April 17, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 9

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Sunday past, it was my privilege to attend a Commissioning Service for

sixteen men and women who will be going to Guatemala to undertake humanitarian

work on behalf of the Corner Brook Pentecostal Tabernacle.

While in Guatemala these men and women will participate in the construction

of a 50,000 square foot Vocational Training School to enable Guatemalan youth to

learn meaningful trade skills, thereby allowing them to obtain employment and to

participate in the continued development of their country.

This project, which will cost about $1,250,000 Canadian dollars, is

spearheaded by the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and is in addition to the

basic literary schools which that Church already operates in Guatemala.

While in Guatemala these volunteers will also distribute baby blankets,

clothing, medical packs and dental supplies to local hospitals. In a country

where it is not uncommon for newborn babies to be sent home wrapped in

newspaper, these supplies are badly needed.

Having voluntarily accepted an invitation to participate in this project, the

Corner Brook Pentecostal Tabernacle took it upon itself to recruit volunteers,

and to raise the considerable sums of money needed to finance travel to and from

Guatemala and to contribute approximately $10,000 U.S. towards the construction

of the school.

I ask this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the Corner Brook

Pentecostal Tabernacle and volunteers Alfreda Cassell, Rhonda Andrews, Deanne

Rice, Teara Gordon, Debbie, Michelle and Oral Small, Gloria Stacey, Sherri

Ellsworth, Jason and Bob McGinn, Ross Coles, Herb Canning, Wade Smith, Dan

Ellsworth and Ross Grimes for volunteering to partake in this truly humanitarian

mission to Guatemala.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Friday, April 12, I had the privilege of attending the Gonzaga High

School graduation and senior prom. It was held at the Fairmont Newfoundland in

the mist of the hustle and bustle of the Juno excitement.

Approximately 550 people attended including 236 graduates, their guests and

their teachers. I am convinced that the future of this Province, Mr. Speaker, is

boded well when we consider the personalities and capabilities of our bright

young people.

Students graduating today are entering a world with opportunities that their

grandparents and even their parents never dreamed of. Science, technology,

medicine and so many other fields have broken through borders that we once

thought were unbreakable.

In these careers and in many other disciplines - music, the arts, sports,

business - we are proving ourselves capable in this Province of producing

graduates who could rise to meet the challenges and excel in their chosen field.

It is incumbent on us to build on the successes so graduates like those from

Gonzaga can turn their remarkable talents into opportunities for unprecedented

growth here at home.

I sincerely hope that the vast majority of these 236 graduates will chose

their native Newfoundland and Labrador as a place to live and prosper.

I wish to congratulate their Principal, Mr. Len White, and their graduation

co-ordinating teacher, Mr. Kenneth Coffey, on the preparation of an excellent

evening.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the journalists of the

Newfoundland and Labrador media who have been nominated for the Atlantic

Journalism Awards, which will be presented on May 4 in Halifax. These awards

recognize journalistic excellence in print and electronic news in the Atlantic

Provinces, and while politicians and the media can sometimes have less than

favorable relationships, Mr. Speaker, these local journalists are topnotch in

their field and should be congratulated for their efforts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: The nominees are as follows: VOCM News is nominated for two

awards in Spot News Radio reporting;

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: From NTV News, photojournalist Bart Fraize has two

nominations. From CBC Television in Newfoundland and Labrador, reporter Kevin

Harvey has two nominations, along with Jane Adey and Doug Greer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: From CBC Radio Newfoundland and Labrador, David Cochrane, as

well as Scott Strong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: And from The Telegram , Barb Sweet, Ryan Cleary and Rob

Antle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: The latter of which, Mr. Speaker, was nominated for a story

published in the Atlantic Progress magazine.

All these nominees, Mr. Speaker, show the importance of our local media to

our daily lives, and while we may not agree with everything they report, we

should recognize their efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The previous member forget to mention the Northeast Times .

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand to recognize and congratulate St.

Francis of Assisi School in Outer Cove on being awarded $10,000 worth of musical

instruments.

Last Thursday, April 11, 2002, I attended a function at St. Francis of Assisi

where the Canadian Academy of Recording Arts and Science presented Ms Donna

Marie Kelly and the school band with sixteen new musical instruments, which

include a Tenor Sax, French Horn, and various others. One of the requirements to

win this award is that the school had to demonstrate something innovative. Ms

Kelly, the music teacher, and the St. Francis of Assisi School Band travelled to

different schools within the Province, which do not have school bands, every

second year. They do this to put off workshops and to promote the need and

benefits of school bands and they are to be congratulated for this, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the Ennis Sisters for attending and presenting the

award on behalf of the Canadian Academy of Recording Arts and Science. So the

Premier was not the only one with the Ennis Sisters this past week or so, Mr.

Speaker. The Ennis Sisters also sang a few songs which were greatly enjoyed and

appreciated by all in attendance.

This "Band Aid" Program of the CARAS is a wonderful program and

benefits many students across this great country of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 rise in this hon. House to congratulate Riverhead, Harbour Grace native

Danny Cleary, who was added yesterday to Team Canada for the upcoming World

Hockey Championships.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: While I am sure he is a little disappointed that his

Edmonton Oilers did not make the playoffs this season, I am sure all

Newfoundland and Labrador hockey fans will be watching his progress at the

tournament in Sweden.

Cleary is a two-time Ontario Hockey League All Star and made the American

Hockey League's Second All Star Team in 2000. He was Chicago's first pick,

thirteenth overall in 1997, and was traded to Edmonton on March 20, 1999. In

sixty-five games with Edmonton this season, he was the Oilers eighth leading

scorer with ten goals and nineteen assists for twenty-nine points.

Mr. Speaker, I want to send my best of luck to Danny on behalf of all members

of this House, and hope that Canada will continue to make its mark in

international hockey circles with a World Hockey Championship to add to the

Olympic Gold Medals already obtained this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Post-Secondary

Education.

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne that was delivered last month, the

Province announced plans to develop a new institute for biodiversity and

ecosystem science in partnership with Memorial University. To date there has

been no announcement of the location of that facility. Mr. Speaker, Corner Brook

has ideally positioned itself and worked extremely hard to build a strong

reputation in the environmental sciences and staked out an niche where it hopes

to diversify its economy.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister, would she agree that Corner Brook is

not only the right location but the only suitable location for this new

institute which is a natural match between the existing Memorial campus and the

huge base of environmental expertise that already exists in the area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary

Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I agree with the hon. member, that there is a good amount of expertise in

this particular area and a decision has not been made contrary what many people

both in Western Newfoundland and throughout the Province believe. This is under

consideration. The allocation of funds has been put in place but no decision has

been made as to how this money will be spent, how it will all be implemented.

That is under review and meetings are being held now both with the university

and within government because terms of reference, function, all of that has to

be done before any final decisions are made.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware that no decision has been made. I think there was some confusion

that arose over the last month as to whether a decision had been made or not. In

light of that, since the institute is a new public sector science program in

resource management and sustainable development jointly operated by the

government and the university, it is an idea match for government's stated

objective of locating public facilities and jobs to appropriate locations around

the Province. It would be totally consistent with the statement of previous

Premiers Tobin and Tulk.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister: Will she write Memorial University, as

I have, and tell them that this new facility should go to Corner Brook because

it makes sense and it is a perfect match for government's existing policy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary

Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, at this time there is no need to write a letter to

the university because we are meeting with the university - various government

departments. As you know, there would be implications for the Tourism, Culture

and Recreation Department, where the funds are coming from, from my own

department, from the Department of Environment, and the university, and the

other interested parties in this matter.

We anticipate that a decision will be made within the next few weeks. Mainly

what has to be done now is a terms of reference and that sort of thing before

you can make a decision. If we are to spend this money properly, we have to make

policy behind the decision.

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.

What I would like to ascertain is, what is the position of this minister and

her government. The President of the Humber Economic Development Council, Peter

McBreairty, said that the new institute would, in fact, create a cluster of

scientific and environmental institutes that will actually attract economic

growth in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister that, in the light of the fact that

Corner Brook has been largely ignored by this government and in fact does not

have any Cabinet ministers in that area - I bring that to the attention of the

hon. Member for Bay of Islands -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: - and the hon. Member for Humber East, that there is no

Cabinet representation. In light of that fact, will government now make a

commitment to the people of Corner Brook that it will do something about its

future economic growth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know that the Leader of the Opposition is in his

standard form today of being totally inconsistent on behalf of the Opposition

Party.

Mr. Speaker, The Telegram quoted, back in October, 2001, when the

first phase of this particular opportunity to move wildlife services to Corner

Brook was done by the government, that he was opposed to it. I assume he was

speaking for the Opposition at the time. Now, because it seems to be convenient

for the Member for Humber West, he is for it all of a sudden.

The Leader of the Opposition could probably be reminded of this: the

institute at Memorial University is one part of a three-part plan announced by

the government in the Budget. The institute is $150,000 that the government is

providing to Memorial University because of the fact that, in fact, they have a

whole science division and a research division of their own already established.

And, Mr. Speaker, we respect the fact that they are an autonomous institution

run by a Board of Regents that make the decisions. We do not order. As a matter

of fact, if he checked the legislation he will find out that the government

cannot order the university to do anything. We can provide the money and, as the

minister pointed out, we are meeting with them because our belief is that if it

makes sense, and if it fits in with the rest of the government's plan to have

the wildlife division located in Corner Brook, which the Opposition objected to

when it was done last fall, were totally against it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: They said, Mr. Speaker, that the $2 million for the lab

was a waste of money. They said, and I quote here, the member speaking for the

Opposition said: It is not time for the government to be doing things that don't

need to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: That was their position in October and now -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. Government is in the

process of changing the Public Service Pension Plan from one that is being

controlled by government to a giant trusteeship. There are currently over 10,000

pensioners receiving pension under this plan.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: Will those retired pensioners have a

say in the planning of that trusteeship, and will they have representation on

the Board of Trustees when it is up and running in less than a years' time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Our government was perhaps one of the most progressive in the country when we

agreed to negotiate a joint trustee management arrangement for our Public

Service Pension Plan. Right now, we are in the process - right now government is

the sole trustee of the pension plan. We have a number of beneficiaries,

including those retired and currently in the system that will be future

beneficiaries. We are aware of all the parties and we are working with all the

parties. What we have said to the Pensioners' Association, which I am sure the

Leader of the Opposition may have had an opportunity to speak with their

representative today, is that we are working on an approach which we believe we

have made a proposal to the unions, which we believe will recognize all the

party's needs and interests. We are currently awaiting a response from the

unions, and as a courtesy to the process we would prefer to wait for that.

As we told the Pensioners' Association this week, before we get into the

public details of that we recognize our responsibilities as a trustee of a very

important, now 50 per cent funded pension plan, and we will do everything to

ensure that all of the parties are represented at the table as they have been

previously when we were the sole trustee of the plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They are waiting for an answer. They requested the Premier in their presence

today and the Leader of the NDP but nobody had the courtesy to come out and even

speak to them and discuss it with them. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, the Public

Service Pension Plan has assets of $1.5 billion and a significant portion of

that was paid by these retired pensioners.

Now, about 30 per cent of these people today were never represented by any

bargaining unit and there is a similar number of people in the public service

today who are not represented by any bargaining unit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the minister, who will speak for these

people? Should these people have a direct input, a direct voice, and a vote, I

might say, in how their future income is managed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for the people

of the Province to understand that the Pensioners' Association were informed

prior to today of our plans and what has happening. The member opposite would

like to leave the impression that we have ignored these people or we would not

speak to them. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they were made aware of the issue that I

just previously raised.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker. The member is mumbling, I cannot quite

hear what he is saying but I am sure he will have another opportunity to speak

to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Maybe he will stand up and say it again, that is quite

true.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to know that the representative of the Public

Service Pensioners' Association was contacted by an official and was told

exactly where we are going with this process. It is a very important process. We

have not made any decision -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is still mumbling, I

cannot quite hear what he is saying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: What I am trying to say, because I think it is a very

important issue for the people of the Province and for the pensioners and that

is, Mr. Speaker, that they are aware of the process and that it is a very

important component that we are trying to resolve with all of the parties. The

pensioners are aware of it, the unions are aware of it and, Mr. Speaker, maybe

the member opposite has some difficulty with that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: We are trying to work this through in a cooperative way,

which is perhaps a foreign concept, but we would like to work with all of the

parties because this Public Service Pension Plan is one that we are very proud

of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - in moving towards a join trusteeship.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, on March 27, the Minister of Health and

Community Services released the final report of the Hay Group who did an

operational review at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House if he agrees with the report's

comments, particularly those around the Janeway Emergency Department?

I quote: There are concerns regarding the training of the Janeway Emergency

Department physicians in emergency medicine and their capabilities in emergency

medicine techniques and care processes.

Does the minister agree with that statement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker, the minister does not agree with the

statement as is quoted by the hon. member.

As the hon. member would know, this is one piece that was contained in a

comprehensive report. As a matter of fact, when the first draft was received

some concerns were raised by the Health Care Corporation with regard to this

particular reference, and officials from my department did follow up with the

consultants. The consultants have indicated since that they have followed up

with some clarification which has been provided to the Health Care Corporation.

Certainly, this minister, this department and this government have complete

confidence in the professionals who are employed by the Health Care Corporation,

especially the officials at the Janeway, and we assure the people of the

Province that they can be confident that they will be receiving a first-rate

service when they present themselves at that institution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister relay those

comments and apologize to the physicians working in that department. He should

do that fairly quickly, because they are becoming very disgruntled. I don't

know if the minister realizes, but all the health providers in this Province are

outraged by that statement.

Does the minister know, does the minister realize, that as a result of that

report and the comments in that report that just a couple of days ago a

physician, a nuclear medicine specialist, who was recruited by the Health Care

Corporation withdrew his acceptance of a position because of the content of that

report? Is the minister aware of that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, the concerns that the hon. member has raised are legitimate.

Certainly, as I have indicated to him, we are certainly concerned when

statements are made with regard to our professionals who are employed within

this Province who do provide a first-class service to our citizens. However, I

would say to him, in my opinion, to stand here and try to claim the moral high

ground on this or any other issue is the last thing I would expect to see that

hon. member doing, who sat around our caucus table -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: - and took

part in our discussions, knowing full well that he

was ready to move to the other side.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order,. please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it was a pretty simple

question. I asked the minister if he was aware.

Let me ask him another question: Is the minister also aware, or is he not

aware, that just a couple of days ago as well, an internist who was recruited by

the Health Care Corporation to work at St. Clare's has now said that he is not

going to accept their offer because he is not certain about the future of St.

Clare's Hospital? Is the minister aware of that issue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on any given day there are any number of issues

with regard to the delivery of health care in this Province that are circulating

in the media and are being brought forward to this House by hon. members. We are

talking about a service that is being provided to a large number of people right

across this Province. We are talking about a service that is being delivered by

many hundreds of professionals.

Mr. Speaker, the issue that the hon. member raises - if a physician makes a

decision, the minister or the health care officials cannot be directly involved

in every decision that is made by every individual, when a person is offered the

opportunity to be employed, or is employed and decides to leave. The reasons

they use to make their decisions are entirely up to them.

The fact that you are referencing a report here, a comprehensive report - I

might point out as well and remind hon. members, I have sat in this House for

months and listened to the Opposition talk about the savings that could be

realized in the delivery of health care services in this Province. The hon.

members opposite have stood repeatedly and made accusations that there are

savings to be made.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: This report that has been produced was commissioned to do

exactly that, to review the system, to see if there were savings that could be

realized. This is what the report has done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SMITH: The officials now have the report. They are examining it and

trying to determine whether, in fact, there are suggestions here or

recommendations that can be implemented.

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.

My question is for the Premier and it regards his government involvement in

the building of an eighteen-hole golf course in the Windmill Bight Provincial

Park. Mr. Speaker, the documents filed with the Minister of the Environment show

that this project can only be viable if a world-class golf course at a cost of

$7 million is built along with a resort hotel at a cost of $6 million, dependent

on between 50 per cent and 75 per cent of its clients being from outside of the

Province.

Mr. Speaker, why is this government involved in a project of this nature

without proven financial viability that is opposed by its own parks division,

that is illegal under the parks act, and by its own estimate requires at least

$7 million of provincial contribution, of government contribution, to make the

project work at all?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the project that the member refers to is

under environmental assessment. It is in the process, and we will evaluate all

of the implications through the process and render a decision about the project

being able to proceed. If the project is able to achieve contributions to it,

then so be it, and that is for the project sponsors. The bottom line from the

environmental situation is that the Environmental Assessment Act is being

followed and this project is under assessment by our officials at this point,

and a decision will be rendered in due course.

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question does not concern the environmental

assessment but the fact that this government, even prior to an environmental

assessment, prior to the fact that proponents have not shown economic viability,

knowing that the project was illegal under the parks act, has committed $2.6

million of government money under the Municipal Financing Corporation, Mr.

Speaker, which is not designed for economic development projects. This has

already happened.

Mr. Speaker, why is this government going forward with a project that could

start the slippery slope of more and more government money into a project that

does not demonstrate financial viability and cannot apparently, on the face of

the documents filed with the government to date, cannot show sustainability,

cannot show economic viability, and has not done any independent market studies

that can demonstrate that? Why are they doing it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know who the Leader of the NDP represents or speaks for on this

issue, but I can tell you this: the government responded to a request from the

residents of the area through two different councils who came to us with a

proposal supported by the Leader of the Opposition, I understand, because he

believes in golf course development, as I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) his own money.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, not all of his own money.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, for those that

did not catch it, wanted to make sure that everyone knows that he built his golf

courses out of his own money. I am delighted to hear that the did spend a good

chunk of his own money with respect to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Money that was made, Mr. Speaker, in profits in

businesses from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and I congratulate him in

being a success in that. I cannot wish him the same success in his current

career.

Mr. Speaker, the issue with respect to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi;

the government responded to a request from the municipal leaders, from the

residents of the area, who believed the right thing for development in that area

of Newfoundland and Labrador is a golf course along with the current provincial

park. As a matter of fact, they would like to see it in the current provincial

park because they think that is the best fit. It was not our proposal, it was

their proposal. We acceded to their request and they have understood, from the

beginning, as they do today, that we are willing to commit the money - I believe

it is $2.6 million -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - if the project, Mr. Speaker, passes environmental

approval through an assessment process. So, the government is spending no money

unless all the rules and laws and regulations that apply are successfully and

properly complied with, and we will try to work with the people in the area -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - who believe that this is a great opportunity for their

part of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My question today is for the Premier of the Province. I understand that there

was a major fundraiser held last night at the Sheridan Centre in Toronto for the

Liberal Party, organized by Brian Tobin -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Relax. Thank you.

- organized by Brian Tobin, Gary Anstey, Steve Whitmore and Craig Dobbin. I

hope you do well, Premier. Many major contributors were in attendance and, of

course, Mr. Speaker, fundraising is not the issue here. This is an issue of

conflict of interest, whether real or perceived. Wouldn't the Premier agree

that this Province would be in a far stronger negotiating position if he

gracefully declined donations from companies that the Province is in very

serious negotiations with on major deals that will forever affect the lives of

the people of this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the hon. member could not be in Toronto last night to

see a celebration of Newfoundland and Labrador in Toronto.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Attended, Mr. Speaker, by a broad cross-section of the

business community in southern Ontario and throughout Canada. Mr. Speaker, the

likes of Kim Stockwood and Damhnait Doyle who performed, Gordon Pinsent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - who chaired the event and had people with tears in

their eyes at the end of the evening because they were so proud of what he was

saying, not necessarily me, but what he was saying about Newfoundland and

Labrador and the possibilities and the opportunities and the future and the

potential that is here in this place, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: It was an absolute delight and a treasure to be there and

I am delighted, as well, that the people actually donated some money. My way was

paid by the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. I announced that to The

Telegram yesterday before I left; and, Mr. Speaker, I am assuming we will

make a profit on it for the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. I know

that Newfoundland and Labrador is seen in a better light today as a result of

the representations of those kinds of proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - than it was the day before, and I would gladly do it

three or four times a month if I could get the opportunity -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and I would invite any members opposite to do the same

thing if they can get anyone to show up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not answer the question. Mr. Speaker, the

Premier can spin and rationalize all he wants. This is not the first time that

the Premier heard of this issue. The former Member for Humber West, who took him

on for the leadership of the Liberal Party, would not take donations from

corporations, as the Premier is doing, I say to the Premier. Mr. Speaker, why

doesn't the Premier of the Province understand that taking donations from

companies for political purposes -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, why doesn't the Premier of the Province

understand that taking donations from companies for political purposes - that he

is negotiating with - is indeed a very serious conflict of interest? Why don't

you understand that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out again that there is no conflict of

interest with respect to this matter. Every political contribution and donation

that is made to the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador is reported to

the Electoral Office. It is reported to our Conflict of Interest Commissioner,

who is an officer of this House, and every single person and every single group

that showed up in Montreal a month ago when the Leader of the Opposition asked

the same question in this Legislature; so I guess he does not think it is that

good a question because he sloughed it off to one of his other members to ask

this time around.

Mr. Speaker, we had the issue in Montreal where I was delighted to speak to a

broad base of the business community and talk about the opportunities here, and

it is always an officer of this House, who has all the information disclosed to

them, who decides if there is any conflict of interest, and there is none. We

believe in full disclosure. I tell everybody exactly that: that anyone who

contributed to the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador last night in

Toronto or in Montreal a month ago, their names will show up in the disclosure

statement tabled in this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Everybody can see exactly what happened. I am just

delighted that we do have hundreds of people willing to come out -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and hear about Newfoundland and Labrador on a regular

basis so we can (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services and they

have to do with cancelled surgeries at the Health Sciences Centre due to the

unavailability of beds in the Intensive Care Unit, and I will give an example.

There is a woman who has been fasting since Thursday and she still has not

been able to get for her surgery. The reason for that is, there is no bed

available in the Intensive Care Unit. Surely, Minister, you can do something

about this.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member realizes that it is

certainly not the job or the wish of this minister to micro-manage our health

care system. We have entrusted that responsibility to some very capable

professionals who are well paid for the job that they do, and do an excellent

job on the part of the people of this Province.

At any given time the hon. member, any hon. member or anyone, can find

isolated incidents that they can refer to where situations of this nature arise.

I would say to the hon. member, as I have always said in this House, if there is

a situation, if there is a feeling of the hon. member that there is any way that

I, or anyone on the government side, can assist, then we are certainly prepared

to listen, talk and discuss that. Obviously, to discuss individual cases in this

forum certainly would not be appropriate.

I would say to the hon. member that if she knows an individual, if she knows

a situation of this nature, I would certainly invite her to come forward and

meet with me, as other members opposite have done, and I will gladly sit with

anyone to try to deal with individual situations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition today from the Grenfell College Student Union, who have

asked that the petition be presented to the House of Assembly. It was circulated

through the students at the college and the enclosed petition includes a large

percentage of the Grenfell students who agree with the concerns listed on the

petition.

The Grenfell College Student Union hereby request that the enclosed petition

be presented in this House of Assembly. The prayer of the petition reads as

follows:

We the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador draw the attention

of the House of Assembly to the following:

WHEREAS Sir Wilfred Grenfell College is a division of Memorial University of

Newfoundland, and Memorial University of Newfoundland is a public institution;

and

WHEREAS Sir Wilfred Grenfell College is an institution that teaches

environmental responsibility; and

WHEREAS the landfills in Western Newfoundland are quickly filling; and

WHEREAS Sir Wilfred Grenfell College is producing a very large amount of

white paper waste; and

WHEREAS many other institutions and businesses, both private and public, are

producing large amounts of white paper waste;

THEREFORE your petitioners call upon the House of Assembly of Newfoundland

and Labrador to provide the necessary infrastructure to make white paper

recycling feasible in Newfoundland and Labrador, and to provide legislation

stating that these infrastructures will remain in place permanently.

I have noticed, Mr. Speaker, there is a large number of signatures on this

petition, and I have noticed that they have used recycled paper. It was paper

that was previously used, printed on the other side, so their hearts are truly

where this petition is.

They raise a very valuable point. I know that one of the pulp companies in

this Province is currently using recycled paper and they cannot get the amount

of paper that they require for recycling purposes from this Province because

there is no recycling program in this Province. They actually import paper from

other areas, from the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. They have a very

valid concern here; it is a very real concern. A large amount of the waste that

goes to the landfills in this Province, Mr. Speaker, is paper products.

The students at Sir Wilfred Grenfell College have raised a very valid point.

It is a point that the people of this Province have spoken on. It is a point

that the people in this Legislature, the representatives of the people of this

Province, should pay heed to. Recycling creates jobs. Recycling reduces waste

going to our landfills. Recycling in this particular situation can provide a

much valued resource to one of the paper companies in this Province which uses

recycled paper.

I support this petition. I support the people who signed this petition, and I

am more than happy to represent them and to present this petition in the House

of Assembly today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: A private member's resolution, yes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, at this time, the private member's

resolution that I -

MR. SPEAKER: We are on petitions. I thought the hon. member had a

petition to present.

MR. TAYLOR: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

MR. TAYLOR: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought that was what you said.

With the noise, I didn't hear you very well.

At this time I would like to move the following private member's resolution

which I tabled here yesterday. I will read it now into the record:

WHEREAS the Federal Fisheries Independent Panel on Access Criteria is

proposing that Aboriginal rights and regional equity replace adjacency as the

primary consideration in allocating fishing quotas; and

WHEREAS acceptance of these recommendations would further reduce

Newfoundlanders' and Labradorians' access to the marine resources that they

brought into Confederation;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House inform the Government of

Canada that it is unalterably opposed to any limitation of the principle of

adjacency in allocating fish quotas; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we will resist by all appropriate means any

decision of the federal government to allocate quotas to fishing interests that

would not qualify for allocations under the principle of adjacency.

Mr. Speaker, the report that we are speaking about is the report of the

Independent Panel on Access Criteria, a report that came out just about two

weeks ago; two weeks ago Friday coming, actually. It is a report that came

primarily out of a bit of a controversy a couple of years ago - a bit of a

controversy, I guess, is a little bit of an understatement in this Province -

when the federal minister of the day decided to allocate 1,500 tons of Northern

shrimp off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, off this Province, to

interests in Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Speaker, this was, at the time, one more example of a long list of

allocation decisions that were made by the federal minister, by the federal

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the federal government, to allocate

resources to interests in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, in the Maritimes and

Quebec, to allocate quota to these interests from the Northeast Coast of

Newfoundland and Labrador, areas that were not adjacent to those provinces'

shores, but rather areas that are adjacent to our shores.

Government after government in this Province, person after person in this

Province, organizations, councils, unions, fishing industry organizations, have

all advocated time and time again, over the past twenty, thirty or forty years,

that allocations should always be governed by adjacency. If that were the case,

then the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and the Coast of Labrador, the

resources off those areas, off those coasts, would be allocated to the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador, to interests in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, whether that is to fleets less than sixty-five feet; sixty-five to one

hundred; Aboriginal groups; community groups; processors; what have you. The

fact is that it would remain in this Province irregardless of the individual or

the organization that would own it.

Mr. Speaker, what we see in this report of the Independent Panel on Access

Criteria, and I think that some people in this Province had some hope that if an

independent panel reviewed the way allocations were made by the federal

government, that there would be a fair and equitable set of guidelines come out

of it. Something that would give a federal minister, irregardless of who he or

she was, irregardless of the political stripe, that they would have a set of

guidelines to go by that would be fair and applied in a consistent manner.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, what we see coming out of this report is really a

singling out of the waters off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, off the

Northeast Coast of Newfoundland, and off the Coast of Labrador; a singling out

of these waters and a decision or a recommendation that in this area - in all of

Atlantic Canada and the Eastern Arctic and Quebec waters - that in this area

alone adjacency would not be the overriding, determining, guiding, what have

you, principle for access and allocation. Mr. Speaker, that is very dangerous.

It is very dangerous because - the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador did

promote, as does everybody in this Province, the principle of adjacency and

access and allocation in this area. Unfortunately, every other province and

territory, because Nunavut was included - I should say with the exception of

Nunavut. Every other province who made representation to this panel disagreed

with this Province and the government, the minister opposite, recommendations

that adjacency be the guiding principle.

Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise to us that the other provinces

disagreed and the other groups disagreed. I will just give some examples of the

positions that the other provinces took. "...PEI advocated a more

considered approach than choosing any single criteria such as adjacency or

history. That fairness and equity should apply to the extent that no

jurisdiction can be denied meaningful benefit." Well, why wouldn't P.E.I.

say that? They are adjacent to nothing, they have had access to nothing, and

they have no historical dependence on anything. They have nothing. They can make

no claim to anything off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador

because they are not adjacent to it and they have never historically fished it.

So, they could not support history or adjacency.

Quebec, on the other hand, supported historical dependence. They supported

historical dependence because over the years Quebec has had some access to this

area and they are not adjacent to the area. So historic dependence works for

them, adjacency does not work for them.

We look to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. "New Brunswick felt that the

principle of adjacency has consistently worked against its interests in the

past." Of course it would work against it because it is not adjacent to

anything. Once again, similar to P.E.I. It is up on the St. Lawrence River

practically. There is no more to give allocations to New Brunswick than it is to

give allocations to Ontario off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador. They want something other than adjacency or historical dependence to

be the guiding principle. Certainly, something besides adjacency.

Nova Scotia was the most blatant of all, I guess. "...expressed concerns

that the selective use of criteria to achieve desired results and the lack of a

transparent process." Now, they expressed concerns about that but then they

go on to ask for just such a criteria, something that can be used selectively.

They argued: "Nova Scotia officials argue that adjacency was an important

but not a paramount criterion, since its strength diminished in relation to

historic shares in the case of fisheries farther offshore." Why would Nova

Scotia say that? Well, I think, Mr. Speaker, we have to go back and look at a

little bit of history.

I took the liberty today to go onto DFO's Web site and look at historic

figures, look at quota reports, and the furthest back I could get today, on

short notice, was 1989, the quota report for 2J+3KL. This is very interesting,

very telling because a lot of people in this Province sometimes say that

politicians make much ado about nothing when it comes to the 1,500 tons of

northern shrimp, but they are completely wrong. Fifteen hundred tons of northern

shrimp was just one small example of the things that we have had to live with

over the years in this Province. I will give you an example: 1989, the 2J+3KL

cod quota report, vessels greater than sixty-five feet in length, two different

fleet sectors, sixty-five to 100, and vessels greater than 100. When you combine

the various allocations in this, Nova Scotia had 46,446 tons of a 96,000 ton

quota. I am sorry, I added it up wrong, of a 130,000 ton quota. Newfoundland had

the remainder of 84,556 tons.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the offshore quota, the greater than sixty-five

foot quota. This is what we have seen over the past. Some people might say after

yesterday, when they heard my comments, that I am sensationalizing it and

blowing it out of proportion, the impact that this report could have on

allocation decisions off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well,

Mr. Speaker, this just goes to prove how far this can go, from 1,500 tons of

P.E.I. shrimp, as I said yesterday, to possibly 50 million pounds of northern

shrimp that could be allocated to other interests.

Mr. Speaker, when you take issues like Aboriginal rights - and we have no

problem with Aboriginal rights. As I said in my interview yesterday on the

Fisheries Broadcast, there are legitimate cases for access, and these cases can

be accommodated within the adjacency principle. The Labrador Inuit Association

has long held an allocation, has long had access to the northern shrimp fishery

off the Coast of Labrador, and off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and up in

the Davis Strait. The Labrador Innu Nation recently had an allocation. So there

are examples of this. There are Aboriginal groups in Nunavut who have access to

these areas, to shrimp fishing in these areas, and so they should, Mr. Speaker,

but where do we draw the line? When we say that Aboriginal rights supercede

adjacency, we are on very dangerous ground. We all know the controversy that is

brewing - or not brewing, that is boiling over in the Maritimes when it comes to

the Burnt Church's of the world, the Burnt Church's of the Maritimes.

If the opening is given to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to allow him

to solve the problems that he has, that his department has, and the people in

the Maritimes have in trying to provide access to Aboriginal groups, to the

fishing industry, which they should have, in their own area. The people of New

Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. who are in the fishing industry there, should

solve the problems that they have with the Aboriginal communities in that area,

just as we, in this Province, have to resolve it here. We should not have to pay

with Northern shrimp for the injustices of the past, in the Maritime Provinces.

That is the bottom line. That is the reason for this private member's

resolution today. That is the reason for it; we cannot tolerate it.

Why should we bring this up here today? As the minister said yesterday, he

doesn't think the federal minister is going to accept it. That could be, and I

hope he is right on that. I am not going to question the minister's judgement

on that, but I will say one thing. In about two weeks to a month, we will

probably see the Northern shrimp management plan brought down; the 2002 Northern

Shrimp Management Plan. Mr. Speaker, we have to be a little bit cynical all the

time when it comes to politicians. Even we politicians have to be cynical about

politicians. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to

get you.

Madam Speaker, we all must recognize that there are two very important

federal by-elections going on in this Province now and I, for one, do not

believe that the minister is going to accept anything in this report right now

that is going to jeopardize those by-elections in this Province, and I do not

think right now we will see allocations to interests outside this Province for

this year for Northern shrimp. I do not believe we will, because the decisions

on Northern shrimp will, in all likelihood, be made before the date of the

by-elections. The federal minister, I am sure, is cognizant of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: As the Member for Bay of Islands points out, and rightly so,

after is where we are on dangerous ground. Madam Speaker, that is why it is

incumbent on us to fight this in the strongest possible way today, tomorrow,

right up until we get a decision that this report is canned, garbage, shredded,

gone, and adjacency is the guiding principle for allocations and access off the

Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, off Nunavut, off Nova Scotia, off

P.E.I., off New Brunswick and Quebec.

We are not asking to be treated as a special case. As I said yesterday, we

just want the waters and the fish, access to it and allocations of it, that we

brought into this country. That is what we are asking for. The report here, of

the Independent Panel on Access Criteria, says that Nunavut should be treated as

a special case because, "Officials pointed out that Nunavut's share of

adjacent resources, most notably turbot and shrimp, was unfairly small compared

to the Atlantic provinces' share."

That is absolutely correct. It is unfairly small compared to the allocations

we have in waters adjacent to their shores. We cannot disagree with that. We

cannot disagree with that because, to disagree with that would be to support the

Atlantic Provinces in their bid for allocations off our coast. But, Madam

Speaker, treating Nunavut as a special case is not the answer. Treating Nunavut

in a way that we want to be treated is the answer. Allocate, give priority

access to Nunavut for the fish resources that are off their coast, and give

priority access to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for the fishery resources

that are off their coast, that are adjacent in their waters. The Province's

position going into this, as I read it from the report anyway, the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador's position was: When a border of a NAFO area is

defined by a land area, that land area is adjacent to the NAFO area.

If that principle was applied to Northern shrimp, Northern cod, Greenland

halibut, and whatever else, then we would not have a problem. If that is what

that report came out and recommended, then I would not be standing up here and

speaking on this today. We might be standing up and speaking on it, but we would

be standing up and asking the minister to hurry up and accept this report. The

fact of the matter is that the report is completely at odds with what we want to

see, completely at odds with everything we stand for and have asked for in this

Province. As a matter of fact, it is completely at odds with everything we have

said to the international community since the day that we realize that the Nose

and Tail of the Grand Banks were outside of the 200-mile limit and were open to

abuse by foreign nations. Ever since we realized that, we have been arguing to

the international community that we should have jurisdiction over this area,

whether it is custodial management or complete jurisdiction, complete control,

whatever way we have made different arguments from time to time. The fact of the

matter is, we have argued that we should have control over that area because it

is adjacent to our country, even though it is outside our 200-mile limit.

This report says that the further offshore you go, the further away from land

you go, the less adjacency should be the guiding principle. If the minister

accepts this, then he has to stop and we have to stop all these arguments that

we have made about the foreign overfishing problem that we have on the Nose and

Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Pass and the Flemish Cap. Madam Speaker,

that is just one more reason why this report must be canned. This report can

never see the light of day, can never be used as the guiding principle for

access and allocation of the fishery resources.

If the people, the governments of the Maritimes and Quebec, and the federal

government, accept this, they once again want to use fishery resources off the

Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador in particular, to solve the problems they have in Atlantic Canada. We

have seen it before. There are numerous examples of it. The P.E.I. shrimp deal,

as I have said earlier, was just one small example, a very small, insignificant

example, as a matter of fact, compared to, as I pointed out earlier, the 46,000

tons of Northern cod that Nova Scotia - Nova Scotia, and I am not sure if people

realize this, in 1989 when the fishery was collapsing on the Northeast Coast of

Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia had 46,000 tons of cod allocated to it in

this area. How did they get there? It is worthwhile to point out how Nova Scotia

got there. They had some historic dependence, of course. Nova Scotia fishermen

historically fished the Grand Banks, but very, very rarely did they fish the

Hamilton Banks. So they did have some historic dependence, but they got there

when red fish collapsed in the Gulf. That is what happened. They got there when

the red fish stocks collapsed in the Gulf, what we know now as unit one. Red

fish collapsed in the late 1970s. The offshore fleet was reinforced for ice and

sent North into Northern cod, that vast untouched Northern cod stock that

everybody talked about, and it was destroyed as a result of it.

When the large boat seal hunt was shut down in the mid-1980s, Nova Scotia

interests were given Northen shrimp. When the whale fishery was closed down -

Northern shrimp allocations. These types of allocations have always been used on

the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador to solve the problems that we

have in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is time for it to stop.

If we do not fight this report that we have before us today, that we have had

in front of us for a couple of weeks, the minister, any future minister, any

government, irregardless of who they are, irregardless of where they are from,

will have every opportunity, every justification, that every minister in the

past did not have for making its allocations to people outside this Province for

resources that are adjacent to this Province.

Madam Speaker, the report talks about equity. It says that no allocation

decisions should be made that contribute to interpersonal or inter-regional

disparities. The case could be made that, given the amount of shrimp that we

have allocated to our fleets on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and the lack of shrimp that is allocated to fleets in Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador,

area 6 and area 5, the argument could - if you use this report, I am not saying

it is right, but rightly so according to this report - be made that the

allocation decisions made by the minister in recent years have contributed to

inter-regional disparities. That, tied with the Aboriginal rights and a lack of

an adjacency principle, would clearly throw the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland

and Labrador wide open for all kinds of access by other provinces here. We would

have no more right to these waters, we would have no more right of access to

these waters, as a person living in Englee - and this is the irony of it. In

Englee, where the plant has been practically closed down, a very low level of

activity for years now, ever since the cod motorium, and Conche and Croque,

places that are looking for access, places that have lobbied consistently over

the past five years for access to this resource, for an allocation of this

resource, the people of this area would have no more right - as a matter of

fact, once you use the Aboriginal rights argument and the equity argument, they

would have less right to the fish that is off their shore, that are fifty miles

from the harbour in Englee, seventy miles from the harbour in Englee, 150 miles

from the harbour in Englee, anywhere in that area you could fish shrimp, and the

people who live there would have no more right of access to that than somebody

who is living in Miramichi Bay in New Brunswick.

That is what is of most concern. That is why we must fight this. There is no

way that anybody should be able to tell us, there is no way that a report, that

a minister, that a panel, should be looking at the Northeast Coast of

Newfoundland and Labrador any differently than it should -

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: By leave, to clue up?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave granted.

MR. TAYLOR: I just want to clue up. About thirty seconds, Madam Speaker.

There is no way that these allocations should be susceptible to that kind of

abuse, in my view. It is an abuse of resources off the coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador. We have seen it so much. I will say this in conclusion, Madam Speaker

- I know I have a few minutes to conclude debate later in the day - but I will

say this: The only time that we hear about great Canadian resources, when we

hear about the great Canadian northern cod resource, when we hear about the

great Canadian northern shrimp resource, whenever we hear that term, we can be

sure that they are talking about the people in Atlantic Canada and Upper Canada,

they are talking about the fish that is off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland

and Labrador. That is the only Canadian resource that is in this country.

Whenever we get outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, it is a Nova Scotia

resource or an Alberta resource or an Ontario resource or a British Columbia

resource.

So, Madam Speaker, in conclusion, we must look for adjacency to be the

guiding principle. We must demand that the minister can this report, and we

must, all parties, all individuals and all groups involved with the fishery, and

outside of the fishery in this Province, stand up and oppose this to the

strongest degree possible, and let the minister know that we will never support

anything other than adjacency in allocating fish around our Province.

On that note, Madam Speaker, I will conclude and let somebody else have the

floor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to speak for a few minutes today to the resolution put forward

by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. I thank him for putting it

forward, because, as he said, it is a very important issue, probably one of the

most critical issues facing the fishing industry in our Province today.

Madam Speaker, if you will permit me, I would like to give a brief history of

how we got this Independent Panel on Access Criteria and the report that we are

talking about here in the House today.

If you all remember, two years ago, in 2000, the federal Minister of

Fisheries of the day, Mr. Dhaliwal, gave a 1,500 ton allocation of shrimp off

our coast to Prince Edward Island. Madam Speaker, to this day we don't know

what criteria he used to determine that P.E.I. should be entitled to shrimp off

our shores, because it has always been our position that the adjacency principle

is the one of utmost concern to us, and that is how you should determine who

gets access. The first one would be adjacency, the second one would be

historical attachment, and the third would be economic viability.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, you know what happened in the Province once

Mr. Dhaliwal allocated the shrimp to P.E.I.

MR. E. BYRNE: It is fine.

MR. REID: Pardon me?

MR. LUSH: He says it is fine.

MR. REID: That is good.

We are just having a talk here, Madam Speaker, about amending the resolution,

and I understand from the Opposition that it is okay, the amendments that I

would like to propose.

Anyway, after Mr. Dhaliwal gave the allocation of shrimp to P.E.I., obviously

it was not acceptable to the people of this Province, and there was quite a big

debate, quite a lengthy debate that took place here and with the federal

Department of Fisheries concerning this. It was agreed by my predecessor at the

time, along with the federal minister, that the only way to really get to the

bottom of all of this is if we were to appoint an independent panel to determine

who would get access to our fish stocks off our coast so that it would be an

open and transparent process so that we would all know, once and for all, who

owned the fish off our shores. Once we knew that, then we could always determine

if there was going to an increase in the quotas, who would get that.

So, Madam Speaker, that is where the Independent Panel on Access Criteria was

established, and, I guess, it was in process when I came into the department

back last February. From that time on we took this panel very seriously, along

with the union, the FFAW, FANL, the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and I might also add, that the Federation of Municipalities also took

this issue very seriously, along with this government. We set out, at the time,

to make sure that we, in the Province, and I mean all of us in the Province, put

forward a united voice to this panel on what we considered to be the three

criteria that should determine access to fish off our coast. The first one,

obviously, was the adjacency principle, that fish adjacent to the shores of our

Province should go for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

The second one would be historical attachment. Those attached to the fishery

in our Province should get the first crack at any increases in allocation and so

on, Madam Speaker, but we also have to remember that there are others outside of

our Province who also have a historical attachment to some of our fish stocks. I

am not talking our northern shrimp, but I am talking about cod on the southern

Grand Banks that was also harvested for many years by schooners from Nova Scotia

and so on.

The last criterion that we put forward, Madam Speaker, was economic

viability, and that means who could harvest that fish and process it the most

economically. Obviously, again, it was the harvesters in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

The panel was put together and there was some debate, first of all, on who

were going to be members on that panel. The federal minister put forward some

proposals. He proposed some names obviously that we did not agree to. For

example, we did not want to have someone from Nova Scotia sitting on that panel

if we did not have someone from our Province, and likewise, from Quebec, P.E.I.

and New Brunswick. So it was agreed that the members of the panel would come

from outside of the region. That was agreed to and that panel then went to each

of the individual provinces and to Nunavut, and they heard presentations from

the governments and from individuals.

I might add, Madam Speaker, that we put forward more presentations to that

panel than any other province. The provincial Department of Fisheries did two

presentations, and I did one as well. We, the Department of Fisheries and the

government, also helped the Federation of Municipalities who prepared a fabulous

brief, and the union and FANL worked in conjunction with us. So there were at

least four presentations to this panel from the Province, from residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador. The thing about it is we all said the same thing,

that the only criteria that should be used for access to fish off our shores was

the first one. The primary one would be the adjacency principle; the second,

historic attachment; and the third, criterion of economic viability. We all said

that, Madam Speaker, and we said it loud and clear in written briefs and in oral

presentations that we also made. I gave one last fall to the panel when they

were here.

Just recently the panel submitted its report to the federal minister. When I

was in P.E.I. two weeks ago, the Chair of that committee, a Mr. Kroeger from the

mainland, gave a brief overview of what was in the report. Like the Opposition,

like everybody in this Province, once we actually saw what was in the report,

obviously, we cannot stand for what they are saying. Here is basically what they

are saying in the report. The overall principle - and there is a difference

between the overall principles and the access criteria - talks about

conservation, Aboriginal rights, and equity. I asked Mr. Kroeger, by the way, in

that meeting, what his definition of equity was. Strangely enough, he hemmed and

hawed and said: well, I guess equity is in the eyes of the beholder. I said:

yes, I guess you are right because we do not consider it to be equitable when

you are giving fish from Newfoundland and Labrador, that we so much rely on for

survival in this Province, to other players in other provinces. So, that is not

my idea of equity, for sure.

The actual access criteria, Madam Speaker, that they put forward was - they

followed our suggestions in that the three criteria should be - in this order

too, by the way. The three we put forward were: adjacency, historical

attachment, and economic dependence or economic viability. We put those three

criteria to the federal government in that order. They accepted these three

criteria which would determine access to fish stocks in Atlantic Canada. The

unfortunate thing about it is, the adjacency principle that we put forward, they

somehow took that out of context. Their definition of adjacency is certainly not

our definition of adjacency.

Let me explain to you, Madam Speaker, what their definition of adjacency is.

For example, when New Brunswick did their presentation to this panel they said

adjacency was not important. They said that the principle of adjacency was not

important. Obviously, it was not important to New Brunswick, Madam Speaker,

because if you look at the fish stocks that are adjacent to New Brunswick, they

cannot compare to the fish stocks that are adjacent to Newfoundland and

Labrador. Obviously adjacency would not work in their favour. So they said:

adjacency is not the most important criteria.

So, they go to Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia says: yes, adjacency is very

important criterion for establishing access. Where they differ from us is they

say that adjacency should be most important in their inshore and their

mid-shore, but not as you move further from land. That, Madam Speaker, is where

we have a major concern, their definition of adjacency compared to our

definition of adjacency. Our definition of adjacency is that any fish stock or

any water body that touches our coast, that is adjacent to our coast and should

go to the 200-mile limit, obviously. What Nova Scotia is suggesting, and what

Mr. Kroeger appears to be suggesting in his report - because we do not really

have clarification yet from the minister or from Mr. Kroeger exactly his

definition of adjacency. What he is saying is that adjacency is important in the

inshore and the mid-shore but the further you go from land the less importance

adjacency has. Now, from Nova Scotia's perspective that is perfect. You take

their lobsters and their bit of groundfish on the Scotian shelf, perfect. So,

what they are saying is: alright, the fish in the inshore and the mid-shore

should be ours, the adjacency principle should apply, but if you get off land

100 miles or 150 miles - like we do, we fish that stock. The Member for The

Straits knows, he has been out there. You fished off out there, 200 miles.

What they are saying is you get out maybe 100 miles, or fifty miles beyond

shore, the adjacency principle should diminish. The only reason they are

suggesting that, Madam Speaker, is so that they can get access to the fish

stocks off our shore, off our inshore and off our mid-shore (inaudible) but also

go after the shrimp and other stocks that are further from shore off the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We cannot, and will not, accept that

principle, Madam Speaker, with the way that it is being proposed; but again, we

need clarification from the federal minister and we need clarification from Mr.

Kroeger who wrote the report, and the panel as well.

I, like the member opposite from The Straits & White Bay, cannot tolerate

what is being proposed by that panel with regard to adjacency, that it is only

important in the inshore and the mid-shore because we have too much at stake,

Madam Speaker. That means, basically, if you take fifty miles, you go out fifty

miles - for example, you pick an arbitrary number and you say: alright,

adjacency is important up to fifty miles. That looks after the stocks in New

Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec and Nova Scotia but if the adjacency principle does

not apply as you get out beyond fifty miles - and the fifty miles, Madam

Speaker, is just an arbitrary number that I am using as an example. If you get

out there, then it is a free for all. What they are saying is we will look after

our own stocks but we also want a cut of yours. That is, basically, how P.E.I.

ended up with 1,500 tons of what I consider to be our shrimp to begin with.

I told Mr. Kroeger, the Chair of the panel, that was not acceptable to us. I

also told Mr. Thibault, the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada, in

that meeting that it was not acceptable to us. On coming back to the Province we

talked to FANL and to the union about this. I have spoken to Mr. Thibault again,

on the telephone, and told him that this adjacency principle, their definition

of the adjacency principle, was not going to wash here in this Province. I have

also written the federal minister and outlined that to him in a letter.

Contrary to what was said yesterday in the House of Assembly about us not

really doing enough on this issue, Madam Speaker, that is clearly untrue. The

work that the officials in the department and myself, FANL, the union, and the

Federation of Municipalities, we have put a lot of work in on that in the past

year, and we are going to continue. Where it is right now is that all the

provincial governments in Atlantic Canada and Quebec have been given the report.

We are analyzing that report. The officials are going to have a meeting to

discuss the report. As I said, I have already written him and told him what our

concerns are. The officials are going to analyze the report. Then, at the end of

May, we are going to have another Atlantic minister's conference to discuss

the IPAC report. Like the member opposite, he says we should shelve that report.

I agree, but if we could get them to change their definition of the adjacency

principle maybe we would not need to do it. If our adjacency principle was

accepted, I do not think we would have too much to worry about, Madam Speaker.

We cannot allow fish that is adjacent to our shores to be given to the other

Atlantic Provinces; not that I mind sharing with our cousins in the rest of

Canada, but that fish is too important to us. We are not asking for a share of

their fish. As Earle McCurdy, the head of the FFAW, said some time ago: In the

worst days of the groundfish moratoria, the Newfoundland and Labrador industry

did not request access to fish resources adjacent to the other Atlantic

Provinces.

We have never asked for that, and I think Mr. McCurdy summed it up quite

well. He said: Even in the worst days of the moratorium, when there were towns

closed, fish plants closed, people leaving the Province, never once did we say

to the federal minister: Give us some lobsters off P.E.I. Let us go down on the

Georges Bank off Nova Scotia and take some of their fish.

No, Madam Speaker, we did not do that because we respect the adjacency

principle in this Province. Neither should they, simply because they want extra

fish to make some extra money for larger companies in Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick, P.E.I. and Quebec, ask for fish off our shores.

Before I close, I would like to make some amendments to the resolution of the

Member for The Straits & White Bay North. They are not going to change the

spirit and intent of the resolution. I understand that, members opposite. It is

just that this board, for example, was tasked simply to look at access criteria

and not allocation, so all we are doing is changing words like allocation'

to access'.

When you talk about the marine resource, you have to remember that there are

many marine resources, such as the oil that is beneath the ocean floor out

there. We have talked about access to fish stocks, and we are just going to

change some of those wordings. I am not sure if I have to read the new

resolution. Tom, do I have to read that in, or do I just table a copy of it?

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: I think members opposite have agreed with the resolution.

Actually, the resolution does something to all of the statements made by the

hon. member, just to fine-tune it. I think they have agreed. What we will do is

just carry on, and before the hon. member speaks we will just indicate what we

have done for the record; but I think we will just say that we have amended all

of the parts of the resolution. I think the hon. member's resolution is made

up of two

WHEREAS and the two RESOLVE. There is no intention on this side to

affect the spirit of the resolution. It is just to fine-tune it. We will

circulate it to everybody concerned and, at the end of the day, we will say what

we have done to it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Madam Speaker, if there is going to be an amendment, surely

anyone speaking after the minister would like to be able to speak to the

amendment. I wonder if we could have that distributed very quickly so that

subsequent speakers can do that.

MADAM SPEAKER: It will be distributed.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, just before I sit down and finish up my few

words I will pass along the amendments so that the hon. members across the floor

can have a look at it.

MADAM SPEAKER: I do remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. REID: Just one minute, by leave, Madam Speaker?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: Leave granted.

MR. REID: All I would like to do is to encourage every Member of the

House of Assembly to actively get involved in this because, let's face it, it

concerns every single soul in Newfoundland and Labrador. We should all be

singing from the same hymn book, as they say, on this issue, because we have to

protect the interests of those who depend so much for a living on those fish

resources that are being talked about in today's resolution. I ask that the

members opposite, along with myself and the government here on this side, the

union, FANL, and the Federation of Municipalities, keep a united front on this

and that we proceed together to impress upon the federal government the need to

not adopt the adjacency definition that Mr. Kroeger and the Independent Panel on

Access Criteria is proposing.

Again, I say, it is far better for us to act with one unified voice here in

the Province than it is for us to be attacking each other here in the House of

Assembly, because the longer we continue to do that, Madam Speaker, the less

influence we have in Ottawa. Rather than pay attention to us, they will use the

old tactic of dividing and conquering and they will get their own way.

Again, I would like to thank the Member from The Straits & White Bay

North for putting forward the resolution today, and with the few amendments that

we are proposing we will certainly vote in favor of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I stand today to make a few comments on the private member's resolution as

put forward by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North and issue our

concerns with the report that has been put forward by the Federal Fisheries

Independent Panel on Access Criteria.

It is a report that concerns us all. When we hear or when we see a report

such as this submitted to the House of Commons and to the federal Minister of

Fisheries, who has the ultimate control over quotas and where and when fish is

allowed to be harvested, it causes great concern. It causes great concern

because our minds go back to just a few short years ago when we saw 1,500 tons

of Northern shrimp taken from fishermen and fish plant workers in this Province

and given to a neighboring province, Prince Edward Island. While we have been

very quick to step up to the plate and share resources, and God knows we have

shared enough in the past at the expense of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I

think the time has come when we have to stand up and be counted for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Madam Speaker, I think the time has come, when we go around this Province and

see our own boats tied up to the wharves, when we see our fish plant workers

walking around with nothing to do, laid off, and we hear that 1,500 tons of

shrimp that could be harvested by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, by our own

fishermen, processed in one of our own eleven plants to process shrimp here in

this Province, when we see that being taken from us and given to another

Atlantic Province where it created not one job.... There wasn't one job

created in Prince Edward Island, of the 1,500 metric tons of shrimp that Mr.

Dhaliwal, in his wisdom, removed from this Province and gave to Prince Edward

Island, not one job.

The other situation, Madam Speaker, you might say: Well, why are we so

concerned. It is only a report. We hear that. We heard it from the Minister of

Health today when he stood up in his place and said it is a report, it is a

report that we are going to look at, when the Member for Trinity North referred

to a report that the Department of Health had done with health care here in the

Province.

Well, this is a report as well, and it is not going to the Premier of

Newfoundland and Labrador. This particular report is going to the Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa. If we think back, and we do not have to think

back a long way, we do not have to think long to see some of the decisions that

have been made in Ottawa regarding the fishery in this Province, how they have

worked negatively and our voice has not been listened to. Far too often, far too

often, decisions are made in isolation of what the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador and what the people in Newfoundland and Labrador think.

When you look back, I suppose, it all goes back to politics. It all goes back

to politics when you look at us, this Province, being represented in Ottawa by

seven members, when you look at this Province being represented in Ottawa by

seven Senators, for a total of fourteen. When you look at the mindset of

mainland Canada, and I refer to Ontario specifically, where they have - well, it

was 101 seats and I think now it is probably 104 or 105, maybe as many as 107

seats in the House of Commons- it is not hard to realize who calls the tunes in

Ottawa.

I will go back, Madam Speaker, to when I was part of a delegation that went

to Ottawa to look for benefits for fish plant works and fishermen, and the

Member for Baie Verte, and the present Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I

will never forget going and meeting with the Liberal caucus up in Ottawa. There

were about three people who showed up. Out of a total of 185 or 190 people,

there were three people who showed up for a delegation from this Province to

talk about the fishing industry in this Province. There were three people from

the government party who showed up. I will never forget it. I can never get it

out of my mind.

When I talk about looking to Ottawa for benefits and I talk about the clout

that we have in Ottawa, I have to think of the MP for some Toronto riding - I

think it might have been Dundas or something - Dennis Mills. Dennis Mills was

the Member of Parliament. I will never forget it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: The Member for Baie Verte-White Bay shouts and says he

remembers it quite well. I will never forget him standing up, in the few people

who were there, and his comment was directed to me when I put forward the case,

as best I could, and his comment to me was: Mr. Fitzgerald, if you have so many

people unemployed or if you have so many people looking for a job in

Newfoundland and Labrador, I suggest you tell them to come to Toronto. We have

10,000 jobs up here that we can provide them with. That was his attitude, Madam

Speaker. In other words, bar up you house, tie up the gate, take the children,

get the U-Haul and come on up to Toronto and we will put you to work making

whatever the minimum wage is. Madam Speaker, it is not as easy as that. It is

not as easy as that, but that is the mind set that exists. That is the mind set.

When we seen the 1,500 tons of shrimp that was provided to Prince Edward

Island, we did not even get representation from some of our own MPs that were up

in Ottawa at the time. That is the kind of representation we have. That is what

concerns this member, and that is what concerns the members of this Opposition.

I am certain if the members on the other side would speak the truth, they would

say that they have some great concerns as well. They have some great concerns

about our representation, they have some great concerns about the clout that our

seven members have, and they have even greater concerns about other people

looking to be able to access a resource that we do not have enough of already in

order to maintain a livelihood in this Province.

Madam Speaker, we are not looking for anything by looking for the simple

adjacency principle to be recognized and to be adhered to here in this Province.

What we are looking for is something that is rightfully ours. We are looking for

something that we fished before; we are looking for something that is adjacent

to our shores; we are looking for something that provides economic viability to

rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Madam Speaker, before we go looking to be able

to catch and harvest other species and other quotas, I think it is imperative

that we look after what we already have, I say to the minister. I think it is

imperative that we look after and look out to what is happening on the Nose and

the Tail of the Grand Banks. What we see in this Province today and what we are

witnessing with overfishing by the Russians, the Icelanders and the Faroese,

Madam Speaker, and the other countries in the European Union, the Estonians, is

nothing short of criminal. If anybody read the story in today's Telegram

- and it was raised yesterday by a member, by Mr. Loyola Hearn, the MP for St.

John's West in Ottawa - it is nothing short of criminal. Here we are paying

lip service to it.

Yesterday, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North asked a question

to the minister about what we are talking about here today, about this

independent panel access criteria. His comment was: Join with us, to come out

and protest what is happening. There is nothing wrong with that. There is

nothing wrong with that, I say to you, Madam Speaker, but in order for people to

join together towards a common cause it has to start by putting together a

committee of this House, not an adhoc committee that will meet every time there

is a problem and disband it after.

Maybe it is time, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, that we

set up a standing fisheries committee in this House. Maybe it is time that we

strike a committee of this House that would go out and make representation to

the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Maybe it is time for a committee of this

House to go and be the guides, if you would, be the front-runners in taking

forward this most important topic, and protecting this important industry in our

Province. Madam Speaker, I do not know of anything else so important as the

fisheries is to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. When I talk about rural

Newfoundland and Labrador I say the whole Province, because St. John's depends

on the fishery just as much as Bonavista, Port Union, Catalina, or anywhere

else.

I say to you, Mr. Minister, maybe it is time that we struck a standing

fisheries committee of this House so that we can take our concerns forward and

it would not be a situation where somebody would have to stand and say: maybe we

should appoint a committee. Maybe we should appoint a committee to see if

Fishery Products International are playing by the rules; why there were created

in the first place. Then all of a sudden there is another issue and we say:

maybe we should form a committee to go and see if this is the way it should be

or to make representation on somebody's behalf. Maybe it is time that we

struck a committee of this House. It does not have to be headed by the minister.

In fact, it should not be, but we should have a committee of this House, a

standing committee on fisheries, that should go forward and take this department

and make representation and make suggestions and hopefully, Madam Speaker,

convince the decision-makers in Ottawa of how important this particular industry

is to Newfoundland and Labrador, and not play lip service to it or slough it off

because somebody else is looking for something. Madam Speaker, it is far more

important than to allow that to happen.

I do not think you are going to see any decisions made on what this

independent access panel put forward. You are not going to see any decisions

made within the next couple of weeks because there are a couple of by-elections

on the go. There is a by-election on the go in Bonavista-Trinity-Conception,

there is a by-election on the go in Gander and Grand Falls. Naturally, the

Liberal member's cousins are not going to do anything that would embarrass

their members and cause them votes.

Madam Speaker, if there was ever a time to send a message to Ottawa, if there

was ever a time to show Ottawa our displeasure with how they have handled the

fishing industry in this Province, if there was ever a time to show Ottawa what

we think, if transfer payments - they are cutting transfer payments to this

Province. If there was ever a time to send a message to Ottawa to show them what

we think of the changes they made to the EI system in this Province, Madam

Speaker, now is the chance. Now is the chance for people to speak out and show

Mr. Chrtien that we do not agree with the decisions that are being made by the

Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We do not agree with the decisions that were

made by the hon. Jane Stewart. We do not agree with the decisions that were made

by Mr. Dhaliwal or Mr. Anderson. Now is the chance to send a message, Madam

Speaker.

When I was reading The Telegram - I have to go back to talking about

what is happening here with foreign overfishing. I have to refer to the Russian

boat and the story that was in the paper just today, Madam Speaker, where our

own Department of Fisheries and Oceans went abroad a Russian trawler that landed

here in one of our Newfoundland ports, off-loaded fish - you know, it is

unbelievable what is happening. I mean, here we are standing in this House every

day, talking about foreign overfishing, talking about the lack of work for

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, talking about our fish plants and our fishing

communities, idle, shut down, working fourteen weeks of the year, having to go

back to government to beg for job creation programs so that they can qualify for

EI, Madam Speaker, and then we hear another group of people where we talk about

taking a simple step in closing our ports. I believe in that step, by the way, I

believe that that is the first step, closing our ports to countries that are

flying flags of convenience out there with no adherence to rules or regulations

at all. All of the sudden we hear some of our own people saying that: Ah, we

shouldn't do this, we shouldn't close our ports, we should allow this to

happen, there have to be other ways of dealing with it. But we have to all pull

together.

I know it is financially hard for businesses. They have built a business, and

it is not something they want to see happening. That is human nature. When you

see Russian ships, and I refer to Russian ships because the last two that came

here that we were made aware of, by the watchful eye of Mr. Gus Etchegary, and I

have to give him credit for it, but when you see what was on that particular

boat - some of the things that were brought out was one ton of frozen cod liver.

This was in the manifest that was on the Russian trawler: one ton of frozen cod

liver; thirty-four tons of fish meal. Madam Speaker, you might say: So! There

was a ton of cod liver, there were thirty-four tons of fish meal. So what! When

you look at the amount of codfish that was reported being caught, it was only

seven point six tons; seven point six tons of codfish caught.

Madam Speaker, lets get realistic here now; seven tons of cod fish caught.

The information that was provided by scientists and by people who know something

about the fishery indicated that in order to have one ton of frozen cod liver

and thirty-four tons of fish meal aboard the boat, then they had to have caught

250 to 300 tons of cod. So, 250 to 300 tons of cod in order to have -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just by leave for a few minutes, if you would. Just by

leave, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, when you realize that, when you realize

that this boat was allowed to come to our waters, in our ports, unload fish that

shouldn't have been caught, unload fish that our own fishermen and fish plant

workers would probably be working at, providing employment, looking after their

families - where is the boat now? Gone back to Russia.

What did we do? Absolutely nothing, other than stand here today and complain

about it. That is shameful!

Madam Speaker, I am going to, just for one minute - and I won't take

advantage of leave - go through just a couple of towns in my district that were

highlighted in the 7 per cent census report a couple of days ago.

In Bonavista, a fishing community, in 1991: 4,597 people; in 2001: 4,021. In

Elliston - just listen to this one, Madam Speaker - 533 people in 1991; in 2001:

360, and there are less people there today. Catalina, 1,205 today; last year,

995; Plate Cove East, 145; last year, 120; Plate Cove West - listen to this one

- 322; last year,183; Port Union, 638; last year, 486, and a lot less people

working there today, I say to you, Madam Speaker. Those were proud communities,

proud people who worked twelve months of the year in the fishing industry, made

good money, came home to dinner every day, went out and bought their bread and

bought their groceries in local markets that are now closed; communities

devastated.

While adjacency is important, I think what is more important is that we look

after what we already have and what is already under our jurisdiction to be able

to look after, and to make sure that we bring foreigners and anything else that

is happening within the 200-mile limit, on the edges of the parameter of 200

miles, to bring them to justice. If they come to use our ports, let's not bend

over for a few paltry dollars, as important as they are, and allow that to

happen.

Madam Speaker, with that I will conclude. I congratulate the Member for White

Bay North for bringing forward this resolution. It is a topic that he knows very

well. I congratulate him, but I say to people opposite, and I say to the Liberal

government, it is time to break the ties with your cousins in Ottawa and it is

time to start speaking out on this particular issue. It is time to look after

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and cut the ties with your federal cousins and

look after the people we were put here to represent.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to rise today and speak to the motion that has been put forward by the

Member for The Straits & White Bay North and also amended by the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo.

No doubt, adjacency is one of the guiding principles of fisheries development

in Newfoundland and Labrador. Historically, we have always lobbied for

principles of adjacency in the management of our fish resources, and how we have

tried to build our economy within this Province is around those particular

principles. Certainly any panel, any recommendation or any recognition that it

could be comprised obviously has very devastating effects on people in

communities across the Province, as has certainly been indicated by other

members who have spoken here today.

Madam Speaker, we have certainly been very active in lobbying the federal

government on various issues around the fishery, especially as it relates to

foreign overfishing, as it relates to fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks, and also as it relates to quotas in jurisdictions within our own

Province. We have continued to be active, we have continued to lobby, and we

have continued to make representation to the federal government, educating them,

impressing upon them the need to have good management practices within this

Province to certainly supplement the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

When the panel heard from the provinces and territorial governments, I am

sure there were some common messages that underlined the presentations that were

presented, both by the four Atlantic Provinces, including our own, and also by

Quebec and the Territory of Nunavut. Madam Speaker, I am sure that each Province

has its own principles and has its own ideas of how the management should take

place within this particular industry, but I can certainly tell you that there

are none that are any more important or any more necessary than those principles

that are certainly being used in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our government made a formal presentation to this panel when they met in the

Province, and we were quite explicit in our view at that time, that the current

application for access criteria lacked transparency, predictability, stability

and, most importantly, consistency. It was this position that we took, and took

very diligently with the panel, impressing upon them, and one of the things that

we specifically outlined was that of adjacency. What we said at that particular

time was that adjacency should be the only criteria for access to new and

emerging fisheries, because we really feel strongly about that. If we are to

open up new fisheries, develop new fisheries within our Province, then we feel

that adjacency should be the only criteria and that we should have first access

to that.

Any new access to existing fisheries should be based solely on adjacency;

however, historical participation will be respected because we, too, believe in

historical participation and historical right. As a result, the communities that

are dependent upon these resources will certainly be recognized in their efforts

and given the respect that they need in terms of allocations. That was basically

the position that we put forward at the time. We also felt that those

recommendations and the recommendations around adjacency should be entrenched in

Labrador, and that being the guiding principle.

Madam Speaker, one thing that we did not recommend in the report was

definitely not to have an Atlantic-wide access board. That would certainly not

serve the needs of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will

not serve the needs of the people of our Province, and we felt that recommending

a Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries management and development board

would be the preferred option for us because it would give us more input, more

direct say in what happens, and certainly a greater opportunity to participate

in any new and emerging fisheries and in any future quota allocations that could

take place.

The panel discusses the Aboriginal participation within the fishing industry.

Madam Speaker, this is obviously a very important component. I have been a

long-time supporter of Aboriginal rights and treaty rights and land claim rights

within our own Province, within Labrador, but I really feel there has to be a

balance, and that adjacency also applies to Aboriginal groups and it applies to

their rights to be able to participate in a fishery. I think that the Government

of Canada has set a number of precedents already in which they have used the

principle of adjacency as the ultimate principle in making any decision or

allocation, but they also have considered the rights of Aboriginal peoples.

In Labrador, for example, in Northern Labrador, where we have the Labrador

Inuit Association, there has been longtime standing agreements with the Inuit

people in which they were given allocations to be able to fish offshore quotas

of shrimp and are able to harvest that particular product, and they are adjacent

to the resource. They are probably closer to the resource than anyone else in

the Province. Also with regard to the Innu Nation, again the guiding principle

being adjacency, but also recognizing the right of Aboriginal people to be able

to access the resource. Two or three years ago the federal government set that

precedent by allocating an adjacent resource, an adjacent quota, to the Innu

Nation in Labrador whereby they could fish that resource and harvest it and

provide benefits to their own Aboriginal organization as a result of it.

The Labrador Mtis Nation have been diligently impressing upon the federal

government now for some time that they too should have an allocation of shrimp

as an Aboriginal organization. I fully support their efforts. Their arguments

are very legitimate. Again, they are a group who are directly adjacent to the

fishery resource, and if the federal government was using the same principles in

which they had made allocations to both the Inuit and the Innu of Labrador, they

would also make an allocation to the Mtis of Labrador.

So I think there is a very good example of a balance that has been created in

terms of allocating a species and quotas, a balance that has been created

between the principles of adjacency and recognizing the inherent right of our

First Peoples of this country, our Aboriginal peoples. So I think that precedent

is there. I think that we need to continue to work from that particular angle,

giving our Aboriginal peoples our full consideration from that particular angle.

In doing so, hopefully the federal government - and the message that I would

send to the federal government today is that the Labrador Mtis Nation should

be included as well, and they too should have an allocation that needs to be

looked at.

Madam Speaker, adjacency has long been the topic of conversation on the Coast

of Labrador. I can tell you, that growing up all I have heard in relation to the

fishery has been the principles of adjacency, and that is ensuring that people

and communities benefit from the resource. I can tell you, oftentimes in our

history, as it is today, it has always been frustrating for the communities and

the people on the Coast of Labrador. I go back a number of years and remember

the people of Black Tickle who always talked about when they would go to their

stages and it would be empty. They would have no quotas of fish, but they would

look out off the shore in the nighttime and they would see the vessels lit up

outside the islands. It was like a small city on the water.

This is the frustration that those people experience, living adjacent to a

resource that they had absolutely no access to. I do not think that it is right.

We live in a country where we should honour and protect the rights of adjacency.

It should be a guiding principle in terms of developing the communities around

our country. I do not think that any community, in this day and age, should have

a government manage a resource for them in which they manage it outside of the

benefits that could accrue to their immediate communities or their particular

area. It has been very frustrating for people, I am sure all throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada. But, I can tell you, growing up

on the Coast of Labrador, it was always an issue. I remember from a very young

age going out to meetings, fishermen's meetings, and they would always talk

about adjacency; whether it was in relation to cod or crab or scallop or shrimp.

It did not really matter the species - turbot. It was always the discussion and

it was always the topic. Madam Speaker, people always looked for that security.

They see it as a sense of security in terms of protecting their resource, and it

is indeed.

When I look at this map which outlines the shrimp fishing areas throughout

our Province, and I look in Area 6 where I think today out of 50,000 tons of

shrimp that is being landed in our Province by the mid-shore and inshore fleet,

41,000 tons of that shrimp is coming from this immediate area right off the

Coast of Labrador. I can tell you that without that kind of resource at our

fingertips and having access to that kind of quota, we would certainly see a lot

of people in this Province without employment and a lot of communities without

people. I look at the shrimp areas and I often say it is almost unbelievable to

know that there was something like 100,000 tons of shrimp being taken in the

waters off our Province and most of it adjacent to the shores of Labrador, and

we only got our first shrimp plant a year ago. So, I tell you that adjacent to

the resource does not always constitute economic wealth. You have the advantage

to make something work for you. That is what we were able to do with building

the shrimp plant in Charlottetown last year and being able to land some of that

product there and then create some jobs.

Madam Speaker, back about twenty years ago, I guess, the fisherpeople in

Labrador, when they set up the Labrador Fisherman's Union Shrimp Company,

their only means of survival at that particular time - and it has certainly

brought them to the level that they are today - had been the principle of

adjacency and their ability to be able to access large quotas of shrimp in the

northern areas, the northern shrimp fishing areas of Labrador. Without that

access to that northern shrimp, Madam Speaker, they would not have been able to

build the company that they have built today. They certainly would not have been

able to create the employment and be able to supplement the fishing enterprises

in the way in which they have.

Madam Speaker, the Labrador Fisherman's Union Shrimp Company is a perfect

example of how adjacency to a resource, being able to access that resource, and

making the appropriate investments for the communities in which you live. It is

a perfect example of how a fisheries management, in that particular way, has

benefitted a large number of people and communities. I am sure that there are

many other ways. There are other ways where you can provide even more benefit.

But, I know in this particular case, when the shrimp company first became

established - and although those quotas were offshore quotas with offshore

licenses as opposed to inshore - they were able to hire Labrador fishers to fish

offshore on those boats. They were able to sell the shrimp into the marketplace

and reinvest the income from the product back into communities. That was

certainly what built the crab plant up in Cartwright which employs about 150

people today. It built the crab plant in Mary's Harbour which employs about

160 people today, and it built the plant in L'Anse au Loup, a groundfish

plant, which employs over 200 people today.

Madam Speaker, these are the kinds of investments that this company has been

able to make into one small area of the Province to create employment.

Obviously, there are many more other things that they were able to do with this

capital and this investment. It just shows the benefits that adjacency can bring

to communities. The same is the case in Northern Labrador where the Labrador

Inuit Association, an Aboriginal organization, who access quota because of

adjacency and because of their inherent right to be able to do so, and how their

investments are being put back into the communities to build employment and to

build the local economy to sustain people.

I think it is very unfortunate that we have to subject ourselves even to this

kind of a debate or argumentation or presentation to the federal government. I

think it is absolutely unfortunate that they do not understand the industry from

the perspective that we do in Newfoundland and Labrador and realize the

necessity of being able to have access to the stock in order to sustain the

economy of our entire Province, Madam Speaker, not just one area like the area

that I represent, or the area the Member for Bonavista represents, or the Member

for Twillingate & Fogo, or The Straits & White Bay North; but the

Province as a whole, Madam Speaker, depends upon how these quotas are allocated,

how they distributed, and how the investments are reinvested for the benefit of

the people in our Province. It is unfortunate that we have to go knocking on

doors pleading the panels, pleading to them with report after report, submission

after submission, debate after debate, resolution after resolution, in this

House to educate them to help them understand the management of this industry

and how important it is to our people, but it seems to be the trend. It seems to

be the practice that we have to take upon ourselves each and every day and even

just this past few months in the House of Assembly, I think, we have had

something like three resolutions regarding the fishery calling upon the federal

government to do one thing or another thing. Whether it is to pay more attention

to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, whether it is to deal with the foreign

overfishing, whether it is to deal with vessel size regulations, whether it is

to deal with adjacency, whether it is to appoint a panel to review the criteria

for allocations within our Province. It seems that all the time we have to be

bringing resolutions to this House to go to Ottawa to address these issues and

to put these issues forward. That is really unfortunate.

When you consider the history that we have as a Province within this

industry, our history probably stems back further into the fishery - and of

course it does - than anywhere else in the country, anywhere else in Atlantic

Canada.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to clue up my comments?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Obviously, it just goes to show that we don't always have the people in

Ottawa acting in our best interests, and on what we say. It is unfortunate that

we have to keep pushing the issue, but we do have to keep pushing the issue, Mr.

Speaker, because our communities depend upon it, our livelihoods depend upon it,

and our mere existence as a Province depends upon it. We can look at all the new

industry that we want, but we cannot let the fishery of this Province fall by

the wayside, be governed and dictated to by people with little or no

understanding of how it should be managed and how it should be distributed.

I want to applaud the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. This is a

good resolution that he has brought forward. I think it is important. Although

we have to do it over and over again, it is important to keep doing it. I am

glad that he has brought this forward today, because I can tell you, without the

guiding principles of adjacency being addressed and looked at first and

foremost, within the distribution of quota by the federal government of our

country, our Province is definitely at a disadvantage, Mr. Speaker. We, the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, will be the people who will suffer at the

end of the day, not the people in Ottawa. I think we have seen that time and

time again, as we have dealt with issues around the fishery.

So, it doesn't matter if it is an issue as big as foreign overfishing, or

an issue directly related to a fisherman, as vessel size regulations, it just

seems our message is not getting through, and we are not being heard. I think,

collectively, we have to stay together, work together, speak together, as one

voice in Newfoundland and Labrador to try and change that. Mr. Speaker, I, for

one, will certainly do my part to see that that happens, not only because my

district depends upon this, but because all of us in this Province depend upon

it.

Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I want to say that I support the motion as

put forward by the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and the

amendments that have been proposed by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. I

think it is a good resolution, and I certainly encourage all the people in this

House to support this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I understand the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi wants to get up, and he

will have some time in a little while, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to rise today, Mr. Speaker, to speak to this particular

motion put forward by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and

compliment him for bringing this forward today, and really, I guess, putting

forward what we believe, as a party on this side of the House, where this should

go. I think it was said by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, in

the can. That is how he pronounced it.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, this particular motion has hit a nerve with a lot of

people over the years throughout this Province. I guess what sort of highlighted

it all, or got it back to people thinking this way again, was just a

year-and-a-half or two years ago, when the situation in this Province again

where people saw a 1,500 ton shrimp allocation to Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Speaker, the history of the fishery in this Province has been highlighted

by the way that this Province has been treated by the federal government

throughout our history. Throughout the fifty-two years of joining this country,

many people in this Province, especially people involved in the fishery, have

always had a problem with how we have been treated at the end of the day, or

managed, I should say, by our federal national government. That is what it all

comes down to.

As you read the resolution put forward here today, it simply says this panel,

this independent panel: is proposing that Aboriginal rights and regional equity

replace adjacency as the primary consideration in allocating fishing quotas.

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not going to work. We all know that, as the

minister pointed out, and rightly so, earlier today, places like P.E.I., New

Brunswick and Nova Scotia, they are not worried when you go fifty or 100 miles

from their shore when they are okay with the lobster catches, crab catches,

whatever the species, because they know adjacency does not mean a lot to them

because outside of that it is not important. But, it is important to this

Province. Year after year we seem to be battling the same thing over and over

again. This is not a time, as the member mentioned earlier, about knocking on

doors with committees and pleading. The word is not pleading this time. This

time it has to be a demand. It has to be at a point when this Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador says: That is it. The jig is up. This has to stop

here.

What the Member from The Straits & White Bay North is talking about is

closing the door shut, not leaving any possibility. Actually, the minister

referred to it earlier when he talked about the criteria that was listed. He

said they listed, and I think FANL was involved, the unions and the Federation

of Municipalities, that they listed the criteria of adjacency, historical

attachment, and economical viability, in that order. They listed in that order

on behalf of this Province, but it seemed that what they thought might have been

a small change is that adjacency did not end up as a priority. Adjacency was not

at the top of the list. Well, Mr. Speaker, it has to be. That is what we are

demanding in this motion, that this particular report notice the word adjacency

as the number one. If we do not do that, we are going to have a lot of problems

down the road.

As the Member from Bonavista South po