November 21, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 33

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to offer congratulations to a small

group of individuals in the Clarke's Beach area of my district who recently

formed a national group of the International Friendship League. The first of its

kind in this Province and indeed, Mr. Speaker, the first in Canada. The IFL is

an international organization founded in 1931 as a non-governmental organization

to promote a spirit of friendship among people of the world, with a view to

peaceful cooperation in international affairs. With groups in over thirty

countries the organization has strived to encourage peace throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, the newly formed group in Clarke's Beach is keen to support

the IFL aims and build on the groups membership of eleven by attracting new

membership. Their decision to form a group was spurred on by a desire to promote

friendship, understanding, mutual respect and goodwill among all people,

regardless of race and creed. Planned activities include conservation,

charitable work, crafts, international guest speakers, pen friends and social

gatherings.

I was privileged, Mr. Speaker, to be in attendance at the inaugural dinner of

the Clarke's Beach International Friendship League to witness the presentation

of the group to the President, Mrs. Joy Lake by Mrs. Joyce Roberts, a long-time

member of the organization. The group meet on a regular basis and is a great

source of social interaction for all members.

The executive members of the IFL in Clarke's Beach are: Mrs. Joy Lake,

President; Mrs Joyce Roberts, Vice-President and Liaison Officer; Mrs. Joyce

Dawe, Secretary, and Mrs. Mary Coffey the Treasurer.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, I join with all members of this Assembly in

congratulating the Clarke's Beach group of the International Friendship League

on forming the first group in the nation and in wishing them well in the years

to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the recipients of the

Entrepreneur of the Year Awards that were presented by the Newfoundland and

Labrador Organization of Women Entrepreneurs. These awards presented at NLOWE's

annual conference, "Landing Gears and Wings", was held in Gander on

November 17 to November 19.

Five Entrepreneur of the Year Awards were given out to winners from each of

the Provinces' five regions, as well as the Youth Entrepreneur of the Year

Award and the Champion's Award. The awards are bestowed each year to recognize

remarkable entrepreneurial spirit and unwavering commitment to entrepreneurship.

Lalena Burton, of Labrador City, is the recipient of the Youth Entrepreneur

of the Year Award. The owner and operator of her own business, Designs in Bloom,

Ms Burton is representative of everything that NLOWE's Youth Entrepreneur of

the Year embraces: ambition, determination, originality, commitment and

involvement.

Reverend Joan Short is NLOWE's recipient of the Champion Award for her

long-term advancement, dedication, and commitment to entrepreneurship and

economic development. She is the founder of Trelawney Bed & Breakfast in

Colinet. Reverend Short has contributed immensely to the local economy by

providing numerous employment opportunities and is actively involved with the

Cape Shore Loop Tourism Association.

Five Entrepreneur of the Year Awards were also presented to winners from each

of the Provinces' five regions. The awards for the Avalon region to Cindy

Roma, owner and operator of world-renowned business Telelink; Labrador region,

Barbara Wood, an artisan and volunteer with numerous artistic-related groups and

organizations in Labrador; for the Eastern region, Darlene Mercer of Whitbourne,

owner and operator of Knitter's Plus Emporium; for the Western region, Maxine

Anstey of Corner Brook, owner and operator of Jennifer's Gift Shop and

Restaurant; for the Central region, Rose Robinson of Norris Arm South, who is

the proud owner of Central Food Mart, where she employs five full-time staff.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clue up by asking that all members

of this House join me in extending our congratulations to these seven remarkable

female entrepreneurs, who have each been extraordinary examples of how business

and community development go hand in hand throughout our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Citizen's Crime Prevention Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador has handed out two honours to the Clarenville area at their annual

general meeting.

Cst. Duane Noel of the Clarenville RCMP detachment was named Officer of the

Year, and Committee of the Year went to the Clarenville Area Citizens Crime

Prevention Committee.

Cst. Duane Noel was noted for his major involvement in setting up the Drug

Abuse Resistance Education Program, known as D.A.R.E. This program is an

anti-violence program that teaches children how to say: No, and make responsible

decisions. It is offered to Grade 6 students in the area. Cst. Noel is well

known in the Clarenville area for the time and effort he contributes to the

Crime Prevention Committee, as well as the many other projects in the area.

The second award went to the Clarenville Area Citizens Crime Prevention

Committee. This committee has won the Committee of the Year award no less than

six times in its short fifteen-year history. Several of the committee's

projects have, in fact, gone Province-wide.

Projects such as the peer mediation and the booklet, Lets Get Along

developed by the committee have been picked up by other committees as far away

as Nova Scotia.

Sgt. Tony Green, the district Commander of the RCMP, stated that one of the

distinctions especially noted in the Clarenville area is the noticeable absence

of youth crime. It is not a completely crime free community, but in comparison

to other areas, Clarenville is one of the best for the lack of youth crime. The

Crime Prevention Committee, which has being in existence since 1987, can

certainly take some of the credit and responsibility for that distinction.

Along with winning Committee of the Year, the Clarenville Committee also won

the award for Crime Prevention Project of the Year.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the

Clarenville Crime Prevention Committee as well as Cst. Duane Noel.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I stand in this hon. House today to extend congratulations to Nancy Riche on

receiving the distinguished Persons Award for her contribution to the

advancement of women's equality. This award is presented to six Canadian women

annually for carrying on the work of the Famous Five, who fought for the women

to be declared persons under the law.

Nancy's work as an activist, trade unionist, and feminist for more than

thirty years were commemorated when the Governor General presented her with the

prestigious Persons Award. Many people of this Province will recognize and

associate Nancy with her involvement in the New Democratic Party where she

served as Federal President for four years and also with the Canadian Labor

Congress where she served as Executive Vice-President for fifteen years, and

Secretary-Treasurer for three years.

Nancy Riche is the seventh woman from Newfoundland and Labrador to have been

awarded this honour. Previous provincial recipients include Ella Manuel, Frances

Laracy, Dorothy Inglis, Morag O'Brien, Ruth Flowers, and Phyllis Seymour.

Mr. Speaker, while we support different political parties, I feel it is

important to acknowledge this award given to Nancy Riche, and also her

contribution to women's equality both on a provincial and national level.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a moment to draw hon. members' attention, and indeed

the people of the Province, to the twenty-ninth Annual Christmas Craft Fair

which opened today here in St. John's at the Convention Centre. The Craft

Council of Newfoundland and Labrador, which hosts the Craft Fair, is a

Province-wide industry association representing some 300 professional members.

The Annual Christmas Craft Fair is the oldest continuous craft marketing

event in the Province, and this year's show will have in excess of 100 craft

exhibitors, and attract some 10,000 visitors over the four days, and generate

close to $500,000 in sales.

I want to pay special tribute to Anne Manuel, who is the Executive Director,

in the job that she and her staff and volunteers have been able to accomplish in

seeing this show come to a full twenty-ninth year. The Christmas Craft Fair is

open to everyone, and I am sure that all of us in the House of Assembly and

across the Province will take advantage of this fair in order to garner their

much needed Christmas gifts and help Santa Claus out, and help those in the

craft industry at the same time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the recent reports out of Ottawa, regarding

the potential closure of certain cod fisheries in our Province.

Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I heard via the media, of the briefing

that the federal minister made to his Atlantic caucus regarding the state of cod

stocks in the Northern and Southern Gulf. It was then reported there is a very

real probability that these fisheries will close in the 2003 season. This is

something which we have all feared for the past couple of years.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the concern of these past several years on the

projected status of those stocks. I am offended, however, that the federal

minister did not contact the Minister of Fisheries for this Province. That,

basically, is simply unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I have great concern that the federal minister has made this

judgement in the absence of consultation with the Province and other Atlantic

Provinces, but more significantly, in the absence of the final report from the

Fisheries Resource Conservation Council - an organization which consults with

stakeholders and analyses scientific data for the purpose of providing advice to

the federal minister on all of the fisheries in the Province.

The Fisheries Resource Conservation Council are, as a matter of fact, at this

very moment, still conducting consultations throughout the Province on the very

fisheries that we are talking about here today. It is offensive, I think, for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that the minister chose to make statements

about the future of these fisheries prior to the recommendations of the FRCC

being received after the present consultation. Rather, it would have been

prudent and responsible for the minister to wait for his own scientific advice,

prior to making these statements which are devastating if they are impacted and

enforced in Newfoundland and Labrador.

As is always the case, Mr. Speaker, our main concern and priority will be

protecting the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We

will not wait for a year until the federal government is ready to turn its

attention to those people and communities who will be gravely impacted by such a

decision if it is implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled by the absence of any reference to

compensation, and I can assure the people of this Province that I raised this

matter this morning directly with the Deputy Prime Minister, who is in our

capital city today, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Manley, and that we will be

addressing this matter more formally and regularly and repeatedly with the

federal government following the course of action that I think we have agreed to

take here today, and are outlining today.

It is also very discouraging to see our federal minister continue to ignore

the best interests of this Province's fishery. He has now on several occasions

demonstrated his indifference to the interests of the fishery here. Just to

recount: he rejected outright, our position on custodial management, and

rejected that same recommendation from his own House of Commons Standing

Committee on Fisheries and Oceans; he accepted, just recently, the final report

of the Independent Panel on Access Criteria, which was completely contrary to

the position presented by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, on behalf

of the people of this Province, and the proposals and recommendations that we

put forward to that committee were dismissed out of hand; and most recently, Mr.

Speaker, he appointed an MP, a Member of Parliament, from Ontario to Chair the

new House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans - a position

which heads the Committee which impacts our region and our Province, more than

any other in the country.

These examples, Mr. Speaker, along with a continued inability to deal with

foreign overfishing, shows clearly that the federal government is not managing

the fishery in a manner which maximizes benefits for the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, this is not now, and never will be, acceptable to our

Province and to this government and our people.

This issue, Mr. Speaker, is much too important to be politicized - indeed, we

must make sure that when these kinds of issues of this scope and nature arise

that we put politics aside, and that we all come together to address the

situation at hand.

Mr. Speaker, as Premier, I am calling on all Newfoundland and Labrador

Federal MPs and Senators to come to the Province on an urgent basis for an

emergency meeting with the Provincial Government and the Opposition Party

leaders. It is vital that we have a comprehensive discussion for the purpose of

developing proper and appropriate redress for those who will be most seriously

impacted by this situation, if it unfolds as is now speculated. Mr. Speaker, I

am hopeful and confident that by working together, we can work as Province, as

we face this time of potential crisis again in our fishery.

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes the government will put forward a resolution

requesting that the House today suspend its regular business and proceedings to

allow members to have an emergency debate on this particular issue critically

important to the future of our fishery. I do understand that the House Leaders

and the Leader of the New Democratic Party have consulted with respect to how we

might arrange for such a debate for the remainder of today.

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

important issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident, from the demeanor of members present and

even the faces on the people in the gallery of the House of Assembly today, that

this is a very, very serious matter for the Province. I think when we all heard

it yesterday afternoon, it was devastating, albeit rumour and albeit not in a

formal manner. It was very, very devastating news for all of us and I think we

are all still in some shock over it.

As we all know, the fishery is the lifeline and the lifeblood of our Province

and, indeed, our rural communities, and this is going to have a devastating

impact, if it is implemented, on all of us. I want to assure the Premier today

that our caucus met this morning and spent some considerable time on this and

decided, as well, that an emergency debate was in order. I know that our House

Leaders have met, and I also understand that the Leader of the New Democratic

Party has concurred that this is appropriate this afternoon, that we suspend all

matters and discuss this very, very important matter and allow all members to

have equal time from the perspective - and allowing them to be heard and

expressing their concerns and sentiments on behalf of their various districts.

I want to give the Premier and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

our utmost assurance that we will take partisan politics out of this. We will

work with you, Premier. We will work with you, Minister. We will work with any

other ministers of the government and anybody else in government to ensure that

as a people we come together to deal with this very, very serious issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: There will be no partisan politics played, I can assure

you. It rises above that. I can assure the Premier that we will try and bring

together a group of people, successfully pulled together in conjunction with the

Leader of the New Democratic Party, Members of this House of Assembly, a

coalition, a custodial management. I can assure the Premier that when it comes

to talking about our fishery and talking about issues in the fishery that are

important to our Province, the people of this Province rally around.

In that coalition were Members of the House of Assembly, were all the Members

of Parliament in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, other Members of

Parliament in Atlantic Canada - Mr. Stoffer from the NDP in Atlantic Canada -

came together. Municipalities came together; Randy Simms on behalf of the

Federation of Municipalities. All our municipalities, all our communities will

come together. Our Chambers of Commerce will come together, FANL, the FFAW will

come together. The clergy will come together. The Alliance people who have an

interest in the fishery will come together. I assure you Premier, you will have

our utmost cooperation. We can rally all these people around you. We will have a

meeting here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We will go to Ottawa. We will go to

the ends of the earth with you on this one, no matter what it takes, to make

sure that this problem is resolved.

The actions of the federal minister, in this particular situation, as the

Premier has said, are inexcusable, totally inexcusable. He has basically ignored

us. For the Premier of this Province and for this government to hear this

through media leaks is terrible, absolutely terrible, contemptible that that

should be allowed to happen. That minister is a disgrace to his government and a

disgrace to our Country of Canada for doing what he has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: He has shown, as the Premier has said, on a position of

custodial management that no, that is not important to him but when it comes to

domestically cutting down and shutting down an aspect of our industry he is

prepared to make Atlantic Canadians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay the

price; and that, simply, is not acceptable.

So, we will have an opportunity to speak, Premier. I appreciate your

cooperation in allowing us to have an emergency debate this afternoon, of

course, at our mutual suggestion. Again, no attempt here to gain any cheap

political points. That simply will not happen. You will have our full

cooperation. I am prepared to sit down and meet with you, as I certainly am with

the Leader of the NDP, at any particular point in time to decide a joint

strategy where we can work together to find real solutions for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, because we have to show compassion and consideration

for what is going on here, and I call on all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

come together on this very, very important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ten years ago when the cod moratorium was announced by then federal minister,

John Crosbie, all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were placed in a state of

shock and disbelief, and we have seen the devastation of the last ten years,

what has been called a disaster. I think in a report Richard Cashin referred to

it as a disaster of biblical proportions with respect to the Northern cod stocks

in this Province. We have seen the very delicate balance over the last ten years

in attempting to bring back these stocks, and we have all looked with great

chagrin at the inability of seeing them being restored to their previous vigor.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize that the Premier's words in

demonstrating the lack of cooperation from the federal government, the federal

minister on point after point after point and this devastating, ignorant and

insulting lack of consultation, and, in fact, treating it as almost a political

issue that - and I was very disturbed to hear this morning, for example, on CBC

Radio, that somehow or other the briefing to the Atlantic caucus: We have to

watch the timing on this announcement because there could be a provincial

election. We have to worry about our provincial Liberal colleagues.

I want to say that I am very pleased that the Premier has rejected that as a

consideration and has invited, instead, both the PC Opposition and the NDP

Opposition here to join with him and with all federal Members of Parliament from

Newfoundland and Labrador, both parties, and Senators from this Province to

treat this as an issue that crosses all political lines in this Province. I

think that is an appropriate and proper thing to do and I commend him for taking

that position very, very early in this debate. Please be assured, Premier, that

this is the kind of issue that we will certainly be fully cooperative on with

our partners and supporters and contacts and connections in the fishing

industry, to work with all members of this House and other parliamentarians in

Ottawa to ensure that this time a compensation package will be one that will be

designed in partnership with the people of this Province, with the people in the

fishing communities, so that we will have a say, upfront, in advance. If there

is going to be a reduction in the fishery or a moratorium on certain species

that this must be done with planning in advance, with full consultation, with

full compensation, and nothing else is going to be acceptable to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, I look forward to the debate this afternoon and I appreciate the Premier's

offer of involvement of both Opposition parties, in working all together to try

and ensure that this situation is studied, is fully considered and is dealt with

in an appropriate manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it hardly seems appropriate today that we go

back and we deal with the questions of the Lower Churchill, but, of course, this

is a very, very important matter that is before the people of this Province and

which this government is dealing with.

My questions will be for the Premier.

In accordance with our discussions yesterday, I will make every attempt

possible to keep my

preambles as brief as possible. However, there is content in

the questions that, I think, are very, very important to be laid out in

anticipation of this particular project.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last three days we have exposed some of

the numerous flaws in the proposed Lower Churchill deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is not a laughing matter. If you would

allow me just to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Would the Premier please confirm the following basic components of the deal

which have been disclosed during the last three days: First, that it is, in

fact, a forty-five year agreement that will expire no earlier than 2055; that

there will be no form of redress for the Upper Churchill; that there is no

transmission line for power to the Island; that Quebec is, in fact, financing

the project with our own money that they made on the Upper Churchill; that there

is no -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: Hon. members should listen -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

- that there is no guarantee of 100 per cent ownership of the project by

Newfoundland and Labrador; that there is no guarantee of 100 per cent management

and control of the project; that the courts of Quebec will decide major

financial matters under this contract; that we can only recall our own power at

a price greater than we sold it to Quebec in the first place; and that we could,

in fact, lose the Lower Churchill project to Quebec under this financial

arrangement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me just deal with the standard old courtroom tactic of the Leader of the

Opposition. For the record, and for you, if you were a judge, there is nothing

that has been confirmed and nothing been exposed and nothing been disclosed in

this Legislature in the last three days. What has been said is this: We refuse

to deal with the tactic of fearmongering and scaremongering put forward by the

Leader of the Opposition. We are insisting, and are going to continue to insist,

on having an informed debate in Newfoundland and Labrador with the facts before

the people instead of fabricated scenarios put forward by the Leader of the

Opposition who then stands up with a supposed serious voice and says: It has

been exposed. It has been confirmed. It has been disclosed. The only one who

said anything in a speculative fashion for three days is the Leader of the

Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Speaker.

I think it is a despicable approach, absolutely despicable, not inconsistent.

It is Voisey's Bay two, because that is exactly the approach he used with

Voisey's Bay: try to poison the well before the debate starts.

Mr. Speaker, let me answer one part with respect to the line to the Island.

Everybody has known - there was no disclosure here - from day one, that in the

discussion - because we talked about the five principles we were trying to

achieve with Premier Landry and myself - there has never been a mention of a

line to the Island. It is not part of this discussion. It is a future discussion

for others to have at another time, and a right one to have at a point in time.

But, let me point this out: There are whole constituencies in Labrador who

totally and fundamentally - in case he does not know - disagree with the concept

of having the energy transported to the Island because that means the industrial

activity will all be on the Island and not in Labrador. Has he listened to the

Mayor of Happy Valley-Goose Bay lately, who says: We want the energy used in the

Upper Lake Melville region. He does not want a line to the Island that takes the

energy and sees it used in and around St. John's again - where there is

already a booming economy - and other places in the Island where people are

doing quite well compared to Labrador. There is a whole constituency. He should

visit there more often and find out how the people of Labrador really think and

feel about energy issues in that part of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the Premier goes back to personal attacks in order to

defend a poor deal again. I do agree with the Premier on one thing: It is Voisey's

Bay two and it is, in fact, Churchill River number two as well.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Mines

and Energy. The Premier has asked that we deal with the facts, so let's deal

with the facts.

Mr. Speaker, Merrill Lynch, in a presentation to Quebec Hydro says that the

wholesale rates for electricity in the United States average nine to eleven

cents U.S., or fourteen to seven cents Canadian per kilowatt hour.

My question for the Minister of Mines and Energy is this: Following the

Ministerial Statement on Tuesday in which he said, "... our intention to

ensure that we get full value as though we were going directly to the market

ourselves in another fashion.", would the minister assure the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that we will, in fact, get between fourteen and

seventeen cents per kilowatt hour for our Gull Island power adjusted upwards, of

course, if the price is higher when the project is completed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, a very important and serious component of

putting together a Lower Churchill deal is with respect to the price that we

will get for our power, because that is fundamental, of course, as to whether or

not a deal: (

a) is viable and (

b) is sensible and reasonable.

The price that we will be receiving for our power, if and when we conclude an

arrangement, would be based on what is not only reasonable today in the context

of prices for energy in North America, but it will be reasonable and it will be

measured against the projected value and price for power well into the future,

particularly commencing with 2010, 2012, or at whatever point a project might be

coming on stream.

So we will use, we have used, we are looking at, we have in our possession,

we have done a lot of consideration, and we have hired the best experts we can

find in North America in the energy industry and in the financial community to

give us advice and give us information. The price that we will get for our power

will be a fair price, a consistent price and a good price based on floor prices

and based on escalator clauses that will compare with what is projected to be

its value on a go-forward basis long, long into the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has gone from the Open Line to talking about full value in North

American cities, to this House, two days ago, talking about full value, to the

words: reasonable, fair, consistent, measured against something. No longer, Mr.

Speaker, do we have full value, so the escalator is not an escalator at the end

of the day.

Mr. Speaker, a Hydro-Quebec document which compares electricity prices of

North American cities four years ago, in 1998, shows that the residential price

for electricity in Montreal is 6.03 cents per kilowatt hour and the industrial

price for heavy industrial commercial users is 4.06 cents per kilowatt hour.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister: Is that industrial price, that

commercial price, that wholesale price of approximately four cents per kilowatt

hour, the price that we are, in fact, going to get for our Gull Island power?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I would remind all hon. members again to - if

they have not already, and I believe they have - take into account the very

focused and very accurate position that the Premier has put, for the last three

or four days, with respect to negotiations on a possible Lower Churchill deal.

We are structuring a negotiated arrangement on the Lower Churchill deal that

will take into account, fully, what it is our power will be worth when it comes

available to be sold, to be used and to be otherwise made available for the

benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

For the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today to be asking for a comparison

between prices specific in Montreal to a specific user - for example, a domestic

or a wholesale or commercial user - is really picking a very narrow piece of

information to try and construct a circumstance that would suggest -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - that we have agreed to something that is inappropriate,

inconsistent, and that we cannot support.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - to develop the project, all of the information, including

full disclosure on power prices, current and projected, measured against the

standards that we have been examining, and the information that we have been

given, will be made available to all of the people of the Province for full

consideration and debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot believe it. The Minister of Mines and Energy, who is negotiating

this on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, says that the price

in this agreement is very narrow and very picky.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I remind hon. members that the practice we have followed is that

points of order that come up during Question Period ought to be deferred until

the end of the Question Period, unless it is of an emergent or urgent nature.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec's comparison of prices in North American cities

shows that Corner Brook residents, for example - I think St. John's is

probably used as an example, but let's use Corner Brook, my district - would

pay nearly 40 per cent more per kilowatt hour for electricity than residents in

Montreal.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador that the price difference of 40 per cent will probably increase for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who depend on burning oil for electricity while

Quebecers will continue to use our cheap power from the Lower Churchill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to point out again the despicable, quite despicable tactic of the

Leader of the Opposition. This is a serious debate, Mr. Speaker. This is a very

serious debate, and here is the Leader of the Opposition trying, again, to set

up a scenario to have people scared off to even having an intelligent, informed

debate once we all know what we are talking about.

There has been no release of any agreement to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. He gets up and misrepresents the answers. The Minister of Mines and

Energy did not say what he suggested, which is why he was going to rise on a

point of order. He did not say it. Then this hon. member - did you notice that I

used the word hon. member? - this hon. member gets up and tries to suggest to

the people in this Legislature and the people of the Province through television

that he said something completely different than what he said. Mr. Speaker, we

have seen it now for four days, a tactic with an Opposition that is opposed to

this deal and has said, because get back to the fundamental, the details do not

matter when you have an Opposition that says unless you reopen the Upper

Churchill we would never even discuss the development of the Lower Churchill

because that means there will be nothing to talk about for another thirty-nine

long years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: So, we are not talking about a price. We are not talking

about cost in Corner Brook.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: We are talking about sitting there and doing nothing for

another thirty-nine years, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I am glad the Premier rose to his feet because I have a

question now for the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

On Tuesday in this House the hon. the Premier acknowledged that there are

serious consequences under the lending documentation if the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador is unable to meet its financial commitments. Mr.

Speaker, would the Premier give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador an

ironclad guarantee that there is nothing in this documentation that could affect

our credit rating or our ability to borrow when our financing practices are

already considered to be unsustainable?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would expect, and I do know, that the people in this

Legislature, all of us and those in the gallery and the people of the Province

listening to the debate, can see through the tactic that is being played. Listen

to it again. Let me use this example: the Leader of the Opposition in a

Legislature where we are committed under our own honour to tell the truth - that's

the rules by which we operate. We do not call each other anything other than

honourable and truthful members because we accept that if somebody says it, it

is the truth and we do not challenge that. If we say otherwise, we are asked to

withdraw.

Right here, a prime example just given. The Leader of the Opposition with a

straight face, serious face, in a serious tone, said: A couple of days ago the

Premier acknowledged that there were serious consequences in the financing. Do

you know what I said? And we can check Hansard and we can check the tapes from

outside. I said the consequences in the financing agreement are normal financing

arrangements that you would find in any loan. That is what I said. Those are my

words. What gives anybody else, particularly any other hon. member committed to

telling the truth, the right to stand up with a straight face and suggest that I

said something entirely different, which would be wrong to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador? It is absolutely -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier was asked: What were the

consequences of overruns on cost to ownership of the project and control of the

project? He stated that it was security documentation and there are consequences

to that security documentation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier refuses to tell the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador whether this will affect our credit rating in the

future. He did not answer it, so we have to assume the answer is: yes, it will

affect the credit rating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of

Labrador & Aboriginal Affairs.

Would the minister please confirm for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

that Peter Penashue is correct when he says that all principles have been agreed

upon in a land claims agreement between the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador and the Innu Nation? Would the minister please advise the people of

this Province today of the details of that agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice at least to acknowledge that when the Leader of the

Opposition is challenged, as I just did, he changed his tune. Because remember,

when he gave now his version of the answer about the consequences of financing,

this time he did not use the word serious anymore. Did anybody notice? The first

time he said, with a straight face, to give the people of the Province cause to

believe that I was suggesting there are serious consequences. The media knows

the difference. They have the tapes of what we both said outside the

Legislature. Our words are verbatim in Hansard, Mr. Speaker, and now he is being

exposed for trying to use language that did not exist because it is his words,

not my words, Mr. Speaker; his words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: It is far too serious to be trivialized and to try to

misrepresent the language. This is about the future of Newfoundland and Labrador

for the next forty years. It is not about trying to live in the past, trying to

make sure that we do not move forward, trying to make sure we do nothing because

that is the vision of the Leader of the Opposition, the group opposite, Mr.

Speaker. Assume nothing. He says we can assume this. We will all have an

informed debate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - when we get the information and then we will gladly

participate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

public domain, Premier.

Mr. Speaker, if we assume full production of 2,000 megawatts of power at a

rate of seventeen cents Canadian per kilowatt hour, and if we assume that that

increases by 1.5 per cent annually for the forty-five year life of the exclusive

sales to Hydro-Qubec, total revenues for the life of the project could be as

high as $200 billion.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier: How much does Newfoundland and

Labrador get from the Lower Churchill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, let me point out the tactic that is being used. At the beginning of

this question, the Leader of the Opposition made this statement - I wrote it

down and the record tomorrow will show that this is exactly what he said.

Everyone listening now knows this is exactly what he said. He said, Mr. Premier,

"Let's deal with some more facts that are out in the public domain".

Let me repeat it. Here is the Leader of the Opposition, committed upon his

honour in this House to tell the truth - we are, all hon. members, committed to

tell the truth. His lead-in is this, "Let's deal with some more facts

that are out in the public domain...". Everybody in this Province knows

this: There are no facts out in the public domain because nothing has been

released. There are no facts other than the version in the mind of the Leader of

the Opposition. The only version of the facts in the public domain are the

representations of it that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition,

confirmed by nobody, exposing nothing and disclosing nothing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: That is what he is talking about. So, the basis of his

question is without any merit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Premier of Newfoundland and

Labrador has not even gone to the Hydro-Qubec Web site to look at where these

facts came from.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

you any more questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the hon. the

Minister of Health and Community Services.

Mr. Speaker, today -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

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

Services.

Mr. Speaker, right now, today, there are over twenty private ambulance

operators who have their vehicles parked out in front of this building,

threatening to withdraw services. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health and

Community Services tell this House why his department continues to issue

policies that put the ambulance operators of this Province in a compromising

position of disobeying and contravening the legislation under the Motor Carrier

Act that governs the licence they have been issued by the Public Utilities

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This minister and this department take seriously the responsibilities with

regard to this important service which it is provided by the ambulance operators

on behalf of the people of this Province. Contrary to what the hon. member

opposite is trying to suggest, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact,

our first and most important responsibility in this issue is to try and ensure

the safety of the people of the Province. That is the primary consideration of

this minister and of this department, and if the hon. member opposite has

something to the contrary that he would like to suggest then I would ask him to

respectfully place on the table so we can discuss it here in the Chamber in the

presence of these members who are here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members that we have allocated a slot in the Question Period

for the New Democratic Party in this Legislature. There is only a little over

three minutes left, and I think that is what we have been allocating to them. If

members want to use up the time otherwise, then that is fine, but we have to

allocate the time to the hon. members sitting at my right here.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

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

My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I want

to say to the minister that the Trans-Labrador Highway is in such poor condition

that public safety is at risk. Within the last couple of weeks, there have been

four separate accidents where vehicles have flipped over on their rooftops,

including one from the Department of Environment. Here is a picture, I say to

the minister, of one of the graders off the road. Here are two copies of damage

reports that have been done, both to vehicles and personal damage that people

have done to themselves from travelling that highway.

I ask the minister: With all the money flowing out of Labrador, from the

mines in Wabush and Labrador City, from Five Wing Goose Bay, the coastal

fishery, the forestry, Voisey's Bay, the Upper Churchill and now possibly the

Lower Churchill - with all these monies flowing out, Minister - don't you

think it is time that the people in Labrador had a decent road on which to

drive?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to the hon. Member for Labrador West: Yes, we take our role in

providing services in Labrador very, very seriously. As a matter of fact, in the

last five years this particular government has spent millions and millions and

millions of dollars in trying to provide decent roadwork in Labrador, and this

government is committed to continuing on with the program of completing the

Trans-Labrador Highway.

Also, in terms of the Provincial Capital Works Program this year, in terms of

the

section of the road he is talking about between Wabush and Goose Bay, out of

a $20 million budget this year we have allocated $1 million to provide more

crushed stone and Class A for that

section of that particular highway, and I

would anticipate when the minister receives the budget this year, we will do

more improvements to this particular highway, but 5 per cent of the total

provincial budget this year was spent on the Trans-Labrador Highway and we will

continue to make the major improvements that are necessary in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister: You hold the record, Minister, for the shortest visit

ever to Labrador West. You could have arrived January 15 in boxer shorts and not

even have gotten frostbitten.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. COLLINS: I say to the minister: When will you keep your commitment to

the truckers of Labrador West and come in, get aboard their truck, travel that

road with them, and find out first-hand what the condition of that road is like?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can say to the hon. member, since this minister was sworn in as minister, I

have visited every community in Labrador. I have been in every community in

Labrador. I have spent a fair amount of time in Labrador. I did travel the

highway from Wabush to Goose Bay. As a matter of fact, the day that I travelled

that particular highway, the road was in good shape. It might have rained two

days afterwards and it needed to be graded, but the day I travelled that

particular road, the road was in good shape. Like all gravel service road, if

you get a major rainstorm -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: - you get a lot of potholes in the road, but we have six

graders that operate on that particular road.

I made a commitment to the truckers in Labrador that once I had time in my

schedule I would travel with that particular trucker from -

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

MR. BARRETT: I said a month ago, to this particular trucker, that I would

travel the highway with him as soon as my

schedule permits.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BARRETT: One of the problems we have right now, I say to the truckers

in Labrador, we are in this House of Assembly for four or five days. I also

represent a district where I have functions (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Mines and Energy was

prompted to rise on a point of order during Question Period, because of a tactic

that is used by the Leader of the Opposition which I believe violates all of the

orders of being truthful in this House. I would like to give an example of it,

right from Hansard, so you can judge.

This is from Hansard, November, 19, on page 1821, a question from the Leader

of the Opposition, after a long

preamble, which you advised him yesterday was

inappropriate. It is important that we listen carefully now. "Would the

Premier please confirm that the term of this contract is, in fact, forty-five

years or more and takes us fourteen years beyond the expiration of the Upper

Churchill agreement?" That is the question from the Leader of the

Opposition.

My answer, my words, Premier Grimes answers, "Mr. Speaker, the term of a

contract, if we are fortune enough to get one that works for Newfoundland and

Labrador, will be long enough to pay for the debt of building it, to pay for the

operations of it, and to make it profitable for Newfoundland and Labrador from

the very first year of operation. Otherwise, we will not do the deal."

Then, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Williams - that is how we are

described here in the book, in our records - says -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Here is the point, Mr. Speaker. Here is why the Leader of

the Opposition - here is why we are provoked and tempted -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: - to violate the rules of the House. Let me finish,

because here is the fact, Mr. Speaker.

The follow-up then, on his feet right after that question, which everybody

just heard, and that answer, which are the words that I gave, the Leader of the

Opposition says, "If I might summarize, the answer is: Yes, it is a

forty-five year deal." The Premier confirms it is a forty-five year deal.

Then he stands up today and says: Let me talk about the facts that are in the

public domain.

Mr. Speaker, you cannot create the facts yourself, find a completely

different answer from the government giving the answer, and then reconfirm your

own assertion as the fact. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that breaches every rule

in this Legislature, for a member to stand up and say, when we are bound to the

truth - because it is only our honour as truthful men and women that we stand on

here. For that to be left on the public record, we must stand up and rise on a

point of order because it is false, it leaves the wrong impression, and it

should not be allowed to stand.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to rise to the erroneous point of order raised by the Premier. If it

was not such a serious matter, I would suggest that if there was a parliamentary

yuk yuks in the country, that he go attend it.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is that for a year-and-a-half, the

Premier of this Province, and the Government House Leader, every time they are

under a bit of pressure, want to stand up and use this Parliament, this House of

Assembly, and frivolous points of order, to try to make a political statement.

The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: that what we have here, according

to Beauchesne , our own standing rules, and Marleau, which is the guide

that is used in the House of Commons, is more of a dispute between two members.

Secondly, the Premier either should know or ought to know that what he just

did was to impute motives on the hon. member, that said he was less than

truthful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That imputed motives that said he was less than honest, and

the Premier knows he cannot do that.

Mr. Speaker, the other assumption that the Premier has made is as if we

depend upon him and his ministers only for information. Now, if believes that,

if he believes that the answers that he provides are the only source of our

information, well, Sir, you have bigger trouble than I thought you had!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, not to prolong the point of order, just to make a

couple of points which are very, very important. What the Premier was doing was

not questioning the integrity or question the truthfulness. He was talking about

a method of asking questions, where the Leader of the Opposition very often asks

a question and makes a misrepresentation of the answer. That is what the hon.

Premier was talking about, and this House is guarded against that by every

authority that there is in the British Commonwealth: Erskine May, Beauchesne .

All of these people talk about making misrepresentation of remarks made by other

people, and that is very important. It is easy to do and if you play that game

Parliament will not operate in the way that it is supposed to operate. I just

want to make that point. That is what the Premier was doing, was talking about

how the Leader of the Opposition would ask a question and then proceed to

misrepresent the answer. That is not supposed to happen in this House and it is

a hard thing to deal with. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to follow

the rules of the House in asking questions and please, not to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

Mr. Speaker, quite clearly, what the Premier was asking, was asking that the

Leader of the Opposition refrain from misrepresenting his answers. That is what

the Premier was doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Now, you talk about parliamentary tactics. The last time I looked you were

the Speaker. The Premier, the Member for Exploits - the Government House Leader

just stood in this House on two occasions back-to-back and said that the Leader

of the Opposition, in a purposeful way, has misrepresented the House. Now, Mr.

Speaker, if you knew that and you saw that then you would have interrupted him.

The fact of the matter is, that is not true. Members opposite, and in particular

the Dean of this House, the Government House Leader, knows the difference. That

is what upsets me. He knows that in Beauchesne it says that it is

improper and incorrect to impute bad motives or motives different from those

acknowledged by any other member. He knows that.

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had been unparliamentary, had

gone out of his way to break the rules of this House, Sir, I do not know about

them but we have the utmost faith and confidence in you that you would have

brought him to order immediately, and you did not do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me say this, that members opposite, in

particular the Premier and other ministers, you would be far better off

answering the questions than getting up and wasting this House's time with

your parliamentary nonsense.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will certainly review the comments made by those who made an

intervention to the point of order and will certainly report back to the House

on the matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If I could have hon. members' attention, we will continue with the routine

proceedings. I just called Notices of Motion.

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The attacks continue. During the Voisey's Bay debate the

Leader of the Opposition was called a racist, and people had to apologize for it

- by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Now the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs sings out that the Leader of the Opposition is

a condescending despot. Now look, that type of language is unparliamentary,

uncalled for, and should not be repeated in this House. Mr. Speaker, I am asking

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to do the honourable thing,

stand up and withdraw those remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, you talk about wasting time of the House. The hon.

member thinks that he has to get up and comment on every point of order raised

in this House, every point of privilege. He thinks he has become the authority.

He is trying to take this place on his back. Now what was heard there -

sometimes there are comments back and forth that are said in a jocular manner,

but I can assure the hon. member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

I can assure the hon. member that if this hon. member made an unparliamentary

remark, he will be the first to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not hear any comments made, but I am sure that the hon. member,

if he did make an unparliamentary remark, will withdraw it. The bantering back

and forth and the interjections, sometimes it is difficult to hear what members

are saying.

The Chair had called Notices of Motion, but obviously members in the House

had not heard it. If members are not going to pay attention and are going to be

continuously interjecting and interrupting, then it is going to bring this House

down, and the decorum of this House is going to be reduced. It is incumbent on

all members to pay attention and to follow our own rules and Standing Orders and

to show some respect for this institution.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition looked over at me

and said: Enjoy your last few minutes in the House, Oliver. It is a threat.

Now I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if it is a despot or not, if that is

unparliamentary, but if it is, then I will withdraw. But, I will not be

intimidated by the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, as the Premier indicated, the Opposition House

Leader and the Leader of the New Democratic Party and I agreed that we would set

aside the Orders of the Day and debate a motion. We have not worked out all the

details, Mr. Speaker, other than to say - we just want to make sure we say the

right things here. We did not work out all the rules, other than we would abide

by our normal rules and close at our normal time. I think we agreed on ten

minutes, but we could change that. I believe that we agreed on people speaking

for ten minutes, and the same order back and forth, of course. If there is

anything else, we can work out as we proceed. That is the agreement that I

thought we came to, that we would speak for ten minutes within our normal time.

The resolution that I have presented is as follows:

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

and

WHEREAS there are indications of impending moratoria on cod fisheries in NAFO

regions 2J3KL and 4RS3PN; and

WHEREAS such actions will have a devastating impact on the economical and

social well-being of not only those directly affected but on the population as a

whole; and

WHEREAS should the scientific advice recommend closure of these fisheries,

compensation to mitigate the impacts on people and communities;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House unanimously request that all

Newfoundland and Labrador Members of Parliament and Senators come to the

Province and meet with the Premier, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

and the leaders of the Official Opposition and New Democratic Party to ensure we

are working collectively and cooperatively for the best interests of the people

and communities of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is my understanding that there is an agreement to suspend all other

business of the day and that we will proceed with the debate on the resolution

that the hon. Government House Leader has just presented.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Before the proceedings of the House today we had met and agreed that we would

suspend, by consent, the Orders of the Day. Each members will be given

approximately ten minutes each from here to 5:30 p.m. which will allow as many

members, or the most members as possible, who would like to participate in the

debate. I believe the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi,

also agreed to that. We are ready to proceed when government is.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be on record as confirming that

that agreement is made and we agreed to ten minute speeches, and that everybody

will be given an opportunity to speak, presumably. If that takes beyond the 5:30

p.m., we may have to agree to that, depending on how the time is going.

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

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) to go to 5:30 p.m. We will look at that a little

later. The only other change - to the Leader of the Opposition - I said that the

Minister of Fisheries is going to lead of the debate, that was my understanding,

but it is going to be the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate this opportunity to spend a few minutes addressing this

critically important issue, and I do commend all members in the House for

setting aside this time for this emergency debate today.

Mr. Speaker, as I see it, and I think as we view it as the government, and I

believe it is a view shared most likely and probably with all members in the

Legislature and probably just about every single person in the Province, what we

saw unfold here yesterday as a result of this particular report being discussed

with a federal Atlantic caucus and then provided to the media and then we

finding out through our own sources later on and some time later last evening,

and for some people not until today, of an issue this critically important to

Newfoundland and Labrador, the real lifeblood and backbone still of our whole

being, the whole reason that the Province is here, Mr. Speaker, in its first

instance, in Newfoundland and Labrador, all traces back to the fishery.

The fact that we are having this debate today, to me, speaks more than

anything to attitude. We talked about it in the statement I made at the

beginning of the session today. It is all about attitude. It is all about, as I

see it, how we are seen, how we are viewed, where Newfoundland and Labrador, and

our people and our issues, rate on the scale of things in the Government of

Canada. It is the kind of thing that we are hearing talked about and views given

on it almost every night, two or three nights a week lately, all over the Island

and Labrador, in sessions of the Royal Commission on Renewing and Strengthening

Our Place in Canada. Because, it is this kind of approach which gets repeated

over and over again. This is just another example in a long line.

We talked today about the examples just directly related to the fishery, but

there are so many examples in many sectors whereby a decision that is solely

about, gets discussed with everybody except us. The last ones to hear are the

people in Newfoundland and Labrador. They were planning on coming to us next

week. Fortunately for us, in my view, at least a couple of our federal members,

as soon as they heard it, understood that it was so important, so potentially

devastating for Newfoundland and Labrador, that it was not even right or proper

to wait another minute to start the debate, that the information had to be put

into the public domain and that it had to be given, because we would not have

had these documents today. These would not have been provided, except in a

private meeting, to our minister and officials for another week or more, before

we would even get to start to discuss it in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it speaks to the approach taken and the attitude that has

prevailed, probably in our whole fifty-three years of Confederation. It spans

that gambit because that too takes it above the political arena, because we have

had the circumstance, off and on in Newfoundland and Labrador, where there have

been Liberal governments in Newfoundland and Labrador while there have been

Liberal governments in Canada, like there is today. There have been Liberal

governments in Newfoundland and Labrador while there have been Conservative

governments in Canada. There have been Conservative governments in Newfoundland

and Labrador while there have been Liberal governments in Canada, and there have

been Conservative governments in Newfoundland and Labrador while there have been

Conservative governments in Canada.

It does not matter if your so-called cousins are there or not. There is a

whole history of this for fifty-three years. I think that is what we are seeing.

That is the soul wrenching type of presentations and speeches and dialogue that

we are hearing played out in the Royal Commission hearings. We see it on TV

every time there is a meeting. You hear it on the radio. You see the newspaper

reports. Because these people are asking somebody to see if we cannot make a

fundamental difference in that, to see if every time something like this happens

that we cannot stand up for a minute and reach out to somebody and see if we can

fight a bit harder, fight for our people and see if we cannot get our message

across to the leaders in Canada.

Myself and the Minister of Finance had the opportunity today to meet with the

Deputy Prime Minister who - I take it at face value, because you could see he

was taken aback, he was surprised, he did not have this information. He

indicated that it is not something that has gone to the Cabinet to the

his colleagues in the Cabinet was out discussing it with the federal MPs for

Atlantic Canada, and we were to be next.

Maybe that is an appropriate system or appropriate protocol, but the whole

fact of the matter is that we still have the federal officials going around the

Province supposedly - and here is the rub - supposedly consulting with the

people in these same communities about what the fishery might be like for next

year, what the recommendations might be like for next year, and there is

something seriously, seriously, seriously wrong about that. I think, then, when

I did get the documents and look at them this morning, this was the point that I

had to raise with the Deputy Prime Minister of the country, because it jumps

very quickly over any financial considerations and so on. It talks about timing

constraints. I think those who have seen the document on Slide 25, because it is

one of those presentations, need to make early decisions because, to their

credit, fleet planning was one issue mentioned here. Prevent gearing up for a

fishery. They did not want to be accused of falsely letting people invest their

money and think there was going to be a fishery and then tell them a week later,

you spent all your money but there is no fishery. So, at least they have learned

one lesson from 1992. Because in 1992, remember, it was July and everybody had

made their investments, everybody had made their plans, which made it twice as

bad because they let people go down that road.

They have learned one lesson, but - and I use the language in the media when

I stood there with the Deputy Prime Minister, reporting to the media about our

meeting - the other issues we dealt with, I had to indicate to him privately and

in front of the media, the offensive part of it was this: that there was nothing

in here about, it is time to talk about the people and the communities and their

future and real compensation and what next for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. But, for the provinces, guess what the first consideration is? You

have seen it. Most of the people here now have seen it. For the provinces, first

consideration, according to the bureaucrats and the minister responsible, given

to him to present to the rest of his caucus, first consideration for the

provinces is not people, not communities, not the future, but provincial

elections. Can you believe it? I had to say to them: Listen, it is offensive in

the highest degree, that is where the heads of the federal bureaucrats and the

federal minister is, that he would go -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Make no wonder the federal MPs, who are reported today in

the Telegram , were upset. It was reported that they cried and wept. I can

believe it. I know the people. I know how they wear their hearts on their

sleeves much more so than many of us. I can believe it. To sit there, to go

through this, a stunning presentation, telling you, because they want you to

know, to prepare you for it so you can go tell your people some time soon that

you might be closing their fishery, denying them their future. Instead of

talking about for the provinces, what is the first thing that should be

considered in a Province like Newfoundland and Labrador? Not how we are going to

work with you, MPs, to deal with the people you represent; not how we are going

to deal with the future of the communities; not how we are going to deal with

rebuilding a fishery if there is any hope, but provincial elections. Guess what

the second one is? It is just as bad. It is the Newfoundland Royal Commission.

Now, can you believe that? What has that to do with the livelihood of the people

of - this is the document that was apparently presented to our colleagues, the

one that was reported on this morning. It was sent to us by MP Mr. Efford. We

can certainly make copies available, I believe, Mr. Minister? We have some,

okay.

Mr. Efford, as everyone knows, a former member here and now the MP for

Bonavista-Trinity-Conception sent us a copy of this. The media have it in the

local area. Planning for 2003 and Beyond - Atlantic Cod in 4TVn, 3Pn4RS, and

2J3KL. I think it is useful to have the document. In looking at it, I can

understand their reaction because I think that is everybody's reaction in

MPs about the potential closure of the cod fishery which, in the regions that

are indicated - everybody here knows enough about that - for many of them, the

cod fishery is the only fishery. It is not like there are alternatives; this is

their livelihood. This is the reason the communities are there. This is the

the first consideration is provincial elections. The second one is the

Newfoundland Royal Commission, and the third one, probably the least impacted of

all the provinces, by the way, as we would know, is the Quebec request for a

working group to address the issues. The Quebec request for a working group to

address the issues.

Now, those are the things that registered with the federal bureaucrats who

provided this for the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to consult the

Atlantic Caucus members on. I believe, even with the little bit that we know,

that today I believe we will be unanimous in terms of calling upon ourselves

federally and provincially to ban together to deal with this issue not because

of provincial elections, not because of anything a Royal Commission might say,

but because of what it potentially does to the people of our Province who will

be directly impacted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude because I want to give

everyone an opportunity to participate in the debate and I did get an

opportunity to say some words at the beginning.

I am surprised sometimes when these kinds of things happen repeatedly, that

our federal MPs on either side sometimes do not get so frustrated with the

federal system that they almost do not consider banning together anyway, as a

Newfoundland and Labrador block of MPs - sort of like a Bloc Newfoundland and

Labrador, like a Bloc Qubcois - and that we might have a voice, if seven of

us. Never mind what side of the House you are on because you are seven voices in

300. I think we all realize that is part of the issue. In its totality, there

were seven of - 301, I think, now is the totality of it.

In fact, sometimes - because I know they do - many times you will hear our

MPs, even though they are of different stripes, speak of the one voice on the

issues because they are there for Newfoundland and Labrador. That has to be

their primary interest. Sometimes it almost makes more sense - and I am sure

sometimes they have caucused and said: Why don't we forget whether or not we

are elected for the Conservative Party or whether we are elected for the Liberal

Party? Why don't we just vote for initiatives that are in the best interests

of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of us, and vote against initiatives that are

not in the best interests of - I am sure they have had the discussions. I do not

think they will formalize it. Maybe they will come down to the Royal Commission

and talk to the Royal Commission about that as a thought. This group is sure

concerned about the Royal Commission. I do not know why. We are just examining

our own prospects and what we are going to do next to talk about renewing and

strengthening our place in Canada, but it is clear; it is crystal clear.

Here is more stark striking evidence of it, that there is work to be done

about carving out a real place for us, a meaningful place for us in Canada,

where our issues are going to be taken seriously, importantly, and put on the

front burner, not as a third or fourth consideration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate everyone cooperating today, in

terms of having this debate. I look forward to hearing their representations

made. I hope we can put together what the resolution says - a meeting. I

appreciate the involvement and participation, and help and support of the Leader

of the Opposition and his caucus, the Leader of the NDP and his caucus, in

bringing, not only ourselves as politicians, but many others as have been done

before together around this issue. It is critically important. It is time for

all of us to stand up one more time, solidly, and in a united fashion, for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Well said, Premier. I concur with your remarks completely.

It must be nice for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and anybody who

happens to be watching this afternoon, to see how we can go tooth and nail on

issues that there is some adversarial issues with - which is important, that is

the job we do for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in this House of

Assembly. When it comes to something that affects the future and affects the

lifeblood of our Province and the lifeline of our Province, we act in a

completely civilized manner, we come together, we will do whatever it takes,

jointly with the hon. the Premier, with the Leader of the New Democratic Party

and all member is this House because at the end of the day, we are

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is really what it is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this announcement and the possibilities of the

consequences that come beyond it, is the equivalent of a Sept 11 to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador; the devastation, the impact that it will have on

our economy, particularly rural Newfoundland. That is why it is certainly nice

to see that the hon. the Premier and myself - the Leader who would have some

discretion and some leeway in standing up and going on here for half-an-hour and

an hour - have agreed that we will be brief.

We have had a chance to talk about this. We have had a chance to make the

statement and respond to that statement, but it is important that the people in

the districts hear from all their members, especially the members in rural

Newfoundland. They are the ones they want to hear from. They are the ones who

represent them. They are the ones who know, in each specific district, what

their interests are, what their concerns are, what the out-migration is, where

the young people of Newfoundland and Labrador have gone, where the suffering is,

where the hardship is, where the poverty is in our Province, people struggling

to stay in our Province because they want to live in Newfoundland and Labrador

for the rest of their lives, and they are doing their very best to stay here.

They are probably sitting home in their living rooms right now saying: We just

can't take another shot, we can't take another one on the chin. What are we

going to do? We can tell them. We are going to work together on their behalf,

all of us, each and every one of us, and we are going to do whatever it takes to

bring Ottawa to its knees on that.

The way that Ottawa has treated our Province is disgraceful. For the Premier

and for the minister and for his Cabinet not to be informed of this is absurd.

They are treating us with disdain, is what they are doing. They are treating our

Province with disdain. We are a full partner in Confederation, and for them to

turn around and not tell us about this, and it has to leak out of a caucus - and

I didn't get a chance today to read the paper, but I had heard yesterday that

an MP from this Province actually cried. Now, you can imagine sitting in that

caucus and hearing that news for the first time and the impact of it. I mean,

that is the way we feel. We are passionate Newfoundlanders, we love this place

they doing? Every single time they turn around and slap us in the face.

We know the issue of custodial management which was raised by the government

and which the Opposition came on board on and put together a coalition. We had

people from all over the Province and we came together. The coalition that was

put together was anchored by the MPs and the MHAs in our House, all the MPs. As

I said before, non-partisan. Almost everybody came together, everybody was

supportive. The MHAs came on board from all parties in this House. The

communities came together, the Federation of Municipalities. We even had

national resolutions from national bodies supporting our cause, supporting a

resolution of the House of Commons Standing Committee that said this was the

right thing to do for Newfoundland and Labrador, for Newfoundland and Labrador

management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

should happen.

What did this fellow, Thibault, do? He just kind of shrugged his shoulders

and said, no, not going to do anything about it. Yet, he is pretty quick to come

back and make Newfoundlanders and Labradorians pay the price, and that is

absolutely terrible. When foreigners are overfishing off our banks, who does he

ask to come back and take the brunt of it? He asks us to take it.

What have they done for us? What are they doing about the seals? What have

they done on the research side over the years? Cut back on the research. Cut

back on the security, you know, just keeping an eye on what is going on out

there. There are not enough vessels out there to police, from a surveillance

perspective, as to what is going on out there. They won't even expend the

money to protect our resource. It just disgusts me, what is going on.

Yes, we have to find our place in Canada, and we will work together on

federal issues. If it is this issue or another issue, whether it is clawback or

equalization, whenever you want a united front to go to Ottawa on provincial

issues, we are with you 100 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Premier comfort that - and I am

sure he knows it - this will get unanimous support from all around the Province.

Premier, when the coalition was formed, within ten days 20,000 Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians signed that petition. Because we are all, in our own way,

fighting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians because we have had to fight for every

single thing that we have gotten from Canada.

I do not know why they think we are second or third class citizens. I just

cannot, for the life of me, understand it. We bring so much to Confederation. We

Canada, from a resource perspective. Everything we do, from our people, the

people who have worked all across this country, all over the country, in Fort

McMurray, in Ontario, everywhere, all over the country. There are

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians everywhere. They are respected for their hard

work. They are loved by the people they work with. We deserve a better shake.

What is now happening to us, to our fishery, and to our people is absolutely

disgraceful.

Premier, I am not going to go on because I do want to allow time for people -

obviously for the critic and people from the communities in rural Newfoundland

who have lived in those communities, who live and love the fishery as we all do.

I think it is important that we get their stories and find out what personal

hardships this is going to create.

The South Coast of Labrador, we know the economy there is doing very, very

well, and the success in the district of the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair, the impact that is going to have on that particular coast and that

particular district. I am interested in hearing from her. I want to hear what

she has to say about it. I can guarantee her, as I can guarantee all members

opposite, you have our full cooperation, our full support, and our full

compassion for the situation that people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador

could find themselves if this dastardly deed takes place.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say first of all that I support, and we support, wholeheartedly this

resolution. I want to say as well that I think the Premier's instincts were

absolutely right today in terms of his response to the news out of Ottawa that

this was being considered. In particular, the news that this was being done

behind the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and their government,

whomever that government is, that this government deserves advance consultation,

notice and warning; but, also his reaction to the suggestion that somehow or

other an important consideration put on the table before any consultation with

this Province - to federal members of Parliament from one party by the

government is that we have to consider provincial elections, forthcoming

provincial elections in Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec and that somehow

the timing of the response has to respond to that.

Mr. Speaker, I find that abhorrent, for a federal government to have that

attitude and that approach to a matter as important and devastating,

potentially, as a decision like this could be. As I said earlier, everybody in

this Province was in a state of shock and dismay at the announcement ten years

ago of the cod motorium. The consequences were devastating and long-lasting. In

fact, worse than what people imagined. We have seen the results in our declining

population, particularly in rural Newfoundland of some 50,000 in the last five

years.

We all shuddered yesterday, and some today, when we heard the news that this

could be happening again and that the consequences for the communities affected

could be equally, if not more serious, than the first time around.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the litany of complaints that we have about the

fishery of recent years. The 1,500 tons of shrimp given to some P.E.I.

businessmen, not the fishermen, not the P.E.I. fishermen who needed a catch, but

given to P.E.I. businessmen so that they could sell to somebody else and never

Province's interests; Newfoundland shrimp being given to P.E.I. businessmen to

suit some federal need, we saw that. We have seen for many years the lack of

attention to foreign overfishing and recently, of course, the ignoring by the

management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Bank, which was recommended by a

unanimous report of the federal Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Those are only some of the many, many complaints that we have about the attitude

in Ottawa toward this Province and toward this Province's fishery, the

mainstay of our economy for some 400 years.

Mr. Speaker, we have as well an attitude expressed in this report to the

caucus which is quoted in the paper as saying: An early decision on the fishery,

possibly in March, would enable people to access existing compensation and

reduce the need for special programs.

This is what they are talking about. Before they even start, before they even

make a decision - although the decision appears to be made - they want to reduce

the need for any special programs. So what they are looking at first and

foremost, before they even know the extent of the problem, before they even have

the scientific reports in, before they have the results of the consultation of

the FRCC, they want to consider already how we can reduce any possible need for

special programs.

The Premier mentioned the Royal Commission, and I wholeheartedly support the

need for the Royal Commission based on our history of our involvement with

Canada to date. That is something we look forward to the report of, but the need

for the Royal Commission reminds me of the attitude expressed by a federal

Minister of Fisheries going back almost fifty years ago now. Because, after

Confederation, one of the things that the federal government did agree to was a

special study of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, and a special report was

produced after a task force went around the Province. Federal and provincial

people considered all aspects of the Newfoundland fishery and made a very

important report to Ottawa. It landed on the desk of the then Minister of

Fisheries, James Sinclair from British Columbia. I believe the year was1953. I

wish I had the exact quotation with me. There was a whole series of important

recommendations that would help, and would have helped back in 1953, to make

substantial improvement to the Newfoundland fishery and the Newfoundland

communities. The minister wrote at the head of the report, and passed it on to

the deputy, after having seen it: No special measures. No special programs.

Normal services only.

That is what happened to the federal government's response. That was the

federal Minister of Fisheries' response from British Columbia back in 1953, to

a mammoth report on the Newfoundland fishery, making all sorts of

recommendations for improvement to the fishery of this Province just after we

entered Confederation.

Madam Speaker, that has been the attitude of the federal government towards

this Province and towards this fishery ever since. We have gone through the

history of trading off the cod stocks off the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador to foreign nations for other considerations.

External Affairs has had more say in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery in

Ottawa than the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That has been the

case year after year, decade after decade, of our involvement with

Confederation. There are very, very serious attitudinal problems that have been

recognized for many years and that are hopefully going to be reflected in the

report of the Royal Commission that is going on right now.

We have a very specific issue before us today, and that issue relates to

whether or not there is going to be the need for a further moratorium of our cod

stocks off the Newfoundland and Labrador Coast. These stocks are very, very

important to those who are dependent upon them. In fact, we even made some

effort to try and rebuild those stocks and to bring back some commercial fishery

in those areas.

What I want to say is, Madam Speaker, we have the federal minister apparently

ready to adopt these kinds of measures now in relation to something that is

going to happen next year and yet seem to ignore recommendations of the FRCC to

date. The 2001-2002 recommendations going back over a year-and-a-half

recommended that there be seal exclusion zones developed in this Province where

cod are aggregated and where seals are inflicting high mortality rates on the

cod be designated as seal exclusion zones. We have not seen that happen, Madam

Speaker. When there are positive recommendations made that could have helped to

rebuild those stocks by establishing, for example, seal exclusion zones, the

federal government has failed to follow that.

The FRCC - and I think this is something in terms of, we are talking about

attitude - we are trying to rebuild the stock and yet we have allowed the

despite a recommendation from the FRCC that any removal of stock must contribute

to the monitoring of stock status and be of scientific value. The FRCC did not

ahead and conducted a recreational fishery last year and this year.

So, when these attitudes are changing, Madam Speaker, we have to see

attitudes change in this Province as well. If we are going to have a response to

the problems of the Northern cod based on scientific advice after the

consultation has taken place, and obviously that has to take place with the

FRCC, which is taking place today and tomorrow and this week and further on,

once the scientific evidence is in and if it is necessary - I accept the wording

of the resolution - if the scientific advice recommends the closure of these

appropriate compensation to mitigate the impact on people and communities.

Even if, Madam Speaker, some of these stocks, some of the inshore stocks,

appear to be a little healthy, and if it is necessary to leave them alone anyway

and let those stocks be the spawning biomass that is going to increase the stock

along the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, even though they may be in good

shape where they are but we need them to build the rest of it. If we are going

to say that, for the benefit of all of us and for the future, we need to stop

fishing those stocks, well, then, the fishermen, the plant workers, those

involved in that fishery, the communities involved, have to be compensated for

allowing that stock to be rebuilt and for being deprived of the ability to fish

that stock. That is what is fundamentally necessary, Madam Speaker, that be a

part from the very beginning of any consideration of a change in that fishery

and the possibility of a moratorium.

We will support this resolution. We think it is an opportunity for all

Members of Parliament, of both political parties, that are now represented there

representing this Province. Others outside of Newfoundland and Labrador have

already indicated their support. The New Democratic Party in Ottawa has today

issued a press release and is calling on Ottawa for an emergency debate in

Ottawa on this very issue on the fate of the fishermen of Newfoundland and

Labrador and Quebec who are going to be affected by this, calling for an

emergency debate. So, this is not something that is only confined to

Newfoundland and Labrador MPs. We will count on, and I know we will get, the

support of Peter Stoffer, the Member of Parliament for Nova Scotia, who has

consistently supported the fishing industry in this Province as a member on the

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and continues to do that, so we will

have support from others.

To see an all-party response in this Province with the instinct of the

Premier today to suggest that this should be done with our full endorsement, I

think, is a very good thing. To have the senators involved, to have the Members

of Parliament involved, and to have all three parties here involved is a very

positive step forward to have a widespread consultation so that we can show that

we stand with one voice on this issue. We have done it before on a number of

issues, most recently with respect to the issue regarding Fishery Products

International. This was seen as an issue affecting all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and the consequences of that company being taken out of this

Province and being run as no longer a Newfoundland and Labrador based company

was considered to be unacceptable. An all-party committee of this House

travelled around this Province, took the views of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, studied the issue and came up with a set of unanimous

recommendations to this House. A good example, Madam Speaker, of what happens

when the issue is of such great importance that we have to work together to make

sure that we are speaking with one voice because we know that those outside of

this Province are looking for division, are looking for ways to drive a wedge

between people in this Province; but this is something that we can expect, that

we will be able to speak with one voice, that there is an absolute need for a

compensation program if there is to be a closure of these fisheries. There is an

absolute need for consultation with the people who are going to be affected by

this from the very beginning, and there is an absolute need for members of this

House to have a say.

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: I want to thank members for the time to participate in this.

I look forward to hearing the speeches of other members this afternoon.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I certainly appreciate an opportunity to speak to this resolution and say,

with hesitation, that I will certainly be in favour of it. It is not only a

no-brainer, it would be totally nonsensical not to support such a resolution.

I guess, frustration is a word some might say fits here today, but it doesn't

really fit, it goes beyond frustration. I have represented a district since 1999

which, if you talk devastation, I have probably felt it more than anyone, other

than the Northern Peninsula people in this Province. We don't have crab, we

don't have shrimp, we had a bit of cod, which we supplemented, maybe, with a

bit of redfish from time to time. We don't have a fish plant in Burgeo

anymore. We don't have a fish plant in Rose Blanche anymore. We don't have a

fish plant in Isle aux Morts anymore. We didn't have a fish plant in Port aux

Basques this year. There are only two operative fish plants in the area, one

being in Burnt Islands and one being in Margaree. Burnt Islands has been

operating this year and employed about 100 people. They processed cod. In fact,

they had 1,225 metric ton of cod. That is just the setting which we had. We know

the devastation and we know that we have very little else in our area to depend

on, other than Marine Atlantic in Port aux Basques which is a mainstay. I will

get to that one later when I talk of the seven federal sins, as I call them.

We know what devastation is all about, and today we get another slap in the

face from the federal government. I can call it nothing but a slap in the face,

not only for the process - they don't finish their science, they don't

finish their consultations, and yet they have already got a plan in place as to

what we might have to do, i.e. shut it down. I have even been told today, after

all this was leaked out in the manner in which it was, that it might be a trial

balloon, it was floated as a trial balloon. What kind of pathological mentality

does anyone have to float such a trail balloon? We are talking about people

here, not only the fishermen themselves, but there are plant workers here, there

are families here, there are economies here and there are communities here.

We have tried for many years to be able to improve the position of these

communities so that we can have people stay in them, and we don't know what

the outcome is going to be. Hopefully the science will be good and this never

has to happen. But to think that anyone could even be so callous as to float a

trial balloon and think about having a plan to just close it down, and the way

that this comes out.

We know where we stand with the federal government. I referred to the seven

federal sins, I call them, and no doubt there are more: Equalization, no move;

custodial management of the fisheries, no move; cost-shared federal-provincial

agreements, terminated, fini, complete; EI reform, none; pensions to the

disabilities, cut; Marine Atlantic Inc. which in

part certainly impacts on

myself in the district, absolutely no consideration from the federal government

as to what happens, where this company operates from, i.e. preference to Nova

Scotia, preference to Nova Scotian directors, preference to Nova Scotians on

jobs. We know where we stand with the feds on health care. The only thing we

have left, the fisheries now, in that particular area of our Province, they have

taken it out.

Roland King, who operates King Fisheries in Burnt Islands, not only what his

father did before him but what he has been doing now to try to keep a community

alive, callously, ruthlessly, without any consultation, without any preparation,

being told that not only is your business gone, the council of which you are a

part, and which he is a councillor is gone, the community of which he is an

important member - and the Kevin Hardys of the world who is a fisherman and is

the mayor of Burnt Islands could be devastated. And all of this is done without

anybody doing the proper preparation? I ask, who is in the wheelhouse on this

ship called DFO? Because what I have seen from the day I first went to Ottawa -

my first spring here in 1999 - to discuss seals with John Efford, along with the

Member for Bonavista South, which was absolutely idiotic when you look back on

it, as to what happened to us there before that federal fisheries committee -

and the Member for Baie Verte.

Here we are again now, we have a ship that is not only adrift, not only has

run aground - and I refer to DFO - but a ship that has been apparently totally,

absolutely abandoned. We talked about plans. They have a plan of how they are

going to deal with the provincial government, i.e., there might be an election,

as the Premier alluded to, soften the blow. How are we going to deal with the

issue of the Royal Commission that is operating down here?

AN HON. MEMBER: It is all politics.

MR. PARSONS: All politics, but unfortunately what they do not realize is

that we are talking people here. We are not talking politics, we are talking

people's lives. Where is the plan? If you spend all of your time planning

about how you might soften a blow - I trust our good people in DFO, or somewhere

in HRDC, or wherever else in the federal government, has a plan of how they are

going to deal with this. You cannot plan one if you do not have a plan in place

for the other. That is what I would like to know. If we can have leak documents

about what is going to happen in 3PS, or 3PN and 4R, where is the plan to look

after these people? We are tired of putting them on boats here and on the Marine

Atlantic and shipping them up to Ontario and Alberta. I have seen enough of that

in the twelve years since 1992, and doing everything to try and keep people

here.

We talk about cooperation. Absolutely, no question. We all need to, must and

have to, cooperate on this issue. This is not only a motherhood issue. This is a

fatherhood, a parenthood, a family - this is life's issue, because that is

what we are talking about here, people's lives. We would be doing a great

disservice to all of us here, and everybody in this Province, if we did not ban

together, but in the course of banning together we also have to keep the heat

where the heat is needed. We have to keep the toes our MPs to the fire. They are

our direct conduit to the Mr. Thibaults of the world, and the DFOs of the world,

who make these decisions in far away places in Ottawa and have no concept of how

they affect Kevin Hardy in Burnt Islands, nor, I suspect, do they care.

We need to keep pressure on it, at the same time that we are being

cooperative. I hope and I pray that this never becomes a reality because I have

seen enough of this devastation, but I also insist that if it does happen, the

bureaucrats, the political wants that exist in Ottawa, better have a plan in

place because these people have to be looked after, and will be looked after.

Instead of using your valuable bureaucratic time to finagle some devastating

plan and push it over on people, spend your energies and spend your money on

planning to look after these people. They never were quitters, we never are

quitters, and we never intend to be quitters.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to stand for a few minutes this afternoon. I cannot say I would

like to stand because I am sure we all wish we did not have to stand here this

afternoon on this special debate and on the unfortunate topic that we are here

debating this afternoon, the possibly, once again, of moratoriums on some of the

cod stocks that surround our Province.

Madam Speaker, as I was driving home yesterday I dropped into the doctor's

office on my way along. When I left, I was driving up the road, I turned on CBC

Radio and listened to the Fisheries Broadcast and I suspect much like the

Minister of Fisheries - I think he probably heard it before I did - and much

like many other people in this Province, I heard that there was a briefing in

Ottawa about the possible closure of the 2J3KL cod fishery, the 4RS3Pn cod

fishery and for those, I suppose, outside of Newfoundland over in the Southern

Gulf of St. Lawrence, the 4TVn cod fishery.

Madam Speaker, I guess I was stuck with a bit of a sense of disbelief and a

lot of sense of anger because I remember how we, in 1992 - and I say we because

I was one of them then - accepted the moratorium on Northern cod. I remember -

and I mentioned it this morning when I called in to Open Line. I mentioned how -

in late August I believe it was, or early September, I know it was definitely

prior to September 7, 1993 - I stopped on a hill. I was down in 3Ps, or 3Pn I

mean, down on the Southwest Coast. I stopped on a hill just outside of Burnt

Islands. It was a beautiful sunny day. I have a picture of it now, that I took

that day of the last boats coming up out of 3Ps. The last boats coming in with

their last trip of codfish that they brought in prior to the fishery shutting

down. I remember late that fall the rest of it closed down. The 4RS3Pn closed

down.

At that time we all had, I suppose, some sense of hope that we were doing the

right thing; some sense that after all we had done wrong in the previous ten

years, that maybe this was going to be the start of rebuilding. Maybe

government, the federal government in particular, was going to take some of the

hard steps that needed to be taken to address some of the issues that caused the

decline of the fishery.

Madam Speaker, I also remember - and I suppose this is what makes me madder -

when I was on the FRCC, the very tough and hard discussions that we had at that

time in the mid-1990s, when we grappled with the thought of trying to reopen

some of these fisheries at very low levels because we did have a great deal of

uncertainty about the state of these stocks. We did not know if they were

rebuilding. We thought they were. The scientific information was pretty sketchy.

We had no commercial activity to be able to use as an indicator of abundance,

but we decided to take the plunge anyway and open at a very low level to try and

get some people back on the water, to try and put some life back into our

communities, and try to get the information that we needed, and hopefully do it

without risking and jeopardizing the stocks.

Madam Speaker, I believe we did the right thing at that time. I believe we

did the right thing in 1992 or 1993 when we closed it down. I believe we did the

right thing in the middle 1990s when we reopened it, but today, Madam Speaker, I

cannot stand here and I cannot stand anywhere and say that the right thing is to

close it down. We have fisheries operating now at very low levels in these areas

and no - we all admit, no, the stocks have not recovered and rebuilt to the

extent that we would have liked.

Madam Speaker, I look around. I look at the briefing note, the presentation,

the report, whatever you want to call it, that the Premier referenced in his

comments when he opened this debate this afternoon. I open up to what they

consider to be Slide 9. It was obviously an overhead presentation yesterday.

"The factors which contributed not only to the decline in the early 1990s

and also to the subsequent failure to recover include: high fishing

mortality..." - and we admit readily to having overfished in the years

prior to the moratorium - "...decreased stock productivity related to

environmental factors..." - and we all know that there were serious

environmental changes, temperature changes, ice coverage changes, all these

types of things that affected a decline in growth in these stocks - and final

one, Madam Speaker, is "...increased natural' mortality, including

that from predators."

Madam Speaker, that one there is very telling, and I will say why it is very

telling: because, if you go to Slide 10, it says this on The Outlook. These are

DFO's own words, Minister Thibault's presentation to the Atlantic Caucus

yesterday, and this is what he presented to them. "Scientists indicate that

the declines are likely to continue, perhaps even without fishing: there are no

indications that stocks will recover in the foreseeable future."

Madam Speaker, they are saying that these stocks are probably not going to

recover, they are probably going to continue to decline, that it will probably

continue to decline and not recover even in the absence of any fishing activity.

So, Madam Speaker, here we have a minister in Ottawa who yesterday, without any

concern whatsoever to the impact that he was going to have on the people of this

Province, the fishing communities on the West Coast of Newfoundland, the fishing

communities on the southern part of Labrador and the Labrador Straits, on the

East Coast of the Province, the Northeast Coast, no concern whatsoever for the

impact that his statements were going to have on these people, and he suggests

that maybe we are going to have to have a moratorium. He is not so quick to deal

with what his own scientists say is one of the contributing factors to the

decline or the lack of rebuilding, and that is natural mortality. Well, what is

natural mortality?

Natural mortality, Madam Speaker, for anybody who wants to listen, is the

mortality that is caused, obviously, by natural things such as predation, such

as seals. It is well-documented and nobody wants to talk about it. Nobody wants

to hear it. Nobody wants to hear, in a community outside of Newfoundland and

Labrador and outside of Atlantic Canada, that seals are having an adverse impact

on our fish stocks. The fact of the matter is, DFO has considerable evidence,

especially in the Gulf of St. Lawrence with grey seals and harp seals, that they

are having an impact, a very negative impact and a very detrimental impact, to a

point where there is no sign of recoupment. We are to the point where, as they

say here, these stocks will not recover in the absence of action to reduce

natural mortality. So why is the minister so quick to talk about a moratorium

and so slow to talk about dealing with the seal problem?

Madam Speaker, what makes me really upset, I guess, is that I know the vast

majority of the people, as we all do, who are going to be impacted if this

closure comes to pass. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development,

the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, spoke a few minutes ago and he spoke about

Kevin Hardy. I listened to him on the radio this morning. I know that coast. I

worked with those people for about five years and know what the impact of this

closure will have, if it comes to pass, what impact it will have on people. It

will be complete devastation. It will be the final nail in the coffin for many

of these communities and, at the risk of overstating it, it will mean the final

and complete out-migration of these communities. It can mean nothing less. We

have not seen anything else happen in these communities in the last ten years,

or very little. We have not seen any factories open up there. The bottom line

is, they have struggled on, on what little bit of fishery they have had, and

they have looked to the future and the rebuilding of these stocks as their hope

for survival.

While we must insist on a compensation program if there is a moratorium, we

have to recognize that no amount of compensation to the individuals who will be

directly affected by this - no amount of compensation - will be able to replace

the fishery in these areas. While you can put a cheque in a person's pocket to

compensate them for the cheque they would have taken out of the boat, the bottom

line is, when they get that cheque they are not going to be hanging around. The

few people who are there now hung on through thick and thin in the last ten

years in the hopes that it was going to get better, but this will be the final

blow for them. They will not be able to take it, and maybe that is what this is

all about. Maybe it is not about the protection of the cod stock, because, if it

was, the minister would have said yesterday: Maybe it is time to have a seal

cull. That is what he would have said yesterday. But, no, he said: Maybe it is

time for a moratorium.

This is more about, in my view, the final depopulation of these small

communities and the complete demise of the small boat fishery in many of these

areas. That is what this is about. It is as plain and simple as that. In those

areas of the West Coast, the Port au Port Peninsula, the Labrador Straits - I am

sure the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair is going to have a few words on

this later this afternoon - in the Labrador Straits, I was over there just about

a month ago, I guess, for a funeral. I know that area and it is completely

dependent on the cod fishery. How can we expect the plant in L'Anse-au-Loup,

the engine for that coast - yes, it gets a little bit of turbot from up Northern

Labrador and off Greenland and so on -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MADAM SPEAKER: Sure.

MR. TAYLOR: As I said, Madam Speaker, that coast just will not survive

without that fish plant and without that small boat fishery. It produces a

significant number of millions of pounds of cod there every summer and it is the

engine for that coast.

In my own district, the plant in Savage Cove will not be able to make it. It

will be over for those areas. The small boat fishery on the West Coast, the

whole West Coast of this Province, is dependent on and hanging on by its

fingernails on the cod fishery and the ground fishery. Yes, there is a little

bit of a lobster fishery, yes, there is a little bit of a crab fishery in some

areas, but in the northern part of the area it is cod and in the southwest part

of the area it is cod and on the Labrador Straits side it is cod. It is the only

game in town.

The closure of this fishery, Madam Speaker, we have to send a strong message

to the federal Minister of Fisheries that this is totally unacceptable. It is

totally unacceptable, especially in the absence of any action by his department

and his government to deal with issues such as seal predation, such as custodial

management over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. If he is not going to deal

with all of the issues that are really having an adverse effect on the

rebuilding of these stocks, then he cannot look at a moratorium on these stocks

because it is just too devastating on our communities.

Madam Speaker, on that, I know there are a lot of other members here who have

other things to say, who would like to add to this, so thank you very much and I

would just like to say that we certainly will have unanimity, I believe, on this

motion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker,

I rise to speak on the topic today in this House. Madam Speaker, I can tell

you, it brings back a lot of memories and, unfortunately for the people on the

North Coast of Labrador, they are a lot of sad memories. I hear different

members on both sides of the House talk of how their riding was hit the hardest,

but there was no part of this Province that was hit harder than the people on

the North Coast of Labrador.

Let's just go back a little bit in time when the Brigitte Bardots of the

world killed the seal fishery. Yet, all these seal fishermen who went out to the

ice made a living off the cod fishery and 95 per cent of the people who went to

the seal fishery did it as a second income. When the seal fishery closed, there

was a large amount of money that was earmarked for the Newfoundland fishermen,

but there was another group of people on the North Coast of Labrador who

depended upon the seal fishery more so than anyone else. Madam Speaker, there

was no compensation. When the closure of the cod fishery came, the cod fishery

failed on the North Coast of Labrador, and when the government began their moves

of bringing in their method of compensation, the years they based compensation

on, there was not one fish to be caught on the North Coast of Labrador.

Therefore, the people on the North Coast of Labrador, the only

part in this

Province, did not receive any TAGS or NCARP.

Madam Speaker, God rest his soul, Mr. George Sheppard, for sixty-three years

made a voyage of the cod fishery, and when the fishery failed he was told that

because he caught no fish in 1992-1993 that he did not qualify.

Madam Speaker, you talk of devastation. I remember going to Ottawa - and the

Member for Baie Verte and Bonavista South can tell you how I spoke in Ottawa.

Ladies and gentlemen, I say to every member in this House of Assembly, believe

you me, if you think you are going to face problems if they close this fishery

and you get compensat