March 28, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 8

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to make a ruling on the point of privilege that was

raised on March 20. The Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of privilege

respecting two instances of what he alleges was a deliberate attempt by the hon.

the Premier to deny answers to him. The hon. Leader of the Opposition stated

that the Premier had contradicted an answer given in the House in an interview

outside the House on two different issues.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition is basing his point of privilege on what he

believes to be inconsistency between statements made inside and outside the

House. However the authorities are clear that these circumstances do not fulfill

the requirements of a breach of privilege 31.(3) of Beauchesne's 6 th

Edition states, "Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be

used as the basis for a question of privilege."

It was ruled in the House of Commons by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in a case on

all fours with the one we are dealing with, namely a claim that a member had

made inconsistent statements inside and outside the House. Speaker Lamoureux

ruled that, "statements made outside the House or documents published

elsewhere, ought not to be used for the purpose of questioning statements made

in the Chamber...A dispute arising between two members as to allegation of fact

does not fulfill the condition of parliamentary privilege." That is in the

Debates, November 16, 1971.

It is also the case that one must accept the word of a member in matters

within his own knowledge. Beauchesne's 6 th Edition 494

states, "It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members

respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be

accepted. It is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by

Members as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional

falsehood is permissible. On rare occasions this may result in the House having

to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident."

It is in the opinion of the Chair that for the above reasons the hon. Leader

of the Opposition has not established a prima facie case of a breach of

privilege.

Statements by Members

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

I rise today to recognize a group in my district for their remarkable

fundraising efforts.

Since 1986, the Pasadena Lions' Club has hosted the Pasadena Lions'

Snowarama, a snowmobile excursion to raise funds on behalf of the Newfoundland

Society for the Physically Disabled.

Mr. Speaker, each and every year this event garners more and more recognition

by both the public and by members of the media. This year, under the

Chairmanship of Mr. Lloyd Belbin, the Pasadena Lions' Snowarama raised in

excess of $12,000 for this worthwhile cause, a 25 per cent increase over last

year. This brings the total amount raised by this event since its inception to

more than $200,000. I am pleased to report that this group has already begun

planning to ensure next year's event is bigger and better than ever.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today to speak on behalf of a group of individuals from

Conche. I mentioned them here yesterday, some members would remember. The Conche

High School Girls Broomball Team, at 10:00 this morning, took to the ice in

Ontario to take

part in their first game in the Canadian Broomball

Championships.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I guess it goes without saying that it is no small feat for a

small community of Conche, with 250 people approximately. Sacred Heart All Grade

School is the school that these people attend. To find a team capable of winning

the provincial championships just about a month ago in Stephenville, and to go

to the Canadian Championships today and participate over the next couple of days

on behalf of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is no small feat for a

school of sixty-nine students, K-12. As a matter of fact, they only managed to

get fourteen students from their school and they had to pick up two students

from Harriot Curtis Collegiate in St. Anthony, two students from Goose Cove.

I hope all members would wish the Conche High School Girls Broomball Team all

the best in their endeavors in Ontario over the next couple of days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to advise members of a business success story

in my district. Quality Bait Services of Canada Inc., at the Point of Beach in

Harbour Grace, is finding a way to take waste material and turn it into a bait

product that is needed for the ever-growing shellfish industry. The new product

has made the company expand in the area. Steel from an abandoned nearby fish

plant is being shaped into an 8,000 square foot expansion, which will allow the

firm to consolidate its bait and bait bag manufacturing operations under one

roof.

With $25,000 in assistance through the former Department of Development and

Rural Renewal's business and market development program, it is developing its

own marketing program. This operation employed seventeen people last year and is

expected to employ twenty- four people this upcoming year.

Mr. Speaker, this bait operation is an example of the continued importance of

the fishing industry in our rural areas. I wish Quality Bait Services continued

success in their ever-growing operation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting and bizarre week in politics.

On one hand we have a Premier who says he has a mandate to continue to govern

for two years at least; and, on the other, on every major policy initiative in

front, he has radically departed from decisions that he himself was part of a

Cabinet that made. He claims he has a mandate to govern for the next two years

or so because he is committed, he says, to faithfully stick to the policies and

record that the Liberals took to the electorate in 1999.

In recent weeks he has taken new positions on Voisey's Bay, Fishery

Products International and water exports, that not only depart from stated

government policy but from the exact opposite - the exact opposite - of what

government policy was.

I would like to ask the Premier: How could the Premier have campaigned for

policies in the 1999 general election that he obviously did not believe in? How

could he have served as a key minister in a government he did not believe in,

and whose policies and records today show he held utter contempt for? Did his

colleagues know, when they elected him as leader and Premier, that they really

had a viper in their midst?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The general policy of the Liberals that ran in 1999 and earlier, even in

1996, was clearly to do anything and everything that is in the best interests of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to move the Province forward both in terms of

economic development and social development, and with a number of issues that

come forward, we will certainly attempt and try to do that every single chance

we get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Voisey's Bay, Fishery Products, water exports are not

matters of minor interests to the people of the Province, I say to you, Premier.

They were vigorously debated.

Before and during the 1999 election, the people of the Province have

expressed their will clearly on them, and as a result the former Premier and

every person including you in that Cabinet took positions on those issues. What

right, I ask you, today do you have to govern when you so blatantly rejected the

record of the Liberal government, the mandate you sought and received in 1999,

and the expressed will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of the three items that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, the one that

was referenced in our platform in 1999 was Voisey's Bay, on which we have

already had the debate; and there is no change in the government's position.

None whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, they can laugh at that if they like because

maybe they don't understand that when, in fact, a government commits to try

and get full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1996, and commits to try

and get full processing in 1999 in Newfoundland and Labrador, and commits to try

to get full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2001, they can describe

that as change if they want but they can't make it a change because it is not.

Just because they say so, it is not. The government's position has not

changed, and we will proceed to try to get a mandate and to try to get an actual

project with respect to Voisey's Bay.

With respect to FPI, not in 1999 during the election, but after that, there

was an attempt by the NEOS group -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: It was not an issue during the election in 1999, Mr.

Speaker, and neither was the export of water from Gisborne Lake in the Liberal

Red Book an issue in 1999. There was one issue that was in the Liberal Red Book

of what he referenced in 1999, Voisey's Bay, and on that there has been no

change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Here, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, he can say black when it is really white; he

can say blue when it is really red; he can accuse us of trying to twist words

and make it so, but let me ask him this, is he aware of what the former minister

in Question Period on May 13, when my hon. colleague from St. John's South

asked the question to the minister about water export. Here was what the current

minister said: Mr. Speaker, we are not interested in the bulk export of water

that have secondary processing done elsewhere. Why have you changed so radically

the position, not only of your government and of the former Premier, but taken a

position that you promised to the people of the Province that you would not

take, Mr. Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know why the Opposition would not want to have a full debate with

respect to the export of water from Newfoundland and Labrador. The debate will

occur in this Legislature because if the government of day, if this government

is to allow for the bulk export of water from Newfoundland and Labrador, after

fully re-examining the issue again, it can only occur if we change a piece of

legislation that has already been voted on in this Legislature. So there will be

an opportunity to have a full informed debate in Newfoundland and Labrador, and

the very fact that almost on a weekly basis when this Legislature is open, we

debate pieces of legislation because we are amending, altering or changing

pieces of law that have been in place for years or months or weeks. The fact

that something was right in 1985, or 1991 or 1996 does not mean that it is

absolutely right in 2001. We are quite willing to have the information gathered,

the information collected, full disclosure of all the information because we are

interested in developments that benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we

will go through that debate fully, freely, openly with full information if it

can be demonstrated that it is something in the best interest of the people of

the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the information is here. Every statement made

inside and outside this House - including by you, as the former Minister of

Mines and Energy, on bulk export, by every member, by every former minister - is

here.

Now, the question that you failed to answer, that you will not answer is: Why

have you taken a position completely contrary to the position that the former

Premier has taken? Based upon that, how can you stand before the people of the

Province and say: Well, I have a mandate? The only mandate that you have, sir,

is for 638 Liberal delegates.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Go to the people of the Province if you want to take

radical shifts in public policy that will hold them forever and a day and commit

our children forever and a day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

MR. E. BYRNE: - to a giveaway that is unbelievable!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that the puppet leader of the Opposition is under instruction from the

leader, the king in waiting, to ask for an election every single chance he gets,

but guess what? A couple of years' time, whoever is standing in that place,

whether it is still him or somebody else, will still be asking for an election.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you this, we will deal with the issues that are in the

best interests of the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have taken - and this

is where the Opposition always misses a little bit of the truth - no position

with respect to a change in the policy that currently in Newfoundland and

Labrador bans the bulk export of water. We have brought no new piece of

legislation to this Legislature. It has not been discussed in any detail in our

caucus or in our Cabinet. We are gathering information and I have indicated, as

the Leader of the government, that we are willing to get the information, we are

willing to provide all of it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

have a fully informed debate in 2001 about the benefits, if they can be shown to

be so, of exporting fresh water from Newfoundland and Labrador, probably and

possibly even in bulk form to generate revenues that can be used in the Province

for things like free tuition for post-secondary students. Also, Mr. Speaker, we

will gladly gather the information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and if we come to a conclusion and have a public

dialogue that suggests that it is the right thing to do, we will bring it before

this Legislature and have it fully debated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it must have been a interesting caucus meeting

in the government this morning, because one day the Premier says this, the next

day he says that. He goes to government caucus and comes out whipped by his own

members saying: Now, you have to go a little softer, Roger. You have gone too

far that way, Roger.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: On FPI he has taken a completely different position than

the former Premier. The former Premier stood in this House and said: there will

be no change to the structure of FPI unless the communities in which they

operate in say so and approve of it. The question I ask you, Premier is: Why on

Monday, did you say they are only replacing one group of Newfoundlanders with

another? Why on Tuesday did you say that I did not feel the need to ask any

questions because I was not interested? Why did you say yesterday, as Premier:

boy, I do not want to say anything because I am afraid I am going to be sued?

When will you stand up and articulate and make a commitment to the people in

rural Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to FPI that their communities and

that their plants will not be thrown out the window for the sake, and only the

sake of shareholder dividends and profits?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition can try as he like to misrepresent my words, and

good luck in doing that. I know exactly what we are saying. The facts of the

matter are these: we did not say anything differently and I have not said

anything differently yesterday and today with respect to bulk water. What I said

yesterday is that we are willing to have a full debate in the Province about the

issue. That is exactly what we said. It was the same yesterday and the same

today.

With respect to FPI and the issue that is on the public agenda in the

Province today, the only interest and concern of this government is protecting

rural Newfoundland, the communities and making sure that the fishery -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - is dealt with in that fashion. I would not, Mr.

Speaker, try to mislead the people of the Province to suggest -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - because the person who wrote the piece of legislation

happens to be sitting a couple of seats down. He knows that there is nothing in

that legislation that enables the government to intervene and prohibit anybody

from being put forward at a shareholder's meeting as the possible chair of the

board and as a member of the Board of Directors. He knows that because he wrote

the legislation. That was the question that was asked in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: What are you going to do about the fact that the

shareholders might vote in a new chair?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to finish his answer quickly, please.

PREMIER GRIMES: Nothing, Mr. Speaker, because there is nothing we can do

about that issue but our concern is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to finish up very quickly.

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- not who sits on the Board of Directors. Our concern is only - it does not

matter who sits on the Board of Directors - our only concern -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Our only concern is what is going to happen in the best

interests of the rural communities of Newfoundland and Labrador where these

plants operate; and that is what we will deal with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The only thing I can say is: Thank God, the Member for Lewisporte put in

place that legislation because it would be gone out the window today if he did

not!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, do you notice the difference? Yesterday: Frankly, I am

not interested enough to talk about it. Today he said: There goes an issue that

is important to rural Newfoundland. I think I will talk about it today. That is

what the Premier is saying.

Let me ask him this question. In terms of the reference or request given by

your department or your office through Executive Council to the Minister of

Justice, could you table the letter or the request that you made of the Minister

of Justice to seek a legal opinion on this? While you are tabling that, could

you also table the time frame that you have given him to give government an

opinion, which you said, on this very important issue? Would you be interested

enough at least doing that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand the nature of the line of questioning and so on and the very

tone from the Leader of the Opposition. He is under instruction to do that from

the real leader, who controls the strings from elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I might

add that maybe he should have a chat with the real leader who will be crowned in

a little while and get him to learn something about how a corporation like

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro operates because he was suggesting in Corner

Brook last night that the government, that the elected government had something

to do with layoffs of personnel in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro when in fact,

anyone who knows the Hydro Act and the Electrical Power Control Act knows that

the elected politicians in Newfoundland and Labrador - and it does not matter

which one stands in his place - do not have the ability to have any decisions

taken on a day-to-day basis about operations of a corporation like Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro. So you need to educate some people who are hoping to be

where you are.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to legal opinions. He happens to have the advantage

of having the author of the legislation itself, who also happens now to be a

lawyer admitted to the Bar in Newfoundland and Labrador sitting two seats to the

right. Now, if he is suggesting that there is some power in the hands of the

government, in the hands of the Premier to stop a shareholder's meeting from

voting on who the Board of Director is - why doesn't he ask? Never mind what

legal opinion we are going to get. Ask the author of the legislation, who is a

lawyer himself, and let him tell you point blank that there is no authority

because the Premier of the day, Premier Peckford, when addressing said: there

are only two protections in this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Two protections, Mr. Speaker, one: A majority of the

membership of the board have to reside in the Province and there is a 15 per

cent restriction on owning the shares. There are no other protections, no other

limitations. Ask the expert who wrote it, right next to you!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Premier, let me ask you: You are not, in all seriousness -

you do not expect the people of this Province and those in the gallery today to

believe that you can take $75 million from Hydro but you cannot direct them on

not laying off ten people? Come on! Are you serious? You have the ability to do

that but you don't have the ability to protect ten jobs!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, do you in all seriousness believe, yesterday in

this House, expect the people on this side of the House, the people in the

gallery and the people in the Province to believe that when that group came

before you, you said: well, frankly, I was not interested enough to have a

question. That you did not have the power, the power of government, the power of

this Legislature to say to them: Beware, we will do whatever is in our power to

protect rural Newfoundland and Labrador! The question is: Why did you not do it

Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He need not get excited or exercised or worked up. The fact of the matter is

this, it shows the desperation with respect to the Opposition in terms of being

willing - and this is sad, Mr. Speaker, for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, because we now have the Leader of the Opposition who, if he checked at

all and read - he has two lawyers in his caucus over there - the legislation

governing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its operations, he would read it

and find out that in this Legislature - and they voted to support it by the way

because the changes were made in the mid-1990s - that it was done to run

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a commercial operation with one mandate only:

run the utility to guarantee that you get the lowest possible rates of

electrical power for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because it is a

public utility, with a board of directors, it takes no direction from the

politicians.

He also knows, it is quite clear at any time, that a government on a

completely non-related issue has nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of

a company to say: if you have $50 million we would like for you to give it to

the government instead of holding it in your own account. It has nothing to do

with a decision about whether you run a maintenance plant in a community or not.

Those decisions are totally in the hands of the boards. He knows the difference,

but for political reasons they are willing to stand up and tell an absolute

false, and give an absolute false impression as to the ability of the

politicians to run the utility in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Unfortunate and sad, Mr. Speaker, that he knows the

difference!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I do know a couple of things and this one I do know. Yes, we have two lawyers

in the Opposition right now and in a very short order we will have number three,

I say to the Premier of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask you this. Final question. In the interest of

transparency and accountability, yesterday in this House - if you look at

Hansard - this Premier tried to suggest that one of the individuals involved in

the NEOS takeover supported this party financially. He opened the door. I asked

him yesterday, he wouldn't stand and answer the question. Let me ask him again

today: In view of the fact that you have opened that door, when will you, as

Premier, table the list of contributors and how much they contributed to your

leadership campaign so that everybody can see? Since you have talked about

transparency and accountability, when can we all have a look at that, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: He won't see it, Mr. Speaker, for this reason.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: He is asking a question about a Liberal Party function,

not a government function, a Liberal Party function in which the Board of

Directors and the Executive of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador

set the rules about expenditure limits and disclosure. I abided by every single

rule that was put in place by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors and

the Executive of the Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador also make

their rules about how they run leadership campaigns, and quite frankly, that is

something else that I have no interest in whatsoever. It does not matter to me

how the Progressive Conservative Party decides to conduct its business and,

quite frankly, it is only of interest to the members of the Liberal Party how we

conduct our party business. They decided not to ask for disclosure. We abided by

the rules and I am proud to have abided by the rules, and that's exactly where

it will be left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Premier of the Province. Premier, I asked the former

Premier, Brian Tobin, if the legislation that was being introduced was

short-term to alleviate public pressure or if it was a long-term indefinite ban.

His response was that the Province is introducing an unqualified ban on the

export of water from this Province, and their position was quite firm. I ask the

minister: Why is there a need now to go out and do research? You agreed with the

ban at the time. It was firm, unqualified. Why the change now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just like anything else, there has been a passage of time. We will examine

the issue again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

A passage of time, very interesting.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my next question to the Minister of Environment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, the former Premier said at the time the

legislation was introduced that the export of bulk water from Newfoundland and

Labrador is dead. It is off the table completely. It simply won't happen. I am

asking you right now, minister, what is your position on the ban of bulk water

export from this Province? Do you still agree with the stand government had

taken at that time, or have you, too, changed your mind?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the tactic because I have used it myself before. Imitation,

actually, is one of the greater forms of flattery. I do appreciate being

imitated in the Legislature with that particular tactic.

The fact of the matter is this: The law in Newfoundland and Labrador today

bans the bulk export of water. It was passed in this Legislature. We all know

that. Just about every one of us was here. All I have said, as leader of this

government, is that we will have the issue examined again. If we are going to

change it, it will come back here to be changed, and then we will ask everybody,

including the members opposite, whether or not they support the information for

a change, because it cannot be done without

an act of this Legislature, and

there will be full time to debate it after we have had all the information

gathered again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Here, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

South.

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

I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, because you were the

Minister of Environment at the time the Premier made this announcement that the

legislation was passed in this Legislature, and you supported the legislation -

you were very firm on the legislation, as was the Premier; an unqualified ban,

quite firm - I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs: Have you,

too, changed your mind on this legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obviously just a tactic they are trying, and it does not really warrant

any particular response. We will study the issue, and if we are going to change

it then we will bring it here for debate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Now that the Premier has managed to outrage

all the students of this Province in his comments about his support for the

export of water, because he said he supported it, in the upcoming debate, and

outraged people across this country, not only this Province, who are concerned

about this.

Can I ask the Premier whether or not, when he met with the Prime Minister two

weeks ago, did he discuss with him the fact that he was intending to break the

National Accord and the agreement of all the provinces with the federal

government on a national strategy to ban the export of bulk water? Did he ask

the Prime Minister about that? Did he get a response? Can he tell us about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the students of

Newfoundland and Labrador are outraged to understand that one of the aims and

goals and objectives of this government is to provide free tuition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I have not heard any outrage with respect to that.

That is the issue that we have raised: that we are interested in moving

towards an objective of free tuition in Newfoundland and Labrador. We need

revenue to do it. One possible source which we are having examined, and that is

what I have said in the public, is whether or not we can generate revenues that

we can keep from the export of water to pay for something like free tuition.

That is what I have said, Mr. Speaker. They can try to represent it as something

else if they like.

When I returned from Ottawa a week or so ago, I read a statement in this

House and I listed out in that statement the items that were discussed with the

Prime Minister. The export of water was not on that list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I guess he did not see the press release where

the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students expresses

the fact that their members are extremely insulted that the Premier would assume

that students would stand in support of mass natural resource sell-off so their

goal of free tuition might be realized.

in this issue. Why did the Premier not indicate to the Prime Minister of this

country, to the federal leader of his party, that he intended to disturb the

National Accord and the understanding across this country that bulk water export

was going to be banned and that this Province was not going to jump off the

Accord that has been reached by his predecessor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the member opposite wants to defend the Canadian interest, wants to defend

the interest in the Province of Ontario, wants to defend the interest in the

Province of British Columbia, feel free to do so. We have only one interest:

what is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador, and if it means being

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: If it means being offside with other provincial

jurisdictions because they have concerns over the Great Lakes like Ontario, so

be it.

We cannot - and I said this yesterday as well, in case someone would suggest

that I have changed my view today - do something that is illegal, that just

cannot be done. Anything that can be done, including removing ourselves from a

National Accord - because we signed a National Accord with a Government of

Canada suggesting that a federal piece of legislation was imminent, was to be

tabled and passed within a matter of weeks. It is not passed yet. We are having

the issue examined in its entirety. If we can do something that is in the best

interest of Newfoundland and Labrador, we will do it, even if the Government of

Canada and some other provincial jurisdictions think it is not in their best

interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East. There is time for one quick

question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Yesterday,

in Ontario, we saw residents suing Inco alleging contamination. We have recently

seen, in that same province, similar action being taken by residents of

Walkerton. In both cases, these actions were grounded on what is know as

class-action legislation. There are some five provinces in this country, I say

to the minister, whereby the citizens are protected and secured by virtue of

class-action legislation.

I would ask the minister, could he bring the people of the Province up to

date and let us know the status of initiating such legislation in our Province

to ensure that the interests of our people are protected?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, like most of the responses here today, we are

in no position to suggest where we will go. We believe in studying a matter

fully before we take a course of action so that everyone is informed as to where

you might be headed.

I can inform the member opposite, for St. John's East, that we have in fact

had representations from the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of

Municipalities. We have also had them from the City of Mount Pearl. We have

indeed struck a committee in the Department of Justice to review the comparable

legislation across the country, to discuss the pros and cons of it, because

there are always two sides to every story. We want to understand what the full

story is. As soon as we are in a position to report back and make some decisions

as to where we might want to go, that, of course, will follow the proper course

in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

MR. LUSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the point of order that I raise is related to what

I thought was the utterance of an unparliamentary word. If I made a mistake, I

will apologize. I thought the Leader of the Opposition, in his first lead-off

question, used the word viper in reference to the Leader of the Opposition. I

would suggest that in my dictionary the word viper means a venomous snake or a

treacherous person, neither of which is allowed to be in this House. I would

suggest that it is unparliamentary to refer to any member of this House as a

viper, which, as I have said, means a venomous snake or a treacherous person.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: I would ask that, in the interest of maintaining dignity and

the propriety of this House, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition withdraw

that utterance.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the hon. Government House Leader that it is also a great product put

out by Dodge. The reality is that when it comes to the issue in the Legislature

today, and the language that I use, I submit to the Speaker that it is and it

was parliamentary. Certainly, if the Speaker decides that it was not then I will

deal with the Speaker's ruling and apologize immediately, but I will submit

that the word viper has many connotations. It is also a great product put out by

Dodge, I say to the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will certainly review the Hansard to determine the context in which

the hon. member used that term, and the Chair will rule on it tomorrow.

Petitions

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

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

This is a petition that has been gathered by a group in the Province dealing

with the unfair, in my view, and unnecessary, HST on home heat generally. As

people know in the Province, they have spent the last several months in

preparation on putting together this petition, and the petition reads:

We, the Consumer Group for Fair Gas Prices, representing the undersigned

residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, hereby petition the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada respectively requesting the

removal of HST from two basic necessities of life: home heating fuel and

electric heat.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the largest petitions that has ever been

presented in this House. The combined total of the names on this petition

reaches nearly 50,000. People from every community, from the tip of Labrador to

the southernmost tip of the Province on the Avalon Peninsula have signed this

petition.

We support wholeheartedly the spirit, the intent and the actions that this

petition calls for. In fact, in the 1999 general election, under our heading of

what we would help to do for seniors, an accountable government to provide tax

release, we proposed, as part of our parliamentary and policy and political

platform, that a PC government would, upon being installed in office, eliminate

and ban outright the 15 per cent tax on these two basic necessities for good

reason. These are basic necessities.

Before the combination of HST, between the federal and provincial government,

this was not an issue that we had to deal with; but, what the Harmonized Sales

Tax did is that it yes, on the one hand, lowered it from 12 per cent and 7 per

cent and 19 per cent, but what it did is that it broadened the base so much to

include children's clothes, for example, but on this issue to include a basic

necessity of life.

What member in this House has not heard from many constituents this winter on

what 15 per cent reduction would mean to their home heating fuel? What member in

this House has not taken calls from a variety of people, including seniors in

their districts, complaining to them about the unnecessary and exacerbated cost

of fuel, pleading with members of this Legislature to bring forward a

progressive and just removal of HST that would provide some relief and

demonstrate to the people of the Province that this government has an ounce of

humanity left in it.

This is what this group is asking for. They have asked for it clearly. It is

not just them. The government can believe that it just may be them, but it is

not. It is supported clearly by about 11 per cent of the population, some 50,000

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I present this to the House on behalf of that group and urge in

the strongest, possible way -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: - that government take the message in this seriously and

move to reduce HST on those two basic necessities of life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, in view of the seriousness of the

petition, in view of the large number of names on the petition, whether hon.

members would break with the rules of the House regarding petitions for this one

time and allow a response from the government side?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: If the government wishes to have a response for the same

amount of time, so be it. We would like to hear, the people of the Province

would like to hear, and the group in the gallery would like to hear why you did

not include this very necessary item in your Budget recently.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: I understand the request of the Government House Leader. I

appreciate it and I would note that the normal rules for petition, prior to the

new rules of the House, was that the mover would move the petition, someone

would rise to support it, and then there would be an opportunity for the

government to respond. I would certainly be agreeable to revert to the old

procedure and allow - if I could be allowed to respond, then the member for the

government respond as well - that would be totally agreeable. Is that agreeable

to the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's agreed. I do welcome and thank the members on both sides of the

House for agreeing to this. It is an important petition. It is one which has

widespread support throughout the Province and it is consistent with an effort

that has been made by many different groups to try to reduce the impact of home

heating costs on the residents of this Province. In fact, two years ago when the

government introduced its legislation, or its proposal, to reduce Income Tax in

this Province, we proposed an alternative measure which, in fact, had the effect

of rebating to citizens of this Province 15 per cent of the cost of home heat,

whether it be oil or electricity. Knowing, of course, that unilaterally this

government could not change the HST provisions, but could, effectively, provide

a rebate of the full 15 per cent, which they have done to a minor extent last

year.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this petition represents the better

long-term version of that as opposed to a one-time rebate. The better long-term

position is to change the HST agreement, which is an agreement between this

Province and the federal government involving a couple of others provinces as

well, to allow the removal of home heating fuel as an item to be subject to the

HST. I want to congratulate the petitioners, and those who organized the

petition, of their incredible efforts throughout this Province in gathering

signatures -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - and providing a vehicle for the concerns of ordinary

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about the extreme costs. Particularly, to those

on fixed incomes, senior citizens, retirees, people who are on low incomes who

find an increasing burden and a great burden to heat their homes and to make

very difficult and painful choices between heat and food. That is not a choice

that should be forced on residents of this Province, given our place in this

country and the world, as one of the world's most prosperous nations. Our

citizens should not be forced to make that choice.

I urge the government to respond to these petitioners and to respond to the

needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to get some relief from the high cost

of home heat.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am very appreciative to have the opportunity to speak to such a very

important and serious issue this afternoon on the home heating fuel. Certainly,

a petition that warranted as many signatures is one that we take very seriously.

I would say though that it is unfortunate. I am disappointed that those who

collected the petition did not see fit to present to government, because I would

have only been too happy to have received the petition and speak with them

directly on this matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Based on the fact that government is being asked to make

the changes, that is the premise of which I had made the statement about how it

was presented. However, it does not decrease the importance of the issue. As

members in this House know, with respect to HST we are in an arrangement with

the other Atlantic provinces, particularly New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, on HST.

As a result of that, one of the first things I will say is that I will certainly

raise this issue with my two counterpart provinces as it relates to HST and home

heating fuel when I have occasion to meet with them and discuss important issues

in the future and, of course, Ottawa is one of the partners. It is a tripartite

agreement and they would have to be a part of that discussion.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the cost of home heating fuel and the increases

particularly, are driven primarily by the result of world market prices as

opposed to taxation. The world market price is certainly something that we are

all very concerned about. As a government, particularly, we have tried to

address the issue somewhat over this year, within the best of our means at

least, for one time only, provide a rebate of $100 for low income families who

are users of home heating fuel. As well, the federal government did a one time

credit of $125 per person or $250 per married couple. As well, in our senior's

budget this year we also announced a 50 per cent increase for people over the

age of sixty-five admittedly, from $200 to $300.

Mr. Speaker, I think what is most important to us and was made very clear

over the last number of days through our Budget, whenever we make any changes in

our allocation for cash we also have to be able to find a way to regenerate that

with respect to revenue. In this particular case the home heating fuel HST

component, covering both fuel and electricity, amounts to $35 million to

government. It is a significant amount of money. It is one that we would

certainly be open to hearing suggestions from the providers of the petition as

well as members in the House, where we might find that extra $35 million because

it always is a challenge whenever we identify a source of revenue which we want

to eliminate or would like to eliminate. We have to find a way to put that money

back so that we can continue to provide services like health, education and

other social services that are very necessary to us in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by saying that we are very aware of the issues

and hardships that this has created for many of our residents. I think that is

evident by the number of people who have taken the time to sign. I know it is a

very important issue and as I mentioned, with respect to our one time rebate to

low income families and the federal government's initiative as well as our

seniors' benefit, we will also take the opportunity to raise this issue with

my colleagues from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the federal government. We

will very seriously look at that as it relates to what we can do in the coming

months as we look at preparing how we will balance our books and try to do the

best we can with the resources we have. Finding $35 million is never easy,

regardless of the significance of the issue, and this one is very significant.

It still is quite a challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity of speaking to this

petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not going to get into debate on this. We have had our

say on it and the agreement is done, but I will say to the minister, she may or

may not be aware, the group who spearheaded this petition are sitting directly

in the gallery behind you. Maybe if you have a few moments between now and when

the House closes you may take five minutes to meet with them. (Inaudible) want

to talk to that point for a moment because I did not know if you were aware that

they were here or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Orders of the Day

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a very important issue to the people of the Province of

Newfoundland, and particularly, the people in the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, I guess if you want to look at how our fishery has been managed

with regard to shrimp in the past year, this government, and no doubt the people

of the Province to a certain degree, has lot a great deal of confidence in how

our resource is being managed from Ottawa. It has caused us on a number of

occasions to rise and express our concerns very strongly over decisions that

they have made with regard to the resources in Newfoundland and Labrador as it

relates to the fishery. It is unfortunate that today we rise again in the House

of Assembly to present a motion. I will read the motion so that it is in Hansard:

"WHEREAS too often in the past the people of the Province have not

received fair benefits form our resources;

AND

WHEREAS there are people along the Labrador Coast in other communities of

Newfoundland and Labrador in desperate need of access to the northern shrimp

resource;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly strongly oppose any

further allocation of the northern shrimp resource to out of the Province

interests."

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with that motion knowing full well that it is

something that will be supported by every member in this House of Assembly, and

hopefully, by every person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The fishery itself has been the backbone of the economy for many communities

in Newfoundland and Labrador. While there had been many decisions made in the

past as it relates to the shrimp resource that have not always derived full and

fair benefits for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, some of those

decisions that were made in the past, twenty or thirty years ago, while we may

not be able to change the outcome of some of them today, we have to do our part

to ensure that we make precedent setting decisions today so that when we look at

the allocation of this resource, we will look at allocating it in a way that

will benefit communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: If the member opposite would give me a moment maybe I will get

to that before I finish. I am sure he would be happy to get up and speak this

afternoon as well. I look forward to hearing his comments.

I want to talk for a few minutes on how this resource, in particular, has

impacted upon the economic well-being of people in my district and along the

Coast of Labrador. For a number of years we have seen tremendous allocations of

shrimp to offshore interests. While I will reserve comment today on how that has

been done and whether I agree or disagree, what I will say is that there has

been allocations to companies like the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp

Company Limited, like Torngat Coop Fisheries in the north coast, like the Fogo

Island Coop where we have seen the dividends that have been achieved from this

resource reinvested back into communities to build the fishery, to build plants,

to build opportunity and to build jobs for many communities. Mr. Speaker, I,

myself, have experienced it firsthand. I have seen how the investments from this

resource in Newfoundland and Labrador have contributed to building processing

facilities, have contributed to training individuals for jobs in their own

community, have allowed for people to participate fully in the fishing industry

as fishers themselves. It has derived a great deal of economic wealth. I guess

not all the allocations have certainly worked that way. As we know, there are

something like eighteen or nineteen allocations today which are made offshore

and a number of these allocations are made to interests that are outside of our

Province. Seven of those, in particular, exist in other areas of Atlantic

Canada.

When you look at the adjacency issue, you will notice that all of these

allocations have been issued in areas 4L, 5L, 6L and 3L, which are the major

portion of the shrimp grounds in this Province, and where the major quotas are

allocated. All of these areas are directly adjacent to the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think that when the federal government made the decision last year to make

a quota allocation to the Province of Prince Edward Island, it was obviously

something that was met with great dissatisfaction in this Province. Our former

minister was very active in championing our issue as it related to the fishery,

and making our views very known, not only in this Province and in Atlantic

Canada, but all across the country, that this is not something that we would

tolerate as people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate

that our minister at the time, had to do what he did and take the actions that

he did. Take the firm stand against Ottawa -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you support him?

MS JONES: Of course, I support him. He did the proper thing.

Mr. Speaker, in the past, and as we all know, the federal minister has the

sole discretion to make allocations regarding resource management. He has the

sole discretion, and although he does he has always made these decisions, or in

the past most Canadian ministers have made these decisions, and have been guided

by several principles. I guess one of them is adjacency and the other one was

historic dependency. We have always held true to those principles. They have

certainly been recognized and built from the United Nations Law of the Sea and

they were established principles by communities that we honored, and we had

hoped that all federal ministers, in making decisions on our resources and

allocations, would honour those two direct principles.

Traditionally, as well, when decisions were made on allocations in Ottawa to

communities in our Province, they also looked at the economic conditions. It was

a big part of their consideration in any decision.

Since 1990 it has been no secret that we have gone through tremendous changes

in the fishery. When allocations were made in shrimp and other resources, that

was always looked at and it was taken into consideration - our economic

dependency upon the resource, and the fact that key allocations were necessary

to move us along. Obviously the minister, in making his decision, did not look

at those guiding principles and has chosen to ignore them. What we have seen is

a terrible precedent that has been set in terms of the allocation of these

resources.

honour the commitment and the principles of adjacency and historic attachment

that have been put in place, and that when they make their decisions of

allocations of shrimp, that they consider all the applications that are before

them today from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to indicate to the House today that there are six proposals alone from

my district in Labrador for additional allocations to this resource of shrimp.

These people live adjacent to the area where the resource is. They watch boats,

day in and day out, harvest on these grounds right from their doorsteps.

Today, in the Labrador Straits area alone, we are experiencing tremendous

challenges in the fishing industry. We are seeing a number of people who have

participated in the traditional scallop fishery having their quotas reduced for

conservation reasons and are looking for alternative species in order for their

enterprises to survive.

Mr. Speaker, this group has come forward. They are asking the federal

minister to recognize their need today and to put some mechanism in place where

allocations can be made to those fishers so that they may be able to sustain

their enterprises.

We look on the Coast of Labrador, in the 2J area, where a large portion of

this shrimp is being allocated as we speak and deliberated as we speak. The

fishers in that area, the under thirty-five fleet alone, have experienced

tremendous challenges in the industry because, as you know, the nature of the

fishery has changed, there are fewer opportunities for the small boat fishermen,

and therefore they have to look at whatever options are available to them.

One of the things that we have done in previous years, with the cooperation

of DFO and the provincial Department of Fisheries and the unions, is to put in

place a permitting for the shrimp fishery so that inshore fishers in the under

thirty-five fleet could access permits to fish shrimp and use that income to

supplement their regular enterprise. This is a program that has worked and has

provided the necessary revenues. It has also given people who are participating

in the fishery in the fifty-five or sixty-five foot fleets, an opportunity to

have additional quota to fish at the same time. So, while it is one allocation,

it benefits two sectors of the industry.

That was a good program and it is working. What we are asking today is that

the federal minister consider that and look at making the necessary allocations

so that we can not only continue with that program of helping sustain

enterprises in communities with this quota, but at the same time look at how

other people can become involved in it as well - other enterprises that need to

have access.

There are a number of applications on the table today from communities, from

companies, and from fisher people that need this resource in order to sustain

their onshore operations, in order to provide jobs in communities, in order to

be able to have full access and participation in the fishery and to ensure the

survival of their enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, the federal minister has to consider all of those things. He has

to consider the economic dependency, the adjacency, the historical attachment in

making any additional allocations of this shrimp quota. Whether they be in

Labrador or on the Island of Newfoundland, we all have a dependency upon this

resource and we need it in order to build on the industry.

I would like to go on in a little bit more detail about what the shrimp

industry has done for the people in my district in particular, and I sure there

are many other members in the House today who could stand up and say how this

particular resource has impacted economic development in their districts over

the past two or three years.

We are about to open the first ever shrimp processing plant in Labrador, in

the community of Charlottetown. This is a wonderful opportunity for the people

there, and it is a wonderful opportunity for the company, but it was no small

task in accomplishing it because, first of all, we had to lobby for access to

the quotas to be able to do it. We had to work with our fishing enterprises in

order to gear them up and have them prepared to be able to harvest this

resource, but then we had to work with the companies to ensure that they could

put together this kind of a deal, make the proper financial investments, and

they have. They have done so and they are committed to ensuring that this

operation goes ahead. As a government, we also saw fit to make the investment

because it was investing in people in the rural areas of our Province and we

were happy to be able to do so.

Through the leadership of the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company

Limited, we will open the first ever shrimp processing plant in Labrador by May

or June of this year. It will provide anywhere from seventy to one hundred jobs

in a small rural area of this Province, and that is the kind of wealth that is

being derived from the shrimp industry. That is the kind of wealth that we are

seeing from proper resource allocation, from proper investments and from people

in the industry who are committed to doing what is right and what is just.

I am going to just make a brief comment on the issue that was raised by my

colleague across the House before I sit down, and I am sure there are a number

of people here who want to speak on this issue today, but the only thing that I

will say as it relates to FPI is: I do not care what company it is, but when you

look at the allocations of quotas in this Province, we have to ensure that what

we have stays here, which means that we cannot transfer or allow for the

transfer of quotas outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. Furthermore, we cannot

our resources to go outside of our Province to other provinces in Atlantic

Canada for the benefit of other communities. These resources are valuable to us.

They are what will ensure the survival of our communities, and I ask that all

members today, in speaking to this motion, support it as well and stand together

to try and secure the allocations that we not only have but any future

allocations that may come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for The Straits & White Bay

North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure, as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair indicated already,

she is not expecting any opposition to this motion today from any member of the

House or certainly, I would hope, from any member of the population of

Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it goes without saying that this resource is

of utmost importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just the

fishing industry, not just rural communities, not just the tip of the Northern

Peninsula, Southern Labrador, Fogo, or anywhere like that, but to Grand Falls,

Gander, Clarenville and St. John's. Every community in Newfoundland and

Labrador, practically, is impacted by the fishery and reaps some benefits from a

developing, expanding shrimp fishery on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Just a little bit of history, I suppose, because the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair spoke about our historical attachment and the three principles that we

would hope govern, to some degree, how allocations of fish resources are made. I

would just like to speak, I guess, on the history of this fishery because it is

very important when we are talking about present and future allocations in this

fishery. The fishery basically started on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland

and Labrador in 1979, and from 1979 to 1997 unfortunately, to a large extent,

this fishery was restricted to the offshore freezer trawlers and, I guess, in

large part the quotas were held by interests outside of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I guess, because we have been wronged in the past on this fishery,

because we have been wronged in the past when allegations have been made, for

approximately twenty years, we should be careful when we talk about historical

attachment to this industry. We should have had historical attachment, we should

have been the major players in this industry for twenty years, but unfortunately

we were not the major players for twenty years and only in the last four to five

years have we really started to come into our own in this industry.

Since 1997 Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen have gained access, as I have

said. They have provided much needed employment onshore from shrimp being landed

with boats less than sixty-five feet to processing plants around Newfoundland

and Labrador. It goes without saying that this provided a tremendous boost to

areas like St. Anthony, Port au Choix, Anchor Point, Catalina and Clarenville.

Is it in Bay de Verde or Old Perlican that shrimp plant is?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bay de Verde.

MR. TAYLOR: Bay de Verde.

I guess there are a couple of other places I am sure I missed, along with all

the offloading facilities around the Province.

You cannot emphasize enough the importance of this fishery to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, whether they are fishermen, fish plant workers, off

loaders, truckers, gas stations, snack bar attendants or whatever. This is a

very important fishery to this Province.

Since 1997, as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair indicated, there

have been quite a number of people, individuals, fishermen, groups of fishermen,

communities, that have been looking for access or increased access to this

resource. Just this past winter, I expect DFO has been flooded with requests for

increased access and new access to the resource.

I guess the reason for bringing that up is just to move further along on the

three basic principles governing allocations for fishery resources. Economic

need is probably the second one. If you look at the fleets in Newfoundland and

Labrador that are in the fishery right now, quite a number of those fleets are

looking for increased access. They are looking at their shrimp enterprise right

now and looking at how viable that is as an operation or as part of their total

fishing enterprise, and find that it is not very viable at all given the low

allocations they have.

We have a crab fishery right now on the Northeast Coast and in Labrador that

is looking to some troubling times, I guess. They are looking to some troubling

times where we see prices have peaked and are moving down with some developments

in other parts of the world. We are looking at some of the resource problems

that appear to be looming there. Hopefully they are not going to reach any

critical or crisis situations, but certainly we have seen a reduction of the

quota by about 30 per cent last year, and there is always a possibility that the

quota could be reduced further. We hope that whatever needs to be done in that

resource to protect the long-term viability of it is done.

With those developments comes added financial pressure on the enterprises

that have been basically depending on crab alone for the past number of years.

Of course, those people are now looking for access in this fishery. We have

areas of the Province that have the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Certainly, those people are looking to the example that the Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair pointed out just now, the Labrador Fishermen's

Union Shrimp Company Limited, and looking at how, over the past twenty years,

this corporation has, on behalf of the people in the area, on behalf of the

fishermen in the area, managed a couple of offshore allocations of shrimp and

used it to develop onshore processing jobs, to develop harvesting capacity in

the area, and basically to produce or develop a fairly vibrant fishery on the

South Coast of Labrador from L'Anse au Clair to Cartwright. Also, she

mentioned the Torngat Fish Producers Co-op, and there are a few others in the

Province that have similar allocations. A lot of people throughout the Province,

or a number of places within the Province, are looking at these types of

allocations and the success that they have had in their areas. There are a

couple of organizations or areas in my district from Englee to Main Brook, and

The Straits area, who would like see similar allocations made in their areas so

that they could in some way benefit from a shrimp resource that has been growing

and a fishery that has been growing for the past number of years, and they have

seen very little in the way of benefits from, to date.

I guess the bottom line on this - and the member said that we should plead to

the federal government. That is part of our problem here in Newfoundland and

Labrador, that we find ourselves pleading to the Canadian government on issues

like fisheries resource allocation issues, and pleading with them to look upon

our situation, look upon our attachment to the fishery, look upon our dependence

on the water - on the water - on the fishery for Newfoundland and Labrador - I

won't get into water. I will stay away from water. Without water there would

be no fish. - that depend on the fishery resources of the Northeast Coast of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and look at our situation. We should not be pleading

to the government; we should be demanding of the Canadian government and the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans that any allocation of shrimp in the present

and in the near future be restricted to Newfoundland and Labrador based

interests, and that we not revisit the problems that we have had for the past

twenty years where Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, and I guess as

recently as last summer, Prince Edward Island, gained access to the shrimp off

the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I said when I started, I do not see any point in going on the whole

afternoon on this, because everybody in the Province agrees with it anyway.

Everybody on that side of the House, I hope, agrees with it, and everybody on

this side of the House agrees with it. I pointed out at the beginning that there

would be no opposition to it here. We fully support a motion like this. I wish -

to get this point in - that we could agree with all statements from that side of

the House on the fishery in the past couple of days the same way as we agree

with this one.

As the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair knows, last year when the

P.E.I. allocation was made, members on this side of the House, including myself

who was not here at the time but actually happened to be 140 or 150 miles off

St. Anthony at the time, certainly agreed with the former Minister of Fisheries'

position on the P.E.I. allocation, that we were completely outraged by it, and

hope that nothing like this will happen in the future.

We hope that this is an indication from members opposite that the fisheries

resources in Newfoundland and Labrador, and allocation decisions that are made

by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, are looked at seriously by the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that we are out front on these

issues and we do not wait until after the barn door is opened and the horse is

gone before we get up and try to stop things that appear to be looming. I guess

that goes for the FPI deal just as well as it goes for the shrimp deal, that we

should not be waiting for after the fact. We are not waiting today to speak out

on the shrimp allocations that are not made yet, and I hope that the government

will look a lot more seriously at what is developing in the industry today as it

relates to Fishery Products International and their board of directors, and the

control and management of one of the biggest fish companies in the world, and

the basis for most of our existence here in Newfoundland and Labrador, a company

that reaches much further than the communities their plants are in, and that we

do not wait until after May 1 to try and figure out what is going on here and

what we have to deal with, and that we deal with it now to the extent that we

can. We are not asking anybody to do anything outrageous. We are asking for

people to stand up and be accountable, to stand up and count on this issue.

Anyway, I will wrap it up right there. I hope, as I said, this is a sign of

how serious the members opposite take the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I will just say this; it is an old saying: When you are hunting for moose, don't

get sidetracked by rabbits.

On the P.E.I. shrimp allocation, that was 1,500 tons of shrimp. When we are

talking about allocations of shrimp in general in Newfoundland, let's not just

get caught up in how shrimp allocations are made. Let's look at how all

allocations are made in Newfoundland, whether it is turbot in the Gulf, shrimp

on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, or how the industry, as a

whole, is managed. That includes FPI, not just the shrimp, because FPI, as I

said, and I have to say it again because it is so important, FPI, Clouston

Foods, the offshore shrimp, every single community in Newfoundland and Labrador

that is involved with the fishery, is impacted by any changes in FPI, and that

we do not lose sight of that and just get focused on shrimp.

Mr. Speaker, I will wrap it up right there. I would certainly like to inform

the government that we always support motions like this, and will continue to

support them. As our leader said the day of the Throne Speech, we will support

motions and any legislation that comes forward that makes sense and is

protective of the interests of rural Newfoundland and Labrador - Newfoundland

and Labrador in general - and we hope that anything else that comes from that

side of the House is just as close to motherhood and apple pie as this one.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think one of the most difficult things I have to deal with is being

referred to as the former Minister of Fisheries. I wish you would stop using

that word. It is hard enough getting used to it without being reminded every

single day.

Seriously, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair put forward this

private member's motion, but where does it go? Where does a private member's

motion go? I think the big picture is what we have to look at and the possible

outcomes of what can happen, as the Member for The Straits mentioned about not

only shrimp but other species that are important to the survival of Newfoundland

and Labrador. I don't think anybody will argue the fact that we do not have

fish stock surplus to the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. What

we have to do is make sure that we prevent any giveaway of our resource in the

future as happened, for example, in the P.E.I. shrimp last year. The 1,500 tons,

some people would say that is not a lot of shrimp, but it is the principle of

the thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: It was taken away from fishermen who were actually out on the

bay, out on the ocean catching the shrimp when they were told to pull their nets

and come in. That is a serious situation. The bigger picture, what you have to

remember, is the term that Minister Dhaliwal used last year: This is not a

Newfoundland resource; this is a Canadian resource.

It is a funny thing. It is only a Canadian resource when it is around

Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not a Canadian resource when it is off Nova

Scotia. It is not a Canadian resource when it is lobster off P.E.I., or any

other species adjacent to their shores. It is a Canadian resource when it is

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I say this quite seriously, all of us in this House of Assembly, and

everybody who has a stake hold in the industry in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador, had better do some serious thinking on how they can prevent and

stop this from happening in the future; because, here is what is taking place

an Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review taking place right now. It started last

year, and there are two things that are going to impact on the future of

Newfoundland and Labrador negatively if we don't get on top of it. One is the

principle of adjacency. If the principle of adjacency is not clearly defined in

this new policy to the advantage of the coastal communities, in the example we

are talking about Newfoundland and Labrador, every resource that is in that

ocean is in jeopardy for the taking by somebody else in the future.

In tune with that, the principle of adjacency, is access to the resource -

the historical attachment. The historical attachment is something that is used,

and used in some cases to the advantage of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but

we had better be aware of how far we go on the historical attachments and what

the access will mean in the future.

Let me tell you what the minister has just done, what the minister in Ottawa

has just done. He has appointed an independent panel on access criteria. Now,

where is the panel from? There is one from the University of Ottawa, there is

one from Quebec, there is one from Ontario, and the last guy, I believe, is from

somewhere out west.

MR. SULLIVAN: B.C.

MR. EFFORD: B.C., that is right. There are four people now appointed to

review the access to fish stocks in Atlantic Canada, and nobody from Atlantic

Canada on that panel.

You talked about the FPI thing earlier. The Opposition Leader said the other

day that this is beyond partisan politics. Well, the future of the fishery of

Newfoundland and Labrador, while you want to make some points here in the House

of Assembly, in the big scheme of things is beyond partisan politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: The industry themselves had better be aware of what is going

on. Everybody who has a stake hold in the industry, whether it is the union,

whether it is the fishermen's associations, whether it is a committee of any

sort, FPI, National Sea, the Quinlans or the Daleys, everybody had better be on

top of this; because I can tell you now, the lobbyists hired by the

multi-millionaires on the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - the shrimp

they have taken away - have lobbyists in Ottawa every waking minute of every

hour of every day in the week making sure that they get their interests

protected. I ask the question: Are we, as an industry and as people in

Newfoundland and Labrador, doing the same thing? I doubt it very much.

Now, the other thing that we want to be aware of is that it is not just good

enough to ask not to give access of quotas to any other new entries; we had

better start maintaining the quotas that we have and stop increasing the quotas,

because here is what is happening now on the Flemish Cap, and this was proven by

scientists just a short while ago. The Member for The Straits & White Bay

should be aware of this, on the fisheries resource council. When you look at the

stocks, the shrimp that is up in Hawkes Channel and up in other areas being

caught, flows right out to the Flemish Cap. The people who are fishing on the

Flemish Cap, the Icelandics, have now increased the quota out there an extra

30,000 tons, because of the lucrative shrimp fishery that is flowing out there.

When you talk to the fishermen here in Newfoundland and Labrador now, most of

the shrimp they are getting are small industrial shrimp. Now, we had better be

aware of what is happening.

One thing that we should do is make sure that the best science information is

given and that, as a country and as an industry and as a Province, we had better

make sure that we do not do the same thing with the shrimp industry as we did

with all the other species in the past. We are headed in the same direction, but

if we do not clearly define the principle of adjacency and who has access to the

stocks adjacent to the shores, then we will put in jeopardy the whole of the

fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me again support what the Member for The Straits just said, because Nova

Scotia is waiting now as we are talking, and have been for the last two years,

on access to crab outside of our 200-mile limit. They are waiting and they have

their lobbyists in Ottawa. They have their request in, and if the principle of

adjacency and those stocks are not clearly defined, there is the next move that

could happen.

Now, we will probably take a reduction in quotas of crab in some areas this

year because of the state of the stocks. There is a known abundance of virgin

stock outside the 200-mile limit that we are not allowed to fish, only at

certain levels. It was decreased out there last year and controlled out there

last year. Yet, Nova Scotia, while we are talking about it, while we are arguing

among ourselves here in the Province over issues, they are waiting for access of

that stock. If that shrimp fishery and that principle of adjacency that was set

down last year, given to P.E.I., is not controlled in the principle of

adjacency, and that is not defined in the very, very near future to the

advantage of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, here is the next move that is

going to happen.

What I would caution, apart from presenting this private member's

resolution to the House of Assembly, we should be aware of the possible outcomes

of this in the future and somehow, through the industry stakeholders, there

should be discussions held and some forum put together to make sure a committee

is put together and that these things are acted upon immediately because you

cannot wait for two or three years down the road. As Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians we have to get rid of this complacency and this passive attitude we

have because we proved that last year on the shrimp fishery. If two or three of

us had not kicked up that noise last year, where would that have went? At least

we stalled it and made them stop and think, but the problem is not resolved yet.

So be aware of the future of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, be aware of

the possible outcomes of what this principle of adjacency, if it not clearly

defined, the impact it can have.

Can you imagine if we went to PEI and started fishing their lobster or if we

went on the Scotian Shelf and started taking Risley's offshore lobster, what

kind of a war it would be? Boats would be burned, things would be turned, plants

would be gutted, but here in Newfoundland and Labrador we talk about it, we

argue about it among ourselves and there it dies. So a little bit of caution of

what is about to come down the tube and the access to fish stocks and the

principle of adjacency. If we do not stay on top of it, as an industry here in

this Province and as stakeholders here in this Province, it will be defined and

clearly defined to the advantage of the people in Atlantic Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the resolution of the Member

for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, resolving that this House strongly oppose any

further allocation of the northern shrimp resource to out of the Province

interests. Mr. Speaker, that is a given. As the former Minister of Fisheries

said, that is an issue that is beyond any partisan interests. All members of

this House, I am fully convinced, will rise and support unanimously of this

resolution here today.

This is only one element, one possible element in what ought to be a far more

serious and significant effort. I agree fully with the former Minister of

Fisheries, the Member for Port de Grave, when he says that we have to be as

proactive as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as the lobbyists are who, by the

way, are financing their lobbying activities on the income that they receive on

a daily, a weekly and a monthly basis from the resources that they are already

getting in our offshore. We watched on T.V. last year the people of Prince

Edward Island or the members of parliament of Prince Edward Island, saying: what

are they complaining about, we are only asking for our fair share. They are

talking about their fair share of our resource. Their fair share of a resource

they say, that is adjacent to our shores.

I know the Member for L'Anse au Clair is right and others, anybody who has

visited the Labrador Coast, particularly the Southern Labrador Coast, and talked

to the people, the fish harvesters who looked out of their houses at night and

can see fishermen from Quebec, from other parts of the country fishing in the

waters within sight of the shore, fishing for shrimp, fishing for other species,

and then taking it and landing them in Port au Choix or elsewhere on a daily and

a weekly basis. It has to and it does, upset them very much. So we do have to be

vigilant and I know the issue that the previous speaker, the Member for Port de

Grave, is talking about, this panel. The first I heard of it was a telephone

call to an open line program by Gus Etchegary. The member knew about it, but

that is all very interesting. Why is that ordinary citizens, individuals, come

up with these things and raise the alarm? Where is the significant body which

has responsibility for these issues for this Province? Are we on top of this?

Was this government aware of it? I will say this on a nonpartisan basis, did the

federal minister for Newfoundland know about this? Did he have any input into

it? Was he asked? Were the seven members of Parliament from Newfoundland,

whether they were Liberals or Conservatives or whatever, were they involved?

Were they up to speed on it? Where are we going with this? It is all very well

to pass this motion - and we will do it, no question about it. Nobody in this

Province, nobody in any seat of this House of Assembly is going to vote against

this resolution but we will all wonder, what else can we expect or will we

expect or will we get from our government who has the power, who has the

resources and has the constitutional authority to deal with some of these

issues?

This is of fundamental importance in relation to our place in Canada. This

Province is a part of Canada. We have been here fifty years and we have seen in

interests of this Province when it comes to our fisheries; whether it be from

to be no special program for the Newfoundland fishery. There was an expectation

and a hope, Mr. Speaker, that with Confederation, with the increased power and

change, and a positive change, for the fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Their response was negative for the people of this Province and worse than that,

inaction when it came to protecting this resource from the foreign draggers, the

foreign fleets, the factory freezers and trawlers that started it in the early

1960s and took the vast majority of our resource away while the Government of

which only recognizes this resource as a: Canadian resource.

These are the kind of speeches that we are hearing from the Minister of

Fisheries in Ottawa. This is the kind of attitude, I would suspect, that we will

get from these academics from Central Canada, with the interests of Central

Canada in forming their views, with the interests of the Province of Quebec in

forming the views of the Quebec representative, with the interests of Ontario in

forming the Ontario academics but academics are no different than lawyers or

judges. Why do you think that the people of Quebec and the Province of Quebec

insists on having three judges on the Supreme Court of Canada? There is a reason

for that, because they believe fundamentally, that their interests can be

represented by people who are sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada who are

judges and lawyers who are trained in the Province of Quebec. Just as we have

academics who have views that are not independent. Academics are individuals who

happen to have academic training. They are not, in any way, impartial by their

training. They are going to present a point of view based on their own

experience, based on their own political view of the world, based on what it is

that they believe. It is based on where they come from. They are human beings

like everybody else.

I fully expect that we are going to see a report from this committee on

access that talks in generalities about the interests of Canada and will only

give lip service to the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to have

a policy on adjacency in this country that respects the fact that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, the fish harvesters, the plant workers, the

population of Newfoundland and Labrador, has to be subject to an adjacency rule

that gives us control over the economic benefits of our resources.

We see, not only within the 200-mile limit - as previous speakers have

mentioned - a reduction in our quota inside the 200-mile limit and, at the same

time, new licenses to new entrants and new players in the fishery being given to

other provinces. In fact, in some cases, to other countries. We want to put a

stop to that. We have to expect more from our own government. Certainly, the

industry can do something. Groups like FANL and the union can do something, but

they do not individually, have the kind of collective resources that are present

in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like to see, in addition to the private members' resolution from

the government member opposite, some commitment from the government itself, from

the Minister of Fisheries, from the Premier, from the Cabinet, to tell us what

it is that they are going to do to follow up on this resolution and insist, as a

primary priority of this government, that this resolution be followed and

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

I am glad that the Opposition applauded because by the time I am finished I

am sure they may not have the same response.

I want to speak on the motion put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair. I fully support it; however, I want to add a few words in that it is

just not Ottawa that I am worried about. It is also the government of the day

and the governments of the past.

If I can say just a few words, I remember when Bridgette Bardot was blamed

for killing the seal fishing industry and Ottawa put down $100 million to help

offset those people who were in desperate need. Most of the people who went to

the seal hunt, a lot of them, want it as a second income, but the people who

were most affected by the closure of the seal fishery were the people in the

riding of Torngat Mountains, and there was no subsidy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, the cod fishery. As a little boy growing up, I

can remember the draggers moving in when the ice moved off. We saw the

government of the day, in the 1960s, build what we call aspenite buildings in

Smokey for the Newfoundland fishermen and provided running water while the

people in Makkovik and Rigolet never had water and sewer and couldn't get five

cents to build a stage head.

When the salmon fishery failed in Newfoundland, the government of the day,

and the federal government, pumped millions of dollars into the salmon farms and

they killed the market for the Labrador salmon.

The government of the day, the federal government and ACOA took the young

char and the eggs from Northern Labrador and started farms on the Island that

killed the fishery. Now, the North Coast of Labrador is hit the hardest; you

have the poorest economy. In the wintertime, when our boats are tied up, we can

see the lights of the draggers that are up off the North Coast of Labrador

reaping the shrimp. For the last five years we have been fighting for an

allocation of shrimp to put seventy people to work in Rigolet, and we haven't

been able to get a pound.

While I fully support the concept put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair, if we are going to fight for adjacency then we, as Government of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, have also to keep in mind that when we

lobby for these quotas, we help those who need it the most and those who are

adjacent to it.

We traveled to Ottawa when we fought for more money for the TAGS program. The

hon. members across the way, there was some on that committee as well, knew I

had no problem in telling Ottawa what it was like to be the only riding in this

Province that did not get one penny. Mr. Speaker, we were successful. I am glad

that I could tell of where homes were broken up, where people could not afford a

birthday card let alone a birthday present. Yes, we need to lobby Ottawa, we

need to get control of our quotas, but most important of all, just as we are as

fast to jump on Ottawa for these quotas, we have to jump as a unit and make sure

that those who it need the most get a fair share.

Seventy people - we looked at several options for the community of Rigolet,

and the only possibility we have right now is for a shrimp plant. We are looking

for a quota to put seventy people to work, and yet the draggers can go out there

and scrape the bottom day in and day out and we can't get enough to put

seventy people to work.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair,

but I say to this hon. House, too, that when we lobby Ottawa and we get our

quotas, we make sure that those who are adjacent and need it the most get their

fair share.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If the hon. the member speaks now, she concludes debate.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate the comments by all the members

who spoke on this motion today. No doubt, they are words of people who have

certainly been involved in the industry, associated with the industry, have been

decision-makers, have been the end users, and have participated in a number of

aspects of the fishery.

I want to said that protecting our resources, and our fishing resource in

particular, is the responsibility of all of us in society and all of us in

Newfoundland and Labrador. No doubt there are guiding principles that have to

prevail. They have prevailed in the past, in certain instances, and they have

been there for our protection, and we have a responsibility to ensure that they

prevail in the future. They are the principles of adjacency - very strongly,

adjacency. It is a big issue for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the

principle of historical attachment and economic consideration. All these things

have to be considered.

While we are discussing shrimp today, I want it to be clear, and it should be

clear, that the stand that we take applies to all resources and all fish species

that are adjacent to the waters of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it be

crab, shrimp, turbot, cod, or whatever the species may be, and it applies to all

regions in our Province, not just the region that I represent, but all regions

in our Province, because it is shared by all of us.

I just want to highlight one thing before I close, and that was a comment

made by the hon. the Member for Port de Grave. He is absolutely right when he

says that we, in Newfoundland and Labrador, cannot be complacent when it comes

to our resources. We cannot be complacent when it comes to decisions being made

in Ottawa with regard to allocations, with regard to adjacency, and with regard

to who participates in the industry and who does not. We have to ensure that we

all do our part and that we all uphold the principles that have been outlined,

and that we all ensure that Ottawa is accountable to us, the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in saying that, I just want to thank the hon. members who spoke

in support of the motion today and I will close on that remark.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Motion carried.

This being Wednesday afternoon, the House does now stand adjourned until

tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.