December 4, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 40

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

On November 29, the hon. the Opposition House Leader raised a point of order

concerning the hon. the Premier's assertion that the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition was spreading rumours by innuendo. In making his point of order, of

course, the hon. the Opposition House Leader suggested that the hon. the Premier

was using innuendo.

While the language may be somewhat unflattering, it is the Chair's opinion

that what we are dealing with, in this instance, is not a point of order but a

difference of opinion between the two hon. members, and the Chair so rules.

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to congratulate a

youth organization in my district that is celebrating fifty years of providing

leadership and opportunities for young people in Marystown and surrounding area.

The Royal Canadian Sea Cadets Corp, 121 Mary Rose of Marystown, is

celebrating their 50 th anniversary. Throughout those fifty years,

hundreds of cadets have learned such skills as leadership, drill, seamanship and

pride in one's country. Many have travelled to further develop their

leadership skills at camps across the country during the summers. Some of these

cadets, when completing their training, go on to become officers with the

Canadian Armed Forces. All of these cadets, however, learn skills that will

benefit them as they look for a career, and many youth obtain their first summer

jobs as a result of their membership in the organization.

The cadet movement is also known for its commitment to the environment with

such initiatives as Cadets Caring for Canada, where all cadets come together to

help beautify the communities they serve, and they are also present at

Remembrance Day events and Christmas parades.

Mr. Speaker, 121 Mary Rose provides a unique opportunity for Marystown's

young people to make new friends and learn valuable skills, and any youth aged

twelve to eighteen can join. I want to thank such supportive groups as the

Kinsmen Club of Marystown for their support, and I congratulate the officers and

the cadets of 121 Mary Rose on celebrating their 50 th anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to a very gracious lady, Mrs. Isabel Harris, a

long-time resident of Markland, formerly of St. John's, who passed peacefully

away on December 1, 2002, at the age of ninety years, in the presence of her

family.

The late Mrs. Harris was an organist in Christ Church, Markland, for some

forty years, Mr. Speaker, and only retired from that ministry just last year.

She was a devoted and dedicated church worker, always willing to lend a helping

hand. She was very active in her church, in her community, and was also a former

girls auxiliary leader in her church. She enjoyed good health and she enjoyed

many pleasures, but her two great pleasures were to play cards in the community

with her friends, and also crossword puzzles.

She is predeceased by her first husband, William Cook, and her second

husband, Leroy Harris, and her daughter Bernice. She leaves to mourn two sons,

George and David, eight grandchildren, eight great-grandchildren, and a large

number of family members and devoted friends.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Isabel Harris was certainly a great Newfoundlander and

Labradorian and was held in much esteem by her family, her friends, and she

lived a full life, and life to the fullest.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members of the House to extend condolences to

the Harris and Cook families on the passing of Mrs. Isabel Harris.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge a local company,

ZeddComm, that has been ranked as one of the fastest growing technology

companies in North America by Deloitte and Touche's Fast 500'.

Founded in 1992, ZeddComm is the first company headquartered in St. John's

to make the North America Fast 500'. ZeddComm had experience a growth rate of

1,300 per cent over the past five years and has offices situated in Ottawa and

Irvine, California. The successful full-service consulting IT firm, employing

fifty people, not only made the Fast 500' but over the past twenty-eight

months has placed in a number of Canadian business rankings, including the Top

Companies to Work For, Profit 100 and Fastest Growing Companies lists.

ZeddComm is a respected leader in the technology industry. Their innovation

and commitment to technology has secured the company an impressive client list,

including such familiar names as Sony, Microsoft, Cisco, Pfizer and Health

Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to acknowledge the value of technology

and the leadership and vision that is necessary to succeed in the competitive IT

industry.

I ask all members to join with me in congratulating ZeddComm on their

accomplishments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise to congratulate two young students from my district who

did extremely well in the fourth Canadian National Immunization Poster

Competition.

Christy Groves, who attends Grade 6 at Mountain Field Academy in Forteau, was

chosen as the National Runner-up for the contest, while Heather Tamara Trimm,

who also attends Grade 6 at Mountain Field Academy, was chosen as the provincial

winner for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this competition takes place every two years by Health Canada's

Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, in partnership with the

Canadian Immunization Awareness Program.

I want to congratulate these two young and artistic leaders and minds in

Labrador for their interest and their high standing in this national

competition. Their posters will be promoting awareness and the importance of

proper immunization processes and practices within our country.

I am sure all members join with me, Mr. Speaker, in congratulating these two

young Grade 6 students.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to update the House of Assembly today and the people of

the Province on the meeting which was held in Ottawa this past Monday evening,

regarding the state of cod stocks in the Gulf and the Northeast Coast.

This was an unprecedented meeting, convened as a result of the unanimous

resolution which we passed in this House of Assembly following emergency debate

two weeks ago, upon hearing reports from Ottawa concerning the future of the

Newfoundland and Labrador cod fisheries.

Participating in the meeting with me were: the hon. Gerry Byrne, Newfoundland

and Labrador's representative in the federal Cabinet, our Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, federal MPs, senators, the Leader of the Official

Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and other representatives

from this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, not since Confederation has there been a joint meeting with

federal and provincial representatives of all political backgrounds surrounding

a single issue. I believe that our willingness to set aside partisan politics

highlights the importance of this issue, and our desire to work together for the

best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. As a result of the reports

from Ottawa, we have been given an opportunity to address significant issues

before final decisions are made about the cod fisheries by the Government of

Canada.

The main consensus of our meeting, Mr. Speaker, was that we are not satisfied

that a closure of the cod fisheries in the Province is necessary at this point

in time. Rather, we all agreed that further analysis and a comprehensive

rebuilding plan is required, so that the key issues that are negatively

impacting the fish stocks can be effectively dealt with.

This plan will outline positive measures to help us in addressing issues

including seal overpopulation and predation, custodial management, and gear

types.

Mr. Speaker, as a first step we have agreed to establish an all-party

committee, with representation from the provincial and federal levels to look

into the specific issues, with a view to reporting back to the larger group as a

whole prior to Christmas. This committee will be chaired by the provincial

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, the group will continue with a united front, as we develop an

action plan which represents the best interests of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and our fishery.

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.

It was, indeed, an unprecedented but a wonderful meeting. It lasted, I guess,

between four and five hours. A good discussion. All parties there agreed that it

would be a frank, very open discussion and we would move forward on a common

front.

It was interesting on the way back yesterday, I think it took us about ten

hours to all get back from Ottawa yesterday and, of course, the common question

that was asked to me was: Why are you all travelling together? Why are you all

together? The nice thing about that was -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You were bonding.

MR. WILLIAMS: - we were able to say that we were up there bonding, as the

Minister of Finance said, working together for a very, very important issue to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I must say, I was very proud to say that. It was nice to

see us all working together, and that is the commitment we all made.

I was also pleased to have our fisheries critic, Mr. Taylor, join me; and the

former Premier, Tom Rideout, was there as well from our party. It was a very

worthwhile discussion; a very detailed discussion; a very fruitful discussion.

We have committed to look at this again before Christmas. I thank the federal

minister, Gerry Byrne, for chairing a very productive meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was very pleased to also participate in this historic meeting in Ottawa. We

talked about what we were doing as a common front on the fisheries of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We did not go so far as calling it the bloc

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, but there was a real sense that the

political representatives of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and our

representatives of the Senate, wanted to assure all the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador that we were going to be united on this issue as long as we could.

We have an early heads-up on what might be happening to the Gulf stocks and to

the Northern Cod. We were determined that we could work together and try to

will continue to do as long as that -

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?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: This we will continue to do and are determined to do so that

do in their responsibility and, certainly, what measures the Province might take

as well, should there be a need for drastic action with respect to closure but

it also an opportunity for us to press the important points that have been made

about the issue of custodial management, about the issue of seal predation, and

about other issues in terms of rebuilding those stocks which is very important

to the future of this Province.

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.

My questions this afternoon are for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, with each passing day we learn more and more about the terms of

the secret deal on the Lower Churchill, which appears to be a very, very bad

deal for Newfoundland and Labrador and a very, very good deal for Quebec. Now we

all know why it is, in fact, a hidden deal and why the Premier will not answer

any questions on the terms.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm what was told to the private meeting

in Labrador, that at the end of construction of this multi-billion development

of our resource, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will only get fifty - fifty,

Mr. Speaker - long-term jobs while Quebec will use more of our cheap power to

create thousands of new jobs for Quebecers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, there is nothing to learn about the Gull Island project at Lower

Churchill because there is no deal; there is no project to be presented to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is only speculation by the Leader of

the Opposition, which has been going on for a couple of weeks.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: In a very good discussion that

we held in Labrador, which was almost as unprecedented as the one we had in

Ottawa about the fishery a few days ago - because people put aside their

political hats and came in to have a frank discussion about the future of

Labrador, about the whole notion of things that were possible and could be done

for economic development in Labrador, and what the hopes and aspirations of the

people are.

With respect to the issue that the Leader of the Opposition just raised, it

was clearly acknowledged and the context of it - because he tries to describe it

as something else - is that when the plant is up and running in ten years'

time, that the workforce to run the plant is likely to be fifty. That is common

knowledge; everybody understands that. That is how many people it takes, by the

way, to run a hydro plant of that size - fifty people. That has nothing to do,

nothing whatsoever, with any possible economic benefits in Labrador, the use of

recalled power, new industry in Labrador, jobs in Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - forestry developments in Labrador, possible smelters in

Labrador. It has nothing to do with the benefits that would accrue from having

energy available. It only addresses the fact that it takes fifty people to run a

power plant.

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 thank the Premier for that answer, that in fact from 2010-2055

there will be in fact fifty long-term jobs created by this project in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, even more information came from the meeting in Labrador which

the Premier held. Would the Premier confirm that he told that private meeting

that the prefabrication of the turbines and powerhouse components would be done

by Quebec companies, in Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Leader of the Opposition has some difficulty dealing in the real

world, the context of the discussion was this: We acknowledged that when we

tried to secure benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador in offshore projects such

as White Rose, that there was not much point in the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador trying to suggest that the benefits to Newfoundland and Labrador could

include the building of the hull, the actual vessel that is going to contain the

drill rigs, the accommodations, the facilities and all of the modules, because

that cannot be done anywhere in Canada, anywhere in North America. It was a $600

million piece of a $2.35 billion project.

The reality is - and the people in the room, Mr. Speaker, understood it fully

and appreciated the honesty of it, they appreciated the forthrightness of it,

and they appreciated the fact that we are dealing with real issues - that if

there is anybody - and if this is what the Leader of the Opposition is

suggesting - that maybe to build a single powerhouse in Labrador, that somebody

is going to build a plant in Newfoundland and Labrador to start producing

turbines for power plants, if that is what he is suggesting, that that is in the

real world as a possibility, then I guess he should go and put those false hopes

out before people, if that is what he wants to do. We deal with it

realistically, and we understood -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: The question was this, Mr. Speaker, that the turbines are

already being built by plants in Quebec. They will either be built in Quebec,

somewhere else in Canada, somewhere else in the United States, or somewhere else

in the world. We acknowledge they will not be built in Newfoundland and Labrador

now or in the foreseeable future.

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.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is because of that attitude by our Premier

that we have the highest unemployment rate in the country, and that is why our

people, our young people, are leaving our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: It is a quitting, can't-do attitude.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WILLIAMS: We will contrast a more can-do attitude by the Premier of

Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, last month, in his economic plan for the next three years,

called Horizon 2005, Premier Landry of Quebec said his government is

concentrating on an agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador concerning the

development of Gull Island which could lead to the creation of numerous jobs and

numerous business opportunities for Quebecers. That is the contrast with our

Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why are we entering into an agreement to

create numerous jobs and opportunities for Quebecers and only fifty long-term

jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am saddened by the approach of the Leader of the Opposition because I guess

what we are learning now is this: that the position of the Leader of the

Opposition, in trying to be so adamantly opposed to something that he knows

nothing about, that is not in the public domain, that will be presented to the

people if we ever get a chance to finalize it, Mr. Speaker, is that he would -

and let's recount it for the record, because this is what the debate will be

at some point in the future. The position of the Leader of the Opposition is

that there will never be a development at Gull Island unless the Upper Churchill

contract is reopened as a pre-condition. That is number one.

Now he is suggesting to the people of the Province, today, in his question

previous to this last one, that he will never allow the project to proceed

unless the turbines for the powerhouse are built in Labrador. That is what he is

saying today, Mr. Speaker. Now he is suggesting that the energy - you can't

have any of the industrial development in Labrador without building the project

and generating the energy. That is the key to all of it, Mr. Speaker. If the

energy is needed in Labrador, that is what the recall provisions are for, so

that we can use it in Labrador to meet the hopes and aspirations and visions of

the positive people who spoke in that room in Labrador last week, not the

naysayers, not the negative people, but the positive people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I think it is grossly unfair to the people

of the Province for somebody in a position of responsibility -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - to be trying to put forward a proposition that any

government would put forward a project that would see fifty jobs in Newfoundland

and Labrador and thousands of jobs someplace else. That is not something we are

interested in, Mr. Speaker, not at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the reason that the Upper Churchill is so important to myself

and to the caucus is because every single day that that contract continues $2

million a day worth of profit goes to the coffers of Quebec. That is $40 million

after twenty days. That is $60 million dollars after thirty days. We could put

that into creating jobs, into education, into health care -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: - into roads in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: That, quite simply, Mr. Speaker, is why it is so important

to the people of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: On the question of recall, Mr. Speaker, which the Premier

mentioned: Could the Premier please explain why, when he met with the leaders in

Labrador, he would not address questions on the very, very important issue of

recall? Why wouldn't he come clean with the people of Labrador by giving them

the notice period, giving them the quantity, giving them the price at which we

have to try and buy back the power which we sold to them cheaper in the first

place?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess for the great fighter across the way, who wants to now suggest to the

people of the Province that every single cent - that is the numbers he is

quoting - that is generated as a result of the sale of power from the Upper

Churchill should come to Newfoundland and Labrador, that the Upper Churchill

contract would be completely torn up. I do not know who is going to do it,

because we have challenged it, and the Supreme Court of Canada has said -

because the great fighter, who is his role model and idol, Premier Peckford,

took it there twice, and they said it is a contract that is in place. It is a

proper contract. The only way it can ever be reopened, Mr. Speaker, is if there

is some willingness by a government in Quebec.

The Leader of the Opposition cannot tell them that they must open the

contract. We have taken it to the courts before and the courts have ruled that

the contract is valid. So I guess if we want - that is why we spent thirty years

having the kind of thing that he has talked about and have done nothing about

the Lower Churchill. We have had thirty years of it because of that kind of

attitude and approach. To pretend you are fighting and accomplish nothing,

instead of doing something.

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, the Premier has indicated in the Legislature over the last two

weeks that the federal government does not want to participate in developing a

hydro project in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier explain why Gerry Byrne, the federal minister

for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is indicating today that he was

not even asked about the Lower Churchill file? Nothing, absolute nothing, was

mentioned to him about pursuing funding on the Lower Churchill when he met with

the Premier in Ottawa on Monday of this week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess if the Leader of the Opposition were to read the rest of the story

that was in The Telegram today he would also know that Minister Byrne

acknowledges that the government, that he is a part of and that he is in the

Cabinet of, does not participate and has no plan to participate in megaprojects,

Mr. Speaker.

the Finance Minister, Mr. Martin at the time, stated in 1995. It has been

restated to us. We do acknowledge that the Prime Minister raised it in a meeting

with the Premier of Ontario. I have chatted directly with the Premier of

Manitoba. We have talked to the Premier's office in Ontario. We have talked to

the Prime Minister's office. There are no discussions involving Manitoba,

Ontario and the federal government about participation in any hydro project in

Manitoba or any place else.

We are going to check it further, Mr. Speaker. We are going to check it

further because I am in the process of writing to the Prime Minister again, to

have a further confirmation that they do not plan to change their particular

position and if they do, that they would certainly treat Newfoundland and

Labrador no differently than they would anybody else on the basis of

participation in a project of importance to Canada.

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.

Our Premier, last week, was not even aware that any negotiations, any

discussions, had gone on between Premiers Doer, Eves and/or the Prime Minister.

He was not even aware. He had to pick it up in the National Post .

I also read other parts of that

article today, Premier, from Mr. Gerry Byrne.

The federal minister said, and I quote him: He was certainly open to the

specific request for federal involvement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: - and yet he was not even asked.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier needs federal support why didn't he even bother

to consult with any of the federal MPs on this very important matter to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Is it, in fact, because he simply has no

working relationship whatsoever with any of these people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the tired old tactic of the Leader of the Opposition. He talked about

not being aware of any discussions between the Premiers of Manitoba, Ontario and

the federal government. Rather than jump to conclusions based on a newspaper

article, we called these people. They did confirm that it is not a matter of not

being aware of any discussions, they confirmed that there has been no

discussions. There have been no discussions between Ontario and Manitoba for

over a decade. There have been no discussions with the federal government at all

with respect to this particular issue and funding; the story that was in the

paper.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of not being aware of it. It is a matter of

taking the time to check it out and be told by the very people involved that

there are no discussions ongoing and there have not been any discussions with

respect to that.

Mr. Speaker, our federal members will be very, fully and completely

supportive of this government if we have something to do that requires, needs,

and can be better for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by having some

federal involvement. To date, what they know, because they are members of the

federal caucus, is that they sit in a federal caucus whose official stated

position is they are not getting involved in any megaprojects anywhere in

Canada, period. Now, that is the circumstance they know they are in today. If

participate in Newfoundland and Labrador as they would anywhere else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Yesterday when I asked the Minister of Mines and Energy questions about the

public relations campaign that had been developed to sell which was a deal two

weeks ago on the Lower Churchill, to Monday no deal, and now yesterday and today

a possible deal. He admitted outside this House that the government would be

spending in around the same vicinity - either they have already spent in some or

in whole - the same amount as the Voisey's Bay campaign, which is about $1

million.

I would like to ask the minister this question: Will he confirm for the House

today that Lower Churchill negotiations to date, dating back to the Tobin

Administration, have cost the people of the Province or Hydro approximately $50

million; $35 million of which was spent under the Tobin Administration, and

approximately $15 million since this Premier became Premier? Can he confirm that

is how much this Administration has spent on Lower Churchill negotiations and

that approximately $3 million of that has been spent on needless public

relations campaigns?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I can confirm is the obvious, that over the last four or five years - in

particular, going back to the 1998 negotiation and proposed conclusion to a deal

- there has, in fact, been a fair amount of money been spent on negotiations, on

the engagement of experts to advise us, on the engagement of professional, legal

and technical and financial advice. We have spent a fair amount of money through

the hydro organization in-house to do that work. Now, if it appears to be

unreasonable to suggest that because you do a lot of work, you should be able to

do it for nothing and spend no money, than that is a new concept to us and a new

concept, I would suggest, to the real world out there. We have spent a fair bit

of money, and we intend to continue to spend money until we come to a conclusion

one way or the other, whether or not we can get a deal that is good for the

Province at which point we fully intend to ensure that all of our costs will be

fully and completely captured in a project that we hope we will bring to

conclusion sooner rather than later.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, when I was growing up a fair amount of money was a couple of

hundred dollars, not $50 million or $60 million. By anyone's estimates in

Newfoundland and Labrador, that would be considered astronomical when you have

yet to produce anything for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the minister this question, Mr.

Speaker: Will the minister confirm that the approximately $50 million to $60

million that has already been spent on negotiations on a public relations

campaign, that that money which they have spent will be rolled into the capital

costs of the Lower Churchill project and financed with interest over the

forty-five year life of the contract? Is that how you plan to hide it from the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, when you start down a road of trying to

develop a project like this, or when you start down the road of negotiating on

any issue, the minute you start in a direction and start to do work, you start

to incur expenses and you start to expend money on that particular issue. We

fully intend - any prudent proponent would fully intend and expect - to be able

to capture all of the costs from the get-go, in terms of negotiation and

consideration of a project, in the final and conclusionary cost of the full

project, at what point we get a project.

So what I say to the hon. member is that we have spent money on negotiations,

we have spent money in a number of areas with respect to the negotiations, and

we hope that some day, sooner rather than later, all of that money will be a

part of the full cost of the project that we sincerely hope for the benefit of

the people of this Province we can bring forward, in like fashion as we have

done with Voisey's and White Rose and other projects, to advance the economic

cause and the good of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the government that says $50 million or $60 million is a

fair amount of money. No wonder they think that the budget, which is going to

escalate approximately to $600 million, means nothing to the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me ask him this question: Will the minister also confirm that all of

Quebec hydro's costs associated with these negotiations, which are

approximately the same or a little bit lower than what we have just described,

will be rolled into the money Hydro-Quebec will lend us to build the project and

that we, the people of this Province, will in fact pay it off - every single

penny of it - over the life of the forty-five year contract that you want to

sign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let the record be clear that, while the hon.

member is suggesting amounts of money that may have or that may yet be needed to

be expended, I have confirmed nothing of the sort as he suggests I have

confirmed in the questioning that he has put forward.

What I say to the hon. member is this: that he will have to ask the people in

Quebec how they are accounting for any money they have spend on negotiations

over the past four or five years. We will account for the money that we have

spent. I can tell the hon. member this: that we have not -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: I say this to the hon. member: that as I speak, and up

until this point - and obviously in any logical context this should be the case

- we have not picked up one ten cents of expense that Quebec has spent on any

part of this project. We do our work and we pay for our bills. They do their

work and I guess they pay their bills, and negotiations go on or will go on,

hopefully, to successful conclusions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

Minister, highway conditions vary from place to place around the Province.

Many people travel from east to west, and some of those people travel to Port

aux Basques to get the ferry. I ask the minister today, would he consider using

100 per cent salt for all the Trans-Canada Highway right across the Province,

where temperatures and conditions warrant?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the process that is in place in terms of

plowing and salting and sanding our roads is a process that has been in place

for the last fifteen years and we see no reason to change it at this particular

time. There are reasons why there are percentages of salt and sand used. It has

to do with temperatures and various locations within the Province. That is

analyzed by experts within our department. We have set the program for salting

and sanding our roads for this particular year and we see no reason to change

it, because we are doing a good job.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, all the travelling public likes to feel safe on our highways,

particularly the Trans-Canada Highway. Two weeks ago you decided to increase the

combination of salt and sand from Grand Falls, Windsor, to Badger to 100 per

cent salt. You changed your mind very quickly on that issue in that short

distance. Minister, will you now consider using 100 per cent salt further west

than Badger to protect the people who travel from Grand Falls, Windsor West? In

the last two weeks we have seen many vehicles off the road, and some serious

accidents. I think safety should be taken into consideration here, not the

dollar value. Will you consider using 100 per cent salt west of Badger?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: There was a

section of the road from Grand Falls to Badger

where we increased, for a short period of time, 100 per cent salt, but the hon.

member will realize that the traffic levels from Badger -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: The hon. member asked a question. If he wants to find out

the answer he will listen to what I have to say. If not, I will sit down, okay?

The thing about it in terms of 100 per cent salt, and whether you are going

to use sand, also depends on the traffic levels on a particular

section of the

highway. The traffic levels from Badger to South Brook and all of those areas

there, there is less traffic on the road. You know that with 100 per cent salt

there needs to be a great deal of traffic on the road for the salt to have the

proper traction, so the sand will also provide the traction that is needed for

people on the highway. This is all done in a scientific way; it is not done on

an ad hoc basis. We have experts within the department who have done this for

years and years, and I respect their point of view.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Minister, two weeks ago you said that the conditions were too

cold from Grand Falls, Windsor, to use salt. A couple of days later you decide

to use 100 per cent salt from Grand Falls, Windsor, to Badger. Now, how did you

come up with statistics to prove that had to be changed when now you are saying

you do not have the evidence to say that it could be 100 per cent salt further

west than Badger? Where did you get the information?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: I do not know how much clearer I can state it. The decisions

that are made in regard to whether it is salt, sand, a mixture of the salt and

sand, is done by experts within the department. They determine what is needed.

The objective of the minister is to get the money to do the job, and we have

done the job, and we are doing a good job on our roads within Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

A Belgium company is reported to be planning to build wind turbines in eleven

Coastal Labrador communities and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is apparently

looking at whether to join as a partner in this project.

I want to ask the minister: Why is he not instructing Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro - instead of looking at privatization as a solution here - why

aren't them taking the initiative in wind power and other alternative energies

to replace diesel in the twenty-nine sites in this Province, as low as one-third

of the cost by wind generation, which is being done in Quebec, in Alberta, and

even tiny P.E.I.? Why isn't Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro not taking this

type of initiative instead of leaving it up to someone else?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. Member for Kilbride, he will make a good backup in the

event we have systems failure on that account.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: To the question raised by the hon. Leader of the NDP, let

me say this to him: As a matter of fact, our Hydro, as the Crown Corporation who

is responsible for most of the generation of power in the Province, has in fact

been very directly engaged in the issue of wind power. We have just completed a

pilot project, an experimental exercise, on the Burin Peninsula - I believe it

was in the St. Lawrence area - and the results of that experience and experiment

is being factored into the overall energy needs of the Province, vis--vis its

cost effectiveness and whether or not it adds value to us in terms of our

electricity generation capacity. We have had a Belgium company -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: - a private sector company, on the South Coast of Labrador

this year spending their money to look at the same thing, the possibility of

using wind power to generate electricity. Hydro does not need to be directed by

me today because it is now, as we speak, fully engaged in the consideration of

wind power for purposes of electricity generation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

You have time for one quick question.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Tiny P.E.I. built eight of these in 2001. This is not an experimental

technology. When is the minister going to direct Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro

to act quickly to try and replace some of the diesel fuel that we are burning

for Kyoto reasons, or the hundreds of thousands of tons of SO 2 plus

greenhouse gases being produced in Seal Cove right here on the Island?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the hon. member. This is not new technology, and I never

suggested at any point that we are experimenting with a new technology. What I

said is that we were having some work done to see if the technology can work to

our benefit, given our circumstances, given the wind volumes that are needed,

given all of the issues that have to be factored in as to whether or not wind

power is the right way to go. We, through our hydro, are actively and fully, and

today as we speak, involved in the consideration of wind energy for purposes of

use in this Province. I appreciate him raising it because it gives us an

opportunity to, in fact, state the case and state the facts as to where we are

with that issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Petitions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition signed by nearly 500 residents of this

Province, covering communities from Gambo to Glovertown, Grand Falls-Windsor,

Bishop's Falls, Botwood, Norris Arm, Badger, La Scie, Lewisporte, Milltown,

Cox's Cove, Buchans, Birchy Bay and Triton.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is addressed to the hon. House of Assembly and I

will read the petition:

WHEREAS in 1998 the Province provided funding for four new multiple sclerosis

drug therapies, Betaseron, Avonex, Copaxone and Rebif, under the Newfoundland

and Labrador Prescription Drug Program; and

WHEREAS the Newfoundland and Labrador Prescription Drug Program only provides

medication coverage for senior's under the Senior Citizen's Drug Subsidy

Program and people on income support; and

WHEREAS these drugs can cost between $1,800 to $3,600 a month; and

WHEREAS all citizens in other Canadian provinces can receive assistance with

high cost MS drugs, using co-payment and sliding scale programs, not limited to

social assistance income levels; and

WHEREAS the drugs can significantly improve the quality of life for people

with multiple sclerosis;

WHEREFORE we the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct

government to implement a co-payment or sliding scale program for Betaseron,

Avonex, Copaxone and Rebif so that people who do not qualify for assistance

under the existing programs can get financial assistance with these high cost

drugs, as in the case in other Canadian provinces, as in duty bound your

petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have stood in this House on many occasions and raised this

question with the Minister of Health, and I have presented petitions on many

occasions. This petition that I am presenting today from all of the communities

that are mentioned, and I have presented them from every community across this

Province, pretty well. From Labrador West, I have presented many, many petitions

on this subject. People are getting frustrated with the lack of commitment that

this government is making to people in this Province who desperately need these

drugs to improve their life.

The question, Mr. Speaker, that this government should be asking themselves

is that if they do not provide assistance to people now with these debilitating

diseases, it is going to cost them longer and more money in the long run,

because these people, rather than leading a productive and a better quality of

life for a longer period of time, are going to be incurring costs in the

hospitals of this Province, something which is not funded to proper levels right

now. So, it is a system where they can introduce a program now which will save

the health care system money in the long run. I think it is a ridiculous - as I

said yesterday to the minister - situation where people in this Province can be

making $30 an hour and if they have MS or some of the other drugs that are

required that they need, they can move to another province, make $10 a hour and

be financially better off.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for this government to take responsibility and treat

the people with MS. It is not a disease that they brought on themselves. It was

not self-inflicted, by any means, and it is time for this Province to recognize

that and provide the assistance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: So, Mr. Speaker, it is time for them to take their

responsibilities seriously, to be able to provide coverage for these drugs and

let people lead a better quality of life that will save the health care system

money in the long run.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow a situation to continue where

hardworking people of this Province have to reduce themselves to poverty levels,

jeopardize their retirement, ruin any chances that their kids have of having an

education fund in their name. It is time for this government to recognize that

and move on to provide the coverage that is required.

Thank you.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in bringing forward this motion today I want to raise the whole

issue of fisheries management in this Province, and I want to have it discussed

here in the House so that I can get input from other people.

Last spring when I placed this motion on the Order Paper I intentionally

wrote the motion to allow for a wide-ranging debate about the importance of the

fishery to the Province and the need to have in place the best possible resource

management. I did not bring it forward to be just critical of any organization

or any individual, but rather, I am hopeful that we in this House of Assembly

can, through expressing our views on this issue, cause others to re-examine and

reflect on how we are managing this resource.

Mr. Speaker, a lot has happened since last spring when I placed this motion

on the Order Paper. The motion is probably more timely now than it was then,

when I presented it last spring. The news coming out of Ottawa, if you want to

call it news, reinforced the need for us in this Province to have a debate on

the issues raised in this motion. There are a lot of questions which need to be

asked. They need to be asked about how the federal government manages the

fishery, how they managed the resources off our coast and how they managed the

human resources of our people here in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, before I go any further I would like to read into the record of

the House the motion that we are debating today:

WHEREAS the fishery and aquaculture are extremely important parts of the

economic and social well being of this Province; and

WHEREAS the current state of our understanding of the fishery resources off

our coast is an underdeveloped area and more research is needed in this field;

and

WHEREAS bringing administrative functions closer to the people who pursue the

fishery would result in a better exchange of ideas and better management;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports a comprehensive

review of the organization of the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans

with the purpose of providing improved services to the fishing industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this is a wide-ranging motion and I am looking forward to

hearing the debate which will be generated in this House today.

The first

WHEREAS of this motion is about the importance of the fishery to

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to take a bit of time to put

forward some facts about the role of the fishery in the economy of this

Province. It is important that we keep those in mind.

First, Mr. Speaker, let us look at the landed value. The dollar value of the

seafood brought ashore in this Province is substantial and, in fact, many people

find it hard to believe that since the close of the Northern Cod fishery the

fishery, in recent years, has generated record landed value. The fact is because

of the growth of the shellfish sector with crab and shrimp accounting for

approximately 70 per cent of the industries production and export value.

Mr. Speaker, although landed value has increased the number of people

employed in this industry, the number has dropped dramatically since the

moratorium. The number of individuals now directly employed in the Newfoundland

and Labrador fishery has declined from a peak of approximately 37,000 in the

late 1980s to a level now of approximately 22,000 in 2001. This represents

approximately 10 per cent of the workforce in this Province. The fishery

accounts for a far greater percentage of the total regional employment in many

areas, and in some areas the fishery is the sole economic generator. To sum up

this point, the fishery is still a significant part of the economy of this

Province despite the decline in the employment after the moratorium.

Mr. Speaker, it is useful for the purposes of this debate to look at the

background leading up to the collapse of the Northern codfishery. The federal

Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for the management and

protection of the Atlantic fishery. Since Confederation with Canada in 1949,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians transferred their right to protect their most

valued resource, and that is the fishery. By the late 1980s, DFO scientists were

beginning to revise their estimates of the Northern cod stock downwards. On

February 12, 1989, the federal government appointed the independent review panel

on Northern cod, under the chairmanship of Professor Leslie Harris. In March,

1990, the panel released its report that confirmed the fishing mortality for

Northern cod was much higher than previously believed, and was at a level that

could threaten the viability of the Northern cod stock. I guess none of us

needed to be told that when we looked at the number of draggers out there raping

our Grand Banks.

The panel recommended immediately setting a substantially lower Total

Allowable Catch that would reduce fishing mortality. When the Northern Cod

Adjustment Recovery Program - I guess we became brainwashed with the term NCARP

- was introduced in 1992, it was widely accepted that the moratorium on the

Northern cod would last for two years. We find ourselves now, almost eleven

years later, with our fishery still closed. Despite the moratorium, the

condition of the Northern cod stock continued to decline and it was becoming

clear that recovery and resumption of a normal fishery was much further into the

future.

Mr. Speaker, that is a quick

summary of what happened. We have to ask some

questions on how this was allowed to happen and what needs to be changed if it

does occur again. What could have been done differently to prevent what

happened? Do we have enough scientific information about the state of the

stocks? Do we listen to the people directly involved in the fishery? Did we

experiment enough with the various species of fish off our Coast? Did we fully

understand the implications of the fishing technology being used? Mr. Speaker,

these are some questions which we should be asking. These are questions which

should be asked of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

How can we ensure that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans provides better

service to this Province than they have in the past; and even recently, the

arguments that exist, coming from Ottawa, among the various scientists. On the

news program last night, a science professor at the university stated that the

numbers are not right and they still don't merit the fishery closing.

Mr. Speaker, as we look to the future there are other questions that must be

asked. Do we know more about the fishery off our coast now than we did when the

collapsed fishery took place? How does a country like Canada allow the continued

destruction of a resource off our coast? Why does what is happening in our

fishery receive such a low priority from our federal government and the national

media? Why haven't we, in this Province, become leaders in the world in

industries related to the fishery?

One very important question is about the safety of our people who pursue the

fishery. Should DFO be allowed to dictate the size of fishing vessels? Why

should a fisherman, if he is willing to invest in his own enterprise, be

restricted to the size of the ship that allows him to fish safely to feed his

family?

These are just a few questions we should be asking. The fishery is a major

part of the economy of this Province and we should be asking how we can get

better service from DFO, the people who manage the fishery for this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take some time today to refer to an interim report of

the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled in 1998.

The report was done following public meetings held on the East Coast of Canada

concerning fishery management issues and the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy. It

was referred to as the East Coast Report, and I am sure most of us have read it.

Many of the things in the report are still relevant today, but I want to

share some of their findings. One of the findings of this committee was that

there was little confidence among fishermen and coastal communities in DFO's

ability to manage the fishery. Instead, there is a widespread belief that DFO

policies are driven primarily by corporate interests and that DFO has an

undeclared agenda to eliminate the inshore fishery altogether. To some extent,

these views were fuelled by the perception that DFO senior policy-makers in

Ottawa were remote from the fishery, had no contact with fishermen, plant

workers and their communities, and have little understanding or even empathy

with traditional fisheries and the rural way of life.

Madam Speaker, the second finding, which is important for our debate today,

relates to centralized decision making. Although there was generally respect for

the DFO front-line staff, witnesses who spoke to the committee frequently voiced

frustration over the lack of authority of local DFO staff to make decisions.

Centralized decision making at regional offices often contributed both to delays

and, in some cases, to questionable decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the hon. member, I had salt fish for lunch just to

get in tune for today's discussion.

In some cases fishermen reported that DFO was not providing the critical

information such as deadlines for permits, the deadlines for applications, the

deadlines for licences and quotas, until after the appropriate dates. The

committee also heard complaints about a lack of effective enforcement resources

by DFO.

Madam Speaker, another point brought forward in the report was made by the

inshore fishermen about what destroyed the fishery. It was not the inshore

fishery, using fixed gears such as cod traps, hook and line, or even gill nets,

but federal policies that sanctioned both foreign and domestic dragger fleets in

the interest of foreign policy and domestic political patronage.

Only the draggers were capable of using year-round capability of fishing. It

was only the draggers that were able to target the heavy concentration of cod on

their spawning grounds. The Northern cod had been protected by nature for

centuries. It was no longer given the chance to rejuvenate during the respite

dictated by the seasonal nature of the traditional fishery.

Other witnesses to the House of Commons committee supported the midshore and

offshore fisheries. Communities off Newfoundland's South Coast have had a

heavy dependence on the offshore fishery. Thousands of residents of the Burin

Peninsula have earned a living as a result of the good wages and the year-round

work provided by the offshore fishery. These witnesses insisted that the first

right of access to reopen Grand Bank stocks should go to the offshore fishery

and the communities and the plants that have historically relied on those

stocks.

Madam Speaker, in general, witnesses had little confidence in DFO science,

and the more information that comes forward, I think it becomes more evident

that their science is inaccurate. Errors in the scientific estimates of the

sizes of the cod stocks are seen as a major factor in the collapse, and not

enough has changed to re-establish confidence in DFO's ability to manage the

fishery in the future. The leadership of that department was viewed as more

concerned with defending its reputation in the wake of criticism directed at DFO

by the scientists and others who accused them of bureaucratic interference in

the science. Having failed so far to face up to its mistakes, the department

could not be entrusted to manage the fishery any better in the future, and I

share that confidence with those people.

Madam Speaker, the House of Commons committee also bears some skepticism

about the independence of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. The FRCC

was created in 1993 to provide an arm's-length body to provide greater

independence on fisheries management advice. The primarily allowable catches,

this information was provided to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It was

observed that the council operates from the department and uses departmental

staff as its secretariate. It was suggested that politics continues to influence

the FRCC and that is falling under the department's control.

Other witnesses spoke in support of science. One acknowledged that there was

a great deal of sentiment against science but cautioned against throwing the

baby out with the bath water. What failed was not science per se, but DFO

science, and what was needed was for science and DFO to have complete autonomy

from management.

Madam Speaker, these are some comments from a House of Commons committee in

1998; comments that still hold a lot of relevance today. There have been other

House of Commons Fishery Reports since, and I am sure there will be a lot more

in the future, most notably the report released earlier this year which was

dismissed so quickly by the federal minister, Robert Thibault.

Madam Speaker, a number of concerns have been raised about the management

practices of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. These issues are

serious and they should be discussed in this House. I think these are the kinds

of issues we should be pushing for action on as a Province, and I encourage all

members to support this motion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (M Hodder): The hon. the Member for The Straits & White

Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on this private member's resolution this

afternoon. I would like to certainly thank that Member for Carbonear-Harbour

Grace for the opportunity to speak on fisheries issues again today. I have only

been here not quite two years yet, but I guess it is fair to point out that over

the course of the little bit of time that I have been here, both sides of the

House have brought forward quite a number of resolutions related to the fishery.

We all recognize, I think collectively on both sides of the House, how important

the fishery is to all rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly to many

parts of urban Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, there are a number of issues, and while the Member for

Carbonear-Harbour Grace spoke about the past and our experience in the fishery

and what transpired back in the 1970s and 1980s which led us to the cod fish

moratorium and groundfish collapses of the early 1990s, today I guess I am going

speak more about the, "THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly

supports a comprehensive review of the organization of the Federal Department of

Fisheries and Oceans with the purpose of providing improved services to the

fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador." I think that speaks more to

the issues we are faced with today and where we go on these issues and with our

industry in the future.

Madam Speaker, as we were talking before we started this debate, myself and

some of my colleagues here on this side of the House, I was reminded of a

meeting we had, probably about two months ago I guess it was, with myself, the

Member for Baie Verte and the Member for Lewisporte. We were out on the Baie

Verte Peninsula one day and met with some small boat fishermen in less than

thirty-five foot fleet in Brent's Cove. A number of issues were brought up by

them then, which have been brought up to each one of us, I am sure, in this

House - I do not know about each one of us, but certainly those of us who

represent fishing districts and have a substantial number of small boat

fishermen and larger boat fishermen raised some of the same issues.

The issues that they raised is the lack of a real vision and plan for many

parts of our industry. I suppose it is best demonstrated when you look at vessel

replacement policy, for one issue. It is best demonstrated also in how the

federal government and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans have

treated the less than thirty-five foot sector, in particular, as it relates to

crab permits and the unwillingness of the federal department and unwillingness

of the federal minister and the federal government to allow the small boat

sector to move from crab permits to crab licences. That might seem like a small

issue to some people. Some people might say: Well, what is the difference

between a permit and a licence? You still have the same amount of fish to catch.

Well, the fact of the matter is, there is a very substantial difference there. A

permit can be removed almost at any time and a licence is much harder to remove

from an individual and from a fleet. It also has implications for fish

harvesters when they go looking for financing arrangements for boats and gear

and motors, stuff like that. When they go to a bank, a financial institution or

a credit union they are often asked: What kind of licence do you have? Well,

they cannot answer that they have a crab licence. They can only say that they

have a crab permit. Of course, the answer that oftentimes comes back is: I am

sorry we cannot help you. Then they have to go to see their local fish

processor.

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Minister Thibault, in

recent months has clearly told the people in the small boat sector that there

are a number of conditions they have to meet in order to get their permits

changed to licences. These conditions are certainly, we would all recognize,

pretty restrictive, and they are conditions that have not been imposed on any

other fleet in Atlantic Canada. Not just any other fleet in the crab fishery.

Not any other fleet in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador but any other

fleet in fishery in Atlantic Canada, or probably all of Canada.

Some of the conditions that they put there cannot even be met. Even if the

fleet was prepared to do it, they cannot meet them. I mean, such conditions as

they must be able to demonstrate that changing their permits to licences will

not affect the viability of the larger boats, the supplementary fleet, the

full-time fleet in the crab fishery. I think it is fair to recognize that these

fleets fish separate areas. The less than thirty-five foot sector fish the very

inshore and near shore area, and the supplementary full-time fish the outer near

shore and offshore area. To say that the small boat sector has to demonstrate

that they would not affect the viability of the larger fleet is impossible. If

they were removed from the picture altogether they could not guarantee the

viability of the larger fleets because they do not even fish in the same area.

They do not take the same crab. They do not fish the same quota.

So, Madam Speaker, those are issues that really, clearly demonstrate - I

guess, it raises concerns amongst the small boat fleet about: What is DFO and

what is the minister's and federal government's game plan for the small boat

sector? As we have all along suspected, are they out to get them? That is a

legitimate question that they asked there, especially in light of what we seen

from Ottawa in the past two weeks on cod. It is clear to everybody that a

closure of what remains of the cod fishery on the Northeast Coast of

Newfoundland and Labrador and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Southern Labrador, is

something that would only affect the small boat sector or primarily affect the

small boat sector. A loss of that would have serious ramifications for those

fleet sectors in these areas. As I said, it would not affect anybody else other

than these small boat fishermen and fisherwomen. You know, it adds to that

paranoia and cynicism that these people have and, I think, quite rightly they

have this.

Madam Speaker, these are the things that we need to be addressing here. We

need to look to the future and, yes, there needs to be. I support the member's

resolution that there needs to be a comprehensive review of the organization of

the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There is one very important part

to the resolution, and it says, "...with the purpose of providing improved

services to the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador." As we all

know, over the past couple of years there has been, and continues I guess, an

ongoing Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review by the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans. But, will it be to the benefit of the fishing industry in Newfoundland

and Labrador?

I get the feeling that when these reviews are conducted, most times it is

more beneficial to the people outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the

industry outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. When restrictions are placed on

our shrimp fleet, for example, where they are not able to fish in the summer

months to some extent; when the size of their vessels are restricted so that

they do not have the vessels that are big enough and capable enough to go out in

November and bring in shrimp, for example, and October, and we leave - as

happened a couple of years ago - 20 million pounds of shrimp in the water. What

happens? Because of the restrictions that are placed on our fleet by the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we find a transfer, or a new allocation I

should say, of shrimp to the Province of P.E.I., to a consortium in the Province

of P.E.I.

The argument that was used by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans then

was: You are not able to take the quota. It is beyond your needs. It is beyond

the needs of the people and the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course it is not beyond the needs of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and

Labrador, because there is much more in the way of need in the fishing industry

in Newfoundland and Labrador than there are resources to satisfy that need. Even

though our fleets were restricted in its ability to increase the size of the

vessels to be able to go out and get this 20 million pounds of shrimp we left in

the water, what happened with the P.E.I. consortium? Did they have to go out off

the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in a fifty-five footer or a

sixty-five footer in November or December or January or February? No, they did

not. As a matter of fact, they did not even have to have a boat to go out there.

They got their quota. They chartered somebody else to go out there in a 200

footer to catch it for them.

This is the thing that really rubs the salt in the wounds, I think, of the

people in the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador and certainly in the

general public in the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. What

happens is we see, not a double-standard, but a whole range of standards being

applied in the industry throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec, where oftentimes

it is to the detriment of the people in the industry here in the Province.

Madam Speaker, I mentioned just a few minutes ago about the announcement out

of Ottawa just a couple of weeks ago about the possible and probable closure of

the cod fishery on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and in the

Northern and Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. In the resolution here, in one of

the WHEREASES I believe, "WHEREAS the current state of our understanding of

the fishery resources off our coast is an underdeveloped area and more research

is needed in this field." I think that was clearly demonstrated when the

announcement came out a couple of weeks ago about the possible closure of the

fishery. Clearly, there is a tremendous lack of knowledge, first of all, from

DFO's prospective. I do not know if it is a lack of knowledge or a lack of

acknowledgment, of what is happening with the cod stocks around our Province and

why they are not rebuilding.

I took the liberty just in the past few days when we travelled to Ottawa for

our all-party, all representatives of all Legislatures, you might say, from

Newfoundland, from the Senate, to the House of Commons, to our own House of

Assembly here when we met - I took the opportunity on the way up to read a

research document, the preliminary assessment or preliminary report, from the

DFO research vessel crews in the Gulf of St. Lawrence back in August on the Alfred

Needler . Clearly, if you look at that document and take the time to read it,

the sixty-odd pages that are there, it raises more questions than it provides

answers about the status of groundfish stocks in general, and cod stocks in

particular, in the Gulf. While there are many out there who seem to accept that

the cod fishery has to close down in order to rebuild the stocks, I think if

they read many of these reports they would find themselves asking: Well, what is

the benefit of closing these fisheries? We had our fishery effectively closed

for the past ten years, our codfishery, and to what gain, I suppose, we could

ask ourselves. I do not think any of us, anywhere, either in the fishing

industry or outside, would deny the closure of the fishery if we thought that

closing it for a reasonable period of time would result in a reasonable growth

in the stock, but we are not convinced of that. We have not seen that over the

past little while. There are many more factors.

As a fisherman from the Northeast Coast said to me the other day - and I am

sure it was shared by many throughout the Province when they were confronted

with the possibility of closure of the fishery - it was said to me, quite

clearly, if the federal government came to me, after addressing the problem with

seal predation, after addressing the problems outside the 200-mile limit

invoking custodial management, and if they had dealt with the bycatch issues in

the fishery and then they came to me and said, Fisherman X, we think that you

have to stop fishing in order to do your part for conservation, then, he said, I

would accept it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Speaker, the message is clear, I believe, from the

fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, that they are tired of being

asked first to take the knock. They are tired of being asked first to change

their gear. They are tired of being asked first to take the closure, to take the

cut in quota, while all these other issues are going on unaddressed.

Madam Speaker, none of these issues have been addressed, and we all recognize

that they are very difficult to address, some of these issues, but the

unfortunate thing about it from the federal government's perspective, I

believe, looking at the federal government's reaction to many of these things,

is that they have not even tried to address them. They have not even tried to

deal with the seal predation problem that we have. Yes, we have a quota that is

being taken right now, but why is it being taken? Is it because of anything that

this federal government has done? In my belief, it is in large part because of

mad cow disease in Europe that we see a sealing industry that has taken off in

the past couple of years, a shortage of leather, and a change in the attitude of

people in Europe and in particular in Russia and the Far East towards fur. That

is what is after happening. It is not because we went out there and promoted it.

It is because of things that have happened in the world and we are fortunately

in a position to be able to capitalize to some extent on that and do something

for our industry as a result of it.

If you look at what the federal government has done with grey seals, for

example, which we all know consume somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000 tons of

very small cod less than thirty centimetres in length in the Gulf of St.

Lawrence, in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, I should add - there would be

quite a substantial amount more than that in the Northern Gulf, if you include

the Northern Gulf as well - if you look at that, what they have done there, they

eliminated a bounty that was on that seal, the grey seal, back in the 1980s, and

have not implemented it since, even though the grey seal herd in the Southern

Gulf of St. Lawrence and on Sable Island and throughout the Gulf has grown by 12

per cent to 13 per cent every year since the hunt was stopped, and is creating

substantial problems for our industry.

Madam Speaker, these are the things that I believe need to be addressed in

any comprehensive review by DFO. Yes, we all recognize that there need to be

more resources. I could go on here for quite a period of time. I believe I only

have twenty minutes and I am going to try not to use that because some of my

colleagues want to add to it.

Madam Speaker, clearly there are a number of issues that need to be reviewed

and they are in the process of... Some of them are going to be reviewed, but

will they be reviewed to the benefit of the industry in Newfoundland and

Labrador and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? Now, there is going to

be a review of the vessel replacement policy by DFO now, but will it be reviewed

so that the people in the industry are allowed to access the boats that they

need in order to do the job they have to do and that we ask them to do, and to

be able to land the product that the market wants? Are the people in the less

that thirty-five-foot sector, for example, going to be allowed to buy a boat

that makes sense, to be able to go where they have to go, and not have to buy a

forty-foot boat and cut four feet off in order to live within the restrictions,

or to buy a forty-two-foot boat, as it is right now, I guess, and cut two or

three feet off in order to stay below the thirty-nine-foot-eleven barrier. These

are the things that need to be addressed, Madam Speaker.

We also have to recognize - and I know what it is to try, as everybody knows

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TAYLOR: My time is up already. By leave, Madam Speaker, just for a

second to conclude.

These issues, Madam Speaker, need to be addressed. We have to be realistic.

One thing I believe, Madam Speaker, that really, clearly needs to be done: While

we must call on the federal government to conduct a comprehensive review of

their policies, in the interest of the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, we

must, as a Province, and an industry in this Province, put together our ideas

and our plan for our industry. That, first and foremost, must be done. It is no

good for us to ask the federal government to conduct a review on the fishing

vessel replacement policy if we don't have a position on exactly what the

fishing vessel replacement policy should look like. While we do say that there

should be changes, I think we have to clearly demonstrate what those changes

should be, what makes economic sense, what makes sense from a safety

perspective, an economic perspective, a market perspective, and so on.

Madam Speaker, I have gone on much longer than I had intended. I know there

are others here who would like to make some comments. I believe we will all

support this resolution today.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: It gives me great pleasure to stand today and say a few words

on behalf of the private member's motion put forward by my colleague from

Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

We all know, Madam Speaker, the importance of the fishery and the aquaculture

to the economy and the social well-being of this Province, and I know only full

well what it means to my district in particular. I just want to relate, to begin

with, the activities that take place in just one of the fishing communities in

my district, and that is in the community of Port de Grave. This year, the total

value of all species landed in that community, up to this point in time,

December 4, has been $13,947,000, with an additional amount of $5 million landed

in other areas. There are five companies that offload at Port de Grave and

thirty-one companies that work in conjunction with the harbour authority there.

A total of 270 people work on those fishing boats and the spinoff from the

offloading and the processing accounts for another 230 jobs. The total value of

the boats that are tied up in that harbour at the present time, Madam Speaker,

is in the vicinity of $40 million.

I can only imagine the tremendous amount of spinoff to the communities like

Bay Roberts, Carbonear, St. John's and Harbour Grace, that comes from the

items that are used by those people, such as insurance, groceries, car

dealerships and fishing equipment. I can only imagine if something should

happen. We all have concerns. What a tremendous loss this would be to not only

that community but to the district and many businesses throughout the area.

We have to listen to the people who pursue the fishery because if we do not,

Madam Speaker, which was not done in the past, I believe that what happened in

the early 1990s will be just a Sunday school picnic.

In order to do that, Madam Speaker, I want to reflect back just for a moment

so that we will be ever constantly mindful of the things that were carried out

to try to make changes. In 1988, the Canadian TAC on the Northern cod in 2J+3KL

was set at 266,000 tons. That was reduced down to 190,000 tons by 1991. We all

know what happened in 1992. The Northern codfishery was closed. At that time,

scientists were advising us that the spawning biomass to maintain sustainability

within the Northern cod stocks was at 1.2 million tons. In 1962, the biomass

which showed that we demonstrated the stocks were healthy was known to be in the

vicinity of 1.6 million tons. In 1992, just thirty years after, the biomass had

been reduced from the estimated 1.6 million tons down to 22,000 tons. What

destruction! What lack of consideration to the concerns expressed by the

fishermen themselves.

At that time, Madam Speaker, Newfoundlanders were denied the right to fish,

and yes, they were arrested off their own shores while the EU fleets still

conducted a plunder of the oceans, destroying the nursery areas and taking

thousands of tons of juvenile fish before they reached the spawning age. While

this was happening, Madam Speaker, our country, Canada, continued to pursue

diplomatic solutions. I believe that Canada must establish regulations to take

action against vessels of other nations which fail to comply with responsible

fishing management rules.

Having said that, I believe the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has failed

us and, if we are not very careful, the fate of the Northern cod could very well

be the fate of other species. Just imagine the impact on the economy and social

well-being of our Province.

Management is a very important resource to the key of its survival. As stated

in the resolution, the administrative functions must be dealt with close to the

people who pursue the fishery. The management arrangements made in 1992, Madam

Speaker, included understanding of the resource, especially predator prey

relationships and oceanographic factors, but all of this did very little to the

fisheries resource.

I want to take you back to 1992, when Decima Research, a group out of

Ontario, polled the people of Canada to see what their attitudes were with

regards to the fishery in general and foreign overfishing in particular.

At that time, Madam Speaker, many people thought that maybe this is why the

federal government, through the Department of Fisheries, was not carrying out

the actions because the popular vote in the country was against it. But that was

not the case, because 90 per cent of Canadians, at that time, thought that

overfishing to be a very serious environmental problem. One of the questions

that was asked was: Should Canada control the waters? Not only within the

boundary of the 200-mile limit, but it was suggested that they may be able to

take management of the fish stocks beyond the 200-mile Canadian boundary to

protect the areas where vital fish stocks are located. A resounding 85 per cent

of the people who were polled in this country went as far as to say that the use

of the Canadian Navy, to keep foreign fishing boats out of the boundary area,

should be put in place. Those are staggering figures, Madam Speaker.

My colleague from Carbonear also mentioned the independent review of the

state of the Northern cod stocks which was done in 1990, by Dr. Leslie Harris.

One of his main recommendations was, Madam Speaker, and I quote, "that

Canada should seek international agreement to permit its management of all fish

stocks indigenous to the Canadian Continental Shelf and that extend beyond the

two hundred mile economic zone; and that failing achievement of this objective,

Canada should take unilateral action to acquire management rights in accordance

with provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention."

Madam Speaker, while those statements were being made by Dr. Harris at the

time to the federal minister, in 1991, just the very next year - and he made

many other recommendations - in the first seven months, NAFO, member countries,

caught 220 million pounds of fish in excess of their quotas. At that time, it

was estimated that was enough to virtually take care of every fish plant that

was closed in Atlantic Canada. The federal government has proven itself

incapable of sound fishery management, judgment and response.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this resolution put forward by the Member

for Carbonear-Harbour Grace and to suggest, as he has in that motion, that a

comprehensive review of the organizations of the federal Department of Fisheries

and Oceans with the sole purpose of protecting and providing improved services

to the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, to us, here in this Province, the fishery is more than a job. It

was, still is, and will continue to be a way of life for us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Certainly, I want to rise today to take some time to talk about this very

important issue, and I commend the member for bringing forward this particular

motion. Anytime we get a chance, I guess - the timing of it, in particular, just

a couple of days ago members in this House, all parties, the all-party alliance

travelled to Ottawa to have a meeting, again, on the fishery. I guess like any

Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Mr. Speaker, because I have also done it, with

the former Minister of Fisheries, travelled to Ottawa on the sealing industry.

Every time we attack this issue - because it is an issue that is so dear to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As we speak in this Chamber, day after day, about issues such as Voisey's

Bay and Churchill Falls and so on - which are huge issues - I think everybody

agrees that the mainstay of Newfoundland and Labrador's economy is in the

fishery. It is what brought us here. Every day, in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador - districts like mine where there are thirty-three rural communities -

the dependence on the fishery and what really happens to Newfoundland and

Labrador depends on that industry. There is no doubt about it.

Last year alone, I do not have the exact numbers here, but just over $900

million value of export in the fishery in this Province. Almost $1 billion value

in this Province. Then we talk about the people directly involved in the

fishery; some 20,000 to 25,000 from plant workers to harvesters in this

Province. So that is what we are talking about when we talk about the fishing

industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. When people from Mainland Canada talk

about Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery is the first and foremost what they

think of this Province and what brought us here.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North just mentioned

a little while ago - I think it was about a month or six weeks ago that he was

in my district, myself and, as a matter of fact, the Member for Lewisporte who

was our former Member for Baie Verte district, Mr. Rideout. We were asked to go

down and speak with some inshore fishermen in Brent's Cove. They were from

various communities, but we sat for quite a while and had quite a chat with

these people. The member mentioned earlier about some of the concerns they have.

For example, the vessel replacement issue that keeps coming up day after day,

time after time, and has not been really addressed yet. Some of the stories, and

I will not relate all of those stories that they told us today - some of the

circumstances that they found themselves in trying to get the proper vessel so

that they could go on the water, do it in a safe way, do it so that - remember

in that part also, these people, especially in the inshore, and the dangers that

they face everyday when they go in their boats out to make a living, that safety

has to be utmost on everybody's mind. When we talk about dollars and cents -

and we mentioned it in this House today - but when we talk about the safety of

the people in the industry it has to be foremost.

Also, the former Minister of Fisheries - again, when we talk about vessel

size and so on - besides the safety he has also mentioned many times about the

quality, how it would improve the quality of the catch, whether it be shrimp,

crab, cod or whatever. All of those things come into play. Also mentioned in the

study that we just talked about a while ago was, of course, the economic

benefits of having the proper vessel, a good safe vessel so that they can do

their job properly. They are not talking about excess quotas or anything of that

nature, but trying to address the concerns that they face each and every day in

in their industry. This is something that should be addressed and addressed

soon.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, who

knows the fishery fairly well - more than I do. I can say that, but I have lived

in a fishing industry, but I guess he knows it even more to the aspect that he

has worked in the industry. When we saw the cod closure - and the reason for

this last meeting that the group went to Ottawa for just a few days ago. When we

got the news of how that came down to us here in Newfoundland and Labrador, that

in fact, the Minister of Fisheries for this Province got that type of news

through a media release. It just speaks volumes of the way that Ottawa, over the

years - and we have said it in this House many time over the years, whether it

be a PC government, an NDP government, or a Liberal government that manages our

affairs in Ottawa when it comes to the fishery because the bottom line is this,

they have control of the management of this resource; the resource that brought

us to this Island and Labrador in the first place. They are the ones in control.

Over the many years, it is simply down to the mismanagement. In looking at the

past, as the member alluded to earlier, we can see the mistakes of the past,

over and over.

The point I am really going to strike home today is when we talk about the

cod closure, and I hear the words, scientific knowledge. It is actually a joke

if you sit down to talk to people in the industry. The fishermen themselves,

when you talk about the scientific knowledge. How much scientific knowledge? How

many people here today can sit in this House and tell us about all the

scientific knowledge that we have seen in front of us over the years? The real

scientific knowledge that we have in this Province are the people who are in the

boats and the people who are in the industry directly. That is where most of the

information can come from when we talk about this industry. Back in 1992, if the

scientists had been listening to the people on the water, the fishing people of

that day, maybe some things would have been different back when they closed the

cod fishery in 1992.

Today, with the small bit of cod that is left, and the fact that they could

make an announcement without even contacting this Province to tell them of the

final nail in the cod industry in this Province - they did not have the decency

to contact this Province, the minister in this Province, and the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, to tell them it would be closed. That is why people

are upset. There is not a fisherman today, I do not believe, Mr. Speaker - if

they were told, as the member said earlier: Yes, we are taking care of foreign

overfishing. We are really addressing that problem. And if the federal minister

could look at them and tell them: We are also taking care of the overpopulation

of the seal herd. We are addressing that problem. We are making sure that all

the ghost nets - that we all mentioned before - we are taking care of that

problem.

If they would start from the top and work down, there is not a fisherman in

Newfoundland and Labrador who would stand up and disagree with the final closure

of the cod industry in this Province. Now that is from the fishermen that I have

talked to. It is straight from them. They said: If they were included in the

consultations - and they knew that the people managing this resource, their

livelihood, what makes rural Newfoundland and Labrador tick. If they knew those

concerns were being addressed, with foreign overfishing, the seal herds, right

on down to the bycatch, the ghosts nets, all of those major problems that we see

day after day and we hear about day after day in the media, then, Mr. Speaker,

there is not a fisherperson in Newfoundland and Labrador who would disagree.

Once those are addressed, they would certainly do their part and do whatever it

takes to make sure that stocks survive. There is nobody.

That is why people in this Province are upset. That is why the fishing

industry in this Province are so uneasy and paranoid. I have to mention Mr.

Thibault, and what he knows about the fishery remains to be seen, as far as

really understanding the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador or the Atlantic

Provinces or the West Coast for that matter. But, the fact that he would write a

letter with reference to Mr. McCurdy and the restrictions and talking about the

long-term viability of the offshore, that is fine and dandy. Everybody is

worried about the viability in the offshore, but also on the inshore. Everybody,

all the stakeholders. Everybody has to be included in this. This is not one for

all. This is something that has to be discussed at every level, brought up

through, so that everybody has input.

When they talk about consultation - the people that I talked too are talking

about: If you are going to consult, that is one thing. That is the first step.

But if you are going to consult, then listen, and then put it into action. That

is the second step. That is when it means something. That is why the people in

this Province are so skeptical when they hear Minister Thibault or previous

ministers get up to talk about the direction that the fishery is going in this

Province. Mr. Speaker, they are sick and tired of hearing, through a media

release or some other way, what is going to happen to their livelihood.

As I mentioned in the beginning when I spoke, I know full well, and I know

the Minister of Fisheries, through his district, another rural district, knows

first-hand, when he lives in the district and knows the communities in the

district, what it means to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know this year past, for example, when the fish plant in La Scie is doing

well, the entire peninsula is doing well. When Little Bay Islands fish plant

worked this year in my district, throughout the area, all the Green Bay area did

well. That is how it reflects. It is not just the 25,000 people I talked about

earlier who are directly involved in the fish plants and the fishing industry.

It spins over into the truckers, it spins over into the gas stations, the

restaurants and the grocery stores. That is how much the fishery has impacted

rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

For the minister now, Minister Thibault, to look around and say this is the

last straw and we are about to close it down, nobody would argue about the

closure of that final bit of cod stock, if it was in jeopardy, if the main

issues of the day were attacked first: the foreign overfishing, the seal

industry, and so on.

The seal industry alone, Mr. Speaker, the potential - we saw it last year and

hopefully we are going to see it this year as the improved prices go on.

Imagine, one of the biggest problems that could be staring us in the face could

be a part of the biggest solution in this Province. Imagine a full-fledged seal

industry.

When we went to Ottawa just some two years ago, myself and the Member for

Bonavista South, with the former Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Efford, and I think

the now Minister of Fisheries was there on that occasion also, we went to Ottawa

and talked about seals. It was funny; it was almost like the room was

soundproof. We walked in, and we all had our good points to make. The Member for

Torngat was there. He told us stories about the seals on the roads and up in the

salmon rivers and so on, but it was a funny feeling that I had, Mr. Speaker, in

that trip to Ottawa. When we spoke, and we all poured our hearts out and talked

about what could be done with the seal industry and the problems in this

Province, it was almost like it was hushed after we left the room. That was it.

Do not bring it up any more. It is not a good word to mention seal in Ottawa,

until somebody takes that issue.

I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people in this Province who are

directly related to the fishing industry, if they saw a real addressing of that

particular issue in this Province, they would be willing to stand up and go toe

to toe and address the others issues involving the industry. Until such massive

problems as that - at the top of the ladder is the foreign overfishing, the seal

industry, the bycatches, the ghost nets - all of those issued in line, then you

come to the person who is in the water in small boats in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador. Then you could say: What can I do to help out? There is not a

fisherman today who would not stand up and say, I will do what I can, but let's

attack the problem from the top.

That is the message I have gotten throughout my district. I know the member

has gotten it through his district. Let's attack the problems face on to the

front. That is why I want to see where we go with the next meeting of this group

that went to Ottawa just a few days ago and we will really attack the issues

that really concern the people in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, although we do not have a lot of time to speak on this today,

and the different issues on it, I know the minister - I hope the minister is

going to have a few words on this. The message from the inshore fishermen in

this Province, in particular, is that we address those issues and then come to

them and they will certainly be a part of the solution.

The last thing I want to say today, Mr. Speaker, is they need a long-term

plan. They have to see where they are going. When he talked earlier today - the

Member for The Straits & White Bay North - about going from permits to

licensing, if those permits were changed to licences they could then go to the

financial institutions in this Province and talk about security and long-term

and two, three and five-year plans. So, they can treat it as a business which is

what it is. It is a business. They have to have those securities in place, too,

so they know what is happening next year and two and three years from now. They

are still raising families in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. They need that

security in the industry so they can carry on and run the business as they see

fit, so that at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, they can remain living in

small-town rural Newfoundland and Labrador where they love to live, where they

have grown up and they have no intentions of leaving. In many cases, many of

these people have left, tried to see if the grass was greener on the other side

of the fence, in Alberta and Ontario and so on, but they came back to where they

started. They still think there is a chance, if we put it all together now and

we address these major issues, that there can still be a life in the fishery,

that there can still be a life in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, if there is not an industry of fishing in this

Province, it means the last straw for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is

what we are down to and that is why this debate should continue, not just on

this private member's motion. I commend the member for bringing forward this

motion today. We certainly support it. I support more debate on this. There is

going to come a time in this Province, in the very near future, Mr. Speaker,

when a full and open debate - not only a debate, but the actions that we take in

the next two to three years are going to tell what the fate of rural

Newfoundland and Labrador will be. So, this is the issue - this is the issue! -

for rural Newfoundland and Labrador and, subsequently, it means the issue for

the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. If we can attack this issue

and get somewhere with it this time, then we can maintain a living in rural

Newfoundland and Labrador where people want to live and raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, those are my remarks for today. I commend the member for

bringing forward this motion. I hope the minister has a few points to make on

it. Anything that we can do, as we did a little while ago with this particular

committee - when we all stand in this House, I am pretty sure that if we all

link on this particular issue which is going to be critical over the next two

years, the decisions we make on this particular issue, then we can certainly

make a living in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Because when rural

Newfoundland and Labrador makes it, the rest of the Province makes it, including

the bigger cities, St. John's and Corner Brook and these places.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member and I am sure we will be supporting this

motion.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words today. I know that others

want to have a few words so I won't keep you long.

I would like to comment the member, my friend from Carbonear-Harbour Grace,

for bringing forward this resolution today. It is very similar to one that we

discussed last spring and we will continue to discuss in this House, Mr.

Speaker, because it is very important to all residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and that is the custodial management issue. That is, basically, that

we are asking the federal government to take control of the area called the Nose

and the Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, for the benefit of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, first and foremost, and maybe Canadians

secondarily.

A number of issues have been brought up today, Mr. Speaker, but before I get

into some of those I would like to tell the hon. members in this House something

about the district that I represent, and it is called Twillingate & Fogo.

I was at a conference in Gander a few weeks ago of harbour authorities around

the Province. When I was being introduced by an official for DFO, I guess I didn't

realize how important - well, I did realize how important the fishery was to

that district because it is that district, it makes up that district, but I didn't

realize the number of vessels, the number of people involved in the industry.

Apparently, we have 770 registered fishing vessels in District of Twillingate

& Fogo. That makes up more than 10 per cent of the 8,100 registered vessels

in the Province. We, last year, landed $30 million worth of fish product in that

District of Twillingate & Fogo - $30 million, Mr. Speaker - 70 per cent of

it crab and 19 per cent of it shrimp, totalling 13,310 tons of fish landed in

that district.

What I was also very pleased to see, Mr. Speaker, was that provincial riding

of Twillingate & Fogo has the largest levels of landings for the under

sixty-five foot fleet. Like I said, it is made up of thirty-nine communities on

the Northeast Coast of the Province, settled there by people to prosecute the

fishery, and that is the reason they remain today.

This year we did relatively well compared to the last few years because not

only did we have pretty well full employment on Fogo Island, as a result of the

Fogo Island Co-operative and the operation in three plants that they have there,

but we also had a new shrimp plant owned by Notre Dame Fisheries, that opened in

Twillingate. I am proud to say that they employed in the area of 100 people this

year and it worked very well, and I congratulate the owners of that company for

doing a tremendous job not only for Twillingate but for the whole area of

Twillingate, New World Island.

I would be remiss if I also did not mention another company in my district

involved in the fishery, and that is Breakwater Fisheries in Cottlesville. They

opened a crab plant there back around 1991 and they have done a tremendous job.

I would like to congratulate all those people for the tremendous amount of

effort and the hard work they put into creating work for the residents of my

district.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the custodial management issue, and the fishery

in general, we survived in this Province for some 450 years prior to

Confederation in 1949, and we did so based on the fishery; but, for some reason

that I guess we will always kick ourselves, we passed control of the fishery

over to the federal government in 1949. Now we realize that was a tremendous

mistake and one that we would like to have the opportunity to re-address. We

talk about it quite often with our federal counterparts, about some type of a

joint management arrangement with the federal government over our fisheries,

because in the House of Assembly very often I am asked: What is your plan for

the future of the fishery? What are you going to do? What is your plan?

Well, it is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to make a plan because all the

Province controls when it comes to the fishery is the processing of fish, once

it is landed in our Province, because if it is not landed in our Province we

have no control of it. If a fisherman or a fisherwoman on the Northeast Coast or

in the Gulf of St. Lawrence or anywhere else wants to go out and harvest that

fish and take it to Quebec, there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it;

but, once it comes to land, we require that a certain amount of processing be

carried out on those species.

The problem is, Mr. Speaker - when I am asked, what is your plan for the

processing sector? - you have to ask yourself the question: How can you plan for

the processing sector when you do not even know if there is going to be a

fishery three or four months down the road? When I am asked that question - what

is your plan if the crab stocks collapse? - if I had that plan right now, if we

had the plan for what would happen if the crab stocks collapsed, sure, we would

not need the crab fishery. The plan would be in place; you would not need the

crab. You would have all those people employed at something different.

Unfortunately, that is not the case.

To go back to what I was saying, it is very difficult to plan. For example,

people talk about how we have too many licences for this or too many licences

for that, but what do you do with a codfishery? What do you do with those plants

this spring, Mr. Speaker, if there is no codfishery? What do you do with the

plant in Burnt Islands, in my hon. colleague's district, next spring if there

is no codfishery?

I keep saying if because we do not know. We hear rumours about it in the

media coming out of Ottawa. I was standing here in the House of Assembly just

two short weeks ago and I was called outside by one of the media who asked me to

comment on a meeting that was held in Ottawa about the closures of the Gulf

stock and the Northern codfishery. I mean, it came as such a surprise and such a

shock that these individuals were in Ottawa talking about the future of many

hundreds and thousands of people in our Province without even having the decency

to pick up the telephone and call us to tell us these meetings were going on, or

what was being discussed. That is not unusual. It has been happening.

I came to work in the Department of Fisheries in 1989 and that is no

different. As the Member for Lewisporte and the previous Premier said the other

day: It does not matter if there are Liberals in Ottawa or Tories running the

government in Ottawa, they still have the same amount of disdain for the people

of this Province when it comes to the most important industry we have, and that

is the fishery. It is certainly frustrating and I know that it angers all

people, because you just stop to think about it. We have a whole group of

individuals in this Province today and our preliminary figures indicate that

there is somewhere in the area of 15,000 who will be impacted to some degree by

the closure of the codfishery, but just to think about it, Mr. Speaker. If you

are living in a small community on the West Coast or the Northeast Coast of this

Province and your livelihood and that of your family is depending on the

fishery, and there is a group in Ottawa trying to determine whether or not you

are going to have a livelihood. Christmas is coming upon you and you are

wondering, should I go out and spend money on Christmas? Because, come the

spring, I might be thrown to the wind, no employment, no income to support my

family.

Just put yourself in that situation. Just even try to imagine it, sitting at

home in a small community somewhere in this Province today wondering what the

future holds for me. This has been happening to us for the last ten years since

they first talked about the closure back in 1992. It is absolutely ridiculous

that these decisions can be made in Ottawa with no respect for the people of

this Province, no respect for the government of this Province.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a couple of the

points that some of the members opposite made. As most people know, right now

the federal Department of Fisheries is looking at an Atlantic Fisheries Policy

Review, and it has been going on for quite some time now. Let's face it, the

whole policy needs to be reviewed, and I have been part of some of the

discussions that have been held on that in the past year-and-a-half that I have

been the minister, and each time I go to a meeting, the federal minister and his

bureaucrats talk about the co-operative approach to our fisheries. They talk

about transparency and opening the lines of communication between the federal

government and the provincial governments with regard to our fisheries. All very

nice words and very good ideas, but that is all they are. They are nice words

and very good ideas because we do not see any evidence that any of this is

transparent, any of this is open, any of this is looking towards a co-operative

approach.

Just in the meeting that I had on Monday morning with my provincial

counterparts in the Atlantic provinces - Quebec and the federal minister - we

talked about some of these issues again that needed to be reviewed. As the

Member for The Straits and the Member for Baie Verte mentioned, when you talk

about the under thirty-five foot vessels that fish crab in our Province, all

they are given right now is a permit. They were given permits back there some

years ago. They were told three or four years ago that these permits were going

to become licences once one condition was met. Well, then, the year after that

there was another condition added, and then the year after that there was

another condition added, such that even today - and I brought it to the minister's

attention on Monday that we, as the Province and as the government of this

Province, would like to see these permits made into licences. We say that

categorically. I hope that every fisherman and fisherwoman out there in the

under thirty-five foot fleet hears me today. We presented that to the federal

government and we certainly stand by it.

As one of the hon. members opposite said, when one of these permit holders

goes to a bank and asks for money to buy an engine or to replace a vessel, the

banker looks at him and says: Sure, you don't even have a licence. You don't

have a licence to harvest crab. All you have is a permit, and a permit can be

lifted at any time.

That is not acceptable. We certainly asked the federal minister to make those

permits licences, but he says: Well, maybe if they were to combine. Like I told

him on Monday: Look, what difference does it matter if they combine first before

they get the licence or after they get the licence? What were saying is, give

them the licence now. If these individuals want to combine -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) combining. What do you mean by that?

MR. REID: What he is suggesting, I think, in response to the Member for

Bonavista South, is that if you have two crab fishermen in the under thirty-five

feet - and he has not been clear yet on exactly what he means by it, but - if

you have two boats, two fishermen, with two permits, combine your two permits

and he would think about giving you a licence.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) the quotas.

MR. REID: Combine the quotas and maybe even get one vessel.

He also talks about, in the vessel replacement program, that if you get

people combining then he would let you move into a larger vessel. So, if one

individual is fishing a thirty-four-eleven and he combines with someone else, he

might allow you to increase the size -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, but what I am saying is: Look, change these permits to

licences. Then, if an individual wants to combine and make a deal between

himself and his buddy who lives next door, that should be entirely up to those

individuals what to do with that. I do not think they should have to be forced

to do anything before those permits become licences.

We also talked about the vessel replacement program that the federal

government - they have very stringent regulations that you have to fit into a

particular size of a vessel and that you cannot go beyond this particular size.

Anyone in their right mind knows that we should not be fishing 200 or 250 miles

off the East Coast of this Province in the fall of the year in a vessel that is

less than sixty-five feet in length. If makes no sense whatsoever why the

federal government continues to impose that rule upon our fishermen here in the

Province. There used to be, in the not-too-distant past, that we had the

competitive fishery. Basically, you fired the gun and people went out and caught

the fish. Today, everything is under quota, Madam Speaker. If you have your

quota, what difference should it make to the federal government what size of

vessel you should fish in? You should be able to fish in a vessel that you feel

comfortable and safe in.

I had an individual from up the Southern Shore two weeks ago who came in to

see me. He was fishing 260 miles southeast of Newfoundland in a forty-foot

vessel. Think about that! Having to carry three drums of fuel on the deck

because there was no room in the boat to carry it. Two hundred and sixty miles

southeast of Newfoundland in a forty foot-vessel. You ask him: Why are you out

there in a vessel like that? The answer is: I am not allowed to have a vessel

any larger. Basically, that man has to take his life into his hands, and the

life of his crew, because they have to feed their family. One of these days,

what I am worried about, and I am sure every member in this House is worried

about - they talk about the perfect storm, and they talk about it as if it is a

movie. Well, I will tell you, there are lots of days out there, on the Northeast

Coast of this Province, when the perfect storm could easily occur and we could

lose the entire fleet. It might be too late then for Ottawa to come down and

say, we are sorry because we did not change this regulation.

We have been proposing this for years. Every time I meet with my federal

counterpart I say to him: Change the regulations pertaining to vessel size. The

answer keeps coming back: Well, we are looking at it.

Well, they have been looking at it a long time because I have been involved

with this department since 1989. If that is how long it takes them to look at

it, it is time to look at themselves and see what they are doing in this

country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, those are just a few of the issues that we

discussed and we are discussing. To get back to the custodial management, we

developed that plan in the early 1990s. We thought it was a good idea then; we

think it is a good idea now. We presented it to the Standing Committee on

Fisheries last spring. I did it myself - the first one to do it from the

Province. I know that, back in the spring, the Member for Port de Grave also

stood in this House with a resolution supporting custodial management. It was

accepted by the fisheries committee in Ottawa and it was recommended to the

federal minister. He dismissed it outright, back in the spring, and he did it

again just a few short weeks ago.

Madam Speaker, we are not giving up. We think it is a good proposal,

custodial management. We think that something has to be done, will be done if we

can do it, with what is happening off our shores. There is not much point to

talk about closing the codfishery on the Northeast Coast of our Province and

closing the codfishery in our Gulf if we still have those pirates raping fish

stocks. They might not be catching the cod, the Northern cod, out on the Tail of

the Grand Banks, but they are catching other species. They have caught cod. In

fact, the Russian vessel that was hauled in here last spring because of an

environmental infraction out on the Nose of the Grand Banks, we found in the

hull of that vessel Northern cod and codfish. To say that they are not doing it

is ludicrous and we certainly want a stop put to that. We will not relent. I

tell you, we will not relent. We will continue to push the federal government

until they realize and back us on custodial management.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words on this resolution. I know the member

introducing the resolution indicated that it was a very broad resolution, the

Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, and did it purposely, so that we could have

an opportunity to speak broadly about the issue. I know there are other members

who want to speak, so I won't take up all of my time. Because it is such an

important issue, other members would want to speak on it.

I want to thank the member for presenting this resolution. It is always

timely to have a resolution on the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, moreso