MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome to the House of Assembly, thirty-four Level I students from Mount Pearl Senior High, with their teachers Mr. Darrell Penney and Mr. Stephen Mallard. Of course, Mount Pearl Senior High is located in the wonderful District of Waterford Valley.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Erin Earle of Shearstown and Peggy Wakeham of Bay Roberts, both young ladies from the District of Port de Grave. Erin and Peggy played with the Conception Bay North CeeBees in the All-Newfoundland and Labrador Female "A" Senior Hockey.

Mr. Speaker, the CeeBees competed against the Conception Bay South Renegades, the St. John's Caps, and the Corner Brook Royals. The CeeBees went undefeated and won the championship by defeating the Corner Brook Royals by a score of 3-1 last weekend. Erin scored two goals, while Peggy scored the other in their victory. Both are very talented ladies, and they have a bright future in female hockey in and outside of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Erin, Peggy and the Conception Bay North CeeBees on winning the All-Newfoundland and Labrador Female "A" Senior Hockey Championship, and we look forward, over the next two weeks, doing the same for our senior team.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Saturday, Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of attending the Conception Bay South Lions Club

Charter Night to celebrate their thirty-fifth anniversary. The Conception Bay South Lions Club was chartered in 1971 and since that time has contributed to hundreds of worthwhile causes and projects in the area, obviously too many to mention. That same night, the CBS Lions Club also announced their Citizen of the Year for 2005 for Conception Bay South. Mr. Charles Taylor was selected for this prestigious honour.

"Charl", as he is affectionately known in the community, has always been active in the community and has supported many groups and activities over the years. It would be impossible to list them all within the time allotted. He has been a volunteer with the Church Lads Brigade, Past-Present and Lieutenant-Governor of the Kelligrews Kiwanis Club, Chair of the Janeway Telethon, and a volunteer with the Cancer Society, the Red Cross and the Conception Bay South Fire Department. Charl also loves to cook, and volunteers his cooking skills for community groups and fundraiser.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join me in congratulating the Conception Bay South Lions Club on their thirty-fifth anniversary, and the selection of Mr. Charl Taylor as the Conception Bay South Citizen of the Year for 2005.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Christy Groves of Forteau's Mountain Field Academy who was named one of the finalists in this year's Canada Day Poster Challenge. Christy is fourteen, and is one of four finalists in our Province. The winners were announced on April 3 by Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Day Poster Challenge encourages young Canadians to visualize Canada through their eyes and explore the many facets of our country, from its landscape and heritage to its people, culture and ideas. This contest provides students with the opportunity to display their creativity while demonstrating their pride in being a Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, there were over 1,600 entries in this poster challenge from all across our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I would like to ask all members to join with me in congratulating Christy Groves of Forteau's Mountain Field Academy on being named one of the finalists in this year's Canada Day Poster Challenge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in this House to recognize the contributions to the Town of Bishop's Falls by the Bishop's Falls Volunteer Firefighters, in particular the dedication of Mr. Ed Osmond who was chosen Firefighter of the Year.

We are all aware of the commitment of these volunteers being ready for duty twenty-four hours a day and, of course, this would not be possible without the support they receive from their families.

These firefighters are called to many other emergencies such as forest fires, highway traffic accidents and even the Badger flood. They also partner with other community groups to raise awareness for such worthwhile causes as Muscular Dystrophy, the Cancer Society, and The Wish Foundation. Mr. Osmond has given his time unselfishly and, for all these reasons, his dedications is certainly recognized by his peers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in recognizing the contribution of the Bishop's Falls Firefighter of the Year, Mr. Ed Osmond.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Bay la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the communities and residents on the Connaigre Peninsula. Thirty-five years after being connected to the rest of the Province by road, the Connaigre Peninsula is now officially connected to the rest of the world by a new technological highway. The communities on the Connaigre Peninsula are now part of the global village. Recently, they were officially linked to the rest of the world via the information highway and now residents can enjoy easier access to this modern service.

Mr. Speaker, officials from Aliant, the Province, and Industry Canada, joined with members of the Connaigre Net Incorporated Committee and the Town of Harbour Breton for the launch. For this occasion, the Harbour Breton Town Council was the site used for the official launch of the Aliant Broadband Internet service.

Mr. Baxter House, Project Manager, and Mr. John Vallis, Chair of the Connaigre Net Incorporated Committee played a key role in bringing the Aliant high-speed Internet service to the region. Mr. Vallis took the interest and initiative to begin this project back in 2002, and Mr. House spent considerable time working on this very worthwhile project. Both gentlemen need to be commended for the conclusion of the project which will assist in making the entire region competitive in a global marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me to congratulate the committee, the communities and residents of the Connaigre Peninsula on the official launch of the Aliant Broadband Internet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier said that potential legislative changes that would permit government to expropriate Exxon Mobil's share of the Hebron-Ben Nevis project was not high on the priority list when meeting with the Prime Minister today. Last week, the Premier was talking much tougher. He said that he would be looking at this type of legislative change to force the project to move forward. He now knows that any such legislative change will require support from the federal government.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Why has the Premier backtracked on his strong language of last week? Is it because he anticipates a cool reception from the Prime Minister to this idea?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, any one of us, at any time, could cherry-pick a certain phrase, could cherry-pick a certain sentence, reach our own conclusion and then bring forward a question that only reaffirms the conclusion that they want us to reach in asking the question, and that is exactly what the Opposition House Leader has just done. It is commonly known as political spin.

The fact of the matter is that the Premier, in dealing with the Prime Minister, on any number of issues, this one included - but, I think what we need to understand, yesterday the Opposition House Leader asked a question to the Premier about releasing more information. The Premier said: You know all the information. The reason why he will not put it all out there, he said, because he believes that negotiations on this potential project have not reached a final conclusion. That is the answer. Whether they want to accept it or not is up to them, but that is the truth as we know it because it happens to be so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it very ironic that the government who passed the transparency act here can get up and talk about political spin coming from the Opposition; the doctors of spin and deflection, I say.

Mr. Speaker, government has been discussing these potential legislative changes since, at least last Monday. However, from the phone calls and the e-mails that we have received, local industry people fear what these changes would have on future exploration and development, especially in areas such as the Orphan Basin, The South Whale basin and the Laurentian Sub-Basin.

Minister, we have been told that you have received these same e-mails and correspondence that we have received, that they were relayed to you: What did these people tell you, the local industry people, about these concerns? Have you had any discussions with the local industry representatives as to what they believe the impact will be of these potential legislative changes?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, you would not know if what we have contemplated or suggested publicly is something new, unique, draconian across the entire world. The fact is, that that is not so.

In Norway, for example - and my colleague, the Leader of the NDP knows this. In Norway, if you find a significant discovery, commonly known as an SDL - significant discovery licence - that is found to be commercial, you have a certain period of time in which you have to develop that find. I think it is about fifteen years. The phrase is: Use it or lose it.

The fact of the matter is this, that in this Province companies have been sitting on significant discoveries for between periods of twenty to twenty-five years. They have warehoused commercial developments that should be now producing oil. We do not support that. We support a regime that is friendly, that is competitive but does not put our resources in the hands of major oil companies forever and a day without a benefit to the people of the Province. Our view is this, that we have a world-class resource. It is located adjacent to the biggest marketplace in the world for that resource, the U.S. We are in a politically secure environment and, Mr. Speaker, if we have our way, and we believe it is the best way for the people of the Province, yes, come and develop it but you will not be allowed to sit on it in perpetuity to the detriment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Little by little we probe, little by little we get little pieces of information from the Premier and the minister over this issue. Eventually, we hope to get to the point where we will get the information so that the people will have the full picture of where we are on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, should government decide to move forward with the fallow field legislation, legislation that would force oil companies to develop their projects in a certain amount of time or lose their investment, would this legislation be retroactive? Is that the thought process right now, that it would be retroactive to existing discoveries, or would this initiative only apply to future projects and on a go-forward basis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is evident is this: On the first day this story broke, the question and the spirit and intent of the questions coming forward was: Had we set the bar too high in terms of dealing with the oil companies? The second day that it broke, the second day after this story emerged, the question was: What did you give up for your 4.9 per cent share in the agreement?

In fact, the record of Hansard will demonstrate it, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador said: These negotiations are being conducted in secret. Three or four days later, he says: You don't conduct these types of negotiations in public.

What is at issue here is the proper development or our - and I emphasize the word "our" - resource, and that is where our head is to, not anywhere else - Monday over here, Tuesday over there, next Wednesday somewhere else. We have been consistent in our approach.

Previous to the election, we campaigned on a mantra: no more giveaways. We campaigned on a mantra of doing what is right for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is exactly what we intend to do with the oil companies and anyone else that we deal with.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: You still never answered the question.

Why don't you tell the students up in the gallery how you didn't answer the question?

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious that, whenever you hit them, they get on the defensive over there. The minister gets up and they always rant and rave when you ask questions that are probing and to which they cannot give an answer. I say the only thing consistent about the minister's comments are the inconsistencies of the government. That is the only thing consistent about them.

Mr. Speaker, in today's The Globe and Mail, Todd Weiler, a North American Free Trade Agreement law specialist, is quoted as saying: Any attempt by government to introduce fallow field legislation would be a slam dunk for ExxonMobil under chapter eleven of the North American Free Trade Agreement. He says: This would cost this Province billions of dollars in legal and compensation costs.

I ask the minister: What legal advice have you sought on the implications of NAFTA, and do you agree that the Province could potentially be on the hook for much more than pre-development costs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition sang out, when I was answering the question: Why don't you tell the students in the gallery why you didn't answer the question?

Let me tell the students in the gallery this: What we are up to here today is about your future, nobody else's, I say to the students in the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, to the issue, I am glad to see that the hon. Opposition House Leader is taking advice from The Globe and Mail. We do not. We take it from our own internal and external advice, where we see fit, Mr. Speaker, that supports the conclusions where we feel our resources will go for the benefit of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not only is the minister not giving any answers, and he is all about deflection, the question was not, and the comment was not, about what The Globe and Mail said. My comment was referring to Mr. Todd Weiler, whose name I gave, who is a tax specialist. That is the question that was asked. It so happened the Globe was only the printer of that particular information. Again, it is easy to see that the minister is not prepared to give answers to the questions in here.

It is fine to be concerned about the future of students in the gallery, but it is nice if they are informed as well, because people need to be informed so that they know you are telling it like it is.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I have lots of questions, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I am not getting many answers. I have lots of questions, but I am not getting many answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, last night on Here and Now - and, again, we do not expect you to take advice from Here and Now, but these are just the messengers - Mr. Mark MacLeod of Chevron stated that their company has not been in contact with the Premier, and nothing has changed regarding this current negotiation impasse. This contradicts what the Premier stated in this House of Assembly on Monday, when he stated that he has had new discussions with Chevron's lead negotiator from Calgary.

I ask the minister: Who is telling the truth in this situation? Have there been any negotiations, or is the minister even in the loop to know what is going on?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Right up until last week, the end of last week and over the weekend, the Premier's own commentary in The Telegram speaks to what has been occurring, that there were discussions happening.

MR. REID: Then Mark MacLeod is lying?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I did not say that Mr. MacLeod was lying, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. You ask a question; I will give you the answer. You can accept it or not.

The fact of the matter is, what Mr. MacLeod said today - and I read it, or saw it last night - that nothing has changed, he is right. If something had changed, we would probably be announcing a deal today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Again, we see deception and deflection, Mr. Speaker, no answering of questions here. No answering of questions here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Fine, Mr. Speaker, I take it the party opposite have some concern with my use of the word deception. I withdraw that unparliamentary remark, Mr. Speaker. This government is all about deflection and non-transparency.

Mr. Speaker, to the questions, which we have not been getting many answers to again today, we have been asking, for ten days in this House, to receive details of the failed negotiations with the Hebron-Ben Nevis partners. Last week, the Premier said he would consider releasing the details. On Monday, he backtracked and said he would not release the details. Yesterday, he became irate when I pointed out to him that while in Opposition he wanted all details of project negotiations made public and debated. Well, Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. There have been no concrete details released in print for the people of this Province to examine and decide what this matter is all about. As a matter of fact, every day we find out new things that were never revealed before but only came out after questioning.

I ask the minister: If there is nothing to hide, why don't you table the details as the Premier initially said he would, especially the details of your so-called royalty regime?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I can only refer the member to Hansard because he asked the same question yesterday in Question Period.

The Premier said: Unlike what occurred with Voisey's Bay was that when the deal was done then we knew. Right now, people know why there wasn't an arrangement reached. It was because the oil companies collectively and the companies who were involved in this development who made a profit last year - by the way, of $54 billion - wanted our Province to give them $400 million to $500 million in ITCs, or income tax incentives. They wanted us, as well, to exempt them from GST payments of 15 per cent on all fuel they have used, the same companies who made $54 billion last week.

What is really transparent and apparent to me, and what needs to be - and I will lay it out there today, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday morning in the Estimates Committee in this House, with respect to my department, the Department of Natural Resources, not one question did the hon. member ask about this issue, not one, but when we get into public forum, when they want to make some hay for themselves on the backs of the people of the Province, that is when the show begins, Mr. Speaker. That is not the way we operate. We have laid all the information out there of why this deal did not get arranged. We have laid it all out there, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you this, exactly what the Premier said yesterday: Until these discussions reach a conclusion one way or the other, we are not going to jeopardize the future of the people of the Province with this development.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair notes that the last several exchanges went beyond the usual sixty seconds, and I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The recently released Canadian Cancer Statistics report shows that while Newfoundland and Labrador has a lower rate of cancer than the national average, unfortunately our death rate is much higher, due to this disease. This is alarming news. The Canadian Cancer Society recommends that more and better cancer screening will help save lives in our Province, especially in the areas of colon, breast, and cervical cancer.

I ask the minister: How does your government intend to address this very disturbing and appalling gap that exists in our health care service so that more lives can be saved?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to table a copy of the Budget, because in this year's Budget we did address cervical cancer screening. We did address breast cancer screening. We did have medications for breast cancer. We did have medications for colorectal cancer. We announced funding for a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. We announced funding for a cancer clinic in Gander. This report, Mr. Speaker, outlines the need for this stuff. We have implemented these measures in this year's Budget. We are taking the direction of the Cancer Society very seriously, their advice, their recommendations, and we have implemented much of what they have asked for. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will quote Peter Dawe of the Canadian Cancer Society: So at the end of the day you know people are going to get the most leading edge cancer treatment that is available in the country. It is going to be available here just like anywhere else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I would just like to suggest to the minister that there is a difference between cancer treatment and cancer screening. My question was regarding screening.

My next question, Mr. Speaker, is with regard to the drugs for Multiple Sclerosis patients. In the last two weeks I have raised this issue with the minister and his department. There are over 600 people today in our Province, minister, who are going without the proper therapies and medications that they need simply because they cannot afford it. Have you done anything with this file, and are you prepared to ensure that these patients have the drugs they need?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I heard her preamble and I answered her previous question; $1.5 million to enhance cervical screening programs in the Province, $750 million to enhance breast screening centres in the Province. We have provided funding for screening. We have provided funding for radiation. We have provided funding for cancer clinics. We have provided funding for treatments.

On the question of MS; we have increased the allotment to the provincial Prescription Drug Program so that instead of 20 per cent of the people having access to affordable drugs, we now have 40 per cent. What you are asking about is catastrophic drugs and a universal program. We are in conversations and communications with the federal government on providing universal drug coverage on catastrophic drugs. When we are able to receive an answer from the federal government, I will be happy to report to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, Patricia is a thirty-three-year-old woman, a mother of two children, who pays $2,100 a month for her MS drugs. Every month that her and her husband's income rises above $2,800, she loses her drug card and she has absolutely no drug coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador. Can you tell me, honestly, minister, that the 600 people out there, in the situation that she is in, are getting full and fair drug coverage from your government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, well, first of all, let me say this, that raising issues of a personal nature on the floor of the House is something that I have asked the member before, if she feels that these issues are important enough -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: On two previous occasions she has raised personal cases on the floor and I have asked her to bring these cases to me. Not once has she brought these cases to me, even after raising them on the floor of the House. That indicates her importance to these particular issues.

Mr. Speaker, the individual case that she has referenced, if they are receiving a drug card and from time to time they go beyond that drug coverage, that is exactly the intent of the allocation in this year's provincial Budget, to increase the number of people who are receiving access to affordable drugs from 100,000 to 200,000 people in this Province. Hopefully, under that program, she will have access to affordable drugs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

Minister, earlier this year two high profile women were regrettably fired from their positions at the College of the North Atlantic. I understand that they may have since launched a lawsuit against the government. I ask the minister to confirm if, indeed, there is a lawsuit pending against the government in relation to, what we call, the tick-tock scandal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the position that the hon. member mentioned was a contract position. The contract had expired and was not renewed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: So, we don't know if there are any legal cases pending.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, a woman in the Goose Bay Penitentiary claimed that she was left for three days without her clothes in a jail cell. Yesterday, in the Estimates Committee, I was appalled to hear the minister say that neither herself nor the Women's Policy Office even so much as made an inquiry into the situation - not even as much as a telephone call.

Now, I understand that the Department of Justice would normally do an inquiry into allegations like this, but I have to ask you, as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women: Will you not engage yourself in important circumstances like this, that are impacting upon women in our prison system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, and responsible for the Women's Policy Office, we were in contact with the Department of Justice when we heard of the issue regarding the woman at the lock-up in the Goose Bay RCMP detachment. We were advised by the Department of Justice that this was a matter that was being investigated by the RCMP, so we have to let that matter unfold to see the results of the investigation.

We will not be going up, as the Women's Policy Office, and doing an investigation of that matter. We will certainly be looking for the results of that investigation to make sure that the policies that affect women in this Province are upheld and are appropriate for the situations that they are in.

Mr. Speaker, there have been some long-standing issues with regard to women in incarceration. The issues probably came to a head back in the early 1990s when we saw all the issues that came out of P4W, and the results in the Louise Arbour report that came from then.

I am certainly interested in seeing the results of that, what were some of the standards that were put around, because I would think the federal standards would probably apply to the RCMP lock-ups as well.

Mr. Speaker, when we do have that report, and we look at the policies, we will certainly analyze that to make sure that the women are treated appropriately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Not even a phone call, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Minister, I was also astonished to learn that you do not burden yourself with the economic crisis that face women in our Province. Women who are working in our fish plants throughout the Province will face an employment crisis this year. We know that thousands of these dedicated workers will be displaced from their jobs at the end to June without eligibility for EI benefits. Her own words in the Estimates last night: don't involve ourselves in the economic piece.

Minister, you have studies in your office today that show that job loss in our society also impacts upon poverty and discontent in the family. I ask you: Who will be their voice in government if you, as the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, refuse to be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, and Women's Policy Office, we do not have any direct programs that we deliver in the Province but we do assist any government departments in policy development and policy analysis.

At one point, I was invited to a few meetings that were called by the FFAW in regards to an early retirement program and the fact that they wanted a gender analysis done on the issue. I was accompanied by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture at the time, now the Minister of Transportation and Works.

We have also embarked on other issues within policy analysis that deal with economic benefits, and some involve the environmental assessments that are done regarding resource development, the number of women who are employed. We certainly look at the other issues, and the Women's Policy Office have input into the major strategies and the major developments of this government, whether it is in relation to economic or social policy.

We have also assisted the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to look at all their programs and policies to make sure they are gender sensitive, and that would certainly have an economic impact in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, again, no support for the women affected through economic crisis.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is visiting our Province today. In the past, I asked the Premier, I asked the Minister of Health, if they would stand up to protect the child care services that we have in our Province today; and, Mr. Speaker, in my mind they refused to do so.

Knowing full well, Minister, knowing full well, that we could lose 3,000 child care spaces in our Province, over $25 million in investment in child care, and knowing full well that both the FFAW is opposed to this, the Nurses' Union is opposed to this, and many other groups, will you, as the Minister for The Status of Women, approach the Prime Minister on this important issue and ask that the commitment to child care that was initiated by the previous federal Liberal government be upheld in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, the agreement with the federal government for child care was with the Department of Health and Community Services, which goes back to show that the Women's Policy Office does not engage in direct program delivery in this Province, but we are committed to work with the Department of Health and Community Services and with the Premier to advance child care in this Province, to make sure that we have adequate chid care available for the workers in this Province, specifically women, to enable them to move into the workforce.

Mr. Speaker, yes, as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, my commitment is there that I will work with the Minister of Health and Community Services to advance this issue.

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, or whoever is responding for him this afternoon.

The Premier said yesterday, the number one priority of his government with the Government of Canada at this time is an early retirement program for fishery workers, one which was not supported by the Prime Minister in the pre-election letter to the Premier, although full commitment both to the FFAW and to the Premier in a letter of January 15 of this year was given by Jack Layton from the NDP.

Given the Premier's comments this morning in Gander, that this Prime Minister is one that they do not have to fight with to get things done, what exactly is the strategy of this government to try and actually get an early retirement program for fishery workers in this Province, and a licence buyback program, which this Province requested from the Government of Canada?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, the first piece of the strategy, Mr. Speaker, was to make representation to all party leaders during the federal election in January. Some responded definitively, some responded less definitively.

Since the government has been decided, we have put together a package that we consulted with the FFAW on, that we have consulted with the Association of Seafood Producers, some of their members, on, and that detailed package has now been presented to our regional minister, to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Our money is there.

MR. RIDEOUT: We have committed our money in the Budget for our share of that. The Premier, as we speak today, is meeting with the Prime Minster. The item that I understand him saying in the news is that the very top of his agenda, despite questions from other parties in the House, is just this very item. So, the Premier and the government, Mr. Speaker, are working diligently to try to convince the Government of Canada that this is a sensible approach, it is the right approach, and one they ought to buy into.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, obviously the NDP will be there in Ottawa to support whatever efforts can be undertaken.

Mr. Speaker, another issue involving the Government of Canada that is very important to this Province is that of custodial management. We did have a commitment from the current Prime Minister, in his letter to the government prior to the election, to support - and I will read his words, Mr. Speaker. He said that a Conservative government would support extending custodial management on the Continental Shelf beyond the 200-mile limit to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, is this government satisfied with the commitments made to date by the Government of Canada, and are they convinced that the Conservative government in Ottawa will, in fact, take action on this commitment and promise as they have on the Gander Weather Office?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. They did follow through, certainly, in spades, on their commitment to the Gander Weather Office - the Prime Minister announced it here today - and we are pleased that they did that.

In terms of custodial management, Mr. Speaker, the party, I think, when they were in Opposition, the Fisheries critic, who is now our regional minister and DFO minister, sponsored resolutions in the House of Commons calling on this. This House today, Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned as a government, will pass a resolution unanimously calling for Canada to extend jurisdiction over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks through custodial management. I think everybody, as far as I know, are working from the same hymn sheet. I think there will be success, Mr. Speaker -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: What is wrong with the Member for Bay of Islands, Mr. Speaker? The Speaker has a stop clock up there. When anybody gets over the limit the Speaker is not afraid to get to his feet. So I ask the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, contain yourself!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and Labrador Affairs.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to support the 2004-2005 Annual Report for the Labour Relations Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents?

Notices of Motions.

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

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

I know that we are closing today, but when we return on Monday, May 1, I want to give notice of Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 1, and give further notice that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, May 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday, and I believe under our Standing Orders, that notice has been given by the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave and he has submitted a resolution for debate on this afternoon.

I call upon the member now to begin that debate.

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

Let me say it gives me pleasure today to be able to stand and present a private member's motion in relation to custodial management off our shores. I have to say, it seems to be very encouraging that the debate today and the format that it will take, because we have heard from different members across the way that it could go as a unanimous decision.

Mr. Speaker, before I go into my few comments, I will read the member's motion into the records:

WHEREAS the marine resources on the Grand Banks of this Province are a crucial element of the global ecosystem; and

WHEREAS these resources have the potential to provide tremendous economic benefits on a sustainable basis; and

WHEREAS the protection and conservation measures provided by the international community and organizations, such as NAFO, are not sufficient to protect marine resources on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks off the coast of this Province; and

WHEREAS the longer this ecosystem remains unprotected, increased and possibly irreparable damage continues to occur;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the Government of Canada to take custodial management of the Continental Shelf off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the Government of Canada to put in place the necessary provisions and resources to enforce conservation measures for the marine resources in this area;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Newfoundland and Labrador be an integral partner in any management structure and conservation measures deemed necessary to protect marine resources adjacent to our shores.

Mr. Speaker, on March 13, 2002, I stood on the opposite side of this House. I stood in my place to present the same private member's motion as I am presenting today. I have to say, that when I stood at that time, and I repeat it again today, that this motion was not put forward to generate debate on a political or partisan basis, but rather to bring attention to federal politicians, to the Government of Canada, to the residents of Canada and to the international community at large. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the same is true today.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this issue has been raised many times by different Members of this House of Assembly over many, many years, but I have to say, even though there is probably dialogue going on with various political parties on the federal scene over the years, I have to say that, in my mind, very little has been accomplished. I have to ask all my colleagues in this hon. House: Can you imagine the damage that has been done in the four short years since I made that last private members' motion, let alone the damage that has been done for many, many years previous to that? I have to say, it is unacceptable and we cannot afford to let this continue.

Mr. Speaker, as I look at the WHEREASES in the motion and refer to how crucial an element it is on the global ecosystem, we all know that for hundreds of years the fishery off our coast has been a mainstay not only for this Province, but it has been for many countries around this world and a source of global food supply.

Mr. Speaker, we also know the tremendous potential it has been economically for this Province for hundreds of years. I am not saying that if steps had been taken then everything would be rosy in our Province today, but let me assure you, only for the crab fishery and shrimp fishery in this Province, I hate to think what a situation we would be placed in today.

We all know that rural Newfoundland hinges totally on the fishery in this Province. I have heard members, not Members in this House of Assembly, but individuals, say over years that the fish that are on the Nose and Tail of the Banks and on the Flemish Cap, they do not come inshore. They swim, and I am sure they all do not go in the opposite direction. The destruction that has taken place over a number of years has had a major part to play in the situation in this Province today.

We talk about the international community, an organization such as NAFO. Mr. Speaker, I have to say, and others have said it previously, that the work that has been carried out by NAFO is far from what it has to be, because the international community is just not listening. Politicians, provincially and federally, have gone to visit those countries and, as far as I am concerned, nothing has been done to date to really correct the problem.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a responsibility to act, and to act quickly. I said it before, when a former Administration was in Ottawa, and I say it today, even though there is a change in the Administration in Ottawa, it has nothing to do with partisan politics whatsoever. It is a serious situation. This is a renewable resource and, as I stated earlier, a major food supply for the world. As I stated earlier, I hate to think what would happen around this Province if the crab and the shrimp fishery should fall by the wayside.

We see what is happening now, Mr. Speaker, with the reductions in the crab, and if we keep fishing, probably, the way we are, we are going to reap destruction the same way the Northern cod went.

Mr. Speaker, without that resource today, we can see the people - and in my area I never thought I would see it - we see people leaving. If this resource had been protected over the hundreds of years, and not destroyed the way it was, I believe that there is a resource that would be coming ashore, and if the crab and shrimp went by the wayside there would be still a reasonable way for those people to make a living.

Mr. Speaker, there have been committees put in place, many committees, that met with the federal officials. Our Premier, the Premier of today, even went and met with the EU countries and had meetings with them. We have had different Prime Ministers dealing with the officials in those countries, trying to bring this to a head. There were meetings held here in the Province over the last two or three years on this very same issue with the EU communities involved, and, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask: What has changed to this point in time? I think drastic action has to change.

We all know that Canada is a great nation, and we are all proud to be Canadians. We are always there to help others, whether it is in our own country, whether it is in foreign countries, whether it is in peacekeeping duties, whether it is at battle, we are always there to help those countries, and I think it is time that our country, Canada, step forward to help to preserve a resource that is not only crucial to this Province of ours, but to the world.

I don't think there is any time any better than it is today, Mr. Speaker, to take up this challenge once again. As was mentioned earlier in questioning to the Minster of Fisheries, the commitment that was made - and I just want to read that into the record, Mr. Speaker, because our Premier and his party sent a letter to the leaders prior to the federal election, and the question was: Will your party support imposing custodial management on the Continental Shelf immediately outside Canada's 200-mile exclusive economic zone to preserve fish stocks from unsustainable harvesting practices?

The response from the party that went on to win the government was as follows: A Conservative government would support extending custodial management off the Continental Shelf beyond the 200-mile limit to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic. He went on to say: Under twelve years of Liberal mismanagement, cod stocks have collapsed in the Atlantic. International overfishing has contributed to this collapse and cannot continue. It is both a matter of environmental stewardship and of protecting Canada's economic interest. A Conservative government would commit to protecting these resources.

Those are encouraging words, Mr. Speaker, and we have it in writing. The Premier has it in writing, signed off by the now Prime Minister of this country. What better day, the Prime Minister is here in our midst, here in our Province. I hope today that this is one of the issues that our Premier has on the agenda to discuss with the Prime Minister, custodial management. What an opportunity, what a day to make the announcement. Here we are in this hon. House, and it seems that it will be a unanimous decision from what I am hearing. I have not heard the other speakers yet, but it did go through unanimously four years ago and nothing has changed. The political stripe and scene has changed in Ottawa and the commitment now that we have from the Prime Minister in writing is all the more that this should proceed.

Our new federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, while he was in Opposition stood up for the fishery in this Province, as well as other issues with regards to fish going outside of this Province to be processed and he also presented a private member's motion in Ottawa on this very issue.

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Fisheries? The federal minister?

MR. BUTLER: The new federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, when he was in Opposition he presented a private member's motion in Ottawa on this very issue and it passed. Every member of his party voted for it. I think just about every member of all political stripes in this Province voted for it; maybe one did not. I let him know very clearly how I felt at the time. I have it in writing if anyone wanted to see it, but I have to say that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Efford

MR. BUTLER: Yes, sir, that would have been Mr. Efford. I was never so disappointed in a colleague that I worked with for so many years and stood firm on this issue and to see that he did not support it at that time. It was a trivial issue, he told me in his response, but I had to say to him that when we presented this motion here four years ago we did not take it to be very lightly. We took it to be serious. I took it to be that all of the people in Ottawa who voted for it that day took it very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is wonderful timing. Here we have the leader of a party who went on to form the government who committed to this. Here we have a member of the Opposition at the time, we all know how he stood up for the fishery in this Province with a private member's motion himself, now becoming the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for our country. Recently, the new MP for Avalon, who stood in this hon. House time after time and stood up for the people of this Province and the fishery, stood up for them, and only recently he has been appointed now to Chairperson of the Fisheries Committee.

So, when you see our MP and our Minister of Fisheries from this Province side by side - as the old saying in this hon. House goes, shoulder to shoulder - in Ottawa, and here we have the Prime Minister, his name in writing, his signature in writing, saying that he supports this very issue. It is very encouraging and I would love nothing better than to hear today that this issue is going to be resolved. The time is right. Today the Prime Minister is in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and I think this should be top priority on the minds of those people who will meeting with him.

Mr. Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again, we always debate back and forth across this House about rural Newfoundland, whether it is bad things happening there, whether there are good things. Mr. Speaker, I think we all have the one vision in mind. The Member for Mount Pearl always speaks about a vision. I think he has a good vision but he has to train a lot of other people to go along with him.

Rural Newfoundland; if rural Newfoundland is to survive as we know it of the past and as we know it today, but I am fearful that things are beginning to change. It has to be in relation to the livelihood that people derive from the sea.

I have to also say to my hon. colleagues in this House, and to all those who are involved in this very crucial issue in Ottawa, that time for dialogue is over. I said it four years ago that time for dialogue is over and I really believe that it is time for action to be taken. As I said, we can take action around this world to help protect others and I think it is time for us.

In 2002, I suggested a comprehensive public relation campaign to explain to the international community why Canada has to take custodial management. I say, Mr. Speaker, let's proceed and advise them; not talk to them anymore. Let's tell them what we have done, that we have taken custodial management. Because if we wait any longer, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is too late now, but as time goes by...

At that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place. I think my time has expired. I will listen intently to what other members have to say and I thank you for the opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes today, on behalf of the government - I suspect there will be other members from the government side who will want to speak as well - to make a few remarks on this particular resolution standing in the name of the hon. Member for Port de Grave.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, off the top, let me say on behalf of my colleagues, that we support this resolution. We intend, as a government, as a caucus, to vote for this resolution. I would anticipate and expect and hope that this resolution would pass this House unanimously because there is no room, Mr. Speaker, for division among caring and thinking rural Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, urban Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have to stand as one, Mr. Speaker, on an issue that is so important to the future of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: And expatriates.

MR. RIDEOUT: Expatriates; they should be on to their MPs in Fort McMurray, Mr. Speaker, in Sarina, Ontario. They should be burning up the phone lines in Chetwynd, British Columbia. They should be hauling up to their MP's office in Fernie, British Columbia where all the Traverses' in Baie Verte are, and a whole bunch of others. They should be on to their MPs demanding that their MP support this kind of resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there can be no room for division on this because this issue is so important to the future of this Province, and it is so important to the future of this Province because it impacts on every nook and cranny and tickle and island around the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. We can be as good at managers of our fish stocks as we like. I am not saying we have always been good managers. I am not patting ourselves on the back for that. I do not think we learned any lessons at all from the moratorium of 1992. We have only proceeded to do the same damage in other areas. But, the point is, we can be as good at managers as we wish inside the 200 mile zone, but once the fish move outside the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, or the Flemish Cap, Mr. Speaker, nothing, no pain inflicted on our own people, no conservation practices practiced by our own people, nothing that we do can change the rape, pillage and what is happening to that stock once it goes into the international waters.

Now, there was supposed to have been a way to do it. The way was called NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, but, Mr. Speaker, there are more teeth in a hen than in NAFO. All you have to do in NAFO is object and you can go do what you like.

The resolution is right. Canada has to serve notice - and it has - to the international community that if you cannot protect those trans-boundary stocks, we have an obligation to conservation. We have an obligation to our citizens. We have an obligation to the world, to the ecosystem, to the environment. We have an international obligation that, if you are not prepared to have your people enforce proper conservation measures outside of 200, we have an obligation to take management of those resources and do it ourselves.

That is what custodial management, Mr. Speaker, is all about. That is why we support the Government of Canada being tough. I believe there is evidence that the present Government of Canada, under the present Prime Minister, is prepared to be tough. I know one thing; we saw today that, if he puts something in writing, he is prepared to make it happen, he is prepared to make it come true. We could not be in a better situation than to have one of our own, a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That has to be a plus for us. We have had people in that position before who tried their best but, you know, Minister Hearn, I think, is going to really try to make this happen.

So, when the hon. member who proposed the resolution asked what changed, here is what has changed, in my view. We have a new government with a leader who is committed, in writing, to this particular approach, and we have a minister from Newfoundland and Labrador who is committed, in writing, and not in writing but in writing and in action, to this particular approach. So, I believe that a lot has changed, I say to my hon. friend who proposed the resolution. I believe a lot has changed, because similar resolutions have been passed by this House before and then they were attempted to be actioned in Ottawa. Similar resolutions calling on the Government of Canada to impose custodial management have been actually passed in the House of Commons, so it is not the majority of the House of Commons who oppose this approach, who oppose this particular concept, who oppose this particular management. It is not the House of Commons. It is not a majority of the House of Commons who oppose it. It was the government of the day. The government of the day choose to fly in the face of a resolution adopted by the House of Commons - granted, as parliamentarians, we know it was not binding on them, but it had no moral influence on the Government of Canada at all. None whatsoever did it have.

I believe the stars now are aligned differently. We have a government in Ottawa who is committed to this approach and to this concept. We have minister who is committed to this approach and this concept. There has already been a majority vote in the House of Commons, by the representatives of the people, that committed to this concept, but the government of the day was not committed to it. So, everything seems to be lined up and I am optimistic.

Now, we have to be realistic. This government is in office in Ottawa about three months, I guess. They were elected in January and took office some time in February. I do not expect any government, particularly with broad international matters of consequence like this, I don't expect any government to be able to enforce its total agenda in the first three months that it is in office, but I do expect to see the appropriate markers set down on the international stage, that they are serious, that they are prepared to move forward, that they go to the European community and give them a time frame, that they go to NAFO and give them a time frame, and say, unless you are living up to those conditions by this particular time, then you have lost any right to complain. That is what I expect to see. I believe it was in that context that the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Conservative Party, made the commitment that he made.

I want to see progress made on this. I think we all want to see progress made on it. We all support the concept, we all support the principle, because it is so important to this Province that we do so.

The time is right. Like the old election slogan back in the 1970s, the time is right. The time is now to move this file forward. We have a government that is committed to it. We have parties - I believe the NDP committed to this in writing as well. So, between the Conservatives and the NDP there is a majority in Parliament committed to this approach. I do not know how many Liberals support it. Obviously, some who were in the past government did not. I do not know where the Bloc stands on it, but there is enough parliamentary support between the NDP and the Conservative Party to make this government business, and I hope that will happen.

On behalf of my colleagues, I compliment the Member for Port de Grave for using their Opposition day to bring this motion forward. It is a useful motion, one that we intend to support and one that we hope will see the light of day.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to support the private member's motion put forward by my friend and colleague, the Member for Port de Grave. It is calling on the federal government, as we have done a number of times in the past sixteen years, for sure, or seventeen years, to implement custodial management of the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks.

I know there are a lot of people out there who are not involved in the industry, the fishing industry, who are all in favour of custodial management, and a lot of them do not even know what we are talking about. Madam Speaker, I will give a brief history and say why I am supporting it.

Prior to 1977, Canada controlled just twelve miles of its Continental Shelf. The waters that surround this country, and especially on the East Coast and around this Province, Canada only controlled waters out to a twelve-mile limit. In 1977, with a push from Canada and other countries, especially Iceland, at that time, and at the Law of the Sea Conference, countries were convinced that they needed to extend their jurisdiction from twelve miles to 200 miles. At that time, everyone applauded it but Canada did not take control of all of its Continental Shelf. Basically, for our purposes here today, the Continental Shelf means our fishing grounds, because our fishing grounds extended beyond the 200-mile limit, and the reason that the Law of the Sea Conference did not go on beyond the 200-mile limit at that time, and they established a 200-mile limit instead of a 250- or 300-mile limit is that all but, I think, two or three countries in the world, all of their Continental Shelves were inside the 200-mile limit so they established a 200-mile limit. Unfortunately for us, it was not the bonanza that we thought it was going to be because, right now we only control the waters that go out to 200 miles; yet, we have a Continental Shelf that extends well beyond that in three particular areas. It is what is called the Nose of the Grand Banks, which is up north, and the Tail of the Grand Banks, which is southeast of here, and another area known as the Flemish Cap. These are the three areas that exist outside of our 200-mile imaginary line limit.

As a result, we have had foreigners fishing on our Continental Shelf ever since 1977 and, as you know, fish swim, and our fish from inside the 200-mile limit swam outside and, as soon as they did, there were hundreds of foreign draggers ready to scoop them up. As a result, that had a tremendous negative impact on fish stocks inside of our 200-mile limit. For that reason, we have been fighting to have that changed since 1978. It came in, in 1977, and we thought it was great for a year, until we realized that we moved the foreign factory freezer trawlers from twelve miles to 200 but we still could not control what was happening to our fish stocks outside the 200-mile limit.

I am not completely sure, Madam Speaker, who came up with the idea of custodial management, because for years we talked about just extending jurisdiction; go out and take that seabed that is beyond 200 miles, maybe go to 300 or 350 miles. What we realized was that the international community, other countries such as Spain, Portugal, countries of the EU and Russia, and even the United States, would not agree with just extending or us going out and taking control of that area.

I know that a colleague or a predecessor of mine, the late Walter Carter, in 1989, 1991, 1992, right up until 1996, did a tremendous amount of work on the issue of custodial management. At that time, I know in the early 1990s the provincial government, under Clyde Wells and the minister at the time, Walter Carter, did a tremendous amount of work on custodial management. We spent a tremendous amount of money taking that campaign for custodial management, not only around Canada but around the world. In fact, Clyde Wells took it to Brazil at a World Conference back in 1993, I think it was.

What custodial management is and the reason they came up with custodial management, rather than just extend jurisdiction and taking it - if we said we were just going to extend jurisdiction, a lot of countries would not particularly like it, so we came up with custodial management. What we mean by that is the area outside of our 200-mile limit. We would not take it for the benefit of the people of this Province or the benefit of this country. What we would do is we would become the custodians of that, because let's face it ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish and the Portuguese have been fishing out there since back in the 1700s.

We all remember - some of us who are old enough - back in the 1960s and early 1970s when the White Fleet used to come to St. John's and the crew members would play soccer on the Harbour Front down here. Rather than say to these people, we are driving you off the Shelf. What we are saying is, we will take custody of it. What we will do is we will enforce the rules, because right now NAFO, which is an organization, North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, they are the ones who established the quotas and how much fish each particular country gets but no one can stop them when they go out and overfish the quotas that they are given. In fact, all they have to do, if they are given a quota of redfish out on the Tail of the Grand Banks and they have 5,000 tons and they want 8,000, all they have to do is say to NAFO: We object. Then they can go out and catch as much as they want. So, it is not working. What we said, we will take custody of it and we will do the policing of the area. So that is what we mean by custodial management. We will take custody of it and we will give you your historical share, but we are not going to let you overfish that share. We thought that was an acceptable arrangement.

I know when I was the Minister of Fisheries for the Province, I took that on the road and I had discussions all over North America. In fact, I have had discussions with European parliamentarians. I had a group of twenty-three in my office one day from different parts of Europe and when I explained to them what we meant by custodial management, that we were not going to drive these people off the Continental Shelf, off the limits outside of 200 here on this side of the Atlantic, they seemed to agree with it. I said all we are doing is going to enforce it so we can protect it for everybody, but we have not been successful in getting the federal government to agree to custodial management and to implement it, with or without the acceptance of the other countries around the world.

I agree with the Minister of Fisheries, and I agree with my colleague from Port de Grave, that the stars are aligned perfectly for us right now, because we have talked the talk in this Province. There is no one in this Province who disagrees with custodial management, but we have had a very difficult time convincing our cousins in Ottawa - whether they are Tory or Liberal - that we should move ahead with this.

I can remember back in the early 1990s when we tried to talk John Crosbie into taking, not custody, but jurisdiction of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. He used to laugh at us. He used to laugh at us and say we were going to start a Third World War. Then we had Brian Tobin who did a bit on the turbot wars, but since then we have not seen any movement.

I am really hopeful, right now, that all the stars are aligned and we are going to see custodial management in the very near future. The reason for that is because of one, Loyola Hearn, and to some degree, Fabian Manning and Stephen Harper. We all know that when Loyola Hearn was elected to the federal Parliament after leaving here and taking a brief reprieve from politics, he got elected in St. John's West as the federal MP. I think for years, prior to going into Cabinet just recently, that he was on the fisheries committee, on the standing committee on fisheries in Ottawa. I know that he always supported, both in the House of Commons and in the media of this Province and elsewhere where he travelled, that he was a fan of custodial management and if he ever had the opportunity he was going to implement custodial management.

So, not only did he espouse the virtues of custodial management when he was on the fisheries committee in Ottawa, but he was successful, Madam Speaker, back about a year-and-a-half or two years ago of bringing in a private member's resolution - just like my colleague, the Member for Port de Grave is doing today - saying that the Government of Canada should implement custodial management. He gave a very eloquent and well-informed speech that night in the House of Commons and it was passed. It was passed in the House of Commons. We were delighted down here. In fact, I picked up the phone and called him. I was listening to Open Line, had my ear to Open Line and was watching the debate on television, the debate in the Commons in Ottawa, and when I heard it I was delighted. The first thing I did was pick up the phone and call Linda Swain of Open Line and say: I want to congratulate Loyola Hearn for what he did tonight. He had a private member's motion passed which said the government should implement custodial management.

I have gotten along well with Loyola Sullivan - or Hearn, I should say. I cannot say the same about Loyola Sullivan, but I certainly have gotten along well with Loyola Hearn in previous years. I have complimented him when he has done things right and I have told him when he has done something wrong, but he managed to get that passed. They campaigned on custodial management, that they would implement custodial management. We know that the minister is certainly going to do it. The federal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Loyola Hearn, will certainly bring forward the bill to enact custodial management.

We also have a letter that Stephen Harper sent to the Premier stating that, if elected, he would certainly implement custodial management. The unfortunate thing about it, I am not convinced he wrote the letter himself. I am not convinced that Stephen Harper wrote the letter himself. Then again, he could have because he is from Calgary and he is pretty far away from the East Coast fishery because - and the reason I say he did not write it himself, or maybe he did, is that he did not refer to the fish stocks off the East Coast of Canada. He referred to the fish sticks, I think my hon. colleague pointed out to me today in the letter that he sent back to the Premier.

So, we have the Minister of Fisheries who is a proponent of custodial management. We have a letter signed by the Prime Minister, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, stating that - two of those people are in favour of custodial management, but we also have Fabian Manning. Not a name that the group opposite wants me to bring up, but we know that Fabian Manning comes from a fishing district himself, and I know for a fact that he stood in this House on many occasions and was a proponent of custodial management. I am sure now that he is not only the Atlantic Chair of the Tory caucus, but he is also on the fisheries committee in Ottawa. So we have three strong voices.

My only concern is this, like my colleague said from Port de Grave, what a day he could have done this, Madam Speaker. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is in St. John's as we speak. The Premier is meeting with him. I am sure that the Premier, when he has discussed custodial management with him today, along with early retirement and fallow field legislation and stuff like that, must have told the Prime Minister that we are discussing a private member's motion today on custodial management. What a day it would have been if we had Prime Minister Harper sitting here in the gallery as we speak, saying what he said in his letter to the Premier, saying what his colleague - and how nice would it be if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the hon. Loyola Hearn and the Prime Minister, along with the MP for Avalon, Fabian Manning, all three of those fine gentlemen were sitting here in the gallery today and could stand and announce that we are implementing custodial management.

That did not happen, unfortunately, and I am just going to have to wait to see whether or not Mr. Manning, Mr. Hearn, but most particularly Prime Minister Harper, is going to live by the commitment that they did.

We need custodial management, Madam Speaker. We may talk about the oil fields - and we are experiencing some turbulence now, and are worried about whether or not fields will be developed and explored. It does not matter, because there is one thing about oil: There is a finite quantity of it out there. In other words, as sure as we are here, we will suck every drop of it off the Grand Banks and it will not be replaced. It is a finite amount, but one thing about the fishery: It is not finite because it can rejuvenate, it can multiple, and it is a renewable resource, unlike oil. One of these days - and it will happen at some point in the future - there will be no oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador because we will have expended it all. What are we going to rely on then?

What really irritates me is that I get e-mails from people telling me that I should not be standing in the House of Assembly talking about the fishery all of the time. The fishery is dead. The only people who are involved in the fishery are those who want to take advantage of our social programs. I get e-mails like that from people, telling me I should not be up talking about the fishery. I do not respond to them because it just shows their lack of intelligence, as far as I am concerned, if they do not know the value of the fishery to the Province.

Up until last year, the fishery in this Province brought in $1 billion in new revenues, not only to this Province but to this country, from outside the country. I tell you, if we don't protect our fishery, once the oil is gone, not only will there be nothing left to rural Newfoundland, as is happening today, there will not be anything left to urban Newfoundland and Labrador because there will be no reason for us to be here.

The fish is what brought us here in 1497, when John Cabot dipped his basket over the side and pulled up teeming loads of fish, and it is what has kept us here since 1497. I hope and pray that if it is handled properly, and with things like custodial management and some wise decisions on behalf of DFO and the provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, it will be here for another 500 years, or another 5,000 years.

I honestly support my colleague and my friend from Port de Grave today in this motion to call upon the Prime Minister to implement custodial management. This is the second time he did it. He did it a couple of years ago -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, just for a second?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: All I want to do is to conclude by saying that I certainly support my colleague's motion here today. All of us on this side of the House will certainly be voting in favour of it, and I call upon the government side of the House not only to support it, I particularly call upon the Premier, when he talks about picking his fights, because he said he picked a fight with the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Paul Martin, on the Atlantic Accord. When my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair asked him if he was going to take on the Prime Minister on child care, he said: You have to learn to pick your fights.

Well, I tell you, if there was ever a fight that needed to be picked, the one to protect our fish resource is one that I certainly would stand not only behind him but I would stand shoulder to shoulder, as they are apt to say over there, in fighting the federal government; because I tell you, Madam Speaker, without the fishery there will be no Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

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

When the members speaks, he will close debate.

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

First of all, I want to thank the hon. Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Fisheries, and the Official Opposition Leader, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, for their comments here today.

I know that four years ago when I presented the same motion we had a lot more speakers, but I want to say to the viewing public, that does not take away the concern, the sincerity, that members in this House take on this issue. It is just that the facts and the figures have been put forward so often that we all know what they are. It is very important that we look forward to new developments by the Premier of this Province, by our new Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa, in conjunction with our Minister of Fisheries here provincially, and the new Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the Minister of Fisheries when he said the stars are aligned for us. I think nothing could be nearer the truth. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo mentioned that we cannot forget the fishery; it is crucial to this Province. It has been for many years. We can have all the wealth we want from other natural resources; it will come down to, some time in the future, if the fishery is not protected, then all is lost.

I have to say, Madam Speaker, back in the 1990s when the moratorium came in, I had the opportunity to sit in on meetings with two officials who came here to the Province from Iceland, when they took up the challenge in their country, because there was overfishing in their country, and the British people went in there and were depleting their fish stocks. One gentleman, I think he was the general of the navy in the little country of Iceland -

MR. REID: Two hundred and fifty thousand people.

MR. BUTLER: Two hundred and fifty thousand people.

He explained to us what they did, how they went and made a giant pair of scissors, tied it to this little destroyer, and they went out and dragged the scissors through the ocean, cut the nets free from the draggers from the foreign countries. As a matter of fact, I had a video showing where the ships were rammed and so on, but they put up a fight for what their people believed in, and the resources of their people.

He also told us that the young people in the high schools at the time could go to the fish plants and work whatever day they wanted. They went in on Monday, they could go back on Friday, and there was nothing said to them.

I am not saying we could have it that good here in this Province but, I can assure you, if the fishery, in the hundreds of years, was protected properly off our shores, we would not be worrying what we are going to do in some communities to keep people in this Province and to keep bread and butter on their table.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention, just last weekend in the District of Port de Grave, where they have the service for the opening of the fishery, 250 fishers from throughout that area went to a breakfast. Seven hundred people attended a church service at the Pentecostal Church in Port de Grave and, from there on, those people have a vision. They can see that their livelihood can still be derived from the sea.

I believe we, as politicians, of all political stripes, both provincially and federally, have an obligation to stand up, to see that the way they want to live in this Province, not only in my district but right around this Province, that the opportunity is there for them, the resources are protected for them.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank all hon. members for speaking here today and I look forward to their vote in a very short period of time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just on a point of order, I thought I had heard the Minister of Fisheries indicate that there might be other speakers on the other side, and was out of the House when the Leader of the Opposition completed his remarks, so I wonder if I could be granted leave to address the motion prior to the vote taking place?

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to participate in the debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Standing Order 63. (6) is to be held in abeyance to permit the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to participate in the debate.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank hon. members for granting me leave to speak to this debate.

As I had indicated, Mr. Speaker, my expectation was that we might hear other speakers from the government side, but the Minister of Fisheries, speaking for the government, obviously stated the position quite clearly, that, even though we are dealing with an Opposition motion, the government is fully behind the motion that was presented by the Member for Port de Grave.

I did not want the opportunity to pass without indicating our support, and complete support, as the New Democratic Party caucus in the House, for this motion and for the extension and the creating, I guess, of custodial management as a means of controlling and protecting the fish stocks off our shores.

It is a geographic anomaly, Mr. Speaker, that puts us in the position that we are in, because substantial portions of the Grand Banks are, in fact, outside the 200-mile limit. If one looks at a map, Mr. Speaker, and sees where the 200 miles actually go, there is a substantial area; the fish do not know the difference. There are not separate stocks out there. These are stocks that straddle the 200-mile limit because their habitat is related to the actual Continental Shelf itself, and the Flemish Cap which is off even further. So, the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks have been an issue for us, in international law, ever since the 200-mile limit came in, Mr. Speaker. I, for one, recall raising the matter myself in House of Commons nearly twenty years ago, asking the then regional minister, John Crosbie, why we were having no progress on advancing the cause of protecting the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks as a matter for Canadian custody.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that is very important to this Province. I am certainly pleased that we have a situation right now where the current Prime Minister, as in the House of Commons, as Leader of the Opposition, and as a candidate for Prime Minister, has spelled out his support for the government carrying out a promise made in writing, supporting extending custodial management of the Continental Shelf beyond the 200-mile limit. That is something that is in a letter to the Premier dated January 4, 2006.

It is something also, Mr. Speaker, that we have been engaged with as a party federally. Peter Stoffer, who has been Deputy Chair of the Fisheries Committee, supported and encouraged the committee in engaging in a report on custodial management, and travelling here to Newfoundland and Labrador to hear presentations from people within this Province on the issue. I recall, myself, making a presentation at the Delta Hotel, along with others from the Province. The provincial Minister of Fisheries made a presentation at the time. Gus Etchegary was there. Others were there speaking on behalf of the interests of the fishery, and asking the fisheries committee to make that recommendation, which they did, Mr. Speaker, a unanimous recommendation of the fisheries committee, to the House of Commons.

Ironically, Mr. Speaker, the fisheries committee itself at the time was chaired, not by someone from a sea coast but by an MP by the name of Tom Wappel, who, despite his coming from Scarborough, or somewhere in central Ontario, was, in fact, supportive of the issue in the House of Commons and with the fisheries committee. We are very pleased to see that this has been brought as far as it has.

I have heard one criticism of the provincial government on this issue, and I do not know if it is particularly of this government, but a criticism in that we are dealing with a new concept here of custodial management, as the Leader of the Opposition has said. We are talking about something that does not really exist in international law, a concept that we came up with that requires a fair bit of work in developing the exact nature of custodial management - What does it mean? What is the nature of the control? What is the role of the coastal state? - and develop that as a concept in international law.

The individual who was critical of the provincial government said that he was surprised to find that there was no work being done within the provincial government, within the Department of Justice, in terms of researching the concept. Even though it is an international law concept, it is something that - because this Province is interested in pushing it, we should be doing some of the spade work in terms of the development of the concept, being able to convince the Government of Canada and the lawyers as to how this would work.

When you get involved in something like this, Mr. Speaker, as anybody who has read an account of the fish war, the Tobin fish war - I think Michael Harris has a book on it, no relation - about Mr. Tobin's turbot war, would know that there are always people within government, particularly within the federal government, particularly within external affairs, who are trying to stop you from doing anything that might cause problems in other areas. We have had that problem with our fishery since Confederation, Mr. Speaker. There was no tough talk from the Government of Canada because they were doing side deals with Russia to buy wheat, they were doing side deals with France, they were doing side deals with Eastern Europe, there were various other interplays between what the Government of Canada was up to internationally and by virtue of which they were reluctant to take any strong action on the protection of the stocks off the East Coast of Canada in dealing with international law.

There is resistance at that level, Mr. Speaker, there is resistance within the bureaucracy, and the criticism was that the Newfoundland Government seemed to be not doing enough to create a regime, or to create the support for a regime, that might have to be passed on to the people in Ottawa.

I know the attitude that you see, for example, in the Province of Quebec on some of these issues that have international implications, they do a lot of the spade work. They make sure that the work is being done so that, when they are dealing with objections from the Government of Canada, they have the answers.

Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution which we wholeheartedly support. There is not a lot more to be said about it, other than it is a very good thing for this House today, with the Prime Minister in the Province, to have this resolution passed. I am assuming that there will be a request made for you, as Speaker, to convey this resolution to the House of Commons and to the Government of Canada so that they are aware that we have made this resolution here today. I suspect it will be unanimous. Of course, we would like to see that recorded as well, because it is a very significant issue for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, if we have any real hope of rebuilding our fish stocks, and rebuilding this major protein source for the world as a world food resource, we have to have proactive work in the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, on the Flemish Cap, because this is an important part of the remaining fish stocks that are being overfished today and every day because there is no effective regime in place to ensure that does not happen.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I will take my place and thank members for their leave to allow me to participate in the debate and put on the record that we, in the New Democratic Party, wholeheartedly support, at the provincial level and the federal level, the issue of custodial management over the whole of the Grand Banks, including the Nose and Tail and the Flemish Cap.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion before the House is that put forward as a private member's motion by the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please say ‘nay'.

The Chair notes that this private member's motion has been passed unanimously by the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Motion passed unanimously.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This being Wednesday, under our Standing Orders, this House is now adjourned until Monday, May 1, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.