Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 8 May 2003 (44th General Assembly, 5th Session, Vol. XLIV No. 19)
2003-05-08
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
May 8, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
Vol. XLIV No. 19
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would like to welcome to the
gallery today thirty-six Grade 5 students from Bishop Abraham Elementary in the
District of St. John's Centre. They are accompanied by teachers: Mr. Darren
Hayes, Mrs. Penney Collins and Mrs. Madeline Power.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Today I would like to welcome to the gallery, Mr. Ed Norman,
Mayor of Port Anson in the District of Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Members
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, as Volunteer Week ended recently, I was fortunate
to attend an event which portrays the true spirit of volunteerism.
After enjoying a fine potluck supper, I was pleased to present the Cox's
Cove Volunteer Fire Department a plaque in commemoration of the department's
taking the lead in the flood response that recently ravaged the Cox's Cove
area.
Also, Mr. Speaker, awards were given out throughout the evening to
well-deserving firefighters. Hughie Noseworthy, department medic and one of the
senior members of the emergency response team was named Firefighter of the Year.
Also, Mr. Speaker, a fifteen-year service pin was given to the Deputy Fire
Chief Wayne Payne; a ten-year service pin was given to Captain Donald Park, and
firefighters Charlie Barnes and Keon Noseworthy were honoured for five years
service. The banquet also gave a fitting tribute to former Firette Bertha
Delaney, who passed away in 2002 and was an important part of the local Firettes.
The Firettes, some forty-seven strong, are the backbone of this department and
are a great group of quiet volunteers for their town.
I want to congratulate Chief Alec Park and the Cox's Cove Volunteer Fire
Department, along with the Firettes, for another successful year, especially
with the recent disaster in their town.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Last evening, it was my pleasure to attend the 47 th Charter Night
celebrations for the Mount Pearl Lion's Club.
Mr. Speaker, Mount Pearl Lions, like all Lions Clubs in this Province and
elsewhere, are very dedicated to their community. In fact, to celebrate the
forty-seventh anniversary of their charter, last year the Club participated in
forty-seven different community events or initiatives. These events varied from
helping to organize a Badger Benefit Concert to knitting slippers for
disadvantaged seniors in Russia. Other community events included the Santa Claus
parade, the Habitat for Humanity projects, the Food Bank, the Wheel Chair Sports
Association and the Lion Max Simms Memorial Camp.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the accolades bestowed on the Mount Pearl Club
last evening by District Governor Keith Crocker were very well deserved.
Mr. Speaker, last week our Province celebrated the contributions of
volunteers to our communities. Mount Pearl Lions are an exemplary group of
individuals whose contributions to Mount Pearl over the past forty-seven years
have touched many lives and have seen many community projects completed by their
voluntary efforts.
Mr. Speaker, the Mount Pearl Lions have seen a resurgence in their membership
in the past two years and for very good reasons.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all members of this House will join with me in
offering Mount Pearl Lions congratulations on their forty-sever years of
involvement in the Mount Pearl community and to wish them very well in the years
ahead.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador recently held its annual Concours d'art
oratoire competition on April 5. More than forty students representing various
regions of the Province competed in one of the eight categories.
Taking home top awards in two of the categories were students from Marystown
Central High School. Crystal Miller won the Early French Immersion category
while Meghan Farrell won the Early/Late French category.
Winners from each of the eight categories each receive a free trip to the
Francoforum in St. Pierre and a cash prize.
As Meghan was the winner in a senior high category, she now has the
opportunity to represent CPF Newfoundland and Labrador at the National Concours
d'art oratoire on June 7.
Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time Meghan has done well in speaking
competitions. Just recently, she placed second overall in the Provincial Knights
of Columbus Speakoff and was also winner of the local Lions Speakoff.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House I would like to
congratulate all students who participated in the competition and wish Meghan
the very best of luck when she represents our Province in Toronto.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand to recognize the
Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Bowling Teams who represented this Province
recently at the championships in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for members of this Province to represent
the Province at national championships, but this year is quite special because
the young bowlers in six categories came home with four medals. I would like to
read the names, if I could. The gold medal winners on the Senior Girls Team,
representing Plaza Bowl, are: Brittany Foley, Ashley Fowler, Natalie Bryant,
Savanna Matthews, Alisha Norris, coached by Marion O'Brien.
On the Junior Boys Team, they won bronze. They represented Plaza Bowl as
well: Matthew Brown, Gregory Ball, James Walsh, Eddie Rice, Ryan Noftall, and
their coach was Ken Noftall.
The Bantam Boys won bronze. They represented Pearlgate Lane. Their bowlers
were: Craig Ford, Alex King, Peter Tobin, Joseph Snook, Jessie Burns, coached by
David Holloway.
The Bantam Girls Team won bronze, representing Plaza Bowl: a resident of my
district, Rebecca Landry; Alexandria Hawkins; another resident of my district,
Ashley Connolly; another person from my district, Courtney Bell; Gillian
Forward, and they were coached by Janet Forward.
As well, the Senior Boys Team and the Junior Girls Team placed fourth.
So, it is with great honour that I stand and recognize these young bowlers
who brought home medals, representing this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my sincere congratulations to Ashley
Bursey, who was recently crowned Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is quite clear from Ashley's accomplishments that she is an exceptional
and well-rounded individual. Ashley placed first in the academic portion of the
Miss Teen competition, which is little wonder given that the Grade 11 student
maintains a 93% average.
At Bishop's College in St. John's, where she is a student, Ashley is
co-editor of the school yearbook, a member of the school's
chapter of SADD,
Students Against Drunk Driving, and captain of the Cheerleading Squad.
Outside of school, Ashley is involved in tutoring, dancing, and voice
lessons, and also coaches a drama group at Cowan Heights Elementary. These
activities, no doubt, helped her to place third in the talent competition.
Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the members of Ashley's family are very
proud of her, including her grandfather, Calvin Bursey, who happens to be one of
the Commissionaires here in the House of Assembly.
Again, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Ashley on her
recent success.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
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, as every Newfoundlander and Labradorian knows, the fishery has
been the lifeblood of this place for more than 500 years. The fishery provided
sustenance for the early Aboriginal peoples who inhabited this land, and it was
the foundation for our early colonial settlement. Today's modern fishery is
the principal employer and economic base of most of rural Newfoundland and
Labrador.
It has been said that we, as a people, take our strength from the sea. The
groundfish moratoria of the early 1990s shook this Province socially, culturally
and economically, but we are a strong people, Mr. Speaker. We bounced back. We
took the hard decisions and we took risks. We developed a new fishery that
represents a vibrant, modern industry. A modern industry with vital links to our
past.
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were therefore justifiably proud in the late
1990s when the federal minister reopened the Northern and Gulf cod fisheries. We
took it as a sign that recovery was occurring, that federal fisheries management
would not let us down again.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we were wrong. The latest decision of the federal
minister to again close the Northern cod fishery and place the Gulf cod stock
under moratoria was therefore a shock to all of us. It has fundamentally
undermined our confidence in federal fisheries management, but it has not
challenged our resilience as a people.
Mr. Speaker, this government has been clear in its position on the recent
federal decision. This decision was not well thought out. It was a wrong
decision. The decision to close the Gulf cod fishery flies in the face of expert
advice from the minister's own Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, and it
ignores the advice that all the parties in this hon. House worked hard to
prepare through the all-party committee process. Again, we have had a "made
in Ottawa decision" thrust upon us without regard and respect for the
consensus of the people of this Province and the parties and members of this
House.
In defending his position, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has
said that he must err on the side of conservation and he did what was necessary
to allow for the rebuilding of the Northern and Gulf cod stocks. We reject this
view. What is required is a comprehensive recovery plan for these stocks, not
simply moratoria. We need a full strategy that seeks to improve fisheries
science and deals with key issues like seal predation and foreign overfishing.
We are convinced that a modest commercial fishery can also be part of such a
comprehensive recovery plan as it will provide us with valuable data and
practical knowledge that would not otherwise be available. We are disappointed
and offended that, in the eleven years since the original Northern cod
comprehensive plan to ensure the recovery of this stock.
Mr. Speaker, this situation can no longer be allowed to stand. Time is
running out to save our fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. There must be a
new approach to the management of fisheries adjacent to our shores. One that
ensure the people of this Province have a meaningful say in management
decisions. One that provides a solid foundation for stock recovery. One that
recognizes that fisheries were managed responsibly by the Dominion of
Newfoundland before our entry into Canada, and one that respects the experience
and concerns of the people whose livelihoods depend upon this resource.
To this end, Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon I will rise in this hon. House
and will give notice of motion on one of the most important resolutions we have
ever had to consider. That resolution will direct the Government of Newfoundland
and Labrador to seek a formal amendment to the Terms of Union providing for
shared and equal constitutional authority between the governments of Canada and
this Province over fisheries adjacent to our shores. It will also propose that
we negotiate and constitutionally entrench a new joint management fisheries
board to manage these resources. This resolution will also provide the
foundation for new conservation and recovery plans aimed at achieving the
long-term sustainability of these fisheries and new measures to improve our
collective knowledge and understanding of fisheries science.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the rigorous debate that I am certain we will
have on this important resolution that I will introduce later in these
proceedings.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in joining with the comments and the
statement by the Premier, and his initiative. I actually consider it a
compliment to our party and to our policies over the years, because we have
stood for this position for a long time. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in
our Blue Book during the last election, under the leadership of the Opposition
House Leader, we stated, "A national agreement to discuss renegotiating
constitutional roles and responsibilities in the fisheries, achieved by our
party in the late eighties, was subsequently quashed by the Liberals at a time
when it would have benefitted us most. A PC Government will aggressively pursue
a Canada-Newfoundland Fisheries Agreement providing for a joint decision-making
process to give the Province a meaningful say in decisions on fisheries
management, which have a major impact on our economy and our social
fabric."
As well, Mr. Speaker, during that election, Leader Byrne, House Leader, said:
The PC Party stands firmly with the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador
whose economy, heritage and very existence were build upon the fishery. We stand
with the men and women who look for leadership in rebuilding the industry and
restoring it as one of the pillars of our economy. With these words, Ed Byrne,
today signed a contract on fisheries, a clear expression of the Progressive
Conservative commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador fishers and plant workers.
That was in February of 1999. It could have been implemented four years ago.
In that contract, a Progressive Conservative Government will aggressively
pursue a Canada-Newfoundland Fisheries Agreement providing for a joint
decision-making process to give the Province a meaningful say in decisions on
fisheries management which have a major impact on our economy and social fabric.
In June of 2000 our Fisheries Critic, the Member for Bonavista South:
Opposition Fisheries Critic, Roger Fitzgerald, says Atlantic Accord-like shared
fisheries management is a timely solution to the problem underlying the latest
fisheries allocation crisis. Fitzgerald's proposal brings order and balance to
fisheries management. The Newfoundland Government should insist on the
establishment of a new management regime that is mandated and protected under
federal and provincial law. This can be done through a fisheries management
accord.
Mr. Speaker, our party is very, very clear on the record and have been for
some considerable period of time, so, I certainly welcome the initiative. I also
agree that it is time that something should be done, however, we have to
consider the timing of this. This is something that could have been done for
some considerable period of time. The one thing that we cannot let happen now,
because of the importance of this -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The one thing that we cannot let happen now is that we get diverted from the
issue. This is a very, very important, a very fundamental issue. We have a
commission before us right now that is due to report next month on strengthening
our place in Canada. This initiative, if it had been commenced three or four
years ago, would now probably have come to fruition. This is a long term
initiative, it is going to take some time. I don't want to see this House
diverted and spend a long time. I welcome rigorous debate, as the Premier has
indicated, but we don't need rigorous or controversial or partisan or
adversarial debate on this particular issue right now. If we could see the plan,
if we can see the resolution and detail - we need to see the plan for this joint
management; what it is going to cost; how it is going to be done; how it is
allocated. Perhaps we, as all parties, can agree and not have a rigorous debate,
because I am not certain at this point in time that we need to go into an
adversarial situation. We have wasted a lot of time on that. If there is a
crisis in our Province now, our people, our families our communities are at risk
out there and are suffering and we need to deal with it.
Although I welcome this, and I take great pride in the fact that it is now on
the table and that we pursued it for so long, the timing concerns me. We want to
make sure that this does not become political; that this does not simply become
an election issue; that it is not simply grandstanding and takes our attention
away from the important matter.
Personally myself, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the federal government has legal
responsibility. I feel they have been negligent in the management of our
resources. I think we have a legal action against the federal government and
that also is a possible long-term solution.
We certainly do welcome it. I want to make sure it is well thought through. I
want to see the details, if the Premier has the resolution, a copy of the
strategy and the plan; how he plans on going about this; how it will be
implemented; what it will cost and where the separate jurisdictions will be
held.
I am certain we, as a party, will consider it and if it is well thought
through and well planned there will be no need for rigorous debate. We will
support it wholeheartedly, but I do qualify it on having to see the details.
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.
The Premier has put very well the situation of this Province as it relates to
the fishery. The fact of its importance to our Province and its importance going
back well prior to Confederation. As I said to the fisheries committee
yesterday, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the constitutional situation of this
Province or the legislative jurisdiction in relation to the fishery - whether it
be in the colonial days when we were governed by Britain, whether it was during
our Dominion status, during Commission of Government, or during Confederation -
politically, we are dealing with our fish. Jurisdictionally, since Confederation
not carried out very well, as we all know, given the history of the fishery,
given the permission for foreign overfishing, the tolerance of overfishing and
the moratorium that we have encountered.
Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, when we said two-and-a-half years ago that we
should have a Royal Commission to look at the Terms of Union, to find out and
study exactly how we can go about making changes to our relationship with Canada
that would benefit this Province, the management of the fishery was one of the
key elements of that and we have a Royal Commission now doing that.
I certainly welcome the news that this government is committed to making a
change in the Constitution with respect to our fisheries. I, too, Mr. Speaker,
would like to - revolve on just one comment of the Premier, when he referenced
the decision made by the minister he said that the decision was not well thought
out. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the haste to have a response to the current
situation -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you to all hon. members, I know this is a very important matter.
That in our interest in ensuring the fishing community of Newfoundland and
Labrador and the fishermen of this Province, that we are sincere about our
efforts in making such a significant change. That we not do something quickly.
That we do think it out in advance. That we do have full consideration of the
implications. We do have a Royal Commission reporting very shortly, because this
is a serious matter. We cannot mechanically change the Constitution because we
say so today and it is going to change tomorrow.
So, I think, we welcome the commitment of the Premier. We join with him in
seeking constitutional change on the issue of fisheries jurisdiction in the
long-term; on the issue of fisheries management in the short-term; and, I hope,
Mr. Speaker, that this announcement by the government will, in fact, lead to
now on what is happening to the 3,500 tons of cod in the Gulf of St. Lawrence
that are being decided by the minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: One man in Canada, Mr. Speaker, has taken it upon himself to
decide the fate of 4,400 people in Newfoundland and Labrador against the advice
of conservation, against all the leadership in this Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador, against our senators, against our elected representatives in Ottawa,
and that is just not good enough.
We have, in the short-term, to have some joint consideration of management
right now and look seriously at what constitutional changes might need to be
made to ensure that, in the future, decisions made about our fishery are not
made by Ottawa's policy to give 1,500 tons of shrimp to some businessmen in
P.E.I. or some dentist in Nova Scotia to suit their purposes, but that they are
here as resources that we brought into Canada, that we believe are ours
politically and it must be managed for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I rise today to advise this hon.
House that I have written the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Robert
Thibault and Gerry Byrne, the Minister responsible for the Atlantic
Opportunities Agency and our regional minister in the federal Cabinet to address
important issues on the 2003 Northern Shrimp Management Plan.
Mr. Speaker, the scientific advice provided on the Northern shrimp stock over
the past few years has shown that quota increases in shrimp fishing areas
adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador are within the bounds of good
conservation. I expect that the federal minister will soon announce the 2003
Northern Shrimp Management Plan. I have called upon him and Minister Byrne to
ensure that any additional allocation of shrimp is allocated to ensure that
maximum economic benefits accrue to Newfoundland and Labrador harvesters, plant
workers and processing companies in areas adjacent to this resource.
Mr. Speaker, it has been this government's long-standing position that
adjacency should be the most important consideration in determining access to
and allocation of fisheries resources. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador
have not received due benefit from the shrimp resource adjacent to our shores,
and now, especially in light of recent crab quota reductions and cod fishery
closures, it is more important than ever that this situation be addressed.
Clearly, the people and communities of Newfoundland and Labrador who depend upon
the fishery should now have first call on any available quota increases.
This government strongly supports the efforts of Newfoundland and Labrador
harvesters, companies, communities, and Aboriginal groups to gain increased
access to the valuable Northen shrimp resource. These interests will ensure that
any additional quota is used to create much needed employment and economic
activity in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, this objective can only be achieved if 100 per cent of any
additional shrimp quota is allocated to the inshore sector, and I have called
upon federal minister to ensure this is done. Additional allocations to
non-Newfoundland and Labrador interests in the offshore sector will not be
acceptable, even if couched in the context of helping to finance additional
scientific research.
science and this government cannot support the allocation of fisheries resources
off our shores in exchange for the funding of scientific work.
Mr. Speaker, these important issues relating to Northern shrimp must be
addressed immediately. I also take this opportunity to remind the federal
government that there are many people and many communities in need of attention
today, and call upon them to move quickly to address these many outstanding
issues of concern that we have placed before them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would to certainly indicate our full support for everything that the
minister has said in her Ministerial Statement.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, in past years we have seen from time to time where
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada has made allocations of shrimp
off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador to non-Newfoundland and
Labrador-based interests. Mr. Speaker, the justification at those times was that
it was surplus to the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, in a Province that leads the country in out-migration and leads
the country with the highest unemployment rate, certainly there can be no fish
off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador that is surplus to our needs. From
time to time it is surplus to our ability to catch it, but that in large part
again is as a result of vessel replacement rules that sometimes limit our
fishermen and fisherwomen's ability to pursue these fisheries.
Mr. Speaker, the minister, in her statement, references scientific research.
While we today, and over the past couple of weeks, have questioned the
scientific ability of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on codfish and
groundfish, we must also question their ability on shrimp, because it is not
just acceptable to question the scientific advice when the information is bad;
we must also question it when the information is good.
In 1986, there was a very rosy picture painted of Northern cod, and we all
know what happened there. So, Mr. Speaker, I would caution that while we agree
that allocations, if there are to be any new allocations this year, must go to
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we must also question the validity of
the scientific work -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. TAYLOR: - that is done by a very small component, very few resources
with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
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.
We fully support the statement given by the minister, and the attempt to
achieve 100 per cent of any additional shrimp quota.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more difficult or challenging to the political
leadership of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as our business and community
leaders, than the survival of rural Newfoundland and the insurance of prosperity
in the rural parts of our Province. Clearly, the allocation of shrimp adjacent
to our shores, to the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the fish
harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador, has to be a number one priority. We
must do everything in our power to ensure that we do not see what happened a
couple of years ago happen again, when we have a few businessmen in P.E.I. being
given allocations of shrimp to the general outrage of the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, or what we have seen in the past, as I mentioned earlier, a
dentist in Nova Scotia receiving allocations -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: - of hundreds of tons of shrimp for his own business
interests.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier.
Yesterday, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General confirmed that
this government has absolutely no ability to protect the people from
prosecution, should they break the law. The Premier's promise that the
government would shield those who break the law from prosecution is now proven
to be impossible. Despite the Premier's comments, the Attorney General has
said that those who break the law could in fact lose their boats, their nets and
their gear, and face penalties, fines and imprisonment. I, again, commend that
minister for clarifying the situation.
Mr. Speaker, in the media today the President of the FFAW has indicated that
he is unsure of the Premier's intent and has received no clarification on how
the Premier intends to protect fishermen who take to the water illegally.
Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of the answer to this question to the
fishermen and women of this Province, I will provide the Premier an opportunity,
for the third time, to clarify for the FFAW and its members how he intends to
protect fishermen who take to the water illegally?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Maybe the Leader of the Opposition has missed the whole point of what we have
been trying to do in the last two weeks. The greatest protection - I have said
this many times publicly - that we can provide for the people involved is to
make sure they can take to the water legally, and every single effort that we
have taken in the last two weeks is to try to get the decision made in Ottawa -
which is dead wrong - reversed and corrected so we do not have to spend our time
talking about, what ifs. What we want to talk about is: How are we?
I understood, until a few days ago, that the Leader of the Opposition was
decision into place. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of legalities, or
illegalities, it is a matter of what is it going to take to have the Government
of Canada make the right decision so that when people do go and fish, they can
recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' own Conservation
Council. That is our objective, Mr. Speaker, and that is the greatest protection
we can provide to anybody, to have the decision reversed, to have the right
decision put in place and nobody need spend anymore talk about what is legal or
illegal.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I think the confusion arises when the Premier makes a statement
that he will do whatever it takes to protect and defend the fishermen. It is
unfortunate that the Premier has tried to make this very serious problem an
election issue. The Premier's shortsighted political grandstanding has
provided the people with a false sense of security and he must now take steps to
ensure that they realize he is, in fact, powerless to protect them from
prosecution. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has clearly stated that people
who break the law, regardless of how noble their cause, will be prosecuted. This
government and this Premier cannot interfere with the judicial process.
Will the Premier now act responsibly and retract his statement that his
government will interfere with the prosecution of people who break the law, so
that everyone in the Province and the country can focus, in fact, on the real
issue, the fishery, the fisherpeople, the communities and the families that are
affected?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a couple of comments with respect to the question and in answer to it. I
think if people checked the public record in Newfoundland and Labrador they
would find that the only person talking about this and using the notion of an
election issue is the Leader of Leader of the Opposition. He has called, Mr.
Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: I think if anyone were keeping track, in the last two
years and three months he has called for an election at least fifty times on
assorted issues and at different points in time. I have stated quite clearly,
Mr. Speaker, this, that I am not interested in an election issue. There will be
an election this year. I believe in fixed-term elections. I thought the Leader
of the Opposition did, too. You do not have elections on issues. You have
elections every four years as far as I am concerned, and there will be an
election in 2003 and then four years after that because we will make that the
law.
What we have said is this, we have not talked about and I have not talked
about interfering with the court process. Those words have never been uttered by
me. Not once. Nobody can find a written record anywhere of me ever saying that I
would give instruction to interfere with the court process. My words are these,
we will do anything and everything that we can to support, defend and protect
these people because we believe their cause is just.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier, in fact, indicated that he would not
facilitate federal prosecution. That is exactly what he indicated, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, this is about our lives, our culture, our heritage and our
future and not the Premier's desperate bid for re-election. Two weeks have
passed and the path to a proper resolution of our problems in the fishery is off
the rails.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain why two weeks have passed and his
government still has not succeeded in getting the federal government to provide
the people impacted by this decision with some form of short-term income relief?
Does he have any commitment from the federal government on EI extensions for
fishermen and plant workers? Because our primary concern, Mr. Speaker, should be
putting bread on the tables of those with no income.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is interesting to note at the very beginning he just very quietly and
softly, as the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, indicated that I was right
and he was wrong. He suggested in his previous question that I had given
instructions to interfere with the court process, and in beginning this question
he says: No, that is true, he did not say interfere; the Premier said he would
not facilitate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not my role to facilitate a court process. He
understands that as well as anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not the
role of a politician to facilitate the court process. It runs itself,
independent. It is independent of the political process, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the issue, the first one put forward is EI extension for
people impacted by this decision which is dead wrong and we are still trying to
get reversed. The only person who seems to have given up again today - changed
his mind again and given up - is the Leader of the Opposition, because he wants
to talk about illegal activity. He assumes we cannot get the decision changed.
He has given up.
The reason we cannot even get the first decisions made, so far, is that our
federal representatives who are lobbying for this, our MPs who are lobbying for
this, have not yet gotten the decision taken. We understand that there are
meetings going on in the Department of Human Resources and Development Canada.
They have been going on for a month. They had the request from us five weeks ago
to extend EI and, Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if they thought that the
Leader of the Opposition was still supporting the government, instead of every
single day in Newfoundland and Labrador raising questions -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: - questioning the motives of the Premier and the
government, and calling into question the whole motivation by saying it is just
an election issue.
We are trying to get a problem resolved. He is more interested in trying to
play politics with it instead of the concern that he just talked about, 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: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately everybody realizes what the
Premier is doing. The editorial today in a New Brunswick paper states that,
quote: Mr. Grimes comes off as a desperate Premier who is willing to tug on
emotions to gain political advantage.
Our own paper says there is a fine balance between being a clarion and a
clown.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). It is an issue in Newfoundland and Labrador,
not New Brunswick.
MR. WILLIAMS: That is unfortunate, Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, regardless of the fact that we all want to see
this fishery reopened and will continue to fight for just that, the reality is
that it has been two weeks since the fishery was closed and many people still
have not received any form of short-term compensation, and there have been no
suggestions that the fishery will be reopened.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier provide the people with his government's
detailed plans for moving forward with this very, very serious problem?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad that he is interested in the opinions in New Brunswick about our
issues. The people here are concerned about what is happening in Newfoundland
and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, maybe I might ask this question, because the
day after the announcement, two weeks ago tomorrow, because the Leader of the
Opposition did not comment on this the day of the actual announcement. He did
comment the day after, and the press release said: Disappointed, the decision is
final. Let's work on the compensation. I have spoken with Minister Byrne and I
want to work with him.
Maybe he might now tell this House of Assembly, and everybody in the
Province, because he has an open, continuing relationship with Mr. Byrne, his
friend. Never mind what we have done. We have been working every single day. How
many times since then have you, as the Leader of the Opposition, contacted your
personal friend, Minister Byrne?
You suggested you talked to him the very next day and that you gave a
commitment to work with him. What work are you doing with him to ask to have the
decision reversed, to ask to have the EI extended, to ask to have the licence
buyout put in place, to ask to have the adjustment period and the retirement
options put in place, to ask to have something other than make work put in
place? What conversations or representations, Mr. Speaker, has he made? Because
he wanted everyone to believe two weeks ago tomorrow that he was already in
contact with the federal minister and he had a commitment to work with him not
to reverse the decision, which is what we are still trying to accomplish, but at
least to improve the compensation package -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer.
PREMIER GRIMES: - and at least get the EI extension done. What has he
done, Mr. Speaker, since then to assist our efforts?
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.
Although this is not my Question Period and I am not expected to answer the
questions, I will indicate to the Premier -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. WILLIAMS: - if the Minister of Fisheries would like to hear my
answer, it is a very important answer if you do not mind.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will indicate to the Premier that I have
spoken with Minister Byrne and I have asked him every single one of those
questions that you have just put to me, every single one of them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WILLIAMS: As well, Mr. Speaker, the opinions of our brethren in other
provinces are very important because the Premier himself, today, tabled a
resolution on amending the Terms of Union, and it requires the approval and
consensus of the rest of the people in this country in order to do that. Their
opinion is very important.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. WILLIAMS: A national poll today indicated that three out of four
people agreed that the Premier went too far in his actions in this Province.
That is the big picture, Premier.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question now.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we need to stop creating problems and we need
to work towards creating solutions.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary; I ask him to get to his question
quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, regardless of reopening the cod fishery, we still have to
address the problem of too many people trying to earn a living from too scarce a
resource. Mr. Speaker, it has been a full two weeks since Minister Thibault
closed the fishery.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please tell the people when he last spoke to
Minister Thibault about licence buyouts and early retirement incentives, and, if
so, what was that minister's reaction?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We have seen a demonstration again of the wannabe leader who does not want to
give a position on anything, or, when he does, contradicts himself, as he did
yesterday when asked about a protest fishery, when he said: I am not saying I
disagree with a protest fishery. I am not saying I disagree. I am not saying I
do not agree with a protest fishery. And later the same day, on another program
in Newfoundland and Labrador - that was on a national program, Mr. Speaker, but
in Newfoundland and Labrador - later the same day, said: I can tell these
people, my advice is, don't do it.
So, one minute he is suggesting, I am not saying I am against it, and in the
next breath he is saying, my advice is, don't do it.
We are trying to find an accommodation where it will not even be a point to
be considered because we will get the right decision made and it will be legal
and proper to do so.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is this - it is also interesting that he wants to
suggest that we should base our decisions and our actions in Newfoundland and
Labrador on the opinion polls expressed in The Globe and Mail.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Well, everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador knows what
great positions they take, Mr. Speaker.
With respect to the direct question that he finally got to, Mr. Speaker, I
can tell you that this morning our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in
contact with Minister Thibault.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: We have been in contact with Minister Dion's office. We
have been in contact with Minister Stewart's office. We have been in contact
with Minister Byrne. We have been in contact with all of the MPs. We have been
in contact with everyone, looking for decisions. The decision on EI extension is
a month late, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: It is a month late and we want it made. The decisions on
buyouts and early retirement options should be made, and we are trying to make
sure that everybody understands that those are the agenda items for us after we
get the right decision made in the first place, which is a fishery open in line
with the Conservation Council recommendation.
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 Premier has indicated that he was in touch
with the offices. That does not tell this House that he was, in fact, speaking
with the particular minister in question. That is very, very important. Anyone
call phone an office, Premier.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate to the Premier our position throughout, and
our all-party position, that we are against the closure of the fishery, and we
do join with him and his government in ensuring that the people affected by this
terrible decision -
MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).
MR. WILLIAMS: Minister of Finance, if you do not mind, let me finish the
question, please.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WILLIAMS: - that the people affected by this terrible decision
receive the assistance that they so desperately need at this time. We
acknowledge that it is not a time for politics.
Mr. Speaker, in order to accomplish our joint goal, will the Premier agree to
provide us with all the information relating to all discussions between our
government and the government of Ottawa so that we can be informed and provide
support and protect the interests of the people who we are all elected to serve?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Fisheries
and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador just left the Legislature for a
minute to take another call from Minister Thibault who is on the line right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Because there has been regular, continuing dialogue, Mr.
Speaker. We take our responsibilities very seriously. I make this offer to the
Leader of the Opposition, through you, Mr. Speaker, that when he will make an
unequivocal statement about his support for the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador and its efforts to get the right decision made, which is a reversal of
the closure, and to have the other components made, because I can tell you it is
not clear. I am speaking to the ministers in Ottawa who say to me: But your
Leader of the Opposition is down there criticizing you everyday. He is not
supporting you. He has to make up his mind. You cannot have it both ways.
We are the government. We take our duties and responsibilities seriously. We
will work to get the decision reversed, which they still are not sure in Ottawa
what his position is and what the position of his party is because it does
change everyday. We will work with anyone and everyone who will further our goal
in getting the right decisions taken so that we can get on with our lives and
have the people of Newfoundland and Labrador engaged in a productive, active,
legal fishery and also have the right compensation measures put in place for
those who will have an adverse impact foisted upon them, even with a 50 per cent
reduction, Mr. Speaker. That is still our goal and objective and we will stay
committed to it to the very end.
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 will not again let the Premier put words in my mouth. We have unequivocally
stated from the beginning, and we stated at our press conference and we have
stated in news releases, and the Fisheries critic has stated. We unequivocally
support the government in the reopening of the fishery. I have no other
questions, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Education and
it relates, I guess, to the issue of school funding.
Recently in The Western Star it was clearly shown that the Member for
the Bay of Islands presented two cheques of $1,000 each for two district
schools. There isn't a school in the Province that does not need help with the
funding for programs for a variety of needs and reasons and causes, but as the
minister has often pointed out, the government does not staff or fund schools.
All government can do is give money to our elected school boards for them to
allocate to schools according to their priorities, according to their needs and,
presumably, according to a prescribed formula.
My question to the Minister of Education is: Where, in fact, do these
additional funds come from? Perhaps, in answering that, can he indicate to the
people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, have the rules for funding schools in our
Province - have these rules, in fact, changed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In answer to the member's question, we are very proud of the amount of
money that we have put into school construction in this Province over the last
four years. In fact, when we brought in the education reform back in 1996-1997
we said that we were going to reinvest every cent that we saved from
consolidation back into the education, back into construction. We have done
that, Mr. Speaker. We have put, to date, somewhere in the area of $187 million
back into school construction in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: As well, Mr. Speaker, any schools that are closed, the
operating grants for that school is given back to the board for three years so
they can take those funds for a three year period and use on capital
construction projects. We have not changed any policy, Mr. Speaker, but if he
wants to criticize me for trying to give some money to some schools around the
Province, so be it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: .A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is clearly shown, Mr. Speaker, in the examples that I gave that these were
government cheques. I am just wondering, when we are talking about additional
funds, are funds available for perhaps members on this side of the House who
have schools in our districts? For example, I have ten schools in my own
District of St. John's East.
I ask the minister, are funds available to members on this side of the House
so that we, too, can help schools and students who have a variety of needs and
concerns in our own districts? Or, are members on this side of the House
discriminated against and are those funds only available to members opposite?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: I have three letters on my desk now.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I notice the Member for Ferryland is talking about all the requests he has on
his desk. What he is not telling the people of the Province is that we just
committed $4.5 million for two schools in his district.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for St. John's Centre talks
about all the requests he has - St. John's East, I am sorry - and you have
schools in your district. Yes, I know you have those schools in your district
and I have been talking to your school board. I have also been talking to the
Finance Minister about schools that you also share in your district and we are
looking to do some things for them as well, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St . John's East, final
supplementary.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is a question of funding, Mr. Speaker, that goes outside the normal
channels. As I understand it, the Department of Education funnels funds through
the various school boards for the upkeep and maintenance and the costing of our
schools.
My question once again, to the hon. Minister of Education, are there funds
afforded to members on the opposite side of the House that are not available to
members on this side of the House? In other words, Mr. Speaker, aren't those
students and schools being discriminated against because of the policy of this
government?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If he is asking me: Are there funds available for members here that are not
also available for them? The answer to that is, no. We treat everybody alike
here, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I will give you an example. The Leader of the
Opposition, we just gave $5,000 to a school in his district, Herdman Collegiate,
to travel with their band . So, Mr. Speaker, the answer is, no, we treat
everybody in this Province equally.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
After listening to the debate for the last few days between the Premier and
the Leader of the Opposition, the only thing I can conclude is that if the
fishermen of this Province are forced into a protest fishery it will be the
Minister of Justice and Attorney General in court for the prosecution and the
Premier in court for the defence.
Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is whether we can change the decision of the
Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa. On Tuesday night, Minister Byrne was on the
radio here in this Province on a Open Line program in which he said that he did
not know, yet, whether the closure of the cod stock was a done deal.
Does the Premier see this as some opening in the federal government position,
considering what Minister Thibault has done after the racket in New Brunswick
with the fisheries there? Does the Premier see this as some opening? Has he been
able to do anything to get an indication that there may be some flexibility from
Ottawa on this issue?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, it is interesting to see the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition
to your notion of people being in court when he laughed so loud, and laughed so
hard, he finds it so funny. Raucous laughter at the prospect that innocent,
hard-working, decent, law-abiding, respectful people might end up in court over
The Leader of the Opposition, all he could do about that was laugh at it. That
is how much he thinks about this issue.
With respect to the question, Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with the
people involved, as I have said. Our Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is in
contact regularly, even now on the phone with Minister Thibault as we speak. We
follow every word said either publicly or privately. We hope that there is a
window of opportunity.
When our minister in the federal Cabinet says: I would like to see if there
is some new information that I might bring forward to my colleague, Minister
Thibault, we seize that as being something that we might be able to work with.
We have had officials on this for days on end, with senior officials in each of
those departments. We take it very seriously because we certainly hope that we
will have a window of opportunity to get this decision reversed. So this whole
thing that the Leader of the Opposition just laughed so heartily about - about
innocent people ending up in court - might be something that we do not even have
to talk about.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier now to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER GRIMES: That is our objective, and our only objective is to do
exactly that.
I found the public pronunciations of our federal minister to be very hopeful.
We have talked with him since. The officials have talked since. We are
continuing to seize any opportunity to get the right decisions made.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi
Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are, of course, in the interest of avoiding any need for a
protest fishery and certainly the prospect of seeing any fishermen in this
Province in court.
Mr. Speaker, at the federal Fisheries Committee meeting yesterday, I spoke to
some of the members of the committee and Members of Parliament from this
Province on the Liberal side, and the general concern amongst all people was to
try, in fact, to avoid the consequence of this decision and the possible
consequence of an illegal fishery.
Mr. Speaker, one suggestion was that perhaps the all-party committee should
get together, or at least a coalition of the willing from the all-party
committee, to try and put together perhaps some other initiative that might
convince the federal government to change their minds.
Is the Premier considering that as a possibility, as well as other
initiatives, to try and get this decision reversed so that we can have a proper
fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence this year as soon as the fishery was
supposed to open?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to see from the question, Mr. Speaker, that our interests are
obviously very much aligned and that we are trying to make sure that we get the
right decision made. I am glad to see that the Leader of the NDP and the Member
for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi takes it seriously and hasn't spent his time
laughing heartily out loud about the prospect of some possible illegal activity.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this: the government takes its responsibilities
very seriously. Any thoughts that anyone has, that they think can be used to try
to find an appropriate and proper resolution to this are gladly accepted by us.
It is not a matter of having a committee together again where we would spend
hours and so on talking about the differences of opinion. There obviously are
some differences of opinion as to approach and style. We do not have time to
deal with the committee process. We have a limited amount of time to get the
decision changed, and all we need is an acknowledgment of unequivocal support
for the fundamental goal and we will have a better chance of getting that
outcome achieved, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to rise on a point of order. The Minister of Education stood in
his place and made a statement that was not accurate, that he has just approved
$4.5 million for funding of a school in the district. I think he should make the
record clear and not give a false impression in this House. The previous
minister, Minister Foote, in the Budget over fourteen months ago, allocated
money. No new money has been allocated in that Budget, and I think it is only
proper - it should be made clear and not send a wrong impression to the people
(inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
During Question Period, the Member for St. John's East raised a legitimate
question, I think, to the Minister of Education, in asking him - I think
specifically he said: Are there funds available only to members of the
government side when it comes to needs that may exist in all of our schools?
While I appreciate the minister's answer in saying no, it is available to
everybody, during the debate, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader clearly
said, in answer to that question: No, because you are not on the government
side.
I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he could stand and clarify
that issue for everybody in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to move the following
resolution - this is a little bit lengthy, Mr. Speaker, but I feel it important
to read it into the record.
Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:
WHEREAS the seacoast fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador were brought into
this nation with Newfoundland and Labrador's accession to Canada; and
WHEREAS the Government of the Dominion of Newfoundland held and exercised
responsibility for the management of seacoast fisheries prior to Confederation;
and
exclusive authority over the fishery; and
WHEREAS under current International Law an independent Newfoundland and
Labrador would control its adjacent resources including the fishery; and
WHEREAS federal management of seacoast fisheries since 1949 has failed to
adequately protect or develop the principal fisheries adjacent to Newfoundland
and Labrador; and
WHEREAS failed federal fisheries management has led to the complete collapse
of the Northern Cod fishery and other groundfish stocks, the basis for
Newfoundland's colonization and the mainstay of its economy for 500 years; and
WHEREAS the federal government has failed to adopt a comprehensive plan for
stock recovery since the groundfish moratoria were declared in the early 1990s;
and
WHEREAS it is recognized and accepted that the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador has maintained and continues to exercise primary regulatory authority
over the fish processing industry in this Province; and
WHEREAS new fisheries for species such as crab and shrimp have developed in
the wake of the collapse of groundfish stocks and solid, sustainable management
practices are vital to the future of these fisheries; and
WHEREAS it is accepted that the regulation of fish harvesting and processing
should occur in a seamless and integrated way; and
WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has consistently
requested a greater say in fisheries management since 1949 and has identified
this as a priority in Securing Our Future: The Renewal Strategy for Jobs and
Growth; and
WHEREAS the fishery remains an economic mainstay and principal industry of
Newfoundland and Labrador and the economic and social foundation of most of its
rural communities; and
WHEREAS federal management of fisheries adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador
does not give due regard to local experience and considerations; and
WHEREAS the advice of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which was
established to integrate practical knowledge derived from local experience and
scientific information on resources, has been largely ignored in the federal
government's recent declaration of a moratorium for 4RS3Pn Gulf cod; and
Cod and 4RS3Pn Gulf cod were taken without proper consultation with the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people who depend upon these
resources and with disregard for the recommendations of the Fisheries Resource
Conservation Council; and
WHEREAS these decisions have further undermined the confidence of
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the effectiveness of federal fisheries
management; and
WHEREAS other provinces control their main resource industries; and
WHEREAS significant and decisive action is required to address this concern;
direct the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to begin negotiations leading
to the establishment of a joint management regime over the fisheries adjacent to
Newfoundland and Labrador; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the principle elements of such a joint management
regime include:
(1) the establishment, through an amendment of the Terms of Union, of shared,
equal, constitutional authority by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and
Canada over the fisheries adjacent to the province;
(2) the establishment through an amendment of the Terms of Union of a joint
fisheries management board and the delegation to that board by the governments
of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada of sufficient of their authority to
permit that board to successfully implement this joint management regime;
(3) the development and implementation of a conservation and re-building plan
aimed at the achievement of long-term sustainability of the fisheries in the
waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador and in particular a plan that would
achieve the recovery of the groundfish stocks;
(4) the development and implementation of fisheries harvesting plans,
including the establishment of Total Allowable Catches, based on the principles
of conservation, sustainability, adjacency and the long-term well-being of the
fishing communities of rural Newfoundland and Labrador;
(5) the establishment of programs in Newfoundland and Labrador to enhance
knowledge and understanding of the ocean ecosystems adjacent to Newfoundland and
Labrador through the encouragement and support of scientific research and the
utilization of customary and experimental knowledge of the fisheries possessed
by fish harvesters.
Mr. Speaker, I give that notice that I will introduce this resolution on
tomorrow and look forward to a full debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Create A Pension Plan For
Provincial Court Judges." (Bill 13)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave
to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook
Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The
Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 12)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment.
MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave
to introduce the following bills, entitled:
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act." (Bill 14)
A bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act." (Bill 11)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.
MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave
to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act."
(Bill 10)
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The petition I present today is about one of the most talked about issues in
this Province. I will just read the prayer. It says:
WHEREAS the residents and visitors to the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador rely and depend heavily on our road system for transportation,
business, health care, tourism and basic quality of life; and
WHEREAS the provincial roads and highways are in a serious state of disrepair
in virtually every region of the Province; and
WHEREAS the condition of the Province's roads and highways significantly
restrict safe travel by the motoring public;
THEREFORE your petitioners call on the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador to maintain adequate staffing levels with sufficient resources to
provide for the ongoing maintenance of our provincial roads and highway network.
Mr. Speaker, this petition grows out of my District of Trinity North and I
will speak to the issues within the district; however, the issues that are
raised in this petition are equally as important to every part of the Province.
Every spring, Mr. Speaker, what happens with the Department of Works, Services
and Transportation? There is a massive layoff of the road crews that were on
during the winter months for snow clearing. In the summertime, what happens is
they are left with a skeleton crew to maintain thousands of kilometres of what
is deplorable paved roads and many, many dirt roads throughout Newfoundland and
Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I said this petition was originated by people in my own
district. As I look at Trinity North and the neighbouring District of Bonavista
South as one example, there is a
section of road - in fact there is about 260
kilometres of road - that is shared between the Districts of Bonavista South and
Trinity North. Right now, today and for the rest of the summer, there is only
one small maintenance crew to take care of that road network.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of that road is dirt road. Much of what is paved has been
paved some thirty years ago and is now falling apart. So much so that it is
difficult to distinguish between what is patch and what was the original
pavement. In fact, many would suggest there is no original pavement left at all.
As I look at my District of Trinity North, there are some forty communities
in that district. Twenty-five per cent of those communities still have
significant portions of dirt road in them. Here we are in the year 2003 and we
can look at an electoral district in this Province and say: Twenty- five per
cent of the communities in that district still have significant stretches of
dirt road. I think when we look at the amount of money we have invested in our
road network in this Province over the last five or ten years, and we look at
the condition of roads in districts such as Trinity North -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Just two seconds to conclude, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to urge government to be responsible in not only just
constructing the roads but in maintaining them. I remind government that once
the road is built and open, people expect to travel over it with some degree of
safety. The current conditions of the roads in this Province are not safe to be
travelling on, so I urge government to be responsible and protect the health and
welfare of the travelling public.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I would like for Your Honour to call Order 3, the
Concurrence Motion on the Resource Committee.
MR. SPEAKER: Order 3.
The hon. the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is with pleasure today that I rise to brief the House of Assembly and to
discuss the Resource Committee Estimates.
We had a very good process where we went through the different Budget
Estimates of a variety of departments of the government. Really, these
departments are very important for the economic development of government and
the economic development of our people. The Estimates that we covered included
the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, which right now, of course, is
extremely important in our Province and which is very timely as to the issues we
are now wrestling with together. We also discussed the Resource Estimates of the
Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, the Department of Mines and
Energy, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the Department of
Industry, Trade and Rural Development, and the Department of Labrador and
Aboriginal Affairs. I want to say that the ministers and their officials very
much attended and provided answers to questions that were put forward by the
members of the Resource Committee and we very much appreciate the efforts of the
members of the House of Assembly who were involved with these estimates and
going through the budgets for each department, Mr. Speaker. It is a very
important process, it is a very important part of evaluating the budget of the
House of Assembly, the budget of the Province that is put forward by the
Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, looking at some issues that arose during these Budget Estimates,
when you look at Fisheries and Aquaculture, I believe that today was a very
significant day in this House of Assembly with the motion that is being put
forward by the Premier when it comes to seeking joint management of our fishery.
Given the results of what has occurred with the most recent decision by the
federal minister and the lack of respect shown to Newfoundland and Labrador and
it's industry, it's people, it's government and it's House of Assembly,
I think this motion, Mr. Speaker, speaks volumes. I think it is significant. I
believe that it will lead to, and we have to work towards, achieving this
amendment on the Terms of Union so that we can get a say in the management of
the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to make it responsible to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador as part of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this resource, this 200-mile limit was brought into
Confederation because we joined Confederation. We brought it forward as an asset
for the country. The mismanagement of that resource and the lack of dedicated
resources, both financial and human, brought to this resource by the federal
government is a tragedy. So, this action put forward by the Premier and the
Cabinet, the government of the Province, is a significant move and is one of the
most significant moves, Mr. Speaker, for the long term future of rural
Newfoundland and Labrador.
I am delighted to be here today to be able to see that put forward. I think
it is very important that this get adopted in this House of Assembly, and
quickly, as we get ready to deal with it in Ottawa. We should not, Mr. Speaker,
be deterred by one commentary from any politician in Ottawa, about going forward
with this amendment and getting it done. If we can have joint management of the
offshore, Mr. Speaker, we can have joint management of the fishery. We can have
a better say in that fishery and we can make sure the proper science gets done
and we can integrate the fishermen of the Province and their science knowledge
into managing that resource for the future.
Mr. Speaker, I got a list yesterday of the shrimp licenses offshore. You
know, nine out of seventeen licenses are owned outside of Newfoundland and
Labrador, even though the resource is adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador,
even though we brought it into Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to deal with and manage the fishery
resource offshore, the abundance of that resource that still exists in a variety
of stocks, plus the rebuilding of the stock. Aquaculture is one way to do it. We
saw in the Budget Estimates the efforts of the Fisheries Department trying to
provincially stimulate activity when it comes to aquaculture, but the federal
DFO does not know that aquaculture exists. They do not know that aquaculture
exists when it comes to their budget allocation. I do not even know if they are
involved in this Province. They are involved barely. I think they do it just to
say they are in it.
You know, if you look at the European Union, and what they have done with a
number of countries in the aquaculture side, they have invested with a variety
of countries in aquaculture, and there are hundreds of thousands of tons of
aquaculture product being developed in the European Union. Canada is here with
the 200-mile limit and our ability to do aquaculture, and we, provincially, are
putting forward a whole program and DFO is up there with hardly a budget
allocation for it.
Mr. Speaker, this is the time to get this done and to move forward. I fully
support the joint management resolution being put into this House of Assembly so
that we can get, for the long term, a say over how this is going to go in the
future, that we can get a say in how to manage for the future stocks, but also
for our people, for them to be the principal beneficiary of that resource. That
has been the problem. We brought it into Canada, into Confederation, and then we
have a group of bureaucrats in Ottawa who decide to put it on the trade agenda
of Ottawa. So, if you are going to fight with the European Union about making
sure that you get them off the 200-mile limit off the Grand Banks, because they
are out there scraping the Grand Banks floor, well, that gets involved with
wheat issues out in Western Canada. That gets involved in aerospace issues in
Montreal. That is a trade issue for Canada and we lose the battle too often, and
we cannot keep losing that battle. That is why we need joint management of this
resource, and I welcome it to this House of Assembly and I am very proud to see
that our government is putting it forward and we are looking forward to it, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when you look at the forest industry in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador, I want to highlight a major situation which we are
all working on together and that involves Abitibi Consolidated in Stephenville,
a paper mill that has been there for over twenty years. A paper mill that has
been very successful in producing a great product in the marketplace, in Japan,
in Europe, and all over the world, really, the world markets are. What we need
to do - they are wrestling with now a fibre situation that is not the cause of
any government. It is the cause of the situation that has occurred because they
have been offshore for a bunch of years and are having a problem with some of
the fibre supply, and what we need to do is work through a solution.
A lot of work is being done, Mr. Speaker, on that. I want to say that there
is a task force that has been set up within the Cabinet, along with senior
officials of government working with senior officials of Abitibi Consolidated.
There were meetings in the last three days here in St. John's. There were
meetings in Stephenville last Friday, where there is a whole collective effort
being put forward. Both the Member for Port au Port and the Minister of Health
and Community Services has been very active here in making sure that the Abitibi
mill has a long-term future, which it will have, and all the options are being
looked at. They are preparing a new business plan, as a matter of fact, the mill
management working with union. The union leaders there have been very active. I
want to say congratulations to them because they have been very, very active in
working together in the spirit of co-operation to get all the options on the
table to ensure long-term longevity of the Stephenville mill. That mill has been
a major success story. It produces a great product. It employs over 350 people.
It is a great product. It exports outside, Mr. Speaker, and we need to find and
ensure the long-term resolution of that.
The other part of that is looking at a potential co-generation project for
the mill. I think that is a possibility and we need to see that occur, I hope,
down the road, and we hope that the head office in Montreal is going to look at
the idea of the co-generation to go along with a resolution on the fibre supply,
and we are getting very close, I think, to resolving both those issues now.
Again, it takes willpower and, on this side, and I am sure on the other side in
this House of Assembly, we want to see that resolved. It is a big contributor to
the Bay St. George region and to the Province. This has been a very big success
story, the turnaround of that operation. The workforce there is one of the best
workforces in the country, a great trained workforce in Stephenville-Bay St.
George-Port au Port, that has been working hard to make sure that it is a high
efficient mill, very high efficient. It does a great job of production.
Productions with the highest production levels, and efficiency probably the
highest in the company band, the whole company grouping.
I want to say to the people in the Bay St. George area, in the Province, that
issue is a priority, big time, for us in this government. We are working very
diligently right now to resolve the issue and are looking forward to getting it
resolved so we can work further to expand the economy in that region.
Mr. Speaker, when you look at what is also occurring in mines and energy and
you look at the development now of White Rose getting underway, the work in
Marystown, the work at Bull Arm that is going to be going ahead, and you look at
the fact that we are going to have three big oil production wells in the
offshore, and you look at that development and the spinoff of that development,
it is very positive for this economy. It is creating a lot of business
opportunities for business people in the Province, all over the Province, who
are benefitting from that. That again is helping drive the economic numbers
where they are, Mr. Speaker, and the most important number being employment. The
employment numbers have been good.
Given what we are facing with our fisheries crisis, Mr. Speaker, the
employment numbers are definitely getting driven by the energy developments that
have been occurring. Again, on that issue, the Atlantic Accord, I have been
reading over a number of times in the last couple of years, and if you look at
exactly what the numbers are that we are getting from that resource when it
comes to revenue and resource rent, we need a better deal and we need the deal
that we signed up for to be followed. In the Atlantic Accord, it is supposed to
be the principal beneficiary - we are supposed to be the principal beneficiary.
Our advice here, and we are working on this now in this government, is that
we need to get a renegotiated arrangement on the Atlantic Accord. We want to see
more revenue through equalization. We want to see more revenue through the
Atlantic Accord, which is a side deal in the equalization formula. The math
needs to show that Newfoundland and Labrador and our people are the principal
beneficiary of oil and gas development off our shores.
Mr. Speaker, that needs to be challenged. I believe it needs to be
aggressively challenged. My advice to the Minister of Mines and Energy, who is
reviewing it now, is to look at potentially taking Ottawa on in a number of
ways. I think, too, Mr. Speaker, if they do not want to move off it as to what
the principal beneficiary status is, I think we need to get more aggressive,
even with potential legal action in dealing with Ottawa if they do not want to
move off it. That is one that they can get at and we need to fix it because we
are the principal beneficiary - we are supposed to be - and it is time that the
math dictated, and the numbers showed, that we are and we were.
Mr. Speaker, there will be more said about that shortly coming up because
this Atlantic Accord, when you read it over and you see the revenues we are
getting, it is not acceptable. It cannot be allowed to be continued to be
acceptable and we have to wrestle with it in this Province in short order so
that it will improve our budget status and we will not have to be into deficits.
In the Atlantic Accord, one of the things is that we can transfer - for
example, the 8.5 percent that is owned offshore should be automatically
transferred, and thus far the federal government has not been co-operating. We
need to get our MPs involved and ask them to help us negotiate that. That is a
piece there, Mr. Speaker, that could help this Province right away. Right away
it would help its financial position. It should be done automatically. It should
be done just by good will alone, Mr. Speaker. So we appeal to Ottawa and the
federal Minister of Energy and the Finance Minister to look at that option. It
has been written on. It has been requested of. We have been putting it forward,
Mr. Speaker. That is a legitimate answer here that could really help us,
financially in this Province, deal with and make sure that the definition of
principal beneficiary is met. We have to work on that, and I would say there are
a number of us pushing here. If that answer does not come soon then we will have
to go another route. I would advise that we have the Department of Justice
review a legal case against Ottawa if that keeps up, Mr. Speaker. I think we
have to get the math straightened out when it comes to the Atlantic Accord. We
are doing the diplomacy, but I am not sure that is exactly the way it goes in
Ottawa these days. Diplomacy does not exactly seem to be working, but we are
going to keep trying and we have to look at other options.
When you look at the whole development of Inco and what is going to occur
there. A very positive development is going to occur now. Hundreds and hundreds
of millions of dollars over the next five years, in the billions of dollars,
probably $2 billion to $3 billion of capital is going to be outlaid in this
Province. We are going to see some value-added production put in place, large R
and D facilities, the development of a major mine in this Province, and really
literary thousands of more jobs that people can look forward to in a new economy
that is transforming in this Province. So that will move ahead and we were given
an update on where that is in the Estimates. We look forward to where that is
going to go. There is an exciting future that way, Mr. Speaker, but it is only
exciting if we straighten out the revenue picture. Again, on Voisey's Bay,
Ottawa is getting a lot of the revenue that this Province should be getting and
we need to straighten that out. There is a way to straighten it out but we have
to have Ottawa agree that this Province should be allowed to benefit from its
resources, and it is time that they did.
Mr. Speaker, when you look at the Terms of Union that we negotiated back in
1948 and 1949, the natural resources are supposed to be ours, just like they are
in Alberta. We are supposed to be the principal beneficiary of our natural
resources. What did we do? We let the finance bureaucrats in Ottawa - the
finance bureaucrats in Ottawa got at it. They worked out a little arrangement
that took away the financing and revenues that we were supposed to get from our
natural resources. This Province has brought a lot in and deserves the
opportunity to be able to grow itself and be able to let its people be the
beneficiary of its resources. This Terms of Union that we signed on to is not
being met, Mr. Speaker. This agreement is supposed to be in place.
Right now we are suing the federal government - you talk about the law. The
Prime Minister was on the other day talking about law-abiding - he was on the
other day. Here is our provincial government suing the federal minister for not
following the law. He is not following the law. He gave away a multi-million
dollar Port Harmon facility in Stephenville, plus a cheque of $7.2 million to
two individuals. Here is what David Collenette, the federal minister, has done.
The provincial government is now suing him and Transport Canada to ask them to
follow their policy that is on their Web site - that is through their Treasury
Board - how they divest of a public asset.
We are suing the federal government and a Cabinet minister in Ottawa because
he has not followed the law, and we get lectured by the Prime Minister of Canada
about following the law. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of ironic, I have to say. I
hope we win the case for the people in Bay St. George or Port Harmon where
hundreds of jobs depend on that port. Now a federal minister, at a whim, decides
to hand it off to a private sector group without even going through a public
process. In Newfoundland and Labrador you get thrown out of office for that. In
Ottawa: oh, no, we are going to do it anyway.
I was in the room with the federal minister and our MP who tried - Bill
Mathews - his best to convince the federal minister not to go down this road,
and he has gone down the road, Mr. Speaker. They talk about following the law.
They are not even following their own public policy. They do not even care if
Port Harmon ends up getting sold next year or off to private interests who may
decide: we will do whatever. We have hundreds of jobs counting on that, Mr.
Speaker; counting on it.
I am very pleased to see that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,
through its Justice Department, is now taking Ottawa and the federal minister to
court because as the statement of claim says: it is unlawful what the minister
has gone on with. It is unlawful to give away that port and that facility
without going through a public process. That is what we are going to court for,
Mr. Speaker, and we get lectured down here.
I have to tell you, the Globe and Mail and National Post , I
wish they would do a little more homework. I saw Jeffery Simpson's article,
Mr. Speaker. Jeffery Simpson did some
article a little while ago. He never
referenced once, the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council. He never even
referenced it, never looked at it, never read it, and he did his editorial
anyway. So, you know, when it comes to both great, national newspapers I wish
they would send somebody down, spend a bit of time, do a bit of homework. When
you are going to do your editorials, do a bit of homework before you go and do
it. What do they think? In this Province we are more conservation-minded than
most anybody else in Canada. They are out there now doing editorials saying:
based on science they do not want Newfoundland and Labrador to take every fish
out of the sea and kill the stock. Well, we are interested in protecting the
stock for the long term, Mr. Speaker. This kind of editorial comment, which is
with no homework done, should not be allowed to continue. We ask those two
national newspapers to do their homework.
When we look at our development, and where we go and how we move forward, we
have to wrestle and we have to deal with Ottawa. I ask our MPs to keep doing
their best to work on resolving these issues. We have to make sure that we give
them an agenda that they can help sell in Ottawa and to make sure the Terms of
Union - you know, Mr. Speaker, we are asking some lot now in Newfoundland and
Labrador. We are asking them to follow the contract that we signed. Mr. Speaker,
we came in with three defense bases, Newfoundland and Labrador -
MR. SPEAKER (Butler): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will finish up by saying, we look forward
to the debate.
My last comment. Mr. Speaker, this Terms of Union, this contract - if you
wanted to read it, everybody should read it because when you read it, it says
they will maintain public ports, harbours and wharfs; that they will maintain
civil aviation; that they will maintain and make sure we have defense forces
here to protect us, Mr. Speaker. You read through it and when you read it over,
do you know what you have? You have a contract that is broken. Really, it is not
fulfilling the deal. All we are saying is: Keep the deal, Ottawa, keep the deal.
Don't give away the airports. Don't give away the ports. Put some defense
forces here.
We had $300 million-worth of assets the U.S. left here in 1948, and what
happened? They let the Americans close down the bases in Newfoundland and
Labrador, over 10,000 people working, and what did they replace it with?
Nothing. What is left, in defence forces here?
Nova Scotia has 10,000 people on the DND Payroll, Defense Department Payroll.
Ten thousand. Do you know how many we have in the forest industry? Ten thousand.
The size of our forest industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is on a social
payroll over in Halifax, in Nova Scotia. Ten thousand people, that is a correct
figure. Over $1 billion of payroll. In New Brunswick, $575 million of payroll,
defence only; defence only, in New Brunswick.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. K. AYLWARD: That is the one I know the most about and I did some
homework on. The others, I will not even go there. Those there - just imagine if
they put 25 per cent on the outer extremity of all this 200-mile limit in
Newfoundland and Labrador - say they put 25 per cent of what is in Nova Scotia,
$200 million, and put a few frigates over here, put a few bases back in place
like were here before. Our economy, our economic numbers, our unemployment would
come down four or five points alone.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Ottawa to wake up, that is what I say, and keep
the deal.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) allow us to go back to presenting reports. The hon.
the Opposition House Leader normally allows us to do that (inaudible) see all
the reports, he says, that are available.
The Minister of Fisheries forgot to table a report today. With the weekend
coming up, maybe hon. members want some good reading, so I wonder if hon.
members would allow her to present the report?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I apologize for missing the tabling of reports, but I did have to take an
important phone call.
Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture,
I made a presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries
and Oceans on May 7, and I want to take this opportunity to table this
presentation in the House of Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I took the opportunity to comment on seal management,
the federal vessel replacement and fleet separation policy, DFO science, the
role and importance of women in the fishery, and the federal Atlantic Fisheries
Policy Review. In terms of employment and overall dependancy, the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador is the most dependent of any province in Canada on its
marine fish resources.
Mr. Speaker, we want the cod fishery in the Northern Gulf area reopened,
consistent with the advice given to the federal minister by the Fisheries
Resource Conservation Council. We want an immediate extension of EI benefits for
those whose benefits expired before a long-term adjustment program could be
implemented. We want a dramatic expansion of the adjustment program that was
announced. We want a long-term adjustment program that, at the very minimum,
includes an early retirement program, licence buyout for fish harvesters and a
meaningful long-term strategy for economic diversification and growth. We want a
concrete plan to rebuild the cod stocks. We want scientific assessment of the
Northern Gulf cod stock in 3Pn+4RS to be conducted in this Province by DFO's
Newfoundland region.
Mr. Speaker, public reaction has been strong and responsible. We will
continue to do everything in our power to reverse the decision to close this
fishery. It is my pleasure to table this report to the House today.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am happy this afternoon to stand for a few minutes, twenty minutes, I guess
it is, to speak on the Concurrence debate on the Resource Committee.
Mr. Speaker, during the last speaker's comments, he - initially anyway -
spoke briefly about the resolution tabled by the Premier this afternoon calling
for a debate on a Constitutional amendment, a revisit to the Terms of Union and
a change in the Terms of Union that would see a co-management process,
basically, put in place. I do not have the resolution in front of me so I cannot
speak from it to say exactly what it is.
Mr. Speaker, just for the record, this is something, of course, that the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador have long wanted. It is a position, a
policy, that this party has held for quite some time. If I could, I would like
to go back to the 1999 policy document of this party for the 1999 general
election, that speaks about this very issue.
It says, "A PC Government will aggressively pursue a Canada-Newfoundland
Fisheries Agreement providing for a joint decision-making process to give the
province a meaningful say in decisions on fisheries management, which have a
major impact on our economy and social fabric."
Mr. Speaker, what the party was calling on there, and what the party was
interested in pursuing, and what we are interested in pursuing today, is
something that is very similar to what the government had practically
accomplished in the late 1980s. "A national agreement to discuss
renegotiating constitutional roles and responsibilities in the fisheries,
achieved by our Party in the late eighties, was subsequently quashed by the
Liberals at a time when it would have benefitted us most."
Mr. Speaker, this is the situation: We almost had what we are after here
today. We were on the road towards getting what we are after here today. Back in
the late 1980s when there was a PC government here in this Province, and a PC
government in Ottawa, there was negotiation ongoing and an agreement just about
reached, Mr. Speaker, on the very matter that we today see the Premier of this
Province bring forward.
I am not going to go there today. I was going to talk about what we have
accomplished in fourteen years. We have come to something that we almost had in
the late 1980s, looking for it here again today, and that is really unfortunate,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, today, since we are discussing the Resource Committee and the
report, the departmental Estimates and what have you, I would like to talk for a
few minutes - of course, the Resource Committee reviewed the Estimates of the
Department of Environment; the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the
Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the Department of Industry, Trade
and Rural Development; the Department of Mines and Energy; and the Department of
Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I am not going to go into each and every one of
them, but since we have been, over the past two weeks, into a fairly heavy, a
fairly intense, debate about the fishery in our Province, about the cod fishery
in particular, I think I will start off, in the first few minutes at least, and
just talk for a little while on the state of our fishery here in the Province
and how things might have been different had we chosen, Mr. Speaker, to do
things somewhat differently ourselves.
It is alright, from time to time, to blame Ottawa for many of the ills that
we have in our fishery. That is fair enough. They deserve a large part of the
credit, or the blame, whichever way you want to look at it, for the state that
we are in today.
Mr. Speaker, the rest of it, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and
Aquaculture, a significant portion of it, rests on the shoulders of us here in
the Province, or rests on the shoulders in particular of the government of this
Province. I have said this before and I will continue to say it, that any
government, no matter what sector we are talking about, should have, you know, a
five-or ten-year plan for what they want to see happen in that sector.
In the tourism sector, we see people or organizations, like the Viking Trail
Tourism Association, put together their plan for the coming years. We see people
in the forestry sector put together their plan for the next number of years,
based on what they know to be their raw material supply, based on what they know
to be their market needs, and based on what they know about their costs
associated with production and the like. Unfortunately, we have not done that.
We have not done that at all in government, and I am not assigning blame to any
one party in particular. It has unfortunately been a characteristic of
Newfoundland, and I suspect other governments outside of Newfoundland and
Labrador, but particularly of our governments over the years.
As close as I have seen since I have been in politics - and I have had the
opportunity to read some background material, some resource material, that is
here in our Legislative Library, over the past year or so, and the closest thing
that I have seen to a plan in the past couple of years that I have looked at it,
there were two, I suppose, that could come close. There was one in the late
1970s, I believe it was. I am not sure if it was 1978 or 1979, but it was around
the time just shortly after the extension of jurisdiction. There was a plan put
forward by the provincial government at the time, that talked about expansion of
the industry, in light of what was expected to be a huge bloom, I guess, a
blossoming or what have you, of raw material in the form of Northern cod when we
expected that the foreigners, once they moved out, we would see this huge
increase in the status of our stocks, in the abundance of our stocks.
Mr. Speaker, there was some semblance of a plan put there so that we could be
capture the majority of that raw material so that it did not go to places like
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, or, for that matter, to foreign
nations who would have had a right to take it inside our 200-mile limit if we
could not. There was some semblance of a plan there. Now, we can debate
twenty-odd years later how good a plan it was, but nevertheless there was some
kind of a plan.
In the early 1990s, around 1992 or 1993, just after the cod collapse, I would
have to say that the provincial government at the time put together a discussion
paper, a Green Paper, on the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, and there was
a lot of criticism of it, and I was one of many who criticized much of the
content that was in it. Unfortunately, the government of day did not pursue it
any further. There was supposed to be a White Paper, I believe, come after that,
as they called it, but it did not happen because government was, I think, so
scared off by the criticism that came about at the time. If they had pursued on,
there would have been quite a debate, I suspect, and not everything that would
have been said would have been favourable to the government, probably, and many
differing opinions would have been expressed on it. Nevertheless, we would have
arrived at a plan with a go-forward approach to the fishing industry in
Newfoundland and Labrador. Anyway, it did not happen. What has been the result
of it? What has happened since then? We find ourselves today - the Minister of
Fisheries and Aquaculture would be keenly aware of it, on the Labrador Coast,
for example, in 2J - with crab quotas reduced by 40 per cent just a couple of
weeks ago. We find ourselves now in a situation where many plant workers there
don't know how they are going to get through the economic hit that they take
as the result of a 40 per cent reduction in the quota. We find fishermen and
fisher women in this area who are taking a hit also as a result of this. We find
ourselves on crab, if you look throughout the Province, where this situation
which is now on the Labrador Coast is repeated over and over, in the absence, I
might add, of a reduction in the crab quota, in the absence of a significant
reduction in the crab quota anyway. We find ourselves in shrimp, for example,
where we have such a tremendous capacity to process in this Province, that many
of the people who are in shrimp operations find themselves in the same
situation. We find ourselves where the third shift is not even getting enough
work to qualify for EI; you know, such a basic thing as that. We should be at a
point today where we have people working for extended periods of time.
Mr. Speaker, the point I am getting at is that we need a plan for the various
sectors of our resource-based economy here in this Province, a plan that looks
further than one year down the road, a plan that is not based on the quota in
the spring, the quota that is announced in April or May month and sees no
further than November when all of that product is caught, landed and processed.
Mr. Speaker, we need to look at and put together a plan in this Province for our
resource-based industries that provides a sustainable industry, a vibrant
industry, that is able to capitalize on the peaks and weather out the valleys
that we see very often in these types of industries.
Mr. Speaker, what would happen tomorrow - God forbid! - if we saw a 40 per
cent reduction in the crab fishery throughout our Province? Our industry would
not be able to absorb such a smack, because of the way it is structured and the
way it is positioned today. If we had a 40 per cent reduction in our shrimp
quota, what would happen?
Mr. Speaker, the point is not one of fearmongering, the point is that this
is, in all likelihood, going to be a reality at some time in the future. It may
not be this year, it may not be next year, but as sure as I am standing here it
will come some day down the road. Unfortunately, our industry is barely able to
get through now with the amount of investment that is there, because of its over
capitalization, because of its over capacity. It is in large part because of the
way that it is structured and because we haven't put a plan in place.
What would happen in 1997? How would our industry look today if in 1997 the
government of the day, before issuing shrimp processing licenses around this
Province, had sat down and looked at what made sense, looked at how much
processing capacity we needed for a 50,000 ton fishery, looked at how much
processing capacity we needed and the kind of processing plants that we needed
to be on the leading edge of the technology in that industry in the world today?
How different would our industry have been over the past five years and how
different would it be over the next five years? We are not bad now, but we would
be world leaders in that sector and we would, Mr. Speaker, find more plants like
the one in St. Anthony, for example, that today, because they are on the leading
edge of the technology in that sector in the world, can compete with plants in
Iceland to take industrial shrimp off the offshore boats and process it in their
plants. Those are the types of things that we will be able to do. We would, if
we had a plan, Mr. Speaker, be able to go to the federal Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans and say: This is our plan and this is how we believe the policy for
vessel replacement should be in this Province. But we do not have that today,
Mr. Speaker, and because of that, there has been inaction really on that front
for a number of years to the point where we find ourselves from time to time
leaving shrimp not caught in our allocations here in this Province.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot impress enough upon the government and I cannot impress
enough upon the people in the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador the need for
us all collectively to put together a plan that looks out five to ten years, and
looks at what the resource prospects are and looks at what the market wants and
looks at how we can be globally competitive and on the leading edge of
technology here.
I look also to the forestry industry because the forestry industry is a very
important sector of the economy in the district that I represent: in Roddickton,
Main Brook, Croque, Bide Arm. In all those communities, and what we refer to as
the cross country area. The economy is basically driven by two things: the
fishery in Englee and Conche, and the forestry industry in Roddickton and Main
Brook and the like.
Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves today - I know the previous speaker, the
Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, just spoke about raw material
shortages. We all know about these raw material shortages that is confronting
the pulp and paper mill in Stephenville. The question is: How would our forestry
industry, both the sawmill sector and the pulp and paper sector, differ if we,
some years back, had a plan put in place that incorporated a significant
investment in silviculture? And we do have some investment in silviculture, both
from the Province, from the feds, from the industry, and I applaud all three
players on that. What would have happened if we had something like that, or
something significantly more than that, years back? What would our forestry
industry be like today? What would our sawlog industry be like today?
If we had a situation twenty years ago, for example, where the waste from our
sawmills was being utilized to a greater extent for the pulp and paper mills in
the form of chips, maybe some of the trees that are now gone, maybe some of the
cutovers that now dot the landscape across our Province, maybe some of those
cutovers would still have trees on them today, and maybe we would be in a better
position. Maybe we would find ourselves in a situation where the annual
allowable cut on the Northern Peninsula would be strong enough, great enough,
and high enough that mills like Northchip, for example, would not have closed
down this past year. Maybe we would find ourselves where Canada Bay Lumber, for
example, would have a longer operating season.
Those are the things, Mr. Speaker, that come from good planning in our
resource sector. Also, if we had this good planning in our resource sector, how
would it benefit the fiscal situation in our Province? I have always maintained,
in large part, that the reason we have such a difficult fiscal situation in this
Province, the reason we have such deficits and such debts burdening the people
of our Province, is because our resource sector has not been developed in a
sustainable manner. It is because we have lost our cod fishery. It is because
our ground fishery has collapsed. It is because we have overcapitalized, for
example, in the shrimp and crab sectors. Whenever we find ourselves in that type
of situation, our industries are not as competitive as they can be. They do not
generate the revenues they can and, as a result, they do not support our
communities like they could. We do not find them in a position where they are
generating taxes for the government to be able to provide funding to
municipalities throughout the Province to do road repairs and what have you.
Speaking of road repairs, Mr. Speaker, I have to speak briefly on roads -
relating to the tourism sector, the fisheries sector and the forestry sector,
certainly on the Northern Peninsula. On the Northern Peninsula, as I have said
many times, we have Route 430, The Viking Trail. I have to say, the second most
important highway in Newfoundland and Labrador today when it comes to - I say it
is the second most important because it has probably the second highest volume
of traffic of any road in the Province. It has the second highest volume of
tourism traffic of any road in the Province. It has one of the highest volumes
of fish traffic, certainly, in the Province. I do not know how many millions and
millions and millions of pounds of fish and pulp wood and lumber are hauled over
it every year. Today, as we speak, government's plan is to move the provision
of the north coast of Labrador out of Lewisporte to Cartwright.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding, it is expected that it will probably generate
somewhere in the order of 1,000 tractor-trailer loads of freight up and down
that coast, over and above what we have there right now. The road on the
Northern Peninsula is just not in a condition that is able to handle that kind
of traffic. I am not sure what the numbers are for Gros Morne. I believe it is
somewhere in the order of 80,000-odd visitors per year to Gros Morne. I could
stand corrected on that if somebody on the other side knows, or over here.
I know in L'Anse aux Meadows we had 35,000 visitors this past season -
roughly 35,000, for the sake of an argument - and each and everyone of those
visitors - they do not come in by boat, they do not come in by plane. The odd
one comes in by boat and plane, I suppose, but very few. The vast majority,
probably somewhere in the order of 33,000 out of those 35,000 would have come in
by road. What do we have going up the Northern Peninsula? We have a road that is
in a deplorable condition, for the vast majority of it. When I drove over it
last week I had intended to add up the number of kilometres which were posted on
signs that said: rough road for the next x-number of kilometres. I suspect, if
my memory serves me correctly, it is close to 100 kilometres that is designated
as: rough road ahead - on a road 400 kilometres long, that is the mainstay of
Northern Newfoundland and Southern Labrador. When the freight season comes it
will be the main route into all of coastal Labrador, certainly, and one of two
routes into the rest of Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how government has - I fail to see the logic in
the neglect of this highway that we have seen in recent years by the government.
How can we expect a tourism industry to develop beyond where it is today? How
can we expect our - every time we have roads that are in that condition they add
to the transportation costs associated with goods that are being trucked into
the Northern Peninsula and into Labrador. They add to the transportation costs
of materials such as - that our industry generates, that our logging industry
generates. It adds to the cost of materials - to the cost of fish that is being
trucked off the Peninsula. All of this is an added cost, Mr. Speaker. It is all
part and parcel. Again, part of the reason the government does not have the
money, has not had the money to be able to -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. TAYLOR: By leave, to clue up?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. LUSH: Twenty-five seconds.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. The Government House Leader is so kind to give me
twenty-five seconds.
Just in cluing up, I would have to say solid, good resource planning -
planning for our resource sector that shows where we want to go with our fishing
industry over the next five to ten years, that shows where we want to go with
our forestry industry over the next however many years, you know, a generation
in the forestry sector. A generation of tree growth, for example. Those are the
types of things that we need in this Province if we are going to have
sustainable, viable, cutting edge, globally competitive, resource-based
industries in this Province. If we have that, Mr. Speaker, that can only bode
well for the fiscal situation of the Province. It can only do well for the
people in the communities of rural Newfoundland. It can only do well for the
people in the urban parts of our Province.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you and take my seat.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is a pleasure for me to rise today and to participate in this debate in
the House. It is always important, I think, that we bring all the views and
perspectives of the people to the House of Assembly. Sometimes when there are
ongoing events and ongoing circumstances in our Province it sometimes clouds
some of the things that have been done in the past and some of the efforts that
have been made.
I would like to start today by making some comments as it relates to the
fishery. I think it is no secret to anyone in the Province that we have some
very critical and very crucial issues within the fishing industry that are
confronting our people and our communities today in Newfoundland and Labrador.
No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that we, as a Province, have found
ourselves in a fisheries crises. I think if you would go back through history
there have been any number of times in Newfoundland and Labrador where we have
been faced with some very tough decisions in terms of the fishing industry,
whether it dealt with the resource sector or whether it dealt with an
overabundance within the processing sector, or whatever the case may be. When
those decisions and those issues impact so fundamentally upon people in our
Province, then it becomes an issue in which no government can ignore, in which
no government can take a side seat but must be involved and must provide the
appropriate leadership in order to be able to deal with those critical pieces
and those pressing pieces within the Province.
Mr. Speaker, what has happened today with regard to crab reductions in many
of the regions around our Province, and what has happened with regard to the cod
closure, it affects any number of people, thousands of people, and it affects
hundreds of communities. I think the actions that we have seen in terms of the
federal government with decisions on these issues is, certainly, representative
of what we have seen over a number of decades in fisheries decision making and
management on behalf of the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, we do not agree with the decisions that the federal government
has made to close cod fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador today. We feel that
their decision is wrong. I would like to explain, and to have incorporated into
the Hansard of this House, the reasons why we believe that is so fundamentally
wrong.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, you have an industry in which thousands of
harvesters are engaged on a daily basis from one season to the next. It is an
industry in which they, the people who are on the water, have the information
and the real facts about what is happening in this industry.
Mr. Speaker, in this Province today you will have fishermen and women who
will tell you, unprecedented, that they feel that the fish off their shores is
more sustainable and more stable today in terms of cod stocks than they have
been for very long time.
These are people, Mr. Speaker, who tell me that, back in the 1970s in my own
district, the people who lived there had to go out and build longliners because
they could no long