March 13, 2002 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 51

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Members

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

MR. MERCER: On March 2, the Pasadena Lions Club hosted its 17 th

Annual Snow-A-Rama in support of the Newfoundland Society for the Physically

Disabled.

Since its inception as Newfoundland's first organized snowmobile run in

1986, this annual event has raised in excess of $200,000.

In part, this money has been used: to help send Western Newfoundland

physically disabled children to the annual "Breaking Barriers youth

Conference" at the Lions Max Simms Camp; and to provide SEED money for the

construction of the first disabled swimming pool for the Corner Brook Arts and

Culture Centre.

This year's route took sleders approximately 160 kilometres from Pasadena

to Howley to Big Falls to Cormack to Deer Lake and thence back to Pasadena on

trails maintained by the Corner Brook based Western Sno-Rider and the Deer Lake

based Junction Trail Blazer Snowmobile Clubs.

This year, for the first time, the Pasadena Nordic Ski Club participated in

the event and raised approximately $1,000. In excess of 200 sledders, some from

as far away as Mississauga, Ontario, participated in the run and raised in

excess of $15,000. Gus Maccolder from Lexington, Cape Breton Island was the top

fundraiser among sledders, and Emily Poole of Pasadena was the top fundraiser

amongst skiers.

I ask this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the Pasadena Lions

Club and in particular Lloyd Belbin, 2002 Pasadena Snow-A-Rama chair for

organizing this year's event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the dramatic artists at

O'Donel High School in Mount Pearl on their excellent production of Irving

Berlin's musical, Annie, Get Your Gun which played, I might say, to

full houses every evening at the Arts and Culture Centre from February 7 until

February 10.

This production was the result of a huge commitment by the students, faculty,

parents, friends and supporters of O'Donel. O'Donel has established a very

fine reputation in the region and the Province for its dramatic presentations

and this year's production of Annie, Get Your Gun continued that

standard of excellence for which O'Donel has become known. The high energy,

the choreography, the set designs, the exceptional talents of the school band,

and the choral presentations contributed to a wonderful evening of

entertainment.

Mr. Speaker, while each artist gives us cause to showcase the talents of our

youth, I would be remiss if I did not mention the exceptional talents of Kristen

Murphy who played Anne, and Andrew O'Brien who starred in the role of Frank

Butler.

Congratulations to the producer, Larry O'Brien, the musical director, Sean

Carrol, to the artistic director, Marsha Tulk, to the choreographer, Janine

Fraser, and to the stage directors, Leo Converse and Suzanne Goodland. Of

course, I would also be remiss if I did not mention the tremendous contributions

of the school Principal, John Walsh.

O'Donel is one of the finest schools in our Province and the place where

the talents of our youth are discovered, and where students are encouraged in

both curricular and extracurricular activities to share their creative with

their school community and with the community at large.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate a business in my district which has

been recognized by its peers.

Powell's Supermarket in Harbour Grace was judged to be one of the top ten

small independent grocers in Canada, according to a recent judging by the

Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers.

This achievement is especially impressive, Mr. Speaker, because it is only

the second year Powell's in Harbour Grace had been entered in the competition,

and in fact open. The store was recently awarded the Canadian Independent Grocer

of the Year Award of Merit at the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers

annual convention in Toronto.

Powell's 12,000 square foot supermarket in Harbour Grace has been open

since the summer of 2000. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate owner

David J. Powell, General Manager Brian Bugden, Store Manager Walter Parsons, and

especially all the staff at Powell's on this honour.

The store services residents of Harbour Grace and attracts customers from

surrounding communities in Conception North and Trinity South.

Mr. Speaker, it is another example of the success of local businesses in the

Carbonear-Harbour Grace District. I look forward to further success in the

future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today I would like all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in

congratulating Mrs. Jessie Randell of St. Luke's Home who is celebrating her

100 th birthday. As a matter of fact, she celebrated that yesterday

and had a celebration at the home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mrs. Randell is formerly of Fogo Island. She remains very

active, in good health and takes

part in many church and social events at St.

Luke's Home. Mrs. Randell is a gentle and caring person who has devoted her

life to her family, home and church activities.

I would like the House of Assembly to join with her family and friends in

wishing her a very happy birthday and many more to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell

Island.

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We recently celebrated an important heritage event in our Province. Our

provincial anthem, the Ode to Newfoundland, celebrated its 100 th

anniversary on January 21 st of this year.

The four verse, Ode to Newfoundland, was written by Governor Sir Cavendish

Boyle, and first performed by Daisy Foster at the Casino Theater in downtown St.

John's. The music, as we all know, was composed originally by E.R. Krippner in

1902 and later updated by Sir Hubert Parry in 1904, and that part of the music

and that composition is still used today.

Although the Ode, believe it or not, did not become officially enshrined in

the laws of our Province until 1979, it has been, and remains to be, an

important part of our heritage as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in

remembering the contribution made to this Province by Sir Cavendish Boyle, and

recognize the importance of this historical event; and continue to remember that

we will always sing the Ode to Newfoundland whenever a public function takes

place or whenever we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, gather.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to one of our Province's, and indeed one of our

country's, finest athletes. Alf Parsons, a long time resident of Labrador

City.

Alf Parsons is an all around athlete who is active in many sports. He has

represented our Province in the National Broomball Championships, National Skeet

Shooting Championships, and competed in many provincial tournaments in those

sports and others.

However, Mr. Speaker, Alf is best known for his achievements and dedication

to cross-country skiing. In Labrador West he is referred to as Mr.

Cross-Country, a title both fitting and deserving.

Recently, Alf travelled to the World Masters Cross-Country Ski Championship

which took place in Val Cartier, Quebec. I am proud to inform this House and the

citizens of our Province, that Alf won the silver medal in the 30 kilometre

freestyle event, with a time of 1:20:18, finishing only thirty-three seconds

behind the gold medal winner from Germany, and ahead of the United States,

Norway, Austria and other countries.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Masters Championship was taking place at the same

time and Alf, in true form, went on to win the gold medals in the 10 kilometre

race, the 30 kilometre race, and the 45 kilometre race.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I am getting tired just reading it, and I didn't

ski any of the distance.

Mr. Speaker, Alf did all this on his own while others had an entourage of

assistants, including trainers, ski waxers, et cetera.

On returning to Labrador West, Alf was met at the Menihek Nordic Ski Club by

a large group of people of all ages to help him celebrate his accomplishments.

Alf Parsons is an icon in cross-country skiing, someone for our youth to look

up to and an inspiration to us all. Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of this hon.

House to join me in applauding the accomplishments of Alf Parsons and the

recognition he has brought to our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Education.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for leave to make a Members

Statement about a district matter.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS KELLY: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my best wishes, congratulations and

thanks to everyone who helped make the recent Newfoundland and Labrador Winter

Games such a stunning success.

Some 1,500 athletes competed at venues in Gander and Glovertown in one of the

most exciting and well organized Games to date.

I was particularly impressed with the Girls Hockey teams and all the efforts

that were made to include them in this year's Games.

And who could forget the Labrador athletes who arrived late but went on to

win -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: - the Lieutenant-Governor's Spirit Award. A very special

thank you to Minister Aylward for intervening and ensuring these dedicated

athletes made it to Gander.

I would like to extend my congratulations to everyone who participated,

especially the winners of the Premier's Cup and the Sport Newfoundland and

Labrador Trophy: Western and Mount Pearl South regions.

So many people helped make these Games successful. I would especially like to

thank the Town of Gander, the Host Committee who flourished under the leadership

of Tina Adey and Percy Farwell, the multi-talented Mark Thibault for his work on

the spectacular Opening and Closing Ceremonies, and the gifted Greg Seaward for

his beautiful logo and medal designs.

I would also like to express a very heartfelt thanks to the hundreds of

volunteers who, once again, came through when they were needed. Voluntarism in

Gander and area is alive and well!

As you can tell, Mr. Speaker, these Games were truly outstanding and I invite

all of my hon. colleagues to join with me in extending congratulations to each

and every one involved.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House gave leave to the minister to make a member's statement which,

unlike Ministerial Statements, are supposed to be non-political in nature. I

noted that in her remarks, her member's statement, the minister gave credit to

the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation for intervening to get the

Labrador delegation to Gander. In fact, it was the Member for Labrador West who

intervened, and the minister knows that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: The minister knows that, was not big enough to admit it, and

tried to politicize a statement about the Winter Games in this House of

Assembly. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is supposed to be a non-political

statement about something going on in her district, and that minister turned it

into a political statement by ignoring the fact that it was the Member for

Labrador West who, in fact, intervened, with the help of the minister - there is

no question about that - but that minister should have been big enough to admit

that and acknowledge that in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education,

speaking to the point of order.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would apologize for any incorrectness in what I have done from a political

nature. It was certainly not my intention. I was there as all of this occurred,

and since that time the Member for Labrador West has pointed out himself, and

complimented and congratulated the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation

on this matter.

I know that he was involved and working with the minister that day, very

closely, but it was he who complimented the minister before I did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is really no point of order. I think the hon. minister did explain the

circumstance. I listened carefully to the statement and I did not see anything

in it that would be a major political statement or of any political nature, so

there is no point of order.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on November 19, 2001 in the wake of terrorist

attacks in the United States, the Premier informed hon. Members of the House of

Assembly of actions government had taken to improve security in this Province.

Since then, government has been working diligently to develop the additional

measures to further enhance the safety of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and in particular individuals working in or visiting government

facilities. Today, I would like to provide an update of those activities.

While it was determined the security risks for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians is low, we believe the protection of government employees, visitors

to our buildings and the general public should be a high priority. Government

is, therefore, introducing concrete measures to help achieve a

security-sensitive environment within its facilities and among its employees.

This will help ensure the rights and the safety of employees, MHAs and visitors,

as well as the smooth continuation of the day-to-day operations of government

and the House of Assembly.

Mail handling procedures have been developed in the event that suspicious

packages are delivered to any provincial government facility. These procedures

have been forwarded to all department heads.

Additionally, effective April 15, employees in the Confederation Complex will

be required to wear ID cards while at work. Identification badges will help us

distinguish visitors from employees, increasing the convenience and safety of

both. Once ID cards have been implemented in the Confederation Complex, their

use will be considered in other government buildings.

Visitor pass protocols are also being developed. In the near future, visitors

to the Confederation Complex will be issued passes for the duration of their

visit, after signing in at the security desk in one of the two main lobbies. Use

of visitors' passes in other government buildings will be evaluated once

implementation in Confederation Complex has been completed.

An independent review of safety and security in the House of Assembly in

particular, and the Confederation Complex generally, was conducted by Mr. Dennis

M. Clark. Mr. Clark is the Sergeant-at-Arms and Executive Director for Building

Management and Conservation for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Mr. Clark's

report identified a number of improvements that should be made in the building

to protect the employees and visitors, as well as government facilities. The

Commission of Internal Economy, which represents all MHAs in this hon. House and

oversees the operation and administration of the House of Assembly, accepted

this report and endorsed its recommendations.

Many ceremonial and fund-raising events are, and can continue to be, held in

various areas of the Confederation Complex. These events require prior approval

from and can be facilitated by the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation.

In keeping with the review recommendations, effective immediately,

demonstrations and protests will be held outside of government buildings.

Citizens will be able to exercise their right to assemble and protest in the

area around the Coat of Arms Lookout, which has been designed specifically for

public gatherings.

The House of Assembly will still be open to and, indeed, welcome visitors.

Security enhancements will enable us to provide a better, more safe and secure

environment for members of the public visiting the gallery, employees and

Members of the House of Assembly.

In the coming weeks, employees will receive more information regarding

security enhancements. As public employees, we all share a responsibility to

help achieve a safe and secure environment together, by following basic

guidelines and co-operating with standard security procedures.

Mr. Speaker, we now live in an environment of heightened security. Government

places great importance on the protection of its employees and of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will take every reasonable and practical

measure to enhance the safety of our employees and the public in general.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for sending over a copy of

his statement today before the House sat. I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, this action is really a sign of the times that we live in. I

have always, personally, felt safe in this House of Assembly. Still, today, I

do, and I still feel safe in my office; but, since September 11, some people do

feel more exposed to danger, and that is too bad.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, the Internal Economy Commission has met on

this, has reviewed it, and they have supported it. We have had some discussion

on it. Really, it is just an extension of the security of this House of Assembly

to the Confederation Complex. I don't think the employees or the public will

have a major problem with this as long as we do not go too far; that we do not

limit public access to this building, to this House of Assembly, when it is not

necessary to do so.

I want to talk about access to the building itself, with respect to the

lobby, for public events such as Armistice Day, Canada Day, and what have you.

That will not be limited in any way, I do not think, according to the minister.

I think the people of the Province, in a democratic country, have a right to

free assembly. The Confederation Complex itself, outside the building, will be

available to the people for public demonstrations, or whatever the case may be.

For security purposes, I think this side of the House does not have any major

problem with this, as long as it is not taken too far.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While we can agree with a lot of the measures that are taken by the minister

in terms of security, we do take exception to the fact that protestors will not

be allowed in the main lobby. I do not think there has ever been a problem where

people have felt threatened by protestors being in the lobby. It is a right that

protestors of any group that wanted to protest have enjoyed since this building

has been here.

We talk about going outdoors, Mr. Speaker. What about the weather in February

and March? If we have a group of seniors, or persons with disabilities, who want

to demonstrate and get a message across to this government, are this government

saying to them that they have to go out in all kinds of weather to get their

point across and demonstrate, as they are able to, in a democratic society? No,

Mr. Speaker, I believe that is wrong.

I say to the Premier, he has his Maxwell Smart elevator that costs $60,000 or

$80,000 out in the lobby now, so he does not have to face the crowds when they

are there. I think it is fundamentally wrong and it is very undemocratic, Mr.

Speaker, to bar people from expressing their opinions by way of demonstration in

the building that the people of the Province own.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier. As did all

Newfoundlanders, yesterday I listened with great disappointment as I heard the

recent results of the census in which Newfoundland and Labrador recorded the

greatest population decline in the country. In fact, people are leaving rural

Newfoundland in record numbers.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I became even more concerned when I read the comments of

Peter Jones, the

the President of Inco, who said that Inco's goal is to ship concentrate out

of the Province in as large quantities as possible for as long as possible, and

that he is close to a deal with a government, a government, in fact, that is

more flexible than any other government they have negotiated with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier: Does he

recognize the concern of the Opposition with ore leaving the Province? Does he,

in fact, understand the connection between ore leaving the Province for Sudbury

and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians leaving the Province to find jobs because

the resources are being taken away once again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, two parts to the question in the lead-in

with respect to the census information, I would suggest to the Leader of the

Official Opposition that he might get the transcript of the presentation made

with respect to that by the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi, who spoke of it at length and quite eloquently today on the Provincial

Affairs radio broadcast. He did a very good job of summarizing it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - in talking about the trends and expressing some

concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize again, as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador

are beginning to recognize every day, that the Leader of the Official Opposition

is frightened to death that we might actually finally get a deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: He is scared stiff, absolutely scared stiff.

The truth, Mr. Speaker, is this: It is the exact opposite. It is the exact

opposite of what he just described.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: If we can find a way, Mr. Speaker, to finally have

projects like Voisey's Bay proceed and maximize the benefits for Newfoundland

and Labrador, which is what we are trying to accomplish, then maybe that will

help reverse the trends that were announced yesterday, not make it worse. It is

not that there is a tie-in. It is because we haven't been able to find a way,

for political reasons and others, with people like himself who will not support

the deal. We will gladly talk about Friedman Goldman, if there is a question

with respect to that. It is because we haven't been able to do those kinds of

deals and create the opportunities, that unfortunately some of our people have

had to leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I sat in this House yesterday when our House

Leader questioned the Minister of Industry, Trade and no Rural Development about

the out-migration statistics, and I was quite amazed to hear him tell the people

of rural Newfoundland and Labrador how strong the economy was. How strong do you

think the Dredges in Black Duck Cove think the economy is? How strong do the

Pennells in Trepassey think the economy is? How strong do the Hanns in Burgeo

think the economy is, when they sit home in their living rooms unemployed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister, in his statement on Monday, talked in terms

of concentrate that may leave the Province. On the contrary, Mr. Peter Jones,

Chairman of Inco, yesterday said: discussions now are not concerning whether it

will leave but how much ore will actually leave the Province in quantity; how

many kilotons of nickel will actually leave the Province. Those were his words.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the Premier of this Province tell the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador just how flexible he is going to be, because the more

flexible that he is, in these negotiations, the more jobs we lose from this

Province and the more people leave this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me answer in this fashion. I did have the great privilege of doing a

course thirty years ago or so now, maybe a bit longer, in university - because

yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was bragging about being thirty years at

the Bar and so on. The course was Logic 101, and as far as I can recall, because

my memory does fade, I passed the course.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BYRNE: How many times did you do that course, Premier?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the logic, as I see it, would be the exact

reverse and opposite of what the Leader of the Opposition just described in

somewhat angry tones, I do not know why. We are trying to get a deal. The fact

of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: we had a position in Newfoundland and

Labrador where nothing was to leave the Province, not one spoonful; and not one

spoonful has left and the people have left. The exact opposite of what I would

describe here.

What we are suggesting is that maybe some will leave and be returned later

because that is reasonable and can be guaranteed, and then maybe the people will

not have to leave. The choices are the exact opposite of what is described by

the Leader of the Opposition. I am still amazed as to why he resists real

attempts to try to find a way for the Voisey's Bay project to proceed so that

we can in fact, give a better reason for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to

stay right here, work right here, raise their families right here, and

contribute to the economy right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The position that you are espousing now, Premier, is a mandate that is

directly opposite to the mandate upon which you were put in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: If that is your position and that is the mandate, then call

an election and lets go to the people on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: You saw the polls and you are afraid to go. That is the

problem, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, like any good business, Inco is trying to make

as much money as it can on the deal, and we cannot blame Inco for that. It is

their goal to try and make as much money as they can. But it is this Premier's

job to safeguard the interests of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Something that this government did not do for the people of

Marystown. The Friede Goldman fiasco -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: That town now has the highest out-migration in the country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I would ask the Premier: In light of the fact that both

Scott Hand and Peter Jones of Inco have said that hydromet technology is not

proven and requires a lot more work and has only been tested in a lab, what

safeguards and guarantees are you going to have for the people of this Province

to ensure that they have the long-term processing jobs that they have been

promised, and so rightly deserve, to stay in their home Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador? What guarantees, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I commend the Leader of the Opposition this time for at least waiting

three days before he asked for an election, because it is the third day of the

Legislature. I was surprised, I was actually expecting him to call for an

election on Monday. He lasted until Wednesday. It seems as if he is obsessed

with the idea of having an election. The people of the Province, as I understand

it, Mr. Speaker, want their government to go ahead and proceed and try to get

some things done so we can turn around the circumstance, that was displayed and

explained yesterday, of out-migration.

Mr. Speaker, we have asked and answered all of these questions before, and it

is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be the only person in

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We covered all this ground in numerous Question Periods before Christmas,

where the Leader of the Opposition is the only person that I know of - because I

know lots in his caucus don't support the view - who is against the notion

development funding here so that maybe the process can work in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, he does not want that to happen because it

shows -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - that he is frightened to death that it might actually

work and the people might actually stay in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should

record from that answer that the Premier is giving them no guarantee whatsoever

that there will be long-term processing jobs in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: He is flexible on shipping the ore out. No jobs! The ore is

gone. We have given away once again.

Mr. Speaker, this government has a long history of giving away. Friede

Goldman gave away our assets. In Labrador City, it gave away our iron ore, the

pelletizing plant, to Quebec. The Premier would have given bulk water away if he

bothered to check to see if it worked or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: And he would have given away FPI to John Risley if he had

been interested enough to be concerned about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I ask the Premier: When are you going to stop cozying up to

your corporate buddies and start looking out for the interests of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, who are leaving this Province in record numbers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: It is time to stand up and fight!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me try to deal with just a couple of parts of the answer. Maybe the

Leader of the Opposition would like to tell his friends, one to his right and

one to his far right, why it was that when he was in the corporate world that he

supported Clyde Wells in the election of 1989 instead of the Member for

Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Why it was, in the election past, that he supported Brian

Tobin instead of the Member for Kilbride? Talk about corporate buddies, I guess

there are some corporate buddies, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that today in Question

Period there is a continuation of the show that some of us witnessed here - not

on live television - last night.

Let me deal again with one part, because there were four or five items in the

question. Just this one with respect to bulk water as an example. The record

that the Leader of the Opposition is spinning in Newfoundland and Labrador is

that - I think the phrase he has used is that I have been naive. In Corner Brook

he called me stupid. He actually said: Is that man stupid or what? He said to

the group in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, the point he was making was this, he said that we opened the

bulk water debate without finding out whether it was valuable or not. We opened

the debate and said we would check it out, which is what we did.

Last night I quoted the Member for Kilbride, who was the Leader at the time,

and I forgot; but I found today the quote from the current Leader of the

Opposition who, I guess, did not check it out either. In the Clarenville the

Packet, April 9, 2001, Mr. Williams described the export of the bulk water

out of the Province as a huge issue. There is more profit in water than anything

else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: The oil industry and the gas industry pale by comparison.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: In the meantime, he is willing to stand up and say that I

must be naive and really stupid because -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. Stats Canada's figures

released yesterday show a loss of 39,000 people from our Province. The Minister

of Finance stated that the impact on federal transfers is $2,700 per person. The

Department of Finance in Ottawa estimates that at $2,856 per person, but we will

use the minister's own figures. Let's take the minister's own figures that

are even less, at $2,700 per person. The impact of transfers and this loss in

population would be $105 million on the economy (inaudible) of this Province on

transfers.

Why didn't the minister, Mr. Speaker, make that clear to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador yesterday?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think the only person who is not clear

about it is the member opposite. I said yesterday, when I was interviewed, that

the census is a count at a point in time. The numbers we are using are the

estimates, the population estimates, which are now at 533,000. The numbers that

were released yesterday, and the predications to where they will go in eighteen

months is less about 2.2 per cent. I said, based on those numbers, we will be

down. Approximately $2,700 per person, rounded out, works out to approximately

$30 million less. That is what I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker. That is simple

enough.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is not being forthright with the people. She is trying to put

her spin on it and conceal the real impact. If you are going to use that theory,

Minister, you should now start counting decline in this year and project it for

next year in the new figures, if you are going to use that reasoning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Our per capita GDP, I say to the minister, is $27,000. If

you multiply that per capita GDP by a 39,000 loss -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I am asking the question, Mr. Speaker. If you multiply that

per capita, of $27,000 GDP per capita, by the 39,000 loss of population in this

Province, I say to the minister, the negative economic impact will be $1

billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the minister, economists -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact that economists use those numbers in calculating global

economic impact, and the $1 billion figure, I say, is in that ballpark, does

your government have any idea of the impact of that population loss, not only on

the economy of this Province but on the economic opportunities in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the previous question is an excellent

lesson in voodoo economics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is talking about spin.

Every day in this House, Mr. Speaker, every day, the member opposite stands up

and says: Minister, GDP does not mean cash; Minister, GDP is not a good

indicator. Now he is standing up and trying to create this fear about the GDP.

Mr. Speaker, the GDP reflects the strength of our economy. I am sorry, Mr.

Speaker, I will not go there because our economy is strong, our economy

continues to grow, our housing starts are up. Mr. Speaker, we know exactly where

we are in this position with respect to our GDP, as has been identified by

outside groups, but we also know the devastating effect it does have on our own

economy, which we take very seriously, which my colleague spoke to yesterday. We

are working on that very seriously and taking it very seriously, unlike the

member opposite, who is doing nothing more than fearmongering and trying to

capitalize on voodoo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Environment. Mr. Speaker, the

residents of Chapel's Cove have today been informed of the results of tests in

arsenic in their bodies and the results, I say to this House, are not good. The

cross-section of residents right from infants to senior citizens is indicating

levels four times, ten times, over the limit of the standard in these results.

The water is still flowing into these homes, even though not for consumption,

we hope. We want to know from the minister: Can the minister guarantee the

people, the residents of Chapel's Cove today, that they are not at risk - now

that they have increased levels of arsenic in their body - of absorbing even

more arsenic into their bodies as a result of use of this water, Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, given that the question pertains to the level of

risk of the individuals, as I understood it, perhaps what would be most helpful

would be for me to respond by giving the information that our medical health

officer for the region provided to these people as she informed them of the

results of this testing. In fact, what she has communicated to people in this

area says that, first of all, this result does mean that they have had increased

exposure. She goes on to say that this result "...does not mean that you

have or will have any harmful effects. The actual level in hair..."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: Excuse me, I am quoting now from the medical health officer

who is on the scene with this issue as a health issue.

If I could continue...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BETTNEY: "The actual level in hair does not reflect the risk of

getting sick as the arsenic level in hair can be affected by external

contamination as well as by the drinking water." She goes on to say,

"The result will help your doctor to assess your health now and in the

future." - and advises them to consult with their doctor.

In fact, Dr. Donovan has been in contact with each one of these individuals.

This is the best medical information that she has been able to provide them at

this time. She is in contact with the family practice physicians in the area,

and she is also in contact with any experts as necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, these are the same residents who - the

testing, the sampling of water was done in June and August and they never got

the results until January. These are the residents who have been sitting back

now for a month, or a month-and-a-half, waiting for these results, and the

minister is telling me that they are going to do nothing?

There has been plenty of time to look at and research what should be done.

They have increased levels of arsenic, a heavy metal, in their bodies. I am

asking the minister: What is the contingency plan? What are they doing,

medically or otherwise, to allay the fears of these residents of Chapel's

Cove?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, if I could clarify one statement that was just

made. As soon as the medical officer was notified of these results from the

water testing, she immediately sent out an advisory to people in this area with

respect to the water situation, advising them not to drink the water; and,

subject to that, and following on that, put a process in place so that in

February all of the people in the area were invited to come forward for

voluntary testing, for hair samples.

There is a scientific and a medical process that has to take place here, and

it has taken place. They have undertaken to do the samples. They have sent the

samples for analysis. Yesterday, when they received the results of these

samplings, they provided that information to every person who has been tested,

and the medical advice - again, I can only say to you that I am not the medical

expert here. This is not the case of the minister here deciding what medical

action needs to be taken. I leave that to the judgement of physicians and

medical experts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS BETTNEY: Our medical health officer has been in contact with the

medical people that she needs to contact. She is following their advice, and she

is doing that appropriately with the people in the area.

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 Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary

Education. Mr. Speaker, among the many thousands of people leaving this

Province, as indicated in the results of the census yesterday, are students who

have to leave this Province to find a job to pay off their huge student loan

debts which are now three times what they were when the Liberal government took

office; a debt load of graduating students now tripled to $25,000.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has noted that the government and this

minister are sitting on some $6,000 in student bursary money that has not been

disbursed to students. This has been reported now in two Auditor General's

reports, and yet the government has failed to pass this money out to students

who are eligible for it and should have received it.

What is this government going to do to undo this wrong and make sure that the

students who are entitled to this money get this deferred student bursary money?

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

Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the government has not refused to pay out these

deferred bursaries. The money is in the government's accounts and is well

accounted for to pay out these bursaries.

We have - I think it was from 1993 to 1996 or 1997- sent letters out each

year to students who we felt should be owed some money. Some are owed as little

as less than $100. There are students who are owed more than that, but when the

letter keeps coming back to you as, not able to contact the person by mail, well

then, you have to look at other means of doing it.

One of the things we have been doing is talking to various other students,

making sure that we talk about it publicly, and we have now posted everything on

our new Web site. All of the information is there at the number 1-888-657-0800

for any student who feels that they are owed a deferred bursary, who finished

school to the end of the years 1992-1993 loan year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS KELLY: We have been putting that information out and, in many

instances, parents have been calling us for the information. We pass it to them,

and they pass it on to students who may be out of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I believe the cheque was in the mail, I actually might have some

satisfaction. There is $6 million in this account and the minister says the mail

keeps coming back because the students have changed their addresses. Well, if

they have been forced to leave the Province, of course they have changed their

addresses.

Is the minister prepared to conduct an advertising campaign in the newspapers

across this Province to help to identify anybody who is owed this money from

1993? Is the minister prepared to do that so their families can know that they

should check this out? To repeat a telephone number in this House of Assembly is

not enough, Mr. Speaker. It did not work from 1999 to 2001, and it is not going

to work now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have been doing everything that we practically can. That is why we have

just added this new Web site information.

As to taking out an ad across the Province, the member has been just pointing

out that these students are probably not in the Province, and I agree with him.

That is why we have been making every endeavour that we can, in every program

that we put out. For instance, this is the government that reduced tuition by 10

per cent this past year. We have done more proactive measures to lessen student

debt than any other government in this country. When you meet the criteria for

loan remission in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: If you meet the criteria through timely completion of your

program - this is one of the few provinces in this country that you can get

almost all of the provincial portion of your debt written off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

Board.

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

I would like to table the annual report of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Liquor Corporation for the fiscal year 2001.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: It is Wednesday, we now go to the Private Member's

Resolution.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First I will read the motion we are debating today here in the hon. House of

Assembly so that everyone is aware of the issue that is before us. The motion is

on Canada taking custodial management of the continental shelf off our coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Wonderful. Good news.

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

critical 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 on the Government of

Canada to put in place the necessary provisions and resources to enforce

conservation measures for the marine resources in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I have added an extra;

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, this is a motion which I hope will draw support from all Members

of the House of Assembly. It is not put forward, I add, to generate debate based

on partisan politics but rather to bring attention to a very important issue and

I am hoping that we can speak with one voice today to send a message to the

politicians in Ottawa, to the Canadian public, and to the international

community, Mr. Speaker. If we are to be successful in bringing about changes to

this issue we have to start bringing attention to it, raising a public awareness

and putting pressure on the federal government to make changes.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, facing us is serious and action must be taken. The

EC countries have repeatedly rejected quota levels that have been set by NAFO

and have fished virtually without restriction on our continental shelf. They

have done so in complete disregard for the state of the ecosystem and the

sustainability of the resource, and also to the resource of the Canadian fishing

industry. This is unacceptable and it cannot be allowed to continue. The time

for action is already long overdue and the issue should be top priority for the

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this motion, I want to comment on the nature of

the resource which we have off our coast. The first two sections I referenced

refer to one of natures most productive marine environments that lay off the

coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. For generations the Grand Banks have been

supported with an abundance of fish. When John Cabot travelled to our shores in

1497 he reported that they could scoop the fish up in baskets. It is hard to

believe that this valuable marine resource is now close to being wiped out by

foreign overfishing.

Having said that, I would also like to add that I admit to this hon. House

that I am far from being a professional when it comes to the fishing industry.

However, I came from a fishing family. My father fished in the summer, in the

trap fishery. In the fall of the year he did handlining and jigging. Later in

the fall he would travel to Lunenburg to fish in the dory fishery, and then on

the draggers out of Burin. Mr. Speaker, I can remember quite a few years ago

when he would say that out on the Grand Banks it was lit up like a small city.

So it is no wonder that the devastation has continued.

The Nose and Tail of the banks is approximately 42,000 square kilometres in

size and is a vital spawning and nursery area of cod, redfish and various

species of flatfish. The fish stocks off the Grand Banks are a renewable

resource. With the proper management and care the stocks can continue to be a

major source of food for the entire world and supply a livelihood for the

fishers of the world for generations to come.

Canada, as the adjacent coastal state, has a responsibility to act quickly to

ensure this marine resource is not destroyed forever.

The motion also deals with the current state of protection and conservation

fishing within the 200-mile limit in order to give domestic stocks time to

rebuild, foreign fleets continue to fish on the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks. This is happening because NAFO is powerless to enforce any quotas.

Powerless! It is not good enough that fish plants have to close and thousands of

people put out of work, while at the same time foreign fishing fleets still

plunder the stocks off our coast.

Mr. Speaker, it was only a few years ago when it was reported that there were

100-plus vessels on the Grand Banks fishing; foreign overfishing. Then we had

been advised that the numbers have been down in the twenties. That's

wonderful! The number of fishing boats have decreased, but I can assure you, the

amounts that they are taking has not decreased.

It was only recently I read in an

article that some of the nets that are

being dragged by those large trawlers on the Grand Banks, on the Nose and Tail

of the Banks - the size of the nets could hold twelve jumbo jets across the

mouth of the net. We can only imagine what devastation and destruction is taking

place.

Mr. Speaker, the all-party committee, as they travelled around this Province,

heard the word from the people, and I think it is time for the Government of

Canada to act.

This motion today calls on Canada to take custodial management. Extension of

Canada's 200-mile fisheries jurisdiction to the edge of the continental shelf

should not be viewed as a unilateral grab for justice over a vast stretch of

international waters, rather it should be an extension. It should be viewed as a

forward thinking move by a prudent resource manager interested in preserving the

resource wealth for many generations to come. The groundwork has to be done so

that such a move to take custodial management would place Canada in a leadership

role of an environmental protection and proper resource management.

Mr. Speaker, we are leaders in every other phase around this world, and I

cannot see why it cannot happen here in our own backyard. By taking custodial

management, all we are asking - we are not taking everything away from the other

countries - is that we would be the guardians to protect and maintain the

resources that are there for future generations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Foreign overfishing is not a new issue for this Province, or

for Canada as a matter of fact. For over twenty years, prior to the declaration

of Canada's 200-mile limit in 1977, foreign fishing fleets undertook the

unrestrained harvest of all the major fish stocks off the East Coast of Canada.

At that time it constituted the single greatest threat to the Canadian fishing

industry post War World II. After 1977, Canada declared the 200-mile limit and

the stocks inside the zone began to rebuild because of the strict regulations

and quota controls for the Canadian fishermen.

In 1979 NAFO was formed with the purpose of managing a portion of the Grand

Banks fishing grounds, the Nose and Tail, outside Canada's 200-mile zone. In

1982 the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was adopted

internationally, and its marine resource provisions are considered to be

customary international law. In 1985, distant water fishing fleets from Spain,

Portugal and Germany started to increase their catch on the Nose and Tail of the

Grand Banks. Some stock difficulties in NAFO areas started to be recorded.

In 1986, using the objection procedure under the NAFO convention, the EC

began to unilaterally adopt its own quotas for NAFO stocks, far above the quotas

that had been set by NAFO. These quotas were primely assigned to Spain and

Portugal. Around this time, to make matter worse, vessels from non-NAFO

countries, mainly Panama and Korea, began to fish in the NAFO area, despite

having no quotas whatsoever.

It is clearly evident that NAFO has no power to solve these problems of

overfishing within the European Community. In fact, during this whole fishing

crisis, it is evident that the European Community is attempting to export its

fishing problems from the European waters to the waters off our coast.

In recent years, Mr. Speaker, some steps have been taken to give appearance

that NAFO is doing something to improve surveillance and restrict overfishing,

but EC vessels continue to overfish quotas and misreport their catches. It is

clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have no other choice. As a nation, we either

take action outlined in this motion or we give up any future recovery for the

fishery off our coast. The only responsible option left for Canada is to take

custodial management over this resource; the extension of Canada's 200-mile

fisheries jurisdiction to include the whole continental shelf. We have acted

unilaterally in the past, and we should not be afraid to do so again in the

future.

Some examples of where Canada has taken unilateral action in the past: In

1964 Canada adopted straight base lines, demarcate the territorial sea. In 1970,

when we, as a nation, declared the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy to

be within Canada's jurisdiction. In 1970, when we asserted sovereignty over

waters in the Arctic Island chain, and when we extended fisheries jurisdictions

outside the 12-mile limit. In 1977, when Canada declared jurisdiction to 200

miles. We took bold action then when we arrested the Estai and brought her into

port.

These were strong moves at the time, Mr. Speaker. We were not afraid to act

then and we should not be afraid to act now. The situation requires bold action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: As a nation, Canada must be making our case before the full

international community. We should using every means possible to make sure our

case is heard, and that foreign nations listen to what is happening off our

coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: We should be expressing our case to the international

community through the United Nations. We should develop a comprehensive public

relations campaign to explain to the international community where Canada has

and stands on the custodial management possibility. You may ask: What can we do?

This issue will not be resolved here in this hon. House of Assembly today. There

may be some fine speeches given to this issue. We may leave here better informed

on the issue, but I do not expect immediate action to be taken by the federal

I am hoping that what we are doing here today will be part of a bigger, a

larger effort, a bigger campaign. I hope others will hear what we have to say

today and join us in the cause. I want to ask all Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to become involved in this campaign. We can speak out on this

issue; we can write to the Minister of Fisheries federally; we can contact the

Prime Minister; we can call the Open Line shows and talk to our federal members

in Parliament.

Madam Speaker, I want to say for the record that I am a proud Newfoundlander,

that I am a proud Canadian -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: - but I have to say, I ask at this time for my country to

step forward. I call upon the federal government, regardless -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Ottawa.

MR. BUTLER: Never mind whose cousins are in Ottawa. This is not a

political issue, and I don't care what color of political stripe they hold. I

ask them to come forward, and I call them to take action.

I say to my hon. colleague along the way: It is wonderful to have cousins in

Ottawa. Some people will not have them there for a long, long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I call upon the federal government, Madam Speaker, to take

action, and take it immediately.

I listened yesterday evening, or last evening, with interest to Mr. Loyola

Hearn, the MP for St. John's West, who happens to be on the committee. I was

listening with interest when he made a report - I think it was from the Boston

Seafood Show - where he said that the hearings they have had to date, he is very

discouraged because the most that they have spoken with were bureaucrats who

were coming up with every reason in the world why this should not take place. He

is hoping - and I am sure he will receive it, because I understand the

Opposition and our minister will be making presentations to them when they

arrive in this Province.

Just a few years ago Iceland was in a similar situation. Other foreign countries

were destroying the fish stocks off their shores, but that little country took

action, and I am sure we all know the story. I think it is time for our country

to do the same.

We can arrest our own little boats fishing in 3N + 3O a few years ago, and

foreign fishing continued. We are going through a motorium but still foreign

fishing takes place, and here we are being threatened by being arrested if our

men go fishing.

If we could take the time, and an individual had to fire a shot across his

ship to make sure it returned to port, if we could have done that at the time,

surely God our country can stand up for us now and not only protect the resource

that is going to be beneficial to this Province but to our nation, to the

country, and to the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Madam Speaker, this is very important to the future of this

Province, and we should make sure the people of the federal government realize

how important it is to us in this Province, and realize how it is important to

our nation, Canada, and the whole world.

I would like to ask all members to support this motion today and also to

continue the campaign to have the Canadian government do the right thing.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER (Ms Hodder): The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

First of all, let me say to my colleagues how pleased I am that they have

asked me to lead off the debate for our caucus on this important matter today.

Obviously, I am pleased to be able to do so.

Secondly, let me take the opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Port de

Grave, the new Member for Port de Grave, for bringing forward this very

important resolution. As I was sitting here listening to the hon. gentleman make

his presentation, and reflecting on the contents of the resolution, I could not

help but think that, in my just about twenty years in this place, I would say a

resolution of similar sorts has been before this Legislature perhaps every year

during that time.

It seems that, for some reason or other, we in this Province always have to

keep pushing the envelope. We always have to keep making the case, we always

have to keep banging our heads against the wall, to try to get somebody to

understand, to try to get somebody to listen to the fact that the precious

resources of the living sea that is off our shore has to be brought under the

control and management of Canada for the good of this Province, for the good of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Resolution after resolution, year after year, by one party or the other - it

does not matter; no one party has a monopoly on what this resolution is all

about - year after year, one party after the other, resolution after resolution,

this House has gone on record time and time again, Madam Speaker, in asking the

federal government, perhaps in words not exactly as they are here today but in

words very similar, in asking the federal government to come to our rescue.

Nay, Madam Speaker, not to come to our rescue, to do what is right, to do

what is right and proper for Canadian citizens living in Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is all we are asking. Year after year, decade after decade now,

this Legislature has unanimously, as I am sure it will today - I do not think

there is anybody in this House who will vote against this resolution today.

There has been more than one unanimous resolution adopted by this place. There

has been more than one protocol adopted by this place and sent up along. The sad

reality, Madam Speaker, is that unfortunately those things have continued over

the years to fall on deaf ears when they got up along. That is the reality of

what we are facing here today.

I guess the question that is operative becomes: What do we do about it? We

have all had our political smack at it, Madam Speaker. The present party have

tried to influence their party when they were in power in Ottawa previously and

again now. Our party, when we were in power here and in Ottawa, tried to

influence our political cousins. We have all had a smack at it politically, to

try to get that understanding, to try to get the federal government to come to

grips with the reality that if we do not take charge of that territory just

outside of 200 miles, then we are never going to solve the problems that plague

the fishery in Atlantic Canada in general, and in Newfoundland and Labrador in

particular. We are never going to do it.

I think the question becomes:What is it that we have to do? We can send up

unanimous resolutions, as we have done year after year. We can lobby our various

political friends in the political parties in Ottawa. The member mentioned about

lobbying MPs and calling the Open Line shows.

You know, we are in Confederation; fifty-odd years we have been doing that.

There has been some small progress made from three miles to twelve miles to 200

miles. These were all giant steps when they took place. The reality, Madam

Chair, is that Canada is one of only, I believe it is two countries in the world

that has a continental shelf that extends outside of 200 miles: Argentina, and I

do not recall the other but I believe there is another country in the world.

We are in a unique situation. That is one of the international calamities

that has befallen us, Madam Chair. If there were thirty-five or forty or fifty

countries in the world that had a continental shelf that extended outside of 200

miles - if the United States had a continental shelf that went beyond 200 miles,

if the former Soviet Union or present-day Russia had a continental shelf that

went beyond 200 miles, if the European Community had any of its member countries

that had a continental shelf that went beyond 200 miles, do you think we would

be here passing dead-end resolutions, asking that this matter be gripped in the

consciousness of Canadians? It is hard to have it gripped in the consciousness

of Canadians when you cannot have it become an issue and a focus in the

international conscience. That is the kind of problem that we are facing. We

have to continue, I say to my friend who brought in the resolution, the

resolution which we support, we have to continue the battle. It is going to be a

continuous battle. Hopefully some day, somewhere, whether it is in Ottawa or

whether it is in Europe, or whether it is in the United States, hopefully some

day the light will go on. There will be a click and hopefully some day those

environmental - what is the right word to describe them, I wonder? - those

wisdoms of environmental -

AN HON. MEMBER: Environmental geniuses.

MR. RIDEOUT: - environmental geniuses out there will latch on to a real

cause, Madam Chair. They will latch on to a real cause, not a cause that brings

money into their coffers or increases their profile or downgrades hard-working

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians or Aboriginal Canadians, not a cause of that

kind, but a real environmental cause. This is an environmental disaster

happening to the living resources of the sea off the Coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Madam Chair, my friend makes reference to NAFO in his resolution. I suppose I

have to say that, without NAFO, matters might be worse. I am not sure how much

worse they could be, but it would be stretching it to say that they would be

worse. The fact of the matter, Madam Chair, is that over the years - there was a

time when NAFO was conceived following the old ICNAF regime, then it became NAFO

- Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Following that, when that

organization was put in place first, Madam Chair, Canada had a lot of clout in

NAFO. Canada could lobby and trade with Norway and Iceland and the former Soviet

Union, and between us, collectively, we could carry the day in NAFO, for what it

might have been worth. The problem is today -

MR. TULK: One problem was, what did they trade?

MR. RIDEOUT: That is another issue. The problem today is that Canada no

longer has any clout in NAFO. Canada has absolutely no clout in NAFO today, in

my view. There was a time when the Deputy Minister of Fisheries for Canada could

line up the ducks before going to a NAFO meeting and the Canadian agenda would

be adopted. It happened year after year.

What did they do this year when they met? Every item that Canada had on the

agenda, I understand, was voted down. We never carried an item on the NAFO

agenda this year in terms of conservation and quotas and stock management and

conservation management and all of that. Not an item did we carry.

Then, to add insult to injury, Madam Speaker, the European Community gave

notice of their intention to object, and set the quotas that they wanted anyway

on flounder and redfish. The question becomes: Why are we there? NAFO has turned

itself into a toothless, idiotic organization.

Now, I remember years ago when I was Minister of Fisheries, the lobbying by

Canada, and people like John Crosbie and so on going in and trying to browbeat

NAFO. I had visions of him being in Marystown the other night, when I saw him on

television. This is how he used to get on at the NAFO meetings. It might have

worked at NAFO, but it did not work in Marystown.

The fact of the matter is that this NAFO organization has outlived its

usefulness, if it every had any usefulness. We have to wrap our minds around:

What are we going to do about it? What are we going to do about this? Are we

going to continue to be a part of a paper tiger organization that does nothing

for the Province and the resource of this Province, or anything for the country

for that matter, just to say that we are nice, to be nice and have cocktails

with our international buddies? Is that what we are going to do?

I say the time has come, like the old fellow would say, to fish or cut bait.

It is time for us to bring NAFO to its senses, and strengthen it or get out of

it. Strengthen it or get out of it.

What is put forward in this resolution today, Canada taking custodial

management of the resources to the edge of the continental shelf, makes sense. I

think it makes sense. It has been a policy that I think many of us have been

supportive of over the years in various political parties. I think we ought to

be clear what we are talking about. It is not only the edge of the continental

shelf, which would include the Nose and Tail of the Bank, but I think it also

has to include the Flemish Cap. That is all NAFO territory, as the member who

brought in the resolution knows. I think we are talking about an area here that

is very significant, and one that we have to move on.

I think the other part of the question becomes this, Madam Speaker. Canada

appears to have gone down another road. Canada has signed onto this United

Nations Fish Agreement, so Canada appears to have gone down another road. Canada

appears, I say to my friend who brought in this resolution, to have abandoned

the possibility of taking custodial management of the resource. Canada appears

to have advanced itself along another road and have signed on to this United

Nations Fish Agreement.

This United Nations Fish Agreement, even though thirty-odd countries, I

believe, including Canada, including Russia, including the United States -

thirty-two I believe, including significant countries like Canada, Russia and

the United States - have signed onto this agreement, the European Community have

not signed onto it. So, Canada has moved off this more proactive, aggressive

ground of unilaterally saying we are giving the world notice that we are going

to take custodial management of the resource because somebody has to become

responsible for it, there is a marine eco disaster waiting to happen unless

somebody become responsible for it. We are the coastal state. We have the right,

in international law, to extend our custodial management of that resource and we

are going to do it, and we are going to challenge the whole world to say why we

cannot do it. No, Madam Speaker, not this pussyfoot Canada that we are part of

today.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have done it before.

MR. RIDEOUT: We have done it before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Exactly.

The point I was trying to make, I say to my friend opposite, is that Canada

appears to have backed off from this more aggressive proactive approach of

saying, "We are going to take the right to custodially manage that

resource", and have gone this more pussyfoot, diplomatic, United Nations

approach. That might be all very well if there were a lot of countries in the

world that had the same problem, but there are not. It is a case of diplomacy

lost rather than diplomacy gained. It is not going to go anywhere; because, if

every country in the world signs onto it, what is the point? If every country in

the world signs onto it and the EEC and their components stay out of it, nothing

is going to happen.

I would hope that the focus of the debate would be the need to try to

convince Canada to back off this little floppy diplomatic approach like we have

become so used to in Canada, we have become so comfortable with. I would hope we

from that approach. Not necessarily give up on it, because you can work two

fronts the one time, Madam Speaker. It may do us some good somewhere, some day,

somewhere along the line; but, in the meantime, while we are doing the fiddling

here, Rome is burning and we have to stop the fiddling. We have to put out the

fire. We have to take control of the resource now because, if we do not, it is

almost horrendous to think about the consequence.

There are more vessels, I understand, fishing off in the NAFO area today than

there were when the Estai was brought into St. John's. More NAFO and

non-NAFO vessels fishing off 200 miles today, the Flemish Cap in particular, the

Nose and Tail of the Banks, than there were at any time since the Estai

was brought into St. John's.

What does that tell you about the will of Canada to extend management over

that resource? There is no will at all, Madam Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Ottawa?

MR. RIDEOUT: In Ottawa, yes. That is what I am talking about.

So I think again. I go back to my original point that I made when I began.

How do we get this matter seized in the consciousness, first of all, of

Canadians? That is the operative question. How do we do it? We lobby our

politicians. We have seven members in Ottawa. So, big deal! We have lobbied our

respective parties when they were the Governments of Canada. When they see us

coming, there is another problem that they do not want to see coming.

Newfoundlanders coming moaning and groaning again about all the hard times that

they are having down there.

Somehow or another this is not fitting in, and it has not fit in. You know,

Madam Speaker, it is a sad commentary on our history, isn't it? Fifty-odd

years ago we voluntarily joined this great country, and we brought a resource -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, my friend, the anti-confederate, was at least 50 per

cent plus one.

We brought a resource with us, Madam Speaker, the likes of which no other

country in the world could boast about. Can you imagine, the living resources of

the sea, the hydrocarbons under the sea, all of that, from Cape Chidley in

Labrador down to wherever the boundary might be fixed between Nova Scotia; and

200 miles or 225 miles offshore. Just the geography of it alone is enough to

blow the mind.

But we brought it all with us, and said: Here, Canada, here is what we have

for you. You have this rich resource, this huge geography, take it and manage it

for our good and the good of all Canadians. What has been the result? The result

has been poverty. The result has been suffering. The result has been devastation

to our rural communities. There would not be a non-prosperous rural community in

Newfoundland and Labrador today if that resource were healthy and properly

managed. Every single rural Newfoundland community today would be prosperous

communities, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: There would be nobody banging on doors talking about

restricting ownership of FPI or more layoffs in the groundfishery or, can we get

our crab permit turned into a crab licence? There would be none of that.

If the groundfish resource or the fisheries resource in the totality off the

continental shelf of Canada, that Newfoundlanders, gladly and willingly, maybe

unknowingly turned over - turning over the control of management was a political

matter that we did back in 1949. One that perhaps, I suspect, we will live to

regret for a long time, but nevertheless it was done. We turned it over to the

Speaker, we have become paupers in our own house because of it. Paupers in our

own house, when we should be one of the smallest, richest parts of the world;

based on fish alone. Never mind the hydrocarbons, never mind the

hydroelectricity, never mind the forestry, never mind all the rest of the

tremendous resources that we have in this Province, but the fish alone, properly

managed, should have made this place heaven on earth. What do we have? We have

the reverse, where people are lining their U-Hauls up at Port aux Basques to get

out to look for a way to survive.

If there is any fishery that comes back in five, ten, fifteen or twenty years

time, there is not going to be the skills to even operate a fish plant in many

of those rural communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is getting there now though.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is getting there now.

You know P.E.I. today imports fish plant workers from Newfoundland. New

Brunswick imports fish plant workers from Newfoundland. Where will Newfoundland

go to import fish plant workers from, if this resource ever rebounds in twenty

years time? It will be no good looking to the oil fields of Fort McMurray

because they are not coming home then.

Do you know what has happened in this Province? Not only have the young

people moved out in rural Newfoundland where - out in my district, in the

Lewisporte area. Not only have the young people moved but for the first time in

our history I have seen this in rural Newfoundland, the parents are gone now and

the grandparents have followed them because they want to be with the grandkids.

That is the big thing that is taking place in the out-migration this time, I say

to my friends. That is tremendously and totally different than any other

out-migration that we have ever had in our history.

Before, when our young people went, they went for experience. They went to

upgrade their skills. They went to enjoy the world and perhaps come back to

Newfoundland and Labrador, but this, Madam Speaker, many of the young people who

have gone will never come back, including my son who is in British Columbia, and

I am sure there are lots of other sons and daughters around this place. Not only

have they gone, but out in rural Newfoundland in particular, many, not all, but

many of the parents have gone and the grandparents. That is why you see more

boarded up houses in Stoneville, in Fleur de Lys or La Scie than you see

anywhere else. The root cause is the principle of this resolution today. The

root cause has been the devastation, the impoverishment of rural Newfoundland

because no Canadian government, of any political stripe, has had the courage and

the fortitude to manage the resources for the benefit of Canadians who live in

this Province, and until we turn that around, Madam Speaker, the future of rural

Newfoundland is indeed very bleak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural

Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the Member

for Port de Grave on putting forward this resolution to us today.

Let me also say to my personal friend from Lewisporte, that I want to

congratulate him on a speech well delivered; on a speech, I am sure, that is

vital and feels vital in the hearts and minds of every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian. As a matter of fact, he reminded me of the late 1980s when both of

us were here at the same time, and he is right. He is absolutely right. The same

resolution has been debated over and over and over in this Legislature. It has

been forwarded to Ottawa. It has been forwarded to PC governments. It has been

forwarded to Liberal governments in Ottawa. All to no avail, because we still

have, in spite of some of the things that has happened off our coast, in spite

of some of the actions that has been taken, we still have the destruction of a

resource; not only a resource for us, but a total ecosystem.

I say to him today, that there has not been - he knows this and we both agree

on it, and all of us in this Legislature agree - a greater environmental

disaster in the world than what is occurring. It is occurring under the water.

You cannot see it. It is not a forest being cut down. It is not some wildlife

being destroyed. It is fish which is under the water, and for many people, for

many of the environmentalists in this world, Madam Speaker, that is out-of-sight

and out of mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: And for many Canadians, for many people in Canada, and for

governments in Canada, it has been out-of-sight and out of mind.

He is absolutely right about what is happening in rural Newfoundland. He is

absolutely right about what has happened. We can stand in this House and play

all the politics we like about rural Newfoundland, but the truth of the matter

is, that through the destruction of that ecosystem we have destroyed a way of

life and a culture. It has been done by successive Canadian government's lack

of action. Not the actions that they have taken, but by their lack of action.

There has not been the kind of action that we need to take. For those people who

are wondering what we are talking about - maybe there are some people in this

Legislature who do not really know the area that we are talking about.

I understand that the Member for The Straits & White Bay North said: Why

don't you include in the resolution, the Flemish Cap? Now, that is area 3M. If

that is what is necessary to be reflected here, I want to go on the record now,

on behalf of the government and my friend from Port de Grave, as saying we are

not only talking about the Tail and Nose of the Grand Banks - and if the Flemish

Cap is not considered part of the continental shelf, we are not only talking

about the continental shelf, we are talking about the Flemish Cap as well. The

whole resolution speaks to that. Madam Speaker, for those people who do not

understand what we are talking about here, I would ask the Clerk's people if

they would distribute the map of the areas of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries

management division.

Now, Madam Speaker, what we see is a red line that comes down across, circles

out 200 miles off our coast and yet leaves an area of the continental shelf - an

area, by the way, a couple of years ago supplied crab in deep water for Burgeo,

and the federal government decided that they would take us out of that. They

would not make that resource available so that the people of Burgeo could make a

living. Well, I wonder who is catching it now? I wonder who is destroying it

now? Is it Portugal or is it Spain? Because, as my friend from Lewisporte

rightly pointed out, NAFO has become a toothless tiger. It has become a

toothless tiger. There is nothing happening to conserve that ecosystem as a

result of NAFO. Yes, I say to him, that we should, indeed, consider whether we

are going to stay part of that organization or not.

But, Madam Speaker, where do we go? I think it is important, and the Member

for Lewisporte has framed what I want to say very well. What is the answer for

us? We have to convince, as a people, not only Canada - I wish they would help

us. That is the key, to get them to help us first; but we have to convince an

international community that we should indeed have custodial management. Not

ownership. Who cares? Who cares who owns it, as long as you can manage it and

manage it right. Not only for ourselves, but for mankind. Who cares?

As I said, it is an environmental disaster off this coast that we need to be

able to persuade the international community, and force the international

community. Canada should move to force the international community.

We are taking it over, to manage it for the world, to manage it for all mankind.

Can you imagine how any country in the world could argue against Canada

preventing an environmental disaster? It couldn't happen. Canada has an

opportunity here to save an ecosystem and to make its place in the world like

they have never had before. An opportunity exists for them to say: We are taking

over this, not on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians only, not only on

behalf of Nova Scotians, New Brunswickers, Quebeckers, or people in B.C. Yes, we

want to see the people who live close to that resource benefit from it, but we

are taking this over on behalf of all mankind. It is an ecosystem that is being

destroyed by a group of people, by the way, who have destroyed their own.

Portugal and Spain no longer have the fish that they need.

As my friend from Lewisporte pointed out, when NAFO says you should take this

quota, this is the part of the quota you should take - Portugal - they object,

and once they object they have to let a period of time go by, and I do not even

think they do that, and then they can go set their own quotas, and they do.

What has been very disappointing in the last little while is the action of

Iceland. Iceland, the country that took on the British navy and said: We want to

protect the area around our coasts. I understand that they now are objecting to

putting observers on boats, and that they have threatened to take them off their

own. Why are they asking to take them off? I can only assume one thing: that

they, too, would like to over fish, take the resource out of that ecosystem and

take it back to their own country, and do it for their own profit.

The onus is on Canada to say to the world that this is a destruction of an

ecosystem like no other and we will not stand back and see this ecosystem

destroy the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Canada, the country of Canada, prides itself on being one of

the great nations of the world, one of the great nations where people are

allowed to live, make a living, and live in freedom, and have the freedom to

choose and to make a living.

When you see what has happened to outport rural Newfoundland today, outport

Newfoundland as I call it, when you see what has happened, for example, to the

Northern Peninsula - the greatest example is in areas like Burgeo, and areas

like the tip of the Bonavista Peninsula - when you see what has happened as a

result of the destruction of the ecosystem, of which they are a part - they were

part of it for 500 years. They lived with it, they conserved it, they kept it

for themselves and looked after it for the world. When you see the destruction

of that ecosystem, when you see that Canada has allowed that ecosystem to be

destroyed, when we see that Canada is willing to go to NAFO and do the cocktail

circuit and then sit back, it poses a vital question about this place called

Confederation, to be frank with you, in my mind. It poses a vital question. As

the member said, we took that resource and we took it into Canada. That

resource, that ecosystem, was part of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was adjacent

to this country called Newfoundland and Labrador when we became part of a

confederation.

When you see what Canada has allowed to happen, then you have to question if

they really care about this part of the country at all, if they have any regard

for people and for an ecosystem, as I said, that belongs to the world, for a

resource, for ground that belongs to the world, and they have allowed it to

disappear. They have allowed it to disappear. They have allowed a people to

disappear. They have allowed a culture to disappear. We have the same

(inaudible). That is about what we have, and that is not doing us very well

either. You have to question where we are.

Madam Speaker, let me just say this: Yes, I say to the Member for Lewisporte,

we have debated this issue in this Legislature, as he said. He was here before I

was and he was out awhile, while I was here. For about twenty years both of us

stood in this House and debated it, and we have not debated it in a partisan

way, but here is the deal. We have not debated it in a partisan fashion. You

remember when we were in the Opposition and he was in government, it was not

debated in a partisan fashion. It was debated as Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians concerned about where we were going, what we were doing.

We cannot give up the fight. The question is now, how do we proceed? How do

we proceed? The first step for us has to be that we have to convince Canada that

we are not up there looking for something to grab for us; we are up there

looking for something to say: Let's conserve this for everybody in the world,

but conserve it in a fashion that is not governed by greed, that is governed by

the fact that you have to be able to carry on sustainable development, and that

people who are part of the ecosystem have a first call on the resource.

Madam Speaker, I do not see, to be frank with you, any point in Canada asking

Portugal, Spain and some other countries in the EU, and indeed some other

countries outside the EU, to come in and fish willy-nilly. There is no point in

going to them and using the diplomatic means, at this point, and saying: Would

you give us custodial management, because we want to conserve this? No. Take

control of it.

I don't think there is any doubt that what we did with the Estai

woke the world up a bit. It woke the world up a bit when we brought the Estai

ashore. But it was not in the name of conservation, it was not done in the name;

we want this for Newfoundland and Labrador. It woke the world up a bit. We need

to do the same kind of thing on a much broader scale.

Madam Speaker, I am not going to stay here forever and go over and over what

has been said already. There is no need. I do say this, that we - and I think we

have to put Canada on notice - are at the end of our rope with NAFO, we are at

the end of our rope with being neglected, that we will not live in this Province

adjacent to the sea, part of us, a resource and an ecosystem that is part us. We

will not do that, Madam Speaker. We will not allow that resource to be taken,

that ecosystem to be further destroyed, that they will not - just let me say to

the hon. gentleman, he is trying to act very, very cute over there. He is acting

very, very cute over there. The Member for Cape St. Francis should sit back and

reflect, all of us need to reflect, on how we solve this problem. Unlike the

hon. gentleman, I don't have an easy answer.

I know where we have to go. I know who has to be convinced, as does the

Member for Lewisporte. The first step is to convince Canada, the people of

Canada maybe, that this resource, this ecosystem, has to be protected, in the

same way as we try to protect the Great Lakes, in the same way as we try to

protect the forests in British Columbia, in the same way as we try to protect

the forests in the Amazon. We have to convince the Canadian government that this

is not a Newfoundland and Labrador cause, it is a Canadian cause. That is the

next step, I say to the hon. gentleman.

The method of doing it: Hopefully all of in this House within the next little

while can come up with a solution as to how we do it. Once we do that, let me

say to the hon. gentleman, we are on the road. I would say to him, it is not

funny, it is not something to be amused about, to build his ego or mine or

anybody else's. It is a matter of the future, not only of this Province, but

in many cases the future of an ecosystem that contributes to the food supply of

the world.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to make a few comments on the Private Member's Resolution

brought forward by the hon. Member for Port de Grave. Certainly, in starting, I

would like to congratulate the member for bringing forward this resolution, and

start off by saying, I will give it, and we will give it, I am sure, our full

support.

Madam Speaker, I also have to say, in starting off, that I have not had the

benefit of - I do not know if it is benefit, but anyway - the experience of

twenty years in this Legislature, in this hon. House, and have not had,

fortunately, I suppose, the opportunity to debate this before in this House. As

with anybody who is involved with the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador

knows, this type of resolution, the comments that are in it, the issue that it

speaks to, is debated in every house around this Province, and on every wharf,

every shed, every stage, every shop, and on every beach and every slipway on an

ongoing basis for the last, I guess, thirty years, certainly since the extension

of jurisdiction out to 200 miles in 1977.

Madam Speaker, I cannot say anything more than what already has been said, I

don't think, but I will relate my comments to what I heard on the road a

couple of weeks ago, in late January and February, when we went around as part

of the all-party committee on FPI. Of course, the foremost issues in the FPI

meetings were the issues surrounding the groundfish operations of FPI on the

South Coast of the Province: Harbour Breton, Fortune and Marystown mainly. Along

the way in other FPI towns or areas where FPI used to have a presence, such as

Port Union, for example, and Trepassey, the issues that came up, not necessarily

from those places, but the issues that came up that spoke to a history in these

places, were related to the lack of groundfish, and access to groundfish, to put

through these plants.

We only have to look at the resources that the South Coast FPI plants in

particular depended on over the past twenty to thirty years, since their

inception. They depended primarily on the groundfish stocks of the Southern

Grand Banks and, in particular, the flatfish and redfish stocks of the Southern

Grand Banks. Now, what is happening to those species? They have been depleted to

the point almost of annihilation, and they have depleted, in large part, as a

result of mismanagement by foreign jurisdiction outside of 200 miles. That is in

large part.

We all know that we have done our share of damage of all of the groundfish

stocks on the Grand Banks. Of course we have done it. We readily admit it. We

closed down our fishery. We have done what we could in the past ten years to try

and rebuild those stocks. We have done what we could in trying to rebuild them

in that we called a moratorium on them. We can do nothing more than that, other

than to stop fishing. What have the other nations done? Very little.

I will just give a little brief history. Of course, we all know this. I have

here the history of the international communities participation in the

management of the Northwest Atlantic fishery. Back in 1950, ICNAF was

established. ICNAF was established in 1950, and what was the mandate of ICNAF at

that time? It was to investigate, protect and conserve the fishery resources of

the Northwest Atlantic. Didn't they do a wonderful job? They brought the

groundfish resources of the Northwest Atlantic to its knees by the

mid-seventies. By the early to mid-seventies, ICNAF managed, or mismanaged, the

resources of the Northwest Atlantic almost to the point that we collectively

brought it to again in 1992. That is what ICNAF did.

After the extension of the jurisdiction in 1977, NAFO replaced ICNAF, in

1979. I will read a shortened version, I guess, of the NAFO mandate: the

conservation and management of fish stocks outside 200 miles.

It goes on to say, through consultation and co-operation, its role is to

contribute to optimum utilization, rational management, conservation of the

fishery resources of the convention area.

The only thing that I can see that NAFO has done in the twenty-three years

since its inception, is ensure that there has been optimum utilization of the

resources in the Northwest Atlantic; optimum utilization to the point where it

has been devastated. That is what is after happening in the last twenty-three

years since NAFO has been in place in the NAFO regulatory area outside of 200

miles.

Mr. Speaker, we look at the history here, the history of these areas, and we

look at what is happening outside of - I will read some of the past NAFO

problems: ineffective compliance with NAFO conservation measures; repeated use

of the NAFO objection procedure, primarily by the European Union, to set

unilateral quotas much higher than those allocated by NAFO; EU fishing were in

excess of unilateral quotas and resulted in catches exceeding NAFO Total

Allowable Catches; EU objection to the NAFO enforcement regime; unregulated

fishing by non-contracting parties; over fishing resulted in stock decimation.

Mr. Speaker, those are the things that we saw in the past. Those are the past

NAFO problems. We will jump ahead now. We will jump ahead to a synopsis of the

latest meeting, the special meeting of NAFO just about a month ago. What does it

say in the synopsis? The meeting has exposed non-compliance by foreign fleets

and highlighted difficulty in achieving adequate conservation measures in NAFO.

The outcome has demonstrated the significant influence of the European Union and

raised fears that objectives for stock rebuilding will be compromised and

measures now in place will be eroded. One hundred per cent observer coverage up

for review in 2002, and there is strong opposition to its continuation. Growing

public debate over the effectiveness of NAFO and need for greater Canadian

management jurisdiction to safeguard stocks. The challenge is to find ways to

make NAFO work better, but there are no quick fixes.

That is what was said in the synopsis from their meeting just about a month

ago. What does the NAFO Scientific Council say about what is going on outside of

200 miles? I will just read before I get into that, actually. I will read the

actual stocks - maybe I won't; I had them there - the actual stocks that are

managed by NAFO. What did I do with it? Maybe I won't. I will carry on.

Anyway, just a couple of the stocks that are managed by NAFO in the NAFO

regulatory area: 3N + 3O cod, we all know, a resource that was depended on by a

great deal of fishermen in this Province, and certainly in Atlantic Canada. Nova

Scotia fished it regularly over the years, ran a lot of plants in this Province,

and a lot of plant workers depended on it. The Scientific Council is concerned

that catches of cod in 3N + 3O have increased substantially since 1995 such that

fishing mortality is now close to f0; 1, although the stock is currently under

moratorium and a very low spawning stock biomass.

We have a stock that is under moratorium, yet foreign parties fishing in the

NAFO regulatory area have increased fishing mortality to the point where it is

now close to f0; 1. f0; 1, for anybody who doesn't know, is the target for

fishing exploitation under a stock where fishing actually takes place. 3LN

redfish, NAFO moratorium has been in effect from 1998 to 2002. The Scientific

Council estimated that the catches of this stock were 900 tons, 2,300 tons and

1,700 tons in 1998, 1999, and 2000 respectively. 3N + 3O witch flounder, stock

remains at a low level despite a moratorium since 1995. Catch is at 500 tons,

600 tons and 800 tons in 1997, 1998, and 1999 respectively. Move into 3LN + 3O,

American plaice. 3LN + 3O American plaice is one of the stocks that the South

Coast groundfish plants, and plants, I might add, that have now disappeared,

such as Trepassey, plants like the National Sea plant that was here in St. John's,

the Port Union groundfish plant has not disappeared but compared to what it used

to be it has disappeared, now 120 people working there in the shrimp plant

compared to 1,200 when it processed groundfish. What has happened? What is

happening with the stock, one of the main stock that fed these plants? It was up

over 40,000 ton quota in the late 1980s before it started to decline and

eventually was put under moratorium. It says here: Even under moratorium,

catches have increased substantially in recent years. The Scientific Council

estimated that catches of this stock were 1,600 tons, 2,500 tons and 5,200 tons

in 1998, 1999, and 2000 respectively. Mr. Speaker, 5,200 tons of American plaice

in a stock that is under moratorium. I do not think we need to say anything more

than that about the effectiveness of NAFO and policing the fishery outside the

200 miles in a NAFO regulatory area.

Mr. Speaker, as other speakers have said, this issue has been debated long

enough. There are two problems. One is commonly referred to, I guess, as the

tragedy of the commons. The tragedy of the commons, where there is common

responsibility for management of a resource. There is really no responsibility

for management of the resource, and that is the problem we have outside the 200

miles. Everybody is responsible for looking after it; therefore, nobody looks

after it. There is only way to have the stocks that we depend on, that the world

depends on, that the Spanish and the Portugese, let alone our own, depend on:

for us to take over the custodial management of the resources out there for the

good of, not only Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen, not only Atlantic

Canadian fishermen, but for everybody who has had a history of participation in

the fisheries out there.

The other thing, I think, that is a problem, the reason that we are faced

with this - and Bruce Colborne, I think - and somebody mentioned on the other

side about out of sight, out of mind, when a tree falls in the forest is the

song. When a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear? Well, nobody hears

what is going outside the 200 miles because it is out of sight and out of mind.

The management of our fishery, the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, the

Atlantic Canadian Fishery, takes place at 200 Kent Street in Ottawa. That is a

lot of the problem; 200 Kent Street, in Ottawa, is where our fishery is managed

from. Unfortunately, it only goes up, I think, fourteen floors and it is not

hardly high enough to see the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is the reason why we

have so much trouble with the fishery down here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: You can barely see the Ottawa River.

MR. TAYLOR: You can barely see the Ottawa River, I am reminded.

Madam Speaker, that is the problem that we have. We have two jurisdictions

responsible for management of groundfish stocks that this Province depends on.

One is in Brussels, the other is in Ottawa, and neither one of them really gives

a hoot about what happens here with us. That is where the problem lies. How do

we change it? I am sure we will not change it by debating this resolution today

because if it could have been, it would have been fixed twenty years ago I am

sure. What we are doing here today does help put it in, to some extent, the

public eye again here.

On Friday coming, as the Member for Port de Grave and the Deputy Premier

mentioned - and I am sure the fisheries minister will when he gets up - the

House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will be here in

town. They will be here on Friday and Saturday to listen to what we have to say

about extension of jurisdiction outside of 200 miles. I am glad that they are

coming to town. I am glad that are coming to this Province to hear what we have

to say, but what do they honestly expect to hear when we have had the

devastation heaped upon us over the past twenty years that we have seen outside

the 200 miles? Do they honestly expect us to say anything other than: extend

jurisdiction outside the 200 miles; take custodial management of this area; do

something to stop foreign nations from continuing down the road that they have

been on for the past fifteen years, in particular? Honestly, do they expect

anything more? I hope not, because that is what they are going to hear.

Madam Speaker, I don't know how much time I have left.

AN HON. MEMBER: One minute.

MR. TAYLOR: One minute.

I have one minute to wrap up. In wrapping up, Madam Speaker - and I talked to

the Member for Port de Grave on this - I am going to propose a slight amendment.

It is keeping with the spirit and intent - to use the words that we have used so

often lately - of the resolution. I will read the first THEREFORE. I am not sure

how I am supposed to do this. I have not done it before.

In the first THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED

section it says: "THEREFORE BE IT

custodial management of the continental shelf off the coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador."

Madam Speaker, I know we do not expect to change anything today, and as a

result of what we are saying we do not expect that in the next twenty-four hours

jurisdiction will be extended, unfortunately. But, what we are talking about is

more than the continental shelf. As a matter of fact, from somebody who has

quite a bit of experience in the fishery, you rarely - especially for these

species - fish on top of the shelf. You usually fish the slopes. The slopes are

where, if it ever happened - and we only included the shelf. We would miss the

slope. So I am proposing - and as the Deputy Premier mentioned, the Flemish Cap

was not included. There is a large fishery on the Flemish Cap. Right now it is

primarily a shrimp fishery, but over the years Greenland halibut, redfish, cod,

all those species have been fished there, and others I am sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I will. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, my amendment will be to replace the word, continental shelf,

with the NAFO regulatory area. I will read that clause in its entirety:

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the

off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That includes the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap. That

portion of 3L and 3N outside of 200 miles, and 3M. That is what we are talking

about. That is the NAFO regulatory area, and that is my purposed amendment.

On that, Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to

the amendment.

MR. HARRIS: I am assuming that we are not going to vote on the amendment

or the resolution until the end. Did the minister want to speak on the

amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: To the main motion, we will take the amendment under

advisement with the Clerk for one moment.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join, today, in the debate on the private member's

resolution put forth by the Member for Port de Grave.

The Member for Port de Grave has brought to the attention of the House a

matter which is, of course, of vital importance to the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, vital in importance to the interests

of Canada and to the interests of conservation generally. I should say that the

amendment purposed by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North takes

into account the fact that the Nose and Tail themselves exclude the area of the

Flemish Cap and the significant fishery that is carried out there.

This goes back, I suppose, to the mid-1970s and the 200-mile limit. Canada,

at that time, did not extend its jurisdiction to the limits of the continental

shelf, although there is an economic zone recognized internationally.

Ironically, Mr. Speaker, we do have a control over the minerals under 3N or

under the Nose and Tail. We have control of the sedentary species such as crab

or any species that are attached to the bottom, but we don't have any control

over the fishery.

The evidence is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is not only overfishing

going on but there is also apparently directed fishery in areas where species

are under a moratorium. There is also a so-called bycatch which is almost having

the effect - the moratorium may as well be gone. The amount of the so-called

bycatch, in fact, is almost equivalent to what would be allowed if there was a

directed fishery controlled under normal rules for conservation methods. That

is, if there were no motorium. That is, if there were no fragility of the stock

and no necessity for recovery.

The results have been identified most recently, at the most recent NAFO

meeting, that there has been significant non-compliance by NAFO countries for

the past number of years. We have no recovery of most groundfish stocks. We have

excessive bycatches of American plaice, cod, redfish which are - according to

the Scientific Council - jeopardizing recovery. We really have a lack of any

meaningful commitment from the European Union and other countries, to improve

conservation measures in the area of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

Canada, in the NAFO world, Mr. Speaker, occupies a very small part of what

has been referred to as a relatively isolated position within NAFO, while the EU

influence is growing. We have an increasing trend of non-compliance by foreign

countries and foreign vessels in the area of the Nose and Tail. What it all adds

up to is an open season on one of the few areas of the offshore fishery of

Canada, particularly off Newfoundland and Labrador, that is not properly

regulated. It is the duty, in fact the obligation, of Canada as the coastal

state to take action.

I would be the first one to want to see the extension of what was the

200-mile limit out to incorporate all of the bank, the slope and the Flemish

Cap. Whether that can be done immediately is an important question that can

really only be answered by international lawyers and diplomats. I think what has

to extend custodial management, to take responsibility for the conservation and

the preservation of the stocks, some of which are straddling, some of which are

outside the 200-mile limit, but are on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

We see that there is a lack of commitment, to do more than monitor the

move directly, Mr. Speaker, to extending the limit, we can, and should, move to

what is called custodial management, because that is taking jurisdiction for

conservation reasons and conservation issues.

Mr. Speaker, I think it has been amply demonstrated over the last number of

years, not just in the last couple of years- the Canadian government has finally

spoken out strongly about it at the NAFO meetings, but this has been going on

for quite some time. In fact, the former Premier of this Province, Clyde Wells,

made a statement to the First Ministers' Meeting in 1989 in which he outlined

that there had been overfishing from 1986 to 1989 of some 600 per cent in these

areas, the area of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. So a debate has been

going on for quite some time, Mr. Speaker. Canada has known about it for quite

some time, and Canada has not acted effectively to limit the conservation, to

limit the catch, to limit and take charge of the interests, not only of this

country, but the interests of the species themselves and the future of those

species.

We have to take action, Mr. Speaker, because we are the coastal state and we

are also, incidentally, the country, and in this case the Province, most

dependant upon the health of the fish stocks off our shores. We have to do it,

not just for ourselves, but under international law, to be recognized, we have

to do it for the stated intentional purpose of the conservation of the stocks

and species, and do that on behalf of all humanity.

The statement of Premier Clyde Wells on November 10, 1989, was that, in 1986,

the European Community began to disregard the quotas set by NAFO. Over the

four-year period, 1986 through 1989, the European Community has overfished its

quotas by 600 per cent; 600 per cent by the European Community alone in the

period 1986 through 1989. That is how long, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the

continuing overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks that we have

evidence for, and we know that the influence of the EU on NAFO is considerable.

NAFO is also, Mr. Speaker, an area conspicuous by its absence in endorsing

the United Nations Fisheries Agreement. Thirty-one countries have endorsed the

United Nations Fisheries Agreement which would require countries to abide by

international conservation efforts. The European Union has not done so, and it's

member states, Mr. Speaker, continue to take a cavalier attitude towards

conservation issues. NAFO itself, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, is

dominated in many respects by the numbers of countries who vote on motions, who

vote on quotas, based on their own self interest and not on conservation

measures.

When we see that happening, Mr. Speaker, when we see that happening where

conservation is outnumbered by self interest, then that gives support, Mr.

Speaker, for the need and obligation of Canada to act. It is in that context,

Mr. Speaker, that this case has to be made. It is in this context that Canada

can move forward in ensuring that the species that are at risk can be protected

and the species that need to be recovered and rebuilt can be rebuilt. As long as

we see, Mr. Speaker, large catches, huge fish, what they used to call at one

time in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, the mother fish -

MR. RIDEOUT: You will not see them now.

MR. HARRIS: You will not see them now, says the Member for Lewisporte,

but we did see them a long time ago, Mr. Speaker, huge fish that were - I guess

it was a colloquial expression for fish that were breeding, that were large

breeders, that were populating and repopulating and building up the stocks. As

those fish are being taken out - and they are being taken out now, Mr. Speaker,

outside the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks - the stocks are further and

further in jeopardy.

This is not just a Nose and Tail problem, Mr. Speaker, and it is not just a

Newfoundland problem, it is the whole North Atlantic ocean problem. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, at a recent meeting in Boston by the American Association for the

Advancement of Science, on February 16, there was a study released by an

international group of fishery scientists that have looked ocean wide at the

North Atlantic and say that what has happened in the last fifty years in the

North Atlantic Ocean is that the catches have gone down by two-thirds. The

catches of preferred food stocks rather, cod, tuna, haddock, flounder and hake,

decreased by more than half, but a tripling of the fishery effort. There is

three times as much fishing effort going on and the amount of fish caught has

been decreased by half.

What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that throughout the whole of the North

Atlantic, we are seeing a depletion of the fishery resource, we are seeing a

depletion of the stocks, we are seeing a depletion of this resource which is a

major food stock, not only for North America, but for the world.

When we undertake conservation, Mr. Speaker, we are not just doing it as a

resource grab by one country, we are doing in the interest of conservation of

those stocks and, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, whether it be through international

diplomacy, it is the hope that we will be able to extend our own fisheries

jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile limit. For the immediate interim first step, we

have to get behind an effort to ensure that, in the first instance, the fishery

has to be saved, the stocks have to be preserved, the species have to be

protected, and this overfishing has to be monitored, policed and stopped, Mr.

Speaker, because it can't continue, the resource can't sustain it, and there

doesn't appear to be any real evidence that the NAFO, the North Atlantic

Fisheries Organization, is capable of enforcing the rules.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that my party is in full agreement with

the resolution. I thank the Member for Port de Grave for bringing it forward. I

know he and his party, just as our party and the official Opposition, will have

an opportunity on Friday or Saturday to make presentations to the Committee on

Fisheries and Oceans of Canada, which is having hearings here in Newfoundland

and Labrador. It will be a further opportunity to make a strong case for the

action to begin the process and to move quickly toward custodial management of

the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and the area referred to by the Member for

The Straits & White Bay North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the Minister of Fisheries, just to inform

the House that the amendment, as put forward by the Member for The Straits &

White Bay North, has been deemed to be in order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Member for Port de Grave for putting forward this

resolution this afternoon, and I would also like to thank the previous speakers

for a job well done, and the emotion with which they presented their positions

here this afternoon. I will try not to repeat what the others have said, Mr.

Speaker, even though that might be difficult.

The Member for Lew