was very, very devastating news for all of us and I think we are all still in some shock over it.

As we all know, the fishery is the lifeline and the lifeblood of our Province and, indeed, our rural communities, and this is going to have a devastating impact, if it is implemented, on all of us. I want to assure the Premier today that our caucus met this morning and spent some considerable time on this and decided, as well, that an emergency debate was in order. I know that our House Leaders have met, and I also understand that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has concurred that this is appropriate this afternoon, that we suspend all matters and discuss this very, very important matter and allow all members to have equal time from the perspective - and allowing them to be heard and expressing their concerns and sentiments on behalf of their various districts.

I want to give the Premier and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador our utmost assurance that we will take partisan politics out of this. We will work with you, Premier. We will work with you, Minister. We will work with any other ministers of the government and anybody else in government to ensure that as a people we come together to deal with this very, very serious issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: There will be no partisan politics played, I can assure you. It rises above that. I can assure the Premier that we will try and bring together a group of people, successfully pulled together in conjunction with the Leader of the New Democratic Party, Members of this House of Assembly, a coalition, a custodial management. I can assure the Premier that when it comes to talking about our fishery and talking about issues in the fishery that are important to our Province, the people of this Province rally around.

In that coalition were Members of the House of Assembly, were all the Members of Parliament in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, other Members of Parliament in Atlantic Canada - Mr. Stoffer from the NDP in Atlantic Canada - came together. Municipalities came together; Randy Simms on behalf of the Federation of Municipalities. All our municipalities, all our communities will come together. Our Chambers of Commerce will come together, FANL, the FFAW will come together. The clergy will come together. The Alliance people who have an interest in the fishery will come together. I assure you Premier, you will have our utmost cooperation. We can rally all these people around you. We will have a meeting here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We will go to Ottawa. We will go to the ends of the earth with you on this one, no matter what it takes, to make sure that this problem is resolved.

The actions of the federal minister, in this particular situation, as the Premier has said, are inexcusable, totally inexcusable. He has basically ignored us. For the Premier of this Province and for this government to hear this through media leaks is terrible, absolutely terrible, contemptible that that should be allowed to happen. That minister is a disgrace to his government and a disgrace to our Country of Canada for doing what he has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: He has shown, as the Premier has said, on a position of custodial management that no, that is not important to him but when it comes to domestically cutting down and shutting down an aspect of our industry he is prepared to make Atlantic Canadians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay the price; and that, simply, is not acceptable.

So, we will have an opportunity to speak, Premier. I appreciate your cooperation in allowing us to have an emergency debate this afternoon, of course, at our mutual suggestion. Again, no attempt here to gain any cheap political points. That simply will not happen. You will have our full cooperation. I am prepared to sit down and meet with you, as I certainly am with the Leader of the NDP, at any particular point in time to decide a joint strategy where we can work together to find real solutions for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, because we have to show compassion and consideration for what is going on here, and I call on all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to come together on this very, very important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ten years ago when the cod moratorium was announced by then federal minister, John Crosbie, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were placed in a state of shock and disbelief, and we have seen the devastation of the last ten years, what has been called a disaster. I think in a report Richard Cashin referred to it as a disaster of biblical proportions with respect to the Northern cod stocks in this Province. We have seen the very delicate balance over the last ten years in attempting to bring back these stocks, and we have all looked with great chagrin at the inability of seeing them being restored to their previous vigor.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize that the Premier's words in demonstrating the lack of cooperation from the federal government, the federal minister on point after point after point and this devastating, ignorant and insulting lack of consultation, and, in fact, treating it as almost a political issue that - and I was very disturbed to hear this morning, for example, on CBC Radio, that somehow or other the briefing to the Atlantic caucus: We have to watch the timing on this announcement because there could be a provincial election. We have to worry about our provincial Liberal colleagues.

I want to say that I am very pleased that the Premier has rejected that as a consideration and has invited, instead, both the PC Opposition and the NDP Opposition here to join with him and with all federal Members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador, both parties, and Senators from this Province to treat this as an issue that crosses all political lines in this Province. I think that is an appropriate and proper thing to do and I commend him for taking that position very, very early in this debate. Please be assured, Premier, that this is the kind of issue that we will certainly be fully cooperative on with our partners and supporters and contacts and connections in the fishing industry, to work with all members of this House and other parliamentarians in Ottawa to ensure that this time a compensation package will be one that will be designed in partnership with the people of this Province, with the people in the fishing communities, so that we will have a say, upfront, in advance. If there is going to be a reduction in the fishery or a moratorium on certain species that this must be done with planning in advance, with full consultation, with full compensation, and nothing else is going to be acceptable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, I look forward to the debate this afternoon and I appreciate the Premier's offer of involvement of both Opposition parties, in working all together to try and ensure that this situation is studied, is fully considered and is dealt with in an appropriate manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it hardly seems appropriate today that we go back and we deal with the questions of the Lower Churchill, but, of course, this is a very, very important matter that is before the people of this Province and which this government is dealing with.

My questions will be for the Premier.

In accordance with our discussions yesterday, I will make every attempt possible to keep my preambles as brief as possible. However, there is content in the questions that, I think, are very, very important to be laid out in anticipation of this particular project.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last three days we have exposed some of the numerous flaws in the proposed Lower Churchill deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is not a laughing matter. If you would allow me just to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

Would the Premier please confirm the following basic components of the deal which have been disclosed during the last three days: First, that it is, in fact, a forty-five year agreement that will expire no earlier than 2055; that there will be no form of redress for the Upper Churchill; that there is no transmission line for power to the Island; that Quebec is, in fact, financing the project with our own money that they made on the Upper Churchill; that there is no -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: Hon. members should listen -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: - because they cannot possibly be aware of the issues.

- that there is no guarantee of 100 per cent ownership of the project by Newfoundland and Labrador; that there is no guarantee of 100 per cent management and control of the project; that the courts of Quebec will decide major financial matters under this contract; that we can only recall our own power at a price greater than we sold it to Quebec in the first place; and that we could, in fact, lose the Lower Churchill project to Quebec under this financial arrangement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just deal with the standard old courtroom tactic of the Leader of the Opposition. For the record, and for you, if you were a judge, there is nothing that has been confirmed and nothing been exposed and nothing been disclosed in this Legislature in the last three days. What has been said is this: We refuse to deal with the tactic of fearmongering and scaremongering put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. We are insisting, and are going to continue to insist, on having an informed debate in Newfoundland and Labrador with the facts before the people instead of fabricated scenarios put forward by the Leader of the Opposition who then stands up with a supposed serious voice and says: It has been exposed. It has been confirmed. It has been disclosed. The only one who said anything in a speculative fashion for three days is the Leader of the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - because we refuse to enter into such a debate, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is a despicable approach, absolutely despicable, not inconsistent. It is Voisey's Bay two, because that is exactly the approach he used with Voisey's Bay: try to poison the well before the debate starts.

Mr. Speaker, let me answer one part with respect to the line to the Island. Everybody has known - there was no disclosure here - from day one, that in the discussion - because we talked about the five principles we were trying to achieve with Premier Landry and myself - there has never been a mention of a line to the Island. It is not part of this discussion. It is a future discussion for others to have at another time, and a right one to have at a point in time. But, let me point this out: There are whole constituencies in Labrador who totally and fundamentally - in case he does not know - disagree with the concept of having the energy transported to the Island because that means the industrial activity will all be on the Island and not in Labrador. Has he listened to the Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay lately, who says: We want the energy used in the Upper Lake Melville region. He does not want a line to the Island that takes the energy and sees it used in and around St. John's again - where there is already a booming economy - and other places in the Island where people are doing quite well compared to Labrador. There is a whole constituency. He should visit there more often and find out how the people of Labrador really think and feel about energy issues in that part of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the Premier goes back to personal attacks in order to defend a poor deal again. I do agree with the Premier on one thing: It is Voisey's Bay two and it is, in fact, Churchill River number two as well.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Mines and Energy. The Premier has asked that we deal with the facts, so let's deal with the facts.

Mr. Speaker, Merrill Lynch, in a presentation to Quebec Hydro says that the wholesale rates for electricity in the United States average nine to eleven cents U.S., or fourteen to seven cents Canadian per kilowatt hour.

My question for the Minister of Mines and Energy is this: Following the Ministerial Statement on Tuesday in which he said, "... our intention to ensure that we get full value as though we were going directly to the market ourselves in another fashion.", would the minister assure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we will, in fact, get between fourteen and seventeen cents per kilowatt hour for our Gull Island power adjusted upwards, of course, if the price is higher when the project is completed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, a very important and serious component of putting together a Lower Churchill deal is with respect to the price that we will get for our power, because that is fundamental, of course, as to whether or not a deal: (a) is viable and (b) is sensible and reasonable.

The price that we will be receiving for our power, if and when we conclude an arrangement, would be based on what is not only reasonable today in the context of prices for energy in North America, but it will be reasonable and it will be measured against the projected value and price for power well into the future, particularly commencing with 2010, 2012, or at whatever point a project might be coming on stream.

So we will use, we have used, we are looking at, we have in our possession, we have done a lot of consideration, and we have hired the best experts we can find in North America in the energy industry and in the financial community to give us advice and give us information. The price that we will get for our power will be a fair price, a consistent price and a good price based on floor prices and based on escalator clauses that will compare with what is projected to be its value on a go-forward basis long, long into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has gone from the Open Line to talking about full value in North American cities, to this House, two days ago, talking about full value, to the words: reasonable, fair, consistent, measured against something. No longer, Mr. Speaker, do we have full value, so the escalator is not an escalator at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, a Hydro-Quebec document which compares electricity prices of North American cities four years ago, in 1998, shows that the residential price for electricity in Montreal is 6.03 cents per kilowatt hour and the industrial price for heavy industrial commercial users is 4.06 cents per kilowatt hour.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister: Is that industrial price, that commercial price, that wholesale price of approximately four cents per kilowatt hour, the price that we are, in fact, going to get for our Gull Island power?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would remind all hon. members again to - if they have not already, and I believe they have - take into account the very focused and very accurate position that the Premier has put, for the last three or four days, with respect to negotiations on a possible Lower Churchill deal. We are structuring a negotiated arrangement on the Lower Churchill deal that will take into account, fully, what it is our power will be worth when it comes available to be sold, to be used and to be otherwise made available for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

For the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today to be asking for a comparison between prices specific in Montreal to a specific user - for example, a domestic or a wholesale or commercial user - is really picking a very narrow piece of information to try and construct a circumstance that would suggest -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. MATTHEWS: - that we have agreed to something that is inappropriate, inconsistent, and that we cannot support.

In the fullness of time, and providing we get the right arrangement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - to develop the project, all of the information, including full disclosure on power prices, current and projected, measured against the standards that we have been examining, and the information that we have been given, will be made available to all of the people of the Province for full consideration and debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot believe it. The Minister of Mines and Energy, who is negotiating this on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, says that the price in this agreement is very narrow and very picky.

Well, I am sorry. It is very, very important (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: I cannot believe he said it; (inaudible) better!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind hon. members that the practice we have followed is that points of order that come up during Question Period ought to be deferred until the end of the Question Period, unless it is of an emergent or urgent nature.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec's comparison of prices in North American cities shows that Corner Brook residents, for example - I think St. John's is probably used as an example, but let's use Corner Brook, my district - would pay nearly 40 per cent more per kilowatt hour for electricity than residents in Montreal.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the price difference of 40 per cent will probably increase for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who depend on burning oil for electricity while Quebecers will continue to use our cheap power from the Lower Churchill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to point out again the despicable, quite despicable tactic of the Leader of the Opposition. This is a serious debate, Mr. Speaker. This is a very serious debate, and here is the Leader of the Opposition trying, again, to set up a scenario to have people scared off to even having an intelligent, informed debate once we all know what we are talking about.

There has been no release of any agreement to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He gets up and misrepresents the answers. The Minister of Mines and Energy did not say what he suggested, which is why he was going to rise on a point of order. He did not say it. Then this hon. member - did you notice that I used the word hon. member? - this hon. member gets up and tries to suggest to the people in this Legislature and the people of the Province through television that he said something completely different than what he said. Mr. Speaker, we have seen it now for four days, a tactic with an Opposition that is opposed to this deal and has said, because get back to the fundamental, the details do not matter when you have an Opposition that says unless you reopen the Upper Churchill we would never even discuss the development of the Lower Churchill because that means there will be nothing to talk about for another thirty-nine long years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER GRIMES: So, we are not talking about a price. We are not talking about cost in Corner Brook.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: We are talking about sitting there and doing nothing for another thirty-nine years, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I am glad the Premier rose to his feet because I have a question now for the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

On Tuesday in this House the hon. the Premier acknowledged that there are serious consequences under the lending documentation if the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is unable to meet its financial commitments. Mr. Speaker, would the Premier give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an ironclad guarantee that there is nothing in this documentation that could affect our credit rating or our ability to borrow when our financing practices are already considered to be unsustainable?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would expect, and I do know, that the people in this Legislature, all of us and those in the gallery and the people of the Province listening to the debate, can see through the tactic that is being played. Listen to it again. Let me use this example: the Leader of the Opposition in a Legislature where we are committed under our own honour to tell the truth - that's the rules by which we operate. We do not call each other anything other than honourable and truthful members because we accept that if somebody says it, it is the truth and we do not challenge that. If we say otherwise, we are asked to withdraw.

Right here, a prime example just given. The Leader of the Opposition with a straight face, serious face, in a serious tone, said: A couple of days ago the Premier acknowledged that there were serious consequences in the financing. Do you know what I said? And we can check Hansard and we can check the tapes from outside. I said the consequences in the financing agreement are normal financing arrangements that you would find in any loan. That is what I said. Those are my words. What gives anybody else, particularly any other hon. member committed to telling the truth, the right to stand up with a straight face and suggest that I said something entirely different, which would be wrong to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? It is absolutely -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier was asked: What were the consequences of overruns on cost to ownership of the project and control of the project? He stated that it was security documentation and there are consequences to that security documentation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier refuses to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador whether this will affect our credit rating in the future. He did not answer it, so we have to assume the answer is: yes, it will affect the credit rating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to get to his question.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

Would the minister please confirm for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that Peter Penashue is correct when he says that all principles have been agreed upon in a land claims agreement between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Innu Nation? Would the minister please advise the people of this Province today of the details of that agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice at least to acknowledge that when the Leader of the Opposition is challenged, as I just did, he changed his tune. Because remember, when he gave now his version of the answer about the consequences of financing, this time he did not use the word serious anymore. Did anybody notice? The first time he said, with a straight face, to give the people of the Province cause to believe that I was suggesting there are serious consequences. The media knows the difference. They have the tapes of what we both said outside the Legislature. Our words are verbatim in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, and now he is being exposed for trying to use language that did not exist because it is his words, not my words, Mr. Speaker; his words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: It is far too serious to be trivialized and to try to misrepresent the language. This is about the future of Newfoundland and Labrador for the next forty years. It is not about trying to live in the past, trying to make sure that we do not move forward, trying to make sure we do nothing because that is the vision of the Leader of the Opposition, the group opposite, Mr. Speaker. Assume nothing. He says we can assume this. We will all have an informed debate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: - when we get the information and then we will gladly participate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's deal with some more facts that are out in the public domain, Premier.

Mr. Speaker, if we assume full production of 2,000 megawatts of power at a rate of seventeen cents Canadian per kilowatt hour, and if we assume that that increases by 1.5 per cent annually for the forty-five year life of the exclusive sales to Hydro-Québec, total revenues for the life of the project could be as high as $200 billion.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier: How much does Newfoundland and Labrador get from the Lower Churchill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, let me point out the tactic that is being used. At the beginning of this question, the Leader of the Opposition made this statement - I wrote it down and the record tomorrow will show that this is exactly what he said. Everyone listening now knows this is exactly what he said. He said, Mr. Premier, "Let's deal with some more facts that are out in the public domain". Let me repeat it. Here is the Leader of the Opposition, committed upon his honour in this House to tell the truth - we are, all hon. members, committed to tell the truth. His lead-in is this, "Let's deal with some more facts that are out in the public domain...". Everybody in this Province knows this: There are no facts out in the public domain because nothing has been released. There are no facts other than the version in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. The only version of the facts in the public domain are the representations of it that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, confirmed by nobody, exposing nothing and disclosing nothing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier now to conclude his answer, quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: That is what he is talking about. So, the basis of his question is without any merit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has not even gone to the Hydro-Québec Web site to look at where these facts came from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: You haven't answered any questions. I am not going to ask you any more questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: These are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, right now, today, there are over twenty private ambulance operators who have their vehicles parked out in front of this building, threatening to withdraw services. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health and Community Services tell this House why his department continues to issue policies that put the ambulance operators of this Province in a compromising position of disobeying and contravening the legislation under the Motor Carrier Act that governs the licence they have been issued by the Public Utilities Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This minister and this department take seriously the responsibilities with regard to this important service which it is provided by the ambulance operators on behalf of the people of this Province. Contrary to what the hon. member opposite is trying to suggest, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, our first and most important responsibility in this issue is to try and ensure the safety of the people of the Province. That is the primary consideration of this minister and of this department, and if the hon. member opposite has something to the contrary that he would like to suggest then I would ask him to respectfully place on the table so we can discuss it here in the Chamber in the presence of these members who are here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that we have allocated a slot in the Question Period for the New Democratic Party in this Legislature. There is only a little over three minutes left, and I think that is what we have been allocating to them. If members want to use up the time otherwise, then that is fine, but we have to allocate the time to the hon. members sitting at my right here.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

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

My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I want to say to the minister that the Trans-Labrador Highway is in such poor condition that public safety is at risk. Within the last couple of weeks, there have been four separate accidents where vehicles have flipped over on their rooftops, including one from the Department of Environment. Here is a picture, I say to the minister, of one of the graders off the road. Here are two copies of damage reports that have been done, both to vehicles and personal damage that people have done to themselves from travelling that highway.

I ask the minister: With all the money flowing out of Labrador, from the mines in Wabush and Labrador City, from Five Wing Goose Bay, the coastal fishery, the forestry, Voisey's Bay, the Upper Churchill and now possibly the Lower Churchill - with all these monies flowing out, Minister - don't you think it is time that the people in Labrador had a decent road on which to drive?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the hon. Member for Labrador West: Yes, we take our role in providing services in Labrador very, very seriously. As a matter of fact, in the last five years this particular government has spent millions and millions and millions of dollars in trying to provide decent roadwork in Labrador, and this government is committed to continuing on with the program of completing the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Also, in terms of the Provincial Capital Works Program this year, in terms of the section of the road he is talking about between Wabush and Goose Bay, out of a $20 million budget this year we have allocated $1 million to provide more crushed stone and Class A for that section of that particular highway, and I would anticipate when the minister receives the budget this year, we will do more improvements to this particular highway, but 5 per cent of the total provincial budget this year was spent on the Trans-Labrador Highway and we will continue to make the major improvements that are necessary in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: You hold the record, Minister, for the shortest visit ever to Labrador West. You could have arrived January 15 in boxer shorts and not even have gotten frostbitten.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.

MR. COLLINS: I say to the minister: When will you keep your commitment to the truckers of Labrador West and come in, get aboard their truck, travel that road with them, and find out first-hand what the condition of that road is like?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can say to the hon. member, since this minister was sworn in as minister, I have visited every community in Labrador. I have been in every community in Labrador. I have spent a fair amount of time in Labrador. I did travel the highway from Wabush to Goose Bay. As a matter of fact, the day that I travelled that particular highway, the road was in good shape. It might have rained two days afterwards and it needed to be graded, but the day I travelled that particular road, the road was in good shape. Like all gravel service road, if you get a major rainstorm -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. BARRETT: - you get a lot of potholes in the road, but we have six graders that operate on that particular road.

I made a commitment to the truckers in Labrador that once I had time in my schedule I would travel with that particular trucker from -

AN HON. MEMBER: A year ago, two years ago.

MR. BARRETT: I said a month ago, to this particular trucker, that I would travel the highway with him as soon as my schedule permits.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. BARRETT: One of the problems we have right now, I say to the truckers in Labrador, we are in this House of Assembly for four or five days. I also represent a district where I have functions (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

PREMIER GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

 

 

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Mines and Energy was prompted to rise on a point of order during Question Period, because of a tactic that is used by the Leader of the Opposition which I believe violates all of the orders of being truthful in this House. I would like to give an example of it, right from Hansard, so you can judge.

This is from Hansard, November, 19, on page 1821, a question from the Leader of the Opposition, after a long preamble, which you advised him yesterday was inappropriate. It is important that we listen carefully now. "Would the Premier please confirm that the term of this contract is, in fact, forty-five years or more and takes us fourteen years beyond the expiration of the Upper Churchill agreement?" That is the question from the Leader of the Opposition.

My answer, my words, Premier Grimes answers, "Mr. Speaker, the term of a contract, if we are fortune enough to get one that works for Newfoundland and Labrador, will be long enough to pay for the debt of building it, to pay for the operations of it, and to make it profitable for Newfoundland and Labrador from the very first year of operation. Otherwise, we will not do the deal."

Then, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Williams - that is how we are described here in the book, in our records - says -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Here is the point, Mr. Speaker. Here is why the Leader of the Opposition - here is why we are provoked and tempted -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - to violate the rules of the House. Let me finish, because here is the fact, Mr. Speaker.

The follow-up then, on his feet right after that question, which everybody just heard, and that answer, which are the words that I gave, the Leader of the Opposition says, "If I might summarize, the answer is: Yes, it is a forty-five year deal." The Premier confirms it is a forty-five year deal. Then he stands up today and says: Let me talk about the facts that are in the public domain.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot create the facts yourself, find a completely different answer from the government giving the answer, and then reconfirm your own assertion as the fact. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that breaches every rule in this Legislature, for a member to stand up and say, when we are bound to the truth - because it is only our honour as truthful men and women that we stand on here. For that to be left on the public record, we must stand up and rise on a point of order because it is false, it leaves the wrong impression, and it should not be allowed to stand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I want to rise to the erroneous point of order raised by the Premier. If it was not such a serious matter, I would suggest that if there was a parliamentary yuk yuks in the country, that he go attend it.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is that for a year-and-a-half, the Premier of this Province, and the Government House Leader, every time they are under a bit of pressure, want to stand up and use this Parliament, this House of Assembly, and frivolous points of order, to try to make a political statement. The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: that what we have here, according to Beauchesne, our own standing rules, and Marleau, which is the guide that is used in the House of Commons, is more of a dispute between two members.

Secondly, the Premier either should know or ought to know that what he just did was to impute motives on the hon. member, that said he was less than truthful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That imputed motives that said he was less than honest, and the Premier knows he cannot do that.

Mr. Speaker, the other assumption that the Premier has made is as if we depend upon him and his ministers only for information. Now, if believes that, if he believes that the answers that he provides are the only source of our information, well, Sir, you have bigger trouble than I thought you had!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, not to prolong the point of order, just to make a couple of points which are very, very important. What the Premier was doing was not questioning the integrity or question the truthfulness. He was talking about a method of asking questions, where the Leader of the Opposition very often asks a question and makes a misrepresentation of the answer. That is what the hon. Premier was talking about, and this House is guarded against that by every authority that there is in the British Commonwealth: Erskine May, Beauchesne. All of these people talk about making misrepresentation of remarks made by other people, and that is very important. It is easy to do and if you play that game Parliament will not operate in the way that it is supposed to operate. I just want to make that point. That is what the Premier was doing, was talking about how the Leader of the Opposition would ask a question and then proceed to misrepresent the answer. That is not supposed to happen in this House and it is a hard thing to deal with. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to follow the rules of the House in asking questions and please, not to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: I have listened to the hon.- I have listened to him.

Mr. Speaker, quite clearly, what the Premier was asking, was asking that the Leader of the Opposition refrain from misrepresenting his answers. That is what the Premier was doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Now, you talk about parliamentary tactics. The last time I looked you were the Speaker. The Premier, the Member for Exploits - the Government House Leader just stood in this House on two occasions back-to-back and said that the Leader of the Opposition, in a purposeful way, has misrepresented the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you knew that and you saw that then you would have interrupted him. The fact of the matter is, that is not true. Members opposite, and in particular the Dean of this House, the Government House Leader, knows the difference. That is what upsets me. He knows that in Beauchesne it says that it is improper and incorrect to impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged by any other member. He knows that.

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had been unparliamentary, had gone out of his way to break the rules of this House, Sir, I do not know about them but we have the utmost faith and confidence in you that you would have brought him to order immediately, and you did not do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me say this, that members opposite, in particular the Premier and other ministers, you would be far better off answering the questions than getting up and wasting this House's time with your parliamentary nonsense.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will certainly review the comments made by those who made an intervention to the point of order and will certainly report back to the House on the matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If I could have hon. members' attention, we will continue with the routine proceedings. I just called Notices of Motion.

MR. E. BYRNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The attacks continue. During the Voisey's Bay debate the Leader of the Opposition was called a racist, and people had to apologize for it - by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Now the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs sings out that the Leader of the Opposition is a condescending despot. Now look, that type of language is unparliamentary, uncalled for, and should not be repeated in this House. Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to do the honourable thing, stand up and withdraw those remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, you talk about wasting time of the House. The hon. member thinks that he has to get up and comment on every point of order raised in this House, every point of privilege. He thinks he has become the authority. He is trying to take this place on his back. Now what was heard there - sometimes there are comments back and forth that are said in a jocular manner, but I can assure the hon. member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: No, I did not hear it.

I can assure the hon. member that if this hon. member made an unparliamentary remark, he will be the first to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not hear any comments made, but I am sure that the hon. member, if he did make an unparliamentary remark, will withdraw it. The bantering back and forth and the interjections, sometimes it is difficult to hear what members are saying.

The Chair had called Notices of Motion, but obviously members in the House had not heard it. If members are not going to pay attention and are going to be continuously interjecting and interrupting, then it is going to bring this House down, and the decorum of this House is going to be reduced. It is incumbent on all members to pay attention and to follow our own rules and Standing Orders and to show some respect for this institution.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition looked over at me and said: Enjoy your last few minutes in the House, Oliver. It is a threat.

Now I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if it is a despot or not, if that is unparliamentary, but if it is, then I will withdraw. But, I will not be intimidated by the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier indicated, the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the New Democratic Party and I agreed that we would set aside the Orders of the Day and debate a motion. We have not worked out all the details, Mr. Speaker, other than to say - we just want to make sure we say the right things here. We did not work out all the rules, other than we would abide by our normal rules and close at our normal time. I think we agreed on ten minutes, but we could change that. I believe that we agreed on people speaking for ten minutes, and the same order back and forth, of course. If there is anything else, we can work out as we proceed. That is the agreement that I thought we came to, that we would speak for ten minutes within our normal time.

The resolution that I have presented is as follows:

WHEREAS the fishery is of vital importance to the people of this Province; and

WHEREAS there are indications of impending moratoria on cod fisheries in NAFO regions 2J3KL and 4RS3PN; and

WHEREAS such actions will have a devastating impact on the economical and social well-being of not only those directly affected but on the population as a whole; and

WHEREAS should the scientific advice recommend closure of these fisheries, the Government of Canada has the responsibility to provide appropriate compensation to mitigate the impacts on people and communities;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House unanimously request that all Newfoundland and Labrador Members of Parliament and Senators come to the Province and meet with the Premier, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the leaders of the Official Opposition and New Democratic Party to ensure we are working collectively and cooperatively for the best interests of the people and communities of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is my understanding that there is an agreement to suspend all other business of the day and that we will proceed with the debate on the resolution that the hon. Government House Leader has just presented.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Before the proceedings of the House today we had met and agreed that we would suspend, by consent, the Orders of the Day. Each members will be given approximately ten minutes each from here to 5:30 p.m. which will allow as many members, or the most members as possible, who would like to participate in the debate. I believe the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, also agreed to that. We are ready to proceed when government is.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be on record as confirming that that agreement is made and we agreed to ten minute speeches, and that everybody will be given an opportunity to speak, presumably. If that takes beyond the 5:30 p.m., we may have to agree to that, depending on how the time is going.

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

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) to go to 5:30 p.m. We will look at that a little later. The only other change - to the Leader of the Opposition - I said that the Minister of Fisheries is going to lead of the debate, that was my understanding, but it is going to be the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate this opportunity to spend a few minutes addressing this critically important issue, and I do commend all members in the House for setting aside this time for this emergency debate today.

Mr. Speaker, as I see it, and I think as we view it as the government, and I believe it is a view shared most likely and probably with all members in the Legislature and probably just about every single person in the Province, what we saw unfold here yesterday as a result of this particular report being discussed with a federal Atlantic caucus and then provided to the media and then we finding out through our own sources later on and some time later last evening, and for some people not until today, of an issue this critically important to Newfoundland and Labrador, the real lifeblood and backbone still of our whole being, the whole reason that the Province is here, Mr. Speaker, in its first instance, in Newfoundland and Labrador, all traces back to the fishery.

The fact that we are having this debate today, to me, speaks more than anything to attitude. We talked about it in the statement I made at the beginning of the session today. It is all about attitude. It is all about, as I see it, how we are seen, how we are viewed, where Newfoundland and Labrador, and our people and our issues, rate on the scale of things in the Government of Canada. It is the kind of thing that we are hearing talked about and views given on it almost every night, two or three nights a week lately, all over the Island and Labrador, in sessions of the Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening Our Place in Canada. Because, it is this kind of approach which gets repeated over and over again. This is just another example in a long line.

We talked today about the examples just directly related to the fishery, but there are so many examples in many sectors whereby a decision that is solely within the purview and ambit of the Government of Canada gets made, gets talked about, gets discussed with everybody except us. The last ones to hear are the people in Newfoundland and Labrador. They were planning on coming to us next week. Fortunately for us, in my view, at least a couple of our federal members, as soon as they heard it, understood that it was so important, so potentially devastating for Newfoundland and Labrador, that it was not even right or proper to wait another minute to start the debate, that the information had to be put into the public domain and that it had to be given, because we would not have had these documents today. These would not have been provided, except in a private meeting, to our minister and officials for another week or more, before we would even get to start to discuss it in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it speaks to the approach taken and the attitude that has prevailed, probably in our whole fifty-three years of Confederation. It spans that gambit because that too takes it above the political arena, because we have had the circumstance, off and on in Newfoundland and Labrador, where there have been Liberal governments in Newfoundland and Labrador while there have been Liberal governments in Canada, like there is today. There have been Liberal governments in Newfoundland and Labrador while there have been Conservative governments in Canada. There have been Conservative governments in Newfoundland and Labrador while there have been Liberal governments in Canada, and there have been Conservative governments in Newfoundland and Labrador while there have been Conservative governments in Canada.

It does not matter if your so-called cousins are there or not. There is a whole history of this for fifty-three years. I think that is what we are seeing. That is the soul wrenching type of presentations and speeches and dialogue that we are hearing played out in the Royal Commission hearings. We see it on TV every time there is a meeting. You hear it on the radio. You see the newspaper reports. Because these people are asking somebody to see if we cannot make a fundamental difference in that, to see if every time something like this happens that we cannot stand up for a minute and reach out to somebody and see if we can fight a bit harder, fight for our people and see if we cannot get our message across to the leaders in Canada.

Myself and the Minister of Finance had the opportunity today to meet with the Deputy Prime Minister who - I take it at face value, because you could see he was taken aback, he was surprised, he did not have this information. He indicated that it is not something that has gone to the Cabinet to the Government of Canada. It is not something that they have addressed, but one of his colleagues in the Cabinet was out discussing it with the federal MPs for Atlantic Canada, and we were to be next.

Maybe that is an appropriate system or appropriate protocol, but the whole fact of the matter is that we still have the federal officials going around the Province supposedly - and here is the rub - supposedly consulting with the people in these same communities about what the fishery might be like for next year, what the recommendations might be like for next year, and there is something seriously, seriously, seriously wrong about that. I think, then, when I did get the documents and look at them this morning, this was the point that I had to raise with the Deputy Prime Minister of the country, because it jumps very quickly over any financial considerations and so on. It talks about timing constraints. I think those who have seen the document on Slide 25, because it is one of those presentations, need to make early decisions because, to their credit, fleet planning was one issue mentioned here. Prevent gearing up for a fishery. They did not want to be accused of falsely letting people invest their money and think there was going to be a fishery and then tell them a week later, you spent all your money but there is no fishery. So, at least they have learned one lesson from 1992. Because in 1992, remember, it was July and everybody had made their investments, everybody had made their plans, which made it twice as bad because they let people go down that road.

They have learned one lesson, but - and I use the language in the media when I stood there with the Deputy Prime Minister, reporting to the media about our meeting - the other issues we dealt with, I had to indicate to him privately and in front of the media, the offensive part of it was this: that there was nothing in here about, it is time to talk about the people and the communities and their future and real compensation and what next for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. But, for the provinces, guess what the first consideration is? You have seen it. Most of the people here now have seen it. For the provinces, first consideration, according to the bureaucrats and the minister responsible, given to him to present to the rest of his caucus, first consideration for the provinces is not people, not communities, not the future, but provincial elections. Can you believe it? I had to say to them: Listen, it is offensive in the highest degree, that is where the heads of the federal bureaucrats and the federal minister is, that he would go -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Make no wonder the federal MPs, who are reported today in the Telegram, were upset. It was reported that they cried and wept. I can believe it. I know the people. I know how they wear their hearts on their sleeves much more so than many of us. I can believe it. To sit there, to go through this, a stunning presentation, telling you, because they want you to know, to prepare you for it so you can go tell your people some time soon that you might be closing their fishery, denying them their future. Instead of talking about for the provinces, what is the first thing that should be considered in a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador? Not how we are going to work with you, MPs, to deal with the people you represent; not how we are going to deal with the future of the communities; not how we are going to deal with rebuilding a fishery if there is any hope, but provincial elections. Guess what the second one is? It is just as bad. It is the Newfoundland Royal Commission. Now, can you believe that? What has that to do with the livelihood of the people of - this is the document that was apparently presented to our colleagues, the one that was reported on this morning. It was sent to us by MP Mr. Efford. We can certainly make copies available, I believe, Mr. Minister? We have some, okay.

Mr. Efford, as everyone knows, a former member here and now the MP for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception sent us a copy of this. The media have it in the local area. Planning for 2003 and Beyond - Atlantic Cod in 4TVn, 3Pn4RS, and 2J3KL. I think it is useful to have the document. In looking at it, I can understand their reaction because I think that is everybody's reaction in Newfoundland and Labrador. Here is the Government of Canada consulting with its MPs about the potential closure of the cod fishery which, in the regions that are indicated - everybody here knows enough about that - for many of them, the cod fishery is the only fishery. It is not like there are alternatives; this is their livelihood. This is the reason the communities are there. This is the reason the people are there, and the Government of Canada turns around and says the first consideration is provincial elections. The second one is the Newfoundland Royal Commission, and the third one, probably the least impacted of all the provinces, by the way, as we would know, is the Quebec request for a working group to address the issues. The Quebec request for a working group to address the issues.

Now, those are the things that registered with the federal bureaucrats who provided this for the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to consult the Atlantic Caucus members on. I believe, even with the little bit that we know, that today I believe we will be unanimous in terms of calling upon ourselves federally and provincially to ban together to deal with this issue not because of provincial elections, not because of anything a Royal Commission might say, but because of what it potentially does to the people of our Province who will be directly impacted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude because I want to give everyone an opportunity to participate in the debate and I did get an opportunity to say some words at the beginning.

I am surprised sometimes when these kinds of things happen repeatedly, that our federal MPs on either side sometimes do not get so frustrated with the federal system that they almost do not consider banning together anyway, as a Newfoundland and Labrador block of MPs - sort of like a Bloc Newfoundland and Labrador, like a Bloc Québécois - and that we might have a voice, if seven of us. Never mind what side of the House you are on because you are seven voices in 300. I think we all realize that is part of the issue. In its totality, there were seven of - 301, I think, now is the totality of it.

In fact, sometimes - because I know they do - many times you will hear our MPs, even though they are of different stripes, speak of the one voice on the issues because they are there for Newfoundland and Labrador. That has to be their primary interest. Sometimes it almost makes more sense - and I am sure sometimes they have caucused and said: Why don't we forget whether or not we are elected for the Conservative Party or whether we are elected for the Liberal Party? Why don't we just vote for initiatives that are in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of us, and vote against initiatives that are not in the best interests of - I am sure they have had the discussions. I do not think they will formalize it. Maybe they will come down to the Royal Commission and talk to the Royal Commission about that as a thought. This group is sure concerned about the Royal Commission. I do not know why. We are just examining our own prospects and what we are going to do next to talk about renewing and strengthening our place in Canada, but it is clear; it is crystal clear.

Here is more stark striking evidence of it, that there is work to be done about carving out a real place for us, a meaningful place for us in Canada, where our issues are going to be taken seriously, importantly, and put on the front burner, not as a third or fourth consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everyone cooperating today, in terms of having this debate. I look forward to hearing their representations made. I hope we can put together what the resolution says - a meeting. I appreciate the involvement and participation, and help and support of the Leader of the Opposition and his caucus, the Leader of the NDP and his caucus, in bringing, not only ourselves as politicians, but many others as have been done before together around this issue. It is critically important. It is time for all of us to stand up one more time, solidly, and in a united fashion, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Well said, Premier. I concur with your remarks completely. It must be nice for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and anybody who happens to be watching this afternoon, to see how we can go tooth and nail on issues that there is some adversarial issues with - which is important, that is the job we do for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in this House of Assembly. When it comes to something that affects the future and affects the lifeblood of our Province and the lifeline of our Province, we act in a completely civilized manner, we come together, we will do whatever it takes, jointly with the hon. the Premier, with the Leader of the New Democratic Party and all member is this House because at the end of the day, we are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is really what it is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this announcement and the possibilities of the consequences that come beyond it, is the equivalent of a Sept 11 to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; the devastation, the impact that it will have on our economy, particularly rural Newfoundland. That is why it is certainly nice to see that the hon. the Premier and myself - the Leader who would have some discretion and some leeway in standing up and going on here for half-an-hour and an hour - have agreed that we will be brief.

We have had a chance to talk about this. We have had a chance to make the statement and respond to that statement, but it is important that the people in the districts hear from all their members, especially the members in rural Newfoundland. They are the ones they want to hear from. They are the ones who represent them. They are the ones who know, in each specific district, what their interests are, what their concerns are, what the out-migration is, where the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador have gone, where the suffering is, where the hardship is, where the poverty is in our Province, people struggling to stay in our Province because they want to live in Newfoundland and Labrador for the rest of their lives, and they are doing their very best to stay here. They are probably sitting home in their living rooms right now saying: We just can't take another shot, we can't take another one on the chin. What are we going to do? We can tell them. We are going to work together on their behalf, all of us, each and every one of us, and we are going to do whatever it takes to bring Ottawa to its knees on that.

The way that Ottawa has treated our Province is disgraceful. For the Premier and for the minister and for his Cabinet not to be informed of this is absurd. They are treating us with disdain, is what they are doing. They are treating our Province with disdain. We are a full partner in Confederation, and for them to turn around and not tell us about this, and it has to leak out of a caucus - and I didn't get a chance today to read the paper, but I had heard yesterday that an MP from this Province actually cried. Now, you can imagine sitting in that caucus and hearing that news for the first time and the impact of it. I mean, that is the way we feel. We are passionate Newfoundlanders, we love this place dearly, and we deserve a better shake from the Government of Canada. What are they doing? Every single time they turn around and slap us in the face.

We know the issue of custodial management which was raised by the government and which the Opposition came on board on and put together a coalition. We had people from all over the Province and we came together. The coalition that was put together was anchored by the MPs and the MHAs in our House, all the MPs. As I said before, non-partisan. Almost everybody came together, everybody was supportive. The MHAs came on board from all parties in this House. The communities came together, the Federation of Municipalities. We even had national resolutions from national bodies supporting our cause, supporting a resolution of the House of Commons Standing Committee that said this was the right thing to do for Newfoundland and Labrador, for Newfoundland and Labrador to get control of that bank, for the Government of Canada to take custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. Unanimously, an all-party resolution of the Government of Canada said that should happen.

What did this fellow, Thibault, do? He just kind of shrugged his shoulders and said, no, not going to do anything about it. Yet, he is pretty quick to come back and make Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay the price, and that is absolutely terrible. When foreigners are overfishing off our banks, who does he ask to come back and take the brunt of it? He asks us to take it.

What have they done for us? What are they doing about the seals? What have they done on the research side over the years? Cut back on the research. Cut back on the security, you know, just keeping an eye on what is going on out there. There are not enough vessels out there to police, from a surveillance perspective, as to what is going on out there. They won't even expend the money to protect our resource. It just disgusts me, what is going on.

Yes, we have to find our place in Canada, and we will work together on federal issues. If it is this issue or another issue, whether it is clawback or equalization, whenever you want a united front to go to Ottawa on provincial issues, we are with you 100 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Premier comfort that - and I am sure he knows it - this will get unanimous support from all around the Province. Premier, when the coalition was formed, within ten days 20,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians signed that petition. Because we are all, in our own way, fighting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because we have had to fight for every single thing that we have gotten from Canada.

I do not know why they think we are second or third class citizens. I just cannot, for the life of me, understand it. We bring so much to Confederation. We bring so much to the Government of Canada. We bring so much to the people of Canada, from a resource perspective. Everything we do, from our people, the people who have worked all across this country, all over the country, in Fort McMurray, in Ontario, everywhere, all over the country. There are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians everywhere. They are respected for their hard work. They are loved by the people they work with. We deserve a better shake. What is now happening to us, to our fishery, and to our people is absolutely disgraceful.

Premier, I am not going to go on because I do want to allow time for people - obviously for the critic and people from the communities in rural Newfoundland who have lived in those communities, who live and love the fishery as we all do. I think it is important that we get their stories and find out what personal hardships this is going to create.

The South Coast of Labrador, we know the economy there is doing very, very well, and the success in the district of the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the impact that is going to have on that particular coast and that particular district. I am interested in hearing from her. I want to hear what she has to say about it. I can guarantee her, as I can guarantee all members opposite, you have our full cooperation, our full support, and our full compassion for the situation that people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador could find themselves if this dastardly deed takes place.

Thank you, Premier, for you cooperation and your (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say first of all that I support, and we support, wholeheartedly this resolution. I want to say as well that I think the Premier's instincts were absolutely right today in terms of his response to the news out of Ottawa that this was being considered. In particular, the news that this was being done behind the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and their government, whomever that government is, that this government deserves advance consultation, notice and warning; but, also his reaction to the suggestion that somehow or other an important consideration put on the table before any consultation with this Province - to federal members of Parliament from one party by the government is that we have to consider provincial elections, forthcoming provincial elections in Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec and that somehow the timing of the response has to respond to that.

Mr. Speaker, I find that abhorrent, for a federal government to have that attitude and that approach to a matter as important and devastating, potentially, as a decision like this could be. As I said earlier, everybody in this Province was in a state of shock and dismay at the announcement ten years ago of the cod motorium. The consequences were devastating and long-lasting. In fact, worse than what people imagined. We have seen the results in our declining population, particularly in rural Newfoundland of some 50,000 in the last five years.

We all shuddered yesterday, and some today, when we heard the news that this could be happening again and that the consequences for the communities affected could be equally, if not more serious, than the first time around.

 

Mr. Speaker, we all know the litany of complaints that we have about the fishery of recent years. The 1,500 tons of shrimp given to some P.E.I. businessmen, not the fishermen, not the P.E.I. fishermen who needed a catch, but given to P.E.I. businessmen so that they could sell to somebody else and never see it, done by the Government of Canada without any consideration for this Province's interests; Newfoundland shrimp being given to P.E.I. businessmen to suit some federal need, we saw that. We have seen for many years the lack of attention to foreign overfishing and recently, of course, the ignoring by the Government of Canada, by the Minister of Fisheries, of the call for custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank, which was recommended by a unanimous report of the federal Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Those are only some of the many, many complaints that we have about the attitude in Ottawa toward this Province and toward this Province's fishery, the mainstay of our economy for some 400 years.

Mr. Speaker, we have as well an attitude expressed in this report to the caucus which is quoted in the paper as saying: An early decision on the fishery, possibly in March, would enable people to access existing compensation and reduce the need for special programs.

This is what they are talking about. Before they even start, before they even make a decision - although the decision appears to be made - they want to reduce the need for any special programs. So what they are looking at first and foremost, before they even know the extent of the problem, before they even have the scientific reports in, before they have the results of the consultation of the FRCC, they want to consider already how we can reduce any possible need for special programs.

The Premier mentioned the Royal Commission, and I wholeheartedly support the need for the Royal Commission based on our history of our involvement with Canada to date. That is something we look forward to the report of, but the need for the Royal Commission reminds me of the attitude expressed by a federal Minister of Fisheries going back almost fifty years ago now. Because, after Confederation, one of the things that the federal government did agree to was a special study of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, and a special report was produced after a task force went around the Province. Federal and provincial people considered all aspects of the Newfoundland fishery and made a very important report to Ottawa. It landed on the desk of the then Minister of Fisheries, James Sinclair from British Columbia. I believe the year was1953. I wish I had the exact quotation with me. There was a whole series of important recommendations that would help, and would have helped back in 1953, to make substantial improvement to the Newfoundland fishery and the Newfoundland communities. The minister wrote at the head of the report, and passed it on to the deputy, after having seen it: No special measures. No special programs. Normal services only.

That is what happened to the federal government's response. That was the federal Minister of Fisheries' response from British Columbia back in 1953, to a mammoth report on the Newfoundland fishery, making all sorts of recommendations for improvement to the fishery of this Province just after we entered Confederation.

Madam Speaker, that has been the attitude of the federal government towards this Province and towards this fishery ever since. We have gone through the history of trading off the cod stocks off the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to foreign nations for other considerations.

External Affairs has had more say in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery in Ottawa than the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That has been the case year after year, decade after decade, of our involvement with Confederation. There are very, very serious attitudinal problems that have been recognized for many years and that are hopefully going to be reflected in the report of the Royal Commission that is going on right now.

We have a very specific issue before us today, and that issue relates to whether or not there is going to be the need for a further moratorium of our cod stocks off the Newfoundland and Labrador Coast. These stocks are very, very important to those who are dependent upon them. In fact, we even made some effort to try and rebuild those stocks and to bring back some commercial fishery in those areas.

What I want to say is, Madam Speaker, we have the federal minister apparently ready to adopt these kinds of measures now in relation to something that is going to happen next year and yet seem to ignore recommendations of the FRCC to date. The 2001-2002 recommendations going back over a year-and-a-half recommended that there be seal exclusion zones developed in this Province where cod are aggregated and where seals are inflicting high mortality rates on the cod be designated as seal exclusion zones. We have not seen that happen, Madam Speaker. When there are positive recommendations made that could have helped to rebuild those stocks by establishing, for example, seal exclusion zones, the federal government has failed to follow that.

The FRCC - and I think this is something in terms of, we are talking about attitude - we are trying to rebuild the stock and yet we have allowed the recreational fishery to continue. The Government of Canada has done that, again despite a recommendation from the FRCC that any removal of stock must contribute to the monitoring of stock status and be of scientific value. The FRCC did not support a recreational fishery for 2J+3L cod; yet, the Government of Canada went ahead and conducted a recreational fishery last year and this year.

So, when these attitudes are changing, Madam Speaker, we have to see attitudes change in this Province as well. If we are going to have a response to the problems of the Northern cod based on scientific advice after the consultation has taken place, and obviously that has to take place with the FRCC, which is taking place today and tomorrow and this week and further on, once the scientific evidence is in and if it is necessary - I accept the wording of the resolution - if the scientific advice recommends the closure of these fisheries, that the Government of Canada has the responsibility to provide appropriate compensation to mitigate the impact on people and communities.

Even if, Madam Speaker, some of these stocks, some of the inshore stocks, appear to be a little healthy, and if it is necessary to leave them alone anyway and let those stocks be the spawning biomass that is going to increase the stock along the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, even though they may be in good shape where they are but we need them to build the rest of it. If we are going to say that, for the benefit of all of us and for the future, we need to stop fishing those stocks, well, then, the fishermen, the plant workers, those involved in that fishery, the communities involved, have to be compensated for allowing that stock to be rebuilt and for being deprived of the ability to fish that stock. That is what is fundamentally necessary, Madam Speaker, that be a part from the very beginning of any consideration of a change in that fishery and the possibility of a moratorium.

We will support this resolution. We think it is an opportunity for all Members of Parliament, of both political parties, that are now represented there representing this Province. Others outside of Newfoundland and Labrador have already indicated their support. The New Democratic Party in Ottawa has today issued a press release and is calling on Ottawa for an emergency debate in Ottawa on this very issue on the fate of the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec who are going to be affected by this, calling for an emergency debate. So, this is not something that is only confined to Newfoundland and Labrador MPs. We will count on, and I know we will get, the support of Peter Stoffer, the Member of Parliament for Nova Scotia, who has consistently supported the fishing industry in this Province as a member on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and continues to do that, so we will have support from others.

To see an all-party response in this Province with the instinct of the Premier today to suggest that this should be done with our full endorsement, I think, is a very good thing. To have the senators involved, to have the Members of Parliament involved, and to have all three parties here involved is a very positive step forward to have a widespread consultation so that we can show that we stand with one voice on this issue. We have done it before on a number of issues, most recently with respect to the issue regarding Fishery Products International. This was seen as an issue affecting all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and the consequences of that company being taken out of this Province and being run as no longer a Newfoundland and Labrador based company was considered to be unacceptable. An all-party committee of this House travelled around this Province, took the views of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, studied the issue and came up with a set of unanimous recommendations to this House. A good example, Madam Speaker, of what happens when the issue is of such great importance that we have to work together to make sure that we are speaking with one voice because we know that those outside of this Province are looking for division, are looking for ways to drive a wedge between people in this Province; but this is something that we can expect, that we will be able to speak with one voice, that there is an absolute need for a compensation program if there is to be a closure of these fisheries. There is an absolute need for consultation with the people who are going to be affected by this from the very beginning, and there is an absolute need for members of this House to have a say.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I want to thank members for the time to participate in this. I look forward to hearing the speeches of other members this afternoon.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I certainly appreciate an opportunity to speak to this resolution and say, with hesitation, that I will certainly be in favour of it. It is not only a no-brainer, it would be totally nonsensical not to support such a resolution.

I guess, frustration is a word some might say fits here today, but it doesn't really fit, it goes beyond frustration. I have represented a district since 1999 which, if you talk devastation, I have probably felt it more than anyone, other than the Northern Peninsula people in this Province. We don't have crab, we don't have shrimp, we had a bit of cod, which we supplemented, maybe, with a bit of redfish from time to time. We don't have a fish plant in Burgeo anymore. We don't have a fish plant in Rose Blanche anymore. We don't have a fish plant in Isle aux Morts anymore. We didn't have a fish plant in Port aux Basques this year. There are only two operative fish plants in the area, one being in Burnt Islands and one being in Margaree. Burnt Islands has been operating this year and employed about 100 people. They processed cod. In fact, they had 1,225 metric ton of cod. That is just the setting which we had. We know the devastation and we know that we have very little else in our area to depend on, other than Marine Atlantic in Port aux Basques which is a mainstay. I will get to that one later when I talk of the seven federal sins, as I call them.

We know what devastation is all about, and today we get another slap in the face from the federal government. I can call it nothing but a slap in the face, not only for the process - they don't finish their science, they don't finish their consultations, and yet they have already got a plan in place as to what we might have to do, i.e. shut it down. I have even been told today, after all this was leaked out in the manner in which it was, that it might be a trial balloon, it was floated as a trial balloon. What kind of pathological mentality does anyone have to float such a trail balloon? We are talking about people here, not only the fishermen themselves, but there are plant workers here, there are families here, there are economies here and there are communities here.

We have tried for many years to be able to improve the position of these communities so that we can have people stay in them, and we don't know what the outcome is going to be. Hopefully the science will be good and this never has to happen. But to think that anyone could even be so callous as to float a trial balloon and think about having a plan to just close it down, and the way that this comes out.

We know where we stand with the federal government. I referred to the seven federal sins, I call them, and no doubt there are more: Equalization, no move; custodial management of the fisheries, no move; cost-shared federal-provincial agreements, terminated, fini, complete; EI reform, none; pensions to the disabilities, cut; Marine Atlantic Inc. which in part certainly impacts on myself in the district, absolutely no consideration from the federal government as to what happens, where this company operates from, i.e. preference to Nova Scotia, preference to Nova Scotian directors, preference to Nova Scotians on jobs. We know where we stand with the feds on health care. The only thing we have left, the fisheries now, in that particular area of our Province, they have taken it out.

Roland King, who operates King Fisheries in Burnt Islands, not only what his father did before him but what he has been doing now to try to keep a community alive, callously, ruthlessly, without any consultation, without any preparation, being told that not only is your business gone, the council of which you are a part, and which he is a councillor is gone, the community of which he is an important member - and the Kevin Hardys of the world who is a fisherman and is the mayor of Burnt Islands could be devastated. And all of this is done without anybody doing the proper preparation? I ask, who is in the wheelhouse on this ship called DFO? Because what I have seen from the day I first went to Ottawa - my first spring here in 1999 - to discuss seals with John Efford, along with the Member for Bonavista South, which was absolutely idiotic when you look back on it, as to what happened to us there before that federal fisheries committee - and the Member for Baie Verte.

Here we are again now, we have a ship that is not only adrift, not only has run aground - and I refer to DFO - but a ship that has been apparently totally, absolutely abandoned. We talked about plans. They have a plan of how they are going to deal with the provincial government, i.e., there might be an election, as the Premier alluded to, soften the blow. How are we going to deal with the issue of the Royal Commission that is operating down here?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is all politics.

MR. PARSONS: All politics, but unfortunately what they do not realize is that we are talking people here. We are not talking politics, we are talking people's lives. Where is the plan? If you spend all of your time planning about how you might soften a blow - I trust our good people in DFO, or somewhere in HRDC, or wherever else in the federal government, has a plan of how they are going to deal with this. You cannot plan one if you do not have a plan in place for the other. That is what I would like to know. If we can have leak documents about what is going to happen in 3PS, or 3PN and 4R, where is the plan to look after these people? We are tired of putting them on boats here and on the Marine Atlantic and shipping them up to Ontario and Alberta. I have seen enough of that in the twelve years since 1992, and doing everything to try and keep people here.

We talk about cooperation. Absolutely, no question. We all need to, must and have to, cooperate on this issue. This is not only a motherhood issue. This is a fatherhood, a parenthood, a family - this is life's issue, because that is what we are talking about here, people's lives. We would be doing a great disservice to all of us here, and everybody in this Province, if we did not ban together, but in the course of banning together we also have to keep the heat where the heat is needed. We have to keep the toes our MPs to the fire. They are our direct conduit to the Mr. Thibaults of the world, and the DFOs of the world, who make these decisions in far away places in Ottawa and have no concept of how they affect Kevin Hardy in Burnt Islands, nor, I suspect, do they care.

We need to keep pressure on it, at the same time that we are being cooperative. I hope and I pray that this never becomes a reality because I have seen enough of this devastation, but I also insist that if it does happen, the bureaucrats, the political wants that exist in Ottawa, better have a plan in place because these people have to be looked after, and will be looked after. Instead of using your valuable bureaucratic time to finagle some devastating plan and push it over on people, spend your energies and spend your money on planning to look after these people. They never were quitters, we never are quitters, and we never intend to be quitters.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to stand for a few minutes this afternoon. I cannot say I would like to stand because I am sure we all wish we did not have to stand here this afternoon on this special debate and on the unfortunate topic that we are here debating this afternoon, the possibly, once again, of moratoriums on some of the cod stocks that surround our Province.

Madam Speaker, as I was driving home yesterday I dropped into the doctor's office on my way along. When I left, I was driving up the road, I turned on CBC Radio and listened to the Fisheries Broadcast and I suspect much like the Minister of Fisheries - I think he probably heard it before I did - and much like many other people in this Province, I heard that there was a briefing in Ottawa about the possible closure of the 2J3KL cod fishery, the 4RS3Pn cod fishery and for those, I suppose, outside of Newfoundland over in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, the 4TVn cod fishery.

Madam Speaker, I guess I was stuck with a bit of a sense of disbelief and a lot of sense of anger because I remember how we, in 1992 - and I say we because I was one of them then - accepted the moratorium on Northern cod. I remember - and I mentioned it this morning when I called in to Open Line. I mentioned how - in late August I believe it was, or early September, I know it was definitely prior to September 7, 1993 - I stopped on a hill. I was down in 3Ps, or 3Pn I mean, down on the Southwest Coast. I stopped on a hill just outside of Burnt Islands. It was a beautiful sunny day. I have a picture of it now, that I took that day of the last boats coming up out of 3Ps. The last boats coming in with their last trip of codfish that they brought in prior to the fishery shutting down. I remember late that fall the rest of it closed down. The 4RS3Pn closed down.

At that time we all had, I suppose, some sense of hope that we were doing the right thing; some sense that after all we had done wrong in the previous ten years, that maybe this was going to be the start of rebuilding. Maybe government, the federal government in particular, was going to take some of the hard steps that needed to be taken to address some of the issues that caused the decline of the fishery.

Madam Speaker, I also remember - and I suppose this is what makes me madder - when I was on the FRCC, the very tough and hard discussions that we had at that time in the mid-1990s, when we grappled with the thought of trying to reopen some of these fisheries at very low levels because we did have a great deal of uncertainty about the state of these stocks. We did not know if they were rebuilding. We thought they were. The scientific information was pretty sketchy. We had no commercial activity to be able to use as an indicator of abundance, but we decided to take the plunge anyway and open at a very low level to try and get some people back on the water, to try and put some life back into our communities, and try to get the information that we needed, and hopefully do it without risking and jeopardizing the stocks.

Madam Speaker, I believe we did the right thing at that time. I believe we did the right thing in 1992 or 1993 when we closed it down. I believe we did the right thing in the middle 1990s when we reopened it, but today, Madam Speaker, I cannot stand here and I cannot stand anywhere and say that the right thing is to close it down. We have fisheries operating now at very low levels in these areas and no - we all admit, no, the stocks have not recovered and rebuilt to the extent that we would have liked.

Madam Speaker, I look around. I look at the briefing note, the presentation, the report, whatever you want to call it, that the Premier referenced in his comments when he opened this debate this afternoon. I open up to what they consider to be Slide 9. It was obviously an overhead presentation yesterday. "The factors which contributed not only to the decline in the early 1990s and also to the subsequent failure to recover include: high fishing mortality..." - and we admit readily to having overfished in the years prior to the moratorium - "...decreased stock productivity related to environmental factors..." - and we all know that there were serious environmental changes, temperature changes, ice coverage changes, all these types of things that affected a decline in growth in these stocks - and final one, Madam Speaker, is "...increased ‘natural' mortality, including that from predators."

Madam Speaker, that one there is very telling, and I will say why it is very telling: because, if you go to Slide 10, it says this on The Outlook. These are DFO's own words, Minister Thibault's presentation to the Atlantic Caucus yesterday, and this is what he presented to them. "Scientists indicate that the declines are likely to continue, perhaps even without fishing: there are no indications that stocks will recover in the foreseeable future."

Madam Speaker, they are saying that these stocks are probably not going to recover, they are probably going to continue to decline, that it will probably continue to decline and not recover even in the absence of any fishing activity. So, Madam Speaker, here we have a minister in Ottawa who yesterday, without any concern whatsoever to the impact that he was going to have on the people of this Province, the fishing communities on the West Coast of Newfoundland, the fishing communities on the southern part of Labrador and the Labrador Straits, on the East Coast of the Province, the Northeast Coast, no concern whatsoever for the impact that his statements were going to have on these people, and he suggests that maybe we are going to have to have a moratorium. He is not so quick to deal with what his own scientists say is one of the contributing factors to the decline or the lack of rebuilding, and that is natural mortality. Well, what is natural mortality?

Natural mortality, Madam Speaker, for anybody who wants to listen, is the mortality that is caused, obviously, by natural things such as predation, such as seals. It is well-documented and nobody wants to talk about it. Nobody wants to hear it. Nobody wants to hear, in a community outside of Newfoundland and Labrador and outside of Atlantic Canada, that seals are having an adverse impact on our fish stocks. The fact of the matter is, DFO has considerable evidence, especially in the Gulf of St. Lawrence with grey seals and harp seals, that they are having an impact, a very negative impact and a very detrimental impact, to a point where there is no sign of recoupment. We are to the point where, as they say here, these stocks will not recover in the absence of action to reduce natural mortality. So why is the minister so quick to talk about a moratorium and so slow to talk about dealing with the seal problem?

Madam Speaker, what makes me really upset, I guess, is that I know the vast majority of the people, as we all do, who are going to be impacted if this closure comes to pass. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, spoke a few minutes ago and he spoke about Kevin Hardy. I listened to him on the radio this morning. I know that coast. I worked with those people for about five years and know what the impact of this closure will have, if it comes to pass, what impact it will have on people. It will be complete devastation. It will be the final nail in the coffin for many of these communities and, at the risk of overstating it, it will mean the final and complete out-migration of these communities. It can mean nothing less. We have not seen anything else happen in these communities in the last ten years, or very little. We have not seen any factories open up there. The bottom line is, they have struggled on, on what little bit of fishery they have had, and they have looked to the future and the rebuilding of these stocks as their hope for survival.

While we must insist on a compensation program if there is a moratorium, we have to recognize that no amount of compensation to the individuals who will be directly affected by this - no amount of compensation - will be able to replace the fishery in these areas. While you can put a cheque in a person's pocket to compensate them for the cheque they would have taken out of the boat, the bottom line is, when they get that cheque they are not going to be hanging around. The few people who are there now hung on through thick and thin in the last ten years in the hopes that it was going to get better, but this will be the final blow for them. They will not be able to take it, and maybe that is what this is all about. Maybe it is not about the protection of the cod stock, because, if it was, the minister would have said yesterday: Maybe it is time to have a seal cull. That is what he would have said yesterday. But, no, he said: Maybe it is time for a moratorium.

This is more about, in my view, the final depopulation of these small communities and the complete demise of the small boat fishery in many of these areas. That is what this is about. It is as plain and simple as that. In those areas of the West Coast, the Port au Port Peninsula, the Labrador Straits - I am sure the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is going to have a few words on this later this afternoon - in the Labrador Straits, I was over there just about a month ago, I guess, for a funeral. I know that area and it is completely dependent on the cod fishery. How can we expect the plant in L'Anse-au-Loup, the engine for that coast - yes, it gets a little bit of turbot from up Northern Labrador and off Greenland and so on -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: Just a few seconds to clue up, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Sure.

MR. TAYLOR: As I said, Madam Speaker, that coast just will not survive without that fish plant and without that small boat fishery. It produces a significant number of millions of pounds of cod there every summer and it is the engine for that coast.

In my own district, the plant in Savage Cove will not be able to make it. It will be over for those areas. The small boat fishery on the West Coast, the whole West Coast of this Province, is dependent on and hanging on by its fingernails on the cod fishery and the ground fishery. Yes, there is a little bit of a lobster fishery, yes, there is a little bit of a crab fishery in some areas, but in the northern part of the area it is cod and in the southwest part of the area it is cod and on the Labrador Straits side it is cod. It is the only game in town.

The closure of this fishery, Madam Speaker, we have to send a strong message to the federal Minister of Fisheries that this is totally unacceptable. It is totally unacceptable, especially in the absence of any action by his department and his government to deal with issues such as seal predation, such as custodial management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. If he is not going to deal with all of the issues that are really having an adverse effect on the rebuilding of these stocks, then he cannot look at a moratorium on these stocks because it is just too devastating on our communities.

Madam Speaker, on that, I know there are a lot of other members here who have other things to say, who would like to add to this, so thank you very much and I would just like to say that we certainly will have unanimity, I believe, on this motion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker,

I rise to speak on the topic today in this House. Madam Speaker, I can tell you, it brings back a lot of memories and, unfortunately for the people on the North Coast of Labrador, they are a lot of sad memories. I hear different members on both sides of the House talk of how their riding was hit the hardest, but there was no part of this Province that was hit harder than the people on the North Coast of Labrador.

Let's just go back a little bit in time when the Brigitte Bardots of the world killed the seal fishery. Yet, all these seal fishermen who went out to the ice made a living off the cod fishery and 95 per cent of the people who went to the seal fishery did it as a second income. When the seal fishery closed, there was a large amount of money that was earmarked for the Newfoundland fishermen, but there was another group of people on the North Coast of Labrador who depended upon the seal fishery more so than anyone else. Madam Speaker, there was no compensation. When the closure of the cod fishery came, the cod fishery failed on the North Coast of Labrador, and when the government began their moves of bringing in their method of compensation, the years they based compensation on, there was not one fish to be caught on the North Coast of Labrador. Therefore, the people on the North Coast of Labrador, the only part in this Province, did not receive any TAGS or NCARP.

Madam Speaker, God rest his soul, Mr. George Sheppard, for sixty-three years made a voyage of the cod fishery, and when the fishery failed he was told that because he caught no fish in 1992-1993 that he did not qualify.

Madam Speaker, you talk of devastation. I remember going to Ottawa - and the Member for Baie Verte and Bonavista South can tell you how I spoke in Ottawa. Ladies and gentlemen, I say to every member in this House of Assembly, believe you me, if you think you are going to face problems if they close this fishery and you get compensation, that it is going to be hard, I can guarantee you, wait until you go through devastation where you get nothing.

I raised a point in Ottawa, and it is the truth, where people in my riding - where a woman could not afford to buy her husband a Christmas card let alone a Christmas present.

I talked on the Voisey's Bay deal last year of how proud I was, because adjacency was there. For the first time people on the North Coast were going to have some good employment. I can tell you, it might have been too late for us but I will stand with any person in this House and fight Ottawa on what they are doing today.

Madam Speaker, in the communities of Makkovik and Hopedale you can go up on the hill in back of the community on a clear night in the fall of the year and you can see the lights of the draggers that are out there taking our shrimp and our turbot. The people in my communities cannot get enough hours because we do not have a big enough quota. In some of these communities it would put 200 people to work. This is what Ottawa has done to us.

I guess it is ironic today, but I did something that I do every chance I get. I went down to Churchill Square and bought a cooler of fresh codfish. I am flying back to Goose Bay tonight and tomorrow I am going to Makkovik. What I do is take a codfish, I cut it into, and go up to the seniors and give them a meal of fish. They say, I almost forgot what a codfish looks like.

Imagine the man or the woman who has gone out there, fished and brought it to shore to put food on the table for their children. What are they faced with?

We talk of getting custodial rights of the 200-mile limit. Again, it is Ottawa who has come back and placed a burden upon our people.

Madam Speaker, fishermen in my riding, who barely make the minimum wage or earnings to qualify for EI, because of Ottawa's rules they can only avail of twenty-four weeks EI. Come April 1, they are cut-off. They still have three months of going around on a skidoo. Three months of being on welfare while Ottawa talks of a $31 billion surplus in their EI account.

The last thing I will say here this afternoon is: I wish on no riding in this House as to what happened to the people in my riding because I can guarantee you, if you think you have troubles now, then believe me, your troubles are only beginning.

The last thing, Madam Speaker, is this: If there was a road where the people in my riding could have loaded a U-Haul and headed off to Edmonton or to Nova Scotia, they would have, but they did not have enough money to get them as far as Goose Bay, let alone to the mainland.

Madam Speaker, I can only say today that yes, the memories are there, and unfortunately they are not good. I hope that all members in this House work toward a common goal in that we make Ottawa reverse their decision, or at least put in things where the people who are going to be affected can go out there and make a living, because I tell you, when you take away the pride of our people, then it is very difficult.

Again, I will only say this: I hope that the people here will take it seriously, and I know they will. The last thing I will say, again - and I said it two or three times, but I will say it one more time - if you want to talk of devastation, then I can tell you no one knows what we went through and I would never wish it on anyone else in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Twenty-seven years ago this month, at the ripe old age of twenty-six, I took a seat in this House for the first time; twenty-seven years ago this month. We were elected in September 1975 and the Legislature opened in November 1975. I came here as a young Newfoundlander full of dreams and visions for this place. I came here convinced that we had done the right thing as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by throwing our lot in with the great Nation of Canada. I came here believing that the wrongs of the past, the deprivation of the past, could be overcome with the help and the liberal generosity of the people of this great nation.

Madam Speaker, if I were coming to this place today at twenty-six years old for the first time, I tell you, with my twenty-seven years of experience that I have experienced over the past twenty-seven years, I do not know in good conscience if I could come here as a proud supporter and a proud Canadian. I do not know if I could do that. I am not anti-Canadian. I am not anti-Confederate. I never was. I still believe that this is the best nation on the face of the earth, but when we see the people of this Province - not being treated as second class citizens, because you would not treat second class citizens the way the Government of Canada treats, on a daily basis, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Can you imagine a Minister of the Crown - because this document could not have gotten past the minister to be presented to his caucus colleagues without the minister having seen it. I mean if this came into my office and I were the minister the person who brought it in would have went out on the toe of my boot.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That one of the first considerations, Madam Speaker, was that we have to be concerned about provincial elections. Can you imagine the insensitivity? Well, no, not insensitivity, the lack of commonsense of any person who would bring that in. It is no wonder Lawrence O'Brien and John Efford broke down and cried, Madam Speaker. I mean the insult to their own dignity as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by the insensitivity and the lack of commonsense of this particular person who heads up the most important department in Ottawa, from a Newfoundland perspective. It would be enough to make you cry.

Not only that, Madam Speaker, but the rush of it. What was the rush of getting this document before the latest scientific information came in, before FRCC had a chance to make recommendations to the minister, before the industry and the union meeting which was ongoing only a few days ago in Moncton had a chance to report? Why was the rush of this? Well, the devil is in the details, Madam Speaker. It is in this document. They wanted to make sure that they could access existing programs and reduce the need for special programs. Right here, that is what they wanted to do. Decisions needed while individuals are still receiving EI benefits, it says. Do you know what the compensation package is, Madam Speaker? Top up EI; keep them on EI. The EI program has plenty of surplus in it. That is where we will get the money to pay those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to stop fishing if we have to. Isn't that gross negligence on the part of the Government of Canada? Gross negligence, Madam Speaker.

This document, Madam Speaker, should never have seen the light of day. It is premature. It puts us all in a tizzy that we may or may not have to be in some months down the road but we do not have to be there today. Any minister and any government that was worth their salt, Madam Speaker, would wait until all of the information was in and then begin to deal with it.

There are a couple of other matters that I want to refer to, Madam Speaker. What I find interesting in this document, or one of the things I find interesting, is that the natural mortality rate for groundfish in Atlantic Canada has risen from the 1980s, point two, which is about 20 per cent to point four today which is about 40 per cent. Now, have the scientific community and the top bureaucrats in DFO zeroed in on the cause for that? I do not agree with everything that John Efford has ever said as provincial Minister of Fisheries, but one of the things he did allude to on numerous occasions - and many times he was laughed at and scoffed at and scorned at - but one of the things is: What are seals doing to the natural mortality of all species of fish, and in particular, groundfish in Atlantic Canada? We do not know the answer, the scientific answer perhaps, but we do know enough to know - as Morrissey Johnson said one time: seals don't eat turnip. They eat some kind of fish, whether it is groundfish, haddock, cod, salmon, shrimp or whatever, it is fish. It is something. They do not come in and go up to Kentucky Fried Chicken. We know that to be a fact.

Madam Speaker, if the natural mortality rate for groundfish in Atlantic Canada has doubled in a decade or so, that is a dramatic figure. That is something that should bring us all to our senses and ask why is this happening and we have to determine why it is happening. The scientific ability is out there to determine it if the scientific efforts of DFO and others, our universities and so on, were appropriately funded by the Government of Canada and by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

You know, I remember, I guess it was the late 1980s, maybe 1987 or 1988, Rick Cashin when he was President of the Fishermen's Union. On many occasions on a Friday evening, unannounced, he would drop into the office and just the two of us would sit and chat about the fishery, and problems in the fishery, and things that we ought to be looking at, things we ought to be doing. This particular Friday evening, he dropped in and he had what we called the retrospective numbers for the first decade of Canada's management of the Continental Shelf, the 200-mile limit, and he had them before I had them, frankly. I do not know where he got them, but he had them. You know, for the first time - up until then every one of us, I believe, Liberal or Tory, it did not matter, in this Province, believed that we were managing a stock, in particular groundfish, Northern cod, 2J+3KL, that was continuing to grow and expand in biomass and in what we could fish out of it. Every single person in this Province, I believe, believed that, but you know, Madam Speaker, the retrospective numbers told us something different. For the first time, they told us the stock was in decline. For the first time, they told us the stock was being overfished. Why would a stock be overfished that was being managed at a level below sustainability? Every other nation in the world, up until that time, managed their stock on what we call Fmax, the maximum amount of fish you could take out and sustain the resource was what you would do. Canada, rightly and wisely so, managed its stock on what we call F0.1. We left a bit of extra fish in the water below Fmax so that our stock would never be in trouble. That was the approach; a wise, conservation-minded, sensible approach.

But, Madam Speaker, in 1987, 1988, we found that the approach was a pipe dream. The approach was not reality. It was not working. We have some blame to take ourselves, as Canadians and Newfoundlanders, of course we do, but the major blame, I think, has to sit with the federal government because of their management practices. It has to sit with the Government of Canada because they turned a blind eye to the rape that was going on and is still going on to this day on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. They turned a blind eye to the natural predators that are out there for the groundfish and other species. They never once would listen to the voices in the wilderness that said: Unless you do something about the seals, then everything else we do is wasted effort.

No, Madam Speaker, nobody knew anything only the bureaucrats in the ivory towers of Ottawa Valley. Nobody in Newfoundland or in the White Hills of Newfoundland or in the provincial Department of Fisheries or the Fishermen's Union or the fishermen out on Fogo Island or in Ming's Bight or in Fleur de Lys or in Comfort Cove, none of those people had any vision or any sense of where we should go or what we ought to be doing. It had to come above. It had to come from on high. Well, Madam Speaker, coming from on high and coming from above is what got us where we are today.

The simple reality is this: the fishery, in its entirety, in this place that we all love, is facing extinction. The possibility of extinction is upon us. We have had a moratorium on 2J+3L cod for ten years, and you can hardly get a fish to eat. There is a scattered one out there but not very many, and the few that are out there, it would take half a dozen to make a pot of fish and brewis.

Madam Speaker, we have to rap shoulder to shoulder. We have to come together as a people and say, enough is enough. If our political friends cannot deliver for us in Ottawa, then we have to storm Ottawa ourselves. As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we have to storm them, the coalition idea that was floated back in the summer, that kind of thing, with churches and municipalities and politicians of all political stripes. We have to, we are forced to, history will demand no less of us, that we, to a man, woman and child, sing together, work together, to make sure that Ottawa stops once and for all the destruction and the disappearance of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a sad day, indeed, in Newfoundland and Labrador when a federal minister of the Crown can make a decision without any consultation at all with those who will be impacted, a decision that will have long-lasting effects on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

My district is very much a fishing district. I have fifteen communities in my district, all but two which can be classed as fishing communities, and even one of those, a lot of fishermen reside in. I know of what I speak, when I talk about the hardships that fishermen face. I know that the life of a fisherperson is not an easy life, and they don't need to be challenged and ridiculed and treated with disrespect in the way that they have been by the federal government with what has been announced here yesterday and we are seeing today.

If the idea here was to float a document to see what the result would be or what the reaction would be, then that is even worse, because what is even worse is that they didn't even take into account what the impact would be and how people would feel about any kind of a decision that would see a further closure of the fishery.

Fishermen work very hard for what they achieve. They go for long periods of time away from their families, and I have seen mothers who have been left behind to raise children, not knowing whether or not the spouse would return home from the sea. It is a difficult life. Where is the respect for these people? I think what we have seen here the last couple of days is that there is no respect. They have not taken into account what any kind of a decision to impose another moratorium would mean to the livelihoods of these people or to how they feel about themselves, to be treated with such utter disrespect, not to even be consulted on a decision that would have such a devastating impact on them.

To the best of my knowledge, it won't have an impact on 3Ps, and I am pleased with that, but that doesn't mean that I am not concerned. Every Newfoundlander and Labradorian has to be concerned about a decision such as this, if it should be brought down, and what it would mean for people, no matter where they live in our Province.

I assure you, and I assure my constituents, that even though I am being told it won't impact on 3Ps, I will be watching very closely to make sure that if there are any further developments that might impact on them, that we will make sure that is taken into account as well.

Again, where is the respect? Absolutely no respect, when you have the FRCC going around this Province now gathering information, talking to people about quotas, trying to determine the way to go so they can feed back that information to the federal Minister of Fisheries, and he goes ahead and makes a decision without even having the benefit of that consultation. That, Mr. Speaker, again shows a lack of respect, not just for the people of this Province who are engaged in the fishery but for those people he has asked to go around and do the consultations, a total lack of respect, and then not to even talk about compensation. Compensation in a manner that will ensure that people get what they deserve, not to talk about topping up programs. That is not what our fisherpeople want. They want to know that if there has to be a decision, and from time to time there has to be - we have seen what happened back in 1992 - when that happens, we have to take into account the impact of such decisions on our people and not treat them with disrespect, which is again what is happening here and what we are seeing in the message that has been given out in the last couple of days.

Again, I know how difficult a fisherman's life can be, and how difficult it is for fisherwomen who work in our fish plants. So it is not only the people who go to sea but it is the people who work in our fish plants who rely on the product to ensure they have a job, that they can provide for their families. Where is the respect for these people?

Why is it that the people in Ottawa, the people who are advising the Minister of Fisheries, think they know more than we do? Why is it they think they have all the answers? What makes them think that we do not know what is good for us? Why wouldn't they have consulted with the provincial Minister of Fisheries? Why wouldn't they have picked up a phone and called him, or the Minister of Fisheries federally, and called his counterpart in this Province to say: This is a possibility. Let's work together to minimize the impact on the people in your Province.

No, they don't do that. What do they do? They talk about an election. Let's make sure we don't do this at a time when it might be detrimental for a provincial election. Well, I will tell the people in Ottawa, I do not need them to look out for me in a provincial election. I can look out for myself, as can all of my colleagues on this side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: On any side.

MS FOOTE: On any side, for that matter.

You know, that is so typical of Ottawa. That is so typical of the actions that have been taken by the federal government, no matter what stripe: very little respect for a Province who brought so much into Confederation; very little respect for a people who work very hard for a living, dignified people, people who do not want handouts, people who want to provide for themselves and would like nothing better than to be a contributing partner to this country, and we are as a people. In this country, there is no one - no one - who is more proud than a Newfoundlander and a Labradorian, and to have someone in Ottawa look at us and say: This is what we think is best for you. This is what we are going to do for you. This is how we are going to take care of you.

Well, Mr. Speaker, thank you but no thank you. We know what is best for us. Talk to us, consult with us, and if you have to make decisions that impact on us then make them with our input. The fishermen and fisherwomen of this Province do not need to be told what is in there best interest.

If a decision has to be taken that will be detrimental to their livelihoods, then let it be a decision that respects them, takes into account their views and, at the end of the day, is a decision that is made in consultation with them.

I stand here today representing a lot of fisher people, people of whom I am very proud, very proud of the livelihood that they make for themselves, knowing how difficult it is and how challenging it is. They do it, in a lot of cases, knowing that is the only thing they can do. A lot of these people left school at a very young age, and it was the right thing to do at that time. A lot of them had to fend for their families, not only the mother and the father, but a lot of the children had to support their families as well. So they made decisions that were in the best interests of their families and they continue to make those decisions.

For anyone to suggest that they know better what is in the best interests of this Province and our people, again, shows a total lack of respect for our people. I would be concerned, as a Newfoundlander and a Labradorian, in a country where someone was looking at me and saying: I know what is best for you. Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that if this indeed was an idea that was floated that they will reel it back in very quickly.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I rise to make a few comments today, and, like the Member for The Straits & White Bay North who, I guess, spoke for all of us, I wish none of us would have to stand and speak to this today. As I hold up this report, which I just got an hour ago to look through, I can't even imagine what was happening in the minds of people in Ottawa when they were looking through this. I mean, who typed this up? Who wrote it down? How were they looking at us as a province? To think that we could stand here today, as people in this Province, and have to talk about a national government who looks after the best interests of this Province.

As the Member for Lewisporte said earlier, we are all proud Canadians. Every day we stand and talk about how proud we are to be Canadians, the best country in the world. I still feel like that. I entered politics in 1993, but in 1992 - today was almost like a Deja vu, a return to the nightmare of the way we all felt in this Province. We can still see the pictures. If we close our eyes, we can see the picture at the Delta hotel, people beating on the doors and the whole thing and the strange feeling we had in our guts.

Mr. Speaker, I come from a rural district, as some of our leaders talked about earlier today, and I felt this today as I felt it back then, the feeling in your gut of what is going to happen to people who are standing all around you. From La Scie to Little Bay Islands, thirty-three communities, believe me, this has cast a shadow over parts of my district. I know up and down the West Coast, throughout Labrador, where it is even probably more of an impact, people solely depend on that little bit that is left because that is the last string.

Did they realize when they typed this, and when they all sat around in discussions, the bureaucrats, what they were actually saying to these people? This is not like we have a dozen more options to go through, it is not like we have ten more chances, this is it. For people up and down the West Coast who have talked about it - and I talked to the Minister of Municipal Affairs just yesterday about how happy he was in his own district to see the activity, and to see people come in and see the activity throughout his communities, rural communities that have rebounded.

In my own district this year, luckily, the plants in La Scie and Little Bay Islands rebounded and gave them some hope again. We are not talking, Mr. Speaker, about people who are ready to begin careers, we are not talking about the young people in these communities, we are talking about people who have their last chance.

I wanted to bring this down today, what I was telling my colleague from Lewisporte, who was a member for a long time in my district. He knows the gentleman, but I do not want to use his name. On Saturday night past, before I came back in to begin the session of the House of Assembly, this elderly gentleman - I do not want to use his name, but I am sure if I asked him he would say no problem - from Round Harbour, and most people can guess because there are only ten people who live in Round Harbour, he and his wife had moved up into Baie Verte for the winter because of medical reasons and so on. He will be sixty-five years old in February. He had that little bit of cod quota. He said to me: I am so glad I made it again. I did not have to turn to social assistance, never had to, because I have always made it. I have always managed to get a little bit of this, a little bit of that, and I made it. He was proud of that. He was proud that he could say that. That little bit of cod fish, not a lot, he did not do well with it, did not get the full quota, but it was something for him.

When you get back through the bureaucracy and through all of these people who wrote up all of these notes, you end up right down the line until you talk to somebody like that, a person in this Province who has been fishing - I do not know when he started, he probably told you. I know he started as a young boy, but he will be sixty-five in February.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twelve years old.

MR. SHELLEY: Twelve years old. Yes, that is right. At twelve years old he started fishing and he will be sixty-five in February. He fished all of his life. He is at a point now in the fishery - he is not really upset about it. He said, I have had a good life. He said, I am here now, I am going to make it again through another year, and, thank God, in February I can look to my old age pension.

That, Madam Speaker, is an example of the pride that we all talk about, because it is not a dramatization, it is not a fabrication. You go to the people who have been in the fishery in this Province thirty, forty and fifty years, they were not looking for handouts. They were looking to be able to provide for their family. It was a simple life. He is in Round Harbour. Like I told you, about eight to ten people live there. The minister knows. When you sit down with people like that and they look down into the harbour, a quiet place - it was so simple at one time. You could take your small boat, go out on the water, not very far away, and provide for your family.

You know, if you really think about it historically, it is not that long ago. Twenty years ago you could do it. As a matter of fact, you would not have to use so much gas and so on in the bigger boats as they are doing now. You could provide for your families around the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador. Ultimately, what we are talking about here is that the Government of Canada, the country that we are proud to be a part of, through Progressive Conservative governments, Liberal governments and whatever - that is why we stand here today, because ultimately that is why we are facing that circumstance today, because the people who looked out for our welfare, who were going to manage these stocks and who were going to take care of us, failed. Ultimately, they failed. Their solution today, what we are down to, is this document they should be ashamed of.

The attitude - and the Premier mentioned this earlier. I saw it and the Member for Labrador and Bonavista South. Yes, I was one of the people who went, maybe it was three or four years ago now. I do not even remember the year. We went to Ottawa, as a group, to talk about the seal industry. I sat in those big rooms they have in Ottawa when they bring in all the groups and sit around the table and so on. You know, Madam Speaker, to this very day I believe that we went in and out of Ottawa and nobody knew we were there, although we talked and we said a lot. Mr. Efford was there, the Member for Bonavista South and the Member for Labrador. The stories that were put out were frank, they were blunt. We talked about the seal industry. I believe we flew up there, went in there, we all had a lot to say, we left, and I feel like nobody really listened to us.

Just a couple of days ago it brought it home to me again, as we face this situation today. Maybe some of you guys heard it on CBC Radio just a few days ago. All you could hear while somebody was speaking were chants somewhere, I think, in Halifax, outside the Clearwater Plant - I believe that is where it was - save the seals. Now, I do not know how many were there or who was there, but just a few days ago in Halifax in Atlantic Canada, whoever they were all you could hear was the chant, save the seals. They are going to boycott lobsters to save the seals. Now, even if you stop to think about that for a minute: We are going to boycott you selling lobsters, because you know a poor lobster can be thrown in a pot and boiled, but that is all right. We are going to boycott lobsters if you do not save the seals. That was the threat. Now, I did not even read the news release after, because that was enough for me. To read that and to think about the attitude throughout this country about mentioning the word seal - if you mention seal in Ottawa there is a finger goes up and everybody is quiet. You have to be quiet because we do not want to talk about that. It is too important.

We talked about the mortality rate and so on just a little while ago. Just think about it. The Member for Lewisporte, I think, summed it up as good as you can sum it up, and Morrissey Johnson said: What do they eat? It is so simple. Where is the science? That is common sense, that is logic, they are going to have to eat something. You know, as provincial politicians, as federal politicians, how are we ever going to get through to them. How are we going to get through to the government of this country, whether they be Liberal, PC, NDP or whatever they may be? How are we going to get through to them what effect their mismanagement, mishandling of the resource that brought us to this Province 500 years ago, how are we going to get through to them how serious an impact, how bad a job they have really done?

When we go up there and people talk about compensation, us begging, the Newfoundlanders begging, for compensation, we should not be begging for it. They were the ones that put us in the predicament. I sat down a few days ago and talked to some people in the industry, talked about it just for a few minutes. We do not do it very often, but just talked about what it could have been, what could be in this Province, if it was properly managed. We cannot take a lot of time to do it because it will not be, but just think about it. If we had the fishery still, the stocks were up today, the fishermen were out there and we had secondary processing in Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery alone, what it would do. The blunt reality is this, the moratorium went on in 1992 and we got the message then of how they have handled it, since then how they have handled it, and we know that they totally mismanaged and mishandled the whole situation.

That is why we are all sitting here today and standing in our places to talk about how it is going to affect the man I spoke to on Saturday night and everybody in our districts, as we go back this weekend to talk to people. I pray to God that somewhere along the way the message can get through to Ottawa. As we all sit here today, if there is one time that we can stand up together, united on this, cross partisan lines on this, this has to be the occasion, because this is the last straw for a lot of people on the Coast of Labrador, in Western Newfoundland and on the Northeast Coast. This is the last straw for a lot of people, a lot of families.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night past, myself and Bill Matthews attended a Community Capacity Building Forum in Bay d' Espoir. That is the third one that I have had the opportunity to attend, where people in the area recognize that they themselves have to do something to improve on the economic situation and, as a result of that, improve on the social conditions that are within the communities. I am confident, as I stand here, Bill knew nothing about it. If he did, he would have told me. He knew nothing about this report. So, you are a member of a government that would do that, leak it, and, I guess, as already has been said here, two MPs, Mr. Efford and Mr. O'Brien, knew nothing about it until it was presented to them in caucus. What does that say?

We are in a situation now in this Province where we have a problem with the fishery in the area just named off Port aux Basques and down the Northern Peninsula. Guess what? This did not happen today. That goes back earlier than that. In 1955, as the Member for Lewisporte would know, the federal government allowed the redfish stock in the Gulf to be fished to extinction. What did they do then? They then sent all the boats to the Hamilton Bank, (inaudible) as the Northern cod. What did they allow them to do? Fish it to extinction. What did they allow them to do? They allowed them to fish twelve months during the year. They had no concern for the spawning season, none whatsoever. The breeding grounds: there were people, our people, who fished from our Province, who, when they unloaded their boats they were up to their knees in spawn. That is what happened. As a result of it today we see what has happened with the Northern cod. It is a Sahara Desert. Now, did the people here do it? Who managed it? Who allowed the Newfoundland boats to go from the Gulf to fish the Northern Cod? The people of Ottawa did, the bureaucrats. They regulated it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The politicians.

MR. LANGDON: The politicians probably as well.

It was only recent. I remember in 1992 - I was here, too - when the moratorium came. The Minister of Fisheries at the time, the hon. John Crosbie, was given statistics to tell him that the fishery could be increased a year or so before, and then they realized there was no biomass there. So we have come to this particular situation.

I remember being in Ottawa not too long ago with Bill Matthews and the Mayor of Ramea and a few other guys, Allister Hann, the Mayor of Burgeo, along with Kelvin, and we were looking at getting a quota for Burgeo and Ramea, which had been devastated by the 1992 collapse of the fishery, for some crab outside the 200-mile limit. Do you know what it was like? It was like talking to the wall. Nothing penetrated. It was like water on a duck's back. They did not even heard us. Nothing happened. That is the situation we find ourselves in. Do you know what? It is not only that; it is the whole attitude.

Think of September 11, 2001, when the planes came here and all the Newfoundlanders so graciously gave of their time and effort and so on. There were bills that we incurred as a Province. Do you know one of the first bills we would have received? One of the federal departments asked who they could sent the bill to for services rendered during September 11: the Department of National Defence. We did not pay it. We told them we had no intention of paying it. You know, it was different language than that, but here is the situation. That is how they treat us and they have, up to this time, not compensated us.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should have sent all the bills for September 11 to the feds.

MR. LANGDON: We did, and they just did not recognize them.

The other thing that boggles the mind, I guess, when you think about it, I was listening to the news a couple of days ago and there is another group of people who said that if we do not stop killing the seals, they would target the lobster industry and the crab industry in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia. Now, just think of that. The seal is no different than the cod or any other resource, if it is managed properly. It has to be. If it is not managed properly, then the whole habitat itself will be destroyed. What will they feed on? It was already said by the Member for Lewisporte here today. It is a situation that, I do not know how in the world we can do it, to get through to the people that we do exist and that we do have needs. It is the whole mentality.

I have gone to ministers' meetings, the same thing. You know, we have talked about the EI and the EI regulations and every person here, on both sides of the House, look at the situation that many people in the Province are looking for a few hours to be able to qualify for EI. They changed it a few years ago. There is lots of money out there, by the way, that can be given for top-up projects, but what does that mean? That the day you finish work, there is no other income. It is not because of lack of money, and I do not know of any other employer in the country who would allow it to happen. You are not allowed to hire someone if you do not at least pay EI premiums to the particular person.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: There is the situation we find it in. This government recognizes it but we do not have enough dollars to be able to take care of what the federal government has advocated in this situation.

I do not intend to probably take up ten minutes because a lot of other people would want to speak on this side, but one of things that we need here is our own marine science. We need it here. It should not be situated in Ottawa. It should not be in Nova Scotia either. It should be here. There is no other province in the country that is so much attached to the fishery as we are. It is our life. I have twenty-five communities in my district and there is not one from Ramea down to Rencontre East that is not touched by the fishery. We all depend on it and, as Judy said, we are in 3Ps and this year have seen good signs of fishery, but do you know what? I am scared of that, too, because I hear some of the fishermen saying that even though we have quotas, in the federal government's zone that they have for the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, they can fish away. They do not have any quota. They just load and go. So, if you load and go, and there is no way we can protect that, then what happens to the resource? That worries me a whole lot, because again we have to have the science, we have to have people to monitor it.

When we talk about people here with the know-how, as the Member for Lewisporte talked about a few minutes ago, George Rose is a renowned scientist here. Why not, under his direction and other people, give us the money to set up the science? The thing is, you can give us all the dollars that you want to throw at the problem, but that in itself is not going to secure it. We need to be able to manage the resource and be able to grow it, and who better than us and the people who are fishing, the people who are in the boats up there, the people who are the most professional, the people who have the most knowledge than anybody else who would in the Ottawa corridor? It is amazing. I know the situation that the boys are in, even like Matthews and Efford have been: seven of 301. It is the mentality of the bureaucrats that, you know, somehow we don't know how to do it and how to manage it.

I will just give you another situation, like the Canada-Newfoundland Infrastructure Program. Last year, in May, they gave every project to the people to look at and to do, and they are probably not half through. To speed them up, I don't know how you would do it.

So, there is not just one particular thing, there is a repertoire of things that we recognize that we must be able to work out, and it is only a matter of time. If we don't do it, it will be to the detriment of us all.

I can say, Mr. Speaker, that I am concerned for the people I represent in my area, because we are fishery people and we all fish from 3Ps. What will it mean? Will it mean an added pressure on the stocks for other people who live outside the region who will go to 3Ps and fish? If we do that, we are all in serious trouble. That is what the Member for Grand Bank talked about earlier. We have to be vigilant and we have to make sure that we stay on top of that along with our federal MPs as well.

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that I know again today, having been here in 1992, what it means for the people in those particular communities. It is gut wrenching and really goes right to the core of everything that is in the communities. They built it, they want to get on with their lives, and then, all of a sudden, this happens again. It is not good enough. I am sure, as everybody has said, everybody in the House will work together to make sure that in future this type of thing does not happen.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to make some remarks on this special debate, the all-party debate, I guess, that both sides of the House have decided to give precedence to here in the House of Assembly today. I don't stand with any great pride - I am not happy to stand, I guess, I should say. Normally when we stand here we are happy to say a few things, to contribute a few things, to something that we are all happy to put forward, we are all happy to allow to happen.

Mr. Speaker, the sad part about today is I think we are speaking to the converted, because there is not one person here in this House who needs to be convinced of anything that any member of this House of Assembly has said here today or is about to say. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, we all know the attitude that exists in Ottawa.

It was only a few years ago that myself and some of the other members, the Member for Baie Verte, I remember quite clearly, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the Member for Torngat Mountains, made a pilgrimage to Ottawa to talk about extending a program that was implemented and was about to expire. I remember arranging a meeting with the Liberal caucus, the same Liberal government that is in Ottawa today. The meeting was arranged and, if I recall correctly, there were three members - the Member for Burin-Placentia West was there - and one senator that had the interest to show up and listen to a delegation from this House of Assembly, an all-party delegation, to go forward and talk about the needs of the fishing industry in this Province.

I remember standing up and talking. I remember the Member for Spadina, Mr. Mills, and his comment to me was - and I have repeated it here before because I have never, ever forgotten it - his comment was: Mr. Fitzgerald, if your people are looking for a job tell them to come up to Toronto. We have 10,000 jobs here in Toronto. Just imagine, he did not care what the people left behind. He did not care what the job paid. He did not care that this person in Newfoundland had no education, had worked in the fishery all of his life. Come up and go to work for, I suppose, his interests on a minimum wage job and be happy to have a job here in Toronto. How uncaring.

Mr. Speaker, other members here have spoken earlier and talked about how the moratorium affected their district, how the moratorium affected certain towns in their district. I remember what happened in the district that I represent. I remember what happened to me personally back in 1992. I was not sitting here in this House of Assembly. I worked in a fishplant. I was an employee of Fishery Products International. The fishing industry fed and clothed my family. The fishing industry provided me with a livelihood. I remember quite clearly going to work and the plant manager coming in and telling me not to bother showing up the next morning because my job was gone. I remember that, Mr. Speaker. I was one in excess of 2,300 people involved in the processing industry on the Bonavista Peninsula, from Bonavista South, who lost their jobs. I am not talking about the fishermen. I am not talking about the people who worked in the grocery store, the bank and the other businesses who lost their jobs as well. I am talking about in excess of 2,300 processing jobs that were lost in 1992 when the fishery closed down on the Northeast Coast of this Province. How could a district the size of Bonavista South, thirty-five communities with thirty of them directly related to the fishing industry, ever recover from the loss of those numbers of jobs? How can it happen?

The attitude in Ottawa is despicable. What is happening there and what you are seeing filtering down through the system - because they did not even have the decency to let their provincial cousins know of what was about to happen. The shame of it, Mr. Speaker, is here we have the FRCC travelling across the Province, at the federal minister's request, obtaining information for the federal minister so he can make informed decisions on what the future of cod stocks and other fish stocks might be in the coming year. There is no report back from the sentinel fishery. That is not complete yet. The union and FANL, people involved in the industry were meeting, or about to meet, and put forward a report. They waited for none of that. Instead, they met with a select group of people whom I would assume they thought were going to keep everything quiet, keep everything under control, not say a word. Not so! Not so, nor should it be when you talk about the fishing industry in Newfoundland because it is not only related to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, it is related to Newfoundland and Labrador.

The way the fishery goes in this Province so go the Province, I say to everybody here. It affects the people in Mount Pearl the same as it affects people in Bonavista, in Elliston, in Newmans Cove or anywhere else. As I heard that yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I could only imagine what people like Dave White down in Princeton thought. I could only imagine what people like Ben Ricketts in King's Cove and Mike Connors down in Tickle Cove, Mr. Speaker, who depend on cod stocks in order to feed their families.

Mr. Speaker, there are some things that we can do nothing about. There are some things we might be able to talk about but we can do nothing about. We cannot do anything about fish migration. We cannot do anything about water temperatures but there has been a couple of things that have been identified that we can do something about. There have been a couple of things identified, Mr. Speaker, that we know is causing the demise of the Northern cod and Ottawa has not had the will to act; because that is where the decisions are made, in Ottawa.

It never fails to amuse me, Mr. Speaker, every year when we have this great debate, whether we are going to get ten tags or fifteen tags for the food fishery or whether we are going to be allowed to catch 6,000 metric tons or 650 metric tons in 2J3KL. That is the great debate that is planted out there by the federal government. They put it out, they fish, and we bite on it, Mr. Speaker. That is the debate we hear. There is nothing about foreign overfishing. There is nothing about seals. All of that is lost, and we get into this big debate on whether we are allowed to have a food fishery or whether we are allowed to have a limited commercial fishery.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have made five trips out to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank. I have made five trips out there to look - and I feel that it is my responsibility to do that living in a district like Bonavista South, and knowing what the fishing industry means to that district. I have made five trips out to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank. When you go out and see what is happening out there with foreign fishing and you see sometimes two factory-freezer trawlers going side-by-side with a cable on each one, travelling along the fishing grounds. You can imagine what is coming behind them. You fly back in and pitch out here at the airport. Sometimes you make a circle and you pass over a couple of fishing villages. You see our boats tied up at the wharf and you see our fishermen begging for a few fish to catch; you hear the federal minister talking about all the wonderful things that have happened since the turbot war: There is no foreign overfishing anymore,. We have observers on boats now and that has all come to an end. What a crock. What a crock I say to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yes they have observers on the boats, but have a guess at which country the observers are from. Have a guess, when they have to make reports to their own country, of what happens on those boats. Mr. Speaker, the observers are from the same country that the boats are fishing from. They do not have to file their reports until a month after the boat lands and is unloaded. So how effective is the observer program? Then they tell our own fishermen that you cannot go and fish certain stocks because those stocks have to rebuild to replenish the offshore. To replenish the offshore for whom? Not for us, I say to you Mr. Speaker, not for us.

Mr. Speaker, I realize my time is limited. There are other people who want to speak. I will clue up by saying the District of Bonavista South - Port Union, I am going to refer to Port Union in particular. Here is a town where there was a major groundfish plant. Over $750,000 per week going into the economy of Port Union, Catalina and Little Catalina; over $750,000 per week.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, just a second to clue up.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Fourteen hundred people went to work in that fish plant. They worked fifty-two weeks of the year. They had a job to get holidays. Today, Mr. Speaker - yes, we have a modern shrimp plant there. One hundred-and-fifty people worked there for about twenty weeks of the year; 150 people. In fact, businesses have closed. People's houses are boarded up. All because of mismanagement of the Northern cod fishery. All caused by actions of the federal government of both parties in Ottawa.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, just a few works to add to the debate on the motion that we have before the House today. I think it is sad and unfortunate circumstances in our Province that brings us to the level that we are when we have to bring motions into this House in order to try and be heard by our federal counterparts in Ottawa.

I listened today, Mr. Speaker, and the only thing that I can surmise from what I have heard over the months, over the years, over the course of the past few hours through this debate, is about a government that have, over the years, been not only unfair to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but they have not been listening to our concerns. They have not been acting upon our issues.

When you hear of things like we did just a few years ago when we had the transfer of shrimp go to the Province of Prince Edward Island and we had our own members in Ottawa, our MPs, who had to come back and say to us in Newfoundland and Labrador, we were not aware that this was going to happen. We had no knowledge that this was going to happen. That was the actions, Mr. Speaker, of the government at that time. Only a few months ago we seen the same federal fisheries office in Ottawa appoint an MP from Ontario to represent and share the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in this country as it pertains to Atlantic Canada, as it pertains to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Where is the fair treatment in that? What is the message in that? To me, there is a big message in that, it is a message that we are not being heard and they do not want to hear what we have to say.

Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of people in my district today who are implemented by the comments that have surfaced in this report, by the thinking and the mentality of DFO in Ottawa. It is difficult when you know that you are at the mercy of a federal government, a national government, in order to be able to progress, in order to have management of a resource and an industry upon which this Province was founded over 5,000 years ago, to know that today through agreements through Confederation in the last fifty years that we have not only lost control of that management as a province, but it has been entrusted to a national government that has no understanding of our people, no consideration for our communities, and no respect for the opinions that we portray within this industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: When I listen to what is being said in this report, and knowing full well that in this industry, the cod fishery alone still has well over $30 million landed value within our Province, and I listen to a report that does not talk about communities, it does not talk about people, it does not talk about the considerations for those things, I think of my own district and I think of the many fishers along The Straits in Labrador throughout those communities that are depending upon only one resource, and that is the cod fishery in the Gulf region. They are making only small amounts of money. When I look at people like Melvin DeMarie, Russell Layden, Mervin Layden, Frank Flynn and Calvin Letto, and all of these people who have already been through a difficult transition in this industry only a few short years ago, whom have been providing expert advice from their knowledge in the industry, yet, today, the very people they have trusted to manage this industry on their behalf are failing them again.

One of the speakers earlier talk about the cod plant in L'Anse-au-Loup and how it is an economic driver in the local economy. It is the economic driver, as is the industry in most parts of this Province - the fishing industry in rural areas of this Province. When you have to talk to and see hundreds of people who have not only gone through one transition in this fishery already and managed themselves through one crisis already in 1992 to save the fishing industry but is having to do it again probably today, who has had to do it even prior to 1992, this is the impact that it has upon the lives of people.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude today just by saying that this industry impacts all of us, not just the workers in my district in the plant in L'Anse-au-Loup, not just the fishermen in the Gulf region or across the other areas of the Province. It affects all of us. I think we all have to work together collectively to ensure that we not only protect the industry we have today but we also make good management decisions for tomorrow as well. We can only do that if we have some control, we have someone who is listening, and we do it collectively with one voice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and make some comments with respect to this resolution before the House, speaking about what is undoubtedly our most valuable resource and one that has been in some desperation and under attack in recent years. Yet, it is a resource that is not well understood.

I went in on the Internet today and I looked at a release on the CBC Web site that was just updated this afternoon. One of the paragraphs says the closure could happen as soon as possible and would affect more than 2,000 fishermen. I think that is a significant understatement. I agree with the statement as presented, yes. It will probably affect 2,000 fishermen, but the point that is being missed here in this article and is being missed by many people in this Province, and missed particularly by the federal people who represent us, and the federal government particularly, is that it is going to affect much more than 2,000 fishermen. This issue is going to have a significant impact on an entire province.

I just want to take that and look at my own district, Trinity North. My colleague from Bonavista South talked about issues with respect to his district, and our districts are bordering each other. When you take an issue like the fishery and you start talking about what is happening with 2,000 fishermen - within the District of Trinity North we have a mixture, we have some strong fishing communities and we have some communities that don't necessarily have a large number of fishermen and fisherpeople living in those communities, but the economies of those communities depend on the fishing industry.

Clarenville, as an example, in the centre of Trinity North, is a community where there may only be half a dozen people who are working directly as fish harvesters, but there are probably 200 or 300 who are working in fish plants, in the processing sector. There are many commercial businesses in that area that depend on that entire region. People from my colleague's District of Bonavista South, from Bonavista, Port Union, Catalina, they do business in Clarenville. That entire region depends largely on the fishing industry. So, when we start talking about having fisherpeople displaced, people who are in the harvesting part of the industry being displaced, that is just but one piece of what happens to an economy when, in fact, you have that industry being devastated like this. It is not well understood.

This article, I think, typifies that when it talks about the fishermen who are going to be displaced. It does not talk about the significant impact it will have on many other industries and many other individuals who may not be directly employed in that particular industry, and that is something that gets lost frequently.

Getting to the issue at hand, the announcement, there have been many comments today about the manner in which this came out, and how insensitive people are and how insensitive the federal minister is and how insensitive the federal government is. I will not spend a whole lot of time repeating some of that, but what I do want to talk about is the notion that it needs to close down.

I just want to talk a little bit about Smith Sound, which is right in the middle of Trinity North. Now, any of you who have been visiting that area, and my colleague from Bonavista South can attest to this, Smith Sound has been one of the very few places in the eastern part and the northeastern part of Newfoundland where there has been a significant stock of cod continuously even since the early 1990s. This past season, in the recreation fishery, you had people standing on the head of wharves, with fishing rods, catching codfish off the heads of wharves. You cannot do that anywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador, but you can do it in Smith Sound.

Ironically, tomorrow, as an example, FRCC are going to be Clarenville having hearings. Now, when I attend those hearings tomorrow and I look at people who live in Chidleys, and people who live in Petley and Britannia and Hickman's Harbour, who have gone out this year fishing in Smith Sound, and they tell me they have never seen the stock so plentiful - the bay is full of two things. It is full of cod and it is full of seals trying to eat those cod, but the stock still remains solid. Now, how do you tell those same people who are involved in the fishing industry in those communities that we are now going to shut down the cod fishery in Smith South when, in fact, as they go over the coves in their boats, the bottom of their boats, the keels of the boats are running up on fish? It is reminiscent of stories told of John Cabot. They are not using baskets but they are using dip nets and they can actually dip up the codfish. It is that plentiful in Smith Sound. How do you tell a group of fishermen tomorrow in Clarenville at the FRCC hearings that, in fact, it is necessary to close that fishery in Smith Sound and devastate a large number of families who rely heavily on that stock? How do you, in fact, have the face to go to those people and tell them that? I mean, they will look at you like you have just lost your mind. How can you reasonably make that statement?

I am not certain whether or not yesterday's comment and announcement is premature. We had the minister making a comment. I see it here. It says: Although the federal minister has publicly expressed hope that new research could still show that closing is not needed. Now if he has some doubts, why would he and his colleagues decide yesterday to create misery and havoc within this Province? I mean, Merry Christmas. Six or seven weeks before Christmas the minister decides that he can very casually and in a very cavalier way drop a bombshell on Newfoundland and Labrador, and say: We may be closing your fishery next year but we are certain yet. We still have to have reports come in. We still have to study it more. We are still waiting on the FRCC to finish their hearings.

Well, why not wait until that process is concluded before you run out and play havoc with people's lives? I mean these are people who relied on the fishery for years and years. These are people who are involved, directly, in the prosecution of the fishery. These are people who have built businesses around supporting an economy that is dependent upon the fishery. You cannot go out and toy with people's emotions like this. It is totally irresponsible.

It is a pleasure to be a part of a process where we put politics aside. All parties in this House agree to stay focused on what is the major issue here, and that is the livelihood and the future of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I come back to this point again with respect to the stocks. Mr. Speaker, as we start talking about the stocks I think it becomes important that we make sure we reinforce the message that we have been sending. Good solid research is necessary. We need to continue to invest, and invest more in research and development. How can we continue with research if we are going to cease fishing altogether? Where is the data going to come from? How are we going to have some sense of when it should be reopened? What should happen in the future if not a single person is involved in the fishery? What is the basis for the research? That is a critical consideration, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to be able to stand here today with my colleagues in this House and support the motion, has been put forward, so we can all channel our energies in one direction which collectively focuses on the interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are directly involved in the fishery and an entire Province who relies so heavily on the economy that is generated by the fishing industry in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to have those few words with respect to this motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to say that I, too, today am proud to stand and support this resolution. As I looked around this hon. House when the Premier made his statement, you could tell how each and every member in this House felt about the devastation that this will bring on. Just imagine how the some 900-plus licensed people who are totally dependent on the cod fishery, how they and their families feel today.

I want to note an article that was in the Globe and Mail where a statement was made by one of the long-time fishermen from my district, a Mr. Jim Porter, when he expressed the concern that is setting in: Just imagine, if they close the fishery today it may never open again. That is unfortunate.

We must stand together today to not only fight for the fishermen in the Port de Grave district but in the forty-eight districts in this Province. This is a very important issue to us and we have to do something to finally make Ottawa wake up and listen because this is crucial to us here, as well as to Canada as a country.

I remember on March 13, when I brought in the private member's motion on custodial management on the banks, the Nose and Tail. What happened? Nothing. They did not listen. Not because it was me, but that was a total support of this hon. House of all parties.

Then I seen in the paper - and I made a news release on it on May 28, when I saw the federal government putting out $20 million to raise awareness in the United States for the softwood lumber industry. I am not against that, Mr. Speaker, but it just goes to show the double standard that we receive from Ottawa. Finally, it has to come to an end.

Mr. Speaker, it does not surprise me what is happening because when I worked with one of the former ministers of fisheries, the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa, who was also a gentleman from this Province, you could never get a meeting with him. Once he got in Ottawa, whatever happened with the bureaucrats up there we were totally ignored. Finally, one day we got on the plane and went to Ottawa to meet with the minister. Lo and behold, we had to return with no meeting. We had to meet with the officials. I have to say those officials had about the same respect and concern for the people of this Province, when it comes to the fishery, as I have about the caves where Bin Laden is hiding. No more than that, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to all people in this House, I think it is wonderful that we can all come together and stand up for this one cause that is so crucial to our Province.

I believe that our federal government - a conscience, they do not know what it is when they look to us here in this Province. Like the expression that has been said many times: the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. I honestly believe that this House of Assembly has to be the House of Assembly that will finally rock Ottawa and wake them up.

We stand here together today, and I think we have to be creative. I do not know what we can do but we have to do something so that they will finally listen. The only caution I put in it is do not put me in charge of the committee to come up with the ideas because they may not be lawful and be able to be carried out.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I support this resolution on behalf of all the people in this Province. There is not a resident in this Province who was not affected when the moratorium came in the 1990s. I think this is a start here today. I challenge this hon. House, through you, Mr. Speaker, to come up with some ideas that will really, finally bring Ottawa to life and let them know how we are being treated, not only on this issue, but on many others.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, feel like it is a privilege for me to rise and have a few words to say on this very important issue, on the resolution presented by the government and to support it. To give just a few comments that I have on the fishery in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, my District of Windsor-Springdale does have a lot of fishermen. We are lucky that we do have a diversified economy where other industries create jobs but, Mr. Speaker, it just amazes me to see the affect that the fishery has on other parts of the Province where they solely depend on one species; the southern part of the Province and the Straits of Belle Isle. People who depend on the cod fishery look forward to the times of the year when they can fish to supplement their income with that bit of money that they get from the fishery.

If we just remember the crash in 1992 and the moratorium that came after that. We have seen the effect of it when people had to move out of their communities and board up their houses and move onto something else. Now, Mr. Speaker, do we want to see that over again? Do we want to see that type of devastation back again? Do we need more people leaving this Province? Do we need more people leaving smaller communities in remote areas of the Province that depend on the fishery to make their communities viable and to keep the people in their communities? I do not think so. I think the people of this Province like to stay where they are. If they did not want to live in the small communities and be involved in the fishery, then they would not be there.

It just bothers me to see some of the headlines. When you look at the media, you look at such headlines as: Cod fishery must suffer fatal blow in March. I mean, these are serious, serious words that are being circulated in the media. Another one here: Cod is on the decline. That is not surprising news. I think mostly everybody in this Province know that cod is on the decline. The thing is now, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do about it? What is the federal government going to do about it? What are we going to do about it as people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

I really respect the members of this House today for all of us coming together in a collective manner to have a collective effect to find a solution and to help the Government of Canada to find a solution, and we should be more involved. The people of this Province should have more say over our resources. We should have more say and more management over resources and the fishery. The custodial management that we should have should be in place today. For fifty-three years we have been in this Dominion of Canada, and I do not see that a lot has changed with respect to how Canada treats this Province. Does Canada trust the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? If they did, then we would have custodial management. If the federal Government of Canada trusted the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, then we would have a lot to say over our resources offshore. We would be making proposals and giving people of this Province a chance to make a living off our resources in the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, that did not happen. Now we are going back to things that we read in this document here: special government assistance. Will we need that again? Will we need programs like the TAGS? How long is this going to last? The potential closure could be long term, and what other opportunities are there in these small communities for our fisherpeople? What else can they do if they are depending wholly on the cod? I am lucky that in my district we have a pretty good crab fishery. We were depending on H and G cod this year to make up the difference. We certainly need it because a lot of people in Triton did not get enough hours this year to make the EI qualifications, but there are places in this Province where there is no hope at all. If this is another crash coming, it is a proposed document by the federal Fisheries Minister and if this does happen then we are going to be in big trouble in parts of the Province where a lot of people have no other choice but to pack up and leave, or the federal government must come through with packages, compensation packages, programs, so that maybe some of the people can stay there; maybe it would be short-term instead of long-term. To determine that, we need good scientific evidence, good scientific facts.

I do not see a lot of research vessels on the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador to produce documentation proving what we suspect is, but we need solid information. We need scientific information. We need dollars by the federal government put into it so that wherever you look on the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador you will see people who are interested, people who are worried, people who are going to make sure the job is done. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we are depending upon the federal government to do that.

I think since 1949, the fifty-three years we have been in Confederation, we should have been the biggest player in this role, we should have the biggest role to play in scientific research and custodial management of the Nose and Tail and the Flemish Cap. We should be determining what our future is going to be in our fishery in this Province. We should not have to be worried about surprise announcements by our federal Fisheries Minister. We should have control over this resource.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are a lot of people wanting to speak, but I, too, am concerned about our fishery. I, too, am concerned about what happens on the coastal communities of Newfoundland and Labrador where people want to stay, they want to live, they want to feed their families, pay their bills and continue living in the beautiful communities that we have along our coastline.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support this motion, this resolution. I hope that all of us, all parties, will work together, hopefully to send a strong message to the federal government that we are not going to sit by and let our resource be managed in the way it has been managed since 1949. We want more input and we want better solutions to the problems in our fishery.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are no words, I guess, that I could use today to adequately express the disappointment and the dismay over this total letdown by our federal government, this slap in the face to the people of this Province, to the people who depend either directly or indirectly on the fishery in this Province to make a livelihood.

Mr. Speaker, I have supported and I have promoted the Liberal Party, both provincially and federally, for all of my adult years. Like any long-time, dedicated member of any party, there have been some disappointments along the way, but nothing that compares with the devastation and insensitivity by a minister of this party today in the statements that he has made.

I can only imagine how our federal MPs, John Efford, Lawrence O'Brien, Norm Doyle and other members are feeling today. It is just not good enough, and I commend all members of this House for putting their partisan politics aside today and coming together to send a unanimous message that we just will not put up with this.

As the Premier said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is all about attitude, and I would again say that there has been a total lack of concern for the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, my district is very dependent on the fishery and I guess I know practically every person who is involved with the fishery on the Burin Peninsula. For a number of years - for fifteen years - I worked in income tax at H&R Block. I did income tax for the many inshore fishermen over the whole district and, of course, I have members of my own family and friends working in the fishing industry in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have debated fisheries matters in the House of Assembly many times, indeed, in the past. In fact, I currently have a private member's motion on the Order Paper dealing with fisheries issues. We have discussed a motion by the Member for Port de Grave last spring calling for Canada to extend custodial management over the Continental Shelf. In that vote in the House on that motion, as we are doing here today, we spoke with one voice.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that we are not being listened to. We are not being listened to by the federal government, and we are not being listened to by the national media. The issue did receive some media attention in this Province, and after the debate on the motion put forward by the hon. Member for Port de Grave we did see some things happen. We had a House of Commons committee here in this Province to hear the views of the people of this Province on this issue, and on March 21, 2002, there was a debate in the House of Commons in Ottawa on the issue of custodial management. Mr. Speaker, I also attended the committee that was spearheaded by the Leader of the Opposition, where this issue was also discussed earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker, what is so frustrating is that the federal government did not even listen to their own House of Commons committee.

Mr. Speaker, I currently have a motion on the Order Paper of this House related to the problem of foreign overfishing. The motion reads:

WHEREAS foreign overfishing off our coast is a situation which needs immediate attention; and

WHEREAS the closure of Canadian ports to vessels from countries who do not follow proper conservation measures is an important first step in dealing with this issue;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the action taken by the federal government to close ports to countries such as the Faroese Islands that are not following proper conservation measures; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly reaffirms its position that Canada should extend custodial management over all fishing areas off our coast; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the Government of Canada to contact officials from France, and request that St. Pierre also close its ports to countries who practice foreign overfishing, outside of our 200-mile limit.

Mr. Speaker, some people might ask, why bring this motion forward on this issue? The House spoke with one voice on the motion by the Member for Port de Grave. It received unanimous support. It sent an important message to all Canadians, the federal government and, indeed, the international community on this issue. That motion was successful, and it helped bring attention to this issue, raised public awareness and put pressure on the federal government for change.

Mr. Speaker, the motion I had put on the Order Paper and, indeed, the debate we are having here today, is necessary because we have to continue to show our resolve on this issue. We have to keep pressure on the federal government and the international community to see that this issue is dealt with properly.

Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves: How did we find ourselves in this situation today? The federal government should be asking themselves this question also. They should be asking themselves what they could have done to avoid the current state that we are in today.

Mr. Speaker, when I think of the inaction of the federal government on this issue, I think of the impact it could have on many people in this Province. I feel betrayed, I feel frustrated and I feel angry.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Leaders, again, of the political parties in the House today for putting aside party politics and standing together on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I said we were not been listened to in the past. I have outlined what I, as one member, had been doing to try and bring attention to this issue, and I can only hope that our federal government is listening today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a couple minutes on this important debate to say that my constituents will be affected by this type of decision, if and when it is made. Given what has occurred with the federal Minister of Fisheries in the last day or so, it brings great concern to all of us in this House. The constituents that I have in Codroy Valley, where we have a fish plant that has a new owner, that really this year was just starting to come back, it affects the workers there and the fishermen in that area, right on up to Bay St. George South in the St. George's region, the Crabbes River there where we have a number of fishermen, right into St. George's region. These people very much rely on the fishery for their living.

It is unfortunate as to the circumstances as to how this is being handled, Ottawa's way of handling things, unfortunately. I believe, again, it is another example, unfortunately, of the seriousness that they take when it comes to issues related to the Province. This one in particular is a bread and butter issue. It is about an issue of survival for these communities, and also for the residents there, it is their future. So, how it is being managed and so on is something that we can debate another day. I find it extremely unfortunate that it is being handled this way by the federal minister and the officials of the federal government thus far.

I agree totally with the resolution today, about getting people together in this House, along with the federal MPs and Senators that we have representing us. Hopefully someday - the House of Commons and the people in Ottawa that govern this country - that Newfoundland and Labrador will be looked upon as more than seven seats, because really that is what it has come down to, the number of parliamentary seats, and that is how serious you get taken in this Confederation. Hopefully, one of these days we can find a solution to that issue, so that we can deal with these issues.

Again, for the constituents in my district, we are going to continue to work very hard to make sure we get the right arrangements, that if the advice comes down we can all be ready and work towards a solution on it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like just to have a few words on the resolution as well. It is certainly a sad day for Newfoundland once again to have the thought of a cod closure and the affects that it is going to have on certain parts of this Province. I guess it is going to have affects on all parts of this Province, because the economy of the fishery certainly impacts every part and that is undisputed. You can talk to anybody and they would certainly agree with that kind of a statement.

In places like St. Barbe, which is a very rural district, the inshore fishery certainly plays a very important part. The inshore fishery, as most people know, does not consist of just one fishery, it is many parts to make the complete whole. Certainly, cod has started to come back to play a role there and that role has been ever so important, because to actually make the circle complete has always been trying on rural Newfoundland, but in the last ten years in particular, when we have had the government regulations, the EI regulations and whatnot being so difficult, along with the fishery. Having both of them hit at the one time has certainly had a big impact.

Our communities, today, are struggling, and they have been struggling from the cod moratorium of 1992 and the out-migration. Our communities have a tax base that is 20 per cent less than what it was, and the wealth of the individuals in those communities has gone down considerably since 1992. So there is a stress and a strain there that started a long time ago, and it was, hopefully, at a point in time when it looked to get better versus having another shock, such as today, when you have the federal government suggesting that maybe we will close down the fishery again in parts like the Northern Peninsula. It is sort of a blow that would be hard to imagine.

The processing jobs have certainly been another part of it. It is not only the inshore fishermen - and the inshore fishermen certainly make up a big part of the District of St. Barbe because of the room, the small communities that we have. We have had those people go out there and see the cycle of the lobsters. The lobsters certainly play a very important role in our economy. If it were not for the lobsters, I do not know what communities would be surviving on now on the Northern Peninsula, because it has certainly been a very lucrative business as it goes. It is very short, but while it does last, it does bring stability to our families. That stability has given the encouragement to go ahead. Maybe the herring or the mackerel and, in some parts of my district, the crab for the inshore fishery has played a very important part. It has only been part of the district that the crab has played an important part in, and that has been the southern part, and it has not provided the stability to the northern part.

As we have been doing that, we have seen were Ottawa once again has allowed Quebec boats to come right up to our shoreline, basically, and fish for crab, and not give our own fishermen an opportunity to go out there that would bring the stability. So if we were out there, and if we were looking at means and ways for rural Newfoundland to survive, there are ways out there, but we have just not been able to, in this federation with Canada, utilize our fishery, which has to be in order to bring the complete whole back to our small communities and rural places like the Northern Peninsula.

I think one of the things that has been badly stressed through our communities (inaudible) look at the problems that we have now on the Northern Peninsula, has been when we went into the shell fishery. The trucking of the shrimp and what not should have brought stability to many of our communities and we should have had some prosperity in the past few years, and if you had a period of prosperity I suppose it would be a period of comfort. We have not had that, and that has been unfortunate for us.

We have had to look at a company in PEI, in this federation with Canada, when they go out there. That company has every right to have a quota as the survival of communities in places like the Northern Peninsula. Everybody saw it in this House, saw this as being completely wrong and it is completely wrong, but that is the agreement, I suppose, that we have gone with, where a Minister of Fisheries can go out and say: Yes, that is how it is going to be, that is the way it is, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Whether the Minister of Fisheries and the Premier go and fight it, they are not going to win against this particular government.

Our communities have never recovered from the cod moratorium. It has been a difficult struggle. I have always believed that if you go out of there and you are continuously on the edge - and I think the communities on the Northern Peninsula have continuously been on the edge of the cliff - almost any little thing can topple them over. What my fear is, is that maybe something like this today will topple over the small communities on the Northern Peninsula. If that is the case, it is certainly a sad day. We have been in a position where we have not pulled back when we had the opportunity with the shell fishery, the shrimp fishery, when it came on. We did not pull back from the edge of the cliff, and that is why we were left out hanging on the edge of the cliff today, and as this happens the possibility of falling over is ever so great.

To exist and prosper in rural Newfoundland, I believe it is possible. The thing is, I think we have to come before Canada's image in the world. I think that is why we are not prospering. That is the one single biggest issue why we are not prospering in places like the Northern Peninsula, because the image of Canada has to come first. We cannot manage our resource if seals come in the way, and that is the bottom line.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly feel obligated to have a few words into today's debate. First of all, I would like to commend all members of the House for speaking with one voice on this very important issue on behalf of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, like most people in this House, I take great pride in the fact that I come from a fishing family as well. My dad went dory mate with my grandfather when he was thirteen years old, on the Grand Banks, and I have two older brothers who spent a lifetime in the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, as MHA for the District of Port au Port, when we saw the closure of the fishery in 1992, I spent a considerable amount of my time, when I came into this House, dealing directly with fishermen in doing appeals, helping them to work their way through that first compensation program which was provided by the federal government. As difficult as it was, at least there was a recognition there by a federal government that they had some responsibility in trying to look after people who are directly affected by this.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help, when we talk and engage in a debate like this, but think about growing up years ago on the Port au Port Peninsula as a small boy, being able to go down to the beach on a daily basis, which is where most of us hung out, and to think about the fish stocks at that time, the boats coming in laden down, fish being thrown ashore on the beach, and all of us wading in and helping out, and to see where we have come in this Province; and it is a direct result of a federal government that has totally mismanaged a resource. Certainly, the blame does not lie with the people of this Province. The resource and the management of the resource has been the federal government's responsibility and they certainly should be completely ashamed of the terrible job they have done with it.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that concerns me - the fishermen in my district whom I have spoken to over the last couple of years, as we have seen the small quotas that have been issued to them, they have seen in the Gulf stocks reason to be optimistic. I talked to a number of fishermen even this past summer who are saying to me that catches were good and they were encouraged that now maybe they were going to see a return of the groundfish fishery in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I know today that this news will be greeted with such sadness and will cause such devastation to so many families in my district who will now again be faced with the prospect of seeing a fishery close down.

Mr. Speaker, what is so tragic about all of this, in addition to the news itself, is the callous manner in which it has been delivered to the people of this Province. The fact that the people who have been elected to represent the people in this Province have been completely ignored and we have been left to learn about it through the news media, as has everybody else in this country. I think that is totally unforgivable.

Mr. Speaker, the one final comment that I will make, and the thing that causes me the most concern, is, in reading the information - as spotty as it is, it is available - which suggests that even with the closure of the fishery there is no guarantee that the stocks will return. That is certainly a very damning statement. It is certainly a statement that should be of concern to all of us because it begs the question: Why is the stock in such a state? Really, if you look at it, it is on the verge of extinction, if you listen to that, because with no fishing at all there is no guarantee that it will revive or that it will survive.

Mr. Speaker, that begs an awful lot of questions. It certainly speaks to things like the seal fishery that we have debate in this House. A federal government that again as well has shown repeatedly that it has no appetite to wage into this debate on behalf of the people of this Province.

I commend all members of this House in rising in support of this resolution and sending a strong message to our federal government that it is time to wake up and take notice, and certainly to our MPs and others, to stand up and speak out and fight for the people of this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased, also, to stand today in the House of Assembly and join my colleagues on all sides of the House and hopefully bring a loud and clear message to the federal government and to the MPs on both sides of the House who represent us in the federal government, and to say that this is a major blow to the people of this Province. It is a major blow, after ten years now. Since the cod moratorium was brought forward in 1992 we have lived in hope, Mr. Speaker, that things may turn around, that things may get better, and we hoped that we would have an open dialogue with the federal government so the concerns and the issues that people in Newfoundland and Labrador have would be heard in Ottawa.

What do we find today? We find a report given that talks about shutting down the cod fishery completely in this Province - pretty close to it. We see a report that is discussed behind doors, and not in Newfoundland and Labrador but in Ottawa. We find we have a Premier here in this Province who did not even get - whatever colour, whatever stripe the Premier of the day should happen to be in Newfoundland and Labrador, he should have gotten a phone call concerning this here. Whatever stripe the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador is of today, the first people should have been called from Ottawa were the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries in this Province. No, Mr. Speaker, we did not get a call. We found out through the media what the plans are for the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, if I could take just a moment of the time - I notice we are getting to the end of the day now - just to name a few communities: Argentia, Jerseyside, St. Bride's, Branch, St. Joseph's, O'Donnell's, Admiral's Beach, Riverhead, St. Mary's and Trepassey. Mr. Speaker, ten communities in 1992 that had a fish plant. Today operating in the district are St. Joseph's and St. Mary's. Two out of ten are operating today. Families have moved away. We look at out-migration hand over fist in these communities.

I go back to March of last year in The Newfoundland Herald, where Craig Westcott did a story basically on the census from 1996 to the year 2001. Just to give a couple of examples, if I could, Mr. Speaker, in Fox Harbour, the population went down 12.7 per cent; Placentia, 11.7 per cent; St. Bride's, 12.7 per cent; Point Lance, .7 per cent; Branch, 9.4 per cent; Colinet, 19.2 per cent; Mount Carmel, Mitchell Brook, St. Catherines, 15.7 per cent; St. Joseph's, 13.6 per cent; Admiral's Beach, 16.7 per cent; Riverhead, 15.1 per cent, St. Mary's, 18.2 per cent; Gaskiers, Point La Haye, 21.5 per cent; St. Vincent's, St. Stephen's, Peter's River, 24.3 per cent, and St. Shott's, 31.1 per cent, Mr. Speaker, less population in the year 2001 than they had in 1996.

When we sit down in five years' time - if this happens, what the federal government is talking about - and read the stats and read the census, it will be worse, far, far worse than what we have today.

We are sick and tired in this Province of going cap in hand to Ottawa. I am sick and tired of hearing the stories about: the Federal Government of Canada sits down with the Government of Japan and discusses building an auto plant in Ontario somewhere. What do they put on the table? They put the fish of Newfoundland and Labrador on the table as a bargaining chip to get that plant in Ottawa.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: And that, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. It is wrong to the people here.

We have a commission travelling around the Province now, and we are talking about our place in this Confederation. I have serious concerns about our place in Confederation when we have an issue as important as the fishery is to this Province, as important as it is to the people that I represent in this House, and we do not even get a phone call from the people who are making the decisions on that. That, Mr. Speaker, is a sad commentary and a sad day for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The only good part of this is that we stand together in this House of Assembly, we stand together in this Province, to send a clear message to Ottawa that enough is enough and we are going to make noise on this issue. We are going to do whatever it takes to get the point across, Mr. Speaker, that as somebody said earlier: This could be the last straw. I think it is important that we stand shoulder to shoulder, lay aside partisan politics and say to Ottawa: Newfoundland and Labrador brought much more into Confederation fifty-three years ago than what we have today and enough is enough.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to this resolution today. I would also like to thank every member in the House of Assembly for agreeing to forego the normal events in the House today to discuss this matter which is of utmost importance, not only to the people of this House, but every Newfoundlander and Labradorian in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I said I was shocked and surprised at the news coming out of Ottawa about the possible closure of the cod fishery in 2J3KL and 4RS3Pn, the Gulf stocks and those on the East Coast of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked. Not at the fact that these stocks were in danger, not at the fact that it was a surprise to me that something may have to be done with regard to the quotas. What I was shocked about, Mr. Speaker, was the manner in which these discussions were held in Ottawa yesterday and the manner in which we were informed about these discussions.

Yesterday afternoon at around 4:30 I walked out of the House of Assembly and I was confronted by a group of media people. They asked me to comment on what was happening in the private, secret discussions that were happening in Ottawa yesterday pertaining to the closure of fish stocks around the Province. At that moment, Mr. Speaker, I picked up the telephone and I called the federal minister's office. I left three numbers for him to call me. I also picked up the phone and called the Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, Mr. Efford. At least the Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception was on the phone to me this morning from Ottawa at 9:00. He told me what had happened yesterday and faxed me a copy of the paper that was discussed there. To this very minute, I am not aware - I came here at 1:30 p.m. today and up until that point the federal minister had not returned my phone call.

Mr. Speaker, I find the meeting that they held yesterday in secrecy and the fact that we were not notified and the fact that he still has not returned my call, not because it is me - because I represent the fishery for this government in the Province - but I find it absolutely despicable that a Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa would not have the decency, not only to inform me beforehand but has not had the decency since then, after I called him, to pick up the phone or jot down a note to send me to tell me what happened yesterday. Mr. Speaker, when I say that I was shocked and surprised, I was shocked and surprised at what happened in Ottawa yesterday not the state of the stocks.

Mr. Speaker, as many of the members in this House know, there is a process usually involved before any total allowable catch or any allocations of fish are awarded. That process is a fairly long one. It starts with scientists gathering advice, gathering scientific data and analyzing it. Then they give it to the minister and the minister also passes it along to the FRCC. The FRCC then takes some of that advice and they go around the Province and talk to stakeholders in the industry to discuss what might be possible implications of reductions of quotas and ask for advice from these people. At that time, when that is done, Mr. Speaker, the FRCC makes a recommendation to the federal minister as to what the quota should be.

In fact, as we speak that committee, the FRCC, is going around the Province. In fact, they were in my district yesterday discussing exactly what we are talking about here today, the state of particular stocks in this Province and what should be done. What I find offensive is that it seems to me that the federal minister has thrown out all procedures that we followed in the past. He is up there and his mind is already made up as to what they intend to do in the spring. What I find offensive about that is that he has the decision made before the FRCC has even made their recommendations to him. If that is the case, why is he wasting taxpayers' money to send these individuals around the Province and allowing fishermen, plant workers and everyone in the industry to spend money to get to these meetings for no reason at all? Mr. Speaker, I find that offensive. But, when you look at what we have had in the past with regard to the federal government, I do not find it to be that surprising.

I look across at the hon. Member for Lewisporte district, who was the Fisheries minister in the late 1980s and I think - correct me if I am wrong - that you were probably the minister under a couple of federal governments, both Tory and Liberal alike. I would hazard to guess that he received very similar treatment from Ottawa, from both parties, as we have received.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Exactly! One is as bad as the other, as he has just said.

I have been involved with the Department of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, since 1989. The Tory government was there in the early years of the 1990s and the Liberal government has been there ever since. I find no difference. I find no difference in the way they behave or react to what we want, or what we perceive as the best way to run the fisheries in this Province. I see no difference.

If you look at what happened most recently in the last few months in our Province with regard to the issues that we have put forward to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa and asked for their support on, the answer that came back on every occasion has been an outright no. We presented a case for custodial management. Everybody in this House agreed with it. The Standing Committee on Fisheries, whom I did a presentation to back in the early spring of this year, they went after that and presented it to the federal minister and said: We recommend custodial management. What did he say? No! He did not even read the report. He said no upfront. He confirmed that again just last week when he said: We have reviewed the report, we are still not moving on it. We do not accept custodial management.

We have had a report, Mr. Speaker, that the federal minister, not Thibault, but Dhaliwal who preceded him, commissioned a year or a year-and-a-half ago, an independent panel on access of criteria. In other words, he established a committee on how we should divvy up the fish stocks that are adjacent to our shores. We presented the case. We presented our side of the story to him. Guess what he did? He accepted the report of the IPAC committee which will have, no doubt in my mind, a detrimental impact on fisheries adjacent to our shores.

I called him last week before he released the report and said that he agreed with it. I said: Postpone the releasing of the report until I have further discussions with you. I do not know if I can do that. I think it has probably already gone to the media.

Then, again last week, what does he do? Here we are in a Province that relies on the fishery more so than any other province in this country. What does he do? There was a vacancy as the Chair of the Federal Fisheries Committee for this country, because the member from P.E.I. got put into Cabinet so they needed a new Chair of that committee, and, lo and behold, who did they appoint? A Torontonian from Central Canada. I told him, at the time, that would be the equivalent of appointing a Newfoundlander to the wheat board, to the wheat board out West. I find it despicable some of the things that the federal government - as the Member for Lewisporte said, they are all alike. The only good thing that has come out of this today, Mr. Speaker, out of what happened yesterday, is the fact that, for the first time in a long while, we seem to be united in this House, because what they always rely on in Ottawa is for us to attack each other, for us to be criticizing each other. For a member opposite to be criticizing me for enough doing enough and I firing it back at him.

What I am very happy to say today, Mr. Speaker, is that we have unanimity in this House, and I hope and pray that when we send the invitation to our federal counterparts who represent this Province in the House of Commons and in the Senate, that they will come here and we will act together and we will speak as one voice in Ottawa rather than having it splintered the way that the federal government would like to see it.

You know what they say about a house divided, and that is what we have been doing in this Province for far too many years. It is time, on issues that are of utmost importance to this Province, that we come together. Forget the petty politics because, look, regardless if I get elected or if you get elected or you get elected, this Province has to survive. Our children and our grandchildren would like to be able to remain in this Province. For once I saw unanimity today in this House of Assembly and I congratulate and I thank each and every member in this House; but I cannot sit down, Mr. Speaker, before I talk about the impact that closure would have on some of the people in this Province.

In the media just in the last day, I heard them talk about how the closure of these fisheries will not have the impact that the moratoria had in 1992-1993. It certainly won't. We had 30,000 people displaced in July of 1992 with the signing of a piece of paper - displaced. Obviously we do not have 30,000 people displaced if they close the two stocks that we are talking about here today, but what will the impact be? Talk to the individuals who are going to be impacted, because the individual on the West Coast who has no fish to catch next year, if they go ahead with this plan, he is going to be impacted the same way as he was in 1992. He is going to be left without a way to feed himself and feed his family.

It is not just the fishermen on the West Coast; it is the fishermen on the East Coast. I have many fishermen in my district who never made core status for some reason or another; it fell through the cracks. There are many of those out there who have to rely on cod for the few meager dollars that he has to earn to feed his family each year. There are people involved. There are harvesters out there who will not be able to earn a living. Their families will be impacted. We also have plant workers; albeit not all of them on the East Coast rely solely on cod, they do rely on cod for a certain portion of their income. On the West Coast, it is even more so. Places like Burnt Islands, the member talked about here today, that plant relies, I would say, 90 per cent to 99 per cent on cod. They did 1,200 tons last year. So, what happens to the fifty, sixty or 100 people who are involved in that plant. What do they do?

Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that I hope when we meet with our federal counterparts and we sit down with them, that when we finish that meeting, when we leave, that we will be speaking with one voice and maybe for once - and I can only say maybe, Mr. Speaker - maybe for once, someone in Ottawa will sit up and take note.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

I declare the resolution carried unanimously.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all members for their participation. I know there are other members on both sides of the House who would like to speak, but time has caught up with us and we have to adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the House.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.