April 30, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 14


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know how you can mistake that one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday, April 18, which was Good Friday, the Flatrock Flyers defeated the Corner Brook Royals in game three of the best of five series by a score of six to five to win the Herder Memorial Trophy in Corner Brook.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Flatrock Flyers showed they were the best in senior hockey in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This was the Flatrock Flyers fourth Herder in the past ten years. April 18 was indeed a good Friday for the players, coaches and management of the Flatrock Flyers, much to the dismay of some other members of this hon. House of Assembly who predicted another team other than the Flatrock Flyers would win the Herder this year.

The Members for Humber East, Bay of Islands, the Premier, and, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say, even the Leader of the Opposition, picked another team to win the Herder this year. It was obvious to me which team was the best team, and I predicted the Flatrock Flyers would win the Herder this year, and I never ever played hockey! Unlike the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, who are supposed to be half-decent hockey players, predicted the second-best team to win.

Mr. Speaker, the Flatrock Flyers have competed nine times of the past ten years for the Herder Trophy and with the ever following of very loyal fans, skill, experience and determination - they never give up - the Flatrock Flyers won the most coveted hockey trophy in Newfoundland and Labrador again this year.

The Flatrock Flyers returned Saturday evening to the Community Centre in Flatrock to a great celebration where most of the people of Flatrock, the fans and supporters, showed up to celebration their victory with them.

Mr. Speaker, it should be mentioned that the three games were very hotly contested with two games going into overtime, and when the Flatrock Flyers won the Herder in Corner Brook the fans of the Corner Brook Royals were very courteous and sportsmanlike, which needs to be mentioned

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Flatrock Flyers and look forward to next year's Herder playoff.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the organizers of the very successful 2003 Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Drama Festival held in Gander this past Saturday. I congratulate and thank the co-chairs, George Joseph and Dave Lawton and provincial chairwoman, Una Joseph, and all committee members for their contribution to this festival.

I would also like to congratulate participants from all across the Province and award winners on their role in making this festival such a wonderful event.

Mr. Speaker, as the MHA for Gander, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the achievements of the Avion Players for winning five awards in this year's festival.

The Avion Players of Gander, who this year are celebrating their fiftieth anniversary, won: the Newfoundland Herald Audience Appreciation Award; the Margaret Doyle Trophy for spirit; the Reg Harte Memorial Award for best supporting male performance - Burt Peddle; the OZ-FM Award for imagination, and excellence in sound - Paul Blake and Mike Hiscock; and the Allan R. Hillier Award for costume, that was won by Brenda Hiscock.

This festival is an important part of Newfoundland and Labrador's culture and I wish the groups continued success in years to come.

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.

On Saturday evening, April 26, I had the opportunity to be in the community of Fox Harbour where a community celebration was held to say thank you to the many volunteers who serve that community and the people of that community.

The highlight of the evening had to be, Mr. Speaker, the presentation of the Queen's Jubilee Medal, which I had the opportunity to do, to two fine ladies of that community, Mary King and Elizabeth Barron. Both of these ladies have spent the last number of decades volunteering in their community to make Fox Harbour a better place to live for the people who reside there.

Mr. Speaker, these two individuals have helped to establish a public library in Fox Harbour, a museum that is second to none, Mr. Speaker, and over the past couple of years they have been involved in making sure that a campsite was brought to the community of Fox Harbour. Both ladies have been involved in the town council throughout the years, the recreation committee, they play a major part in the annual folk festival in Fox Harbour each and every year, Mr. Speaker, and are long-time volunteers in the church community.

I want to take the opportunity today here in the House of Assembly to congratulate Ms Mary King and Ms Elizabeth Barron on being presented with the Queen's Jubilee Medal for the years of volunteerism to their fellow Canadians, fellow Newfoundlanders, and the people of their community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, want to congratulate the Flatrock Flyers because it is very close to me, seeing the guy who scored the two goals in overtime is from the wonderful District of Port de Grave. So, it means a lot to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, on April 15, a couple from my district celebrated a joyous occasion. Chesley and Muriel Earle of Shearstown celebrated an accomplishment that does not happen every day. Mr. Speaker, as the couple celebrated their seventieth wedding anniversary, these two fine individuals have spent most of their adult lives living together in Shearstown and have witnessed many changes not only in their community but in the Province.

Despite their age, the two remain very active in the community and they are very much involved in all the events that take place and are very community-minded individuals.

Mrs. Earle attends church on a regular basis and Mr. Earle, at the age of ninety-three, can usually be found out in his yard doing chores each and every day of the week.

Their dedication and love for each other has enabled them to get where they are today and are a shining example to marriage everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate them on their successful life and marriage together and wish them both the very best of luck in the future.

Thank you.

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.

On Thursday past, April 24, the Government of Canada made announcements that have serious consequences for this Province as a whole, but with devasting consequences for individuals and rural areas that rely on our fisheries.

I am referring to the announced closure of the Northern cod fishery in 2J+3KL and the Gulf cod fishery in 3Pn+4RS, as well as the $25 million for a so-called "action plan" to assist individuals and communities impacted by the closures.

These were made-in-Ottawa decisions that have a significant impact on our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They were taken and announced unilaterally and arbitrarily, and they demonstrated a contemptible disregard of advice provided earlier from informed, knowledgeable stakeholders.

In view of the seriousness of the short- and long-term consequences of these announcements for this Province, Mr. Speaker, we immediately requested meetings with the Prime Minister and appropriate ministers in Ottawa to address our concerns with both announcements. I appreciate the parties agreeing to delay, by agreement, the opening of the Legislature for a couple of days for that to occur.

This week, I - along with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs - met in Ottawa with Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Manley, Fisheries Minister Thibault, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Stephane Dion, and ACOA Minister Byrne. Yesterday, I also met with the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the decision to close the 3Pn+4RS cod fishery in the Gulf flies in the face of scientific advice provided to the federal Fisheries Minister by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. The minister ignored the scientifically-founded recommendation of the FRCC to keep that fishery open, but reduce the quota to 3,500 tonnes.

We want that fishery open, Mr. Speaker, consistent with advice provided to the minister by his own Conservation Council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: In all of our meetings, Mr. Speaker, we called upon the Government of Canada to reverse its decision on this stock and to establish a fishery. We advised federal ministers that the people of this Province would stand for nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, it was not helpful that our federal minister was on the record promoting moving on and that he was suggesting that he had the full support of the Leader of the Opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, beyond the viable Gulf cod fishery that is based on scientific advice, additional short-term measures and a long-term adjustment program must supplement the paltry and totally inadequate compensation program announced by Minister Byrne last week.

In particular, immediate action is needed to address the serious concerns of those individuals whose eligibility for Employment Insurance expires in just a few days and for those whose eligibility expires at the end of June.

For many of them, their predicament is compounded by the fact that ice conditions in the Gulf and along the Northeast coast have delayed their participation in any fishery this year. For them, EI benefits must be extended and that is the message we left very forcefully.

The federal government also has a responsibility to dramatically expand the adjustment package that was announced last week.

A meaningful, long-term adjustment program should, at the very minimum, include early retirement and licence buyout measures, as well as the strategy for economic diversification and growth initiatives. Short-term make-work projects provide no measure of dignity or effective income support for those affected by the proposed closures. This requires a long-term strategy, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we demand of the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the federal decision on cod stocks has resulted in considerable turmoil and unrest in our Province. Many individuals are experiencing an exceptional level of frustration with the Government of Canada , to the point that many are questioning Newfoundland and Labrador's place in the Canadian federation.

Mr. Speaker, vessels from Newfoundland and Labrador traditionally harvest 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the Northern Gulf cod stock, and it is the communities of Southern Labrador and Northwestern Newfoundland which critically depend upon this resource.

In this light, this government finds it totally inappropriate that scientific assessment of this stock is conducted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Quebec Region in Mount Joli, Quebec.

Given the importance of the Gulf cod fishery to Newfoundland and Labrador, it is our strong view that scientific assessment of this stock be conducted in this Province by the department's Newfoundland Region, not the Quebec Region.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Simply put, Mr. Speaker, the very least the federal government must do is move the scientists it utilizes to assess this stock here to Newfoundland and Labrador - close to the fish they are employed to count, and closer to the people who count on the fish.

Mr. Speaker, this week's meetings in Ottawa have concluded. But our efforts to address all these issues with the federal government will and must continue. This government will not stand idly by and let the people of this Province bear the brunt of failed federal fisheries management.

Over the coming weeks I assure this hon. House that this government will take every action within its means to ensure that an appropriate northern Gulf cod fishery occurs consistent with scientific advice provided to the federal minister. We shall also continue to insist that those impacted by federal mismanagement of the fishery receive the compensation and adjustment assistance measures to which they are rightfully entitled.

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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. the Premier for providing me with a copy of his statement just minutes before we appeared here in the House today. However, of course, the contents are well known to all of us. I certainly share and support all of his comments, as does all the Opposition, who are totally behind the government, totally behind his ministers.

There is, of course, one comment that I do not see in the script. That was a reference to my alignment with the federal minister, Mr. Byrne, with regard to being opposed to the closure. That does not appear in that statement. I just want to make the record very clear, Mr. Speaker, very, very clear that we have been opposed to a closure of this fishery from day one, when this first started in November and this issue first came up. It was announced by the federal minister, and there was a leak. I am sorry, not an announcement. In fact, a leak. We had supported it all the way through and when the announcement came last Thursday, which was disgusting and devastating news for everybody in the Province, we were clearly on the record as a party as being totally opposed to this closure. The statement was made by the Member for Lewisporte, the statement was by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and, as well, I, myself, did a release on Friday, which played all over the weekend. As well, we held a detailed press conference on Monday. Let the record be very, very clear, Mr. Speaker, that we totally oppose - totally, totally oppose! - the closure of the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: As well, Mr. Speaker, I notice in the Premier's statement he makes reference to the so-called action plan, and it is not an action plan, we know that, it is an inaction plan, it is an insulting plan. I have also conveyed my feeling on that particular plan, the woefully and totally inadequate compensation plan that has been offered. I have told that to Minister Byrne and I have told him directly, in no mean terms.

Mr. Speaker, as well, the Premier has indicated that there was a contemptible disregard for advice provided from informed stakeholders. We participated in an all-party committee and we worked very, very hard and worked together, as a group, on that committee. We put a lot of time and effort into that, and we were very, very sincere in our efforts on a non-partisan basis. We put together a comprehensive report, which I and all the other members of that committee are very, very proud of, which included the federal MPs, which included federal senators, which included members from all parties of this House, that was totally ignored and it was a contemptible disregard. I certainly agree with the Premier on that particular point.

I also don't like the fact that our Premier went to Ottawa and was ignored, basically, and disregarded, himself, by the people in Ottawa, by the ministers in Ottawa, and was actually told, according to the Premier's own statement, to go home and try and clean up the turmoil that was in his own Province. I find that contemptible and I support you on that, Premier, and you need to know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as well, there is a reference here, of course, on page 2 of the Premier's statement, that, "...their predicament is compounded by the fact that ice conditions in the Gulf and along the Northeast Coast have delayed their participation in the fishery for this year. For them, EI benefits must be extended."

Mr. Speaker, I would just like the members of this House to know that we are clearly on the record, and we have already written the minister. The Fisheries critic has already written Minister Stewart, well over a month ago, and asked for an extension of those benefits.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to some of the statements that have been made here, our party has been very, very clearly on the record. We certainly support science and we support science in this Province. We cannot rely on the scientific efforts that have been made by the federal government. We cannot rely on the federal governments's mismanagement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WILLIAMS: We cannot rely on the federal government's negligent mismanagement of our resource. We have to take it into our own hands and it has to be done here.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have to rely on our own fishermen and fisher women, the fishers in this Province, the people who know, the people who are out there, the people who know the facts, who know the reality. They have been totally ignored by the federal government and that is shameful.

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.

I want to let everyone know that this is a most serious matter to me, to our party, to our Members of Parliament in Ottawa, that a matter of such fundamental importance to this Province, which has caused for the first time in our history since Confederation, such a report as the all-party committee who got together for the specific purpose of saying to Ottawa what our belief was as to the future of this fishery. We did that, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, with an effort to avoid partisanship, to put aside any possibility of political maneuvering, or jockeying for position, and we put together - in consultation with the fish harvesters, with the fishing industry, with the scientific community and with our own party caucuses - a report that was unanimous, that was a very excellent work, if I do say so, which offered a solution to continuation of the fishery on a limited basis, plus twenty-one other recommendations that would serve the rebuilding of those stocks; which is something that we all, in this Province, have, not only a desire to do for economic reasons, but really a moral and political obligation to try to do.

What has happened, the work of the all-party committee was ignored. Every elected representative in this Province was ignored by the decisions of the Minister of Fisheries. The Premier of this Province and the delegation that travelled to Ottawa -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) by delegation went to Ottawa was also treated with disrespect.

Mr. Speaker, we, on the parliamentary level, have done a serious piece of parliamentary work in not only convincing the federal fisheries committee of the House of Commons, but the fisheries committee of the Senate of the rightness of which we speak. We have failed to convince the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada, and apparently the Premier and his government have failed to convince the Prime Minister that this is a matter of such (inaudible) importance that he and the Cabinet should get involved in it.

So I ask the Premier here, as part of my statement, but I will ask him in Question Period: What specific actions does this Premier plan now? He mentions at the end of his statement that we will do all in our power to reverse decisions. Let us hear from the Premier what those things are, and we will do certainly all in our power to try to make this decision reversed and to see that we have a proper fishery in this Province aptly operating in the interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, this is not a ministerial statement, but running down through the routine I probably should inform Your Honour what I believe is an agreement for today, being Private Members' Day, that they have an agreement to discuss another Private Member's Resolution. The member's private resolution has to do with the closure of the fishery. For that to happen correctly we should have gotten to the Motions, but we are not going to get there. So I wanted to advise Your Honour of that. The proper procedure should be for the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East to withdraw his motion today and to present the newer one.

While I am doing that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all members of the Opposition, the Opposition House Leader, with whom I negotiated, and the Leader of the NDP, for delaying the opening of the House until today to give government members a chance to get to Ottawa on this fisheries closure and to perform some important business that we would not have been able to do without the cooperation and the agreement of the two parties on the opposite side. I would like to thank them for that.

Mr. Speaker, the understanding that I have, the understanding we all have, is to ask the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East to withdraw his Private Member's Resolution and to read into the record the one that we have agreed to do today.

Thank you.

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

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

I think everybody in this House is interested in a debate. We, ourselves, the Leader of the Opposition, called for an emergency debate this morning. Myself and the Government House Leader talked about a debate in which the government wished to pursue today. There is really very little difference in the two resolutions that were to be brought forward. So we agree, this is the Private Members' Day under normal operating conditions. In the interest of ensuring that the will of this House expresses itself today, we certainly provide leave to the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East to withdraw his former private member's motion, to introduce now a motion dealing with the issue at hand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly anticipated that today's business, after the events of last week and the last two days, would, in fact, deal with the resolution on the closure of the fishery. We have received an advanced copy of it and have no difficulty consenting to today's business being devoted to the private member's motion on the fisheries closure that has been presented by - or review the copy of - the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave to introduce his motion now.

The hon. the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East.

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

WHEREAS the fishery continues to be an essential part of the economy and cultural life of Newfoundland and Labrador;

WHEREAS the federal government is responsible for the proper management of the fishery and should accept responsibility for any mismanagement; and

WHEREAS there was a scientifically based alternative for a limited viable fishery recommended to the federal government by its own conservation council;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on the federal government to open the Gulf fishery as recommended by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council and the Newfoundland and Labrador All-Party Committee on the 2J3KL and the 3Pn4RS Cod Fisheries;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an adequate compensation package including: extension of employment insurance benefits, licence buyout and early retirement options accompany any reduction in resource availability;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the federal government to co-operate with the provincial government to put in place a long-term strategy for economic development;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the federal science capability of the Gulf stocks be relocated to Newfoundland and Labrador as soon as possible.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take this opportunity today to inform the House about two announcements made yesterday about the economic performance of our Province.

Statistics Canada reported in 2002, the GDP of this Province grew by 13.4 per cent - double our previous best year and the fastest growth of any province in records that go back twenty-two years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: By any measure, I think everyone would have to agree with the Globe and Mail's description of this as, "stunning" and "spectacular" growth - "a leap that shattered records".

Also yesterday, RBC Financial Group economists predicted that our Province will lead the country in economic growth this year, and again next year. This Province has experienced GDP growth of more than 5 per cent in four of the past five years. The RBC forecast is, "for another two years of five per cent growth, thus stretching the record to six of the past seven years."

Mr. Speaker, the RBC Group is also forecasting that our Province is one of four that will lead the country in job growth this year, with a 2 per cent employment increase in the Province. Furthermore, the Group confirms what we have been saying all along - that the out-migration trend has been reversing for the past seven years. In fact, the RBC Group says the net number of people leaving the Province is running at less than half the pace of the 1996-1998 peak.

What all of this demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, is that this government's economic agenda is working. All the economic indicators are moving in the right direction. Yes, much more needs to be done, because even though significant gains have been made, they are not shared by all regions of our Province.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has been aggressive in pursuing economic development opportunities for our Province. Our plan is clear for the people of our Province to see. We have been successful to the point where we now generate the majority of our own provincial revenues here at home. However, we continue to be challenged by fiscal arrangements with the federal government that prevent us from taking full advantage of the successes of our economy.

An improved equalization program, a willingness to continue with the federal-provincial economic development agreements, and a stronger commitment to address the impacts of the recently announced cod fishery closures are just a few examples of how the federal government can join with us in ensuring that the benefits of this economy continue to grow and are shared by every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to see that in three of the last five years we have led this country in GDP, and obviously predict it in the next two years, actually, for five out of seven, but the only thing that we have seen going up faster than the GDP, Mr. Speaker, is the growth in our debt. That has been referenced by every singly major financial institution.

Six years ago, federal and provincial revenues were 36 per cent of GDP. Last year, they were only 24 per cent of GDP. Personal disposable income has stagnated under fourteen years of Liberal rule in this Province, and that means, despite the growth in GDP, the growth in personal income has not occurred and no dollars have gone into the pockets of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on personal disposable income.

That is little consolation, Mr. Speaker, to the people in rural Newfoundland today, and the people who are devastated by the fishery today do not understand that GDP grow has not equated into improved money into the pockets of our people. That tells us much about what kind of economic development is on the agenda for this government and what they have accomplished. We have the highest unemployment rate in this country. Major financial institutions are telling us, day after day. The deficit of this size, combined with high debt levels, is not sustainable, said the BMO. The Toronto bank financial group, the TD Group, said: This government is going to cut, basically, $300 million over the next four years starting next year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is us.

MR. SULLIVAN: - but they have not given us a plan how they are going to do it.

It goes on, Mr. Speaker. The CIBC -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier will not give leave, Mr. Speaker.

No leave. They do not want to hear the real truth, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, Gross Domestic Product is great for those who benefit from it. By way of example, the Terra Nova project produced $671 million worth of oil in the first three months of 2003 but this Province received only $6.5 million in royalties out of that $671 million.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the real statistics of this Province, with an unemployment rate of 19 per cent, and for those who are working and everybody else an increase in the cost of living of 5.7 per cent in one year, these are the real statistics that show who is really hurting in this Province, and who do not get the benefit of economic growth and activity. These are the measures that are important and these are the ones that really have to change if we are going to progress.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is Wednesday, Private Members' Day, and it is 2:33 p.m. The Chair will extend Question Period to 3:03 p.m., unless we have leave for further Statements by Ministers.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions this afternoon are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, last week's announcement by the Government of Canada that it was closing the Gulf and Northern cod fisheries will have a devastating impact on the lives of many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. To be very clear, our party stands by the recommendations of the FRCC and the all-party committee in that there is not enough evidence to warrant this closure and we want to see the fishery reopened.

Last night, I spoke with a group of fishermen who are directly affected by this closure. In fact, one fisherman told me that he has been without an income for three weeks and is having a very difficult time making ends meet with his two children. Many others find themselves in the same position. This is a very, very serious issue and it deserves the full attention of our elected officials on both sides of this House. Today, Mr. Speaker, is not the time for politics but rather it is a time for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to stand together for the collective good of our Province.

With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier to provide some information on his visit to Ottawa over the last few days. Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please tell the people exactly what message he brought to Ottawa on their behalf and what his goal was when he left the Province? Also, would the Premier provide the federal government's response to his message?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that issue has been covered in the statement that I gave. I articulated exactly the message that I brought to Ottawa, and I gladly indicate the results of it.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my statement, while he will say here today that their position is very clear, while he will try to say - they are shaking their heads because they are ashamed, Mr. Speaker. They are shaking their heads because they are ashamed! I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, having just been in Ottawa for two days, their position is not very clear in Ottawa and their position is not very clear with Minister Byrne. I can tell you that for an absolute, positive, guaranteed fact. That is part of the problem right here.

On Friday there was no call for a reversal of the decision from the Leader of the Opposition. There was a statement saying: The decision is final. We don't like it, but the decision is final, and I am going to work with Minister Byrne to see what we can do about compensation. Now, Mr. Speaker, they are shaking their heads in shame, most of them, because they know that is the position of the Opposition and that is the position we encountered in the Nation's capital on Monday and Tuesday. The federal minister, Mr. Speaker, to my disappointment, had stated prior to the meeting starting in Ottawa, he was on the airways in Newfoundland and Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, this is important, this is critically important. The federal minister was on the airwaves saying: My constituents have told me that they want to move on. Now, that is the environment into which we were going into meetings in Ottawa.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: The federal minister say, my constituents have said they want to move on, and the Leader of the Opposition wants to work with me, Mr. Speaker. That is the issue.

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.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier may want to play politics and roll around in the gutter, but he will be down there by himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the main issue at hand here involves the closure of the Gulf and Northern cod fisheries. The fishermen who earn their living from this fishery don't want to see it closed.

Can the Premier inform us if the Prime Minister made any kind of commitment to revisit his decision to close the fishery?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to make sure that the record is clear - and I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is now trying to find a parade to jump in front of, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely delighted! Let's make sure that the record is clear. I am glad that he got to see a few fishermen here yesterday because I met with them, Mr. Speaker, in Port aux Basques on Saturday. I did not wait until they came to St. John's. I was in Port aux Basques meeting with them on their turf, in their ground, in the part of the Province where they are impacted, and I had the advantage of knowing the positions they wanted us to take in Ottawa before I went there, Mr. Speaker. It bears restating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: It is kind of difficult when the media were reporting in Newfoundland and Labrador that I guess the all-party committee's solidarity is gone out the window because the Leader of the Opposition is no longer supporting the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, that is what was being reported on the airwaves here in Newfoundland and Labrador. The federal minister was saying: I have checked with my constituents and they want to move on, Mr. Speaker.

He was on the media yesterday saying: Oh, I did not say move on; I said move forward. He said move on and he said that I know, because the Leader of the Opposition was bragging in his press release on Friday that I have already spoken with Minister Byrne; and, Mr. Speaker, let me say this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Here is the direct quote, Mr. Speaker. Here is the support on Friday, the day after the announcement for reversing the decision. I have already spoken with Minister Byrne and made a commitment to do whatever I can to address these issues and we will try to improve the compensation package. No call for a reversal, Mr. Speaker, none.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier neglected to read the quote from the Minister of Fisheries, on Friday: I think that any chance of us trying to keep this fishery open or having it reopened at this point in time is almost impossible.

Directly from his own Minister of Fisheries. Who wanted to close the fishery? Your Minister of Fisheries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please inform us as to what meetings took place, which included himself or any member of his delegation, from the time that he arrived in Ottawa on Sunday until he left on Tuesday - if it was last night or whether it was this morning, I do not know - when the meetings took place, who was present, and what were the discussions and outcomes of all of those meetings?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The desperate attempts to play politics with this by the Leader of the Opposition are evident in putting out a press release and quoting the language that he just used. We are very straightforward and direct and honest with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the way that we always operate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Our Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture was acknowledging that the task was going to be difficult and gigantic, that it was almost impossible. We did not give up on the first day. We did not say, as the Leader of the Opposition did in his release, that now that the decision is final I will work with Minister Byrne to seek a better compensation package.

Where was the call then for a reversal of the decision, when you had an opportunity to be supportive and to lay down a marker before we ever went to Ottawa and say that we demand that this decision be reversed? It was not there.

We had the federal minister, our minister, to our great disappointment, saying: I have checked with my own people and they want to move on. They do not want to reverse the decision; they want to move on. He said: I have the Leader of the Opposition who says I want to work with Minister Byrne not to reverse the decision but to improve the compensation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Now, that is the environment, and when I asked - I will tell him about one meeting. When I did ask his good friend, the federal minister - his buddy, the federal minister - about whether or not he wanted the decision reversed, because he had the full support of the government and the fisheries union to work to have it reversed, and was he fighting for that, he said: I do not want to make any comment one way or another as to whether I am trying to get this decision reversed or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: And he was supported by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the Premier chose to tell us about one meeting and would not tell the people of the Province about all the other meetings he had in Ottawa, who they were with and what were the outcomes of those particular meetings. He selectively chooses what he wants to tell the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, rumours of this closure have been circulating now for about six months. Could the Premier please inform the people of any meetings since November of last year, other than the all-party committee meetings, in which he or his minister, and/or former ministers and/or provincial government officials, met with federal ministers or federal government officials and discussed a possible closure of this fishery and compensation for that closure over the last six months, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The record clearly shows, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, because there have been two during that period of time, will clearly lay out and table in the House, if they want, all the representations and all the meetings that have been held in the last two or three years, but particularly in the last six months.

Mr. Speaker, the rumours and speculation about a possible closure, as you would know, became really public in the Province when two federal MPs came out of a briefing session with the minister and released a document to the press. From that minute on, of course, we convened the all-party committee because it was not a matter of what the government was doing. We were all outraged, and rightfully so, and we all worked together until Thursday past, until the announcement was made, when the Leader of the Opposition said: The decision is final.

The same Leader of the Opposition who was in the all-party committee meeting with us in Ottawa when we presented the report, and he said this, Mr. Speaker, which is strange why it did not get repeated. It was strange why it did not get repeated in any of his press releases or anything else. He said to the federal minister, as his closing comment: You may not be able to implement all of these. We think you should. We think the recommendations of the all-party committee report are comprehensive -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - but the one thing that will never be accepted by us is a closure.

He admits now, because he has to admit that was his final statement. We were all there. There was a room full of officials. When the closure was announced, instead of his press release saying the closure must be reversed, it says he is disappointed in the closure and calls for improved compensation. No calls for reversal -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture a couple of questions. In 1992, in the wake of the collapse of the Northern cod stock, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council was established out of recognition that scientific information alone had not served us well in setting quotas and conserving fish stocks. It was recognized at the time that the fishing industry, in particular, those who spent their lives on the water, had valuable information that could be used in managing our fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, in the meetings held recently in Ottawa over the past two days, did the minister get any indication as to why Minister Thibault chose to ignore the advice of the FRCC, and why did he use DFO scientific assessment as the only basis for his decision to close the Northern Gulf cod fisheries?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

I think it is very important that we have a full understanding of the reasons behind the decision that has been made in our Province today. Absolutely no doubt, and I think every single person out there in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador wants that answer, as do we as the government.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have to stand here in this House today and talk about the mixed feelings of people in the Province and in the fishing industry today as it relates to scientific information, the collection of scientific information, the analysis of scientific information, as it relates to the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon. member across, in the meetings that we had with the federal minister we certainly reinforced the need for scientific data, for accuracy in the information, for the full involvement at all times of the people in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think the other thing to remember here, which is critical in the decision that has been handed down, when we were lobbying and when this decision was being taken by the federal government, not one person in this Province, not the FRCC, not the all-party committee -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer, quickly.

MS JONES: - not the union, not FANL, not anyone in this Province, Mr. Speaker, said to the federal minister that the solution here is to close the fishery. However, the minister took that decision based on science in his department and not on the advice of his own conservation council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I had been invited to travel to Ottawa as part of the delegation this week I would have reminded Minister Thibault that while I sat on the FRCC there was a recommendation of 4,000 tons for the 2000 season for 4X cod in Southwestern Nova Scotia in Minister Thibault's district.

The minister of the day - I forget who it was at the time - reacting to considerable lobbying from that area, set the quota at 6,000 tons for three years. A multi-year management plan, one of the few that has ever been announced. In spite of concern about the state of this stock, it was set at 6,000 tons again this year in Minister Thibault's district.

Mr. Speaker, did anyone in the Ottawa delegation ask the minister why he, his predecessor, and his department, have taken such radically different approaches to the fishery in Southwest Nova Scotia as opposed to that one off the west coast of Newfoundland and Southern Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say to the hon. member, because I do not want to skip around his question, it is important questions that we are answering here. The fundamental situation that we are faced with in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador today is through no large part of the information that has been gathered and collected around science, and the fact that the input of our people has not been heard. So I think it is important that I address it.

I want to say to the hon. member that, first of all, we did ask for full clarification. We did ask for full clarification on the decision that has been made. It is important to the people - as I have said, as it is to me as the minister and the government - to have the full information and the entire basis on which this was made.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the other part of his statement, the reason that he was not in Ottawa on Monday morning. The reason that he was not invited to Ottawa as part of this delegation on Monday morning is because less than twenty-four hours after this fishery closed in Newfoundland and Labrador your leader accepted the decision as the final decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, as surmountable as the task may be -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister now to conclude her answer, quickly.

MS JONES: - and as huge as this issue is for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we, twenty-four hours later, were requesting meetings in Ottawa to deal with this issue and to have this fishery reopened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, final supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's statement is untrue. The minister's statement is absolutely untrue, Mr. Speaker. What is true is that this Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the day that the FRCC report came out recommending 3,500 tons for the Gulf of St. Lawrence, said it is just as well for the minister to close it. That is what is true, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I sat on the FRCC for a period of six years and in that time, while the ministers were not always comfortable with the recommendations that came forward, they never did try to dictate to us the recommendations that did come forward.

I would like to ask the minister: Did she ask Minister Thibault why, on December 10, this past year, he sent this letter to the Chairman of the FRCC suggesting that the FRCC provide advice to him that was easy for him to handle? Was it, Mr. Speaker, that he wanted a recommendation of closure on these stocks so that he could justify a decision that he had already made?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I want to say to the hon. member across that I am certainly not prepared to stand in this House and answer for Mr. Thibault.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Because if I were in Mr. Thibault's place today, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I will not answer for the letter that Mr. Thibault wrote to the FRCC. I can put my mind around what the indications and the intentions were in the comments in the letter, and I have on many occasions. That is not a problem, Mr. Speaker, to read between the lines, but I am not in this House today to answer for Mr. Thibault or for anyone else. I will answer for myself and for the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if I was to be in Mr. Thibault's place today, this fishery would not be closed in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Let me comment on the member's question regarding the FRCC and my comments regarding the FRCC report.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JONES: The member said that the minister, when the FRCC report came out, had a different opinion. Well, I would say to the member opposite today that when you are lobbying to keep the full fishery open you do not accept half of it, but when it comes down to (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are also for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

My district in Bonavista North will also be impacted by the closure of the cod fishery, especially in 2J+3KL. Last year, the plant workers at Beothuck Fish Processors in Valleyfield had 22,000 person hours of work processing cod. This is equivalent to fifty-five workers working forty hours per week for ten weeks. Their loss of income, plus the loss of income for fishers involved, will mean a direct financial loss to the fishers and plant workers of approximately $1 million and an indirect loss of approximately $4 million to the local economy.

Mr. Speaker, based on her recent meetings in Ottawa, what assurances can the minister give to the people in question in terms of both short-term financial assistance and long-term security?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the hon. member that I certainly understand the situation that the fisherpeople are faced with in your riding and in your district. I have a district that is built around the fishery, and I have people today who are in the exact same boat in my own district as I do all around the Province who are affected by this - people whose incomes are affected, people whose jobs are on the line - so I say the member, the sincerity of your question is welcomed today.

I will say this to you also. What is your position? Do you share the position of your leader? I will say this, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member across: Our support is behind maintaining the fisheries as per the FRCC report. That is what we went to Ottawa to do. That is where we are, and I hope that the hon. member is supporting that as well, in ensuring that fishery is there for the people of his district as it is for the rest of the fishers in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, my constituents are dependent on the Northern cod from 2J+3KL. Their dependence has meant a top-up of their weekly insurable earnings. The loss of cod will result in lower insurable earnings and lower EI benefits in the off-season. These people who have lived in those communities all their lives, and owned their own homes, trying to raise their families, will now have a much lower income on which to survive. In our meetings with the federal government, did the minister address this issue with respect to lower EI benefits? If so, what answers does she have for those plant workers and fishers affected?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the hon. member that we did talk about the extension of EI benefits. We know that there is an immediate need in this Province today, Mr. Speaker, to look after the welfare and the well-being of people who are affected by this decision.

Mr. Speaker, while the objective of this government is to keep those fisheries open, to have a fishery and to also have supplementary compensation packages, buyouts and licence retirement for fishers in the Province, we realize the importance of dealing with the critical current need of putting food on people's tables today in the Province, and we asked the federal government to make a decision and to grant us the extension of these benefits immediately, Mr. Speaker, so that we could look after the welfare of the people who are affected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

We were all aware of the importance of the all-party committee in developing a consensus to back the position that this fishery should not close, and that serious measures should be taken to rebuild the stock. What I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to know today, Mr. Speaker, is what efforts the Premier made prior to Monday, going to Ottawa, to inform the Prime Minister of Canada and his government, on an government-to-government basis, on a Premier-to-Prime Minister basis, of the importance of the criticalness, the crucialness, and the vitalness of this issue to the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? In addition to the work of our committee, what did his government do, what did he do, to make sure that this decision was not made and that it did not have to be overruled after the fact?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The whole issue when we deal with anyone in Ottawa is a government-to-government issue. In fact we had all hoped, every one of us, every single one of us here, that the fact that historically, for the first time in the history of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and even before that, for the first time in the history of this place, in some almost 500 years, a little over that, that all the political parties of all stripes at both levels came together to make a comprehensive recommendation to the Government of Canada that has the responsibility and the authority to make the decision. Every one of us believed in our heart of hearts that this time they might listen, because they were not just being asked by a government of one stripe. They were being asked by every elected officials, federally and provincially. They were being asked by the senators who are appointed of different stripes. We had scientific advice ourselves. We were not just sitting there as a bunch of uninformed people. We had one of the most pre-eminent fish scientists in the land advise the all-party committee, and we went there to make sure that they understood it was bigger than a government-to-government issue. This was an unbelievably -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - for Newfoundland and Labrador. So it does not matter how many meetings the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture had. It does not matter how many meetings, prior to that, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had, where these issues and many others were always raised. It does not matter how meetings I had with the Prime Minister of Canada talking about a whole range of issues, because the all-party committee transcended all of it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and gave it a greater life and a bigger meaning. The saddest part for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador is that that was rejected and ignored, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is all very well to say after the fact, that we hoped it would work out differently.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told this Premier that he should know that I am not going to overrule the minister. Even the former Premier, Brian Tobin, is reported in the Globe and Mail of not being convinced, obviously by this government, of the need of keeping this fishery open. What work did this Premier do to convince his federal counterparts on the whole, not just Minister Thibault, of the importance and the crucialness of this issue to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi is just as proud as I am, and the rest of us are, that our former Premier, who stood here in this place such a short time ago, has so quickly forgotten the people that he used to lead and serve; that he would stand and side with the Government of Canada in a decision that everyone of us thinks is dead wrong. Every single one of us thinks the decision is dead wrong. And the man who stood in these shoes, the man who stood in this place just a couple of years ago, turned around because he would rather now be in favour with the Globe and Mail and the people of Central Canada where he lives because he is so proud of this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: That is not what you will get from us, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I am disappointed that the member would suggest that there was any lack of effort, because everybody knows you can go in as many meetings as you like and plea that the decision be the right one and have the recommendations made. You have to wait until the decision is taken before you find out whether or not they are listening. Whether you have had (inaudible) and we are going to try our best to get this overturned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday, we will now go to the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is a privilege today to rise and discuss this extremely significant and important issue to the people of the Province, to the fishermen of the Province, to the communities of the Province, that are affected by, really, a decision that is not sound. It is also a decision that has been made, without the proper backup, by a federal government that has really forgotten what is happening in this Province. That is the problem. That is the crux of the problem. Everything has been done by everybody in this Province in the last few months to ensure that the federal government would get the message, and it was done, not just on the basis of political rhetoric. This decision and this report that this House of Assembly put together as an all-party committee - I cannot remember, in all my years in this House of Assembly, when all of the House came together - and with all of these resources, put together a report that dealt with such a significant issue, that went to Ottawa, and everybody knew what the message was. It was not just rhetoric. It was also about science.

Then you read the Globe and Mail and read about Jeffrey Simpson, a national columnist, who did not even read the FRCC report and writes a column about this decision by Minister Thibault being the right one. So, this is not about Newfoundland and Labrador and rhetoric from this House of Assembly, or the FFAW, that wants to keep something open that is not sustainable. This is about science-based decision making about our future in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what this is about. This is what the message is supposed to be in the House of Commons in Ottawa. That is what it is supposed to be about up there. It is supposed to be about that with the bureaucrats in Ottawa. When they make responsible decisions they are supposed to understand the effects that it will have, Mr. Speaker, the effects that it will have.

There are a couple of things I want to get on the record, Mr. Speaker. A lot of people want to speak and I am not going to take the whole time on this. I just want to get it introduced. A lot of people want to speak about this because it affects a lot of members of the House and their districts, but it affects the constituents. It affects our rural communities who are trying to survive, Mr. Speaker, and survive with the way that the federal government is managing the fishery.

The FRCC, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, was set up by the federal government. Everybody should understand that. The public should understand it and the people across the country should understand it. This is a national body that was set up to report to the federal minister. I just want to read a couple of things about what it is supposed to do.

The Government of Canada is committed to a more comprehensive approach to the conservation and management of our fisheries resource. This approach demands a better understanding of complex fisheries ecosystems. The Government of Canada is also committed to a more effective role in decision making for those with practical experience and knowledge in the fishery. That includes our fisherpeople of the Province, that is what it is supposed to include. The FRCC was established as a partnership between the government, scientific community, and direct stakeholders in the fishery.

If you read through the full mandate of it, four separate references about scientific evidence-based, all about science, dealing with science and also how to collect the science properly. To have our fisherpeople involved in the collection of the science. To have our people involved with the fishermen's union and so on, involved in the decision-making process and the communities, Mr. Speaker.

So, here is a situation we have. We have a situation where the federal government is responsible and has the jurisdiction for managing this resource and we, in this Province, have to live with the decision making. We have had to live with some very difficult decisions in the last decade, if you look at the history. This place and the people of this Province have had to deal with probably some of the toughest economic decisions as anywhere else in Canada, when it comes to what happened ten years ago in the fishery and how it was managed and the impact on the rural populations of our rural ridings.

Over in my district, in St. George's-Stephenville East, down to the end of the Codroy Valley where people - and we have lost so many people. Now we are trying to rebuild and we are trying to hold on. We are trying to develop our communities and yet, what we have here is a situation where a minister goes and makes a decision without even bringing it to the federal Cabinet and then makes a decision about all of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is a shame. It should not be allowed. We are on high ground. We are on firm ground. We are not on political rhetoric ground. We are on scientific grounds when we say what we want to see happen is that the fishery should be reopened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: It should be reopened, Mr. Speaker. When the FRCC reports, as they have said, we are backing them up. These are the reports that the federal government themselves have commissioned. These are the same reports that Minister Thibault has commissioned.

I want to thank - Mr. Speaker, I was watching the House of Commons last night and most of our MPs came onside last night and spoke about wanting to see this issue redressed and dealt with, except for the federal minister from our Province. I hope that he has a change of heart in the next few hours, the next few days, because there needs to be a change of heart. This decision can be overturned. It should be overturned. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the federal government to listen to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. On a number of occasions, in the last few months, it seems as if they have been trying to put us a little further out in the Atlantic Ocean. We are all trying to be diplomatic. The people in this Province do not want all kinds of radical initiatives and radical things to do and talking about radical things when we should be trying to work and create an economy, Mr. Speaker. That is what we are trying to do in this Province. It is demeaning to see the way that this decision was brought down, the way it was made with a lack of consultation with the direct stakeholders in Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is what this issue is all about.

I just want to say the resolution that is put forward - this is one resolution I hope, Mr. Speaker, and I think we all still think - I believe, and we all believe, that this can be overturned. This decision can be overturned. Our Premier, our Minister of Fisheries, and our Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did a great job in the last few days. I have to tell you, I was very delighted to see the great job they did of getting into Ottawa quickly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - because I do not think anybody, Mr. Speaker, thought that the federal minister was going to do this. Commonsense, and the FRCC recommendations, tell you that he should not have done it. Yet, he is still trying to do it. He, and our federal minister, better smarten up and figure it out soon because everybody else - like they said in the House of Commons last night, almost every MP and every political party across Canada got up and said: you should do the right thing. Which is to reopen the fishery, Mr. Speaker, based on science. We ask, and we are appealing again from this House of Assembly to Ottawa, that that occur.

I want to take a few minutes now, Mr. Speaker, to let the members speak, who want to speak, because this is an important issue for everybody.

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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I came to this hon. House today resolved not to be political and not to get into petty politics and I intend to stick with that resolve.

Last Thursday - although I guess generally we were not totally surprised because by the time the ministers arrived in our Province there was an indication as to what the announcement was going to be, but I guess we had to deal with what our reaction was at that particular point in time. Although we were offended, although we were disgusted, although we were annoyed, although we were insulted, I think most of us were hurt and we are hurt that it happened once again. I think the reason we felt hurt is because of the dismissive attitude, the manner in which they rolled into town and they rolled out again.

They came into our Province and gave us, basically, half an hour to tell us that a significant part of our lifestyle, a significant part of our industry, a significant part of our communities, a significant part of our Province was going to be devastated and destroyed once again. It was that dismissive, arrogant tone that was reflected, particularly by Minister Thibault, a federal minister who said he would go off and he would return - he would leave and go off to Quebec in half an hour. That was the amount of time that he allotted to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. What did he do? He disregarded the all-party committee - and I will not go into detail because of time, and there is a limited amount of time available to all of us. He dismissed the detailed recommendations of the all-party committee. He previously dismissed the recommendations of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons that recommended in favour of custodial management and recommended against foreign overfishing. He ignored the recommendations of the FRCC. Why? What does that tell us? What kind of an attitude is going on in Ottawa? Why are we involved in these consultations? They couldn't care less. What he should have done is he should have walked in the shoes of the people who were affected by this particular decision. He should have looked into their eyes, like we all did, he should feel their pain. Because they don't care, they simply don't care, about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is easy to say it is not a big deal, it is only a very small part of the fishery, a tiny part of a great billion dollar fishery that is so very, very successful. Well, you need to look at the individuals who are involved.

We talked last night to fishermen who were protesting in Gerry Byrne's office. We talked about the impact on them particularly. The gentleman I mentioned before who has two small children, has a family and no income for three weeks, he is the person who is affected.

There was an interview in the paper today that talked about people who now are going to reduced to welfare, going to be reduced below the poverty level as a result of it. That is what we have to take it down to. We have to take it down to individuals and we have to take it down to communities. What about the communities that are affected by this, communities like Rose Blanche, Port au Choix, Green Island Cove, Green Island Brook, Eddies Cove East, L'Anse-au-Loup, Red Bay, L'Anse-au-Clair, Lourdes, Black Duck Brook and Cape St. George, just some of the communities that will be devastated?

One of the gentlemen last night told me that there are 120 people in a community. A half million dollars will be taken out of the economy of that community, a huge blow, a devastating blow to that community. That is what the ministers need to do, they need to walk in their shoes, they need to feel their pain and they need to look into their eyes to know the impact that is having on them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we are a proud, hard-working people in Newfoundland and Labrador. The federal government is attempting to destroy our culture, our pride and our way of life, but we are resilient, we will bounce back. Since 1992, our rural communities have been hit very hard. We hear today about the wonderful GDP, how our Province is growing, how we are the toast of the country. The Globe and Mail is talking about the great GDP we have. What does that mean to the fishermen in the gallery? It means absolutely nothing, because their lives are being devastated by this particular closure and how the government can get up and talk about a GDP. We have to talk about what is important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is why our party is opposed to this closure of the fishery. Let me make it very clear, we have been totally opposed to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I am not going to allow the Premier to put words in my mouth. I mean, we could get into a hot contest about what he said and what I said. That is not what we are here for today. We are here to work together, to work collectively, as we did in the all-party committee. We don't want another 50,000 people leaving our Province as happened before. How many more kicks in the teeth can we take, Mr. Speaker? We have a federal minister who makes jokes about it, who talks about seal exclusion zones: We are going to tell the seals not to go into these particular exclusion zones. How callous, how cruel, how indifferent, how arrogant, can they get! They are treating us with complete disrespect and complete indignity, and it is typical of the attitude that we are now facing in Ottawa.

Here we are out in the middle of the North Atlantic, one of the most adverse climatic conditions in the world, and they don't even care about our weather forecasting, they don't care about our safety. What will they want next, Mr. Speaker? Will they want our water? Will they want our oxygen? Will they drain the blood out of our veins? Because that is what they are going to be looking for next.

We have a minister who comes in here after eleven years, eleven years since there has been a close down, and he doesn't know if there is a link between caplin and cod, he doesn't know if there is a link between seals and cod, and he is now going to throw $6 million at it to see if he can find out after eleven years. What have they learned? What is their plan? Where have they been? They have learned nothing. They have done absolutely nothing over the last eleven years.

 

Mr. Speaker, we need to lay out where we are going. There is a need for a plan. I am delighted in the resolution today that there is acknowledgment of what our party has been talking about: the need for long-term planning, the need for strategic economic planning, so that we can economically diversify. It cannot be a simple band-aid solution. It has to a long-term plan that is based on cash flow analysis that lays it out for the federal government so that they know and they think we know what we are doing. It is so, so important for the future of our rural communities and it has to be done properly. That is why I am delighted in this resolution, and that is why we support particularly that component of the resolution.

Our party, and we have said it before, will have a plan. We will have a detailed plan. We will lay it out before the federal government. They will know what we want to do and, if we receive funding, what we will do with it.

Mr. Speaker, they do not understand the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They do not understand that we are survivors. We always have been and we always will be. The feds can try and kick us and they can try and weaken us and they can try and demoralize us, but we are not quitters. We will not roll over. We will never give up, and we will fight them to the finish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The federal government, Mr. Speaker, should start listening to the people who know - the fishermen and the fisherwomen in this Province who know what is going on out there. The science has failed us. They did not listen to our fishermen eleven or twelve years ago when they told them what was going on. They were not listened to, and we saw what happened. Now we have a situation where they have again been ignored for a dozen years and we are back in the same boat again. They know the reality of it. They have been ignored - but no, no, they are just fishermen. Who cares about fishermen? They are just Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Who cares about them? They are just second-class citizens.

Well, let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker; they are not. They know the answers and they are going to provide the solutions. We are going to be masters of our destiny ultimately, because we are going to listen to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there is also a responsibility and an onus and a legal responsibility on the federal government. Unfortunately, they manage our fishery. They exclusively manage our fishery. They have mismanaged our fishery. They have destroyed one of the greatest resources in the world. In my opinion, with my background, I say they are negligent and they should be held responsible.

There is an onus on the federal government to prove to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that if they are going to close the fishery that they are justified in doing so and that the science supports them. There is no way and there is no justification for closing the fishery, which they are doing now. We say it should be reopened immediately, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Finally, Mr. Speaker, they owe it to us. As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we deserve better. We are good, decent, hard-working human beings who do not deserve to be offended, insulted and degraded. It is about time that we got fair treatment from our country and we got some respect.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this particular debate - a very important debate. I am glad to have the consent of the opposition parties to have it occurring today.

With respect to talking about whether or not we have political discussions, Mr. Speaker, everybody understands this is a political chamber. That is how we get here in the first place. This is how you arrive as being a Member of the House of Assembly, through a process called politics.

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened that the kind of language that was used today, and the very strong definitive language that was used just now by the Leader of the Opposition, was not what was used on Friday, the day that he could have made a real impact, a real statement.

Mr. Speaker, today, let me say, I listened to the words. He said: We are offended, disgusted, insulted by this decision.

The press release that went out on Friday used none of those words. It says, "Williams disappointed..." Now, we are disappointed in lots of things. I do not see anything with respect to being offended or disgusted or insulted - and he should walk out because he did not take a stand to support anybody when the people were looking, and you should be ashamed. I know you are ashamed. I absolutely know you are ashamed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, all of the reporting in Newfoundland and Labrador on Friday, the day after, was the government saying this decision must be reversed, which was what the Leader of the Opposition said today: We want this decision reversed. A week later he says it. For the first time he says it one week later, and everybody opposite knows it. Every single one of them knows it, and they must have had a lot of time working with him over the weekend to try to put a backbone back into him so he would make the right statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I want to say up front that any time that my point of order takes from the Premier, he can have those couple of minutes.

I will say this to him, and to anybody else who is going to participate in this debate, if the Premier wants to pursue putting on the record things that are untrue, that are not based in fact, and trying to cast aspersions on a member of this side of the House, then every time he does so I will be standing on a point of order to correct him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: It is a sign of a desperate politician, Mr. Speaker. It is a sign of a desperate politician who will take any little crumb like that to try to turn it into a 350 page book when it is based on nothing but innuendo in fact. Mr. Speaker, what he said was untrue, it was malicious, and he should stand and apologize for it because he does know the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just wanted to say I do not know what special attributes that the hon. the Opposition House Leader is endowed with, that he can put an interpretation on truth more than anyone else in the House.

I will say to him that as often as he gets up to give his version of truth on a point order, I will also get up and remind the hon. Opposition House Leader what we are talking about here. When we get into debating what somebody said and what somebody did not say, we are talking about not truth but just a difference of opinion between hon. members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. Obviously there is a difference of opinion between hon. members and that certainly does not constitute a point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me continue and understand the sensitivities of the members opposite because they were embarrassed by the statement of the Leader of the Opposition who spoke on behalf of all of them on Friday.

I know the responses that came from their constituencies. I know the responses that came from The Straits & White Bay North. I know the responses that came from St. Barbe. I know the responses that came from other districts in the Province where they spent the whole weekend saying: You had better get our leader to say something else because this is an embarrassment.

We know that and they know that. I do not see anybody jumping up and saying that is not true, Mr. Speaker, because they do know that happened.

Mr. Speaker, it is not me. The media that covered it must have come to the same conclusion because the wrap-up on the NTV Evening News was this - the final commentary by the news castor was - listen now, there is nothing in this about calling for a reversal. It says, calls for improved compensation package.

A different language than today. Everybody heard the language today. Today it was: discussed, offended, we want it open. On Friday, it was: we are disappointed and we would like to have a better compensation package.

The newscaster said, Mr. Williams says he wants to work with Ottawa not to reverse the decision, Mr. Speaker; the conclusion was, he wants to work with Ottawa towards licence buyouts and early retirement - on the day when he could have had an impact. Make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, and that he had talked to - the other part was in his press release: I have spoken with Minister Byrne and we will work on an improved compensation package. Not one call to say we will work on getting the decision reversed, not a mention of it, Mr. Speaker, and that is why they were ashamed all weekend. That is why they seem to have found some resolve since last Thursday, because they sure did not have it on Friday.

One other comment, Mr. Speaker, because it is a political chamber - and I will never apologize for being in politics. I think it is a very noble profession. I am delighted to be a part of it, as all of us should be. We are proud politicians or we should not be here.

Mr. Speaker, the other part was this. In reporting on the NTV Evening News in the same commentary, the Leader of the Opposition saying this is not the time to be the fighting Newfoundlander. We should work with Mr. Byrne to improve the compensation package.

They knew that too, Mr. Speaker. That was played on the Northern Peninsula. That was played on the Southwest Coast. That was played all over Central Newfoundland. That was played here in St. John's. Well, let me ask this question, Mr. Speaker: When is the time to be the fighting Newfoundlander? After we are all gone and living in Alberta? Are we going to fight then, Mr. Speaker? That is what they know. That is what everybody in this Province knows, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: That is why unfortunately when we went in to Ottawa on Monday it was reported on the news right here in Newfoundland and Labrador we were greeted with it, unfortunately, in Ottawa - two things. The federal minister, whom the Leader of the Opposition did not mention today - he mentioned Minister Thibault; he did not mention anything about Minister Byrne. Was he proud of what Minister Byrne did on Thursday? We were not. Was he proud? We were not. Why does he defend him? He spoke with him and said: We will come up and work - now, Mr. Speaker, this is very important - not to reverse the decision, we will work to improve the compensation package.

That is the only commentary that was made on Friday. The federal minister said: My constituents - I have checked with them over the weekend - they want to move on. He must have checked with the constituents for the Member for St. Barbe, who want to move on. He must have checked with the constituents for The Straits & White Bay North, who want to move on, Mr. Speaker. That is what they want. I guess they have heard the same thing.

In the debate today now they are not going to agree with those constituents who told our federal minister that they want to move on. They are finally going to get back to where it would have been a whole lot more productive if we had that kind of support when we were in Ottawa in the last two days, instead of them being able to look at us and say the federal minister - because, by the way, the federal minister, would you like to know.... I will ask you, the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I will ask him: Would you like to know whether or not our federal minister in Ottawa is fighting to have this decision reversed or not? Would you like to know the answer to that? The answer is maybe not. I think the people of the Province would like to know.

Mr. Speaker, we think he should stand up and say what his real position is. It is great to have the support today, a week late. I hope it is still helpful. I hope everybody is going to support this today, a week late, but it is nice to have it later rather than not at all, because we are going to continue to try and get this decision reversed and do what is right and proper for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable today, on such an issue that is of such critical importance to people in Southern Labrador, on the Northern Peninsula, on the Southwest Coast, the Port au Port Peninsula, and indeed on the Northeast Coast, that we come into this House and try and debate an issue, an issue that I commend the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East for bringing to the table, his Private Members' Motion, very similar to the one that we had brought, a member who took the high ground in his debate, in a motion that we certainly will support here today, have supported since last November, and I suggest that we have supported for a long, long time before any indication came out of Minister Thibault or Ottawa that a fishery may close down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I, for one, Madam Speaker, sat on the FRCC and certainly debated long and hard for a period of time to try and get the fisheries on the West Coast of Newfoundland, the South Coast of Newfoundland, Southern Labrador and the Northeast Coast reopened, at a time when I did not hear the Premier of the day, the Premier of the days past, speak out very loudly looking for a reopened fishery in this area to help the people in La Poile, Rose Blanche, L'Anse-au-Loup, and lots of other places around this coast, Madam Speaker. Those are the facts of the matter.

I wonder if it is the Premier who should leave the House, as he said to our leader a few minutes ago. I would like to say to the Premier, Madam Speaker, I am here today and I am wondering if this is the same Premier who sat in a meeting with Minister Thibault back on March 17, I believe it was that we met with him, as members of an all-party committee and said to the minister: If you have to close the fishery, do not just close the fishery. That was one of the messages in that meeting, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: That was one of the messages. I was there and I heard it.

There are a lot of other things. If the Premier or the minister or anybody else from that side wants to stoop down to who said what and when, I was there for the vast majority of it. I have been in this industry a lot longer than all the rest of them on that side of House added up together. They do not have to tell me anything about the fishery here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Like I said to a former Fisheries Minister across there, I have forgotten more about the fishery than the crowd on that side will ever know.

Madam Speaker, back to the issue at hand. It is unfortunate that we have to deal with this, but if the Premier keeps on perpetuating inaccuracies then they have to be corrected, they have to be addressed, they have to be answered, and I will do it every time he does it, just like I am sure everybody else on this side of the House will.

This is a very serious issue. Thirty-five hundred tonnes of cod to the people on the West Coast of Newfoundland and Southern Labrador means a difference between being able to stay in their communities and provide their families, and having to leave. That is what it means for these people.

While there are comments coming out of various sectors, former premiers of this Province, and a variety of different places, about this billion dollar fishery that we have here and $45 million coming out of it is not going to have a serious impact, this is not 1992, like Minister Byrne said. No, it is not 1992, but for a lot of individuals who are depending on this cod, this is just as bad as 1992. It is just as bad, and from an economic perspective, with the paltry compensation package that they have announced so far, it is even worse than 1992. Because at least at that time the minister of the day did put a half-decent compensation package in, and in 1994 the minister of the day - as much as I hate to give Brian Tobin a bit of credit - did put a half-decent compensation package in place, and they did put a decent early retirement program and a decent licence retirement program in place, but we see none of this today. We see none of this.

Madam Speaker, I have had calls. I had calls just before I came in this House. I have been talking to people constantly on this issue, but most particularly in the past number of days since the announcement came down on Thursday; people who are distressed, people who are dismayed, wondering where they are going to go.

I know there are people - I do not know if they are here in the House today - certainly I know of individuals whose father and son operations took $40,000 out this cod fishery on the West Coast of Newfoundland last year. That and a bit of lobster was their income for the year, and their EI that they derived as a result of that. Those people, without a cod fishery, will not be able to make it in their communities, and no amount of compensation will keep them in their communities. No amount of compensation. Yes, it might keep them there in the short term. Yes, it might allow them a time to decide what they are going to do with what is left of their lives. It will allow them to figure out where they are going to go, but these people will not be able to stay without a fishery. That is the fact of the matter. People might try to gloss it over, but that is the fact of the matter.

As I said, I had a call just before I came in here today from L'Anse-au-Loup, in the minister's district, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, with a fish plant and a group of fishermen, 280 people, I think, who are impacted, some of them occupying MP Lawrence O'Brien's office today, as we speak, and have done it over the last number of days. Those people, that coast, entirely - it is just as well to say entirely - dependent, the small boat fishery in particular, on the cod fishery in the Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Those people cannot make it without this cod fishery and there is no way that the proud, hard-working individuals they are, are going to go on make-work projects. They are not going to do it. Even if they were going to go it, they still cannot make it. That is the situation that we are confronted with here today.

I look at my own district from Noddy Bay to Flower's Cove, the small boat fishery in particular, again, that will be severely affected. Those people just cannot make it without a cod fishery. We all recognize that. That is why we participated in the all-party process. That is why we agreed to make some of the very controversial recommendations that we made. That is why we support the hook and line fishery. I have to be honest about it. I would be prepared to support a fishery with a one-claw jigger with the bar sawed off it by now, just to make sure that the fishery stayed open, so that people had some chance of getting out on the water, and some chance and some hope that this thing could turn around and they would have a livelihood in the communities that they now live in and the communities that they have invested in and built houses in over the past number of years. Madam Speaker, without this fishery - I do not think anybody here has any illusions of what it means for these communities on the Southwest Coast, the Northern Peninsula, and Southern Labrador in particular.

Madam Speaker, I support the resolution as put forward today by the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East. I support the initiative of the government. I support the initiative of the Premier, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in their attempt in Ottawa to reverse this decision. I do not know why they are going on with this foolishness, Madam Speaker, because it is absolute foolishness. It is insane, the comments that are coming out of them, that we do not support it. Who in politics in Newfoundland and Labrador, sitting in this House of Assembly today, would want the closure of a fishery that is going to displace several thousand people, that is going to take $45 million out of our economy in communities that have very few other options? Who in their mind would suggest such foolishness? For the Premier to get up and suggest that we would want something like that is absolutely absurd.

Madam Speaker, that is where we are. We support this resolution. We believe that the FRCC was established in 1992-1993 - announced in 1992, established in 1993. It was established because DFO science, the scientific assessment, the virtual population analysis and the scientific modeling that was being done at that time, which is very similar to the scientific modeling that is being done today, was flawed. It did not work at that time. The survey models are based on a certain type of distribution in the cod fishery. If that distribution changes, the models do not work the same and are not as effective. That was all recognized in 1992 by the then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, John Crosbie. It was recognized by other ministers since then, and they supported the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council on that approach. I know that it is open to criticism.

To be quite honest, I understand - even though the minister gets on with trying to throw accusations at us here today - where she was coming from when she said: 3,500 tons, it is just as well they closed it. I understand where some of the fishermen were coming from. The fact of the matter is these people, when they said those things, were looking at it from the perspective of 7,000 tons and looking at 3,500 tons and said: Well, it is just as well for it to be closed. Well, looking at it from the perspective of 7,000 tons and looking at it from the perspective of zero changes ones view of things. Madam Speaker, I understand that. I understand why the minister said what she said. I understand why some people in the industry said what they said.

I do not know if there is a reason why the government members today and over the past couple of days - I do not know if they see where there is some political merit or some political gain in trying to make people believe that everybody in this Province is not on the same page as it relates to where the fishery should be, as it relates to an open fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in particular. It is crazy for anybody to suggest such nonsense. I am appalled, as everybody here is, that the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean, Minister Thibault, has treated us with such contempt on this issue.

I asked a question today to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, a very legitimate question: Did she ask Minister Thibault why 4X has been treated differently than 4RS+3PN? I can only come to two conclusions, there are two possible reasons. One is because it is in Southwest Nova Scotia, and it is in the minister's riding. The second one is that 4X is, in large part, a big boat fishery and 4RS+3PN cod is, in large part, a small boat fishery. Is there - and I said this in the House in December when we had our emergency debate. I believe it was December 2. I will stand corrected probably - but I said at that time that there is a larger game being played out here in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador today and I think we all recognize it.

There was a time when we said that the small boat fishermen were paranoid, but I say today that just because you are paranoid it does not mean that they are not out to get you. The fact of the matter is that this small boat fishery - there are those in the higher levels of DFO, in particular, who want this fishery gone. They want the small boat fishery done away with. If they can close down the fishery in 4RS+3PN and 2J+3KL today, and get rid of what is left of the small boat fishery in this Province and break the back, and break the chain that is there where people go on year after year, if they can break that, they will be rid of them for good. I think that is what is being played out here today. It is a sad situation if that is what it is. If the fishery does not reopen in ten years time - I know that there are individuals who are in the fishery today who are not going to be there in ten years time but there will be somebody there to catch fish.

Madam Speaker, I realize my time is up. I just want to say these couple of words, that there are people who will catch this fish but they will not be catching it in boats less than 34 feet, 11 inches. That is a sad day for the people in the small boat fishery in our Province. That is why it is so important for us to have this decision reversed, and it is so important to allow the people in the fishing industry to carry on with their fishery and it is so important to have an increased compensation package that deals with early retirement and licence retirement so some people can move on. Some people want to move on and leave it so that the people who are still in the fishery have the opportunity to have a viable income.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to support the private member's motion that has been put forward by my hon. colleague for Stephenville-St. George's area.

Madam Speaker, I guess in the last week it has been a great deal of turmoil throughout our Province, in many of our rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Whenever you talk about closing a fishery in this Province, with little or no rationalization to do it, it certainly is one of the things that should outrage the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, I listened to many of the people who have risen here today and talked about what the impacts of this decision are upon communities and on people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. As the minister, I do not have to travel into Bonavista. I do not have to travel down to Port aux Basques or out to Burnt Islands or up to Flower's Cove to know what the impacts are of this decision on the people of the Province today. I only have to go into my own district where I grew up around this fishery to know what the severe and critical impact is upon people, upon their families and upon their communities.

I think, Madam Speaker, we have all seen what happened with the last closure in 1992. We saw ten years of a fishery which stocks did not rebuild. We saw the federal government and DFO look at measures that did not assist in the rebuilding, and nor did the measures that they put forward assist in the rebuilding of our communities.

Madam Speaker, we are ten years later in this industry in the Province, and if there is any lesson that should be learned, it is the lesson of listening to the people in the fishery. That is the one thing that has not happened in this case.

When Minister Thibault took his decision in Ottawa, he omitted to listen to the watchdogs of the fishery. He omitted to listening to the harvesters that are out there off our shores each and every day, year in and year out. He did not look and listen to what they were saying, Madam Speaker; he looked at only the science. He did not adhere to the recommendations of his own FRCC, his own conservation council, Madam Speaker, that was set up to create a balance between what the industry was saying and what the science was saying. The same conservation council that would recommend to him how to plan for rebuilding and how the management of the stock should be looked at. These are the things that he ignored, Madam Speaker.

I guess today in this Province we are dealing with two very critical components of the recent decision. One is that we need to continue to fight to have this fishery reopened; because, Madam Speaker, the people out there in every one of these communities will tell you that if we do not get this decision overturned today and we do not get this fishery reopened it could very well be a long time before we see another fishery. That is absolutely devastating for the people of this Province, to have to be confronted with such news on this day.

Madam Speaker, we will continue to work as a government to have this decision overturned. We have been to the highest levels in the federal government. We have made the case on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and on behalf of the fishing industry.

Madam Speaker, we also have to look at where our people are today. Many of them in our Province are going to lose their EI benefits come the end of this month. As we speak here in this Legislature, I know of many. I can almost give you a list of the numbers of people in this Province whose weekly income is impacted. I talked to people in my own district, fisherpeople who work- one who fishes cod and probably nothing else only cod, and one who works in the plant. Both of them today have their incomes impacted. Both of them do not know where they are going to go from here.

Madam Speaker, we have to look at the immediate need of the impacts of these people. That was why we demanded that the federal government in very short order make a decision with regard to EI extensions for these people, because we are determined, Madam Speaker, we are determined to ensure that the proper package and the proper programs are implemented in conjunction with a fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Even if we get the decision overturned, even if we are able to fish 3,500 tonnes, which is our objective, we still need to have the licence retirement. We still need to have the licence buyback. We still need to have long-term development initiatives in our communities, Madam Speaker, because we still have an industry where we are losing half the resource and therefore it impacts still great numbers of people.

If we are, Madam Speaker, to be able to manage our way through this very critical time in our history in the fishery, we have to do so standing side by side and taking on the federal government. We cannot leave the fisherpeople, the fish plant workers, the people in the industry, out there in our Province today to deal with this issue on their own. They need the support of their government. They need the leadership of government today in order to be able to have the proper actions on this particular initiative.

I do not think it is any secret to any of us what happened in many of our communities with a closure in 1992. We have all seen what happened. It is heartbreaking. It is gut wrenching to watch the people who have left our Province in search of something else. Well, Madam Speaker, I have a district that was able to rebuild after the closure in 1992, to be able to haul itself up from being one of the most economically depressed regions of Newfoundland and Labrador to becoming one of the fastest growing rural economies in Newfoundland and Labrador. As I stand here today, Madam Speaker, all of that is in jeopardy. With a reduction of almost 40 per cent in crab quotas in one end of the district and a closure in cod in the other end of the district, we are losing hundreds of jobs. We have many families who are impacted, and we have a whole region whose economy is in jeopardy.

Why, Madam Speaker? Why? Because we have left the management of a resource to a government in the national level that does not listen to our people, does not understand our Province, and is not willing to make decisions and management decisions in our best interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Madam Speaker, we have seen for years what has happened in this industry. What is so ironic is: I was reading a copy of a speech that was made by the Minister of Fisheries in 1949, when we came into Confederation. I want to read a piece of that into the Hansard today because, I tell you, it is quite different today than it was then. The level of respect and consideration for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is not there today, Madam Speaker. This is what the minister said when we entered Confederation, "The harvests of the sea formed the substance of life for Newfoundlanders, and the life of the sea has left its impact on the character and on the economy of the people.

The fishing industry is the one industry that has held Newfoundland together over the years. The sturdy fishermen have provided the island with the first line of defence from the very beginning. They are the real Newfoundlanders, and will make real Canadians. We should be proud to welcome these fellow Canadians."

Madam Speaker, there is nothing proud about what happened last week. There is nothing proud in that for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador today. There is nothing proud in the treatment and the disrespect that we have been shown by the federal government on issues in the past months and in the past years.

Madam Speaker, we talked today about the effects of the people who are in the fishery and to know that a national government would be able to come here and to make a decision to close when every single entity in this Province said, you have to keep this fishery open. They choose to ignore it. They choose to close. Then, to turn around and offer a make-work project, a make-work project to stamp up a few people in the fishing industry for the next year or so was absolutely deplorable, it was disgusting and it was disrespectful, Madam Speaker.

I think that the federal government has to learn that there is a future in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and that the people who live there know it better than they do from 2,000 miles away viewing it from Ottawa. I think that point has to be made over and over again.

Madam Speaker, I know my time is up and I know I have to conclude, but before I sit down I just want to finish by saying that this government is committed to advocating on behalf of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. We will do whatever it takes in terms of making the appeals and the demands to the federal government to have this decision overturned. We will continue to lobby to have the appropriate measures put in place to look after the welfare of these people and of our communities. It is time for the federal government to understand that not only do they have the responsibility to manage, they have an accountability to our people and to our resources. We would ask that they concentrate on how we are going to rebuild within this industry and how we are going to rebuild without our communities.

So, we will keep this file and we will certainly make the necessary demands on the federal government and take the appropriate leadership, as a government, to represent the fishing industry in this Province on this file.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to join the debate on the Private Member's Motion presented by the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East on the important and devastating closure of the cod fishery by Minister Thibault last week.

Madam Speaker, there are four parts to the resolution. The first one, BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call on the federal government to open the Gulf fishery as recommended by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council and the Newfoundland and Labrador All-Party Committee on the 2J3KL and 3Pn3RS cod fisheries. That is the primary one I want to speak to today, Madam Speaker, because that is the one that is key to the resolution of this problem as has been presented to us by the decision of the federal minister to ignore all of the people of this Province who had very sensible, positive and forward looking things to say about what should happen to the fishery of this Province.

Madam Speaker, I don't normally do this but I want to share a few of the remarks that I made in a broadcast. There was a broadcast on radio today, but recorded earlier this week, and refers to the decision of Minister Thibault as both a shock and an outrage, a shock because it offered no real hope for the future for so many fishery workers and their families. Mr. Thibault has suggested that it could be decades before a return to the commercial cod fishery, and he has offered short-term, make-work for the next two years, which is an insult given the magnitude of the problem and the affects on 4,400 fishery worker alone, not to mention their families and the communities and all the other jobs and activity that will be affected.

Our all-party committee, Madam Speaker, speaking for all of us here in this House of Assembly, our Members of Parliament elected from Newfoundland and Labrador and the senators representing our Province was essentially ignored and our recommendations, thought out, argued out, debated and achieved a consensus on, were treated with contempt. Madam Speaker, when the elected leadership of this Province speaks with one voice in a unanimous report on the future of such an important resource, we expect to be listened to and treated with respect. This action by the minister of the Government of Canada is a slap in the face to the Province.

Our committee recommended a limited commercial fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the continuation of an information fishery in 2J+3KL, but also made twenty-one further recommendations, which was to take a positive and proactive approach to rebuilding the stocks.

What we wanted was a continued involvement by the fish harvesters and the industry in rebuilding those stocks. We wanted a short- and long-term stake by the fish harvesters and fishing communities in that rebuilding, and we wanted to have some hope for the future.

Instead, Madam Speaker, what we got was the same dictatorial and dismissive attitude from Ottawa, the partial acceptance of a few recommendations, and no serious commitment to the rebuilding of the fish stocks.

Minister Thibault said it could be decades before a return to a commercial cod fishery and offered a two-year program in response. The minister, as we know, also ignored the advice of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which considered the scientific advice and also listened to the fish harvesters themselves - examined the catch reports from the industry. With principles of conservation and sustainability in the forefront of their mind, they recommended a fishery of 3,500 tons in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Madam Speaker, the total closure of the Northern and Gulf cod fishery will have an enormous impact on people all over this Province. It will suck the life out of many of our communities and others will simply just die. The closure means we will once again witness people board up houses and move to other parts of the country.

Madam Speaker, if this decision is not changed there are other serious implications. It underscores the serious political problem that we have in Canada, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It seems that Ottawa just does not get it. In the same way that many Canadians never understood or accepted the problems of Quebec in Canada, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the problems and issues that are so vital to our people and our future are not even on the radar in Ottawa, let alone understood and respected.

Yes, we know that the Premier has gone to Ottawa and after the fact tried to fix things up. Yes, we had an emergency debate in the House of Commons last night, and it was a very good debate. I watched some of the debate last night. To see, late last night, the Member for Labrador give an impassioned speech from the heart about what his constituents and the people in his riding were feeling and expressing to him about what was happening to them. Mr. O'Brien gave what I would consider one of the best speeches I have heard in the House of Commons talking about this issue. Speaking as a member of a Liberal Party whose minister had made this decision, in fact, it was a very important and significant speech to be made in the House of Commons. For those of you who did not see it, I would commend the House of Commons' Hansard to see how he treated this issue and with what great passion he spoke on behalf of the constituents of Labrador.

That debate took place. It had been requested last Thursday by Peter Stoffer, the Member of Parliament for Musquodoboit Valley, Eastern Passage in Nova Scotia, who is the Vice-Chair of the Fisheries Committee and a New Democratic Member of Parliament, who also spoke in the debate.

In fact, Madam Speaker, all parties in that debate last night were critical of the Minister of Fisheries. The three Members of Parliament from this Province in the Liberal caucus, aside from the Minister of State for ACOA, spoke in that debate and opposed the decision. The three members of the Tory caucus spoke. Members of the Bloc Québécois, and even the Canadian Alliance supported the position that the people of this Province, the fish harvesters of this Province, should be listened to on this issue.

But, Madam Speaker, that is not enough. It is not enough to have debates like this. It is not enough to have debates like we had yesterday in the House of Commons. What has to happen is that this decision must change. We must, in this House, this government and all sides of this House, stand behind the FFAW; stand behind and insist that the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council and the fishery workers of this Province be listened to, and the fishing industry as well, who recommended and believed that a sustainable harvest in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is possible.

We have a moral obligation, a political obligation, to rebuild these stocks, and we have an obvious economic interest as a Province in doing so, and our communities, our fishing communities, our fish harvesters, our fish plant workers, and our fishing industry depends on this being done. We have to find the best way to do so. To simply take the fishery workers out of the equation and wait for the stocks to return is a recipe for further disaster and despair.

Madam Speaker, I concluded my remarks in this broadcast with the following, because I think it is this important. I said this: If we cannot change this decision, it will be one more reason why our relationship with Canada and our future in that relationship, now under consideration by a Royal Commission, is up for grabs.

That is how serious this is, Madam Speaker. This is something that defines the willingness, the ability, the level of understanding, the level of concern, even, about what happens in this Province, in our nation's capital and in the rest of the country. Because what did happen here is totally different than 1992, Madam Speaker, and not in a dismissive way that we got from Minister of State Gerry Byrne last Thursday. Not in the dismissive way that we got from the former Premier in the Globe and Mail last Thursday saying, well, it is different because it was more important then than it is now. In fact, it is more important now.

When the fishery closed in 1992, it closed with some hope and some expectation that it would open again in the foreseeable future, and there was a serious program to deal with the consequences of that. Yes, we lost many, many people over the ensuing decade, perhaps 50,000, but this closure, Madam Speaker, is even worse because it does two things. It refuses to recognize that the individual fishers and fishing communities in this Province have a stake in the future of this fishery.

Let me quote you one quote, if I have a couple of seconds to do that, the FRCC thought that we should have a new approach to the management of the fishery. They believed that the current methods and management of the coastal stock of Northern cod inhibit decision making close to the fisheries, inhibit effective involvement of resource users and the capacity for users to take on new responsibilities. Hence, current management is judged to be incompatible with the development of a sustainable fishery such as existed in Newfoundland and Labrador historically. They demanded a new partnership, one which recognizes the importance and the role of the fishers and the fish harvesters in the future. That is one that was ignored by the Government of Canada, by the Minister of Fisheries, and one that has to be, and must be, changed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a privilege today to get up and have a few words to say on our private member's motion on the fishery issues put forward by the hon. Member for St. George's-Stephenville East. It is a very important day for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a very important issue for everybody in this Province. It affects all of our economy from one end of the Province to the other, including Labrador.

Madam Speaker, we must recognize that if this decision is not reversed than we have to put forward a really good package plan to not only extend the EI earnings for people involved in fishery and to have licence buyouts and retirement packages, it has to include a lot more people than that, because the fish plant workers are affected so much by this. There is an aging population in our fish plants and these people need something to look forward to. They need an early retirement package. This issue today is only going to enhance the necessity of government doing something to help the people who want to retire from the fishing industry.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, I would just like to say that this decision should be reversed. It should be reversed because of the affect on rural Newfoundland, particularly in Central Newfoundland. When we are looking at areas like Grand Falls-Windsor, that is a service centre for most of the central area, the east coast and south coast, Madam Speaker. People from the outlining areas along the coast come into Central Newfoundland, come into Grand Falls-Windsor, to buy their vehicles. They shop at the mall. They spend a lot of money in Central Newfoundland. If we are going to take this very important industry and shut it down, then we are taking these millions of dollars that are going to be spent in areas like Central Newfoundland - and then businesses, gas stations, car dealerships, dry goods stores, hardware stores are all going to be affected. They are all going to suffer immensely, Madam Speaker.

We have to recognize that if the federal government continues and insists on keeping this closure in place, then we have to lobby harder and we have to speak up louder. We have to make sure that the federal government gives the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador what we deserve. The federal government owes this Province. We have been here for so many years trying to sustain a living in rural parts of the Province, along our coastline and areas of the Province, that is very difficult. If people in this Province want to stay in their communities and want to stay in the outlining areas of this Province then we are going to have to have some type of fishery that they can depend on to make their living.

Madam Speaker, the cod fishery is basically a supplement to the incomes of a lot of the fishers in my area, in the Windsor-Springdale District. Most of them do crab and other species but a lot of them do avail of the cod quotas to top up their yearly earnings so that they can have higher EI benefits. They look forward every year to being involved in the cod fishery so that they have that extra money to go out and do work on their homes, buy a vehicle or whatever, put their kids through university and all of these things. So, that cod fishery on the northeast coast, particularly in my area, is very, very important to the people in the Windsor-Springdale District so that they can plan, plan not only the future of themselves and their retirements but plan the futures of their children. The children are depending on their parents to get them started in life, to get them through post-secondary education, university. If we do not have a sustainable and viable part of a fishery in areas like my area, than I am afraid not only the young people will be moving out of the area but after they go, what is left for their parents after they retire? So they have to move too. Then you are going to see a bigger out-migration. It is certainly going to be hard for families to keep together when the financial resources are not there to do that.

I have to say to Mr. Thibault, that he really underestimated the people of this Province. The people of this Province are resilient people. They find ways of surviving. Unfortunately, a lot will have to go away to survive but a lot of people are going to stay in this Province, and they are going to contribute and they are going to survive. Their way of life and their living may not be as good as it is now but a lot of people in this Province are going to stay here. I have to say to Mr. Thibault, if the long-term plan of the federal government is to destroy a fishery, destroy livelihoods of people in this Province so that all of them will move away and they can have whatever control they want of the people of this Province, it is not going to happen. The people of this Province are going to stay here. A lot of them are going to stay and they are going to be vocal. They are going to fight. I say to Mr. Thibault and our federal members in Ottawa, that they are going to be up for a fight, not only by our government but by the Opposition and the fisherpeople and all the people who are affected in this Province. It does go a lot further than just fisherpeople. The value of the spinoff in the Province today is probably three times of what the fisherpeople get in incomes in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the government should be fair in how they make their decisions. Their decisions should be based on solid, scientific research and information. That is only going to come if we decide to put millions of dollars, a lot of money into the proper research. I am not so sure if DFO should be doing their own research, or if they should be co-operating more with the fisherpeople and more with independent researches and scientists so that when a decision is made it is going to be basically made purely on the facts and figures and information that is obtained by being out there - being out in the ocean, under the ocean, on top of the ocean, wherever it is necessary to be.

I would say to the minister, Mr. Thibault and federal counterparts, that if the Northern and Gulf cod stocks are going to rebuild than they have to rebuild because of action that we take now. We must recognize where the problems are and we must take action immediately.

My father passed away a few years ago, but he always said there are three components that really dictate to how our fishery will survive in the future. The first one that he was really adamant about was the seal population. That was one of the areas where the fishery was going to be devastated over the years because of the increases in the seal population. The other area that he used to always talk about was the foreign overfishing and the overfishing in the Province. If we continue to overfish - if we stop our own people from fishing but we allow foreigners to come in off our shores and off our 200-mile limit to fish, to destroy our stocks, then it has to be decimated. There is no way for it to recover if we do not address these big issues.

The other issue that my father used to always say - he said: There is a third issue. There is a third component that affects the fishery in the Province, he said, and that is one that nobody is sure about. That is one which includes good scientific research and information. He always said: How do the scientists know? Do they spend enough money? Do they spend enough time? Do they have the right information to make solid, sensible decisions on how our fishery should be ran and should go in the future? I do not think it has been done over the years. We have a vast ocean out there, a lot of water. We do have good technology to detect and find fish, but I say, Mr. Speaker, because of that vast ocean out there we need to do vast research. I mean a lot of research, which is going to take a lot of money. The political will has to be there by our federal representatives in the federal government in Ottawa to have that will to say yes, we are going to commit; yes, we are going to find out what the problem is; yes, we are going to take actions to stop the problem; we are going to take action to turn this around, not wait ten or twelve years, as we have done since 1992, eleven years now and it is no better than it was eleven years ago. It is worse in some cases for some people.

We want to make those decisions now. We cannot wait. Decisions on research have to be done and they have to be done right so that the right decisions can be made and then in the future, ten years from now, we can say well, we have done the right thing, we did all we could do, and if there is some other reason that the stocks are not returning then we should know. You cannot fix a problem if you do not know what the problem is.

We do know what some of the problems are, I say, Mr. Speaker. If you look it, we have been looking at the fishery for years like a leaky roof. It is only a problem when it rains. The fishery is only a problem when it comes to crunch time, when the minister has to fly in and make an announcement and fly out again, not taking into account, not realizing the impact that it is going to have on our people, not realizing the impact that it is going to have on the economy of this Province.

It is going to be disastrous for some areas, like I said, in the Grand Falls-Windsor area, that supplies services and products for people all around the Northeast Coast and South Coast. Millions and millions of dollars is going to be taken out of the economy in all of Newfoundland and Labrador. These people have to make a decision. Are we going to stay here and fight or are we going to go?

I say, Mr. Speaker, some of the fisherpeople today are up in the fifties, and where are they going to go? Where are they going to get a job? You cannot just go to the mainland when you are fifty-five years old and fifty years old to get a job, because the first thing they will tell you up there is that you are overqualified. You have been in a market, you have been in an economy too long to be what we want. We want someone young. So the young fisherpeople today will, yes, maybe have to go and get careers.

The sad part about it, Mr. Speaker, is that when the young go, in a lot of cases, the families follow, the seniors follow. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, then it comes down to the whole EI issue. If we have to look at $25 million to have make-work programs to help people get EI, and low EI - we are not talking a good high income that they have been getting from the fishery over the years. We are talking make-work projects. I do not think there is any fisherperson out in this Province today who is looking forward to getting on a make-work project to have to get low EI income over the next winter. I think that is a disgrace, it is disgraceful, it is unfair, and we should not accept it.

I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am concerned. I am concerned about my district of Windsor-Springdale. I know my colleagues want to have a few words on it. I thank you for the opportunity to say these few words to this House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Butler): The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: I would like to stand this afternoon to say a few words on this very important Private Members' Resolution. We have had a number of them here this year, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the fishery. This one really originated back in November of last year. I think it started around 5 o'clock on a Thursday afternoon when I was called outside the House of Assembly and asked by a reporter to comment on the possible closure of the Gulf fishery and the fishery off the East Coast of our Province. Apparently, nobody here knew anything about it. Nobody in Ottawa knew anything about it, except for the members of the Liberal caucus on that fateful day back in November when Mr. Thibault, the minister, brought forward a position paper on a potential outcome affecting both of those fisheries in March or April of this year.

What they had planned, according to the papers that I saw, that I got from the media, in the presentation that the federal minister gave, he was closing these two fisheries and that existing programs in HRDC and ACOA were supposed to act as the compensation to all of those who were going to be displaced in the fishery.

I immediately got on the phone the next day to the federal minister and he assured me that this was only a position paper, that nothing was carved in stone, no decision had been made, and no decision would be made until the end of March.

On that very day the FRCC, a committee that was established by the federal minister himself, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, a committee that gives advice to the federal minister as to what stocks should remain open, what stocks should be closed, and what quotas should be caught, that committee that day, Mr. Speaker, was in my own district, in the Town of Twillingate, talking to fisherpeople in my own district and along the Northeast Coast about the science on 2J+3KL, because the committee was in that area that day, and what should happen to that stock at this time of the year, some five months later.

The members opposite talked about: Did we have any discussions with the federal minister since then? I think the Member for The Straits & White Bay North asked the Premier today: Did you or the minister, or the past minister, have any conversations with the federal minister pertaining to that? I had a number of them, Mr. Speaker, and I said the same thing every time: Leave the fisheries open.

Immediately upon hearing what they were even considering in Ottawa, we stood on this side of the House that day and asked to strike an all-party committee of the House of Assembly and it was agreed to by everybody that we would do this to ensure that we got a head start on this.

We had five months, according to the minister in Ottawa. His mind was still open and we struck an all-party committee. Following that, we had a number of meetings. I went to Ottawa. In fact, I went to Quebec where they had the Atlantic Ministers' Conference in early December. At that conference I told the minister, in the meeting and outside, that we were not prepared to let these two fisheries close. I said, you can call them anything you want. You can call them an index fishery, you can call them a sentinel fishery, you can call them whatever you want for the sake of perception, if you are trying to bluff someone outside of the country. I said, call them what you want, but we want those fisheries to remain open.

He assured me on every occasion that I talked to him, right upon until I left Fisheries in February, that no decision was made; because it would be a complete farce to have the FRCC travelling around this Province talking about what was going to happen in March or April of this year, if he had already had his mind made up.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? I honestly believe in my heart today that his mind was made up, and that the bureaucrats in Ottawa had their minds made up long before November. In fact, when I came out of Spain, having attended the NAFO meetings in September, I got the sense over there that the fishery on the Northeast Coast was going to be closing, and I said it publicly in this House, and I said it in the media, because they did not want to insult the foreigners who were out there raping our stocks for years and years and years. So, I mean, we have always advocated that the fisheries should remain open. Like I said, call it what you want, but I believe, and I think that a lot of people believe, that these people had their minds made up.

What makes it even easier for them to be able to do that, and have their minds made up, is, I do not think there is a government in Ottawa today, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is a functioning government in Ottawa today, when you get the Prime Minister of the country announce - what was it, a year ago? - close to a year ago, that he was resigning. So, immediately, the leadership race is on. Who is governing the country up there? You have three candidates today up there who are vying for the leadership of the party, to be Prime Minister of the country. Three of them. Three of them. Now, if you follow the polls and if you follow what the pundits are saying in the country, then Paul Martin is going to win. So, you have a group lining up behind Paul Martin up there now trying to do what they can to cozy up to him so that they will go in his Cabinet. You have another two up there, Mr. Speaker, who are off seeking the leadership themselves, and they know they are not going back into Paul Martin's Cabinet. So, effectively, what you have in Ottawa today is, you do not have a government. It appears to me that who is running the show up there right now are a bunch of bureaucrats. Believe me, there are a bunch of bureaucrats, not in this Province, connected with DFO, but in Ottawa, who would have had that fishery.... That fishery would have never opened under their reign. If they had their way back in 1992, it would have never reopened.

So, if the members are wondering why it is happening, that is one of the reasons. The Member for The Straits also asked the Minister of Fisheries here today: Did you ask the Minister of Fisheries why the cod fishery was still open in the area off his district?

As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that is a silly, rhetorical question.

MR. TAYLOR: I never (inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, you did. You asked her if she asked him. That is what you said. You said: Did you ask the federal minister why they were leaving the fishery open off his own district? Well, that is a silly, rhetorical question.

I know the reason, and I think every member of this House knows the reason the fishery is open off the federal Minister of Fisheries' own district. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out. My only problem is: Where was our minister? How come the fishery is not open off the West Coast of this Province today, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Why isn't it open? Where is our minister? Where are our representatives?

I also hear coming across the floor that: Maybe there is something wrong with the government. Maybe there is something wrong with the crowd across the floor in that they are too confrontational. They cannot seem to work with the people in Ottawa - suggesting maybe it is time for a change because there is something wrong with us; we cannot go to Ottawa and get what we want, even though what they call our Liberal cousins are in power.

Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. It does not matter a row of beans who is in Ottawa for the last fifteen years or the last fifty-three years; they still have the same disrespect for the people of this Province and they will continue to do so. That is what irritates me, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: The same member, the Leader of the Opposition, always makes reference to the fact that maybe they are too confrontational. What is wrong with the Premier, he cannot get along with his buddies in Ottawa?

Well, the Leader of the Opposition was on this all-party committee with me when I was the minister, and with the current minister, and with the members opposite. He was a member of that committee. We had senators from Ottawa, Liberal and Tory senators, on that committee. We had the Liberal and Tory MPs from that committee. In this Province, we had Liberal and Tory MHAs and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

Guess what? We spent five months working on a proposal to go to Ottawa, and guess what? We may be confrontational, because we try and stick up for what the people of this Province want, but what about the Tories opposite? What about the Leader of the NDP? They also got kicked in the teeth last week when the federal minister came down here and said: We are not looking to your report. We are not listening to you. We are closing the fishery. We are closing it in the Gulf and we are closing it on the East Coast of the Province.

That is not unusual, coming from the crowd in Ottawa. That is not unusual. I appeared last spring - we put $100,000 in the Budget last spring to fight a foreign overfishing campaign. We proposed immediately, even years before this, custodial management. I appeared before all kinds of committees in Ottawa, including the federal minister's own Standing Committee on Fisheries, and put forward the concept of custodial management. Everyone agreed with it. I presented it to the minister. I do not even think he read the report. What did he do with it? Dismissed it outright.

The Member for Lewisporte, who used to be the Minister of Fisheries in 1998 and was the Premier of the Province, I think if you asked him truthfully when he was the Minister of Fisheries, did he have any more luck than we got in dealing with their cousins, as we have with ours, I am sure he said it to me here in the House one day before, it does not matter who is in Ottawa, whether they are Liberals or Tories.

I will give you examples. Back in 1991, I think it was a federal Tory government, I think the minister was Mr. Bernard Valcourt - and the Member for La Poile might be able to tell me now - when they agreed to transfer the quota of fish that they had in Burgeo off to Canso, Nova Scotia, it was a federal Tory member who did that. It was also a federal Tory minister who used to sit in the office in Ottawa when I worked with the late Walter Carter, and we would sit in the office in Ottawa from 1989 until 1993 when the Liberals took over and asked them to do something about foreign overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, they used to laugh at us and tell us we were crazy. We would start a Third World War. Go home, boys, you are nuts. That is what they used to say, basically. Look, forget it.

Now that was the Tories, and that is the Liberals. For the Opposition to be sitting across the floor and trying to give the impression that we have to somehow try to get along with these people in Ottawa after getting kicked in the teeth so many times in the last fifty years, I think it is time for that to stop.

I will tell you another thing that disturbs me here today, and that is when we start attacking each other, when we start questioning each other. Did you ask the minister this? Did you ask the minister that? Believe me, the ministers in Ottawa today, Minister Byrne and Minister Thibault, will be watching the news clips tonight and any other clip that they can find as to what is going on in this Province. If they can see us becoming divided, then they will know that we will be conquered, because that is their favorite game - divide and conquer.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that we cannot afford to let them do that because the lives of too many people in this Province are at stake. If you travel to the Southwest Coast of this Province today, in the Burnt Islands area, they have nothing else but the little bit of cod that they had last year, 7,000 tonnes in the Gulf stretched from the Southwest Coast right to the tip of the Northern Peninsula. There are people in my own district who will lose work this year as a result of no cod fishery on the Northeast Coast. I had a call last night from the people of Fogo Island. The plant in Joe Batt's Arm will not produce as much groundfish this year as they did last year and, as a result of that, there will be people who will be dramatically affected in terms of income and EI eligibility this year, as opposed to last year.

What I am saying to the members opposite is, rather than take cheap shots at the government and try to leave the impression out there that if they were in power they would be able to walk into Ottawa and all of this would change, and all of a sudden the things that we want would be given to us, take a reality check. Look back through the history books. If that were the case, Mr. Speaker, if we are too confrontational, then what about Quebec? Quebec does not seem to mind being too confrontational. They send the Bloc Party to Quebec. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we should do something similar to that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: As I said last week, I would go a bit further than asking the four Liberal MPs in Ottawa to sit as independents. I would ask all seven of them, and the senators too, if there is such a thing as an independent party in the Senate, Mr. Speaker, because we have to make it known in Ottawa that we are no longer going to tolerate this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: We are not the people who brought this Province into Confederation. We are an intelligent, articulate and an educated people, Mr. Speaker, and no longer are we going to be looked at as second-class citizens by anyone in this country. I will tell you one thing: I personally will not give up the fight to get what we want out of Ottawa, and I am sure no one on this side will.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will be voting in support of the resolution here this afternoon.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was going to say I am pleased to rise today, as we usually do when we start debate in this Legislature, but today I have to say I am proud to rise to speak to this resolution today.

I want to start off by commending the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East for putting forward this resolution. We also had the same intent, of course, and when we looked at both resolutions we are all on the same page when it comes to this resolution. That is what we should start off, every single one of us, in this House today, talking about, because over the last number of days I am sure we have talked to people in our own districts and we have a sense of the real story of what is affecting this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today.

It goes much deeper than just the issue of the fishery. The Minister of Fisheries just alluded to it. It goes to the intent of the attitude of the federal government to this Province for a very, very long time. What this has done is raised the level. That is what this particular issue has done today.

Some people made mention to, and mentioned earlier today, that in 1992 - and I remember it well. We all remember it well. I was not in politics at the time but I remember the cameras and the people at the doors down there in 1992. I think it was the Delta Hotel or the Hotel Newfoundland, wherever it was. I remember the gut feeling you had that day as you talked to people, especially if you lived in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, but throughout the Province. Some people talked about it earlier today, that this is smaller. Yes, it may be smaller when it comes to quantity and number of fish, but, Mr. Speaker, it has just as much impact, for the simple fact that this Province, since 1992, has gone through so much that this is the last straw.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to point out today is the real story behind this, not for us as MHAs in this Province, or for that matter, for municipal politicians throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, any level of government, that in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador we have to be together on this one. This is one that we have to be together on. This is one that goes far beyond a job. This is not a job loss. We spoke to fishermen last night. This is not a fellow losing his job in a factory in Toronto. This is not about a person losing their job in a sawmill for that matter. This is about a person losing a job and a way of life. If you go around rural Newfoundland and Labrador - and every year we see the tourists come in and talk about when they go into the small outport communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, they say: that is what Newfoundland and Labrador is all about, rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

What brought us here in the first place, 500 years ago? The fishery, the backbone of the Province. Mr. Speaker, as we do this debate today on behalf of people in our consistencies, all I can think about is the phone calls I have had from people in Harbour Round, La Scie, Little Bay Islands and throughout fishing communities. Even on my end of the Province, where the cod fishery - no, there has not been a lot of cod, but I talked to people yesterday in Harbour Round and the La Scie area who had just 100 hours at the plant that had to do with cod fish. Mr. Speaker, how important was that 100 hours to those people? That they could have a bit of dignity and could match that with crab and so on, and they are still living and maintaining a life.

What about the fishermen we talked to last night on the Southwest Coast, the Northern Peninsula, who said that they went out and did very well? It was their way of life. What we should be talking about here today is what these fishermen are talking about. That it is a way of life for them and the gut feeling they had just a short while ago when they heard this announcement. They were shocked. They were all shocked because there was hope. There was still hope when we heard the FRCC. We had this lobby going on of the all-party committee and we really thought and believed - and, I guess, the word is still hope - that the right decision would be made. But it was not made, Mr. Speaker. That is why every single one of us, in every party that is represented in this House today, and every member elected by the people of this Province should be saying with the same voice, that this was wrong. This was wrong because they did not go the right route, and fishermen will tell you. You address the big issues.

This is what I heard in my own district. When the federal government, the people who manage this resource by us, for us, when they handle the big issues, when they show us that they are serious about the problems with the seals; when they show us that they are serious with the foreign overfishing; when they show us that they are serious, period, and show us a little bit of respect, the fishermen said they would do whatever it takes. They would shut down the fishery themselves. They know what to do.

You talk about science, or the lack of science, and the fact that in this announcement, the biggest insult - I do not know if it is the biggest but one of the worst insults of all - that they are going to throw $6 million at us to study seals. Now, you can imagine that. Now, they say we make Newfie jokes. This is the joke of all, $6 million to go study seals. I had a fisherman say to me in my district just before I came back in, he said: Give me the $6 million. I can save them a lot of time. I can tell them all they want to know about seals and I will get $6 million out of it. Because for anyone to have the gall to come to this Province and include in that package that we need more science on seals, we know enough about it. We know they are up in the rivers. We know that they are all throughout the Province and every year they are a menace. Of course, that is too big a word to say in Ottawa by some of our former premiers and former MPs. They would not mention the word seal. No, but they will look at the small boat fishermen and say: you cannot go get this small bit of fish; but they would not take on the bigger issues. That is what we have to get across to Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. That is the real message here today.

The people that we spoke to last night, the fishermen who are here now from the West Coast and the Northern Peninsula and so on, many of them occupied the office downtown here last night. We went to speak to them for a little while. One guy was telling me, pretty young fella - I will guess his age but I will not say his name. He is about thirty-five years old, and I think the leader mentioned him today. I was talking to him one-on-one. He said: You know, we did pretty good last year. I am doing alright. He is doing okay. But, of course, it was late this year getting out fishing and so on. He said: I have two kids. I think he said three and six years old, and they are three weeks now with no income whatsoever. He said: this is a resource that when I look out of my window and I see my boat there, I can go and make a living for myself and do what I have to do. That was just taken away from him. So, he never lost his job. He lost his whole way of life.

For people who go throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and I have one of those rural communities where there are some thirty-three communities, when you go into a small outport on a nice day in the summer and you see the boats at the wharf and you see the guys who have just come in, making a living at it, and when you see all that activity through small-town Newfoundland and Labrador, that is what made Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why people are saying: You are not taking away my job; you are taking away my way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go too far on this today, but I do want to make this point. We have all stood - the minister, the former minister, the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East - making some very good points here today, but the Premier today - and I have to make this point - for the ten minutes he was on his feet, or the time that was allotted to us, to not mention fishermen or the actual issue, but to twiddle around with lines and words, which we have done many times, and I am guilty of it in this House on different occasions, on the Hydro debate, on the education reform, all big debates in this House, and we have used words, and that is what you do as politicians, but if there was ever a time in this House of Assembly, in the years that I have been elected, where you could stand and debate here today, we should be talking to the issue, which is the people and the way they live in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and combine that with what the minister, the former minister, the Minister of Education, had said, the attitude of Ottawa towards this Province on this particular issue.

If there is any way that we can link arms or do whatever we have to do to get this decision reversed, we should and have to do it, and that is the bottom line on this whole debate today, on the many debates that we have had in this House of Assembly. I see members from rural - and not only rural but urban, because the urban members will quickly tell you, if rural Newfoundland is floundering, if the fishery is not good that day or that week, then you do not see people in St. John's, Grand Falls and Corner Brook. We have to stop dividing this Province into urban and rural, to the point that we are all in this together.

If rural Newfoundland is doing good, urban Newfoundland is doing good, and vice versa. That is why we have to come together on this particular issue. We are all in this boat together. That is the way we have to look at it.

Mr. Speaker, to speak to the issue, we have seen some devastating news in this last few days, and it is devastating, but we have to keep in mind, as politicians, whether you are municipal, provincial or federal - and this is a message to our federal MPs: The way of life in Newfoundland and Labrador is on the last straw. This is important. It may not be the quantity of 1992, but where we have been through such a tough time, it is so important that this decision is reversed this year, and soon, and it be done. Otherwise, we will see a devastation in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, that will not rebound. Yes, people said before, we are resilient and tough people, and yes, we will come back, but this is going to be a tough one. This is going to be a tough one, especially for the West Coast and part of the South Coast and the Northern Peninsula, and even into my own area of the Northeast Coast. As we said before, the cod has not been as important, but that small amount helped people in my part of the Province, in my district, and throughout the Northeast Coast, for that last few weeks or few hours that they needed to go fishing a bit of cod. It is also, remember, the fishery that brought us here.

We have to keep in mind - and as people talk about Canada, the federal government, and how they respond to us, we have to keep in mind - we all know it and this is the message they have to get up there, that we are not looking for a handout or a make-work project. Every time Ottawa sees a problem in Newfoundland they say: Oh, we can fix that. We will throw lots of make-work projects out, we will settle down everybody and they will go away after awhile.

People are sick and tired of that, Mr. Speaker. We are tired of seeing that over and over and over. It is just a band-aid that people are sick and tired of seeing. It has to be long term, it has to be planned, and it has to be forthright so that they see this Province with a plan that will take us not just to next year and the next budget, but for a five-year and a ten-year. That is what people in this Province are looking for.

If we want science, let's go talk to the fishermen and the fisherwomen, the people who know it best. The best science right now are the people who are on the water and know the resource the best. There is where we can take our arguments. We do have our arguments, but as long as we can stick together on it. I have not given up and I still do not think a lot of people in this Province have given up on the fact that we can reverse this decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am indeed pleased to stand today to speak on this issue that has been put forward by the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East. I cannot think of anything, quite frankly, that is more important that we here in this House of Assembly be talking about today. I certainly do not intend to rant, rave, and get emotional. It is certainly an issue that would make one want to get that way, when you realize the devastation that it causes.

I have been in this House now four years and quite frankly, I guess, after awhile you keep getting hit so often and so hard you wonder, is there any end to it? It is one thing to have major surgery, one thing to be on life support, but when you feel the plug has been totally and absolutely pulled for your district, your first reaction is to quit and give up, toss up your hands in the air and say, who cares anymore? That is not the right reaction. Emotion, ranting and raving is not where we need to go.

We had Burgeo, which, as everyone knows in this House, from my comments in the past, devastated. Now we have a few more communities: Isle aux Morts, Burnt Islands, Rose Blanche, Port aux Basques, Petites, LaPoile and Grand Bruit. That is my community, Mr. Speaker. There are no other communities in Burgeo-LaPoile district. Burgeo is in 3Ps, in the NAFO areas, but all those other communities I just named, they are in 3Pn, the 3Pn of the 3Pn+4RS that this minister just closed. We do not have shrimp in 3Pn. We do not have crab in 3Pn. We lived and existed off a bit of cod in 3Pn and now we do not have that anymore. You asked: Would this be a situation where the people might get emotional, might rant and rave? Yes, indeed, this is an issue such as that.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to getting and putting personal names into this so that we show Ottawa that there are faces and people who have been affected by this decision. I agree with that wholeheartedly. The Jean Chrétiens, the Minister Thibaults and the Jerry Byrnes need to know the Jason Batemans of Port aux Basques, the Johnny Purchases, the Ray Vaultier, who was up here in the audience today in this House. The Keltie Stricklands, the Roland Kings, the Clyde Billards, the Carol Bennetts, the Charlie Riles and the Veronica Roberts who operate plants, who fish in small boats, who work in plants, who are union members and so on. These people ought to know that there are faces behind this decision. They have nowhere else to turn.

I note Mr. Byrne's comment - and I am not into attack mode on anybody here but some words, sometimes jump out and smack you in the face on top of it all. The words Mr. Byrne used - by the way, he is the only Newfoundlander and Labradorian that I know of, in the last seven days, who has said move on and get over this, basically, in a CBC interview. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have nowhere to move on to. There are no more U-Hauls for us to rent. We have seen them all pass through our door in Port aux Basques in the last number of years. There are no U-Hauls out there left to rent. Where are we going to move on to? Fort McMurray, Southern Alberta, Southern Ontario, B.C.? That don't cut it.

It is not only the little small communities like the Grand Bruits that have twenty, twenty-five people in it. All these little communities in a place like Burgeo & LaPoile add up to a hub like a place like Port aux Basques. The Port aux Basques' of the world die when these little communities around them die, and the Corner Brooks of the world die when the Port aux Basques, the Trout Rivers, the St. Anthonys and the Stephenvilles die. So, it affects all of us. There is no doubt about it. This decision was unacceptable; is unacceptable. Is absolutely unjustified and is absolutely wrong. Yes, there are certain parts of it that might be acceptable but the science is wrong.

Kevin Hardy, who is a prominent fisherman in this Province and lives in Burnt Islands, and happens to be the mayor, for example, attended the FRCC meetings in Port aux Basques some time ago and told the scientists who were there - he asked them about their science that they were basing this decision on. One boat, called the Needler, worked for thirty days out in that region, 3PN, and made 250 tows. Now this is in an area where we always use hook and line. We are not into gill nets and we are not into towing for cod. We use hook and line. They worked for thirty days, 250 tows, and caught 2,000 pounds of fish. Now, the hook and line fishermen in that area catch that any given day. This is the Needler, a scientific boat, upon which this research is based. Mr. Hardy said: you have a problem. Number one, if that is all the fish you are catching in our area in thirty days, after 250 tows - and we can show you all of our landing slips for the last year showing you what we caught on hook and line - there is a major problem. You guys do not know how to fish and you do not know where to fish. That is the science that we are talking about here.

Dr. George Rowe, one of preeminent marine experts in our Province and in this country says that there should be a fishery in this area. He is part of the FRCC. He is the scientific piece of it. The FRCC is not only made up of fisherpersons or plant operators and people in the industry, it is made up of scientific people and these science people say it should be open.

Another comment that jumped out and hit me from Mr. Byrne was: I am comfortable in my skin with this decision. There are a lot of people in Burgeo & LaPoile right now, about 15,000 of us, who are not very comfortable in our skins. We feel like we have been skinned, but we do not know where we are going to go and we do not know what we are going to do.

Also, I am not one to talk about how bad it is and devastating it is. I think you ought to have some solutions to offer to problems. I think the solution here is fairly evident. Yes, it might take some more scoping out. We know the problem. The problem is the wrong decision was made, at least partially, definitely in 3PN, definitely regarding the recommendation to have a sustainable, albeit, maybe limited fishery in 3PN. That is a wrong decision. Nobody in this country should be too big to admit that they made a mistake, that they are wrong, and that their science is wrong in that regard. Yes, we should accept the other recommendations of the FRCC as well. Maybe we need more fleshing out, as I say, when it comes to seal exclusion zones and what they stand for and everything else. Yes, we need some EI help. I do not know why it is such a big issue to vary the EI provisions to allow for some immediate help. We need it. It is obvious that we need it for ice conditions, one thing alone, but also for these types of drastic implications. The Prime Minister can do it for SARS in Toronto on forty-eight hours notice and change the EI provisions. Why can't you make commentary and changes to suit this situation? Enhance the compensation package. Even if you go with a sustainable fishery, 3,500 tonnes in 3Pn+4RS, you still have people trying to live off half of what they had last year. So, you still need to address the compensation issue, the early retirement issue. If people want to retire their boats, their licences, and have buyouts and retire from plants, that has to be addressed.

You cannot simply, in my eyes - it is improper - without the proper science, say we are closing you today, Thursday, and we are going to take eighteen months to work this out. You could have easily said: We may need eighteen months to work this out, but we are going to have our sustainable, albeit limited, fishery in 3Pn in the meantime. We are not going to use the $25 million to give you make-work projects to exist for eighteen months and then forget about you and drop you like a hot potato when it is over, possibly. We are going to use that $25 million to help you with the compensation you are going to have because of your limited fishery and we are also going to use part of it to do some proper science. We are going to have a few more needlers and a bit more research in the next eighteen months to see what the actual science is.

In fact, the recommendations are not that we close. The commentary was that it would not be in the best interest of the fishery in 3Pn to close. That was not the recommendation. There ought to be a fishery, even if the fishing activity, in and of itself, helps with the science.

So, there are options here and these solutions are there. Minister Byrne - again, this is not attacking anyone - and Minister Thibault, if you have made the wrong decision, which you obviously have, and every soul on this rock of ours here in this Atlantic Ocean and in Labrador feels that you have made the wrong decision, you need and you can revisit it. People will only think kindly of you if you are man enough, person enough, to recognize that we may have jumped the gun here. Making a decision to close, and then taking forty-eight hours or seventy-two hours to come up with a rudimentary compensation package is not proper. It does not cut it, and you have these options: You can do the FRCC; you can do the EI extension; you can do the science over eighteen months; you can enhance your compensation package to allow for the buyouts of these fishermen and the retirement of the plant workers.

If you are going to, and if we ultimately have to shut down this fishery in certain parts of this Province, at least help the people who make their living off it now do it honourably. The first thing in acknowledging that you have to fix a problem is in admitting that you have a problem. The federal government stance of, we have made a decision and we are absolutely going to do whatever is in our power to justify it, is not acceptable.

This is not nine days talk, I do not believe. Maybe the federal government might think and hope it is nine days talk, that this will just blow over in nine days. I do not think it will blow over in nine days because we cannot allow it to blow over in nine days. No matter who is here in this House, or who is in this Province, or who is in what fishery union, or whatever, you cannot let this blow over in nine days. We have to keep a sustained pressure on the federal government to reverse this decision.

You hear lots of talk about provincial-federal relations and so on, and some might say that the federal government are disengaged with us on this issue of the fisheries. Personally, I have had some problems. Again, that is based on the assumption that you ever were engaged with the federal government. I have not seen much evidence in the last number of months that we were ever engaged because, if you look at the Stephenville Port Authority issue where you end up having to sue them over, if you look at Gander where the weather office gets closed, and the Premier goes off to meet with Minister Anderson and before he gets back and gets into his chair here in Newfoundland there is a letter saying we have reviewed your proposal and, sorry, it is not on. Equalization, the Lower Churchill type issues. There is a whole bunch of stuff that is out there that shows that we have a serious problem when it comes to the federal government.

The fact that we have not been engaged, or they do not want to be engaged, doesn't make it right either. They have an obligation. We are a part of this country and we deserve fair and equal treatment. They can start that process right now with a perfectly legitimately issue, and that is the fisheries. A wrong decision was made, an unjustifiable decision was made; it is a decision that has to be reversed. You cannot stick your head in the sand and say that we cannot reverse it because we might look bad or anything else. It is a time when you have to do what is right.

One point was brought home to me on the weekend in a meeting in Port aux Basques. They talk about the greedy fishermen; they are always greedy. Well, maybe it is little known fact in this Province, but back in 1991 when the scientists in 3Pn were saying, keep it open, you have lots of fish out here, our fishermen, who get on the water every day, were saying: No, no, no, you are wrong, scientists, close her down. That was the fishermen of 3Pn in 1991. They said, no, no, no, but in 1992 they closed her. They knew then they had made a mistake. Here we are now, in 2003, with just the opposite scenario. The fishermen in 3Pn with their catch records as proof, on hook and line, with the best catch rates in twenty-five years, up against very shoddy, I would say, Needler research, and you have the federal government going the other way again. If you are going to do it, do it right. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this was not done right.

As I say, I don't intend to rant and rave. Certainly, as the Minister of Justice, I am a law-abiding person, as are the people of Burgeo & LaPoile and the people of this Province. As the Minister of Justice, I would never do anything improper. This is a very serious issue and I don't think it is nine days talk and I don't think that this is over yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: I think, whatever it takes from the fishermen of the Province to get this message through to the federal government, they are going to have to do it. I wouldn't be surprised if you see them in the boats anyway.

Anyway, I call upon the federal government to do what is right and never be too big to admit that you have done something that is wrong.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: As one of my colleagues said earlier in his introductory comments, this is a sad day for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an unfortunate debate we are having here today. It is extremely unfortunate that we have to have this discussion. It talks about an issue that is at the very core of what Newfoundland and Labrador's history has been built upon, and we are about to see some radical changes. As future historians will write the future history of Newfoundland and Labrador, it will be radically different than the last one hundred years.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, commend the member for introducing this motion today. It is a given, I believe - and every member who has stood here today has already said this - it is a given, and I think we all agree, every member on both sides of this House, that the decisions that both Ministers Thibault and Byrne have made are fundamentally wrong. It is a flawed decision based on flawed information and not well thought out. I think we all have come to that understanding. That is a given, I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I believe everybody will agree with that.

I just want to take some of the pieces of the motion that has been put forward, where it talks about, "...the fishery continues to be an essential part of the economy and cultural life of Newfoundland and Labrador." I think, Mr. Speaker, that is something that has been fundamentally lost on Minister Thibault. Do you recall last week, and in the time leading up to this announcement, the federal government has continuously tried to downplay the significance of the cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have talked about how little income people get from that. They have talked about it in terms of percentages, to suggest that some individuals last year's income, only 40 per cent of it came from cod. So you still have another 60 per cent out there, which you have.

Mr. Speaker, if someone made $30,000 last year and they had a mortgage, a car payment, and other debts and commitments that they have, they are not going to be able to go to their banker and now say: I have lost 40 per cent of my income and therefore I am only going to give you 60 per cent of your payments next year. It does not work that way.

So to suggest that it has not and still does not remain a significant part of our local economy, it is a fallacy. I think of what it reflects. It reflects a lack of understanding. It tells us, I think, that the federal government has dismissed the significance of the announcement that they made last week and what kind of impact it is going to have on Newfoundland and Labrador, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk for a moment about my own District of Trinity North. Many people, and unlike my colleague from The Straits & White Bay North, whose economy has been predominantly the fishing industry for many, many years, Trinity North is not a district that many would associate with the fishing industry, or to a large extend with the fishing industry. It is very different than people would normally connect with Bonavista South, my colleague from Bonavista South, as being predominantly a fishing industry.

I just want to talk a little bit about how that is going to impact. There are roughly fourteen or fifteen communities in Trinity North that have a large number of fishermen and fish harvesters in them. There is one fish plant, but if you look at the economy of Trinity North - and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General referred to it earlier, about a collection of small communities connecting to a hub. If we start looking at this decision and start looking at the first point of impact, we have the fish harvester and the plant worker. Look at what this announcement is doing to those individuals.

We have people who rely, in some cases, 100 per cent on the cod fishery. Others may only rely 25 per cent or 30 per cent or 50 per cent or 60 per cent on the cod fishery. Automatically, they have now had an impact on their earned income for the next year and well into the future. Because they have impacted their earned income, the total family income for a year, which consists of income from the fishery itself, income from EI benefits, if you spread that over twelve months, some of these people will have a 40 per cent and 50 per cent reduction in income. An enterprise that may have been able to support a man and a woman and one of their sons or daughters will now be reduced to maybe supporting only one person in that enterprise, and, as a result, the total family income may have been impacted by 75 per cent. That is a significant impact.

In my district there is a fish plant down in Hickman's Harbour, a community of about 650 people. There are a little over 100 people worked in that fish plant last year. In the future, next year, and well into the future, they are going to be lucky to be able to maintain a workforce of fifty, and processing crab, Mr. Speaker. Even with those fifty, I suggest to you that many of those people will not get enough hours processing crab to be able to qualify for EI. That is 100 people out of a community of some 650. In addition to those people who work in the plant, there are those who are involved in the fishery directly as harvesters, who are going to have a significant impact.

Cod farming, a big industry in my district, has just been wiped out. The decision last week has made a major impact on those individuals. Fishermen, fisherwomen, plant workers, family units, children who are now in their teens, thought there may have been an opportunity to stay around, continue with the fishing enterprise that their father and mother have had for many years.

Last week's decision and announcement has made their decision for them. They will not be staying in their communities and pursuing the fishery as their mothers, fathers and grandfathers did, but they are going to be looking elsewhere. They are going to be looking to Alberta, they are going to be looking to Ontario, and that is where we are going to leave them.

Mr. Speaker, here is the sad thing about this: these people are going to be impacted today and it is very immediate and it is going to devastating, but one of the things when we start looking forward, looking out five and ten years, and communities start disappearing as our elderly people move on, our children are not staying in those communities, that is the thing we are faced with today. That is the other part of this motion that I like, when it talks about: BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call on the federal government to co-operate with the provincial government to put in place a long-term strategy for economic development.

Mr. Speaker, this is an announcement by a federal government up in Ottawa, far removed. It is this Province, it is the provincial government, that are going to be saddled with the responsibility, are going to have to deal with developing a long-term strategy for economic development and economic diversification, and that is the challenge that we are going to have to face in this Province. The provincial government is going to have to, because I believe, and we have seen clearly demonstrated in the past, that we cannot rely on the federal government to come up with appropriate responses to help us diversify the economy. It is going to be more and more critical in the future that the provincial government take the lead, show the leadership. This is one of the things, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to start looking to their future governments. Future governments in this Province and those of us aspiring to be a part of that future government are going to have to clearly demonstrate that we have the leadership skills, we have the ability, we have the vision, we have the foresight, to be able to develop a long-term economic strategy that sees us and allows us to diversify our economy and to move forward to ensure we have sustainable economic growth throughout many regions of this Province. Because if we do not, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be able to withstand the economic blow that last week's decision will have on rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the federal government and about the manner in which they made this decision. I think this is another point that I do not think that we can lose here. Unless we are going to have some success with the federal government in changing how they view Newfoundland and Labrador, then we are going to have some real challenges moving forward. Inasmuch as it is important to be highly critical of the decision that has been made, it is important that everybody understand it is not a well-founded decision. It was based on inappropriate information and misinformation, and the manner in which it was done shows a total disrespect and a disregard for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

All that being said, it is important that everybody understands that. It is important that the Prime Minister and the federal Cabinet fully understand our disgust and how we genuinely feel about the manner in which they have treated us on this issue and many issues in the past. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be extremely important, in fact critical, critical to the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we are able to achieve some degree of success and, as the member proposed in his resolution, that we are able to create a spirit and an air of co-operation so we can work collectively with the federal government in developing a strategy for diversifying the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is going to be critical I think, Mr. Speaker.

As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I think they are going to be looking to this Legislature, looking to the people who sit in this House today, looking to see who is going to be able to - is this Province going to be able to provide adequate leadership to move us forward with a sound, economic plan that sees us on some kind of a road to recovery? I think, Mr. Speaker, that is going to be one of the major challenges that we are going to face.

I commend the member for bringing this motion forward today. I believe, as you have already heard, that most people in this House agree with the motion that has been here. I, too, would endorse the motion that is put forward, but urge very strongly that government move quickly in establishing a spirit of co-operation with the federal government so we can develop a long-term economic development strategy, because that is what we are going to need to respond to this crisis and this major announcement that was made last week.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make some comments.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak for a few minutes on this very important debate. I understand the lateness of the day, but I think it is important that each and every one of us in this Chamber have the opportunity today to make sure that the people whom we represent have an opportunity to have their voices heard here in their House on what is perhaps the most important issue to face the people of this Province in some time.

Mr. Speaker, last week I had occasion to be in my district and listen to the radio broadcast of the press conference that was taking place here in St. John's. I have to say, there were a number of people in my office, my constituency office, who were listening with me. Just the look on the faces of the people listening to what was unfolding here in St. John's, there was a sense of disbelief, that somehow we could have people who supposedly were representing our best interests and yet could be so out of touch with the reality that is rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, the area of the Province that I represent, the District of Port au Port, most of that district is a fishing district. Like most members in this House, I guess my own history, my family, had a long history in the fishery. Even now, I have family members who are impacted by this decision that has been made by the federal government. They, like many other men and women in the District of Port au Port and indeed, right across this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, are left wondering if, in fact, there is any future for them in the fishery and if, in fact, there is any future for them here in Newfoundland. The news is truly devastating, but what was even more difficult to accept, to hear the announcement of a total closure, but then to listen in disbelief as to what was being offered by our federal minister and by the Minister of Fisheries by way of compensation to these people whose way of life, whose livelihood is being taken away from them. All they were being offered, Mr. Speaker, was make-work. Totally unacceptable. How anyone could sit and pass it on and expect that people would accept this and walk away and be happy with what was being offered to them, it is unbelievable that they could be so disconnected with the reality that is rural Newfoundland.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the hardest thing for most people to accept, and one of the common themes that certainly has been reported in the media and certainly coming from people who are involved in the fishery themselves, is the fact that our own federal minister failed our people so miserably. That someone coming from this Province, someone having a close attachment to this Province and to the people who live here, could have such little understanding as to what sort of a reaction there would be to what was being announced just some few days ago.

Mr. Speaker, the thing that struck me in listening to the announcement last week in my own district was that this is just one more in the long list, litany of wrongs that is being perpetrated on the people of this Province by the federal government. Certainly, all of us in this House - every debate that I have been involved in or seen engaged in this House in the ten years now that I have had the privilege to sit here - invariably we hear references to the Upper Churchill deal. The deal that everybody in this Province - there is not a Newfoundlander or Labradorian today who does not look at the Upper Churchill deal and point to this as a classic example of how this Province was betrayed. The reality, in its truest form, the Upper Churchill deal was again a classic example of how the federal government totally failed the people of this Province. Because if we were operating within a true Confederation, as equal partners, then the government of the day, when the Upper Churchill deal was being concluded, would have had the opportunity to be able to transport that power through Quebec to get it to the American markets, but, in fact, they were held a ransom by the Province of Quebec with the approval of the federal government. In fact, by the mere admission that they were unwilling to ensure that the power corridors were provided to transport the power being generated in Labrador, then they were, in fact, partners in this with Quebec in ensuring that Newfoundland would not have the opportunity to derive the true benefits that the people deserved from that particular resource. We are all paying a price for that today.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to look beyond my own district. The airport in Stephenville, a classic example of the federal government just shirking its responsibilities, passing on to a local community the responsibility for service that they should be providing. For years, since the people in the Community of Stephenville and Bay St. George took on the management and operation of the Stephenville airport, it has been a struggle. The same thing is happening right throughout this Province where community groups have been forced to step in where the federal government has chosen to withdraw.

Most recently, Mr. Speaker, we heard referenced here today the recent transfer of Port Harmon to a private company. Despite the fact that the entire community of Bay St. George rose up against it in petitions, in public meetings, through their local MP, and sent a delegation to Ottawa, sat down with the federal Minister of Transport, Mr. Collenette, and yet, at the end of the day, the federal government decided in its wisdom that they were going to do what they wanted to do. What the people of Bay St. George, what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador wanted, was secondary. We had a federal minister who showed a complete disregard, in fact, disdain, for the people of this Province and said: I am going to do what I want to do and regardless of what you people say, it does not mean a thing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the delegates from Stephenville-Bay St. George who travelled to Ottawa to meet with the federal minister, very shortly into their meeting just got up and walked out because it became so apparent that the man was not even listening. This is the kind of attitude that we are dealing with and this is the kind of difficulty that we have. This is why it is getting so increasingly frustrating for people who live here in this Province. This latest announcement with the groundfishery is just another example.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that strikes me, and it cannot be lost, in my own district at this time of the year - I do know that out in the area now, I was there just a few days ago, that people will be packing up their belongings and moving off to work in different areas of this country. I can certainly see in this announcement, not only for my district, but for many other districts of the Province, that we will be seeing more of our citizens and more of our fellow Newfoundlanders being forced to uproot and move elsewhere in this country.

I have personally seen the affects of forestry resettlement. My parents were among the first, I guess, in this Province to be resettled back in the 1930s under the Commission of Government, from Fortune Bay out to the West Coast. My mom lived to be ninety-six years old. The lesson always stayed with me, she had spent over sixty years of her life living on the Port au Port Peninsula but up until the day she died she still talked about the little place that she came from as down home, because, Mr. Speaker, that is how deep the roots run for our people, and that is how deep and how strong the roots are in rural Newfoundland. Any attempt by a federal government or anyone to uproot and destroy that way of life, I think, deserves the condemnation of all of the people of this Province.

I think what we are doing here today is the right and proper thing in this, the people's Chamber, for all of us in one voice, in keeping with the all-party committee. What it, in its wisdom, attempted to do and did offer the federal government the opportunity to avoid what we are all facing here today, to at least give them one more opportunity to do what is the proper thing, to reverse their decision and give the people an opportunity to go back at what they do best, to pursue the fishery, to give them a reason for being and a reason for being able to continue to live in rural Newfoundland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I guess, is a very important day and a very impacting day to follow an announcement last week by the federal minister on closing a fishery.

I grew up in a fishing district, a fishing community, being part of a fairly large fishing district. It runs from Petty Harbour, Maddox Cove to Trepassey. It is an area that almost totally existed at one point on the fishery. To put some appropriate perspective on the fishery, to give recommendations to put forward proposals and recommendations that would best serve the people and the communities they live in, and the stock, the resource, and the ability to have a sustainable fishery, the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council was established. That council was established to make recommendations to the minister in what was perceived as supposed to be at arm's length and not under the influence of the federal Department of Fisheries.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, I really do not know today, what role the FRCC has or what future the FRCC should play in making recommendations to the minister when their advice has not been followed. Why would you put in place a committee of experts in various areas pertaining to the fishery, some in fishery science, others in processing and harvesting, and knowledgeable on it, to rely on other information besides raw scientific data that is compiled.

People who have fished the ocean for years - back in 1992, I remember clearly, my first time running in politics, I went to every single door in the district, and people said to me at the doors - and that was a week after the motorium in 1992 - they indicated that basically the fishery, we knew it was coming in certain areas. They knew the offshore; they could see. They told us that when they dragged and pulled up nets, in almost every mesh there was little small flounder. In breeding grounds in the winter there were lineups of vessels as far as the eye could see.

People who are on the ocean and fishing know best. They know where to catch it, they know the conditions, the tides, they know locations, and they talk to each other. Their advice is important. Their advice should be considered. Even on top of that scientific advice in this instance, in the recommendation, I find it really pitiful that Ottawa would ignore this. Where does it go from here? What is the next step for the FRCC now? Do they have a future? Is this going to be a precedent now, to put all the powers and all the decisions back into the department, the sole exclusive decision-maker on the livelihood of the people who are depending on the fishery for a living?

This is not just devastating news for people in close proximity to those decisions. Every single part of this Province, I believe, is impacted by this decision. Every single part of the Province. Fishery Products International have three South Coast operations. That is going to impact these people. In my district, for example, I know operations in my district that were marginalized because the crab is spread fairly thin when you look at almost double the number of plants processing it. People depended to supplement that to get their hours of work for people on that particular resource. They needed to do it. Plus, fishermen, even off the Avalon Peninsula, some of them, not all, supplemented their inshore crab catches with the quota they received on inshore. They supplement that to a degree. Some areas you could not catch one off the 3L area but I can understand what the people, in particular on the Northern Peninsula, Southern Labrador, and the areas affected by this in 4RS+3Pn and 2JK and 3L, which is further south, that really felt this crunch much more so back with the moratorium in 1992.

It is not only these harvesters out there that are going to have more marginalization of their income. It is the people in those fish plants, too, that depend on it. We have seen the number of fish plant workers in this Province cut by half or more since early to mid-1990s. We are seeing the numbers going down. People needed these extra hours to qualify. So, it is not just the harvesters. Maybe that is all they are looking at on a compensation package. Maybe they are only looking at the harvesting end, but I can tell you that the people in those communities that are experiencing significant downturns for the last number of years are going to be impacted. The people go to work in a fish plant in the morning and come home in the evening on the Northern Peninsula, Southern Labrador, and even in all parts of our Province. What impact is this going to have on FPI's restructuring with the three South Coast plants, for example? They are depending on groundfish, cod to an extent in those operations too. It is going to be impacting, I can tell you, on numerous areas of the Province and we are going to be seeing an impact financially on other spinoffs from the fishing industry. Here in the City of St. John's, packaging companies producing plastics and boxes and you name it have been employed in the fishing industry. The spinoff effects on that have been tremendous.

In the Premier's statement this afternoon here in the House, I just want to make reference, I think it was only a responsible thing to say, he said: The federal government has a responsibility to dramatically expand the adjustment package that was announced. He went to say: A meaningful, long-term adjustment program should, at the very minimum, include early retirement about licence buyout as well as a strategy for economic diversification and growth initiatives.

We have been saying that. Our leader has been saying it. Just because you talk about other measures - we have seen it in 1992 - just because you talk about other measures - and in 1993 with the reductions in other fisheries in 3Ps, it hit 2J+3KL in 1992 - just because the federal government announces something does not mean we do not look at any other alternatives, we pursue one option only, the reopening. People believe, we believe, that a reopening within sustainable levels, and the 3,500 tonnes was considered to be a sustainable level at which you could fish, but we have an obligation to look at other measures in the process. I do not think we should have a fishery closure to tell us that we should have a licence buyout or early retirement. I think that should be an ongoing program of the federal government.

In areas where there are more harvesters, too many people chasing too few fish, too many fish plants trying to process too little fish, we should have an ongoing licence buyout and retirement program in an industry like this that we have seen changes. We have seen technology changes. We have seen operations put through more product with half the workers because of technology and machinery, and because the market conditions out there, even with crab - how much crab meat is done in the Province today? Very, very little. The market there, you cannot make any money on it. You will lose on it. You put it in a product where you are going to get a return. That drives the competitive factor, right from the fishing boat to the price to harvesters and the margins right up through. It all impacts. It all fits into the equation on the price you get for your product.

So we have seen this statement here, and I think we need to look at it. We need to address it, but it does not mean we have to sit back and take what is being given to us federally. Ottawa has taken us for granted on many occasions. We are only seven members in a House of Commons with over 300. We are only 500,000 people, with economies that would gobble us up, devour us in a hurry. We are an integral part of the Country of Canada, and if we are to be a part we have to be treated like we are a part and we shouldn't have to accept that. There should be some type of mechanism to be able to allow some equality.

The smallest state in the United States has an equal say in the Senate of the United States. They have a voice that means something there and they have powers there. We have to do something - and that is a little further afield, outside this issue - but something has to be done whereby we are recognized and valued. There is a way to do that, and that is by standing together, every single person. That is why I felt the all-party committee was a very important part of this. People of all political stripes went there together and fought for an industry that they felt was so vital.

I don't know where the problem lies, but people in Ottawa do not understand how important - they need to be educated. If we have to go on a massive education program across this country, we should do it. It doesn't matter if it is in Calgary, Toronto or Montreal, the big city newspapers carry information that is not accurate. That is very discouraging, to read articles where you say to yourself: They don't know what they are talking about. We need to education the Canadian public. Maybe it is our fault here, I don't know. I don't want to point any fingers, but we have to do a better job of telling the rest of Canada how vital, how important and how logically based the decision of the FRCC is. We have to send that message out. Otherwise, we might as well close up shop, if we are going to do that, tell the federal government, look, treat us how you like, give us what you want, feed us the crumbs as you have been doing all along, and throw in the towel. We shouldn't do that, it should never have to do come to that.

We need to stand united, we need to have a plan and we need to have a process by which we are going to turn this around. It is important, and I call on the Premier of this Province to take that initiative, to put forth a plan. It is not the time today to deal with it, there is another responsibility in the fishery and a lot of people want to speak today. I will deal with it on some other day. There is another part to the fishing industry in this Province and that is the processing sector that falls solely within the jurisdiction of this government. That is an issue for another day. We need to fight Ottawa. We need to fight every step of the way. We are being pushed around long enough. We have an important place in Canada here. They better realize we have an important place in Canada, if not, we better put a strong shot across their bow.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank my colleague for bringing forth the resolution for today to be debated. It is a privilege to have an opportunity to debate it in the House of Assembly. As someone has already said, it is not a pleasure that we take in doing those types of resolutions because we have been doing so many of them. It seems as if it falls on deaf ears.

The whole thing about what we are doing here today is more than fisheries. It is more than closing the fishery in the Gulf, the Northeast Coast and off the Southwest corner of Newfoundland. It all boils down to - and I have seen it so many, many times. I guess all of us have spent a lifetime in politics, whether provincial or municipal, and living in the communities. It is the attitude that prevails from the central government to the smaller provinces, not only Newfoundland and Labrador - P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the Territories.

We have no further to look then when the First Ministers had a conference with the Prime Minister on health care a few months ago. What happened to the Northern Territories, the three Territories? They decided to be no part of it. They said: if you decide to give us our share according to population, than it is no good. We are going to go home; and they went home. I guess once the Prime Minister saw what they did, they recanted somewhat and gave them a few extra dollars to be able to look after the problem that they had.

I feel - and it has been said here many, many times today on both sides of the House. You are almost in the sense of repeating and saying ditto to everything that I want to say because somebody else has already said it. There is no doubt about it. I think it was the Member for Ferryland who said that in his district they will find the effects of this particular closure. There is no doubt about that. The FPI plant in Harbour Breton will find an effect of this. Last year we had eight weeks of work in that plant for about 300 people for the fish that came from different parts of the Province. Now, the thing is that the fishermen in Harbour Breton did not do crab and so on. They were sent to different plants across the Province. So, they were sharing with FPI. It will have a very negative affect on the people in my district, as well as others, because I think it has already been said. Again, to quote the Member for Ferryland: Because of the ripple effect, there is no one in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who will not find an effect of this particular closure that is happening here.

You know, the thing is, I can understand - and it has been said again of the attitude of people up along toward us. Somehow they look at us as being quaint and curious. Somehow we are different because we are Newfoundlanders. Somehow we are not central - we cannot take our place in Canada because we are from Newfoundland and Labrador, and there is something about us that makes us different. Well, we are no different. We are intelligent. We are educated. We are proactive. We have the ingenuity to do things here. The thing about it is, so many, many times we are not treated as equals.

Let me give you an example, and it has nothing to do - because the federal government cannot work with this particular provincial administration. I just came back from a ministers' meeting of housing ministers across the country. We were just told - because all of my colleagues across here know, for example, about the PHRP, the RAP program as we call it. It is a lifeblood for a lot of us in rural Newfoundland. The federal government unilaterally decided, in their last budget, they are going to change the program. Now, it is not only us who are affected. It is every other province across the country. Now, some of them can. They have the wherewithal, like Alberta and Ontario, to be able to do the program, but from the smaller provinces like ours, they are getting out of the insurance business where, for example, someone defaults on a loan, they cost-shared with the province that particular loss. They are not going to do that anymore. The thing about it is they do not have all the details worked out yet. What it would mean for us, between now and June, we will only be able to look at the major, major, major difficulties or problems that we have. We cannot carry on with the same program because the program is not there. They did not tell anybody about that. They decided to unilaterally change the program. So, it will affect everyone of us. That is the way that it is done. The thing about it is, and I think that one of my colleagues on this side - I think it might have been the Minister of Education - said because of a leadership in Ottawa, the bureaucrats run the system; and in many, many ways they do. They are supposed to be the people who execute and carry out the policy but it is not done that way. They make the policy and then in some instances - we see it many, many times where, not only do they propose it, but they carry it out.

One of the things to me, personally, as an ordinary person who lives in the Province, is I can understand sometimes, or probably do not want to understand, how certain people across the country feel about us. But, there is something different somehow when some of our own people - who were here with us, who were probably in the Legislature with us - decide they do not want to be a part of the Province of Newfoundland anymore, for whatever reason, that is fine. I am not going to question that, but then somehow write in an editorial saying, in the Toronto Globe and Mail, that Newfoundlanders down here want to catch every last fish that is in the ocean. They want to disregard any science that is out there. They do not want to listen to it. The fact is, back in 1992 there was a big thing here but now this is small fry in the whole mix of it. Well, tell people on the Northen Peninsula, tell people up in the Port au Port area, tell people of Port aux Basques, and in Petites and Rose Blanche that this particular situation facing them is not as important as it was during 1992. There is something wrong with that to even think that. The fact that they are not barring people in, like they did with Minister Crosbie at the time - people are protesting here now but they will soon go away and we will forever forget that this happened. We want somehow to believe.

People who lived with us, worked with us and fought with us, somehow say: Well, the people down here in Newfoundland, forget about them. They just want to fish the whole stock to extinction. That's not right! That is not the message that was given by the all-party committee. That is not what we are saying now. We are saying that we can open it. We have enough evidence to show that a reduced fishery can work. We are not out there to exploit the very last thing of it. I do not think it is right. It somehow says to us that we are unable to protect ourselves. That is not what it is. To somehow give the people in other parts of Canada again -that we are crying wolf, that we want something for nothing.

Just think about, all of us again, and everyone who is in a rural part of the Province as MHAs, think about when you want to do a project in your community, you want to do a repair of a town hall, or a fire hall, or a recreation building. You go to HRDC and they say: the best you can do is top up. What does it mean? There are no insurable earnings. There is no business in the country that is allowed to do that. They are! Now, they are saying to us: Okay, we can now find the mechanism for you so that we can give you stamps for the next twelve or fifteen months. How humiliating! The fact that we do not have the wherewithal to know what we are doing, somehow underestimating our intelligence and think that we are morons. Give us a break! I think it is very, very important, what has happened here this time, that we not let it go. This is a way of life for us. I think we have to say to everybody across the country, who hear us collectively, that somehow you are treating us as second-class citizens. We are not part of the federation.

I will tell you what I am looking forward to, I am looking forward to the report: Our Place in Canada. I really am. I guarantee you that will be an eyeopener for the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - a way that we have been shortchanged by the federal government for the last fifty-three years. We have been taken for granted.

One of the things enshrined in the constitution, for example, is that they should subsidize the transportation from the mainland, from North Sydney to Newfoundland, and use it as a Trans-Canada Highway. For fifty-three years they have not done it. It is enshrined in the constitution. How much have we lost? How much hardship has that put on the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have wanted to go through the Province for a holiday? What does it mean negatively for our tourism trade? The fact that people, when they come to North Sidney, look at it and say this is an insurmountable amount for us, we are ordinary individuals, we cannot go to the Island part of the Province so we just turn around and go back. This is just one. We can think of time and time and time again where we have not been able to get the message across.

Just think about the weather forecasting station in Gander. Where, anywhere else in the country, would you want than to have in Gander a first-class, state-of-the-art forecasting centre? We are an Island. We are out in the North Atlantic. We are the first point of contact for the people that come through here. Forget (inaudible).

I know I do not have much time left, but I just want to conclude on this one. Back on September 11, 2001, when the federal government diverted all the planes that were coming to the United States air fields and other parts of Canada, to Newfoundland. We had seventy-eight planes diverted here. We did it because we were asked to, and as a people we were compassionate and we showed our respect. We inherited some expenses as a result of that, as a Province. In fact, $2 million. We sent the bill to the federal government and asked them if they would pay it or cost-share it with us, 2001. Guess what? We have gotten nothing from them, not a nickel. We have also tried to give them a way out. We said: Okay, if you do not want to give the Province the $2 million into the provincial Treasury so that we can use it, give it to us in firefighting equipment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: They did, and they said the reason they are coming here is because there would be fewer deaths here if something happened than in the City of Toronto. To treat us in that way, that has nothing to do with a government not being able to relate to people. It is sheer arrogance, it is sheer- I am lost for words, how to describe it. They have said, you can whistle Dixie, you are not going to get your $2 million back. That is not right, that is not fair.

One of the things, by the way - I would just like to give you an example. You know one of the first bills they wanted to send to us, and we told them do not bother to send it? They wanted to give us a bill for $232,000 from the Department of National Defence for services rendered in Newfoundland. We told them to keep it.

Down in Happy Valley-Goose Bay last year they had a fire down in Northwest River and we had to evacuate some people out. Guess what? We got a bill from the Department of National Defence for services rendered. Just think about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope you didn't pay it.

MR. LANGDON: No, we did not pay it. Just think about it, where they have a $15 billion surplus up there in their budget or whatever. In a situation where we run a deficit, and that is the way they treat us.

I think this is very important. We have to stick together. We have to reverse the decision and tell these people that when they make the decisions from now on, we want to be consulted. We are an equal partner in Confederation of Canada and we mean just as much as any other province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am very pleased to stand here today and support the resolution put forward by the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, to fully support the four RESOLVE sections of his resolution.

The fish processing industry and harvesting industry in this Province is not just another business. It has been, and currently is, and hopefully always will be, the backbone of many of local and regional economies. It is one of the few things, Mr. Speaker, that is keeping some families employed in this Province. It is one of the few things that is keeping them independent, and it is one of the few things that is keeping them resident in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, my District of Bonavista North has been practically fully dependent on the fishery for years and I made referenced earlier today to the drastic effect that the closure of 2J+3KL cod fishery is going to having on the people in the district.

The income generated by every pound of fish that comes out of the ocean not only puts new dollars in circulation, not only provides income for fishers and plant workers, but it also creates and maintains numerous jobs in the service sector; in our hospitals, in our seniors' homes, and in our schools. It also impacts greatly on the economies of places like Gander, Grand Falls-Windsor, St. John's, and other municipalities in this Province. Mr. Speaker, the closure of the codfishery will have some negative impact on every single community in this Province. It will have some negative impact on every single resident in this Province, either directly or indirectly, in one form or another.

The sad thing about this closure, and other people have already made reference to it earlier, is the fact that there are conflicting views with respect to the actual stock status that exists in area 3Pn in the Gulf.

Mr. Speaker, the FRCC, the federal minister's right arm, recommended a partial commercial fishery based on consultations with fish harvesters, with processors, with scientists, and with other stakeholders in the industry. So, what is the real situation of the stock in that area? Is there still sufficient cod to have a sustained limited fishery, or is it just another one of those years, Mr. Speaker, when the cod just disappeared for some reason or other? I am sure all of us here, who have been involved with the fishery, have heard our fathers and grandfathers say that many a year they went on the Labrador and came back with nothing. Is that the case over in the Gulf this year? It could be.

I know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will say that if he makes an error, he will want to make the error in the essence of conservation. I fully support him when he makes that decision, but I would say to the Minister of Fisheries of Oceans, what are you really doing today to provide for the well-being of the fishing industry and the people who depend upon it? What are you doing to reduce foreign overfishing? What are you doing in a real constructive manner to reduce the drastic mortality impact that seals are having on cod and caplin?

Mr. Speaker, how come we never hear the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tell us about the International Trade Agreements where our fish have been bartered off for automobile sales, and wheat sales, and just about everything else you can mention? How come we never hear about that? Is that the real reason, I would say to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, why he does not want to proceed with the implementation of custodial management outside of our 200-mile limit? Is that one of the main reasons why he does not want to confront the Spanish and Portugese, and other foreigners with respect to the overfishing practices that they are doing out on the Grand Banks?

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that under the Terms of Union in 1949, the federal government pledged to us, pledged to the people of this Province, that it would maintain and conserve the fishery forever. It would do this by managing it so that it would continue to be viable and sustainable. In doing so, it would give us the right to live and work and raise our families in the rural communities of this Province. Now, what has really happened? The federal government has totally mismanaged the fishery off our shores. It is not addressing the real issues that have been and still are destroying our fishery: the foreign overfishing and the seals.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, do we, as a people in the country of Canada, have a human rights issue here? Have our human rights been infringed upon by the Government of Canada? By promising to be the protectors of our natural resources, the fish, and by failing miserably in their bound and duty and responsibility to do so, should not the federal government be totally accountable and totally responsible for the current hardships being inflicted upon the people of this Province?

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. We must stand united as a government. We must stand united as a people in ensuring that the federal government is held totally responsible. This is too important an issue to be playing politics and pointing fingers at each other. I am sure that every member in this hon. House are of one mind in trying to reopen whatever fishery is viable and sustainable to keep open in the long-term interests and benefits of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Madam Speaker, this is not a time to be calling upon our federal members in Ottawa to resign, or cross the floor, or to give up their provincial pensions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: These people have been elected by the people of this Province to represent them, and they will continue to be our federal representatives until they voluntarily resign or do not get re-elected. Until then, we have to call upon them to work with us from time to time, not only in this fishery matter but also in other issues as well. I am sure that those seven members in Ottawa are supporting us and the people of this Province in their own way.

Madam Speaker, I say to all the members of this Legislature, let's stop some of the childishness, the immaturity that has been going on these past few days of blaming each other, and let us stand together and put forward a common front to have this ill-conceived decision overturned.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): The hon. the Minister of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

MR ANDERSEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today, and I guess I cannot say I rise with a lot of pride or passion because I guess if I look back at the past, people would think we are talking about the good days when we were all in our fishing boats.

Madam Speaker, I want to revert to the closure of the codfishery in 1992, when the people in the riding of Torngat Mountains went through devastation. They went through devastation because the rules and regulations brought in by Ottawa did not allow them to go on the TAGS program or NCARP.

When the fishery failed, Mr. Speaker, in 1992-1993, when the earnings were based on your year's earnings, the codfishery failed on the North Coast of Labrador first. The years that Ottawa based your income that you received for TAGS, the fishermen or the fisherpersons had no landings in these years. I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, there are no highways on the North Coast of Labrador and there are no U-Hauls, because I can say to the people of the Province today that if there was - and it is a sad thing to say - there would be a lot less people on the North Coast of Labrador today.

Madam Speaker, this is a time not for us to get weak but a time for us to get strong, because if we let this happen we are going to see people in rural parts of our Province lose a way of living. It is going to take away their pride, their strength, and their dignity.

Madam Speaker, many of us question the morals of Ottawa, and today, in light of what has happened, the whole Province is once again questioning the methods that they use, questioning how they came to the conclusion to close the fishery. Madam Speaker, it is this same government in Ottawa that says every person who lives in Canada should have a right to a good living regardless of where they live.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if Ottawa is serious because, for example - it has nothing to do with the fishery, but Canada Post, which is run by the federal government - in my riding, I have a lot of single parents, people who are on a very low income, and I put these questions to all members in the House here today. Why is it that Canada Post, which is run by the federal government, that you get two packages in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and yet you can ship one from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Vancouver Island through Canada Post for a little more than one-third of the cost that it costs to ship the same package from Happy Valley-Goose Bay to Makkovik, Rigolet or Postville?

Madam Speaker, I think the concern here today is very serious. I would never wish any riding to have to go through the devastation that the people on the North Coast of Labrador went through.

Madam Speaker, I do not think that we have fully grasp the true effect that - if we let this fishery close the way that Ottawa is planning to, I can say to the people here in this House of Assembly and across the Province that you do not know the devastation that will follow.

Madam Speaker, I would say that I agree to a certain extent with the member who just spoke, that it is time to forget about, I guess, the color of what party we carry, but at the same time it is a time not to get weak and not to accept the ruling that Ottawa has made, but rather we stick together with every man, woman and child who works in the fishing industry around Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, the last thing I will say is this: We need to stand together. We need to be firm, because I will say this and it is the last thing I will say: I never want the children, I never want the men and women in rural parts of Newfoundland, to go through what the federal government put the people on the North Coast of Labrador through. No human being, no human being, deserves to be treated the way that the people on the North Coast of Labrador were treated. I say to all of us, it is time to haul in our horns, it is time for us to work together to help the people who need our help most of all, and that is the fisherpersons in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and say a few words on the private member's motion put forward by the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East. Certainly, as I sit here today in the House and listen to members on both sides of this Legislature speak, it brings back, I suppose, a lot of memories of what we faced here in 1992 as a Province. Certainly, when the announcement on the closure of the Northern cod was brought forward, now people have a decade to look back and see the devastation that announcement brought to our Province. I guess many, many people today are in fear of what is coming down the line now. I guess at that time, in 1992, there was some semblance of hope, I guess, in people's hearts that it was going to be a minor closedown, maybe for a couple of years, and things would turn around and, you know, things would get somewhat better over a period of few years and we would be back to our traditional way of life. But, as we all know now, looking back almost eleven years later, things have not been quite the same in this Province since 1992, and certainly last week's announcement that has brought us to this private member's motion today is another dose, Madam Speaker, of something from the federal government that we have to try to find a way to make things somewhat easier for the people who are affected, and certainly somewhat easier for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Certainly, in my District of Placentia & St. Mary's, we know full well what the closure of the fishery means, Madam Speaker. We know full well what the closure of the fishery means, and if I could just touch on it for a few moments, some statistics that were released back in 2001 and what the closure of the fishery meant to these communities in my district, as an example. In St. Shotts, as an example, the furthest community in my district, we had a 31.1 per cent decrease in population from 1996 to 2001. Thirty-one point one per cent. St. Vincent's-St. Stephens-Peter's River, we see 24.3 per cent of a decrease in population. In Gaskiers, 21.5 per cent. In St. Mary's, 18.2 per cent. In Riverhead, 15.1 per cent. In Admiral's Beach, 16.7 per cent. In the community of St. Joseph's, we see a decrease in population from 1996 to 2001 of 13.6 per cent. Mount Carmel-Mitchells Brook-St. Catherine's, we see a decrease of 15.7 per cent. In Colinet we see a decrease of 19.2 per cent. In the community of Branch, St. Mary's Bay, a community that has been involved with the fishery for many, many years, we see a decrease in population of 9.4 per cent. In Point Lance, a positive light, less than 1 per cent in that community.

In the community of St. Bride's, my hometown, Mr. Speaker, where I grew up, the day was when you could go down on the wharf and cut out a cod tongue or you could go down and get a feed of fish for the family whenever you wanted to. You could walk on the beach in St. Bride's up to your knees in caplin. I am less than forty years of age and I can remember those days myself. Mr. Speaker, in St. Bride's we have seen a decrease in those years, 1996 to 2001, of 12.7 per cent. In the community of Placentia, Mr. Speaker, 11.7 per cent, in Fox Harbour, 12.7 per cent, and the list goes on and on throughout my district. I am sure every member here in the House can stand on their feet today, go through their districts, Mr. Speaker, and bring forward the same stats I have here in relation to what the fishery has done. That is since 2001.

We have seen, in the last couple of years, as we all are aware, more out-migration and more people moving away. We see what the fishery has meant to our communities over the years and that is why we are very concerned in this Legislature today. I am very pleased to hear members on both sides of the House talk about the motion that has been put forward, talk about working together as legislators in this Province, talk about people who have been sent here by the people of the Province to try to find a way of alleviating the hardship and what is coming to these communities.

In a lot of these communities, Madam Speaker, what we are looking at now is the possibility of never - you know, we have to ask the question: Will this fishery ever open again? If it is allowed to be closed and stay closed at the present time, will it ever open again in our lifetime? As I talked to many people in my district over the past weekend, certainly people who have made a living from the sea for years and years and years, that is the concern they have. We were fortunate in the announcement last week that 3Ps hasn't closed. Certainly many, many people in my district, throughout Placentia Bay and St. Mary's Bay, are involved in the fishery in 3Ps. They know that the pressure is going to be put on that stock this year, and it may not be able to sustain what is going to happen. Certainly, it is a major, major concern for the people in that area.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very, very important that we look at - and it was certainly brought forward here by several speakers today - our relationship with Ottawa. Time and time again, we stand on our feet here in the House and talk in the media and through Open Line shows or whatever the case may be, about our place in Confederation. Right now we have a Royal Commission that has finished up travelling through the Province and are preparing a report I think to be brought forward in June, that is going to address some of the concerns and inaccuracies that prevailed in our fifty-three years of Confederation. We came in as, supposedly, an equal partner. We have to ask ourselves - what equal means, in my view anyway, is fair to everybody that is involved.

I think, certainly as a representative here in this House and a person who is proudly a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, that we have to ask ourselves: Have we received equal treatment from Ottawa? We look over the past month alone with the Port Harmon situation, with the weather office in Gander, and now the latest situation with the closure of the cod fishery. We have to ask ourselves, have we received equal treatment? I think many of us here are starting to question whether we have. Certainly, when you look at the weather office in Gander, as an example, that was here since the 1930s; long before Confederation was even debated and discussed in the hon. House of Assembly. We have to ask ourselves, have we received equal treatment? When they take away things that were not even there on the table during Confederation, but were part of our system here in this Province far before Confederation came.

I think it is important now that we look at what lies ahead and how we can best address the issues that the closure of this fishery is going to bring. The Romans had a word for battles, when they sustained heavy losses on the battlefield. They said that they were decimated. Well, we can certainly look around many of our communities in this Province and see the decimation that has occurred time and time again. Over the past couple of years people are really, really starting to take stock of exactly of what they have to face in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we support this resolution here in the House today, that all members of the House stand united on this resolution and send a message to Ottawa, as we did with the all-party committee. Certainly, it concerns me that we have recommendations from a government sponsored body of the FRCC. We have recommendations from an all-party committee that included all members on both sides of this House, included MPs in Ottawa, a senator. It seems those recommendations fell on deaf ears. Hopefully, through the motion here today, another message will be sent to Ottawa. Sooner or later, if we keep hammering the message home and we keep bringing that message to the people who are in power, that somebody will soon listen to what we are trying to say.

It is important that we - as Newfoundlanders here with less than 2 per cent of the Canadian population - send a message. I think it is time that the message is sent, and we are fed up with it. We are just fed up with how we have been treated by the Government of Canada. We are fed up with the backward slap that we continuously get on all issues that we deal with, with the Government of Canada. It seems like we are a pain. We are a problem, as they look at us in Ottawa. I think it is time we started laying the cards on the table and saying what we have brought into this Confederation, what we had the day we joined Canada, and where we are and where we stand as a people today. Less than 500,000 people, Mr. Speaker, give or take around 500,000 people in this Province.

We have every mineral known to man in this Province, Mr. Speaker. We have the greatest fish resource in the world on our shores and today we look at decimation throughout our communities. We have to ask ourselves, what have we done wrong? Well, maybe it is not what we have done wrong, it is what the federal government has done wrong in regards to dealing with this Province. I think it is time we send that loud and clear message, in whatever way, shape or form that it takes. I am sure as we deal with this over the next little while, we will come across and find a way to send that message across. For some reason or other the message is not being heard, so we need to turn up the volume a little bit to ensure that it is going to be heard.

Mr. Speaker, with that I would just like to say that I am going to fully support the private member's motion put forward by the Member for St. George's- Stephenville East. I urge all members of the House to do the same so that the message is not lost here in the House and certainly not lost in Ottawa of what we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are proud of and that we want to maintain as a Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand to speak to this resolution today and I have been really pleased to listen to all of the comments from both sides of the House. Many people, I think, feel that this is devastating. We know it is a devastating decision for rural Newfoundland but this decision really affects all of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why I wanted to stand this afternoon to speak for a few moments to this, being a member from a district that is a service centre. While it is considered a large town in our Province and not a fishing area, it is profoundly affected by decisions like this.

If this goes ahead, by next fall you will see the ramifications all over this Province. You will see that the car dealerships in Gander, the retail outlets, the restaurants, will all be greatly affected by this. This is something, as it says here in the motion: WHEREAS the fishery continues to be an essential part of the economy and the cultural life of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is true for every nook and cranny of this Province.

While I represent Gander, I know the whole region. I know that as other members - the members who represent Twillingate, Bonavista North, Terra Nova, all of their districts will be impacted as well as the western area of our Province. It is the whole Province that will pay the price for this. This has been such a difficult thing for us anyway since 1992, but the part that I most want to speak about is the part of the resolution that reads: WHEREAS there was a scientifically based alternative for a limited viable fishery recommended to the federal government by its own conservation council. I think that is very important to note, that when this decision was made by Minister Thibault, he talked about the reason he was doing it as being conservation.

If the reason this was being done by the federal government is for conservation reasons, why was there nothing said about foreign overfishing? We know that that is a good part of the problem. Why was there nothing said about a further cull of seals? We know that is a big part of the problem. So, we have to wonder why this decision was made, based negatively in the fact that their own conservation council gave them a very good alternative plan. I think it is something that, as a Province, we have to worry about and we have to wonder about. We have to try and figure out, with the federal government, why they are taking these stances.

In my district, as other members have alluded to here this afternoon, why was the decision made the way it was about the weather station, about the port in Stephenville?

The very last part of this resolution reads: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the federal science capability for the Gulf stocks be relocated to Newfoundland and Labrador as soon as possible.

Now, do we have any expectation that they are going to listen to that? Because we know that Nova Scotia has seventeen Atlantic regional offices. We know that New Brunswick has eleven. We know that we have a half of one in Newfoundland and Labrador. We share one regional office with the Province of Prince Edward Island. They just do not even realize how important this science is and that it should be done from here. So, when I read this part of the resolution, the first thing that came to my mind was: Well, do not hold your breath. They did not listen to us about the weather station or about the port in Stephenville, but I really feel that we have to continue to struggle, and we have to make sure our voice is heard.

You know, I consider myself a very proud Canadian, but I am also, right now, a very discouraged Canadian. But, I keep thinking about the Royal Commission that was put in place last year by this government on strengthening our place in Canada, and I truly hope in June, when this Royal Commission reports, that we will be able to move all of us together to make the point to the federal government, and, as a matter of fact, to all of Canada, to show them why this Province needs more respect. Because, whatever you say, if you look at the decisions that have been made, and, to me, this latest decision is really the straw that is breaking the camel's back, this is showing that the federal government are not listening. We are writing them, we are phoning them, we are meeting with them. We are doing everything that we can to have our point of view heard, but maybe when the Royal Commission is done, because it has been done by people outside of government, and all of this Province, and almost every group in this Province, and many individuals have been involved, maybe then they just might listen, but I have very serious doubt that they are going to. I think that we, as a Province, every individual in this Province, has to take this problem very, very seriously. We have to continue to speak out about it. We cannot just be talking on the Open Line shows and in this Legislature. We have to do it and we have to keep doing it until this problem is solved.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words as well on the closure of the Gulf. As you can imagine, it certainly affects the District of St. Barbe. The District of St. Barbe is a very rural district and it certainly depends on the small inshore fishery. Every community that is in the district has so many people that depend on the codfishery, along with the lobster and the crab in part of the district. Not as many of the processing jobs have been on the Northern Peninsula that should have been on the Northern Peninsula. That has been a concern and a fight that I have had since I have been here.

The news has certainly been devastating all along the District of St. Barbe. As I said, our communities are all small and depend on the inshore fishery along with the shrimp, of course, and it has certainly been an issue that has been here many times.

In the southern part of the district, I suppose, I have always said that it has been a better chance we have had the crab, but halfway up through the Peninsula that crab line cuts off. From there, one of the issues that has been brought in many times is that the Quebec boats can come right to our shores and the inshore fishery has not had an opportunity to get out and take advantage of the resource that we have right on our doorstep.

The future today, the same as in 1992, the thing is uncertain. I think that is the thing, that you cannot take uncertainty and say that it is any different. When you go out there and have a closure and have an impact on the communities like we are going to have in the District of St. Barbe, you just cannot go out and minimize that in any way.

Today there was a protest in Plum Point. A number of times before people have come to that particular spot and protested, the same as we had when we came to the shrimp. It brings all of the Peninsula together in a central location. They are out there - today they slowed the traffic and gave out information. It was not confrontational like it has been in the past. We have tried many times on the Northern Peninsula to be confrontational, to shut things down, and it has not worked, I suppose. So what they decided was to go out and bring the information to the people. We had 300 to 400 people come together. I really believe that shows the importance that this codfishery is having on the area, if the decision stands that it stays shut down.

To speak about it this evening, one of the things I wanted to do was talk about one of the success stories in the District of St. Barbe, and that is River of Ponds. River of Ponds have gone out there and they have - for the size of the community - a large inshore fishery and they also have a fish plant. What they processed in that plant was turbot, but one of the things they did was, they traded their cod for turbot with FPI.

One of the issues that I heard many times was the amount of processing jobs in the area. Today, FPI have put in a line that they were going to do, and they are going to do, their own turbot, so that meant that River of Ponds could fall back on the cod that their own boats were catching to maintain the fifty or sixty jobs that were in the fish plant. You have fifty or sixty jobs in the fish plant, you have forty or fifty jobs in the small open boat, that made the economy in a small community very viable, a very prosperous community. It was a community that was noticed - as you go through - that had young people that were still fishing, much more so than any other community. Many of the people who were fishing were older people, but in the community of River of Ponds they had managed to keep their community intact. They had done it relying on the fishery as they always did. In the other success stories there was always another influence outside of the fishery to maintain and keep the communities viable.

Right now, you are looking at a community that had gone out and survived up to this point on the fishery that had changed, that had taken on 1992 and had survived and had gone and moved ahead. Yet, today, the announcement of this closure becomes very uncertain in, I suppose, the most prosperous community in the District of St. Barbe, certainly when it comes to depending on the fishery.

The other thing I think is happening this spring is the confidence in the Minister of Fisheries in any way. Go out there today and most of the calls, and the number of the calls that I get, the first thing is the extension to the EI. The EI situation on the West Coast is very severe, the worst year since 1991, and the year before that was 1974. We have people over there now without any income whatsoever, and the Minister of Fisheries cannot make a decision to extend the EI to be able to compensate for these extreme weather conditions that we are dealing with. As we are dealing with that situation, in conversation what amazes most people is that you have a HRDC up there with $40 billion in its surplus, in its pocket, yet they cannot go out there and manage to have a few dollars go into it to take care of a few people under this extreme situation, that it has to go back to the Department of Fisheries to be able to take care of a situation like this.

We are out here and the response is, we are watching it day to day, and on the other hand, you are phoning the Coast Guard trying to get the shrimp fleet out of Port Saunders, or we are trying to get into St. Barbe's to get the ferry going, to break out, and they are telling you it is going to be days, and the fifteen to eighteen foot ridges are exceptional and we probably cannot do anything with it. The only way possible is if the weather conditions are at their best. If they are not, we are going to have a problem. Yet, the Minister of Fisheries is saying, we are watching it day to day, and it could be tomorrow you may be going fishing. There is just no confidence in that they have any sense of what they are doing at any given time.

To conclude with just a few words: When the minister came down here, the message that he should have had - I think the people who I had talked to would have been satisfied - would have been completely opposed. If he came down and said he was going to deal with the seal population today - everybody knows, who are either using this resource or making a living from this resource, that seals are a problem, but yet there was no commitment to deal with that problem. There was some commitment to study it for another two years. It really makes you question what you have been doing since 1992 if now you have come to the point that you realize you have to study this for the next two years. People who make their living from that resource find it very insulting.

If the minister had brought a message, along with the fact that he was going to deal with the seal population, if he had gone out there and said: I am going to do early retirement; I am going to put so much into early retirement; and I am going to put so much in to buy back my licence. From there, I am going to start studying this resource. I am going to take the local input so that we can have the confidence to know that this resource is sound and sensible.

If the minister had done that, I think the people in this Province would have been quite happy, and at the end of the day, if we had to shut down this resource, I think we would have walked away from it, and that would have been it. Today, if we have to walk away from it, there are always the doubts. It is not even doubts, it is that we know in our hearts that it is wrong and it doesn't have to be, and we are not taking the rights measures, and we are fighting an enemy instead of having a government that is on side.

That is about what I wanted to say. I just wanted to have a few words, to say that it is extremely important to the district of St. Barbe from one end to the other. There may be a little bit more of an opportunity in one community than there is in another. In the end, I think, every community is very concerned and very devastated with the news, because to go out there at any time and have a reduction in an income, and a sizeable reduction that we are going to have, and then in a community that has been straining for the last ten years or more, to go out there and take anymore strain.

The question is, as it always is in small rural communities: At what point do you have to shut off the water pump and go away. I think we are at the point today where it is very uncertain if we are going to have to do it this time and walk away from a lot of our communities, if not all.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just quickly want to add my support to this resolution and my objection and total dissatisfaction with the actions taken by the federal Minister of Fisheries, the federal government.

I support this resolution because it means so much to the District of Terra Nova. Like so many other districts it is going to be affected in the sense that we are going to have fisher persons affected and fish plant workers. It will affect the overall economy of the area. Mr. Speaker, it is very important.

I just cannot see, I just cannot fathom why the federal government made this particular decision.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I support this for two reasons. There are many other reasons I can find, but for two major reasons I support this resolution and conversely object to what the federal government did. I support this, first of all, because it was supported by the all-party committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell on that because members have spoken about that, a very unusual, a very unique process that we developed in this Province of all the parties standing up, standing together - we have heard so many people talk about that today - standing together for Newfoundland and Labrador on this vital issue, on our very raison d'être, the fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. It shows that when people have to stand together in this House we do it. That is why I support it, because it represented the whole of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When the federal government said no, it was a slap in the face to the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was disrespectful to all of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because it represented this House and this House represents the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Secondly, I supported it because the Department of Fisheries own council, the FRCC, supported a limited commercial fishery. So, Mr. Speaker, on these two grounds, for these two reasons I support this resolution.

Briefly, I want to allude to some of the comments that a couple of my colleagues made on the other side, referencing the federal-provincial relations. They made some very worthwhile, some very practical comments. I think some members, probably for the first time, get a sense of the difficulty involved here and get a sense of what one talks about when we are talking about federal-provincial relations, Mr. Speaker, recognizing that it is a difficult task.

I think it was the Member for Ferryland who talked about, there must be a solution to this, and talked about how in certain parts of the world we built in a mechanism whereby we ensure equal treatment to all parts of the Province. I know we do not have that but it is something that has to be done because unless something like that is done, Newfoundland and Labrador is never going to get fair and equal treatment. We are not high - right? - many times on the priority scale. We are not considered in the way that the more populated areas of the country are, and sometimes when politics enters into a decision, we get dismissed. Many times, we know that politics enters into a decision-making process, and we do not.

There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that - and I think the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's alluded to the three or four things now where the Province has not been dealt with fairly, the Port Harmon divestiture procedure, the weather forecasting facility at Gander, and now this. All of these things indicating how difficult it is for this Province to get recognized and to get fair and equal treatment.

Mr. Speaker, that is all I want to say at this moment. I want to give other members a chance to say a few words, and just simply say that I support this resolution wholeheartedly and condemn wholeheartedly, just as sincerely, what the federal government has done in this respect.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand, as well, today to support the Private Member's Resolution as put forward by the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East. It is a good resolution. I think everybody who stood on both sides of the House, one after another, spoke in favour of this particular resolution and talked about the decision that was made last Thursday, how it affected their district, how it affected people who they knew, and how it affected Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, this decision that was brought down last Thursday wasn't necessarily about fish plants and fish. That was the reason the decision was brought down, but, Mr. Speaker, what the decision was all about and what it affected was people, families, communities, you and me and everybody in this House.

I heard the Member for Gander get up and speak, and while she may not have a government wharf or slipway I can tell you that she is fully aware of what the fishery means to Gander. You go to Clarenville, the hub of the East Coast and you see the activity there. Yes, there is a fish plant there, Mr. Speaker, but I will tell you what, 99 per cent of the people who go to Clarenville to shop and to some of the other centres are fishermen and fish plant workers and people from communities that are kept alive by the fishing industry in this Province.

Back in 1992, there were 2,200 processing jobs that disappeared from the District of Bonavista South, 2,200 processing jobs. Now, who would have ever thought that we would be here today, eleven years later, talking about this same issue and going back and begging to the same people in order to allow us a survival in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, as one of the other members was speaking I pulled open my drawer and the first thing that stared me in the face was the East Coast Report, 1998, twenty-three recommendations to do with the fishing industry in this Province, another all-party committee federally that traveled not only Newfoundland and Labrador, but traveled the East Coast and Nunavut and other places talking about the fishing industry and getting people's input, getting fishermen and fish plant workers to come forward and tell their stories. We heard many of them and we have seen the frustrations, and we have heard fishermen who have had to get up and belittle themselves in order to beg somebody to allow them to go out and make a decent living. I do not know how often, or how more often, fishermen, fish plant workers and people involved in this industry can step out, step up, have to tell their story and beg for somebody to listen to them so they might go out and earn a living.

Mr. Speaker, we talked about keeping this fishery open, and it should be kept open. It should be kept open. What other way are we going to know what is happening out there? What other way are we going to know what the status of the stocks are, if we do not allow some fishing activity to take place? The shame of it is, in places where - because they have cut back on the sentinel fishery as well. I think they have reduced the sites now to approximately half of what they were, even though in the minister's statement the sentinel fishery was supposed to continue.

Mr. Speaker, in a place like Bonavista where the sentinel fishery has been taking place ever since that fishery was introduced, this year now we have seen a change. It is done away with. The sentinel fishery is done away with. Why is it done away with? Because there is a great sign of fish there. There is a great sign of codfish there.

For many people, we talk about this particular decision will only affect certain places in the Province. It will. It will affect some places more than others. On the Bonavista Peninsula, I can tell you, when this announcement was made last Thursday, it was like a dark cloud passed over the whole Peninsula. There were people last Thursday in my district who saw their whole livelihood disappear; people who are not core fishers, people who only fished cod. Other than codfish they are probably allowed to fish six lump nets for two weeks of the year, and you know what results or what income that will provide you with, Mr. Speaker. Those people are out of business. Those people do not have a job. Those people are probably going to end up moving out of this Province and going somewhere else.

One after one today people got up and talked about how it affected their district and how concerned they were. Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed, I was discouraged, I was disgusted, with the way the Premier got on, in talking about this topic here today.

Everybody in this Province was waiting with bated breath to hear what happened in Ottawa. They were waiting to find out what decisions, what information the leader of our Province, the Premier of this Province, would bring back to allow them to know what the future held in store for them. Mr. Speaker, the Premier and his representatives went to Ottawa, met with the Prime Minister, met with the Deputy Prime Minister, and would hopefully come back here today and talk about either the positive things or the negative things that happened, and we would rally behind him and support him one by one because it affects us all, as I have said and everybody else said before.

I was particularly disappointed with the way the Premier got on, in this House today, and the information that should have been provided. The Premier had a golden opportunity to do that, but instead he saw fit to take the lower road, and that is shameful. As long as we do that, we will never ever be treated any better by Ottawa or anybody else who continues to hand us the crumbs from the table that we have been so willing to accept.

Mr. Speaker, maybe we are all waiting for a new Prime Minister to be elected. Maybe that is why we are all saying that something might change at that particular time. Maybe, instead of calling on our federal members to resign, we should be calling on members opposite not to partake and not to participate in the leadership convention that will soon be happening in Ottawa. Maybe that is one way of sending a protest.

Mr. Speaker, maybe we should not be going out - as the hon. Paul Martin came here a few short months ago and went to a certain district in this Province and people rallied around and carried him on their shoulders, the fellow who has cut the guts out of this Province! Look at what has happened to transfer payments. Look at what has happened to the EI program. Who has cut it back? Who has taken it from us? This is the fellow now that we are going to say is the saviour of this Province. This the person that you people are going to rally behind. Maybe it is time to send a firm message and say that you will not take part in that particular process. Maybe that is what needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker, the federal minister was an insult to his own appointed team of the FRCC. It was an insult that he did not accept any of their recommendations. It was an insult to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the all-party committee that was made up of people on both sides of this House, and the New Democratic Party as well. It was the senators, their representatives in Ottawa. The federal minister chose not to listen to anybody other than his own bureaucrats on Kent Street in Ottawa. They are the people he is listening to. Until we, as a government, and until we, as a Province here, put our own branch of science in place where we can go out and study what is happening in this fishing industry at a time when the fishing industry is in full swing and go to places where the fish are present, we continue to shoot blank bullets. Because all we are doing is saying: We do not believe in you, Mr. Scientist. We do not believe in you, Mr. Ottawa, but we have nothing to back it up ourselves. We have nothing to back it up ourselves other than to say that we want the fishermen to fish. We believe in the fishermen but, unfortunately, Ottawa does not. While we do, it seems like we have to counteract what they are doing by putting forward our own report and putting our own good people forward as scientists and taking those reports to Ottawa. That is what has to be done.

For all intents and purposes, it is the end of the small boat fishery in this Province. God knows, Mr. Speaker, that has been the intent of the federal government from day one. That has been the intent of the federal government, to do away with small boat fishermen, to do away with small fish plants, and maybe to take a lesson from the makeup of the New Zealand fishery. Maybe that is what they have in mind, Mr. Speaker. They have tried hard to do it, and up until now we have stuck together and we have been persistent in saying that the small boat fishermen and the people who go out there everyday to keep those communities alive is always going to be part of this particular fishery.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose to add insult to injury was when we heard the announcement of $25 million as a compensation package; $6 million of which is going to be spent on studying what seals eat and what seals do. Just imagine! What we should have done here is: Yes, we should have had a fishery and yes, we should have had a compensation package because that is the only way we are going to be able to bring this industry to where it wants to be.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about compensation packages I am going to lay it right back on many members on the opposite side as well because I recall, just a few short years ago, when most members over on that side of the House were still occupying the chairs they are occupying today, where they could have taken part in an early retirement program but the government of the day refused to lower the age for retirement of fishermen and fishplant workers from fifty-five to fifty, of which the federal government was willing to take part in. How many people remember that? Most of the people sitting on that side of the House would not support that particular concept.

MR. E. BYRNE: Fifteen-cent dollars they used.

MR. FITZGERALD: Fifteen-cent dollars. It would have cost the people of this Province, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, fifteen cents on every dollar that was brought into here and you people opposite would not take part in that program. If you had taken part in the program at that time the big issue and the big cry for job creation projects every fall, which must be done in order to take plant workers and other people to a stage where they can qualify for meager amounts of EI, would not be needed now. It would not be needed now because those senior people would be still living in the communities, they would have an income, they would be supporting the economy of those communities and the people who are now at the bottom of the list in seniority as fish plant workers would be able to go to work in the fish plants. You had the opportunity at that particular time and you wouldn't accept it. It was put forward to you by the federal government. Your leader at the time and those who sat with him, including many of the people on the front benches here, wouldn't take part in that particular program. So, you missed an opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many fishery debates I have taken part in, in the ten years I have been here. I know I was part of two pilgrimages to Ottawa to try to plead for compensation to continue with the TAGS program. I know I was part of another trip to Ottawa to try to bring somebody on side in dealing with the seal population and what needed to be done in order to support this industry. I know what it is like going up there. I know what it is like trying to get your voices heard and what you have to go through in order to get people to even meet with you. I know what it is like. Boys, that is not going to change. If we are going to get here and stand and try to divide and conquer and get on with the silliness, then we will never be any better off that we are today.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. It is a good resolution. All we have to do is do away with th political foolishness of it and get on with dealing with what needs to be done here today, deal with the problems, and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be better because of that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East.

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

I want to thank all members of the House for their participation in this excellent debate today. There was lots of reason and lots of passion, Mr. Speaker. I think it was very well said by everybody, and we hope that the message will be sent with this resolution.

I would like to read from a document that was a secret document in 1946.

AN HON. MEMBER: Secret?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, it was secret at the time.

The Canadian High Commissioner to Newfoundland was writing the External Affairs Department of Canada. The accession of Newfoundland and Labrador would increase the Canadian population by over 300,000 and enlarge the Dominion by 192,000 square miles, an area larger than Finland or Sweden and nearly four times the size of the Maritime Provinces, possessing considerable mineral and forest resources as well as easy access to the finest fishing grounds in the world. It would solve permanently all questions of post-war military, civil aviation rights which are present, terminal after March 31, 1949. It would make possible a common jurisdiction over North Atlantic fisheries. It would, in a sense, give Canada a frontage on the Atlantic and a window towards Europe and prevent the Dominion from being shut off from the Atlantic as it is to a considerable extent from the Pacific. It would add materially to the extent and variety of Canada's resources and enhance her prestige and place in the world. That was a secret document in1946, the agenda of Canada to get Newfoundland and Labrador as an economic unit into Confederation.

Really, what it comes down to, the last piece is the Terms of Union right here in this book. That piece of work is not worth the paper that it is written on today, if you look at it. The Terms of Union today is really a document, the contract with Canada - Canada is not meeting it any more, folks. Fisheries management, what do we call that? We call what they are doing fisheries management? I do not call it fisheries management any more.

My last comment on this is really that the contract that we have with Canada, there is a poll in The Telegram today asking people about separation. People are pretty fed up in this Province. Yet, in other provinces, in Alberta, Ralph Klein had to calm down the separatists up in Alberta at his political party convention because there was a concern about that in Alberta. Quebec has been getting on with it for thirty years; and here we are, with seven members, with the vast resources that we have, and they are down here thinking that we in Newfoundland and Labrador are just going to take it. That is okay, because it is only so many people.

I say to this House of Assembly, whatever we do now, we should think about - getting the message is one thing, but there have to be other actions taken about getting that message. If that contract, the Terms of Union, is not doing the job, we should get a new one. We should get a new one, try to renegotiate it. I hope we try to do that.

Ladies and gentlemen, it was a very good day. Let's hope Ottawa is listening.

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'.

Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before you adjourn the House, I just want to remind hon. members of some activities with respect to the Estimates Committee.

The Government Services Committee will meet this evening at 7:00 in the House to review the Estimates of the Department of Environment.

The Resource Committee will meet tomorrow morning at 9:00 to review the Estimates of the Department of Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs, and tomorrow we will go back to the Budget and back to the speakathon.

MR. SPEAKER: The House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.