April 12, 2006 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we are very pleased to welcome to the House of Assembly,

thirty-four Level I students from Mount Pearl Senior High, with their teachers

Mr. Darrell Penney and Mr. Stephen Mallard. Of course, Mount Pearl Senior High

is located in the wonderful District of Waterford Valley.

Welcome to our House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the

hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the

District of Topsail; the hon. the Member for the District of Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; and, the hon. the

Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Erin Earle of Shearstown and Peggy Wakeham of

Bay Roberts, both young ladies from the District of Port de Grave. Erin and

Peggy played with the Conception Bay North CeeBees in the All-Newfoundland and

Labrador Female "A" Senior Hockey.

Mr. Speaker, the CeeBees competed against the Conception Bay South Renegades,

the St. John's Caps, and the Corner Brook Royals. The CeeBees went undefeated

and won the championship by defeating the Corner Brook Royals by a score of 3-1

last weekend. Erin scored two goals, while Peggy scored the other in their

victory. Both are very talented ladies, and they have a bright future in female

hockey in and outside of this Province, Mr. Speaker.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating Erin, Peggy

and the Conception Bay North CeeBees on winning the All-Newfoundland and

Labrador Female "A" Senior Hockey Championship, and we look forward,

over the next two weeks, doing the same for our senior team.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Topsail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last Saturday, Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of attending the Conception Bay

South Lions Club

Charter Night to celebrate their thirty-fifth anniversary. The Conception Bay

South Lions Club was chartered in 1971 and since that time has contributed to

hundreds of worthwhile causes and projects in the area, obviously too many to

mention. That same night, the CBS Lions Club also announced their Citizen of the

Year for 2005 for Conception Bay South. Mr. Charles Taylor was selected for this

prestigious honour.

"Charl", as he is affectionately known in the community, has always

been active in the community and has supported many groups and activities over

the years. It would be impossible to list them all within the time allotted. He

has been a volunteer with the Church Lads Brigade, Past-Present and

Lieutenant-Governor of the Kelligrews Kiwanis Club, Chair of the Janeway

Telethon, and a volunteer with the Cancer Society, the Red Cross and the

Conception Bay South Fire Department. Charl also loves to cook, and volunteers

his cooking skills for community groups and fundraiser.

Mr. Speaker, I ask this hon. House to join me in congratulating the

Conception Bay South Lions Club on their thirty-fifth anniversary, and the

selection of Mr. Charl Taylor as the Conception Bay South Citizen of the Year

for 2005.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate Christy Groves of Forteau's Mountain Field

Academy who was named one of the finalists in this year's Canada Day Poster

Challenge. Christy is fourteen, and is one of four finalists in our Province.

The winners were announced on April 3 by Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Day Poster Challenge encourages young Canadians to

visualize Canada through their eyes and explore the many facets of our country,

from its landscape and heritage to its people, culture and ideas. This contest

provides students with the opportunity to display their creativity while

demonstrating their pride in being a Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, there were over 1,600 entries in this poster challenge from all

across our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I would like to ask all

members to join with me in congratulating Christy Groves of Forteau's Mountain

Field Academy on being named one of the finalists in this year's Canada Day

Poster Challenge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Exploits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in

this House to recognize the contributions to the Town of Bishop's Falls by the

Bishop's Falls Volunteer Firefighters, in particular the dedication of Mr. Ed

Osmond who was chosen Firefighter of the Year.

We are all aware of the commitment of these volunteers being ready for duty

twenty-four hours a day and, of course, this would not be possible without the

support they receive from their families.

These firefighters are called to many other emergencies such as forest fires,

highway traffic accidents and even the Badger flood. They also partner with

other community groups to raise awareness for such worthwhile causes as Muscular

Dystrophy, the Cancer Society, and The Wish Foundation. Mr. Osmond has given his

time unselfishly and, for all these reasons, his dedications is certainly

recognized by his peers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in recognizing

the contribution of the Bishop's Falls Firefighter of the Year, Mr. Ed Osmond.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Bay la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the communities and residents on

the Connaigre Peninsula. Thirty-five years after being connected to the rest of

the Province by road, the Connaigre Peninsula is now officially connected to the

rest of the world by a new technological highway. The communities on the

Connaigre Peninsula are now part of the global village. Recently, they were

officially linked to the rest of the world via the information highway and now

residents can enjoy easier access to this modern service.

Mr. Speaker, officials from Aliant, the Province, and Industry Canada, joined

with members of the Connaigre Net Incorporated Committee and the Town of Harbour

Breton for the launch. For this occasion, the Harbour Breton Town Council was

the site used for the official launch of the Aliant Broadband Internet service.

Mr. Baxter House, Project Manager, and Mr. John Vallis, Chair of the

Connaigre Net Incorporated Committee played a key role in bringing the Aliant

high-speed Internet service to the region. Mr. Vallis took the interest and

initiative to begin this project back in 2002, and Mr. House spent considerable

time working on this very worthwhile project. Both gentlemen need to be

commended for the conclusion of the project which will assist in making the

entire region competitive in a global marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me to congratulate

the committee, the communities and residents of the Connaigre Peninsula on the

official launch of the Aliant Broadband Internet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Premier said that potential legislative changes that would

permit government to expropriate Exxon Mobil's share of the Hebron-Ben Nevis

project was not high on the priority list when meeting with the Prime Minister

today. Last week, the Premier was talking much tougher. He said that he would be

looking at this type of legislative change to force the project to move forward.

He now knows that any such legislative change will require support from the

federal government.

I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Why has the Premier backtracked on

his strong language of last week? Is it because he anticipates a cool reception

from the Prime Minister to this idea?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, any one of us, at any time, could cherry-pick a certain phrase,

could cherry-pick a certain sentence, reach our own conclusion and then bring

forward a question that only reaffirms the conclusion that they want us to reach

in asking the question, and that is exactly what the Opposition House Leader has

just done. It is commonly known as political spin.

The fact of the matter is that the Premier, in dealing with the Prime

Minister, on any number of issues, this one included - but, I think what we need

to understand, yesterday the Opposition House Leader asked a question to the

Premier about releasing more information. The Premier said: You know all the

information. The reason why he will not put it all out there, he said, because

he believes that negotiations on this potential project have not reached a final

conclusion. That is the answer. Whether they want to accept it or not is up to

them, but that is the truth as we know it because it happens to be so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it very ironic that the government who passed the transparency act

here can get up and talk about political spin coming from the Opposition; the

doctors of spin and deflection, I say.

Mr. Speaker, government has been discussing these potential legislative

changes since, at least last Monday. However, from the phone calls and the

e-mails that we have received, local industry people fear what these changes

would have on future exploration and development, especially in areas such as

the Orphan Basin, The South Whale basin and the Laurentian Sub-Basin.

Minister, we have been told that you have received these same e-mails and

correspondence that we have received, that they were relayed to you: What did

these people tell you, the local industry people, about these concerns? Have you

had any discussions with the local industry representatives as to what they

believe the impact will be of these potential legislative changes?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, you would not know if what we have contemplated or suggested

publicly is something new, unique, draconian across the entire world. The fact

is, that that is not so.

In Norway, for example - and my colleague, the Leader of the NDP knows this.

In Norway, if you find a significant discovery, commonly known as an SDL -

significant discovery licence - that is found to be commercial, you have a

certain period of time in which you have to develop that find. I think it is

about fifteen years. The phrase is: Use it or lose it.

The fact of the matter is this, that in this Province companies have been

sitting on significant discoveries for between periods of twenty to twenty-five

years. They have warehoused commercial developments that should be now producing

oil. We do not support that. We support a regime that is friendly, that is

competitive but does not put our resources in the hands of major oil companies

forever and a day without a benefit to the people of the Province. Our view is

this, that we have a world-class resource. It is located adjacent to the biggest

marketplace in the world for that resource, the U.S. We are in a politically

secure environment and, Mr. Speaker, if we have our way, and we believe it is

the best way for the people of the Province, yes, come and develop it but you

will not be allowed to sit on it in perpetuity to the detriment of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Little by little we probe, little by little we get little pieces of

information from the Premier and the minister over this issue. Eventually, we

hope to get to the point where we will get the information so that the people

will have the full picture of where we are on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, should government decide to move forward with the fallow field

legislation, legislation that would force oil companies to develop their

projects in a certain amount of time or lose their investment, would this

legislation be retroactive? Is that the thought process right now, that it would

be retroactive to existing discoveries, or would this initiative only apply to

future projects and on a go-forward basis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is evident is this: On the first day this

story broke, the question and the spirit and intent of the questions coming

forward was: Had we set the bar too high in terms of dealing with the oil

companies? The second day that it broke, the second day after this story

emerged, the question was: What did you give up for your 4.9 per cent share in

the agreement?

In fact, the record of Hansard will demonstrate it, the Leader of the Liberal

Party of Newfoundland and Labrador said: These negotiations are being conducted

in secret. Three or four days later, he says: You don't conduct these types of

negotiations in public.

What is at issue here is the proper development or our - and I emphasize the

word "our" - resource, and that is where our head is to, not anywhere

else - Monday over here, Tuesday over there, next Wednesday somewhere else. We

have been consistent in our approach.

Previous to the election, we campaigned on a mantra: no more giveaways. We

campaigned on a mantra of doing what is right for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and that is exactly what we intend to do with the oil companies and

anyone else that we deal with.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: You still never answered the question.

Why don't you tell the students up in the gallery how you didn't answer

the question?

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite obvious that, whenever you hit them, they get on the defensive

over there. The minister gets up and they always rant and rave when you ask

questions that are probing and to which they cannot give an answer. I say the

only thing consistent about the minister's comments are the inconsistencies of

the government. That is the only thing consistent about them.

Mr. Speaker, in today's The Globe and Mail , Todd Weiler, a North

American Free Trade Agreement law specialist, is quoted as saying: Any attempt

by government to introduce fallow field legislation would be a slam dunk for

ExxonMobil under

chapter eleven of the North American Free Trade Agreement. He

says: This would cost this Province billions of dollars in legal and

compensation costs.

I ask the minister: What legal advice have you sought on the implications of

NAFTA, and do you agree that the Province could potentially be on the hook for

much more than pre-development costs?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition sang out, when I was answering the

question: Why don't you tell the students in the gallery why you didn't

answer the question?

Let me tell the students in the gallery this: What we are up to here today is

about your future, nobody else's, I say to the students in the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, to the issue, I am glad to see that

the hon. Opposition House Leader is taking advice from The Globe and Mail .

We do not. We take it from our own internal and external advice, where we see

fit, Mr. Speaker, that supports the conclusions where we feel our resources will

go for the benefit of people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not only is the minister not giving any answers, and he is all about

deflection, the question was not, and the comment was not, about what The

Globe and Mail said. My comment was referring to Mr. Todd Weiler, whose name

I gave, who is a tax specialist. That is the question that was asked. It so

happened the Globe was only the printer of that particular information. Again,

it is easy to see that the minister is not prepared to give answers to the

questions in here.

It is fine to be concerned about the future of students in the gallery, but

it is nice if they are informed as well, because people need to be informed so

that they know you are telling it like it is.

MR. J. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I have lots of questions, I say to the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. I am not getting many answers. I have lots of questions, but I am not

getting many answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, last night on Here and Now - and, again,

we do not expect you to take advice from Here and Now , but these are just

the messengers - Mr. Mark MacLeod of Chevron stated that their company has not

been in contact with the Premier, and nothing has changed regarding this current

negotiation impasse. This contradicts what the Premier stated in this House of

Assembly on Monday, when he stated that he has had new discussions with Chevron's

lead negotiator from Calgary.

I ask the minister: Who is telling the truth in this situation? Have there

been any negotiations, or is the minister even in the loop to know what is going

on?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Right up until last week, the end of last week and over the weekend, the

Premier's own commentary in The Telegram speaks to what has been

occurring, that there were discussions happening.

MR. REID: Then Mark MacLeod is lying?

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I did not say that Mr. MacLeod was lying, I say to the

Leader of the Opposition. You ask a question; I will give you the answer. You

can accept it or not.

The fact of the matter is, what Mr. MacLeod said today - and I read it, or

saw it last night - that nothing has changed, he is right. If something had

changed, we would probably be announcing a deal today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Again, we see deception and deflection, Mr. Speaker, no

answering of questions here. No answering of questions here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Fine, Mr. Speaker, I take it the party opposite have some

concern with my use of the word deception. I withdraw that unparliamentary

remark, Mr. Speaker. This government is all about deflection and

non-transparency.

Mr. Speaker, to the questions, which we have not been getting many answers to

again today, we have been asking, for ten days in this House, to receive details

of the failed negotiations with the Hebron-Ben Nevis partners. Last week, the

Premier said he would consider releasing the details. On Monday, he backtracked

and said he would not release the details. Yesterday, he became irate when I

pointed out to him that while in Opposition he wanted all details of project

negotiations made public and debated. Well, Mr. Speaker, the facts speak for

themselves. There have been no concrete details released in print for the people

of this Province to examine and decide what this matter is all about. As a

matter of fact, every day we find out new things that were never revealed before

but only came out after questioning.

I ask the minister: If there is nothing to hide, why don't you table the

details as the Premier initially said he would, especially the details of your

so-called royalty regime?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I can only refer the member to Hansard because he asked the same question

yesterday in Question Period.

The Premier said: Unlike what occurred with Voisey's Bay was that when the

deal was done then we knew. Right now, people know why there wasn't an

arrangement reached. It was because the oil companies collectively and the

companies who were involved in this development who made a profit last year - by

the way, of $54 billion - wanted our Province to give them $400 million to $500

million in ITCs, or income tax incentives. They wanted us, as well, to exempt

them from GST payments of 15 per cent on all fuel they have used, the same

companies who made $54 billion last week.

What is really transparent and apparent to me, and what needs to be - and I

will lay it out there today, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday morning in the Estimates

Committee in this House, with respect to my department, the Department of

Natural Resources, not one question did the hon. member ask about this issue,

not one, but when we get into public forum, when they want to make some hay for

themselves on the backs of the people of the Province, that is when the show

begins, Mr. Speaker. That is not the way we operate. We have laid all the

information out there of why this deal did not get arranged. We have laid it all

out there, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you this, exactly what the Premier said

yesterday: Until these discussions reach a conclusion one way or the other, we

are not going to jeopardize the future of the people of the Province with this

development.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair notes that the last several exchanges went beyond the usual sixty

seconds, and I ask members for their co-operation.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The recently released Canadian Cancer Statistics report shows that while

Newfoundland and Labrador has a lower rate of cancer than the national average,

unfortunately our death rate is much higher, due to this disease. This is

alarming news. The Canadian Cancer Society recommends that more and better

cancer screening will help save lives in our Province, especially in the areas

of colon, breast, and cervical cancer.

I ask the minister: How does your government intend to address this very

disturbing and appalling gap that exists in our health care service so that more

lives can be saved?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to table a copy of the

Budget, because in this year's Budget we did address cervical cancer

screening. We did address breast cancer screening. We did have medications for

breast cancer. We did have medications for colorectal cancer. We announced

funding for a cancer clinic in Grand Falls-Windsor. We announced funding for a

cancer clinic in Gander. This report, Mr. Speaker, outlines the need for this

stuff. We have implemented these measures in this year's Budget. We are taking

the direction of the Cancer Society very seriously, their advice, their

recommendations, and we have implemented much of what they have asked for. In

fact, Mr. Speaker, I will quote Peter Dawe of the Canadian Cancer Society: So at

the end of the day you know people are going to get the most leading edge cancer

treatment that is available in the country. It is going to be available here

just like anywhere else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I would just like to suggest to the minister that there is a

difference between cancer treatment and cancer screening. My question was

regarding screening.

My next question, Mr. Speaker, is with regard to the drugs for Multiple

Sclerosis patients. In the last two weeks I have raised this issue with the

minister and his department. There are over 600 people today in our Province,

minister, who are going without the proper therapies and medications that they

need simply because they cannot afford it. Have you done anything with this

file, and are you prepared to ensure that these patients have the drugs they

need?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I heard her

preamble and I answered her

previous question; $1.5 million to enhance cervical screening programs in the

Province, $750 million to enhance breast screening centres in the Province. We

have provided funding for screening. We have provided funding for radiation. We

have provided funding for cancer clinics. We have provided funding for

treatments.

On the question of MS; we have increased the allotment to the provincial

Prescription Drug Program so that instead of 20 per cent of the people having

access to affordable drugs, we now have 40 per cent. What you are asking about

is catastrophic drugs and a universal program. We are in conversations and

communications with the federal government on providing universal drug coverage

on catastrophic drugs. When we are able to receive an answer from the federal

government, I will be happy to report to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, Patricia is a thirty-three-year-old woman, a

mother of two children, who pays $2,100 a month for her MS drugs. Every month

that her and her husband's income rises above $2,800, she loses her drug card

and she has absolutely no drug coverage in Newfoundland and Labrador. Can you

tell me, honestly, minister, that the 600 people out there, in the situation

that she is in, are getting full and fair drug coverage from your government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, well, first of all, let me say this, that

raising issues of a personal nature on the floor of the House is something that

I have asked the member before, if she feels that these issues are important

enough -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: On two previous occasions she has raised personal cases

on the floor and I have asked her to bring these cases to me. Not once has she

brought these cases to me, even after raising them on the floor of the House.

That indicates her importance to these particular issues.

Mr. Speaker, the individual case that she has referenced, if they are

receiving a drug card and from time to time they go beyond that drug coverage,

that is exactly the intent of the allocation in this year's provincial Budget,

to increase the number of people who are receiving access to affordable drugs

from 100,000 to 200,000 people in this Province. Hopefully, under that program,

she will have access to affordable drugs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister Responsible

for the Status of Women.

Minister, earlier this year two high profile women were regrettably fired

from their positions at the College of the North Atlantic. I understand that

they may have since launched a lawsuit against the government. I ask the

minister to confirm if, indeed, there is a lawsuit pending against the

government in relation to, what we call, the tick-tock scandal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Minister Responsible

for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the position that the

hon. member mentioned was a contract position. The contract had expired and was

not renewed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: So, we don't know if there are any legal cases pending.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, a woman in the Goose Bay Penitentiary claimed that she

was left for three days without her clothes in a jail cell. Yesterday, in the

Estimates Committee, I was appalled to hear the minister say that neither

herself nor the Women's Policy Office even so much as made an inquiry into the

situation - not even as much as a telephone call.

Now, I understand that the Department of Justice would normally do an inquiry

into allegations like this, but I have to ask you, as the Minister Responsible

for the Status of Women: Will you not engage yourself in important circumstances

like this, that are impacting upon women in our prison system?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, and Minister Responsible

for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women,

and responsible for the Women's Policy Office, we were in contact with the

Department of Justice when we heard of the issue regarding the woman at the

lock-up in the Goose Bay RCMP detachment. We were advised by the Department of

Justice that this was a matter that was being investigated by the RCMP, so we

have to let that matter unfold to see the results of the investigation.

We will not be going up, as the Women's Policy Office, and doing an

investigation of that matter. We will certainly be looking for the results of

that investigation to make sure that the policies that affect women in this

Province are upheld and are appropriate for the situations that they are in.

Mr. Speaker, there have been some long-standing issues with regard to women

in incarceration. The issues probably came to a head back in the early 1990s

when we saw all the issues that came out of P4W, and the results in the Louise

Arbour report that came from then.

I am certainly interested in seeing the results of that, what were some of

the standards that were put around, because I would think the federal standards

would probably apply to the RCMP lock-ups as well.

Mr. Speaker, when we do have that report, and we look at the policies, we

will certainly analyze that to make sure that the women are treated

appropriately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Not even a phone call, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Minister, I was also astonished to learn that you do not burden yourself

with the economic crisis that face women in our Province. Women who are working

in our fish plants throughout the Province will face an employment crisis this

year. We know that thousands of these dedicated workers will be displaced from

their jobs at the end to June without eligibility for EI benefits. Her own words

in the Estimates last night: don't involve ourselves in the economic piece.

Minister, you have studies in your office today that show that job loss in

our society also impacts upon poverty and discontent in the family. I ask you:

Who will be their voice in government if you, as the Minister Responsible for

the Status of Women, refuse to be?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, and Minister Responsible

for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women,

and Women's Policy Office, we do not have any direct programs that we deliver

in the Province but we do assist any government departments in policy

development and policy analysis.

At one point, I was invited to a few meetings that were called by the FFAW in

regards to an early retirement program and the fact that they wanted a gender

analysis done on the issue. I was accompanied by the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture at the time, now the Minister of Transportation and Works.

We have also embarked on other issues within policy analysis that deal with

economic benefits, and some involve the environmental assessments that are done

regarding resource development, the number of women who are employed. We

certainly look at the other issues, and the Women's Policy Office have input

into the major strategies and the major developments of this government, whether

it is in relation to economic or social policy.

We have also assisted the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development to look at all their programs and policies to make sure they are

gender sensitive, and that would certainly have an economic impact in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, again, no support for the women affected through

economic crisis.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is visiting our Province today. In the past,

I asked the Premier, I asked the Minister of Health, if they would stand up to

protect the child care services that we have in our Province today; and, Mr.

Speaker, in my mind they refused to do so.

Knowing full well, Minister, knowing full well, that we could lose 3,000

child care spaces in our Province, over $25 million in investment in child care,

and knowing full well that both the FFAW is opposed to this, the Nurses' Union

is opposed to this, and many other groups, will you, as the Minister for The

Status of Women, approach the Prime Minister on this important issue and ask

that the commitment to child care that was initiated by the previous federal

Liberal government be upheld in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education, and Minister Responsible

for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, the agreement with

the federal government for child care was with the Department of Health and

Community Services, which goes back to show that the Women's Policy Office

does not engage in direct program delivery in this Province, but we are

committed to work with the Department of Health and Community Services and with

the Premier to advance child care in this Province, to make sure that we have

adequate chid care available for the workers in this Province, specifically

women, to enable them to move into the workforce.

Mr. Speaker, yes, as Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, my

commitment is there that I will work with the Minister of Health and Community

Services to advance this issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, or whoever is responding for him this

afternoon.

The Premier said yesterday, the number one priority of his government with

workers, one which was not supported by the Prime Minister in the pre-election

letter to the Premier, although full commitment both to the FFAW and to the

Premier in a letter of January 15 of this year was given by Jack Layton from the

NDP.

Given the Premier's comments this morning in Gander, that this Prime

Minister is one that they do not have to fight with to get things done, what

exactly is the strategy of this government to try and actually get an early

retirement program for fishery workers in this Province, and a licence buyback

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, the first piece of the strategy, Mr. Speaker, was to

make representation to all party leaders during the federal election in January.

Some responded definitively, some responded less definitively.

Since the government has been decided, we have put together a package that we

consulted with the FFAW on, that we have consulted with the Association of

Seafood Producers, some of their members, on, and that detailed package has now

been presented to our regional minister, to the Minister of Fisheries and

Oceans.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Our money is there.

MR. RIDEOUT: We have committed our money in the Budget for our share of

that. The Premier, as we speak today, is meeting with the Prime Minster. The

item that I understand him saying in the news is that the very top of his

agenda, despite questions from other parties in the House, is just this very

item. So, the Premier and the government, Mr. Speaker, are working diligently to

the right approach, and one they ought to buy into.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, obviously the NDP will be there in Ottawa to

support whatever efforts can be undertaken.

important to this Province is that of custodial management. We did have a

commitment from the current Prime Minister, in his letter to the government

prior to the election, to support - and I will read his words, Mr. Speaker. He

said that a Conservative government would support extending custodial management

on the Continental Shelf beyond the 200-mile limit to the Nose and Tail of the

Grand Bank and the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, is this government satisfied with the commitments made to date

government in Ottawa will, in fact, take action on this commitment and promise

as they have on the Gander Weather Office?

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

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the proof of the pudding will be in

the eating. They did follow through, certainly, in spades, on their commitment

to the Gander Weather Office - the Prime Minister announced it here today - and

we are pleased that they did that.

In terms of custodial management, Mr. Speaker, the party, I think, when they

were in Opposition, the Fisheries critic, who is now our regional minister and

DFO minister, sponsored resolutions in the House of Commons calling on this.

This House today, Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned as a government, will

pass a resolution unanimously calling for Canada to extend jurisdiction over the

Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks through custodial management. I think

everybody, as far as I know, are working from the same hymn sheet. I think there

will be success, Mr. Speaker -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: What is wrong with the Member for Bay of Islands, Mr.

Speaker? The Speaker has a stop clock up there. When anybody gets over the limit

the Speaker is not afraid to get to his feet. So I ask the hon. member, Mr.

Speaker, contain yourself!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment, and Labrador Affairs.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to support the 2004-2005 Annual Report for the Labour Relations

Agency.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further Tabling of Documents?

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

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

I know that we are closing today, but when we return on Monday, May 1, I want

to give notice of Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on

Monday, May 1, and give further notice that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

on Monday, May 1.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday, and I believe under our Standing

Orders, that notice has been given by the hon. the Member for the District of

Port de Grave and he has submitted a resolution for debate on this afternoon.

I call upon the member now to begin that debate.

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

Let me say it gives me pleasure today to be able to stand and present a

private member's motion in relation to custodial management off our shores. I

have to say, it seems to be very encouraging that the debate today and the

format that it will take, because we have heard from different members across

the way that it could go as a unanimous decision.

Mr. Speaker, before I go into my few comments, I will read the member's

motion into the records:

WHEREAS the marine resources on the Grand Banks of this Province are a

crucial element of the global ecosystem; and

WHEREAS these resources have the potential to provide tremendous economic

benefits on a sustainable basis; and

WHEREAS the protection and conservation measures provided by the

international community and organizations, such as NAFO, are not sufficient to

protect marine resources on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks off the coast

of this Province; and

WHEREAS the longer this ecosystem remains unprotected, increased and possibly

irreparable damage continues to occur;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the

the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the

enforce conservation measures for the marine resources in this area;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Newfoundland and Labrador be an integral

partner in any management structure and conservation measures deemed necessary

to protect marine resources adjacent to our shores.

Mr. Speaker, on March 13, 2002, I stood on the opposite side of this House. I

stood in my place to present the same private member's motion as I am

presenting today. I have to say, that when I stood at that time, and I repeat it

again today, that this motion was not put forward to generate debate on a

political or partisan basis, but rather to bring attention to federal

international community at large. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the same is

true today.

Mr. Speaker, I know that this issue has been raised many times by different

Members of this House of Assembly over many, many years, but I have to say, even

though there is probably dialogue going on with various political parties on the

federal scene over the years, I have to say that, in my mind, very little has

been accomplished. I have to ask all my colleagues in this hon. House: Can you

imagine the damage that has been done in the four short years since I made that

last private members' motion, let alone the damage that has been done for

many, many years previous to that? I have to say, it is unacceptable and we

cannot afford to let this continue.

Mr. Speaker, as I look at the WHEREASES in the motion and refer to how

crucial an element it is on the global ecosystem, we all know that for hundreds

of years the fishery off our coast has been a mainstay not only for this

Province, but it has been for many countries around this world and a source of

global food supply.

Mr. Speaker, we also know the tremendous potential it has been economically

for this Province for hundreds of years. I am not saying that if steps had been

taken then everything would be rosy in our Province today, but let me assure

you, only for the crab fishery and shrimp fishery in this Province, I hate to

think what a situation we would be placed in today.

We all know that rural Newfoundland hinges totally on the fishery in this

Province. I have heard members, not Members in this House of Assembly, but

individuals, say over years that the fish that are on the Nose and Tail of the

Banks and on the Flemish Cap, they do not come inshore. They swim, and I am sure

they all do not go in the opposite direction. The destruction that has taken

place over a number of years has had a major part to play in the situation in

this Province today.

We talk about the international community, an organization such as NAFO. Mr.

Speaker, I have to say, and others have said it previously, that the work that

has been carried out by NAFO is far from what it has to be, because the

international community is just not listening. Politicians, provincially and

federally, have gone to visit those countries and, as far as I am concerned,

nothing has been done to date to really correct the problem.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a responsibility to act, and to act quickly. I said

it before, when a former Administration was in Ottawa, and I say it today, even

though there is a change in the Administration in Ottawa, it has nothing to do

with partisan politics whatsoever. It is a serious situation. This is a

renewable resource and, as I stated earlier, a major food supply for the world.

As I stated earlier, I hate to think what would happen around this Province if

the crab and the shrimp fishery should fall by the wayside.

We see what is happening now, Mr. Speaker, with the reductions in the crab,

and if we keep fishing, probably, the way we are, we are going to reap

destruction the same way the Northern cod went.

Mr. Speaker, without that resource today, we can see the people - and in my

area I never thought I would see it - we see people leaving. If this resource

had been protected over the hundreds of years, and not destroyed the way it was,

I believe that there is a resource that would be coming ashore, and if the crab

and shrimp went by the wayside there would be still a reasonable way for those

people to make a living.

Mr. Speaker, there have been committees put in place, many committees, that

met with the federal officials. Our Premier, the Premier of today, even went and

met with the EU countries and had meetings with them. We have had different

Prime Ministers dealing with the officials in those countries, trying to bring

this to a head. There were meetings held here in the Province over the last two

or three years on this very same issue with the EU communities involved, and,

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask: What has changed to this point in time? I think

drastic action has to change.

We all know that Canada is a great nation, and we are all proud to be

Canadians. We are always there to help others, whether it is in our own country,

whether it is in foreign countries, whether it is in peacekeeping duties,

whether it is at battle, we are always there to help those countries, and I

think it is time that our country, Canada, step forward to help to preserve a

resource that is not only crucial to this Province of ours, but to the world.

I don't think there is any time any better than it is today, Mr. Speaker,

to take up this challenge once again. As was mentioned earlier in questioning to

the Minster of Fisheries, the commitment that was made - and I just want to read

that into the record, Mr. Speaker, because our Premier and his party sent a

letter to the leaders prior to the federal election, and the question was: Will

your party support imposing custodial management on the Continental Shelf

immediately outside Canada's 200-mile exclusive economic zone to preserve fish

stocks from unsustainable harvesting practices?

The response from the party that went on to win the government was as

follows: A Conservative government would support extending custodial management

off the Continental Shelf beyond the 200-mile limit to the Nose and Tail of the

Grand Banks, the Flemish Cap in the North Atlantic. He went on to say: Under

twelve years of Liberal mismanagement, cod stocks have collapsed in the

Atlantic. International overfishing has contributed to this collapse and cannot

continue. It is both a matter of environmental stewardship and of protecting

Canada's economic interest. A Conservative government would commit to

protecting these resources.

Those are encouraging words, Mr. Speaker, and we have it in writing. The

Premier has it in writing, signed off by the now Prime Minister of this country.

What better day, the Prime Minister is here in our midst, here in our Province.

I hope today that this is one of the issues that our Premier has on the agenda

to discuss with the Prime Minister, custodial management. What an opportunity,

what a day to make the announcement. Here we are in this hon. House, and it

seems that it will be a unanimous decision from what I am hearing. I have not

heard the other speakers yet, but it did go through unanimously four years ago

and nothing has changed. The political stripe and scene has changed in Ottawa

and the commitment now that we have from the Prime Minister in writing is all

the more that this should proceed.

Our new federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, while he was in Opposition

stood up for the fishery in this Province, as well as other issues with regards

to fish going outside of this Province to be processed and he also presented a

private member's motion in Ottawa on this very issue.

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Fisheries? The federal minister?

MR. BUTLER: The new federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, when he was

in Opposition he presented a private member's motion in Ottawa on this very

issue and it passed. Every member of his party voted for it. I think just about

every member of all political stripes in this Province voted for it; maybe one

did not. I let him know very clearly how I felt at the time. I have it in

writing if anyone wanted to see it, but I have to say that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Efford

MR. BUTLER: Yes, sir, that would have been Mr. Efford. I was never so

disappointed in a colleague that I worked with for so many years and stood firm

on this issue and to see that he did not support it at that time. It was a

trivial issue, he told me in his response, but I had to say to him that when we

presented this motion here four years ago we did not take it to be very lightly.

We took it to be serious. I took it to be that all of the people in Ottawa who

voted for it that day took it very seriously.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is wonderful timing. Here we have the leader of a

party who went on to form the government who committed to this. Here we have a

member of the Opposition at the time, we all know how he stood up for the

fishery in this Province with a private member's motion himself, now becoming

the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for our country. Recently, the new MP for

Avalon, who stood in this hon. House time after time and stood up for the people

of this Province and the fishery, stood up for them, and only recently he has

been appointed now to Chairperson of the Fisheries Committee.

So, when you see our MP and our Minister of Fisheries from this Province side

by side - as the old saying in this hon. House goes, shoulder to shoulder - in

Ottawa, and here we have the Prime Minister, his name in writing, his signature

in writing, saying that he supports this very issue. It is very encouraging and

I would love nothing better than to hear today that this issue is going to be

resolved. The time is right. Today the Prime Minister is in the Province, Mr.

Speaker, and I think this should be top priority on the minds of those people

who will meeting with him.

Mr. Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again, we always debate

back and forth across this House about rural Newfoundland, whether it is bad

things happening there, whether there are good things. Mr. Speaker, I think we

all have the one vision in mind. The Member for Mount Pearl always speaks about

a vision. I think he has a good vision but he has to train a lot of other people

to go along with him.

Rural Newfoundland; if rural Newfoundland is to survive as we know it of the

past and as we know it today, but I am fearful that things are beginning to

change. It has to be in relation to the livelihood that people derive from the

sea.

I have to also say to my hon. colleagues in this House, and to all those who

are involved in this very crucial issue in Ottawa, that time for dialogue is

over. I said it four years ago that time for dialogue is over and I really

believe that it is time for action to be taken. As I said, we can take action

around this world to help protect others and I think it is time for us.

In 2002, I suggested a comprehensive public relation campaign to explain to

the international community why Canada has to take custodial management. I say,

Mr. Speaker, let's proceed and advise them; not talk to them anymore. Let's

tell them what we have done, that we have taken custodial management. Because if

we wait any longer, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is too late now, but as time goes

by...

At that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my place. I think my time has expired. I

will listen intently to what other members have to say and I thank you for the

opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible

for Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes today, on behalf of the government

- I suspect there will be other members from the government side who will want

to speak as well - to make a few remarks on this particular resolution standing

in the name of the hon. Member for Port de Grave.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, off the top, let me say on behalf of my

colleagues, that we support this resolution. We intend, as a government, as a

caucus, to vote for this resolution. I would anticipate and expect and hope that

this resolution would pass this House unanimously because there is no room, Mr.

Speaker, for division among caring and thinking rural Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, urban Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians have to stand as one, Mr. Speaker, on an issue that is so important

to the future of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: And expatriates.

MR. RIDEOUT: Expatriates; they should be on to their MPs in Fort

McMurray, Mr. Speaker, in Sarina, Ontario. They should be burning up the phone

lines in Chetwynd, British Columbia. They should be hauling up to their MP's

office in Fernie, British Columbia where all the Traverses' in Baie Verte are,

and a whole bunch of others. They should be on to their MPs demanding that their

MP support this kind of resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there can be no room for division on this

because this issue is so important to the future of this Province, and it is so

important to the future of this Province because it impacts on every nook and

cranny and tickle and island around the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. We

can be as good at managers of our fish stocks as we like. I am not saying we

have always been good managers. I am not patting ourselves on the back for that.

I do not think we learned any lessons at all from the moratorium of 1992. We

have only proceeded to do the same damage in other areas. But, the point is, we

can be as good at managers as we wish inside the 200 mile zone, but once the

fish move outside the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, or the Flemish Cap, Mr.

Speaker, nothing, no pain inflicted on our own people, no conservation practices

practiced by our own people, nothing that we do can change the rape, pillage and

what is happening to that stock once it goes into the international waters.

Now, there was supposed to have been a way to do it. The way was called NAFO,

the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, but, Mr. Speaker, there are more

teeth in a hen than in NAFO. All you have to do in NAFO is object and you can go

do what you like.

The resolution is right. Canada has to serve notice - and it has - to the

international community that if you cannot protect those trans-boundary stocks,

we have an obligation to conservation. We have an obligation to our citizens. We

have an obligation to the world, to the ecosystem, to the environment. We have

an international obligation that, if you are not prepared to have your people

enforce proper conservation measures outside of 200, we have an obligation to

take management of those resources and do it ourselves.

That is what custodial management, Mr. Speaker, is all about. That is why we

to be tough. I know one thing; we saw today that, if he puts something in

writing, he is prepared to make it happen, he is prepared to make it come true.

We could not be in a better situation than to have one of our own, a

Newfoundlander and Labradorian, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That has to be

a plus for us. We have had people in that position before who tried their best

but, you know, Minister Hearn, I think, is going to really try to make this

happen.

So, when the hon. member who proposed the resolution asked what changed, here

is what has changed, in my view. We have a new government with a leader who is

committed, in writing, to this particular approach, and we have a minister from

Newfoundland and Labrador who is committed, in writing, and not in writing but

in writing and in action, to this particular approach. So, I believe that a lot

has changed, I say to my hon. friend who proposed the resolution. I believe a

lot has changed, because similar resolutions have been passed by this House

before and then they were attempted to be actioned in Ottawa. Similar

have been actually passed in the House of Commons, so it is not the majority of

the House of Commons who oppose this approach, who oppose this particular

concept, who oppose this particular management. It is not the House of Commons.

It is not a majority of the House of Commons who oppose it. It was the

government of the day. The government of the day choose to fly in the face of a

resolution adopted by the House of Commons - granted, as parliamentarians, we

know it was not binding on them, but it had no moral influence on the Government

of Canada at all. None whatsoever did it have.

I believe the stars now are aligned differently. We have a government in

Ottawa who is committed to this approach and to this concept. We have minister

who is committed to this approach and this concept. There has already been a

majority vote in the House of Commons, by the representatives of the people,

that committed to this concept, but the government of the day was not committed

to it. So, everything seems to be lined up and I am optimistic.

Now, we have to be realistic. This government is in office in Ottawa about

three months, I guess. They were elected in January and took office some time in

February. I do not expect any government, particularly with broad international

matters of consequence like this, I don't expect any government to be able to

enforce its total agenda in the first three months that it is in office, but I

do expect to see the appropriate markers set down on the international stage,

that they are serious, that they are prepared to move forward, that they go to

the European community and give them a time frame, that they go to NAFO and give

them a time frame, and say, unless you are living up to those conditions by this

particular time, then you have lost any right to complain. That is what I expect

to see. I believe it was in that context that the Prime Minister, then Leader of

the Conservative Party, made the commitment that he made.

I want to see progress made on this. I think we all want to see progress made

on it. We all support the concept, we all support the principle, because it is

so important to this Province that we do so.

The time is right. Like the old election slogan back in the 1970s, the time

is right. The time is now to move this file forward. We have a government that

is committed to it. We have parties - I believe the NDP committed to this in

writing as well. So, between the Conservatives and the NDP there is a majority

in Parliament committed to this approach. I do not know how many Liberals

support it. Obviously, some who were in the past government did not. I do not

know where the Bloc stands on it, but there is enough parliamentary support

between the NDP and the Conservative Party to make this government business, and

I hope that will happen.

On behalf of my colleagues, I compliment the Member for Port de Grave for

using their Opposition day to bring this motion forward. It is a useful motion,

one that we intend to support and one that we hope will see the light of day.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Osborne): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to support the private member's motion put forward by my

friend and colleague, the Member for Port de Grave. It is calling on the federal

government, as we have done a number of times in the past sixteen years, for

sure, or seventeen years, to implement custodial management of the Nose and the

Tail of the Grand Banks.

I know there are a lot of people out there who are not involved in the

industry, the fishing industry, who are all in favour of custodial management,

and a lot of them do not even know what we are talking about. Madam Speaker, I

will give a brief history and say why I am supporting it.

Prior to 1977, Canada controlled just twelve miles of its Continental Shelf.

The waters that surround this country, and especially on the East Coast and

around this Province, Canada only controlled waters out to a twelve-mile limit.

In 1977, with a push from Canada and other countries, especially Iceland, at

that time, and at the Law of the Sea Conference, countries were convinced that

they needed to extend their jurisdiction from twelve miles to 200 miles. At that

time, everyone applauded it but Canada did not take control of all of its

Continental Shelf. Basically, for our purposes here today, the Continental Shelf

means our fishing grounds, because our fishing grounds extended beyond the

200-mile limit, and the reason that the Law of the Sea Conference did not go on

beyond the 200-mile limit at that time, and they established a 200-mile limit

instead of a 250- or 300-mile limit is that all but, I think, two or three

countries in the world, all of their Continental Shelves were inside the

200-mile limit so they established a 200-mile limit. Unfortunately for us, it

was not the bonanza that we thought it was going to be because, right now we

only control the waters that go out to 200 miles; yet, we have a Continental

Shelf that extends well beyond that in three particular areas. It is what is

called the Nose of the Grand Banks, which is up north, and the Tail of the Grand

Banks, which is southeast of here, and another area known as the Flemish Cap.

These are the three areas that exist outside of our 200-mile imaginary line

limit.

As a result, we have had foreigners fishing on our Continental Shelf ever

since 1977 and, as you know, fish swim, and our fish from inside the 200-mile

limit swam outside and, as soon as they did, there were hundreds of foreign

draggers ready to scoop them up. As a result, that had a tremendous negative

impact on fish stocks inside of our 200-mile limit. For that reason, we have

been fighting to have that changed since 1978. It came in, in 1977, and we

thought it was great for a year, until we realized that we moved the foreign

factory freezer trawlers from twelve miles to 200 but we still could not control

what was happening to our fish stocks outside the 200-mile limit.

I am not completely sure, Madam Speaker, who came up with the idea of

custodial management, because for years we talked about just extending

jurisdiction; go out and take that seabed that is beyond 200 miles, maybe go to

300 or 350 miles. What we realized was that the international community, other

countries such as Spain, Portugal, countries of the EU and Russia, and even the

United States, would not agree with just extending or us going out and taking

control of that area.

I know that a colleague or a predecessor of mine, the late Walter Carter, in

1989, 1991, 1992, right up until 1996, did a tremendous amount of work on the

issue of custodial management. At that time, I know in the early 1990s the

provincial government, under Clyde Wells and the minister at the time, Walter

Carter, did a tremendous amount of work on custodial management. We spent a

tremendous amount of money taking that campaign for custodial management, not

only around Canada but around the world. In fact, Clyde Wells took it to Brazil

at a World Conference back in 1993, I think it was.

What custodial management is and the reason they came up with custodial

management, rather than just extend jurisdiction and taking it - if we said we

were just going to extend jurisdiction, a lot of countries would not

particularly like it, so we came up with custodial management. What we mean by

that is the area outside of our 200-mile limit. We would not take it for the

benefit of the people of this Province or the benefit of this country. What we

would do is we would become the custodians of that, because let's face it

ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish and the Portuguese have been fishing out there

since back in the 1700s.

We all remember - some of us who are old enough - back in the 1960s and early

1970s when the White Fleet used to come to St. John's and the crew members

would play soccer on the Harbour Front down here. Rather than say to these

people, we are driving you off the Shelf. What we are saying is, we will take

custody of it. What we will do is we will enforce the rules, because right now

NAFO, which is an organization, North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, they are

the ones who established the quotas and how much fish each particular country

gets but no one can stop them when they go out and overfish the quotas that they

are given. In fact, all they have to do, if they are given a quota of redfish

out on the Tail of the Grand Banks and they have 5,000 tons and they want 8,000,

all they have to do is say to NAFO: We object. Then they can go out and catch as

much as they want. So, it is not working. What we said, we will take custody of

it and we will do the policing of the area. So that is what we mean by custodial

management. We will take custody of it and we will give you your historical

share, but we are not going to let you overfish that share. We thought that was

an acceptable arrangement.

I know when I was the Minister of Fisheries for the Province, I took that on

the road and I had discussions all over North America. In fact, I have had

discussions with European parliamentarians. I had a group of twenty-three in my

office one day from different parts of Europe and when I explained to them what

we meant by custodial management, that we were not going to drive these people

off the Continental Shelf, off the limits outside of 200 here on this side of

the Atlantic, they seemed to agree with it. I said all we are doing is going to

enforce it so we can protect it for everybody, but we have not been successful

in getting the federal government to agree to custodial management and to

implement it, with or without the acceptance of the other countries around the

world.

I agree with the Minister of Fisheries, and I agree with my colleague from

Port de Grave, that the stars are aligned perfectly for us right now, because we

have talked the talk in this Province. There is no one in this Province who

disagrees with custodial management, but we have had a very difficult time

convincing our cousins in Ottawa - whether they are Tory or Liberal - that we

should move ahead with this.

I can remember back in the early 1990s when we tried to talk John Crosbie

into taking, not custody, but jurisdiction of the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks. He used to laugh at us. He used to laugh at us and say we were going to

start a Third World War. Then we had Brian Tobin who did a bit on the turbot

wars, but since then we have not seen any movement.

I am really hopeful, right now, that all the stars are aligned and we are

going to see custodial management in the very near future. The reason for that

is because of one, Loyola Hearn, and to some degree, Fabian Manning and Stephen

Harper. We all know that when Loyola Hearn was elected to the federal Parliament

after leaving here and taking a brief reprieve from politics, he got elected in

St. John's West as the federal MP. I think for years, prior to going into

Cabinet just recently, that he was on the fisheries committee, on the standing

committee on fisheries in Ottawa. I know that he always supported, both in the

House of Commons and in the media of this Province and elsewhere where he

travelled, that he was a fan of custodial management and if he ever had the

opportunity he was going to implement custodial management.

So, not only did he espouse the virtues of custodial management when he was

on the fisheries committee in Ottawa, but he was successful, Madam Speaker, back

about a year-and-a-half or two years ago of bringing in a private member's

resolution - just like my colleague, the Member for Port de Grave is doing today

gave a very eloquent and well-informed speech that night in the House of Commons

and it was passed. It was passed in the House of Commons. We were delighted down

here. In fact, I picked up the phone and called him. I was listening to Open

Line, had my ear to Open Line and was watching the debate on television, the

debate in the Commons in Ottawa, and when I heard it I was delighted. The first

thing I did was pick up the phone and call Linda Swain of Open Line and say: I

want to congratulate Loyola Hearn for what he did tonight. He had a private

member's motion passed which said the government should implement custodial

management.

I have gotten along well with Loyola Sullivan - or Hearn, I should say. I

cannot say the same about Loyola Sullivan, but I certainly have gotten along

well with Loyola Hearn in previous years. I have complimented him when he has

done things right and I have told him when he has done something wrong, but he

managed to get that passed. They campaigned on custodial management, that they

would implement custodial management. We know that the minister is certainly

going to do it. The federal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Loyola Hearn, will

certainly bring forward the bill to enact custodial management.

We also have a letter that Stephen Harper sent to the Premier stating that,

if elected, he would certainly implement custodial management. The unfortunate

thing about it, I am not convinced he wrote the letter himself. I am not

convinced that Stephen Harper wrote the letter himself. Then again, he could

have because he is from Calgary and he is pretty far away from the East Coast

fishery because - and the reason I say he did not write it himself, or maybe he

did, is that he did not refer to the fish stocks off the East Coast of Canada.

He referred to the fish sticks, I think my hon. colleague pointed out to me

today in the letter that he sent back to the Premier.

So, we have the Minister of Fisheries who is a proponent of custodial

management. We have a letter signed by the Prime Minister, when he was the

Leader of the Opposition, stating that - two of those people are in favour of

custodial management, but we also have Fabian Manning. Not a name that the group

opposite wants me to bring up, but we know that Fabian Manning comes from a

fishing district himself, and I know for a fact that he stood in this House on

many occasions and was a proponent of custodial management. I am sure now that

he is not only the Atlantic Chair of the Tory caucus, but he is also on the

fisheries committee in Ottawa. So we have three strong voices.

My only concern is this, like my colleague said from Port de Grave, what a

day he could have done this, Madam Speaker. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is in

St. John's as we speak. The Premier is meeting with him. I am sure that the

Premier, when he has discussed custodial management with him today, along with

early retirement and fallow field legislation and stuff like that, must have

told the Prime Minister that we are discussing a private member's motion today

on custodial management. What a day it would have been if we had Prime Minister

Harper sitting here in the gallery as we speak, saying what he said in his

letter to the Premier, saying what his colleague - and how nice would it be if

the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the hon. Loyola Hearn and the Prime

Minister, along with the MP for Avalon, Fabian Manning, all three of those fine

gentlemen were sitting here in the gallery today and could stand and announce

that we are implementing custodial management.

That did not happen, unfortunately, and I am just going to have to wait to

see whether or not Mr. Manning, Mr. Hearn, but most particularly Prime Minister

Harper, is going to live by the commitment that they did.

We need custodial management, Madam Speaker. We may talk about the oil fields

- and we are experiencing some turbulence now, and are worried about whether or

not fields will be developed and explored. It does not matter, because there is

one thing about oil: There is a finite quantity of it out there. In other words,

as sure as we are here, we will suck every drop of it off the Grand Banks and it

will not be replaced. It is a finite amount, but one thing about the fishery: It

is not finite because it can rejuvenate, it can multiple, and it is a renewable

resource, unlike oil. One of these days - and it will happen at some point in

the future - there will be no oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador because

we will have expended it all. What are we going to rely on then?

What really irritates me is that I get e-mails from people telling me that I

should not be standing in the House of Assembly talking about the fishery all of

the time. The fishery is dead. The only people who are involved in the fishery

are those who want to take advantage of our social programs. I get e-mails like

that from people, telling me I should not be up talking about the fishery. I do

not respond to them because it just shows their lack of intelligence, as far as

I am concerned, if they do not know the value of the fishery to the Province.

Up until last year, the fishery in this Province brought in $1 billion in new

revenues, not only to this Province but to this country, from outside the

country. I tell you, if we don't protect our fishery, once the oil is gone,

not only will there be nothing left to rural Newfoundland, as is happening

today, there will not be anything left to urban Newfoundland and Labrador

because there will be no reason for us to be here.

The fish is what brought us here in 1497, when John Cabot dipped his basket

over the side and pulled up teeming loads of fish, and it is what has kept us

here since 1497. I hope and pray that if it is handled properly, and with things

like custodial management and some wise decisions on behalf of DFO and the

provincial Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, it will be here for another

500 years, or another 5,000 years.

I honestly support my colleague and my friend from Port de Grave today in

this motion to call upon the Prime Minister to implement custodial management.

This is the second time he did it. He did it a couple of years ago -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his speaking time has expired.

MR. REID: Madam Speaker, just for a second?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: All I want to do is to conclude by saying that I certainly

support my colleague's motion here today. All of us on this side of the House

will certainly be voting in favour of it, and I call upon the government side of

the House not only to support it, I particularly call upon the Premier, when he

talks about picking his fights, because he said he picked a fight with the Prime

Minister, Prime Minister Paul Martin, on the Atlantic Accord. When my colleague

from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair asked him if he was going to take on the Prime

Minister on child care, he said: You have to learn to pick your fights.

Well, I tell you, if there was ever a fight that needed to be picked, the one

to protect our fish resource is one that I certainly would stand not only behind

him but I would stand shoulder to shoulder, as they are apt to say over there,

in fighting the federal government; because I tell you, Madam Speaker, without

the fishery there will be no Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you very much.

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

When the members speaks, he will close debate.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

First of all, I want to thank the hon. Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of

Fisheries, and the Official Opposition Leader, the Member for Twillingate &

Fogo, for their comments here today.

I know that four years ago when I presented the same motion we had a lot more

speakers, but I want to say to the viewing public, that does not take away the

concern, the sincerity, that members in this House take on this issue. It is

just that the facts and the figures have been put forward so often that we all

know what they are. It is very important that we look forward to new

developments by the Premier of this Province, by our new Minister of Fisheries

in Ottawa, in conjunction with our Minister of Fisheries here provincially, and

the new Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the Minister of Fisheries when he said the

stars are aligned for us. I think nothing could be nearer the truth. The Member

for Twillingate & Fogo mentioned that we cannot forget the fishery; it is

crucial to this Province. It has been for many years. We can have all the wealth

we want from other natural resources; it will come down to, some time in the

future, if the fishery is not protected, then all is lost.

I have to say, Madam Speaker, back in the 1990s when the moratorium came in,

I had the opportunity to sit in on meetings with two officials who came here to

the Province from Iceland, when they took up the challenge in their country,

because there was overfishing in their country, and the British people went in

there and were depleting their fish stocks. One gentleman, I think he was the

general of the navy in the little country of Iceland -

MR. REID: Two hundred and fifty thousand people.

MR. BUTLER: Two hundred and fifty thousand people.

He explained to us what they did, how they went and made a giant pair of

scissors, tied it to this little destroyer, and they went out and dragged the

scissors through the ocean, cut the nets free from the draggers from the foreign

countries. As a matter of fact, I had a video showing where the ships were

rammed and so on, but they put up a fight for what their people believed in, and

the resources of their people.

He also told us that the young people in the high schools at the time could

go to the fish plants and work whatever day they wanted. They went in on Monday,

they could go back on Friday, and there was nothing said to them.

I am not saying we could have it that good here in this Province but, I can

assure you, if the fishery, in the hundreds of years, was protected properly off

our shores, we would not be worrying what we are going to do in some communities

to keep people in this Province and to keep bread and butter on their table.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention, just last weekend in the

District of Port de Grave, where they have the service for the opening of the

fishery, 250 fishers from throughout that area went to a breakfast. Seven

hundred people attended a church service at the Pentecostal Church in Port de

Grave and, from there on, those people have a vision. They can see that their

livelihood can still be derived from the sea.

I believe we, as politicians, of all political stripes, both provincially and

federally, have an obligation to stand up, to see that the way they want to live

in this Province, not only in my district but right around this Province, that

the opportunity is there for them, the resources are protected for them.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank all hon. members for speaking here

today and I look forward to their vote in a very short period of time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been called by the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just on a point of order, I thought I had heard the Minister of Fisheries

indicate that there might be other speakers on the other side, and was out of

the House when the Leader of the Opposition completed his remarks, so I wonder

if I could be granted leave to address the motion prior to the vote taking

place?

MR. SPEAKER: Has leave been granted to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi to participate in the debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Standing Order 63. (6) is to be held in abeyance to permit

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to participate in the debate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank hon. members for granting me leave to speak to this

debate.

As I had indicated, Mr. Speaker, my expectation was that we might hear other

speakers from the government side, but the Minister of Fisheries, speaking for

the government, obviously stated the position quite clearly, that, even though

we are dealing with an Opposition motion, the government is fully behind the

motion that was presented by the Member for Port de Grave.

I did not want the opportunity to pass without indicating our support, and

complete support, as the New Democratic Party caucus in the House, for this

motion and for the extension and the creating, I guess, of custodial management

as a means of controlling and protecting the fish stocks off our shores.

It is a geographic anomaly, Mr. Speaker, that puts us in the position that we

are in, because substantial portions of the Grand Banks are, in fact, outside

the 200-mile limit. If one looks at a map, Mr. Speaker, and sees where the 200

miles actually go, there is a substantial area; the fish do not know the

difference. There are not separate stocks out there. These are stocks that

straddle the 200-mile limit because their habitat is related to the actual

Continental Shelf itself, and the Flemish Cap which is off even further. So, the

Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks have been an issue for us, in international

law, ever since the 200-mile limit came in, Mr. Speaker. I, for one, recall

raising the matter myself in House of Commons nearly twenty years ago, asking

the then regional minister, John Crosbie, why we were having no progress on

advancing the cause of protecting the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks as a

matter for Canadian custody.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that is very important to this Province. I am

certainly pleased that we have a situation right now where the current Prime

Minister, as in the House of Commons, as Leader of the Opposition, and as a

candidate for Prime Minister, has spelled out his support for the government

carrying out a promise made in writing, supporting extending custodial

management of the Continental Shelf beyond the 200-mile limit. That is something

that is in a letter to the Premier dated January 4, 2006.

It is something also, Mr. Speaker, that we have been engaged with as a party

federally. Peter Stoffer, who has been Deputy Chair of the Fisheries Committee,

supported and encouraged the committee in engaging in a report on custodial

management, and travelling here to Newfoundland and Labrador to hear

presentations from people within this Province on the issue. I recall, myself,

making a presentation at the Delta Hotel, along with others from the Province.

The provincial Minister of Fisheries made a presentation at the time. Gus

Etchegary was there. Others were there speaking on behalf of the interests of

the fishery, and asking the fisheries committee to make that recommendation,

which they did, Mr. Speaker, a unanimous recommendation of the fisheries

committee, to the House of Commons.

Ironically, Mr. Speaker, the fisheries committee itself at the time was

chaired, not by someone from a sea coast but by an MP by the name of Tom Wappel,

who, despite his coming from Scarborough, or somewhere in central Ontario, was,

in fact, supportive of the issue in the House of Commons and with the fisheries

committee. We are very pleased to see that this has been brought as far as it

has.

I have heard one criticism of the provincial government on this issue, and I

do not know if it is particularly of this government, but a criticism in that we

are dealing with a new concept here of custodial management, as the Leader of

the Opposition has said. We are talking about something that does not really

exist in international law, a concept that we came up with that requires a fair

bit of work in developing the exact nature of custodial management - What does

it mean? What is the nature of the control? What is the role of the coastal

state? - and develop that as a concept in international law.

The individual who was critical of the provincial government said that he was

surprised to find that there was no work being done within the provincial

government, within the Department of Justice, in terms of researching the

concept. Even though it is an international law concept, it is something that -

because this Province is interested in pushing it, we should be doing some of

the spade work in terms of the development of the concept, being able to

When you get involved in something like this, Mr. Speaker, as anybody who has

read an account of the fish war, the Tobin fish war - I think Michael Harris has

a book on it, no relation - about Mr. Tobin's turbot war, would know that

there are always people within government, particularly within the federal

government, particularly within external affairs, who are trying to stop you

from doing anything that might cause problems in other areas. We have had that

problem with our fishery since Confederation, Mr. Speaker. There was no tough

Russia to buy wheat, they were doing side deals with France, they were doing

side deals with Eastern Europe, there were various other interplays between what

were reluctant to take any strong action on the protection of the stocks off the

East Coast of Canada in dealing with international law.

There is resistance at that level, Mr. Speaker, there is resistance within

the bureaucracy, and the criticism was that the Newfoundland Government seemed

to be not doing enough to create a regime, or to create the support for a

regime, that might have to be passed on to the people in Ottawa.

I know the attitude that you see, for example, in the Province of Quebec on

some of these issues that have international implications, they do a lot of the

spade work. They make sure that the work is being done so that, when they are

Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution which we wholeheartedly support. There is

not a lot more to be said about it, other than it is a very good thing for this

House today, with the Prime Minister in the Province, to have this resolution

passed. I am assuming that there will be a request made for you, as Speaker, to

so that they are aware that we have made this resolution here today. I suspect

it will be unanimous. Of course, we would like to see that recorded as well,

because it is a very significant issue for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, if we have any real hope of rebuilding our fish stocks, and

rebuilding this major protein source for the world as a world food resource, we

have to have proactive work in the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, on the

Flemish Cap, because this is an important part of the remaining fish stocks that

are being overfished today and every day because there is no effective regime in

place to ensure that does not happen.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I will take my place and thank members for

their leave to allow me to participate in the debate and put on the record that

we, in the New Democratic Party, wholeheartedly support, at the provincial level

and the federal level, the issue of custodial management over the whole of the

Grand Banks, including the Nose and Tail and the Flemish Cap.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion before the House is that put forward as a private

member's motion by the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

All those in favour of the motion, please say aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please say nay'.

The Chair notes that this private member's motion has been passed

unanimously by the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Motion passed unanimously.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This being Wednesday, under our Standing Orders, this House is now adjourned

until Monday, May 1, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.