May 14, 2003 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 22

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to

the Speaker's gallery today from the Energy Council of America: Chair, Mr. Jim

Ellington, from the Mississippi House of Representatives; Past-Chair, Mr. Matt

Smith, from the Colorado House of Representatives, and Mrs. Smith; and the

Council Executive Director, Ms Lori Cameron.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Women's Juvenile

Volleyball Team from Queen Elizabeth High School in Foxtrap.

This team, under the guidance of Mr. Terry Mosher, the 2002 Canadian

Volleyball Coach of the Year, recently attended the National Juvenile

Championships in Saskatoon.

It is worthy to note that this is said to be one of the strongest teams ever

to leave this Province for a National Volleyball Championship.

Their caliber of play is certainly evident in their 186 wins and ten losses

in route to winning twenty-six school banners or gold medals in the last three

years.

In Saskatoon, the girls posted a six and three record to claim the Division

2, Tier 3 Championship. The team went undefeated in play Sunday past, defeating

the Alberta Blazers in the semi-final and beating Nova Scotia Provincial

Champions 25-19 and 25-15 to claim the gold medal.

I would like all hon. members to join with me in congratulating team members:

Kathryn Byrne, Lacey Haines, Michelle Harvey, Kayte Inkpen, Rhiannon Morgan,

Natasha Noseworthy, Krista Parsons, Gabby Peyton, Shalanda Phillips, Erica

Simms, Melissa Smith, and Coach Terry Mosher on a remarkable accomplishment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Brad

Peyton, originally from Gander, who will be working with Hollywood actor Tom

Hanks' production company, Playtone, to write and direct a feature film

called, The Spider and the Fly .

Mr. Peyton recently received a Grand Jury Award at the NoDance Film Festival

in Park City, Utah, for his nine minutes film, Evelyn: The Cutest Evil Dead

Girl .

Mr. Peyton produced, wrote and directed the film himself and has demonstrated

an incredible amount of enthusiasm and artistic initiative.

Mr. Peyton's film, a short dark comedy, was not the first film he has

produced, but the second. Both films have garnered him much attention, including

a recent write-up in the Canadian Film Industry Magazine, Take One: Film and

Television in Canada and The National Post .

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Peyton is another example of how Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians can succeed in any endeavour, especially film making. It is a true

testament that we have the talent to build our local film industry, as long as

there is support. On behalf of all members of the House, I congratulate Mr.

Peyton for this new film project with Tom Hanks' production company and his

receiving a Grand Jury Award at the Nodance Film Festival.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today we have heard that there is an emergency meeting between our federal

minister in the federal government, other Liberal MPs, and Minister Jane Stewart

for Human Resources, responsible for EI, Stphane Dion, the Intergovernmental

Affairs Minister, and the federal Minister of Fisheries.

I wanted to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker, or the Fisheries Ministers: Are

they aware that these meetings are taking place? Have they been involved in the

discussions? Have they been briefed on what the outcome will be? And, if so,

could they inform the House please?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we are fully aware of the meetings that are taking place in Ottawa at

noon today with those ministers, along with Minister Manley, by the way. I

understand he is going to be at that meeting as well, and the MPs from

Newfoundland and Labrador. They know our position on this, Mr. Speaker. We have

made it quite known in the public, in Ottawa, to each of the members and

ministers who are involved in the discussions today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, when the minister made a statement in the House yesterday she

talked about early retirement. I would assume that the minister has done some

analysis and government has, at its disposal and fingertips, analysis of how

many people it believes should be reduced from the industry.

I want to ask the minister: Have you done that analysis? How many people do

you believe should be reduced from the industry? And what specific proposals did

the minister make on behalf of government to the federal government recently in

her trip to Ottawa?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly would not speculate as to what the take-up would be on either

component of a program for licence buyback and early retirement, if it was to

become available, Mr. Speaker. I can honestly say that in terms of what the

eligibility would have been for those programs in the past, we have crunched

some numbers as it relates to the industry today and we have done some analysis

around that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the minister said they have done

some analysis based upon what the early retirement programs were in the past. We

all know that the Premier was part of a government in the past which rejected

early retirement for those people below the age of fifty-five.

I want to ask the minister this question, Mr. Speaker: What specific proposal

have you put forward to the federal government relating to early retirement? If

it does come, and we all believe it will and hope it will, it will be a

federal-provincial shared responsibility. Can the minister enlighten us or

inform the House and thus the people of the Province, particularly those who

will be impacted and affected by this decision, exactly what criteria her and

her government have proposed to the federal government for early retirement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think what the hon. member has to understand and realize is that, as it is

today, there is no program for early retirement or for voluntary licence

buyback. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we are three weeks into this and only now have we

even gotten an agreement that they will put these particular components on the

table for discussion.

What I say to the hon. member is this: If and when there is a program, this

government will be ready. We will have our homework done. Actually, as I said,

we have already started analysis on it. We will be at the table, Mr. Speaker, so

when there is a program then we will have something to talk about; but the

reality is that we want a fishery, we want to see this fishery open, we maintain

that position, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: - and while we maintain that position we also realize, Mr.

Speaker, that there has to be a reduction in the capacity within the industry

and we are prepared to work with the federal government to see that implemented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we all realize there is no program. It does not take a rocket

scientist to figure that out today. The question centred around what proposals

have the provincial government, through the Department of Fisheries, made to the

federal government in terms of criteria for early retirement? The minister is

clearly not going to answer the question, so I am not going to belabour the

issue.

Mr. Speaker, this issue, the recent decision by the federal government, its

complete indifference, its arrogance to the people of the Province have led to a

resolution that we are going to discuss this afternoon, as proposed by the

Premier.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Minister of Intergovernmental

Affairs admitted that he has had no discussions with any of his provincial

counterparts. What I would like to ask the Premier is this question: Can he tell

us about his discussions with Gordon Campbell, the Premier of British Columbia;

Jean Charest, the Premier of Quebec; John Hamm, the Premier of Nova Scotia; Pat

Binns, the Premier of Prince Edward Island; and Bernard Lord, the Premier of New

Brunswick, which are all coastal states.

Can he tell us about the conversations that he has had with his counterparts

on amending the Constitution? If he can, tell us when he had those

conversations, and does he have their support?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we indicated yesterday, we, on this side of the House, have enough respect

for the democratic institutions, such as the House of Assembly, that we would

not go into detailed discussions with anyone and presume the outcome of a debate

and a vote that is going to happen today. We have that much respect for our

parliamentary institutions, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is I have spoken to these people and given them an

advance notice of the type of resolution that we are going to debate today. I

have indicated that I expect and hope that we will have unanimous support for

the initiative put forward by this government, that I am so proud to lead, and

then we will go into the details with them as to exactly what it is we envisage

unfolding in the next several months.

With respect to the issues that were questioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, on the

type of program that may or may not be in place after today - we hope there is a

program, some compensation issues to go along with an opened, limited,

sustainable fishery.

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who does not want to put forward a

position on anything, maybe the Opposition House Leader - rather than ask a

question about: What are the components that you put forward? Maybe he would

like to suggest - because he did mention an age limit, for example, for early

retirement - to us what the position of the Official Opposition is as to whether

retirement age should be fifty-five like it was in the past, or are they trying

to suggest that they think it should be an age lower than fifty-five?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Instead of asking questions, Mr. Speaker, there is a

golden opportunity for them to finally state to the people of the Province

something about what they believe should happen instead of trying to be critical

of the things we are trying to do to protect and defend Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, two things: First of all, we are not going to apologize in this

House for asking questions on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, nor are we going to take the view that before we

stand in Question Period we should vet our questions through the eighth floor of

the Premier's Office. That is not going to happen, Premier, not today or any

other time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, just before the last

sovereignty referendum in Quebec -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: This is an important issue, Mr. Speaker.

of questions to the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify the obligation of the

national government if Quebec, or any other province, proposed amendments to the

Constitution. The court said, in its opinion, that the Constitution Act of 1982

gives every province a right to initiate changes to the Constitution and there

is a corresponding duty to all other participants in the Confederation,

including the federal government, to engage in Constitutional discussions. Is

the Premier aware that once we pass this resolution - and again I predict, as I

did last week, as I did yesterday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - that this will pass unanimously. Is he aware that when we

irrespective of Mr. Chrtien's attitude, or Mr. Dion's attitude towards

this place, that they will have no choice but to engage in such Constitutional

discussions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, we were very aware of the secession case that was put to the

the clarity bill. We were very well aware of that. The question is, I think,

that should be asked: Is the Prime Minister aware of that? Because he suggested

that it does not matter what we do in this Legislature. This is the insult to

Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the insult to any supposed respected partner

in Canada, that we have a right, a democratic right, and a responsibility that

we will exercise today to pass a resolution saying we want to begin a

Terms of Union, and about the Constitution that we willing signed onto in 1949.

The question is: Does the Prime Minister of the country understand the

responsibility? I think the language in the actual bill, as I understood it, was

the reciprocal duty to engage in the negotiation at the request of any one of

the partners. Did he understand that when he stood up and said in Calgary: I am

only here for nine months. I am glad I haven't talked about the Constitution

in the last ten years and I don't intend to talk about it in the next nine

months.

The question is one that we have already put to the Prime Minister in the

last few days, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not he understands. We fully

understand. That is why I have been saying in the public that we will not be

deterred in Newfoundland and Labrador, we will have our say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, there is very little disagreement on the complete and absolute

arrogance and dismissive attitude, not only of the Prime Minister and his

federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, but the culture and attitude of the

federal public service to this place itself. No disagreement on that whatsoever.

My question to the Premier is this. But before I ask it, the Supreme Court

decision, as he indicates that he has, and I am sure that he does, as does, I am

sure, his Minister of Justice, further states that when one participant in the

Confederation, namely us, Newfoundland and Labrador, seeks an amendment to the

Constitution all other parties in Confederation are obligated, irrespective of

their colonial attitudes and ignorant attitudes to this place, they are

obligated under the law, Mr. Speaker, to come to the table and discuss it.

In light of these binding obligations, Mr. Speaker, on the Government of

Canada and other provinces and territories to discuss the constitutional

amendment, I would like to ask the Premier this question: Once we pass this

resolution in this House today, will he send that immediately to all other

provinces, will he send it immediately to the Prime Minister, and invite them to

a constitutional conference talking about renegotiating the Terms of Union for

Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that in asking this question the Opposition House Leader, Mr.

Speaker, answered the question he asked before. His previous question was: Did

we know about the reciprocal obligation? Then he stood up and said: Well, I am

sure you have the case, and I know that you know. So, I don't know why he

asked the question before, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me point out this: What we plan to do today, after the

debate that we will have commencing shortly, is to follow the instructions that

we are asking permission to follow in the resolution itself. The resolution does

not say:

BE IT RESOLVED that we immediately invite everyone to a constitutional

conference.

I will read it now, because we are going to debate it shortly. It says: BE IT

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to, not call a constitutional conference

which you just suggested, but to begin negotiations leading to the establishment

of a joint management regime over the fisheries adjacent to Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is the resolution.

Maybe he is suggesting by his question, Mr. Speaker, that he is going to move

an amendment today. If he wants to move an amendment suggesting that he wants a

vote today on demanding that there be a constitutional conference immediately,

so be it. We are going to have the resolution in a few minutes. We propose this

resolution, as the government. It says to begin the process, and we hope to have

the authority of the House today, to begin the process of negotiations leading

to the establishment of a joint management regime, and in those negotiations

such joint management regime would, through an amendment of the Terms of Union,

have some constitutional reinforcement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: We intend to follow the outline in the resolution if it

is passed within the next few hours, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a distinct difference, I suppose, in what was just

talked about. Once this House passes a resolution and it is sent, the obligation

under the 1982 Constitution, as clarified by the Supreme Court when asked to

clarify it, that any province can open up a discussion. It is an obligation. It

is a right that we have enshrined.

If we are serious about it, truly serious about it, then what would be

stopping us once we passed that resolution to begin that process? What would

stop us from beginning it? Secondly, in the Premier's own words, the current

Prime Minister and current federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have

laughed it off. So, how successful are we going to be with those two jokers at

the head of the table negotiating with us?

The question is this: If we immediately begin the process, we are obligated,

and the federal government is obligated, as every other province in Canada is

obligated, so why would we not proceed on that front?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have laid out a well-thought-out approach to this in the resolution that

is before the House today, which says we would begin a negotiation. The end

objective here is to have joint management over the fishery resource:

Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada. That is the objective. The steps to be

followed are to look at changing the Terms of Union, having the Constitution

changed to enshrine it in the Constitution if that is achievable.

Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe the Opposition House Leader should check with his

party leader, who has said as recently as their annual convention in Corner

Brook, because he was criticizing my rather tough approach and said: We should

co-operatively, because the Premier's hard stance is not having that great an

effect. We should have a more respectful relationship with the Government of

Canada.

That is his speech that they all cheered just a couple of weekends ago, and

now he is here suggesting: Don't even start a negotiation. Go up and demand

your place at a constitutional table.

I guess that is a slightly different approach. Maybe they will have a caucus

about this later and figure out what their real position is. Our position is

clear. It is in the resolution that we will begin debate on in a few minutes,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary.

In light of the binding obligations - because that is what they are, Mr.

Speaker, I say to the Premier and government - in light of the binding

obligations spelled out by the Supreme Court of Canada, I believe it is proper

to ask by what moral, political, legal, or constitutional right does Prime

Minister Chrtien or Minister Dion purport to have to stonewall the very

legitimate, democratic and political right that this Province has? They do not

have that right.

I ask the Premier this question: In view of the fact that they do not have

that right, why would we in our own Legislature not exercise that very right?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Opposition House Leader wanting to appear to be very

aggressive and tough today, and very determined with respect to this, but again,

Mr. Speaker, maybe he should think again about his words.

If we are going to pass a resolution today, that he suggests we are, that

sure that he would suggest that it is great to call up and say: Oh, hello

jokers, Prime Minister and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister. Hello, you

jokers. I would like to have a negotiation now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: Your words. Your words, not my words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Your words. Mr. Speaker, his words, not mine.

I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that maybe he should check with the lawyers

that are in his own caucus, because we know and we have the legal opinions, and

we have had them for some time, that suggest exactly what he says, that there is

a reciprocal obligation to engage. But, we also know - and he should check - and

his colleague next to him is telling him right now, that the Government of

suggest that reciprocal obligation only applies to a secession motion, and that

there is a basis on which they can try to deny us if they like.

We are saying we will not be denied, there is no basis on which they can deny

us, but that is not our first demand. Our first demand is to deal with the

spirit of the resolution, which is: engage in a negotiation, look at changing

the Terms of Union, change the Constitution, and it all happens in good order,

in time, through a process that is well thought out. Instead of trying to beat

our chests today and suggest we are really tough, we are really mean - they are

a bunch of jokers and we are going to say: Hello, jokers, we are coming up and

you better start talking to us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has often indicated that our economic performance is due to a

strategic economic plan in our Province. On May 5, the Government House Leader

said: The economic visions and plans of the government are clearly documented in

a Strategic Economic Plan, which was unveiled in 1992 by then Premier, Clyde

Wells. Now that is the best his current government has to offer the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador in 2003. It is a plan with an eleven year record of

failure.

I want to ask the Premier: How can he defend an economic policy that saw the

biggest out-migration of people in our history, that downsized our population by

10 per cent, the biggest downsizing in the western world since the Irish

famines?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it speaks to attitude with respect to the type of question that is

asked. Mr. Speaker, rather than be happy and be pleased that out-migration in

the Province today is slowing and almost stopped, rather than be pleased that a

plan that was put in place, started some ten years ago, but as in the resolution

today - if he has read it - the updated version, which was done only a couple of

years ago, Securing our Future: The Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth, in

case he missed that event. There were consultations all over Newfoundland and

Labrador, in every region of Province.

There was an updating, I think, with seventy or eighty recommendations that

came from the people of Newfoundland and Labrador about how to grow and

diversify our economy in all regions of the Island and Labrador. It is because

of that new plan, which built on the already succeeding previous plan, that we

have had just about a total end to out-migration. We have some of the lowest

social assistance rates in the history of the Province. We have record

employment rates, since they have been keeping statistics in the 1970s. Mr.

Speaker, more people are working in the Province than ever in recorded history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: And he wants to get up and talk about a plan. They say:

We have a plan. We might show it to you in election, but between now and then

you better just trust me. There is a plan for you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

Not only did more than 60,000 people leave our Province, but those who stayed

behind did not fair very well from this government's economic policy.

The latest report from Stats Canada reveals that incomes in Newfoundland and

Labrador have not kept pace with the cost of living. In fact, the medium income

in this Province has declined by 3.7 per cent since 1990, the biggest decline in

the entire country.

I want to ask the Premier: How will he defend the economic policies that have

made Newfoundland and Labrador poorer, relative to the rest of this country,

than they were eleven years ago?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) glass half full or half empty?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I say to the Member for Bonavista South, our glasses are

always half full over here, Mr. Speaker. No difficulty.

I can also say, in response to the question, Mr. Speaker, the facts are

clear. This government just recently signed collective agreements that gave our

public sector employees a 15 per cent increase.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, our personal income tax has never been

higher. It shows that the people of the Province have confidence. They are

putting the money back into our economy. We have been able to grow our personal

income tax and our economy by over $100 million every year. And I know it kills

them, but the facts are there, Mr. Speaker. We are proud of our record. We have

no difficulty.

Mr. Speaker, one more important thing: Our plan is clear. We are still

waiting to see the peekaboo plan over there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe Stats Canada's figures any day over yours, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Stats Canada revealed another alarming statistic about the

growing poverty in this Province relative to the rest of the country, when 14.3

per cent of the average income in this Province comes from federal and

provincial government programs, such as EI and welfare payments. That is the

highest in this country. Even the recent equated territory of Nunavut is less

dependent on government transfers.

I want to ask the Premier, how does he defend economic policies that have

made Newfoundland and Labrador more dependent on government transfers than ever

before in our history?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the facts. The facts are

that my statistics and our statistics, even though he does not like them, are

from Stats Canada. That is what we are giving out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: They are not our own statistics. Now, they are not the

ones he would like to hear.

Mr. Speaker, for his own health I am not even going to mention the GDP today,

because I know he cannot stand that, but I will say we always hear about the

doom and gloom, and he talks about so many things. He will never stand in this

House and say: Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have the highest percentage of

home ownership in the country - because that is something which is also a fact,

Mr. Speaker.

I can say time and time again, our plan is clear, our plan is to grow the

economy. The only plan that they have acknowledged, finally, the Member for

Conception Bay South, was the Marshall plan. What is the Marshall plan? Cut,

slash and burn.

Our plan is to continue to grow our economy. We do not need to connect the

dots for the people in the Province anymore. The people of the Province have

connected the dots on the Marshall plan and who has created it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The resolution on the proposed change to the Constitution today, and the

Premier's words in the House this afternoon in response to questions is that

management. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the other day he said that he wanted to sue the

him while he is in court suing them for negligence for the past fifty years?

What kind of strategy is that, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the question, and I think

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would like to know that the members

opposite laughed raucously. They thought it was the funniest thing in the world,

Mr. Speaker.

I tell you this, and let me explain why we will take action on both fronts,

Mr. Speaker, because the resolution today, the resolution that we will have a

serious debate about in just a few minutes, is a very serious issue about the

future. It is all about the future, and I think they are nodding, Mr. Speaker.

They recognize and acknowledge that this resolution has nothing to do with the

past. It is about the future. It is about having a say jointly about what will

happen from now on, and that is the negotiation that this House, I would expect,

will give us the instruction to begin today.

Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, is the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

now suggesting that we should just forget about the disaster of the last

fifty-four years, in which the mismanagement by the federal government has led

to the circumstance that we are in today?

Those people understand fully that they should be held accountable and

responsible for their mismanagement. They have been negligent. I even heard the

words out of the lips and mouth of the Leader of the Opposition just a couple of

days ago, that they are negligent. He is a lawyer. He is advising everybody that

there is negligence here. The member who just rose says there is negligence

here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Do we ignore negligence for the last fifty-four years

because we are going to negotiate about the future? Not this group, Mr. Speaker.

We are going to do both.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier earlier suggested that he might get nowhere with Ottawa if he

talked rudely on the telephone to the Prime Minister. Now he is saying we can

successfully pursue a course of action by suing them in the courts for

negligence and negotiate with them properly as well.

Mr. Speaker, my experience has been - will the Premier be surprised if the

that is what happens?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely nothing. I have seen just about everything in the fourteen years that

I have been involved in politics at the federal-provincial level, but I can tell

you this. There is no question, and I will say it again, the Government of

Canada will take whatever positions they want to take. There are two things that

will be clear. I believe that in a matter of a few hours we will have the

support and the resolution and the resolve of this House to begin a negotiation

about the future, and the government will also, because we will feel obligated

to do so.

If the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi wants to go out and explain to the

fisherfolk and the plant workers of Newfoundland and Labrador why we are not

going to do anything about it, the neglect of the last fifty-four years, he can

go and make that speech. We are going to do both, Mr. Speaker. We are going to

do both at the same time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

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

In response to a question yesterday by the Opposition House Leader on the

breakdown of the recoveries on loans and advances under Activity 1.1.06, there

was a question concerning the breakdown of the interest owing to the Province

that is being collected currently through the Department of Industry, Trade and

Rural Development. Excluding the equity interests, loans receivable under

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, $47.2 million; under the Fisheries Loan

Board, outstanding loans to be received $14 million; and Farm Development Loan

Board, $6.4 million, for a total of $89.6 million.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It being Wednesday we will go to the Orders of the Day and

we are dealing with the resolution presented by the hon. the Premier.

Private Members' Day

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I just want to advise all members of the House and

the viewing public that, although this is a government resolution, there is

agreement on all sides by the Opposition House Leader and by the Leader of the

NDP that we do this resolution under the rules of Private Members' Day.

We have agreed that there would be four speakers from each side, excluding -

four from each side and the Leader of the NDP, and that the times would be the

same times as we have in Private Members' Day.

We would just like for the Chair to ensure that the members stick to the

fifteen minutes. We do this to avoid a prolonged and protracted debate, because

it appears that everybody agrees and hence the agreement by the three parties.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because of the importance of this particular resolution, I will take the

first couple of minutes of my fifteen minutes allotted to again officially, even

though it is on the Order Paper, I think it is worth again reading the

resolution into the record, the resolution that will be debated and hopefully

supported and passed here today.

Mr. Speaker, I move, on behalf of the government, the following resolution:

WHEREAS the seacoast fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador were brought into

this nation with Newfoundland and Labrador's accession to Canada; and

WHEREAS the Government of the Dominion of Newfoundland held and exercised

responsibility for the management of seacoast fisheries prior to Confederation;

and

exclusive authority over the fishery; and

WHEREAS under current International Law an independent Newfoundland and

Labrador would control its adjacent resources including the fishery; and

WHEREAS federal management of seacoast fisheries since 1949 has failed to

adequately protect or develop the principal fisheries adjacent to Newfoundland

and Labrador; and

WHEREAS failed federal fisheries management has led to the complete collapse

of the Northern Cod fishery and other ground fish stocks, the basis for

Newfoundland's colonization and the mainstay of its economy for 500 years; and

WHEREAS the federal government has failed to adopt a comprehensive plan for

stock recovery since the groundfish moratoria were declared in the early 1990s;

and

WHEREAS it is recognized and accepted that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador has maintained and continues to exercise primary regulatory authority

over the fish processing industry in this Province; and

WHEREAS new fisheries for species such as crab and shrimp have developed in

the wake of the collapse of ground fish stocks and solid, sustainable management

practices are vital to the future of these fisheries; and

WHEREAS it is accepted that the regulation of fish harvesting and processing

should occur in a seamless and integrated way; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has consistently

requested a greater say in fisheries management since 1949 and has identified

this as a priority in Securing our Future: The Renewal Strategy for Jobs and

Growth ; and

WHEREAS the fishery remains an economic mainstay and principal industry of

Newfoundland and Labrador and the economic and social foundation of most of its

rural communities; and

WHEREAS federal management of fisheries adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador

does not give due regard to local experience and considerations; and

WHEREAS the advice of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC),

which was established to integrate practical knowledge derived from local

experience and scientific information on resources, has been largely ignored in

the federal government's recent declaration of a moratorium for 4RS3Pn Gulf

cod; and

cod and 4RS3Pn Gulf cod were undertaken without proper consultation with the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people who depend upon these

resources and with disregard for the recommendations of the Fisheries Resource

Conservation Council; and

WHEREAS these decisions have further undermined the confidence of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the effectiveness of federal fisheries

management; and

WHEREAS other provinces control their main resource industries; and

WHEREAS significant and decisive action is required to address this concern;

direct the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to begin negotiations leading

to the establishment of a joint management regime over the fisheries adjacent to

Newfoundland and Labrador;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the principal elements of such a joint

management regime include

(1) the establishment, through an amendment of the Terms of Union, of shared,

equal, constitutional authority by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and

Canada over the fisheries adjacent to the province;

(2) the establishment through an amendment of the Terms of Union of a joint

fisheries management board and the delegation to that board by the governments

of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada of sufficient of their authority to

permit that board to successfully implement this joint management regime;

(3) the development and implementation of a conservation and re-building plan

aimed at the achievement of long-term sustainability of the fisheries in the

waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador and in particular a plan that would

achieve the recovery of the ground fish stocks;

(4) the development and implementation of fisheries harvesting plants,

including the establishment of Total Allowable Catches, based on the principles

of conservation, sustainability, adjacency and the long-term well-being of the

fishing communities of rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

As well, Mr. Speaker, that one of the principal elements of such a joint

management regime include

(5) the establishment of programs in Newfoundland and Labrador to enhance

knowledge and understanding of the ocean ecosystems adjacent to Newfoundland and

Labrador through the encouragement and support of scientific research and the

utilization of customary and experiential knowledge of the fisheries possessed

by fish harvesters.

Mr. Speaker, as was indicated earlier, it was fifty-four years ago, in March

past, that the separate and distinct Dominion of Newfoundland ceased to exist by

a democratic choice of our people and became the youngest province of the great

Country of Canada. Mr. Speaker, up to that point in time, for the 450 years of

our settled time here, the aboriginals being here centuries before that, the

government of the Dominion of Newfoundland held and exercised responsibility for

management of the seacoast fisheries. Confederation, our voluntary entry into

Confederation, Mr. Speaker, changed that and the responsibility for management

has had exclusive authority over fishery management decisions since that time,

since 1949.

We suggest - and I think everybody here knows, Mr. Speaker, in this

Legislature and in this great Province of ours, that with the authority also

came responsibilities. There are always responsibilities that come with the

exercise of authority. Those responsibilities were several. The responsibility

of exercising sound stewardship of the fisheries resources, not just cod, but

all of the fisheries resources. The responsibility of exercising sound

management decisions that took into account the principles of adjacency and our

historical dependence on these very natural resources that we brought into this

great country of Canada with us. The responsibility to ensure that fish

management decisions take into account conservation measures to ensure that fish

stocks are not, and were not, overfished.

Mr. Speaker, most importantly, the responsibility as well, to ensure that all

of its management decisions took into account the impacts on the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador that brought access to this great resource into Canada

with us. Otherwise, we would still be the Dominion of Newfoundland and we would

still be exercising both the responsibility - and we would have the

accountability and the authority and the responsibility ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, our assessment is clear, and I think it is shared by members of

this Legislature. Federal fisheries management of our fishery, in our view,

since 1949 has been a failure. Many times in the past fifty-four years - and

others will probably speak to it today. We have recognized circumstance and

circumstances in that fifty-four years of history where our fish resources have

been used as bargaining tools for other Canadian priorities that were deemed to

be greater than those here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Sadly, Mr. Speaker, a higher priority was sometimes given

to foreign policy, as important as it is, and other international trade

considerations than it was to the very people of this Province who brought the

resource with them and depend upon its existence for their continued

sustainability as a people - not only the resource, but as a people in their

communities.

As a result, as well, there have been years of foreign overfishing of

straddling stocks. I do not doubt, not for a minute, like most Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, that that was a significant contributing factor in the severe

decline and non-recovery of the Northern cod on the Northeast Coast. This stock

- the stock upon which the Province was founded in the first instance; the stock

in which rural Newfoundland and Labrador depends upon; the stock that is

considered to be the birthright of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian was

allowed to dwindle and almost disappear completely before any action was taken

against foreign overfishing, whatsoever.

So, Mr. Speaker, we submit, and I submit, that the policies of the last

fifty-four years have failed. They have failed the fish and they have failed the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, it is clear as well, and I submit that

action was only taken when it was on foreign overfishing because the government

of this Province, governments prior to the one that I lead, implemented a

sustained information campaign on international foreign overfishing that opened

the eyes of the world to the pillage that was going on in the rich fishing

grounds off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador and the pending

ecological disaster that was occurring off our shores. It was this government

that led the campaign that went to the United Nations in New York and made the

presentations - made presentations around the world about what was happening to

the stocks here. Only after that campaign, led by the people and the government

respect to putting some limits on foreign overfishing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: One other very important issue. Mr. Speaker, while the

Northern cod stock - just to name that one stock - was shrinking to dangerously

low levels and the federal manager was saying: No, go ahead and fish it. Even

though Newfoundland and Labrador fish harvesters were saying: we have to set

more nets, we have to go further, the catch rates are lower, there is something

wrong. They said: no, our science says there is lots of fish, just go fish

harder. That is what DFO, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, said, Mr.

Speaker.

One other factor, very much linked to it that everybody in Newfoundland and

Labrador is aware of, while this cod stock was shrinking the harp seal

population was allowed to grow and grow to record numbers, numbers never seen or

heard of in the history of this part of Canada. Grow it did, Mr. Speaker, to the

point that there was an obvious ecological imbalance that had to be addressed.

What was done about the seals? Nothing, because there was some resistance and

there were other groups protesting about that. No plan to fully utilize the

totality of a seal harvest, provide food, provide other sources, oil, so that

the full product could be utilized and meet needs in the world; backing away

from some pressure. No action on seals, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever. Very

little action on foreign overfishing. But, what action with respect to

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? A moratorium! You must stop fishing. No other

real action taken at all. That is not what we call a comprehensive plan, Mr.

Speaker. That is not good management of the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, as a result of these - just a couple of

examples, and many others - we recognize the inherent flaws in federal

management. Some people suggest, and it has been said just recently: But if you

let Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a say in it, they will fish every last

fish. To our shame, by the way, in this Legislature, to our shame, the person

who wrote such an

article stood right where I am standing in this place just a

couple of years ago as the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. He wrote an

article for the national newspaper, The Globe and Mail , and said: Sure,

it is only a natural instinct for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - he was our

proud leader a couple of years ago - it is only a natural instinct and left to

them they will fish every last fish.

Mr. Speaker, I will finish my introductory comments - because I will get to

speak at the end - with this: In 1887, long before we joined Canada, the

Assembly in the Colony of Newfoundland passed a resolution to investigate the

operations of fisheries departments in other countries and to recommend the

establishment of a similar department in our country. Do you know why, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Premier's time is up.

PREMIER GRIMES: Could I just finish this one point?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank all the members for

leave.

I will finish with this point: In 1887, why was that resolution passed in the

Legislature in Newfoundland at the time? Because there was a fisheries crises,

because the stocks were dwindling, salmon were disappearing, codfish were

disappearing. Not 1987, but 1887. A government right here took action and came

back - it was Chaired by the hon. A.W. Harvey and he presented a report in March

of 1888. So, when we had responsibility for ourselves we set up a commission. We

studied examples elsewhere.

I will finish with this, Mr. Speaker, here is what they did. They reported

back in June of 1889. The Legislature passed

an act to provide for the formation

of a fisheries commission based on the importance of scientific examination of

the fisheries. They hired a Norwegian consultant with extensive knowledge of

fisheries, scientific and practical. The first step taken was to erect a

hatchery to restore the propagation of cod and other fish in Trinity Bay. They

looked at the effects of gear types, all the different types of gear that were

used in the fishery, to eliminate ones that they thought were harmful and

causing overfishing, and they were able to report, seven years later, that the

fish were more abundant than they had ever been.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: So, they did take action when it was left to us. They

took the right actions. They closed out the fishery for a little while. They

restricted it, but they did the other things, Mr. Speaker. They changed the

technology that was used. They put in the rebuilding plans. They got the best

scientific information that they could and they had it rebuilt in seven years.

An example and a lesson for all of us that when done right and when giving

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians today, just like Newfoundlanders then, an

opportunity to provide leadership and get the right things done, it will happen,

it does happen, and with the passage of this resolution we can start down the

as equal and respected partners so we can do it right again, unlike was done ten

years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our party and our leader, who regrettably could not be here today for medical

reasons, fully support this resolution here. We have looked through the

resolution. Our leader has gone through the resolution, and we, too, support

this resolution here today because we are every bit as concerned. I do not think

anybody in this Province can take more pride in our history or a greater

concern, or greater intentions there, and we do not doubt intentions of anybody

in Newfoundland and Labrador to try to get a better future for them.

When we look at this resolution here today it goes back - and the Premier

made some points today. It does not matter what the reason was. It does not

matter whether foreigners overfished it in the past when we are looking to the

future. It does not matter whether it was our own local people. It does not

matter the role that technology played. I know we cannot apply 1887 to today

because there is a far cry in technologies and so on that affects the ocean, but

still, it is a point and it is an interesting point to show that where we have

powers to exercise over our own destiny, we can get solutions that can get the

proper result and can be effective.

To talk about seals and other particular areas, that is not the relevant

thing today. The important thing we have to look at here today is that we are

operating in a country where we are more dependent on resources off our shores

than any other province in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That tells us today that other provinces in this country

can exercise a degree of control to have an impact on their economies to a far

greater extent than Newfoundland and Labrador, because we are an island

province. We developed around the ocean, we survive around the sea, and

regardless of what new directions we move in the future, Newfoundland and

Labrador will not survive and enjoy the prosperity that it can without

continuing its dependency and developing its resources around our coastline.

We have seen - and there are reasons. I have to concur with what the Premier

said today. There is one government today that has responsibility since 1949 for

the management of the fishery in this Province. It does not matter who you blame

it on for doing the job that brought us to where we are today; there is one and

only one government responsible for the demise that we are in today, and that is

resource.

Do you would think for a moment in Ontario and Quebec, with 60 per cent of

the population of this country compared to us with only 1.7 per cent today, do

you think it would happen? Do you think it would happen if we had 30 per cent or

40 per cent of the population, that it would be allowed to happen? It would not

happen.

We have been treated as pawns for international trade. We have been treated

as pawns in a ceiling in the past, to use it for federal government benefit to

enhance and work on their international trade and international relations. We

cannot and should not accept it anymore. We should not accept it.

People got the impression that - and the Premier alluded to it - they would

fish to the end. Well, when you are out in a competitive environment everybody

is going to try to make a living, and they are going to try to maximize what

they can, but there has to be control.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and fishermen - I know many of them, and I

even fished in the summertime and grew up in a fishing boat - want to see a

future around the fishery. In fact, the federal government acknowledged by

setting up the FRCC that more than federal bureaucrats should have a say. We

need an arm's length Fisheries Resource Conservation Council to look at things

other than scientific information. That is a whole new issue of scientific

information.

When the moratorium occurred, announced on July 2, 1992, what has happened to

the science since? They cut back on science, when the fishery shut down. That is

when you needed science the most. That is when you needed the greatest input of

dollars to enhance science, to enable us to better make decisions.

Ask anybody who has fished around this Province in any areas that know, the

shore, and know the coast, and know where fish move and know patterns. They told

us and they told people around this Province, and I spent over twenty years in

the business, it is going to end. It is not going to last very long more on the

Virgin Rocks. It is not going to last down in southern areas, not to the same

extent here. Wherever they fish, they said, the end is coming. They said it for

years.

When I went around and campaigned in 1992, before the moratorium, I was told

by people at the doors, by people who spent their lives out on trawlers and out

on the sea, that the end is coming. We are getting smaller fish, there is

discarding going on at sea, there are foreigners out there. Regardless of who is

doing it, the federal government turned a blind eye - and I will use the word

negligent. I think the federal government was negligent in carrying out the

responsibilities on ensuring there is a future there. It would not have

happened, had we been a larger part of the Canadian population and we had more

clout in Ottawa.

Our country has no recognition for smaller provinces to give them a say. Even

the United States of America allows tiny little states to have some degree of

political control within the Senate. The smallest state in the United States has

as much clout in the Senate as the largest state in the United States. There has

to be something.

We support joint management, a joint management committee established with

federal and provincial; because, I can tell you, people fishing there are not

out to catch the last fish. People are out there to make a living and they want

to see a future. That is why the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council relies

on more than just raw scientific data. It listens to people. There are people on

it from a broad spectrum of industry, so they can understand, they can add

input.

It is where you fish. People have fished for years. You might fish in areas

and get no fish whatsoever, a half mile away. They move in patterns and so on

and it is established. People who are experienced know that. That is why it is

so important to have input from the people who are the front line people, the

harvesters, in the industry. That has been ignored, and it is unfortunate that

major reason for that.

What we have to do here now - the Premier of this Province says his

resolution is one to begin. The words he used here: to lead, begin negotiations.

Well, in beginning negotiations, I say to the Premier, we have to do certain

things. We have to educate the other provinces of this country on the importance

and the value of the fishery, and what the people of this Province feel is the

best course of action.

We are not there to see a fishery destroyed. That is our livelihood. It is

our future. We have to convince British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and all

the provinces across this country, on an education process of what exactly

happened. I do not think we have done a very good job of an education process. I

think what needs to be done over a period of time - if we are not ready to sit

down and look at a constitutional change, revisit the Terms of Union, if we are

not prepared to do that immediately, as this resolution is saying: We are going

to move toward it. One of the most important things we need to have is a

specific, formalized, well-organized, well-thought-out plan of informing the

Canadian public and informing the political leaders in each of these provinces,

because we need the support of seven out of ten provinces and we need over 50

per cent of the population of Canada supporting us. That is fundamental to get

change.

What province in this country would not want to see us have a say in our

future? Just because our resources happen to swim around our shores, why should

we be denied the right? We are not capable. They say we are not capable; we will

not manage it properly.

I think we are close to the resource, and we understand the impacts. We

understand the impacts of a demise of a fishery far more than Stphane Dion or

Jean Chrtien, or for that, most of all of what is in Ottawa. We understand it,

and people who grew up in rural Newfoundland in particular. You do not have to

be from rural Newfoundland to understand it. You could have been born in the

City of St. John's and never been close to a fishery, but, I can tell you,

people in rural Newfoundland understand the impacts it is having on their daily

lives.

To sit back and see the out-migration of this Province at an alarming rate

when something should have been done about it. We will never be able to get over

that hurdle unless the federal government realizes that we have to have a say.

They have not been the best managers. I mean, people say: Well, the Province

would have done worse.

Prior to 1949 we had, as a Dominion, the control. We brought this into

Confederation. We brought a vast resource into this country on accession. We

brought it there, and who has taken it and managed it since? The federal

government, and they have done a disastrous job of doing it, and there is a

price that the federal government should pay not only for devastating the stocks

off our shores, too, but any reasonable, compassionate, moral conscious

government should have to look at the repercussions that have been reaped

because of their mismanagement. That is another issue that is ongoing here in

the entire process because of a recent decision.

I do not feel that - and this may have been mitigated more by the decision to

shut down the Gulf cod and actually shut down the Northern cod fishery in 2J3KL

also, as well as 4RS3Pn. It might have been the one that started this, but I

really thing we have to start a process that is well-structured, that is

organized, that is not haphazard, that is thought out, that there is behind the

scenes political information and lobbying. The message has to be taken out to

the people of this country. Because people, when they understand the situation

of what is happening here, when they understand not only our desire but our

right, shouldn't it be a right of ours to be able to have a say in what we

brought into this country? Not for a moment would we ever see it happening in

any other major province in this country. That is all part of a plan.

On the eastern side of this country we have been a victim. We have been a

victim of federal government centralization and urbanization. We have read

articles on: we have too many people. We should have another 200,000 gone. We

have seen the federal government has not worked to negate that process. They

have centralized offices in Halifax and Moncton. Every year we are hearing

things shifted out of this Province here. They are urbanizing and centralizing

it because it is cheaper to give services here and they would love a lot of the

coastal parts of this Province to shut down. That is all part, I think, of a

major agenda. You cannot run everything based on economic efficiencies. There

are certain fundamental rights that people have, where they want to live within

a province or within a country, and people in this Province want to live around

the fishery in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The reason they are not doing it

is because they have no choice. The biggest reason for taking away that option

has been the mismanagement of this fishery. We would never have a depopulation

of rural Newfoundland today if the federal government had to exercise proper

management and control, enforcement, and proper allocation of resources and

quotas. The whole picture all comes under the federal government.

We advocate, Mr. Speaker, that this Premier start a process, and this

government start a process here, to educate, first of all, and I think it is

important that this should be done in a very serious manner. We have to do it

not necessarily in a confrontational manner at all. I think we have to do in a

very rational, a very professional manner and we have to have a plan. We have

been eager to find out, certainly, what the specific plans are because when we

move forward - and while we endorse this entirely, Mr. Speaker, the people in

Newfoundland and Labrador, I can tell you, do not need a vote from this

Legislature to know what they want, but it is certainly a fundamental part of

the process. They know that they want to have a say.

Other parts of this country might not think that this Province should have a

say, but it is a resource we brought here, it is a resource we depend on, it has

sustained this Province for hundreds of years, and it is one that we cannot let

go at all and not say anything, and not let go without a fight. We cannot let

this go at all. Whatever it takes, it has to be a priority of this government to

set that straight. It is not going to happen overnight. It is going to happen, I

guess, over the next, who knows, period of time. The federal government, a

callous attitude in Ottawa with Stphane Dion and the Prime Minister - Oh, I am

only going to be in office for several months.

The business of this country, and the lives of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians are going to be put on hold because the Prime Minister only has

seven or eight months left in the term? That should not even be a consideration.

That is an insult. That is an affront to the people of this Province because his

political agenda, the Prime Minister of Canada, does not want to deal with it,

because it is a constitutional change. It is a fundamental right. He has to do

it and, as our House Leader said today in Question Period, when we move in that

direction, when we go beyond the agreement to move forth and negotiate here,

when we get to that point, there is a right. He has an obligation, as the Prime

Minister of this country, to listen to this Province -

MR. SPEAKER (Butler): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a half minute to finish up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Premier again, I think what is important is

the selling job we have to do to other provinces in this country. We have to

educate them. We have to do our homework. We have to have a very articulate and

formulated plan. We have to get all the provinces on side in this issue here and

I think they will understand. They will understand that we have a right to have

some degree of control over our future, not to have it manipulated and

controlled by a government in Ottawa that has not done a job for the last

fifty-four years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, first of all, that I am pleased to have an opportunity to

speak early in this debate. The Premier did an excellent job in introducing this

resolution and outlining the history of the involvement of the Newfoundland

Government in fisheries prior to Confederation. I do have to correct him

slightly, though. Both he and the Member for Ferryland talked about the end of

jurisdiction over the fisheries in 1949. In fact, the jurisdiction over

fisheries by this Province continued for a further five years.

The Terms of Union itself, Term 22 in the Terms of Union, continued the

fisheries laws of Newfoundland in effect for a further five years unless all the

laws, the fisheries export laws and all of the laws of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the Dominion of Newfoundland, were continued for a five-year period

unless the Cabinet of Newfoundland agreed to change.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, there was a special committee set up. The Newfoundland

Fisheries Development Committee was set up and produced a report in 1953 to

investigate the whole issue of the fisheries and make recommendations at the end

of that when they reported in 1953. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, and I have read

Newfoundland's fishery after that report was presented to the Minister of

Fisheries in Ottawa was that there was to be no special development fund, no

special programs. Normal services only was the response of the Government of

Canada to the most important resource and the most significant employer of

people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and supporters of

communities.

significant, perhaps the then largest single protein resource in the world, the

Newfoundland and Labrador fishery off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, off the

Hamilton Banks of Labrador, a very significant source of food not only for the

people of this Province but for many other parts of the world, as evidenced by

the 500 years of fishing that had taken place here prior to now.

The thing that happened though, Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of things.

When they decided first of all that the fishery was not important to the

very interesting study of what happened to Newfoundland's fishing industry

after Confederation is found in a book by a very prominent economic historian,

David Alexander. It is called The Decay of Trade . He talked about the

salt fish industry and its decay after the Second World War, but principally

after Confederation. What he said that happened in other countries that had a

strong fishing industry and a strong salt fish trade was that their governments,

their national governments, supported that industry by developing trade

relationships with purchasers of the salt fish of the fish trade. For example,

in the case of Norway and in the case of Iceland, they made agreements with the

purchasers of the fish resources of Norway, of Iceland, to a country like Spain

or like Turkey or like Greece, which were markets for our fish as well. They

made trade agreements to take, in exchange for the sale of the fish products of

Iceland, Norway and Denmark, they agreed to take products, whether it be Seville

oranges from Spain or different products of Greece or Turkey in exchange for the

continuation of a salt fish trade in those countries because they did not have

access to hard currency after the Second World War.

not do anything to support this fishery. They did not have it on their agenda at

all, Mr. Speaker. In fact, as other speakers have said and as the Premier has

pointed out, and as many of us have known for many years, the Government of

Canada, in fact, traded access to the fishing resources off the Coast of

Newfoundland and Labrador in exchange for other priorities of Canada, whether it

be access to European markets for Canadian manufactured goods or whether it be

in exchange for purchases, major purchases by Eastern Europe and Russia of

Canadian wheat.

Mr. Speaker, there were deals done for the benefit of Canada at the expense

of the fishery off Newfoundland and Labrador. We had, starting during the early

1960s, Mr. Speaker, a very significant level of foreign overfishing taking place

with the development of the factory freezer trawlers. The development of these

huge factory trawlers that came first to all from England and then Eastern

Europe, Germany and East Germany. They came off our shores and fished. There is

a very remarkable book that outlines in detail the development of these distant

water fleets. In fact, the book is called, Distant Waters , written

by an American journalist who travelled on these trawlers throughout the Grand

Banks of Newfoundland, on the Hamilton Banks off Labrador, on the Georges Bank

off the Massachusetts and the New England Coast.

He described how the German fleet, for example, would fish inside the ice off

the Hamilton Banks - one mile inside the ice - in a group of five or six or

seven boats with one boat taking turns being the lead boat because the lead boat

could not fish. They would fish one mile inside the ice for a very important

reason: because that is where the spawning fish were. The fish were spawning.

They congregated to spawn, and that is where they could get the maximum amount

of fish. He calculates the destruction of that fishery on it year in and year

out and does the calculations and the numbers - hundreds of thousands of tons of

fish caught every year during the 1960s which was the first round of destruction

While the people of this Province were complaining - I can remember from my

youngest years. I was born before Confederation, six months before

Confederation. I used to like to tell my friends in other parts of Canada that I

was born before Confederation. Then it gave me an opportunity to explain what

real Confederation was to people in this Province. I can remember from my early

childhood, my teenage years, listening to people on the radio, fishermen talking

about the foreign fleets not just coming inside the 200-mile limit, never mind

the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, but coming inside the headlands, coming

into Conception Bay and destroying the nets. Russian trawlers destroying the

nets in Conception Bay, in Notre Dame Bay, in Placentia.

The Speaker, I am sure - I see him nodding his head - remembers that as well,

that this was a fact of life in those days for the fishermen of Newfoundland and

Labrador, that their livelihood was being threatened, their nets were being

broken up. I remember people talking about how they are killing the mother fish.

That was the expression that was used. They were killing the mother fish, the

large huge fish that were spawning off our shores.

All of that was done under the policy of Ottawa, while the people of this

Province had no power and no control over fisheries policy that was dictated in

Ottawa, that was done based on foreign policy considerations. It had nothing to

do with the interests of this Province, and a regard for the fishery by Ottawa

that it was not important, that it was not significant. A failure to take on its

responsibilities not only to the people of this Province but the

of that resource.

I would be very interested in seeing what basis there is for a lawsuit

working on it. The Premier seems to be very keen on it. Maybe it is something

worth exploring. Maybe we should talk about that a little bit. Maybe the Premier

and his colleagues should let the information out about the prospects of such a

lawsuit. Maybe it is something that we could consider pursuing.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that the experience of

this Province since Confederation has been a failure of policy, a failure to

protect the stocks, a failure to protect the communities of this Province, a

failure to protect the fish stocks themselves, and a failure that will not go

away.

I heard one of the Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs, for example, say

the other day that joint management will not put the cod back in the water. Mr.

Speaker, management by Ottawa for the last fifty years has certainly seen the

cod being taken out of the water, being destroyed by foreigners and by policies

said something like that in a little more anger after the last moratorium. When

Minister Crosbie was confronted down in Bay Bulls by the fishermen, when he was

challenged on the moratorium, he said - I think he used g.d. fish - I didn't

take the g.d. fish out of the water. Well, Mr. Speaker, he may not have because

he wasn't a fisherman, but he was the one who established the policies, who

controlled the policies, who used or abused or ignored the science, who did not

listen to what the fishermen were saying, and managed the fishery into oblivion.

That is what we have had happen.

I want to say this, Mr. Speaker: Who has more interest in keeping the fish in

the waters? Who has more interest in protecting and preserving and rebuilding

Street who work in the DFO bureaucracy, or is it the fishers of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the plant workers of LaPoile, the people who live and whose

livelihoods depend on that fish being strong and regrowing and coming back? I

have to say, Mr. Speaker, there is only one answer for that, that the greater

interest, and the greatest interest, lies in that of the fishing communities and

those close to the resource, and this has been the experience.

David Suzuki, a world renowned biologist and ecologist, was here a couple of

days ago. What he said was, when they looked around the world to see what

fisheries resource management plans worked, what they found was, as a

foundation, his organization, that the people who looked after the resource best

were those who had a local say over that resource, some control over the

management of that resource and could determine themselves the level of fishing

required and what had to be done to preserve it. That, Mr. Speaker, is the

reason why we need joint management of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, I will say something about the timing of this. This is obviously

a reaction to the fisheries crisis that we find ourselves in today. I suppose we

could criticize the Premier for being political about it, for being

opportunistic. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I will give him that, that we are

all politicians and we all have to recognize that we are in a political

environment and we have to take political actions. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that

this is something that is also before a royal commission. We have a Royal

Commission now considering not only this issue, but many other issues in terms

of our relationship with Canada. We fully expect that the Royal Commission when

it reports at the end of June, if it reports on time, will deal with this issue.

I made a presentation to the Royal Commission in March. One of the issues

that was talked about there and one of things that I encouraged, what we needed

to do was to have some control over our fisheries to participate in joint

management of that resource and have a say in that management because of its

importance here. But there are many other issues and, I guess, I have to say

that I am encouraged, Mr. Speaker, by this resolution. I am encouraged by the

talk around the Province about the need to change our relationship with Canada,

something that we have been talking about for a number of years.

Our party, and myself as leader of that party, urged the creation of a Royal

Commission to examine the Terms of Union. A couple of years ago that was done.

So, we were encouraged when the Royal Commission was announced by this

government. We are encouraged by the climate in this Province now who recognize

that we have to have significant change. I would suspect that, although this is

here today as a single motion, that it is not something that can be pursued on a

stand-alone basis. We are going to have a Royal Commission. We are going to have

and with the people of Canada, as part of our -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: If I may have a moment to finish this point. I am on my final

point.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank members for leave.

This is a very important part, a significant plank, if you will, in a whole

series of issues that will be coming to the forefront over the next couple of

months when we get the report of the Royal Commission, and we do need to

emphasis this as a significant first step. Perhaps recommendation one, prior to

the Royal Commission. We are jumping the gun a little bit, but I think it is

something that there is a consensus on and the need for it was heightened by the

unanimous at this point.

Back in November we all recognized, in this House of Assembly, that the issue

of the continuation of the cod fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador was

something that we, in this Province, had to have a say on; that we did not want

decision by himself. That was instinctively recognized by every person in this

House back in November, and that is why we agreed to establish the all-party

committee, not just of Members of this House of Assembly but also of the House

of Commons and the Senate, because we knew instinctively, Mr. Speaker, that this

decision was something that we had to have a say in. So, we did everything in

our power to insist that we have a say. We formed a committee. We invited

Members of Parliament. We invited Members of the Senate to participate in that

committee and they agreed to do so. We worked very hard to develop a series of

twenty-two recommendations which involved us of not only a say in whether the

fish stocks should be fished or not, but also a say in how they should be

rebuilt.

The Premier mentioned the fish hatchery of the 1880s that was established in

Dildo, Trinity Bay. Well, that was something we discussed in our committee

because we said that is an example of the kind of thing that needs to be done to

rebuild this fishery. We cannot just do one thing, which is take fishers out of

the equation. When we did that, Mr. Speaker, we did it recognizing that we had

to have a say. And what happened? We were given short shrift by Ottawa. We were

ignored and the government turned its back on the people of this Province and

the elected representatives of this Province.

This is a response to that, Mr. Speaker, and a response that we, in the New

Democratic Party, fully support, and we will work with everyone in this House to

pursue this as a goal, along with other recommendations, which will come out of

the Royal Commission which we hope will report in June.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in the House today to support the resolution of our government to

renegotiate the Terms of Union with Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is about having a say in the union that we have

with Canada, and it is about being a full partner in terms of resource

development, management, and in terms of having some control and some autonomy

over the resources that are ours in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out - and it may have already

been pointed out by some members in the House already today - that when

Newfoundland came into Confederation it controlled its seacoast for three miles.

I think it was the three-mile limit for a period of up to five years. As I am

sure other nations at that time, or dominions, the first context of the

agreement was in the five year piece. Prior to Confederation itself, we

controlled all the fisheries jurisdictions within the boundaries of Newfoundland

and Labrador. At that time, of course, the fishery was quite different than it

is today. We were focused mostly on the cod fisheries.

Whereas today we are

focused on many species, that we have a great dependency upon, in addition to

cod.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of Canada gave the federal government

legislative power over seacoast and inland fisheries. Under the current

international law an independent Newfoundland and Labrador, I guess, would have

controlled the adjacent resources, including the fishery. However, that was not

part of our joint agreement with Canada.

Anyway, to point out a couple of things. By 1970 Canada had extended its

jurisdiction to the 100-mile limit, and in 1997 it was extended to 200-miles.

Had Newfoundland and Labrador remained a nation it would likely have controlled

the seacoast and the fisheries, as Canada does now within that jurisdiction.

I want to point this out. Under the United Nations Convention of the Law, Mr.

Speaker, coastal states are given complete control over territorial sea. I think

it is important to point that out because while Canada is not a signatory to

that particular agreement, it has accepted and applied the same principals of

adjacency and geographic

definitions that are contained in this convention. So

that might question us to ask why we need to be able to come to this House and

present the resolutions that we do, to have greater access and greater control,

because if those current

definitions, as they are outlined under the federal

Oceans Act, were applied and the adjacency pieces were applied in terms of the

definition that is contained, then we would certainly at the present time have

more say and more control than we do right now. It is an important piece that

needs to be pointed out.

Mr. Speaker, considering the significance of the principles of adjacency and

the historical dependency that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador have on

the fishery, you would expect that we, in this Province, would have more control

and more management over this particular resource. Canada is obliged, Mr.

Speaker, to manage the resources that are within its jurisdictions and the

federal government has to recognize the importance of proper resource management

and that the management of these fisheries is for the people, the harvesters,

and the people who live adjacent to these resources. In this case, Mr. Speaker,

it is the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think all of us would agree that the federal government has somehow been

very shortsighted in its decisions. They have fell short of what our

expectations are with regard to the management of this fishery over the long

term. They have certainly been falling short of our expectations of a strategy

to rebuild these stocks over a longer period of time and to ensure that we have

a good, stable fishery for the economic future of our people and the regions of

our Province that rely on this resource.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has a responsibility to meet the

short-term needs of people who have been historically dependent upon this

resource as well. We, no doubt, entrusted them with the responsibility of

management of our fisheries and they have certainly not lived up to the

expectation that we have. That, of course, leaves our people, the people who

have had an historical dependency upon this resource for a very long time, in a

very difficult position today. I think they have a responsibility to also

address that particular need.

Mr. Speaker, the government must ensure that any quota of fish which is

allocated by the federal government provides for the maximum economic benefits

for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, for our harvesters, for our plant

workers, for our communities and our processing companies. We are the people who

are adjacent to this resource and it has been the long-standing position of this

government that adjacency would be the most important consideration in

determining access to, and allocations of, fishery resources.

Mr. Speaker, I want to caution people in this House, the federal government

is now discussing a concept of equity sharing within fishery resource

management. That is a very frightening concept for people in Newfoundland and

Labrador, the province in Canada which has the greatest dependency upon marine

resources in our country. To know they would actually entertain a concept that

looks at equity sharing as opposed to adjacency can certainly be very

frightening for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to be very

cautious and cognizant of that, Mr. Speaker, because we have not received our

full benefit of the fisheries adjacent to our shores. I guess in light of the

current situation with regard to reductions in cod fisheries and crab fisheries

in certain areas of the Province, the closure of cod fisheries, the reduction of

bycatch and so on, it is more important than ever that this situation be

addressed in our Province today. I think our very future, as Newfoundland and

Labrador communities, is dependent upon this. It is not about what has happened

in the past, Mr. Speaker, it is about taking a stand today for the future. We

cannot go back and change what has happened over the past fifty-four years but I

can guarantee you something, Mr. Speaker, that we should be compensated for

those losses and we should be given greater inclusion and greater say in the

future.

Mr. Speaker, how can a nation like Canada, that is built on the very

principles of providing for its people, at a time when we need the nurturing of

our communities and the nurturing as a Province and the protection of our

resources for our people when we need it at the greatest time in our history,

that they could actually turn their backs on our people, because is the way that

I see it, Mr. Speaker.

I have seen, with this government in the present day, not only have they

implemented a closure of fisheries that have been against the judgement, against

the experiences and the opinions of the people in our own Province and in our

own industry, Mr. Speaker, but they have done it with little or no regard for

those of us who depend upon it and have depended upon it for many years.

Mr. Speaker, we are a Province, I guess, that has been through some very

difficult times in the fishery. I will not recap the history but what I will say

to you, Mr. Speaker, is that ten years ago when the federal government

introduced a moratorium on cod fisheries as a means of protecting and rebuilding

stock, they continued to let foreigners fish outside the 200-mile limit, not

abiding by the regulations that had been set down by NAFO.

Mr. Speaker, while the people in our Province, the people in our small

communities that line our coastline, while these people had to haul their boats

on slipways, take to their homes - and many of them took to other communities

and other provinces in Canada to even survive over that twelve-year period -

while those kinds of pressures were put upon people, there was foreign fleet of

vessels that continued to fish the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador,

continued to fish the Grand Banks, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of injustice

that our people have had to tolerate. That is the recent history injustices, Mr.

Speaker. That is recent history injustices. I am sure there are many, if you

wanted to stand here today and recap them, over a period of time.

It leaves one bewildered. It leaves one puzzled, Mr. Speaker, to know that we

could have 40,000 and 50,000 people leave our Province, and small communities

shut down, because there was no resource. Yet, that same resource continued to

be fished and plundered by other nations at the pleasure of our Canadian

government, at the pleasure of the national government that we are a part of,

Mr. Speaker, and that is not right.

All of us know in this Province that the settlement patterns of Newfoundland

and Labrador and our whole reason for existing, Mr. Speaker, is based on the

fishery. It is the reason that we are here, and I think there is no dispute

about that. We have been influenced by the fishery to settle this Province, to

build the great communities that we have from peninsula to peninsula, from bay

to bay. We are not prepared at this time to pass everything over to a federal

and national government that will continue to plunder our resource and not offer

the proper rebuilding mechanisms that are necessary to see a sustainable fishery

into the future. We have to take action now.

Our primary focus, we feel that the FRCC recommendations, not just in this

current year, Mr. Speaker, but in other years as well, have been very

responsible to a degree in recommending measures that were needed to be

implemented to rebuild fisheries in the Province. It is unfortunate that a lot

of the measures that they propose as a conservation council in rebuilding stocks

have not necessarily been adhered to. It seems that the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans, their primary focus has been on moratoriums as a result of

rebuilding cod stocks, as opposed to implementing other measures that need to

happen.

Mr. Speaker, because of the moratoriums we have seen on cod fisheries in our

Province over the years, we have seen a greater dependency on the crab resource

and on the shrimp resource. People will know that 80 per cent, I guess, of the

fisheries in the Province today, or the total value within the industry, is

derived from crab and from shrimp. Mr. Speaker, what are we seeing happening in

those particular resource sectors today? In crab alone we have seen reductions

in quotas. In 2J and 3PS we have seen reductions of up to 40 per cent this year

in that resource. We are seeing declining catch rates in shrimp in the Gulf

region, Mr. Speaker. These things are troublesome, they are very troublesome,

because when you are not in a position to be able to be a full partner and have

some full say in the decision making and in the allocation and in the capacity

and in the quota and so on, Mr. Speaker, it is very frustrating. We have to be

very cautious and very careful that we do not see the same thing happen with

regard to other species as has happened with cod over the past number of years.

Mr. Speaker, there are people who will question the lengths to which we have

to go to have full say in this particular partnership with Canada. There are

people who will question our ability to achieve joint management through the

process by which we have chosen. Mr. Speaker, I think if you look back through

history and you look at the many reports that have been written on the fishery -

and there have been many reports - they all have looked at one thing. You have

to remember, most of these reports were done at a time when we had trouble in

the fishery of one kind or another. In all of these reports, Mr. Speaker, they

have recommended that there be increased provincial and federal coordination and

management of fish stocks. That is what we are trying to achieve through this

process.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Kirby Task Force, if you look at even the

Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment, if you look at the Royal

Commission on Economic Union, and you look at the Harris Report, all of these

reports that were done at a particular time responding to a particular challenge

in the industry, all have the same underlying principles. So, is it necessary to

go to the lengths that we are going to today? It certainly is, Mr. Speaker. The

very future of this resource for the people of our Province depends upon it.

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking consistently to have a reopening of the cod

fishery in the Northern Gulf. We have been asking this which is consistent with

the advise of the department, of the Conservation Council. We have not been able

to achieve a reconsideration of that decision. Mr. Speaker, we have documented

the viewpoint and opinion of the industry in this Province. The Fisheries

Resource Conservation Council, Mr. Speaker, has looked at the full balance of

this issue from a conservation perspective, from an industry perspective. The

recommendations that are before the minister have not been looked at to the

greatest degree and to the greatest benefit of our people. That is why we are

here today, that and the fact that the immediate needs of our people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are many other people who want to

rise today and speak to this resolution and I will conclude, but just a couple

of more points.

Canada has not lived up to its Terms of Union and its commitments that it has

made to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for us

to ask for these terms to be renegotiated. We must secure joint management of

our fisheries, if we are to secure the future of our rural communities and the

resources that are adjacent to these communities. This is a necessary piece that

has to occur, Mr. Speaker.

I think the attitude of the federal government is well reflected in the

comments from their own minister in recent days to this current issue of cod

fishery closures, Mr. Speaker. The stubbornness of the federal government to

actually respond to the people in this Province at a time when they needed to

have their country nurturing them and offering support to them, that has not

been forthcoming.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker, and this is a message that I would like to say

to the federal government today. There is a saying and it goes like this, Mr.

Speaker: You either live in hope or die in despair. Well, this is one government

that is not willing to wither away yet, Mr. Speaker, and this is one Province

that is not willing to wither away yet, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We will take the stand to protect the fish resources off our

shores for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here today as well and speak on and show

support for the resolution on the fisheries, as put forward by the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about taking over management, or co-management or

whatever form of management of the fisheries off our shores, we are talking

about a very complex matter. Complex, I guess, is probably putting it mildly. We

are talking about something that we know relatively very little about. The

scientists with DFO will be the first to admit that. With the limited financial

resources allocated to DFO science, it is practically impossible for them to

even scratch the surface. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we have to initiate steps

now, as per the resolution we are now debating, to obtain some management

control of what remains of our cod resource. Our cod resource, Mr. Speaker, that

the Dominion of Newfoundland held and exercised responsibility for prior to

Confederation.

The Northern cod, Mr. Speaker, was once considered one of the world's

greatest renewable resources. In 1952, annual cod landings off the Northeast

Coast reached 300,000 tons, most of it caught by inshore fishermen from

Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the 1960s, Mr. Speaker, deep sea trawlers began concentrating on the

Northern cod over wintering and spawning grounds. Cod catches peaked at 810,000

tons in 1968 and foreign vessels accounted for 85 per cent of that. Can you just

imagine that, Mr. Speaker? Three years after Confederation, in 1952, 300,000

tons caught mostly by our own fishermen, and sixteen years later, in 1968, that

almost tripled, 810,000 tons, and 85 per cent of it caught by foreigners.

The resource, Mr. Speaker, could not stand that kind of fishing effort,

especially when a large portion of this fishing activity was occurring on the

prime spawning grounds on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and on the

Hamilton Banks.

Mr. Speaker, this massive fishing effort was all permitted by the custodian

the 1980s, the federal government also permitted an open season on the dragging

of caplin on the spawning grounds called the Hamilton Banks. This was done, Mr.

Speaker, by Russian draggers. They were given a free hand, pretty well, on these

caplin stocks, the main source of food in the marine ecosystem. Is it any wonder

our cod stocks are destroyed? Is it any wonder we have not seen any volume of

marketable caplin in recent years? Is it any wonder why practically all

groundfish species have been decimated?

Mr. Speaker, it is frightening when you realize that we have the same

custodians looking after our crab and our shrimp fisheries. Their record with

shrimp management, or lack of management I should say, probably, is no different

from their cod and caplin management. Iceland destroyed their own shrimp fishery

a few years ago. So, what did they do? They came over here off our shores

dragging for shrimp on the Flemish Cap. I think it was three or four years ago,

the Icelanders had a shrimp quota on the Flemish Cap of 30,000 tons. Yet, it is

reported that in that year they actually caught 60,000 tons, double the quota

they had been given by NAFO. They had no regard for shrimp quotas, and there was

nothing that Canada or NAFO could do to stop them.

Last spring, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to go out over the Grand

Banks and the Flemish Cap on one of DFO's reconnaissance flights. What a sight

to see. Twenty-eight to thirty foreign fishing vessels, or you could call them

foreign fish processing plants, towing toward our 200-mile limit. Can you

imagine the destruction and the damage these foreign factory trawlers were

having on our fishing grounds, and can you imagine what was left in their wake?

Is it any wonder why DFO scientists are saying the cod stock biomass in 2J+3KL

is extremely low. Is it any wonder they are saying mortality has been extremely

high in offshore areas since the moratorium was called in 1992? Few fish, they

say, survive past the age of five. Is it any wonder, then, that very few fish

are migrating to the inshore like they traditionally did?

Mr. Speaker, we have all kinds of documented evidence that there are numerous

violations of small fish protocol, violations of directed catching of fish on

the moratorium, including cod, misreporting of catches, illegal gear, late

reporting by observers, and no reporting at all by some foreign countries. We

have all kinds of evidence confirming that.

So, where is the enforcement? Where is the protection for the fish off our

shores? Maybe once or twice a year, Mr. Speaker, DFO will make a big scene by

escorting a foreign factory freezer trawler into St. John's harbour. What do

we see? After a week or so of legal wrangling, a half a dozen or so of our

fishery officers are placed on the vessel and sent back to the European or

Russian destination from where they came. That is usually the last that we hear

of it. Probably, in most cases, within another month or so, that foreign vessel

is back again fishing on the Grand Banks or just outside of our 200-mile limit.

Mr. Speaker, in view of all of this, year in and year out our federal

government is still content to be the friendly diplomat and let NAFO play the

caregiver outside of our 200-mile limit. If you go back over the minutes of NAFO

over the years, I bet that you will find very little difference in the

conservation and enforcement wording in their meetings last September that were

held in Spain as compared to what it was in the minutes of NAFO meetings twenty

years ago.

It seems as if the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans feel their

greatest enforcement accomplishment is when they catch an inshore fisherman in a

twenty-two foot fiberglass boat with eight or ten undersized crab. They will go

after our own to the full extent of the law. I am not condoning our own

fishermen breaking the law, but that seems to be the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, we have three or four top bureaucrats in the federal department

of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa who have been there for years. They have a

mindset and an attitude that has not changed for years. Therein, I believe, lies

a major part of the problem with the management of the fishery off our shores.

They give the minister his directives. Until that changes, it will never be any

better. Unless a federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can be put in that

department who truly understands the fishery off our shore, and who can use his

own mind, we can expect more of the same. Outside of that, Mr. Speaker, it can

only probably be done through some form of shared management which we are now

seeking today.

Mr. Speaker, three or four weeks ago Minister Thibault made an announcement

to close the 2J+3KL and 4RS+3Pn cod fisheries off our shores. Was there any

mention of foreign overfishing in his speech? To the best of my knowledge, I do

not think there was. The only thing I heard about foreign overfishing was when a

CBC reporter, I think, questioned him after his speech was over.

The only conservation measures, Mr. Speaker, are those that affect our own

inshore fishermen. That is how it has usually been. It seems like our own

fishermen have to be the ones penalized all the time. Mr. Speaker, our federal

government has totally mismanaged a renewable resource that we entrusted to them

in 1949. Having said that, I do not blame the local DFO bureaucrats in our

Province. I know most of these people on a personal basis. They are good,

honest, dedicated individuals doing the best they can with the limited resources

they are given by their superiors in Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, we have no choice, it would seem, but to pursue the course of

action that we are initiating today. While it is not going to be easy to have

Ottawa agree to relinquish some of their power and authority over the fishery,

we must still pursue it vigorously.

In the short term, in order to address the immediate crisis we must pursue

together, all together in this House and in this Province, the reopening of a

limited 4RS+3Pn cod fishery as recommended by the FRCC and other stakeholders.

We must try to get some meaningful, monitoring fishery in 2J+3KL. We must have

immediate steps taken to implement an income support program while a long-term

retirement and licence buyout program is to come later.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I support the resolution as put forward by the

Premier and will vote in favour of it, in what I hope will be one step in the

survival of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am also very proud and privileged to participate in this very important

debate today.

Canada was greatly enriched when Newfoundland and Labrador became a part of

the federation. We brought to this country rich, natural resources, on land, in

the sea and under the sea. We also brought a strong, vibrant society made up of

a robust and dynamic people. Our people have contributed - out of proportion to

our numbers - to the cultural diversity and social wealth of this nation. Our

natural resources have helped to make Canada one of the most prosperous nations

in the world. Canada has become a nation which enjoys one of the highest

standards of living; a nation which enjoys a well-deserved reputation for social

democracy; a nation which, year after year, ranks in the top three of the best

places in the world to live and raise a family according to the United Nations.

We, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, have been proud to make our

contribution to this nation and to the progress which has brought it such

prosperity and high esteem. We are also painfully aware that within this great

nation disparities continue to exist and that no system of government, however

good it has been in the past, is beyond improvement. This is what this

resolution is about, Mr. Speaker, about improvement. This resolution has been

put forward in good faith as a sincere effort to begin a renewal process and a

strengthening process. It points to the future to ensure that the fishery that

brought our ancestors to this great and beautiful land is restored and will be

our legacy for the generations who follow us.

One of my principal responsibilities as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

is to facilitate effective and efficient working relationships with other

governments. While this includes foreign governments, our primary focus is on

relationships we have with other Canadian provinces, the territories and, of

course, the federal government. My staff and I are ably assisted by our

colleagues in line departments with central agencies.

In fairness, I must point out that in many areas - for example, in addressing

child poverty through the National Child Benefit and related provincial

programming, the Province and the federal government have been able to establish

effective working relationships which led to effective programming. I might say

the same thing about the Francophone and minority language policies and

programs. I could also say the same thing about immigration and

multi-culturalism. Good cooperation but unfortunately, there are so many areas

in which working relationships are, at best, strained and often ineffective. We

need only to look in the recent past at the often rancorous exchanges on the

issue of health care to know that all is not well.

Other areas of stress have been very apparent recently. I note, for example,

the climate change. The Kyoto Accord have strained federal-provincial relations,

not because we are not agreed on the need to address climate change but because

the federal government acted without adequate consultation with the other

governments in this federation that have a direct and genuine role in meeting

these challenges.

The issue of Senate reform remains a sore point for many jurisdictions. Here

in our own Province, the transfer of harbour facilities at Port Harmon,

Stephenville, without adequate consultation and the downgrading of the Gander

Weather Office have impaired relations unnecessarily. There is no need to

belabour these issues, Mr. Speaker. It is becoming increasingly clear that our

federation is not working as well as it should, as well as it can. We need to

address this and address it immediately.

This is an important resolution, Mr. Speaker, for Canada, not just for this

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is important because it is a call to

begin the reform of the way governments work with one another within this

country. It is a call to review the way in which we share our risks and

benefits. Mr. Speaker, the world federation is synonymous with partnership and

with the concept that we share the risks and the benefits of our enterprise, the

Canadian Federation. A fundamental of risk sharing in a partnership, Mr.

Speaker, is the principle of informed consent. Without informed consent risks

are not shared they are imposed. While there is no doubt that Newfoundland and

Labrador has shared the benefits of being a member of the Canadian Federation,

regrettably the Province has been exposed to fare more risk than is reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, the Terms of Union were negotiated to ensure that the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador would be a respected and an equal partner within

the Canadian Federation. However, the federal government has not had an enviable

record of observing the spirit and intent of the Terms of Union. Nor are we

alone. Every province in this country has had difficulty with the increasing

drive of the federal government to centralization and the increasing

unilateralism of its actions.

Mr. Speaker, we do not expect the adoption of this resolution to be a panacea

which brings the solution to all of the problems associated with the fishery,

but we do expect it will be the beginning of a new relationship with the federal

government in the management of the fishery, a new cooperative and collaborative

relationship. It is important that we be very clear about what we are seeking.

We are not asking that the federal government return to pre-Confederation terms

and yield to Newfoundland and Labrador the sole jurisdiction of the fishery. We

are seeking joint management. We are seeking a partnership in which the benefits

and the risks are truly shared, shared decision making.

I pointed out, we brought incredible wealth into the partnership in our

people and with our natural resources. It follows that the development of our

resources is a subject in which we have a direct and compelling interest. Our

compelling interest today and into the future is ensuring the survival of our

fishery for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and for all

Canadians. To realize this, we must be partners in planning and executing a set

of policies and programs which will prevent, stop, halt, further decline; that

will provide immediate protection for the remaining cod stocks from all forms of

predatory activity, whether that be from seals or foreign overfishing on the

Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. That will start us down the road, the long

road, to success and rebuilding the stocks.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the reaction of the people throughout the

Province that we are collectively resolved to achieve these goals. We are

prepared to take the hard decisions and undertake the difficult work that will

be necessary to restore the stocks, our fishery, and our pride in this great

tradition, in this great fishing culture. Mr. Speaker, we attempt to do this, we

attempt to achieve this, within our great nation.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government attempted to match this

resolve and undertake to do what is needed in a true, effective and equal

partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to

participate in this very important debate, historical debate. I expect that I

have participated in several of the debates that have taken place in this House

on this and related subject matters.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution today, though, I believe, has more impact than

any other resolution in our past. Our people, I believe, have become more

determined, our people have become more committed to the resolve to ensure that

we are treated as equal and effective partners within this Federation of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this government, the people on this side of the House, will spare

no effort to ensure that we achieve the goals as indicated in this resolution

today.

Mr. Speaker, my challenge is to the federal government to come to the table

and meet the goals that we have advanced today and the request that we have made

in the same determination that the people of this Province want the government

to move.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their co-operation - for the

co-operation in the way that we have managed the debate today. It points out, I

think, the resolve of our people. It points out the travesty that this Province

is experiencing with this present move by the federal government to close our

fishery. We are making today a last-ditch stand which we hope will preserve our

fishery for the future and for generations to come.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to stand here this afternoon to take fifteen minutes,

approximately, to say a few words on this very important resolution and this

very important matter regarding the fishing industry in particular in

Newfoundland and Labrador but, Mr. Speaker, in a broad sense, the economy, the

culture, the social fabric, the essence of what it is that has enabled us to

live and to survive and to grow in this Province, and what was a country and a

colony before, for over 500 years now.

Mr. Speaker, other speakers here this afternoon, other members here this

afternoon - and all of us, over the past number of days, weeks and months - have

talked about the importance of the fishing industry to Newfoundland and Labrador

- rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular - and also to urban areas like

Grand Falls-Windsor, Gander, Corner Brook, St. John's, Clarenville, various

areas around the Province like that. We all know the importance of that.

I am not going to go into that in any great detail today. I am hardly going

to go there at all. I am not going to talk about how important the fishery is to

a place like Green Island Brook, where 180 people live and sixty-five of them,

as a result of the decision of Minister Thibault over the last couple of weeks,

are now considering leaving. Sixty-five people in a community of 180 are

considering leaving in the next two weeks. They have their plans made, their

bags packed, so to speak. A tragedy. As Richard Cashin said when the moratorium

came on us in 1992, the destruction of the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador

was a catastrophe of biblical proportions. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is

too strong a statement to say.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to belabour the issue. I am not going to belabour

the point, and talk too long on the fact that it is the most important industry

in Newfoundland and Labrador, the most important industry in rural Newfoundland

and Labrador. What I will talk about is the crux of the matter here: basically

the essence of a very long resolution brought forward by the Premier and

supported by all members, I believe, in this House of Assembly, and certainly, I

suggest, by the vast majority of the general public in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

The essence of it, even though it was a long resolution, Mr. Speaker, is the

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. That is the essence of what we are debating here this

afternoon. Number one, "...that the principal elements of such a joint

management regime include (1) the establishment through an amendment of the

Terms of Union, of shared, equal, constitutional authority by the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada over the fisheries adjacent to the

province...".

That, Mr. Speaker, in my view - at the very least, anyway, I do not know

about anybody else - is the crux of the matter. That is the point we are here

debating today. That is what is important to the industry in Newfoundland and

Labrador, and that is what is important to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

We want some control over the most important industry in our Province. Is

that too much to ask, Mr. Speaker? I do not think it is very much to ask at all.

What is wrong with a group of people, a people who were a nation, a people, a

very important Province in this country of Canada, what is wrong with us wanting

some control over an industry that provides for so much of our population, and

provides for so much for our gross domestic product, that generates a billion

dollars in revenue to our economy in Newfoundland and Labrador every year in

direct monies? I do not think it is very much at all.

Mr. Speaker, we have, over the past, our party here, had a long history of

supporting the notion of co-management of the fisheries resources off

Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a position that has been espoused by leader

after leader, former premiers, throughout the history of their participation in

debates on fisheries in this Legislature and outside. So, it should come as no

surprise to anybody that we support it here today.

I think the question is, and what has to be answered and has to be put to the

people of Canada, to the Legislature, the House of Commons in Canada, to the

Prime Minister, and the Minister of Fisheries and to all premiers of this

country is: Why is it that we would like to have joint management of our

fisheries resources? Because, Mr. Speaker, we need to avoid the situation that

we find ourselves in today, and I am not talking about the fact that the fishery

is, as of right now, whether there is a change in the decision or not, but as of

right now Minister Thibault has decided that the Northern cod fishery and the

Northern Gulf cod fishery is closed. Now, he might change his mind, I do not

know, but the fact of the matter is, the decision right now is that it is

closed.

Whether that is the right decision or the wrong decision, in the eyes of the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador it is the wrong decision. In the eyes of the

people of Newfoundland