The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, I would like to welcome to the gallery today thirty-six Grade 5 students from Bishop Abraham Elementary in the District of St. John's Centre. They are accompanied by teachers: Mr. Darren Hayes, Mrs. Penney Collins and Mrs. Madeline Power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Today I would like to welcome to the gallery, Mr. Ed Norman, Mayor of Port Anson in the District of Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, as Volunteer Week ended recently, I was fortunate to attend an event which portrays the true spirit of volunteerism.

After enjoying a fine potluck supper, I was pleased to present the Cox's Cove Volunteer Fire Department a plaque in commemoration of the department's taking the lead in the flood response that recently ravaged the Cox's Cove area.

Also, Mr. Speaker, awards were given out throughout the evening to well-deserving firefighters. Hughie Noseworthy, department medic and one of the senior members of the emergency response team was named Firefighter of the Year.

Also, Mr. Speaker, a fifteen-year service pin was given to the Deputy Fire Chief Wayne Payne; a ten-year service pin was given to Captain Donald Park, and firefighters Charlie Barnes and Keon Noseworthy were honoured for five years service. The banquet also gave a fitting tribute to former Firette Bertha Delaney, who passed away in 2002 and was an important part of the local Firettes. The Firettes, some forty-seven strong, are the backbone of this department and are a great group of quiet volunteers for their town.

I want to congratulate Chief Alec Park and the Cox's Cove Volunteer Fire Department, along with the Firettes, for another successful year, especially with the recent disaster in their town.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Last evening, it was my pleasure to attend the 47^th Charter Night celebrations for the Mount Pearl Lion's Club.

Mr. Speaker, Mount Pearl Lions, like all Lions Clubs in this Province and elsewhere, are very dedicated to their community. In fact, to celebrate the forty-seventh anniversary of their charter, last year the Club participated in forty-seven different community events or initiatives. These events varied from helping to organize a Badger Benefit Concert to knitting slippers for disadvantaged seniors in Russia. Other community events included the Santa Claus parade, the Habitat for Humanity projects, the Food Bank, the Wheel Chair Sports Association and the Lion Max Simms Memorial Camp.

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the accolades bestowed on the Mount Pearl Club last evening by District Governor Keith Crocker were very well deserved.

Mr. Speaker, last week our Province celebrated the contributions of volunteers to our communities. Mount Pearl Lions are an exemplary group of individuals whose contributions to Mount Pearl over the past forty-seven years have touched many lives and have seen many community projects completed by their voluntary efforts.

Mr. Speaker, the Mount Pearl Lions have seen a resurgence in their membership in the past two years and for very good reasons.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, all members of this House will join with me in offering Mount Pearl Lions congratulations on their forty-sever years of involvement in the Mount Pearl community and to wish them very well in the years ahead.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS M. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador recently held its annual Concours d'art oratoire competition on April 5. More than forty students representing various regions of the Province competed in one of the eight categories.

Taking home top awards in two of the categories were students from Marystown Central High School. Crystal Miller won the Early French Immersion category while Meghan Farrell won the Early/Late French category.

Winners from each of the eight categories each receive a free trip to the Francoforum in St. Pierre and a cash prize.

As Meghan was the winner in a senior high category, she now has the opportunity to represent CPF Newfoundland and Labrador at the National Concours d'art oratoire on June 7.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time Meghan has done well in speaking competitions. Just recently, she placed second overall in the Provincial Knights of Columbus Speakoff and was also winner of the local Lions Speakoff.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House I would like to congratulate all students who participated in the competition and wish Meghan the very best of luck when she represents our Province in Toronto.

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.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand to recognize the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Bowling Teams who represented this Province recently at the championships in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for members of this Province to represent the Province at national championships, but this year is quite special because the young bowlers in six categories came home with four medals. I would like to read the names, if I could. The gold medal winners on the Senior Girls Team, representing Plaza Bowl, are: Brittany Foley, Ashley Fowler, Natalie Bryant, Savanna Matthews, Alisha Norris, coached by Marion O'Brien.

On the Junior Boys Team, they won bronze. They represented Plaza Bowl as well: Matthew Brown, Gregory Ball, James Walsh, Eddie Rice, Ryan Noftall, and their coach was Ken Noftall.

The Bantam Boys won bronze. They represented Pearlgate Lane. Their bowlers were: Craig Ford, Alex King, Peter Tobin, Joseph Snook, Jessie Burns, coached by David Holloway.

The Bantam Girls Team won bronze, representing Plaza Bowl: a resident of my district, Rebecca Landry; Alexandria Hawkins; another resident of my district, Ashley Connolly; another person from my district, Courtney Bell; Gillian Forward, and they were coached by Janet Forward.

As well, the Senior Boys Team and the Junior Girls Team placed fourth.

So, it is with great honour that I stand and recognize these young bowlers who brought home medals, representing this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my sincere congratulations to Ashley Bursey, who was recently crowned Miss Teen Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is quite clear from Ashley's accomplishments that she is an exceptional and well-rounded individual. Ashley placed first in the academic portion of the Miss Teen competition, which is little wonder given that the Grade 11 student maintains a 93% average.

At Bishop's College in St. John's, where she is a student, Ashley is co-editor of the school yearbook, a member of the school's chapter of SADD, Students Against Drunk Driving, and captain of the Cheerleading Squad.

Outside of school, Ashley is involved in tutoring, dancing, and voice lessons, and also coaches a drama group at Cowan Heights Elementary. These activities, no doubt, helped her to place third in the talent competition.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the members of Ashley's family are very proud of her, including her grandfather, Calvin Bursey, who happens to be one of the Commissionaires here in the House of Assembly.

Again, I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Ashley on her recent success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as every Newfoundlander and Labradorian knows, the fishery has been the lifeblood of this place for more than 500 years. The fishery provided sustenance for the early Aboriginal peoples who inhabited this land, and it was the foundation for our early colonial settlement. Today's modern fishery is the principal employer and economic base of most of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

It has been said that we, as a people, take our strength from the sea. The groundfish moratoria of the early 1990s shook this Province socially, culturally and economically, but we are a strong people, Mr. Speaker. We bounced back. We took the hard decisions and we took risks. We developed a new fishery that represents a vibrant, modern industry. A modern industry with vital links to our past.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were therefore justifiably proud in the late 1990s when the federal minister reopened the Northern and Gulf cod fisheries. We took it as a sign that recovery was occurring, that federal fisheries management would not let us down again.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we were wrong. The latest decision of the federal minister to again close the Northern cod fishery and place the Gulf cod stock under moratoria was therefore a shock to all of us. It has fundamentally undermined our confidence in federal fisheries management, but it has not challenged our resilience as a people.

Mr. Speaker, this government has been clear in its position on the recent federal decision. This decision was not well thought out. It was a wrong decision. The decision to close the Gulf cod fishery flies in the face of expert advice from the minister's own Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, and it ignores the advice that all the parties in this hon. House worked hard to prepare through the all-party committee process. Again, we have had a "made in Ottawa decision" thrust upon us without regard and respect for the consensus of the people of this Province and the parties and members of this House.

In defending his position, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has said that he must err on the side of conservation and he did what was necessary to allow for the rebuilding of the Northern and Gulf cod stocks. We reject this view. What is required is a comprehensive recovery plan for these stocks, not simply moratoria. We need a full strategy that seeks to improve fisheries science and deals with key issues like seal predation and foreign overfishing. We are convinced that a modest commercial fishery can also be part of such a comprehensive recovery plan as it will provide us with valuable data and practical knowledge that would not otherwise be available. We are disappointed and offended that, in the eleven years since the original Northern cod moratorium, the Government of Canada has been unable to come up with a comprehensive plan to ensure the recovery of this stock.

Mr. Speaker, this situation can no longer be allowed to stand. Time is running out to save our fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. There must be a new approach to the management of fisheries adjacent to our shores. One that ensure the people of this Province have a meaningful say in management decisions. One that provides a solid foundation for stock recovery. One that recognizes that fisheries were managed responsibly by the Dominion of Newfoundland before our entry into Canada, and one that respects the experience and concerns of the people whose livelihoods depend upon this resource.

To this end, Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon I will rise in this hon. House and will give notice of motion on one of the most important resolutions we have ever had to consider. That resolution will direct the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to seek a formal amendment to the Terms of Union providing for shared and equal constitutional authority between the governments of Canada and this Province over fisheries adjacent to our shores. It will also propose that we negotiate and constitutionally entrench a new joint management fisheries board to manage these resources. This resolution will also provide the foundation for new conservation and recovery plans aimed at achieving the long-term sustainability of these fisheries and new measures to improve our collective knowledge and understanding of fisheries science.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the rigorous debate that I am certain we will have on this important resolution that I will introduce later in these proceedings.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in joining with the comments and the statement by the Premier, and his initiative. I actually consider it a compliment to our party and to our policies over the years, because we have stood for this position for a long time. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in our Blue Book during the last election, under the leadership of the Opposition House Leader, we stated, "A national agreement to discuss renegotiating constitutional roles and responsibilities in the fisheries, achieved by our party in the late eighties, was subsequently quashed by the Liberals at a time when it would have benefitted us most. A PC Government will aggressively pursue a Canada-Newfoundland Fisheries Agreement providing for a joint decision-making process to give the Province a meaningful say in decisions on fisheries management, which have a major impact on our economy and our social fabric."

As well, Mr. Speaker, during that election, Leader Byrne, House Leader, said: The PC Party stands firmly with the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador whose economy, heritage and very existence were build upon the fishery. We stand with the men and women who look for leadership in rebuilding the industry and restoring it as one of the pillars of our economy. With these words, Ed Byrne, today signed a contract on fisheries, a clear expression of the Progressive Conservative commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador fishers and plant workers. That was in February of 1999. It could have been implemented four years ago.

In that contract, a Progressive Conservative Government will aggressively pursue a Canada-Newfoundland Fisheries Agreement providing for a joint decision-making process to give the Province a meaningful say in decisions on fisheries management which have a major impact on our economy and social fabric.

In June of 2000 our Fisheries Critic, the Member for Bonavista South: Opposition Fisheries Critic, Roger Fitzgerald, says Atlantic Accord-like shared fisheries management is a timely solution to the problem underlying the latest fisheries allocation crisis. Fitzgerald's proposal brings order and balance to fisheries management. The Newfoundland Government should insist on the establishment of a new management regime that is mandated and protected under federal and provincial law. This can be done through a fisheries management accord.

Mr. Speaker, our party is very, very clear on the record and have been for some considerable period of time, so, I certainly welcome the initiative. I also agree that it is time that something should be done, however, we have to consider the timing of this. This is something that could have been done for some considerable period of time. The one thing that we cannot let happen now, because of the importance of this -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The one thing that we cannot let happen now is that we get diverted from the issue. This is a very, very important, a very fundamental issue. We have a commission before us right now that is due to report next month on strengthening our place in Canada. This initiative, if it had been commenced three or four years ago, would now probably have come to fruition. This is a long term initiative, it is going to take some time. I don't want to see this House diverted and spend a long time. I welcome rigorous debate, as the Premier has indicated, but we don't need rigorous or controversial or partisan or adversarial debate on this particular issue right now. If we could see the plan, if we can see the resolution and detail - we need to see the plan for this joint management; what it is going to cost; how it is going to be done; how it is allocated. Perhaps we, as all parties, can agree and not have a rigorous debate, because I am not certain at this point in time that we need to go into an adversarial situation. We have wasted a lot of time on that. If there is a crisis in our Province now, our people, our families our communities are at risk out there and are suffering and we need to deal with it.

Although I welcome this, and I take great pride in the fact that it is now on the table and that we pursued it for so long, the timing concerns me. We want to make sure that this does not become political; that this does not simply become an election issue; that it is not simply grandstanding and takes our attention away from the important matter.

Personally myself, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the federal government has legal responsibility. I feel they have been negligent in the management of our resources. I think we have a legal action against the federal government and that also is a possible long-term solution.

We certainly do welcome it. I want to make sure it is well thought through. I want to see the details, if the Premier has the resolution, a copy of the strategy and the plan; how he plans on going about this; how it will be implemented; what it will cost and where the separate jurisdictions will be held.

I am certain we, as a party, will consider it and if it is well thought through and well planned there will be no need for rigorous debate. We will support it wholeheartedly, but I do qualify it on having to see the details.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has put very well the situation of this Province as it relates to the fishery. The fact of its importance to our Province and its importance going back well prior to Confederation. As I said to the fisheries committee yesterday, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the constitutional situation of this Province or the legislative jurisdiction in relation to the fishery - whether it be in the colonial days when we were governed by Britain, whether it was during our Dominion status, during Commission of Government, or during Confederation - politically, we are dealing with our fish. Jurisdictionally, since Confederation the Government of Canada has had responsibility. A responsibility that they have not carried out very well, as we all know, given the history of the fishery, given the permission for foreign overfishing, the tolerance of overfishing and the moratorium that we have encountered.

Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, when we said two-and-a-half years ago that we should have a Royal Commission to look at the Terms of Union, to find out and study exactly how we can go about making changes to our relationship with Canada that would benefit this Province, the management of the fishery was one of the key elements of that and we have a Royal Commission now doing that.

I certainly welcome the news that this government is committed to making a change in the Constitution with respect to our fisheries. I, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to - revolve on just one comment of the Premier, when he referenced the decision made by the minister he said that the decision was not well thought out. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in the haste to have a response to the current situation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you to all hon. members, I know this is a very important matter.

That in our interest in ensuring the fishing community of Newfoundland and Labrador and the fishermen of this Province, that we are sincere about our efforts in making such a significant change. That we not do something quickly. That we do think it out in advance. That we do have full consideration of the implications. We do have a Royal Commission reporting very shortly, because this is a serious matter. We cannot mechanically change the Constitution because we say so today and it is going to change tomorrow.

So, I think, we welcome the commitment of the Premier. We join with him in seeking constitutional change on the issue of fisheries jurisdiction in the long-term; on the issue of fisheries management in the short-term; and, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this announcement by the government will, in fact, lead to some recognition by the Government of Canada that we want to have a say right now on what is happening to the 3,500 tons of cod in the Gulf of St. Lawrence that are being decided by the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: One man in Canada, Mr. Speaker, has taken it upon himself to decide the fate of 4,400 people in Newfoundland and Labrador against the advice of conservation, against all the leadership in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, against our senators, against our elected representatives in Ottawa, and that is just not good enough.

We have, in the short-term, to have some joint consideration of management right now and look seriously at what constitutional changes might need to be made to ensure that, in the future, decisions made about our fishery are not made by Ottawa's policy to give 1,500 tons of shrimp to some businessmen in P.E.I. or some dentist in Nova Scotia to suit their purposes, but that they are here as resources that we brought into Canada, that we believe are ours politically and it must be managed for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I rise today to advise this hon. House that I have written the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Robert Thibault and Gerry Byrne, the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Opportunities Agency and our regional minister in the federal Cabinet to address important issues on the 2003 Northern Shrimp Management Plan.

Mr. Speaker, the scientific advice provided on the Northern shrimp stock over the past few years has shown that quota increases in shrimp fishing areas adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador are within the bounds of good conservation. I expect that the federal minister will soon announce the 2003 Northern Shrimp Management Plan. I have called upon him and Minister Byrne to ensure that any additional allocation of shrimp is allocated to ensure that maximum economic benefits accrue to Newfoundland and Labrador harvesters, plant workers and processing companies in areas adjacent to this resource.

Mr. Speaker, it has been this government's long-standing position that adjacency should be the most important consideration in determining access to and allocation of fisheries resources. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have not received due benefit from the shrimp resource adjacent to our shores, and now, especially in light of recent crab quota reductions and cod fishery closures, it is more important than ever that this situation be addressed. Clearly, the people and communities of Newfoundland and Labrador who depend upon the fishery should now have first call on any available quota increases.

This government strongly supports the efforts of Newfoundland and Labrador harvesters, companies, communities, and Aboriginal groups to gain increased access to the valuable Northen shrimp resource. These interests will ensure that any additional quota is used to create much needed employment and economic activity in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this objective can only be achieved if 100 per cent of any additional shrimp quota is allocated to the inshore sector, and I have called upon federal minister to ensure this is done. Additional allocations to non-Newfoundland and Labrador interests in the offshore sector will not be acceptable, even if couched in the context of helping to finance additional scientific research.

The Government of Canada is responsible for ensuring adequate fisheries science and this government cannot support the allocation of fisheries resources off our shores in exchange for the funding of scientific work.

Mr. Speaker, these important issues relating to Northern shrimp must be addressed immediately. I also take this opportunity to remind the federal government that there are many people and many communities in need of attention today, and call upon them to move quickly to address these many outstanding issues of concern that we have placed before them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would to certainly indicate our full support for everything that the minister has said in her Ministerial Statement.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, in past years we have seen from time to time where the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada has made allocations of shrimp off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador to non-Newfoundland and Labrador-based interests. Mr. Speaker, the justification at those times was that it was surplus to the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in a Province that leads the country in out-migration and leads the country with the highest unemployment rate, certainly there can be no fish off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador that is surplus to our needs. From time to time it is surplus to our ability to catch it, but that in large part again is as a result of vessel replacement rules that sometimes limit our fishermen and fisherwomen's ability to pursue these fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, the minister, in her statement, references scientific research. While we today, and over the past couple of weeks, have questioned the scientific ability of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on codfish and groundfish, we must also question their ability on shrimp, because it is not just acceptable to question the scientific advice when the information is bad; we must also question it when the information is good.

In 1986, there was a very rosy picture painted of Northern cod, and we all know what happened there. So, Mr. Speaker, I would caution that while we agree that allocations, if there are to be any new allocations this year, must go to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, we must also question the validity of the scientific work -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: - that is done by a very small component, very few resources with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We fully support the statement given by the minister, and the attempt to achieve 100 per cent of any additional shrimp quota.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more difficult or challenging to the political leadership of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as our business and community leaders, than the survival of rural Newfoundland and the insurance of prosperity in the rural parts of our Province. Clearly, the allocation of shrimp adjacent to our shores, to the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, to the fish harvesters of Newfoundland and Labrador, has to be a number one priority. We must do everything in our power to ensure that we do not see what happened a couple of years ago happen again, when we have a few businessmen in P.E.I. being given allocations of shrimp to the general outrage of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, or what we have seen in the past, as I mentioned earlier, a dentist in Nova Scotia receiving allocations -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - of hundreds of tons of shrimp for his own business interests.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

Yesterday, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General confirmed that this government has absolutely no ability to protect the people from prosecution, should they break the law. The Premier's promise that the government would shield those who break the law from prosecution is now proven to be impossible. Despite the Premier's comments, the Attorney General has said that those who break the law could in fact lose their boats, their nets and their gear, and face penalties, fines and imprisonment. I, again, commend that minister for clarifying the situation.

Mr. Speaker, in the media today the President of the FFAW has indicated that he is unsure of the Premier's intent and has received no clarification on how the Premier intends to protect fishermen who take to the water illegally.

Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of the answer to this question to the fishermen and women of this Province, I will provide the Premier an opportunity, for the third time, to clarify for the FFAW and its members how he intends to protect fishermen who take to the water illegally?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the Leader of the Opposition has missed the whole point of what we have been trying to do in the last two weeks. The greatest protection - I have said this many times publicly - that we can provide for the people involved is to make sure they can take to the water legally, and every single effort that we have taken in the last two weeks is to try to get the decision made in Ottawa - which is dead wrong - reversed and corrected so we do not have to spend our time talking about, what ifs. What we want to talk about is: How are we?

I understood, until a few days ago, that the Leader of the Opposition was supporting us in trying to get the Government of Canada to put the right decision into place. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of legalities, or illegalities, it is a matter of what is it going to take to have the Government of Canada make the right decision so that when people do go and fish, they can do so because it will be sanctioned by the Government of Canada inline with the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' own Conservation Council. That is our objective, Mr. Speaker, and that is the greatest protection we can provide to anybody, to have the decision reversed, to have the right decision put in place and nobody need spend anymore talk about what is legal or illegal.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I think the confusion arises when the Premier makes a statement that he will do whatever it takes to protect and defend the fishermen. It is unfortunate that the Premier has tried to make this very serious problem an election issue. The Premier's shortsighted political grandstanding has provided the people with a false sense of security and he must now take steps to ensure that they realize he is, in fact, powerless to protect them from prosecution. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has clearly stated that people who break the law, regardless of how noble their cause, will be prosecuted. This government and this Premier cannot interfere with the judicial process.

Will the Premier now act responsibly and retract his statement that his government will interfere with the prosecution of people who break the law, so that everyone in the Province and the country can focus, in fact, on the real issue, the fishery, the fisherpeople, the communities and the families that are affected?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of comments with respect to the question and in answer to it. I think if people checked the public record in Newfoundland and Labrador they would find that the only person talking about this and using the notion of an election issue is the Leader of Leader of the Opposition. He has called, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: I think if anyone were keeping track, in the last two years and three months he has called for an election at least fifty times on assorted issues and at different points in time. I have stated quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, this, that I am not interested in an election issue. There will be an election this year. I believe in fixed-term elections. I thought the Leader of the Opposition did, too. You do not have elections on issues. You have elections every four years as far as I am concerned, and there will be an election in 2003 and then four years after that because we will make that the law.

What we have said is this, we have not talked about and I have not talked about interfering with the court process. Those words have never been uttered by me. Not once. Nobody can find a written record anywhere of me ever saying that I would give instruction to interfere with the court process. My words are these, we will do anything and everything that we can to support, defend and protect these people because we believe their cause is just.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier, in fact, indicated that he would not facilitate federal prosecution. That is exactly what he indicated, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is about our lives, our culture, our heritage and our future and not the Premier's desperate bid for re-election. Two weeks have passed and the path to a proper resolution of our problems in the fishery is off the rails.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please explain why two weeks have passed and his government still has not succeeded in getting the federal government to provide the people impacted by this decision with some form of short-term income relief? Does he have any commitment from the federal government on EI extensions for fishermen and plant workers? Because our primary concern, Mr. Speaker, should be putting bread on the tables of those with no income.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is interesting to note at the very beginning he just very quietly and softly, as the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, indicated that I was right and he was wrong. He suggested in his previous question that I had given instructions to interfere with the court process, and in beginning this question he says: No, that is true, he did not say interfere; the Premier said he would not facilitate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not my role to facilitate a court process. He understands that as well as anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not the role of a politician to facilitate the court process. It runs itself, independent. It is independent of the political process, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the issue, the first one put forward is EI extension for people impacted by this decision which is dead wrong and we are still trying to get reversed. The only person who seems to have given up again today - changed his mind again and given up - is the Leader of the Opposition, because he wants to talk about illegal activity. He assumes we cannot get the decision changed. He has given up.

The reason we cannot even get the first decisions made, so far, is that our federal representatives who are lobbying for this, our MPs who are lobbying for this, have not yet gotten the decision taken. We understand that there are meetings going on in the Department of Human Resources and Development Canada. They have been going on for a month. They had the request from us five weeks ago to extend EI and, Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful if they thought that the Leader of the Opposition was still supporting the government, instead of every single day in Newfoundland and Labrador raising questions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - questioning the motives of the Premier and the government, and calling into question the whole motivation by saying it is just an election issue.

We are trying to get a problem resolved. He is more interested in trying to play politics with it instead of the concern that he just talked about, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately everybody realizes what the Premier is doing. The editorial today in a New Brunswick paper states that, quote: Mr. Grimes comes off as a desperate Premier who is willing to tug on emotions to gain political advantage.

Our own paper says there is a fine balance between being a clarion and a clown.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). It is an issue in Newfoundland and Labrador, not New Brunswick.

MR. WILLIAMS: That is unfortunate, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, regardless of the fact that we all want to see this fishery reopened and will continue to fight for just that, the reality is that it has been two weeks since the fishery was closed and many people still have not received any form of short-term compensation, and there have been no suggestions that the fishery will be reopened.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier provide the people with his government's detailed plans for moving forward with this very, very serious problem?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that he is interested in the opinions in New Brunswick about our issues. The people here are concerned about what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, maybe I might ask this question, because the day after the announcement, two weeks ago tomorrow, because the Leader of the Opposition did not comment on this the day of the actual announcement. He did comment the day after, and the press release said: Disappointed, the decision is final. Let's work on the compensation. I have spoken with Minister Byrne and I want to work with him.

Maybe he might now tell this House of Assembly, and everybody in the Province, because he has an open, continuing relationship with Mr. Byrne, his friend. Never mind what we have done. We have been working every single day. How many times since then have you, as the Leader of the Opposition, contacted your personal friend, Minister Byrne?

You suggested you talked to him the very next day and that you gave a commitment to work with him. What work are you doing with him to ask to have the decision reversed, to ask to have the EI extended, to ask to have the licence buyout put in place, to ask to have the adjustment period and the retirement options put in place, to ask to have something other than make work put in place? What conversations or representations, Mr. Speaker, has he made? Because he wanted everyone to believe two weeks ago tomorrow that he was already in contact with the federal minister and he had a commitment to work with him not to reverse the decision, which is what we are still trying to accomplish, but at least to improve the compensation package -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and at least get the EI extension done. What has he done, Mr. Speaker, since then to assist our efforts?

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.

Although this is not my Question Period and I am not expected to answer the questions, I will indicate to the Premier -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: - if the Minister of Fisheries would like to hear my answer, it is a very important answer if you do not mind.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I will indicate to the Premier that I have spoken with Minister Byrne and I have asked him every single one of those questions that you have just put to me, every single one of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: As well, Mr. Speaker, the opinions of our brethren in other provinces are very important because the Premier himself, today, tabled a resolution on amending the Terms of Union, and it requires the approval and consensus of the rest of the people in this country in order to do that. Their opinion is very important.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: A national poll today indicated that three out of four people agreed that the Premier went too far in his actions in this Province. That is the big picture, Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we need to stop creating problems and we need to work towards creating solutions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, regardless of reopening the cod fishery, we still have to address the problem of too many people trying to earn a living from too scarce a resource. Mr. Speaker, it has been a full two weeks since Minister Thibault closed the fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier please tell the people when he last spoke to Minister Thibault about licence buyouts and early retirement incentives, and, if so, what was that minister's reaction?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have seen a demonstration again of the wannabe leader who does not want to give a position on anything, or, when he does, contradicts himself, as he did yesterday when asked about a protest fishery, when he said: I am not saying I disagree with a protest fishery. I am not saying I disagree. I am not saying I do not agree with a protest fishery. And later the same day, on another program in Newfoundland and Labrador - that was on a national program, Mr. Speaker, but in Newfoundland and Labrador - later the same day, said: I can tell these people, my advice is, don't do it.

So, one minute he is suggesting, I am not saying I am against it, and in the next breath he is saying, my advice is, don't do it.

We are trying to find an accommodation where it will not even be a point to be considered because we will get the right decision made and it will be legal and proper to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is this - it is also interesting that he wants to suggest that we should base our decisions and our actions in Newfoundland and Labrador on the opinion polls expressed in The Globe and Mail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Well, everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador knows what great positions they take, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the direct question that he finally got to, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that this morning our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in contact with Minister Thibault.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: We have been in contact with Minister Dion's office. We have been in contact with Minister Stewart's office. We have been in contact with Minister Byrne. We have been in contact with all of the MPs. We have been in contact with everyone, looking for decisions. The decision on EI extension is a month late, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: It is a month late and we want it made. The decisions on buyouts and early retirement options should be made, and we are trying to make sure that everybody understands that those are the agenda items for us after we get the right decision made in the first place, which is a fishery open in line with the Conservation Council recommendation.

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 Premier has indicated that he was in touch with the offices. That does not tell this House that he was, in fact, speaking with the particular minister in question. That is very, very important. Anyone call phone an office, Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate to the Premier our position throughout, and our all-party position, that we are against the closure of the fishery, and we do join with him and his government in ensuring that the people affected by this terrible decision -

MS J.M. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. WILLIAMS: Minister of Finance, if you do not mind, let me finish the question, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: - that the people affected by this terrible decision receive the assistance that they so desperately need at this time. We acknowledge that it is not a time for politics.

Mr. Speaker, in order to accomplish our joint goal, will the Premier agree to provide us with all the information relating to all discussions between our government and the government of Ottawa so that we can be informed and provide support and protect the interests of the people who we are all elected to serve?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador just left the Legislature for a minute to take another call from Minister Thibault who is on the line right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Because there has been regular, continuing dialogue, Mr. Speaker. We take our responsibilities very seriously. I make this offer to the Leader of the Opposition, through you, Mr. Speaker, that when he will make an unequivocal statement about his support for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and its efforts to get the right decision made, which is a reversal of the closure, and to have the other components made, because I can tell you it is not clear. I am speaking to the ministers in Ottawa who say to me: But your Leader of the Opposition is down there criticizing you everyday. He is not supporting you. He has to make up his mind. You cannot have it both ways.

We are the government. We take our duties and responsibilities seriously. We will work to get the decision reversed, which they still are not sure in Ottawa what his position is and what the position of his party is because it does change everyday. We will work with anyone and everyone who will further our goal in getting the right decisions taken so that we can get on with our lives and have the people of Newfoundland and Labrador engaged in a productive, active, legal fishery and also have the right compensation measures put in place for those who will have an adverse impact foisted upon them, even with a 50 per cent reduction, Mr. Speaker. That is still our goal and objective and we will stay committed to it to the very end.

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.

I will not again let the Premier put words in my mouth. We have unequivocally stated from the beginning, and we stated at our press conference and we have stated in news releases, and the Fisheries critic has stated. We unequivocally support the government in the reopening of the fishery. I have no other questions, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Education and it relates, I guess, to the issue of school funding.

Recently in The Western Star it was clearly shown that the Member for the Bay of Islands presented two cheques of $1,000 each for two district schools. There isn't a school in the Province that does not need help with the funding for programs for a variety of needs and reasons and causes, but as the minister has often pointed out, the government does not staff or fund schools. All government can do is give money to our elected school boards for them to allocate to schools according to their priorities, according to their needs and, presumably, according to a prescribed formula.

My question to the Minister of Education is: Where, in fact, do these additional funds come from? Perhaps, in answering that, can he indicate to the people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, have the rules for funding schools in our Province - have these rules, in fact, changed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In answer to the member's question, we are very proud of the amount of money that we have put into school construction in this Province over the last four years. In fact, when we brought in the education reform back in 1996-1997 we said that we were going to reinvest every cent that we saved from consolidation back into the education, back into construction. We have done that, Mr. Speaker. We have put, to date, somewhere in the area of $187 million back into school construction in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: As well, Mr. Speaker, any schools that are closed, the operating grants for that school is given back to the board for three years so they can take those funds for a three year period and use on capital construction projects. We have not changed any policy, Mr. Speaker, but if he wants to criticize me for trying to give some money to some schools around the Province, so be it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clearly shown, Mr. Speaker, in the examples that I gave that these were government cheques. I am just wondering, when we are talking about additional funds, are funds available for perhaps members on this side of the House who have schools in our districts? For example, I have ten schools in my own District of St. John's East.

I ask the minister, are funds available to members on this side of the House so that we, too, can help schools and students who have a variety of needs and concerns in our own districts? Or, are members on this side of the House discriminated against and are those funds only available to members opposite?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I have three letters on my desk now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I notice the Member for Ferryland is talking about all the requests he has on his desk. What he is not telling the people of the Province is that we just committed $4.5 million for two schools in his district.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for St. John's Centre talks about all the requests he has - St. John's East, I am sorry - and you have schools in your district. Yes, I know you have those schools in your district and I have been talking to your school board. I have also been talking to the Finance Minister about schools that you also share in your district and we are looking to do some things for them as well, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a question of funding, Mr. Speaker, that goes outside the normal channels. As I understand it, the Department of Education funnels funds through the various school boards for the upkeep and maintenance and the costing of our schools.

My question once again, to the hon. Minister of Education, are there funds afforded to members on the opposite side of the House that are not available to members on this side of the House? In other words, Mr. Speaker, aren't those students and schools being discriminated against because of the policy of this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If he is asking me: Are there funds available for members here that are not also available for them? The answer to that is, no. We treat everybody alike here, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I will give you an example. The Leader of the Opposition, we just gave $5,000 to a school in his district, Herdman Collegiate, to travel with their band . So, Mr. Speaker, the answer is, no, we treat everybody in this Province equally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

After listening to the debate for the last few days between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, the only thing I can conclude is that if the fishermen of this Province are forced into a protest fishery it will be the Minister of Justice and Attorney General in court for the prosecution and the Premier in court for the defence.

Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is whether we can change the decision of the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa. On Tuesday night, Minister Byrne was on the radio here in this Province on a Open Line program in which he said that he did not know, yet, whether the closure of the cod stock was a done deal.

Does the Premier see this as some opening in the federal government position, considering what Minister Thibault has done after the racket in New Brunswick with the fisheries there? Does the Premier see this as some opening? Has he been able to do anything to get an indication that there may be some flexibility from Ottawa on this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, it is interesting to see the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition to your notion of people being in court when he laughed so loud, and laughed so hard, he finds it so funny. Raucous laughter at the prospect that innocent, hard-working, decent, law-abiding, respectful people might end up in court over a decision that has been made by the Government of Canada that is dead wrong. The Leader of the Opposition, all he could do about that was laugh at it. That is how much he thinks about this issue.

With respect to the question, Mr. Speaker, we have been in contact with the people involved, as I have said. Our Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is in contact regularly, even now on the phone with Minister Thibault as we speak. We follow every word said either publicly or privately. We hope that there is a window of opportunity.

When our minister in the federal Cabinet says: I would like to see if there is some new information that I might bring forward to my colleague, Minister Thibault, we seize that as being something that we might be able to work with. We have had officials on this for days on end, with senior officials in each of those departments. We take it very seriously because we certainly hope that we will have a window of opportunity to get this decision reversed. So this whole thing that the Leader of the Opposition just laughed so heartily about - about innocent people ending up in court - might be something that we do not even have to talk about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: That is our objective, and our only objective is to do exactly that.

I found the public pronunciations of our federal minister to be very hopeful. We have talked with him since. The officials have talked since. We are continuing to seize any opportunity to get the right decisions made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are, of course, in the interest of avoiding any need for a protest fishery and certainly the prospect of seeing any fishermen in this Province in court.

Mr. Speaker, at the federal Fisheries Committee meeting yesterday, I spoke to some of the members of the committee and Members of Parliament from this Province on the Liberal side, and the general concern amongst all people was to try, in fact, to avoid the consequence of this decision and the possible consequence of an illegal fishery.

Mr. Speaker, one suggestion was that perhaps the all-party committee should get together, or at least a coalition of the willing from the all-party committee, to try and put together perhaps some other initiative that might convince the federal government to change their minds.

Is the Premier considering that as a possibility, as well as other initiatives, to try and get this decision reversed so that we can have a proper fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence this year as soon as the fishery was supposed to open?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see from the question, Mr. Speaker, that our interests are obviously very much aligned and that we are trying to make sure that we get the right decision made. I am glad to see that the Leader of the NDP and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi takes it seriously and hasn't spent his time laughing heartily out loud about the prospect of some possible illegal activity.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you this: the government takes its responsibilities very seriously. Any thoughts that anyone has, that they think can be used to try to find an appropriate and proper resolution to this are gladly accepted by us. It is not a matter of having a committee together again where we would spend hours and so on talking about the differences of opinion. There obviously are some differences of opinion as to approach and style. We do not have time to deal with the committee process. We have a limited amount of time to get the decision changed, and all we need is an acknowledgment of unequivocal support for the fundamental goal and we will have a better chance of getting that outcome achieved, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to rise on a point of order. The Minister of Education stood in his place and made a statement that was not accurate, that he has just approved $4.5 million for funding of a school in the district. I think he should make the record clear and not give a false impression in this House. The previous minister, Minister Foote, in the Budget over fourteen months ago, allocated money. No new money has been allocated in that Budget, and I think it is only proper - it should be made clear and not send a wrong impression to the people (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

During Question Period, the Member for St. John's East raised a legitimate question, I think, to the Minister of Education, in asking him - I think specifically he said: Are there funds available only to members of the government side when it comes to needs that may exist in all of our schools?

While I appreciate the minister's answer in saying no, it is available to everybody, during the debate, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader clearly said, in answer to that question: No, because you are not on the government side.

I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he could stand and clarify that issue for everybody in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to move the following resolution - this is a little bit lengthy, Mr. Speaker, but I feel it important to read it into the record.

Be it resolved by the House of Assembly as follows:

WHEREAS the seacoast fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador were brought into this nation with Newfoundland and Labrador's accession to Canada; and

WHEREAS the Government of the Dominion of Newfoundland held and exercised responsibility for the management of seacoast fisheries prior to Confederation; and

WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1867 vests in the Government of Canada exclusive authority over the fishery; and

WHEREAS under current International Law an independent Newfoundland and Labrador would control its adjacent resources including the fishery; and

WHEREAS federal management of seacoast fisheries since 1949 has failed to adequately protect or develop the principal fisheries adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS failed federal fisheries management has led to the complete collapse of the Northern Cod fishery and other groundfish stocks, the basis for Newfoundland's colonization and the mainstay of its economy for 500 years; and

WHEREAS the federal government has failed to adopt a comprehensive plan for stock recovery since the groundfish moratoria were declared in the early 1990s; and

WHEREAS it is recognized and accepted that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has maintained and continues to exercise primary regulatory authority over the fish processing industry in this Province; and

WHEREAS new fisheries for species such as crab and shrimp have developed in the wake of the collapse of groundfish stocks and solid, sustainable management practices are vital to the future of these fisheries; and

WHEREAS it is accepted that the regulation of fish harvesting and processing should occur in a seamless and integrated way; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has consistently requested a greater say in fisheries management since 1949 and has identified this as a priority in Securing Our Future: The Renewal Strategy for Jobs and Growth; and

WHEREAS the fishery remains an economic mainstay and principal industry of Newfoundland and Labrador and the economic and social foundation of most of its rural communities; and

WHEREAS federal management of fisheries adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador does not give due regard to local experience and considerations; and

WHEREAS the advice of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, which was established to integrate practical knowledge derived from local experience and scientific information on resources, has been largely ignored in the federal government's recent declaration of a moratorium for 4RS3Pn Gulf cod; and

WHEREAS the recent decisions of the Government of Canada on 2J3KL Northern Cod and 4RS3Pn Gulf cod were taken without proper consultation with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people who depend upon these resources and with disregard for the recommendations of the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council; and

WHEREAS these decisions have further undermined the confidence of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the effectiveness of federal fisheries management; and

WHEREAS other provinces control their main resource industries; and

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

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House call on the Government of Canada and direct the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to begin negotiations leading to the establishment of a joint management regime over the fisheries adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the principle elements of such a joint management regime include:

(1) the establishment, through an amendment of the Terms of Union, of shared, equal, constitutional authority by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada over the fisheries adjacent to the province;

(2) the establishment through an amendment of the Terms of Union of a joint fisheries management board and the delegation to that board by the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada of sufficient of their authority to permit that board to successfully implement this joint management regime;

(3) the development and implementation of a conservation and re-building plan aimed at the achievement of long-term sustainability of the fisheries in the waters adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador and in particular a plan that would achieve the recovery of the groundfish stocks;

(4) the development and implementation of fisheries harvesting plans, including the establishment of Total Allowable Catches, based on the principles of conservation, sustainability, adjacency and the long-term well-being of the fishing communities of rural Newfoundland and Labrador;

(5) the establishment of programs in Newfoundland and Labrador to enhance knowledge and understanding of the ocean ecosystems adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador through the encouragement and support of scientific research and the utilization of customary and experimental knowledge of the fisheries possessed by fish harvesters.

Mr. Speaker, I give that notice that I will introduce this resolution on tomorrow and look forward to a full debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Create A Pension Plan For Provincial Court Judges." (Bill 13)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The City Of Corner Brook Act, The City Of Mount Pearl Act, The City Of St. John's Act, The Municipalities Act, 1999 And The Urban And Rural Planning Act, 2000. (Bill 12)

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

MR. MERCER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following bills, entitled:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Corporations Act." (Bill 14)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act." (Bill 11)

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Expropriation Act." (Bill 10)

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The petition I present today is about one of the most talked about issues in this Province. I will just read the prayer. It says:

WHEREAS the residents and visitors to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador rely and depend heavily on our road system for transportation, business, health care, tourism and basic quality of life; and

WHEREAS the provincial roads and highways are in a serious state of disrepair in virtually every region of the Province; and

WHEREAS the condition of the Province's roads and highways significantly restrict safe travel by the motoring public;

THEREFORE your petitioners call on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to maintain adequate staffing levels with sufficient resources to provide for the ongoing maintenance of our provincial roads and highway network.

Mr. Speaker, this petition grows out of my District of Trinity North and I will speak to the issues within the district; however, the issues that are raised in this petition are equally as important to every part of the Province. Every spring, Mr. Speaker, what happens with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation? There is a massive layoff of the road crews that were on during the winter months for snow clearing. In the summertime, what happens is they are left with a skeleton crew to maintain thousands of kilometres of what is deplorable paved roads and many, many dirt roads throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I said this petition was originated by people in my own district. As I look at Trinity North and the neighbouring District of Bonavista South as one example, there is a section of road - in fact there is about 260 kilometres of road - that is shared between the Districts of Bonavista South and Trinity North. Right now, today and for the rest of the summer, there is only one small maintenance crew to take care of that road network.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of that road is dirt road. Much of what is paved has been paved some thirty years ago and is now falling apart. So much so that it is difficult to distinguish between what is patch and what was the original pavement. In fact, many would suggest there is no original pavement left at all.

As I look at my District of Trinity North, there are some forty communities in that district. Twenty-five per cent of those communities still have significant portions of dirt road in them. Here we are in the year 2003 and we can look at an electoral district in this Province and say: Twenty- five per cent of the communities in that district still have significant stretches of dirt road. I think when we look at the amount of money we have invested in our road network in this Province over the last five or ten years, and we look at the condition of roads in districts such as Trinity North -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Just two seconds to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. ROSS WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to urge government to be responsible in not only just constructing the roads but in maintaining them. I remind government that once the road is built and open, people expect to travel over it with some degree of safety. The current conditions of the roads in this Province are not safe to be travelling on, so I urge government to be responsible and protect the health and welfare of the travelling public.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I would like for Your Honour to call Order 3, the Concurrence Motion on the Resource Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 3.

The hon. the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure today that I rise to brief the House of Assembly and to discuss the Resource Committee Estimates.

We had a very good process where we went through the different Budget Estimates of a variety of departments of the government. Really, these departments are very important for the economic development of government and the economic development of our people. The Estimates that we covered included the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, which right now, of course, is extremely important in our Province and which is very timely as to the issues we are now wrestling with together. We also discussed the Resource Estimates of the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, the Department of Mines and Energy, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development, and the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs. I want to say that the ministers and their officials very much attended and provided answers to questions that were put forward by the members of the Resource Committee and we very much appreciate the efforts of the members of the House of Assembly who were involved with these estimates and going through the budgets for each department, Mr. Speaker. It is a very important process, it is a very important part of evaluating the budget of the House of Assembly, the budget of the Province that is put forward by the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, looking at some issues that arose during these Budget Estimates, when you look at Fisheries and Aquaculture, I believe that today was a very significant day in this House of Assembly with the motion that is being put forward by the Premier when it comes to seeking joint management of our fishery. Given the results of what has occurred with the most recent decision by the federal minister and the lack of respect shown to Newfoundland and Labrador and it's industry, it's people, it's government and it's House of Assembly, I think this motion, Mr. Speaker, speaks volumes. I think it is significant. I believe that it will lead to, and we have to work towards, achieving this amendment on the Terms of Union so that we can get a say in the management of the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to make it responsible to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador as part of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this resource, this 200-mile limit was brought into Confederation because we joined Confederation. We brought it forward as an asset for the country. The mismanagement of that resource and the lack of dedicated resources, both financial and human, brought to this resource by the federal government is a tragedy. So, this action put forward by the Premier and the Cabinet, the government of the Province, is a significant move and is one of the most significant moves, Mr. Speaker, for the long term future of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am delighted to be here today to be able to see that put forward. I think it is very important that this get adopted in this House of Assembly, and quickly, as we get ready to deal with it in Ottawa. We should not, Mr. Speaker, be deterred by one commentary from any politician in Ottawa, about going forward with this amendment and getting it done. If we can have joint management of the offshore, Mr. Speaker, we can have joint management of the fishery. We can have a better say in that fishery and we can make sure the proper science gets done and we can integrate the fishermen of the Province and their science knowledge into managing that resource for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I got a list yesterday of the shrimp licenses offshore. You know, nine out of seventeen licenses are owned outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, even though the resource is adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador, even though we brought it into Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to deal with and manage the fishery resource offshore, the abundance of that resource that still exists in a variety of stocks, plus the rebuilding of the stock. Aquaculture is one way to do it. We saw in the Budget Estimates the efforts of the Fisheries Department trying to provincially stimulate activity when it comes to aquaculture, but the federal DFO does not know that aquaculture exists. They do not know that aquaculture exists when it comes to their budget allocation. I do not even know if they are involved in this Province. They are involved barely. I think they do it just to say they are in it.

You know, if you look at the European Union, and what they have done with a number of countries in the aquaculture side, they have invested with a variety of countries in aquaculture, and there are hundreds of thousands of tons of aquaculture product being developed in the European Union. Canada is here with the 200-mile limit and our ability to do aquaculture, and we, provincially, are putting forward a whole program and DFO is up there with hardly a budget allocation for it.

Mr. Speaker, this is the time to get this done and to move forward. I fully support the joint management resolution being put into this House of Assembly so that we can get, for the long term, a say over how this is going to go in the future, that we can get a say in how to manage for the future stocks, but also for our people, for them to be the principal beneficiary of that resource. That has been the problem. We brought it into Canada, into Confederation, and then we have a group of bureaucrats in Ottawa who decide to put it on the trade agenda of Ottawa. So, if you are going to fight with the European Union about making sure that you get them off the 200-mile limit off the Grand Banks, because they are out there scraping the Grand Banks floor, well, that gets involved with wheat issues out in Western Canada. That gets involved in aerospace issues in Montreal. That is a trade issue for Canada and we lose the battle too often, and we cannot keep losing that battle. That is why we need joint management of this resource, and I welcome it to this House of Assembly and I am very proud to see that our government is putting it forward and we are looking forward to it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the forest industry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I want to highlight a major situation which we are all working on together and that involves Abitibi Consolidated in Stephenville, a paper mill that has been there for over twenty years. A paper mill that has been very successful in producing a great product in the marketplace, in Japan, in Europe, and all over the world, really, the world markets are. What we need to do - they are wrestling with now a fibre situation that is not the cause of any government. It is the cause of the situation that has occurred because they have been offshore for a bunch of years and are having a problem with some of the fibre supply, and what we need to do is work through a solution.

A lot of work is being done, Mr. Speaker, on that. I want to say that there is a task force that has been set up within the Cabinet, along with senior officials of government working with senior officials of Abitibi Consolidated. There were meetings in the last three days here in St. John's. There were meetings in Stephenville last Friday, where there is a whole collective effort being put forward. Both the Member for Port au Port and the Minister of Health and Community Services has been very active here in making sure that the Abitibi mill has a long-term future, which it will have, and all the options are being looked at. They are preparing a new business plan, as a matter of fact, the mill management working with union. The union leaders there have been very active. I want to say congratulations to them because they have been very, very active in working together in the spirit of co-operation to get all the options on the table to ensure long-term longevity of the Stephenville mill. That mill has been a major success story. It produces a great product. It employs over 350 people. It is a great product. It exports outside, Mr. Speaker, and we need to find and ensure the long-term resolution of that.

The other part of that is looking at a potential co-generation project for the mill. I think that is a possibility and we need to see that occur, I hope, down the road, and we hope that the head office in Montreal is going to look at the idea of the co-generation to go along with a resolution on the fibre supply, and we are getting very close, I think, to resolving both those issues now. Again, it takes willpower and, on this side, and I am sure on the other side in this House of Assembly, we want to see that resolved. It is a big contributor to the Bay St. George region and to the Province. This has been a very big success story, the turnaround of that operation. The workforce there is one of the best workforces in the country, a great trained workforce in Stephenville-Bay St. George-Port au Port, that has been working hard to make sure that it is a high efficient mill, very high efficient. It does a great job of production. Productions with the highest production levels, and efficiency probably the highest in the company band, the whole company grouping.

I want to say to the people in the Bay St. George area, in the Province, that issue is a priority, big time, for us in this government. We are working very diligently right now to resolve the issue and are looking forward to getting it resolved so we can work further to expand the economy in that region.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at what is also occurring in mines and energy and you look at the development now of White Rose getting underway, the work in Marystown, the work at Bull Arm that is going to be going ahead, and you look at the fact that we are going to have three big oil production wells in the offshore, and you look at that development and the spinoff of that development, it is very positive for this economy. It is creating a lot of business opportunities for business people in the Province, all over the Province, who are benefitting from that. That again is helping drive the economic numbers where they are, Mr. Speaker, and the most important number being employment. The employment numbers have been good.

Given what we are facing with our fisheries crisis, Mr. Speaker, the employment numbers are definitely getting driven by the energy developments that have been occurring. Again, on that issue, the Atlantic Accord, I have been reading over a number of times in the last couple of years, and if you look at exactly what the numbers are that we are getting from that resource when it comes to revenue and resource rent, we need a better deal and we need the deal that we signed up for to be followed. In the Atlantic Accord, it is supposed to be the principal beneficiary - we are supposed to be the principal beneficiary.

Our advice here, and we are working on this now in this government, is that we need to get a renegotiated arrangement on the Atlantic Accord. We want to see more revenue through equalization. We want to see more revenue through the Atlantic Accord, which is a side deal in the equalization formula. The math needs to show that Newfoundland and Labrador and our people are the principal beneficiary of oil and gas development off our shores.

Mr. Speaker, that needs to be challenged. I believe it needs to be aggressively challenged. My advice to the Minister of Mines and Energy, who is reviewing it now, is to look at potentially taking Ottawa on in a number of ways. I think, too, Mr. Speaker, if they do not want to move off it as to what the principal beneficiary status is, I think we need to get more aggressive, even with potential legal action in dealing with Ottawa if they do not want to move off it. That is one that they can get at and we need to fix it because we are the principal beneficiary - we are supposed to be - and it is time that the math dictated, and the numbers showed, that we are and we were.

Mr. Speaker, there will be more said about that shortly coming up because this Atlantic Accord, when you read it over and you see the revenues we are getting, it is not acceptable. It cannot be allowed to be continued to be acceptable and we have to wrestle with it in this Province in short order so that it will improve our budget status and we will not have to be into deficits.

In the Atlantic Accord, one of the things is that we can transfer - for example, the 8.5 percent that is owned offshore should be automatically transferred, and thus far the federal government has not been co-operating. We need to get our MPs involved and ask them to help us negotiate that. That is a piece there, Mr. Speaker, that could help this Province right away. Right away it would help its financial position. It should be done automatically. It should be done just by good will alone, Mr. Speaker. So we appeal to Ottawa and the federal Minister of Energy and the Finance Minister to look at that option. It has been written on. It has been requested of. We have been putting it forward, Mr. Speaker. That is a legitimate answer here that could really help us, financially in this Province, deal with and make sure that the definition of principal beneficiary is met. We have to work on that, and I would say there are a number of us pushing here. If that answer does not come soon then we will have to go another route. I would advise that we have the Department of Justice review a legal case against Ottawa if that keeps up, Mr. Speaker. I think we have to get the math straightened out when it comes to the Atlantic Accord. We are doing the diplomacy, but I am not sure that is exactly the way it goes in Ottawa these days. Diplomacy does not exactly seem to be working, but we are going to keep trying and we have to look at other options.

When you look at the whole development of Inco and what is going to occur there. A very positive development is going to occur now. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars over the next five years, in the billions of dollars, probably $2 billion to $3 billion of capital is going to be outlaid in this Province. We are going to see some value-added production put in place, large R and D facilities, the development of a major mine in this Province, and really literary thousands of more jobs that people can look forward to in a new economy that is transforming in this Province. So that will move ahead and we were given an update on where that is in the Estimates. We look forward to where that is going to go. There is an exciting future that way, Mr. Speaker, but it is only exciting if we straighten out the revenue picture. Again, on Voisey's Bay, Ottawa is getting a lot of the revenue that this Province should be getting and we need to straighten that out. There is a way to straighten it out but we have to have Ottawa agree that this Province should be allowed to benefit from its resources, and it is time that they did.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the Terms of Union that we negotiated back in 1948 and 1949, the natural resources are supposed to be ours, just like they are in Alberta. We are supposed to be the principal beneficiary of our natural resources. What did we do? We let the finance bureaucrats in Ottawa - the finance bureaucrats in Ottawa got at it. They worked out a little arrangement that took away the financing and revenues that we were supposed to get from our natural resources. This Province has brought a lot in and deserves the opportunity to be able to grow itself and be able to let its people be the beneficiary of its resources. This Terms of Union that we signed on to is not being met, Mr. Speaker. This agreement is supposed to be in place.

Right now we are suing the federal government - you talk about the law. The Prime Minister was on the other day talking about law-abiding - he was on the other day. Here is our provincial government suing the federal minister for not following the law. He is not following the law. He gave away a multi-million dollar Port Harmon facility in Stephenville, plus a cheque of $7.2 million to two individuals. Here is what David Collenette, the federal minister, has done. The provincial government is now suing him and Transport Canada to ask them to follow their policy that is on their Web site - that is through their Treasury Board - how they divest of a public asset.

We are suing the federal government and a Cabinet minister in Ottawa because he has not followed the law, and we get lectured by the Prime Minister of Canada about following the law. Mr. Speaker, it is kind of ironic, I have to say. I hope we win the case for the people in Bay St. George or Port Harmon where hundreds of jobs depend on that port. Now a federal minister, at a whim, decides to hand it off to a private sector group without even going through a public process. In Newfoundland and Labrador you get thrown out of office for that. In Ottawa: oh, no, we are going to do it anyway.

I was in the room with the federal minister and our MP who tried - Bill Mathews - his best to convince the federal minister not to go down this road, and he has gone down the road, Mr. Speaker. They talk about following the law. They are not even following their own public policy. They do not even care if Port Harmon ends up getting sold next year or off to private interests who may decide: we will do whatever. We have hundreds of jobs counting on that, Mr. Speaker; counting on it.

I am very pleased to see that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, through its Justice Department, is now taking Ottawa and the federal minister to court because as the statement of claim says: it is unlawful what the minister has gone on with. It is unlawful to give away that port and that facility without going through a public process. That is what we are going to court for, Mr. Speaker, and we get lectured down here.

I have to tell you, the Globe and Mail and National Post, I wish they would do a little more homework. I saw Jeffery Simpson's article, Mr. Speaker. Jeffery Simpson did some article a little while ago. He never referenced once, the Fisheries Resources Conservation Council. He never even referenced it, never looked at it, never read it, and he did his editorial anyway. So, you know, when it comes to both great, national newspapers I wish they would send somebody down, spend a bit of time, do a bit of homework. When you are going to do your editorials, do a bit of homework before you go and do it. What do they think? In this Province we are more conservation-minded than most anybody else in Canada. They are out there now doing editorials saying: based on science they do not want Newfoundland and Labrador to take every fish out of the sea and kill the stock. Well, we are interested in protecting the stock for the long term, Mr. Speaker. This kind of editorial comment, which is with no homework done, should not be allowed to continue. We ask those two national newspapers to do their homework.

When we look at our development, and where we go and how we move forward, we have to wrestle and we have to deal with Ottawa. I ask our MPs to keep doing their best to work on resolving these issues. We have to make sure that we give them an agenda that they can help sell in Ottawa and to make sure the Terms of Union - you know, Mr. Speaker, we are asking some lot now in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are asking them to follow the contract that we signed. Mr. Speaker, we came in with three defense bases, Newfoundland and Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER (Butler): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I will finish up by saying, we look forward to the debate.

My last comment. Mr. Speaker, this Terms of Union, this contract - if you wanted to read it, everybody should read it because when you read it, it says they will maintain public ports, harbours and wharfs; that they will maintain civil aviation; that they will maintain and make sure we have defense forces here to protect us, Mr. Speaker. You read through it and when you read it over, do you know what you have? You have a contract that is broken. Really, it is not fulfilling the deal. All we are saying is: Keep the deal, Ottawa, keep the deal. Don't give away the airports. Don't give away the ports. Put some defense forces here.

We had $300 million-worth of assets the U.S. left here in 1948, and what happened? They let the Americans close down the bases in Newfoundland and Labrador, over 10,000 people working, and what did they replace it with? Nothing. What is left, in defence forces here?

Nova Scotia has 10,000 people on the DND Payroll, Defense Department Payroll. Ten thousand. Do you know how many we have in the forest industry? Ten thousand. The size of our forest industry in Newfoundland and Labrador is on a social payroll over in Halifax, in Nova Scotia. Ten thousand people, that is a correct figure. Over $1 billion of payroll. In New Brunswick, $575 million of payroll, defence only; defence only, in New Brunswick.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is the one I know the most about and I did some homework on. The others, I will not even go there. Those there - just imagine if they put 25 per cent on the outer extremity of all this 200-mile limit in Newfoundland and Labrador - say they put 25 per cent of what is in Nova Scotia, $200 million, and put a few frigates over here, put a few bases back in place like were here before. Our economy, our economic numbers, our unemployment would come down four or five points alone.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Ottawa to wake up, that is what I say, and keep the deal.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) allow us to go back to presenting reports. The hon. the Opposition House Leader normally allows us to do that (inaudible) see all the reports, he says, that are available.

The Minister of Fisheries forgot to table a report today. With the weekend coming up, maybe hon. members want some good reading, so I wonder if hon. members would allow her to present the report?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for missing the tabling of reports, but I did have to take an important phone call.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I made a presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on May 7, and I want to take this opportunity to table this presentation in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I took the opportunity to comment on seal management, the federal vessel replacement and fleet separation policy, DFO science, the role and importance of women in the fishery, and the federal Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review. In terms of employment and overall dependancy, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the most dependent of any province in Canada on its marine fish resources.

Mr. Speaker, we want the cod fishery in the Northern Gulf area reopened, consistent with the advice given to the federal minister by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. We want an immediate extension of EI benefits for those whose benefits expired before a long-term adjustment program could be implemented. We want a dramatic expansion of the adjustment program that was announced. We want a long-term adjustment program that, at the very minimum, includes an early retirement program, licence buyout for fish harvesters and a meaningful long-term strategy for economic diversification and growth. We want a concrete plan to rebuild the cod stocks. We want scientific assessment of the Northern Gulf cod stock in 3Pn+4RS to be conducted in this Province by DFO's Newfoundland region.

Mr. Speaker, public reaction has been strong and responsible. We will continue to do everything in our power to reverse the decision to close this fishery. It is my pleasure to table this report to the House today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy this afternoon to stand for a few minutes, twenty minutes, I guess it is, to speak on the Concurrence debate on the Resource Committee.

Mr. Speaker, during the last speaker's comments, he - initially anyway - spoke briefly about the resolution tabled by the Premier this afternoon calling for a debate on a Constitutional amendment, a revisit to the Terms of Union and a change in the Terms of Union that would see a co-management process, basically, put in place. I do not have the resolution in front of me so I cannot speak from it to say exactly what it is.

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, this is something, of course, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have long wanted. It is a position, a policy, that this party has held for quite some time. If I could, I would like to go back to the 1999 policy document of this party for the 1999 general election, that speaks about this very issue.

It says, "A PC Government will aggressively pursue a Canada-Newfoundland Fisheries Agreement providing for a joint decision-making process to give the province a meaningful say in decisions on fisheries management, which have a major impact on our economy and social fabric."

Mr. Speaker, what the party was calling on there, and what the party was interested in pursuing, and what we are interested in pursuing today, is something that is very similar to what the government had practically accomplished in the late 1980s. "A national agreement to discuss renegotiating constitutional roles and responsibilities in the fisheries, achieved by our Party in the late eighties, was subsequently quashed by the Liberals at a time when it would have benefitted us most."

Mr. Speaker, this is the situation: We almost had what we are after here today. We were on the road towards getting what we are after here today. Back in the late 1980s when there was a PC government here in this Province, and a PC government in Ottawa, there was negotiation ongoing and an agreement just about reached, Mr. Speaker, on the very matter that we today see the Premier of this Province bring forward.

I am not going to go there today. I was going to talk about what we have accomplished in fourteen years. We have come to something that we almost had in the late 1980s, looking for it here again today, and that is really unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today, since we are discussing the Resource Committee and the report, the departmental Estimates and what have you, I would like to talk for a few minutes - of course, the Resource Committee reviewed the Estimates of the Department of Environment; the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the Department of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; the Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development; the Department of Mines and Energy; and the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I am not going to go into each and every one of them, but since we have been, over the past two weeks, into a fairly heavy, a fairly intense, debate about the fishery in our Province, about the cod fishery in particular, I think I will start off, in the first few minutes at least, and just talk for a little while on the state of our fishery here in the Province and how things might have been different had we chosen, Mr. Speaker, to do things somewhat differently ourselves.

It is alright, from time to time, to blame Ottawa for many of the ills that we have in our fishery. That is fair enough. They deserve a large part of the credit, or the blame, whichever way you want to look at it, for the state that we are in today.

Mr. Speaker, the rest of it, I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, a significant portion of it, rests on the shoulders of us here in the Province, or rests on the shoulders in particular of the government of this Province. I have said this before and I will continue to say it, that any government, no matter what sector we are talking about, should have, you know, a five-or ten-year plan for what they want to see happen in that sector.

In the tourism sector, we see people or organizations, like the Viking Trail Tourism Association, put together their plan for the coming years. We see people in the forestry sector put together their plan for the next number of years, based on what they know to be their raw material supply, based on what they know to be their market needs, and based on what they know about their costs associated with production and the like. Unfortunately, we have not done that. We have not done that at all in government, and I am not assigning blame to any one party in particular. It has unfortunately been a characteristic of Newfoundland, and I suspect other governments outside of Newfoundland and Labrador, but particularly of our governments over the years.

As close as I have seen since I have been in politics - and I have had the opportunity to read some background material, some resource material, that is here in our Legislative Library, over the past year or so, and the closest thing that I have seen to a plan in the past couple of years that I have looked at it, there were two, I suppose, that could come close. There was one in the late 1970s, I believe it was. I am not sure if it was 1978 or 1979, but it was around the time just shortly after the extension of jurisdiction. There was a plan put forward by the provincial government at the time, that talked about expansion of the industry, in light of what was expected to be a huge bloom, I guess, a blossoming or what have you, of raw material in the form of Northern cod when we expected that the foreigners, once they moved out, we would see this huge increase in the status of our stocks, in the abundance of our stocks.

Mr. Speaker, there was some semblance of a plan put there so that we could be capture the majority of that raw material so that it did not go to places like Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, or, for that matter, to foreign nations who would have had a right to take it inside our 200-mile limit if we could not. There was some semblance of a plan there. Now, we can debate twenty-odd years later how good a plan it was, but nevertheless there was some kind of a plan.

In the early 1990s, around 1992 or 1993, just after the cod collapse, I would have to say that the provincial government at the time put together a discussion paper, a Green Paper, on the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, and there was a lot of criticism of it, and I was one of many who criticized much of the content that was in it. Unfortunately, the government of day did not pursue it any further. There was supposed to be a White Paper, I believe, come after that, as they called it, but it did not happen because government was, I think, so scared off by the criticism that came about at the time. If they had pursued on, there would have been quite a debate, I suspect, and not everything that would have been said would have been favourable to the government, probably, and many differing opinions would have been expressed on it. Nevertheless, we would have arrived at a plan with a go-forward approach to the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Anyway, it did not happen. What has been the result of it? What has happened since then? We find ourselves today - the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would be keenly aware of it, on the Labrador Coast, for example, in 2J - with crab quotas reduced by 40 per cent just a couple of weeks ago. We find ourselves now in a situation where many plant workers there don't know how they are going to get through the economic hit that they take as the result of a 40 per cent reduction in the quota. We find fishermen and fisher women in this area who are taking a hit also as a result of this. We find ourselves on crab, if you look throughout the Province, where this situation which is now on the Labrador Coast is repeated over and over, in the absence, I might add, of a reduction in the crab quota, in the absence of a significant reduction in the crab quota anyway. We find ourselves in shrimp, for example, where we have such a tremendous capacity to process in this Province, that many of the people who are in shrimp operations find themselves in the same situation. We find ourselves where the third shift is not even getting enough work to qualify for EI; you know, such a basic thing as that. We should be at a point today where we have people working for extended periods of time.

Mr. Speaker, the point I am getting at is that we need a plan for the various sectors of our resource-based economy here in this Province, a plan that looks further than one year down the road, a plan that is not based on the quota in the spring, the quota that is announced in April or May month and sees no further than November when all of that product is caught, landed and processed. Mr. Speaker, we need to look at and put together a plan in this Province for our resource-based industries that provides a sustainable industry, a vibrant industry, that is able to capitalize on the peaks and weather out the valleys that we see very often in these types of industries.

Mr. Speaker, what would happen tomorrow - God forbid! - if we saw a 40 per cent reduction in the crab fishery throughout our Province? Our industry would not be able to absorb such a smack, because of the way it is structured and the way it is positioned today. If we had a 40 per cent reduction in our shrimp quota, what would happen?

Mr. Speaker, the point is not one of fearmongering, the point is that this is, in all likelihood, going to be a reality at some time in the future. It may not be this year, it may not be next year, but as sure as I am standing here it will come some day down the road. Unfortunately, our industry is barely able to get through now with the amount of investment that is there, because of its over capitalization, because of its over capacity. It is in large part because of the way that it is structured and because we haven't put a plan in place.

What would happen in 1997? How would our industry look today if in 1997 the government of the day, before issuing shrimp processing licenses around this Province, had sat down and looked at what made sense, looked at how much processing capacity we needed for a 50,000 ton fishery, looked at how much processing capacity we needed and the kind of processing plants that we needed to be on the leading edge of the technology in that industry in the world today? How different would our industry have been over the past five years and how different would it be over the next five years? We are not bad now, but we would be world leaders in that sector and we would, Mr. Speaker, find more plants like the one in St. Anthony, for example, that today, because they are on the leading edge of the technology in that sector in the world, can compete with plants in Iceland to take industrial shrimp off the offshore boats and process it in their plants. Those are the types of things that we will be able to do. We would, if we had a plan, Mr. Speaker, be able to go to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and say: This is our plan and this is how we believe the policy for vessel replacement should be in this Province. But we do not have that today, Mr. Speaker, and because of that, there has been inaction really on that front for a number of years to the point where we find ourselves from time to time leaving shrimp not caught in our allocations here in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot impress enough upon the government and I cannot impress enough upon the people in the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador the need for us all collectively to put together a plan that looks out five to ten years, and looks at what the resource prospects are and looks at what the market wants and looks at how we can be globally competitive and on the leading edge of technology here.

I look also to the forestry industry because the forestry industry is a very important sector of the economy in the district that I represent: in Roddickton, Main Brook, Croque, Bide Arm. In all those communities, and what we refer to as the cross country area. The economy is basically driven by two things: the fishery in Englee and Conche, and the forestry industry in Roddickton and Main Brook and the like.

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves today - I know the previous speaker, the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, just spoke about raw material shortages. We all know about these raw material shortages that is confronting the pulp and paper mill in Stephenville. The question is: How would our forestry industry, both the sawmill sector and the pulp and paper sector, differ if we, some years back, had a plan put in place that incorporated a significant investment in silviculture? And we do have some investment in silviculture, both from the Province, from the feds, from the industry, and I applaud all three players on that. What would have happened if we had something like that, or something significantly more than that, years back? What would our forestry industry be like today? What would our sawlog industry be like today?

If we had a situation twenty years ago, for example, where the waste from our sawmills was being utilized to a greater extent for the pulp and paper mills in the form of chips, maybe some of the trees that are now gone, maybe some of the cutovers that now dot the landscape across our Province, maybe some of those cutovers would still have trees on them today, and maybe we would be in a better position. Maybe we would find ourselves in a situation where the annual allowable cut on the Northern Peninsula would be strong enough, great enough, and high enough that mills like Northchip, for example, would not have closed down this past year. Maybe we would find ourselves where Canada Bay Lumber, for example, would have a longer operating season.

Those are the things, Mr. Speaker, that come from good planning in our resource sector. Also, if we had this good planning in our resource sector, how would it benefit the fiscal situation in our Province? I have always maintained, in large part, that the reason we have such a difficult fiscal situation in this Province, the reason we have such deficits and such debts burdening the people of our Province, is because our resource sector has not been developed in a sustainable manner. It is because we have lost our cod fishery. It is because our ground fishery has collapsed. It is because we have overcapitalized, for example, in the shrimp and crab sectors. Whenever we find ourselves in that type of situation, our industries are not as competitive as they can be. They do not generate the revenues they can and, as a result, they do not support our communities like they could. We do not find them in a position where they are generating taxes for the government to be able to provide funding to municipalities throughout the Province to do road repairs and what have you.

Speaking of road repairs, Mr. Speaker, I have to speak briefly on roads - relating to the tourism sector, the fisheries sector and the forestry sector, certainly on the Northern Peninsula. On the Northern Peninsula, as I have said many times, we have Route 430, The Viking Trail. I have to say, the second most important highway in Newfoundland and Labrador today when it comes to - I say it is the second most important because it has probably the second highest volume of traffic of any road in the Province. It has the second highest volume of tourism traffic of any road in the Province. It has one of the highest volumes of fish traffic, certainly, in the Province. I do not know how many millions and millions and millions of pounds of fish and pulp wood and lumber are hauled over it every year. Today, as we speak, government's plan is to move the provision of the north coast of Labrador out of Lewisporte to Cartwright.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding, it is expected that it will probably generate somewhere in the order of 1,000 tractor-trailer loads of freight up and down that coast, over and above what we have there right now. The road on the Northern Peninsula is just not in a condition that is able to handle that kind of traffic. I am not sure what the numbers are for Gros Morne. I believe it is somewhere in the order of 80,000-odd visitors per year to Gros Morne. I could stand corrected on that if somebody on the other side knows, or over here.

I know in L'Anse aux Meadows we had 35,000 visitors this past season - roughly 35,000, for the sake of an argument - and each and everyone of those visitors - they do not come in by boat, they do not come in by plane. The odd one comes in by boat and plane, I suppose, but very few. The vast majority, probably somewhere in the order of 33,000 out of those 35,000 would have come in by road. What do we have going up the Northern Peninsula? We have a road that is in a deplorable condition, for the vast majority of it. When I drove over it last week I had intended to add up the number of kilometres which were posted on signs that said: rough road for the next x-number of kilometres. I suspect, if my memory serves me correctly, it is close to 100 kilometres that is designated as: rough road ahead - on a road 400 kilometres long, that is the mainstay of Northern Newfoundland and Southern Labrador. When the freight season comes it will be the main route into all of coastal Labrador, certainly, and one of two routes into the rest of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how government has - I fail to see the logic in the neglect of this highway that we have seen in recent years by the government. How can we expect a tourism industry to develop beyond where it is today? How can we expect our - every time we have roads that are in that condition they add to the transportation costs associated with goods that are being trucked into the Northern Peninsula and into Labrador. They add to the transportation costs of materials such as - that our industry generates, that our logging industry generates. It adds to the cost of materials - to the cost of fish that is being trucked off the Peninsula. All of this is an added cost, Mr. Speaker. It is all part and parcel. Again, part of the reason the government does not have the money, has not had the money to be able to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TAYLOR: By leave, to clue up?

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

MR. LUSH: Twenty-five seconds.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you. The Government House Leader is so kind to give me twenty-five seconds.

Just in cluing up, I would have to say solid, good resource planning - planning for our resource sector that shows where we want to go with our fishing industry over the next five to ten years, that shows where we want to go with our forestry industry over the next however many years, you know, a generation in the forestry sector. A generation of tree growth, for example. Those are the types of things that we need in this Province if we are going to have sustainable, viable, cutting edge, globally competitive, resource-based industries in this Province. If we have that, Mr. Speaker, that can only bode well for the fiscal situation of the Province. It can only do well for the people in the communities of rural Newfoundland. It can only do well for the people in the urban parts of our Province.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I thank you and take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a pleasure for me to rise today and to participate in this debate in the House. It is always important, I think, that we bring all the views and perspectives of the people to the House of Assembly. Sometimes when there are ongoing events and ongoing circumstances in our Province it sometimes clouds some of the things that have been done in the past and some of the efforts that have been made.

I would like to start today by making some comments as it relates to the fishery. I think it is no secret to anyone in the Province that we have some very critical and very crucial issues within the fishing industry that are confronting our people and our communities today in Newfoundland and Labrador.

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that we, as a Province, have found ourselves in a fisheries crises. I think if you would go back through history there have been any number of times in Newfoundland and Labrador where we have been faced with some very tough decisions in terms of the fishing industry, whether it dealt with the resource sector or whether it dealt with an overabundance within the processing sector, or whatever the case may be. When those decisions and those issues impact so fundamentally upon people in our Province, then it becomes an issue in which no government can ignore, in which no government can take a side seat but must be involved and must provide the appropriate leadership in order to be able to deal with those critical pieces and those pressing pieces within the Province.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened today with regard to crab reductions in many of the regions around our Province, and what has happened with regard to the cod closure, it affects any number of people, thousands of people, and it affects hundreds of communities. I think the actions that we have seen in terms of the federal government with decisions on these issues is, certainly, representative of what we have seen over a number of decades in fisheries decision making and management on behalf of the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, we do not agree with the decisions that the federal government has made to close cod fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador today. We feel that their decision is wrong. I would like to explain, and to have incorporated into the Hansard of this House, the reasons why we believe that is so fundamentally wrong.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, you have an industry in which thousands of harvesters are engaged on a daily basis from one season to the next. It is an industry in which they, the people who are on the water, have the information and the real facts about what is happening in this industry.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province today you will have fishermen and women who will tell you, unprecedented, that they feel that the fish off their shores is more sustainable and more stable today in terms of cod stocks than they have been for very long time.

These are people, Mr. Speaker, who tell me that, back in the 1970s in my own district, the people who lived there had to go out and build longliners because they could no longer harvest cod from the shores. They had to build longliners in order to chase the codfish right up as far north as Black Tickle in Labrador and down to probably St. George's on the West Coast. That is the area in which they had to maneuver in order to find fish. They had to go further out than they even go today.

Now, these same fisherpeople can get up in the morning, get in a twenty-foot speedboat and go out The Narrows with a hook and line and have record fishing catches. They are not using the fifty and sixty gill nets that were used back in the late 1970s. No, they are using very conservational type harvesting gear in hook and line.

You try and tell these people who go out on a Monday morning, who on Tuesday at noon have their quota caught for the entire week and spend the other five days on shore, these are the people that DFO is trying to tell there is no fish. It is very difficult for them to understand that when they have been in this industry for twenty, thirty, forty years in some cases, where they have the experience and the knowledge of the fishery and have been involved in it. So it is very difficult for those individuals to try and even understand this.

No, the DFO science is saying that the fish is not there. The irony in that is that the minister's own Conservation Council, the FRCC, has been tasked and mandated in recent years, and this year, with the responsibility of analyzing this scientific information, the responsibility of consulting with people in the fishing industry, and then taking that information and forming an opinion and a recommendation to the federal minister. That happened, Mr. Speaker, and they recommended that there be fisheries in these areas. They recommended in the Gulf, for instance, that there should be a 3,500 ton fishery this year.

What I think has really been the piece that has upset most people in this Province is that the federal minister, at a time when the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador was seeing record catches, when his own Conservation Council was recommending a fishery that would have a 50 per cent reduction, no doubt, but yet a fishery that would be at 3,500 tons, and when an all-party committee, an unprecedented all-party committee of all levels of government, was saying this fishery should be kept open, that was at the very time that the minister had chosen to close the fishery. Now, that is the piece that is very difficult for these people to accept. I think it is important to establish that for the record.

Mr. Speaker, what we find ourselves in today, in this Province, is we find ourselves in a place, in a Province, where a resource that is adjacent to our shores, that is there and should be there for the benefit solely of the people of our Province, yet we have no input; or, when we do have input, that input is not being heard and it is not being acted upon.

It is very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we have reached a time in our history in Newfoundland and Labrador, where we are in a position that we are today. It is unfortunate when we have reached a time when the whole perspective and viewpoint of an industry in this Province says there should be a fishery, and these are the levels that it should be maintained at, and these are the measures that should be put in place, that our national government would say, no, that will not be the case. And with the stroke of a pen, Mr. Speaker, the stroke of a pen, thousands of people and families in this Province are left with nothing. That is the situation that is before us today. That is the situation.

Mr. Speaker, you can go to every single region of this Province where these cod fisheries have been closed and people cannot find a reason in their own minds to be able to support or justify the decision that has been made. They cannot find it. I have been there. I have been to every region in the Gulf, twice actually, twice in the last two weeks that this decision has been taken. I have met with thousands of plant workers and fisherpeople in these communities that are affected. Do you know what is facing these people? Do you know what is facing these people, Mr. Speaker?

The Member for St. Barbe knows what is facing these people. He knows. The Member for Bonavista North knows. The Member for The Straits & White Bay North knows. He knows, Mr. Speaker. Their districts are impacted. They know. The Member for the Bay of Islands, he understands it. The Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, he understands it, Mr. Speaker. We understand it because these are the people we know, the people we live amongst, and the people that we know today are hurt the most and little or no ability to change this decision without our support, without our political support and lobby behind them all the way - all the way - in order to do that.

Many of these families - I can tell you now, we have more than1,300 of these fishers today, Mr. Speaker, whose EI benefits have expired. That is 53 per cent of the people who are affected, whose EI benefits have expired. Over 90 per cent of these people who are affected will lose their income by June. What are they to do, Mr. Speaker? What are they to do?

We have a government in Ottawa that is running a surplus in the EI fund. They are running a surplus in this fund at a time when these people need it the most. Their fishery has been taken away, their benefits have been declined, and there has been no discussion on compensation for the long term, Mr. Speaker. That is wrong. It is justifiably wrong. It is wrong in their eyes and it is wrong in our eyes, Mr. Speaker. We have to be able to support and provide for these people. We have to continue to lobby the federal government to ensure that their EI benefits are extended at a time when they need it, and at a time when their government is running a surplus in the EI fund.

This is a time when the very nature of our integration and the very nature of our existence inside the Confederation of Canada needs to be looked at, and it can be looked at today in some very small and minor and fundamental ways. It is about a country that takes care of its people in the time of need. This is a time of need for us, and we are asking that they honour the agreements, they honour their commitments to us as Canadian citizens, as a part of this country.

Why should the people of Burnt Islands today, Mr. Speaker, a community where you have 100 per cent cod fishers, where you have every plant worker that works in a cod plant, where there is no other employment in this rural community, why should these people have to be confronted with the dilemma that they are in today? Why should they have to face their own demise without the support and the encouragement and the backing of a federal government who has the ability to be able to help these people in a very fundamental way?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Not only, Mr. Speaker, can they put these people on the water, these law-abiding, wholesome citizens, those hard-working decent family people, not only can he put them on the water and let them be full participants in a fishery that is sustainable and stable, but he can also do the right and proper thing in terms of ensuring that they have proper benefits; that they have food on their table when they need it. That is what it is about. That is what a nation does. A nation looks after their people when they need that kind of help and support. That is what we are asking. We are asking that the people up in the St. Barbe area, the people in Flower's Cove, where we all know that more than half the people in that community are going to lose 60 per cent, 70 per cent and 80 per cent of their income as a result of this decision. We know that. We know that they are going to lose a large part of their income as a result of this. We know that is a difficult position for them to be in.

The people in my own district, Mr. Speaker, many of them have nothing else to fish. They have nothing else to fish. There is nothing else out there. There is no other licence that we can give them, other than some shrimp, which we are hoping that we are going to be able to deliver to them very soon, hopefully. Other than that, they have nothing today. This fishery was taken right out from under them. They have nowhere to go. I talked to families in my own district, a plant worker and a fisherman with small children. Where do these people go today? They are in a country where their resources have been mismanaged and now they are closing down their fishery with no accountability to these people. That is not right and this government will stand and we will support them, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We will support them. We will do whatever is possible to try and get resolve on this issue because we know it is wrong. We know that the treatment that these people in L'Anse-a-Loup and L'Anse-au-Clair and Flowers Cove and St. Barbe and Burnt Islands and Marguerite, all of these communities, Mr. Speaker, and the people down in Bonavista North - they are all affected by this. Whether they are losing 100 per cent of their income or they are losing half their income, the impact is still just a great.

Mr. Speaker, look what has happened with regard to the crab resource. Up in my own district we have seen a 40 per cent reduction in crab. Mr. Speaker, this was a fishery that we looked to in 1992 when the cod disappeared. We rebuilt the entire region and all these communities around the crab industry and around the crab fishery. What happened? Ten years later, Mr. Speaker, twelve years later, that resource is starting to plummet. Why, Mr. Speaker? In the year 2000 we saw a 35 per cent reduction in that allocation. This year we have seen a 40 per cent reduction. That is over 75 per cent of the crab in that area being taken away from fishers in a three-year period. There is something seriously wrong with the management and with the scientific information that is going on, when you have that kind of a depreciation of quota over such a short period of time.

Mr. Speaker, the fishermen in the 2J area have been saying for six years to the federal government: Take the draggers out of the (inaudible) channel because they are affecting the crab stocks. They said it for six years, Mr. Speaker. They said it at every single table, every single boardroom, every single forum, that they could use. They said it in the media. Mr. Speaker, they wrote letters to the minister, they talked to his officials, but, no, they did not close off that area to the draggers and to the gillnetters, until six years after, Madam Speaker, when the quota had plummeted yet again by another 40 per cent. Then they decided, we will go back and we have a look at this now. Well, finally, Madam Speaker, after all this time we have been able to convince them that this needs to be done. Finally they will close off that area to trawlers and to gillnetters and allow the rebuilding of the crab resource.

Why, Madam Speaker, have we had to wait so long for our voices to be heard? Why is it that we, as the stewards of the fishery, that we as the people out there on the water and who know the difference, are making the recommendations, are not being heard? That is the problem, and that is why we have come to a point today where we have to look at a joint management within our fishing industry. We have to have some say, some real say and some real impact, Madam Speaker. We have to be able to have input, not only into the allocations but into the scientific work, into the conservation work and into all facets of management and control of the industry. That is what we need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: It is not good enough to just, on any given day, voice your opposition to how a management decision is being taken and to how the Government of Canada is running this industry, Madam Speaker. You have to be prepared to do something real and tangible about it.

Well, Madam Speaker, this is one time that this government has no intention of rolling over and taking this kind of treatment and abuse from the national government any longer. We intend to stand up and fight for our fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: We intend to ensure that today their voices will be heard. There is absolutely no reason why today the fishers in Fortune Bay, Placentia Bay areas, should have to take a 40 per cent reduction in their crab quotas, because if the stock was managed, if the quotas were allocated, and it was all done in the proper and right manner, today they would not be in the situation they are in.

I should not have to be up trying to find out how I am going to save hundreds of crab enterprises in my district today because of the mismanagement of a resource. These people gave the federal government the answers. They were not listened to. Now today they are reduced to a position where their enterprises may not be sustainable for many of them. They are left, hundreds of plant workers, without jobs. That is complete and utter mismanagement of a resource, and these are the kinds of things that we need to get a handle on.

MADAM SPEAKER (M. Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: By leave, Madam Speaker, to clue up?

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just have a few more points that I would like to make.

I really need to emphasize that we have to ensure that resources are allocated for the benefit of the people in our Province. Today, as the minister, I introduced a statement into the House on the shrimp resource. Madam Speaker, that was very important, and I will tell you why it is important.

It is important because we already know there will be additional shrimp allocations made in adjacent areas in our Province. It will be allocations made in areas where these fishers are experiencing drastic cuts in crab and drastic cuts and closures in cod. They need to be able to look to whatever else is available. Right now the only other resource there for them is shrimp.

Madam Speaker, we have been able to put our viewpoint to the federal government on shrimp. We have said to them, unequivocally, that we want to ensure that this shrimp is into the hands of our inshore fishers, it is for the benefit of them, and it is landed in our plants in Newfoundland and Labrador so that our plant workers can get more employment and maximize the economic benefits.

We cannot continue to allow our shrimp to be given to non-Newfoundland and Labrador interests, to be harvested at sea with no jobs coming on shore. We have to look at where our new allocations are going, in ensuring that they are there for the best interest and the benefit of our people and our inshore fishers and plant workers primarily at this time.

I know there are many other speakers who want to get up and participate in this debate today, but before I sit down, I just want to say that today, in the middle of a very critical situation in Newfoundland and Labrador, the people in the fishing industry can count on me as their minister, and they can count on this government, to ensure that every single opportunity that is available to us will be taken to ensure the future of their communities, the livelihood of these people, Madam Speaker, and we will do whatever measures are necessary to see that happens.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am certainly privileged to have the opportunity to rise today to enter into this debate, the Concurrence debate on the Budget. The topics, I understand, are: Fisheries and Aquaculture; Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Tourism; and Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that, in her closing remarks, in her delivery today, she talked about herself and her government. I think she can include every Newfoundlander and Labradorian when she talks about people standing up for this Province and wanting to see a decision changed, that was brought down from the ivory towers up in Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, up on Kent Street.

When we talk about the fishing industry and when we talked about jobs it not only affects - although sometimes we say when we are going to have a debate on a topic such as this that we include rural members, but it goes much further than rural members, Madam Speaker. Every member, there is not one member on either side of this House, without exception, who does not realize the value of the fishing industry to this Province. That is the reason why we are here.

I heard somebody say one time: that is our currency. While in Japan it may be the Yen, in the United States it is the American dollar, Mr. Speaker, and in Mexico it may be another currency -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Peso.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Peso.

Right here in this Province the currency is fish. That is what our economy is based on. As the fishing industry goes, so goes this Province.

Madam Speaker, certainly the announcement twelve days ago that the federal Fisheries Minister made concerns some areas greater than others, but I can assure you that not only does it affect fishing areas 3Pn and 4RS, but it also greatly affects the fishing in area 2J+3KL. I will speak specifically to the fishing industry in 3L, which is directly related to the district that I represent.

Just last year - and this is why it is so difficult to take the decision that was brought down by the Minister of Fisheries - off the coast of Bonavista, just off within gunshot from the Cape there, the people in the Bonavista area, the fishermen, will tell you that they have never, ever seen fish so thick before. Within a couple of weeks they had their quota. I think their quota was something like 7,000 pounds each. Within a couple of weeks they had their quota. In fact, I say to the Member for Terra Nova, on his side of Bonavista Bay, on the north side of Bonavista Bay, many of the fishermen from his area know full well what I am talking about because if you went to Bonavista Harbour you would have seen fifty to fifty-five boats from that part of Bonavista Bay coming to Bonavista in order to fish their quota.

Madam Speaker, the same thing going around Cape Bonavista to parts of Trinity North, to parts of Trinity Bay. I have not talked to one fisherman who did not get his catch; or, if it was, it was for reasons beyond the availability of cod to catch.

For those particular people, yes, they may have other licences, and most of them do, but look at the other licences that they have. Maybe they have a lump licence, where they are allowed to go out and fish six lump nets for two weeks of the year. Some of the other people may have a lobster licence, where they will probably generate $3,000 or $4,000, because lobster catches are certainly not great in that particular region. For some people this was 75 per cent or 80 per cent of their income. For others it was at least 50 per cent of their income, and for others, Madam Speaker, it would have been all of their income.

A few years ago the federal government, again the federal minister in his wisdom, tried to take people out of this industry and tried to make it hard enough where they would not be able to go out and realize a living from the sea, and started bringing in different designations. First it was SEC, you had to be SEC approved in order to get certain licences. Then they came out and said, okay, there are a certain number of people who met that criteria; now we are going to make you core fishermen and non-core fishermen. That debate is still going on today, whether people should be core or non-core. People have gone out and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, in excess of $100,000, in order to buy a core licence so that they could go out and be able to fish a small quota of crab, a small boat fisherman.

Other people could not afford to go out and buy a core licence. Those people are left, for reasons for the most part that I cannot understand, or many other people, who have been left out of that designation and today they are without a livelihood. Today, with the decision made up in Ottawa, an Ottawa-made decision for Newfoundland and Labrador, without consultation, without listening to the stakeholders, without listening to the scientists, without listening to this House of Assembly, the minister has come forward and brought down rules from on high, brought down a decision that affects every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Madam Speaker, I was down in Bonavista last Sunday where we had an ecumenical service at the Salvation Army. The participants were the fishing industry, the union, me as the member, the Mayor of Bonavista, and other clergymen from the Ministerial Association. At the end of the meeting, as I was leaving the church to get in my car, one gentleman approached me and said: I am going to Fort McMurray next week. There are fourteen of us going from Bonavista.

Fourteen people from Bonavista. The Major in the Salvation Army, when he was giving his sermon that morning, referred to five people from his church, from that one church alone, who were leaving the Province and going to Fort McMurray to look for work. This one gentleman who stopped me in the parking lot indicated to me that he had thirty-four years in the fishing industry, thirty-four years in the fishing industry. He is fifty-four years old. All the gentleman ever did was work in the fish plant. That is all he ever did, was work in the fish plant. He went to work there when he was about eighteen or twenty years old. He had thirty-four years experience, fifty-four years old today, and now finds himself having to go to Alberta to find a job. No work, the first time ever away from home to look for a job, fifty-four years of age. It is a terrible situation to find yourself in.

Many of us, as young people, have packed up - and that was part of us, as Newfoundlanders. There is probably nobody here in this House who has not gone away from this Province to go to work, and did not mind it at the time because it was an experience, for the most part. I was one of those, Madam Speaker. I did not mind. I could have gotten a job here at the time, back in the late 1960s, but decided to go and look for a job because it was something that I wanted to do. It was not something that I had to do. Times have changed. Things have changed today. Most of those people today who are leaving are leaving because they have no other choice, and they are people, for the most part, who were directly involved in the fishing industry.

Back in 1992, when we brought about a moratorium on the Northeast Coast, a Northern cod moratorium, 2,200 jobs were taken, processing jobs alone. Not counting fisheries jobs, not counting fishermen jobs and fisherpersons jobs, not counting spinoff jobs. Twenty-two hundred processing jobs were taken out of one district, Bonavista South. Now, just imagine. How can a community, how can district, recover from that kind of a blow? Twenty-two hundred jobs.

Madam Speaker, at that particular, as you know, there was a package brought in place. First, I think, it was $225 a week, if I recall, and people vented their frustrations, and everybody knows what happened there and then the package was increased. There were other things brought forward to be able to help fishermen to continue to live in their communities, and fish plant workers, and to continue to look after their families.

Madam Speaker, the shame of this announcement is maybe the federal minister, and our own federal minister might have thought that we were all going to roll over and play dead when he came down here twelve days ago and made an announcement that they were going to bring about a make-work project and included in that make-work project was going to be an allocation of $6 million to study the effect of seals on the cod population. How gullible do people think we are? I do not know if they have changed. The mindset up in the Ottawa has never changed, as far as I am concerned. It has always been a situation where they have kept us humble, and when you keep somebody humble you are always coming back looking for something, and if you have a few crumbs to throw them, then they will always come back looking for you and you will always have something to offer.

When you look at how this decision was made, you wonder who the federal minister listened to. I am going to move off the fishery in a few minutes because there are other topics in this Estimates debate here today that affect my district as well, when I look at Tourism, when I look at Industry, Trade and Rural Development, and Forest Resources and Agrifoods. Very important departments that affect my district, I can assure you, especially the Forest Resources and Agrifoods Department. There are many people employed there. But let's get back to fishery for a second.

When that decision was made, we have to ask ourselves who the federal minister listened to. Who did he consult? When you see the department of science going out and conducting scientific studies in areas where there has never been any fish, in depths of water where fishermen never go to set their nets or catch fish, you wonder what they base their scientific knowledge on. That is why it is important, and why we have always maintained over here that we have to have our own science department. We have to have a department of science right here in this Province that can go back and report to Ottawa and be listened to as it relates to what is happening in this particular industry. Up until now we have been saying here - and I know people on the opposite side have been saying as well - that the real scientists out there are the fishermen, and they are. There is nobody who will argue with that, but I am not so sure how many people listen to the fishermen. Up until now they have not been listened to.

When you go to those meetings - and I attend most of them, especially when they come and hold the meetings close to my district, Madam Speaker - when you go to some of those FRCC meetings and you hear the fishermen get up and talk about their experience as it relates to the amount of fish that they have seen, the amount of fish they have caught, how long it has taken them to catch that type of fish, and what their recommendations are, it has not changed. It has not changed a whole lot from the first meeting that I attended up until the meeting that I attended just a couple of short months ago in Clarenville. The frustration is evident.

Until we get our own science department here, where we can take forward scientific information, and we can have surveys carried out at a time of the year when fish is present and in locations where fish congregate, then we will never know.

What scientific information was carried out off the Coast of Bonavista, I might ask, last year? What scientific information was carried out in Smith Sound last year? We know that there is a congregation of cod fish there. Nobody knows how much. Nobody knows how much was off the Coast of Bonavista. The survey was conducted in depths of water that fishermen do not fish anymore. You talk to a fisherman today and they will tell you the only fish that they catch today is in 30 fathoms of water or less. You talk to science and ask where they carried out their scientific surveys and they will tell you that they never went close to that depth of water. They stayed out in other depths of water far outside of where the fishermen fish and where the fishermen get their information, Madam Speaker. It needs to be addressed.

I do not know, it almost belittles me to talk about seals anymore here because it is something that we have talked about and everybody agrees with, and to hear the scientific people, the science people, and the department of science still trying to wonder, or still trying to find out what seals eat, it is disgraceful. It is disgraceful that you have to go - a fisherman down in my district a few years ago called me and said: I was out and I killed this big old dog hood seal and I want you to come over because I have twenty-six codfish that I took out of its stomach.

I went over and got the codfish, and brought it in here and had to give it to Memorial University in order for them to see it to realize that this seal might have eaten codfish. Come on, Madam Speaker. Should we have to go out and do those kinds of things today as individuals to convince people what seals eat? Come on! Do we need $6 million spent to find out what seals eat? Do we need to spend $6 million to find out the number of seals out there? It is time for us to move beyond that. We know what seals do. We know what foreign draggers do. We cannot do anything about fish migration. We cannot do anything about water temperatures, but there are certain things we can do something about and we have not have the intestinal fortitude in order to take that on and do something about it. That is the reason why we have not progressed any further than we are today.

Madam Speaker, I have made five trips out on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. The surveillance plane leaves here twice a day. There are two seats on it over and above what is required to operate the plane and carry out the electronic capabilities of what the trip is supposed to bring about and to provide. One of those seats is occupied by a fisheries officer; the other seat is vacant for somebody who might want to go. It is a great experience. It is available to anybody who might want to go. All you have to do is call DFO, make arrangements, and they will give you the time when the flight leaves, be there, and they would welcome people to go and look. It is worth your while to go out and have a look and see what is happening out on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. It is worth your while to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, I say to the Member for Terra Nova, the Government House Leader, who said he will be going, I recommend that the does because it is a great experience. The plane goes out and it will fly down within 100 feet of the water. They have great equipment on it, cameras like you would not believe. You can see people fishing on the decks of the boat. You can see the registration numbers on the boat. If you had somebody there that you knew quite well, you would even recognize them. It flies down within 100 feet of the boat. Sometimes, if you go out there, it might be foggy and you might see nothing, but every ship that is picked up has a mark, and they know what the ship is. Then they know and they relate it to the information that they gathered yesterday or the day before. They know where that boat is and they know what it is fishing by the depths of water that it is in.

Madam Speaker, it is disgraceful when you go out there and you see thirty or thirty-five boats, sometimes in excess of that, out fishing, dragging the ocean floor. I have said in this House before. it is not uncommon to go out and see two of those big draggers, those factory freezer draggers from other countries going side by side with a cable on each ship. Obviously, one ship is unable to tow what is coming behind it; they need two. So, while you do not see what is in the water, you can imagine what they are doing out there. Not fishing inside the 200-mile limit, we do not see a lot of that anymore. Most of the activity now inside the 200-mile limit, people realize that it is a fishery that we do not take part in, something that is allowed to happen.

This fishing is taking place just outside the 200-mile limit on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and on the Flemish Cap. It is worth your while to go and see it because while those people are out there fishing, they must be getting something. Those people are not out there fishing and getting nothing. They are obviously catching something. Fish move inside and outside that line. Every fish that is caught by those foreigners are fish that our own people are not catching. When you come ashore and you fly over places like Petty Harbour or some other community and you see our own fishing boats tied up to the wharf while this activity is taking place outside the 200-mile limit, it is disgraceful.

I certainly support the resolution that the Premier brought here today. I have not seen it, but I listened to the Premier as he read that particular resolution. The only thing I have to say to the Government House Leader now is that we should get on with debating this resolution, if it needs to be debated, because I do not think you are going to hear too many dissidents over on this side. I think we should get on with it and send a clear message once again to Ottawa that everybody in this Province is together, everybody in this Province supports a limited fishery, everybody here in this Province disagrees with the decision that the federal minister brought down, and everybody here in this Province supports some kind of a package brought about in order to help fishermen and fish plant workers and in order to help communities.

If the federal minister had come down and if he had - he could not have judged the pulse of the community very well, I say to the Government House Leader. He could not have realized, or judged, or knew, what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were all about. If he had any political smarts about him, when he came down to deliver that fatal blow to us, he would have brought the complete package with him. He would have come down and he would have announced a limited fishery. If there is a problem, which I am not sure there is, but if there was and if he could convince us of that, then he could have announced a limited fishery. He could have brought about an early retirement program. He could have brought about a licence buyout program, and he could have done the most reasonable thing to do at this time of year with the situation that exists off our coasts; he could have announced the extension of the EI.

That is another topic that we could go on about here for a week, talking about fishermen and fish plant workers today who are unable to go out and fish, and if the fishermen do not fish then plant workers do not process. If the federal minister knew the pulse of the people here, and if he had come and made that announcement and brought forward those benefits in order to take people out of that particular industry, then I think we would be more palatable and we would be able to accept it. For them to come and bring about make-work projects, and then talk about the continuation of a sentinel fishery which, by the way, is cut in half, and guess where they have eliminated the sentinel fishery activity from? Again, a place like Bonavista where the fishing industry has always been - well, for the last 500 years - and have a guess why they took it out of there, or what the perception is why they took it out of there. Because they do not want to hear the real scientific information to be brought forward as to the abundance of codfish around this Province, Madam Speaker.

They closed that particular sentinel fishery activity - and I understand that they closed others as well around this Province - and, for the most part, the places that they closed were the places that the people had identified where there was a great congregation of codfish, and where people would congregate during the fishing season in order to catch their quota of, I think it was about 7,000 pound each fisherman had to catch.

Madam Speaker, I will move off the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture for a few minutes and I will talk about Forest Resources and Agrifoods. This is an industry which certainly means a lot to my District of Bonavista South and to other districts as well.

I do not know how many sawmills we had. I just forget. I did know how many sawmills were on the Bonavista Peninsula at one time. I am not sure now of the numbers so I had better not even hazard a guess. We have two major sawmill operations there now. One, unfortunately, has gotten into some trouble, for no reasons of not being a viable operation, but for other reasons of other people trying to do other things with the amount of money that was being made at this particular business.

We have Bloomfield Lumber and Jamestown Lumber, two companies that employ well in excess of 150 people. That is directly at the two mills, not counting the spinoffs from that, when you see people trucking chips, trucking wood and taking the finished product back to the mainland and back to the United States.

Madam Speaker, it is certainly a very viable operation, and still many people earn their living in the forestry industry. While it is not an industry where we see any new licenses issued, an industry where we have had to, kind of, tighten our belts as well and have seen cutbacks year after year in the amount of fiber that is being allowed to be cut and extracted from the forests, it is an industry that provides great benefits.

Madam Speaker, in that particular department, as well, falls the Department of Agrifoods. This is one industry in this Province that has never ever gotten the exposure or the attention that it needs. This is one industry in this Province where we are only touching the surface as to the benefits that it can supply to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, the area that I represent and the area that my MHA, I guess I would say, represents is an agricultural area, one of the best agricultural areas and one of the richest agricultural areas in the Province.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Just a few minutes to clue up, if I could.

MADAM SPEAKER: A few minutes to clue up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Madam Speaker, I understand my time is up and I won't take time from other people. I know I am in the good graces of the Government House Leader now by mentioning his name.

Madam Speaker, we have never ever given agrifoods the attention that it needs. We have always married it in with another department, a much larger department, and it was always an add on: Forestry and Agrifoods; Fisheries and Agrifoods. It was never the Department of Agriculture. I guess that is probably shameful, because this industry is still in it's infancy in this Province, when you see the number of people who are employed and when you see the potential and when you see the amount of land that is suitable for agriculture purposes and you see how hard and how difficult and how expensive it is in order for those farmers to clear land in order to carry out their activities. Whether as root crop farmers or dairy farmers, Madam Speaker, most of them find that they will never ever reach their potential because we don't step up to help them and to give them the leverage needed in order to expand and in order to provide the benefits of employment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the most successful industries in this Province today is the dairy industry, Mr. Speaker. It is an industry that can provide many opportunities. It is an industry now with an allocation of an industrial milk quota. It is certainly going to allow those farmers, who are already there, to be able to increase the size of their farms, buy more, and increase the size of their herd. In order to increase the size of a diary farm and increase the size of the herd then you need more pastureland. The farmers in this Province today that have survived and have managed to get over the bad times and co-exist with some of the problems that they face by mother nature here in this Province, Mr. Speaker, have had to grow their own forage in order to maintain a profitable operation. It is not uncommon today, I say to members in the House, to see people growing corn, which was just recently tried in the Bonavista Bay area - just last year that I know of. It may have been tried on a smaller experiment before but I know last year a couple of dairy farmers got into growing cattle corn and have implemented that now as part of their forage. They have had quite a success with it.

I think government should reach out and provide funding in order for farmers to realize some benefits that they might be able to access more farmland and clear more farmland and grow this industry because there is great potential there. It is great potential and it certainly will provide great opportunities. If we are looking for a natural fit, if we are looking for ways to get people employed, and if we are looking for ways to create economic activity in rural Newfoundland and Labrador then that is one direction we can look in because it is a natural fit for rural areas, especially the area from which I live and which I represent, and I know the Member for Terra Nova as well.

Madam Speaker, I understand my time has gone. I will not abuse the leave that has been promised. So, with that, I thank you very much.

MADAM SPEAKER( M. Hodder): The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is the first opportunity I have had during this sitting to speak in the Chamber, or at least the first time I have taken opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: It is interesting, I suppose, from first observation, that while the Opposition on that side of the House are cheering my return, most of my own members have left. I do not know what the message is in that. I hope they are fixated in front of a television somewhere. I will not waste too much of my twenty minutes worrying about who is watching and who is not watching, either from the floor or outside.

I did have the good fortune during this session of doing something that I had never done before in my ten years in politics, and that was chairing one of the committees of the House to hear estimates. I had spent a lot of time, most of my political career, defending estimates. So it was interesting to sit in the Chair and hear the ministers defend their estimates, and enjoy the questions that were being put by the committee. I do want to say to the members of the committee that I served with that I appreciated their contribution. I appreciated working with them. The Deputy Chair, the hon. Member for Cape St. Francis, was at his best behaviour. On occasion he was almost to the point of brilliant in performance. I would not say that was a constant theme for three weeks. There were flashes. There were moments when he did very, very well and I appreciated his cooperation as Deputy Chair.

Madam Speaker, I am not going to debate the issue that has been - or even speak to the issue -heavily discussed in this Chamber during the last several weeks, the issue of the fishery, for a couple of reasons. Number one, I think all that can be said has been said. Number two, I do not profess to have a high level of knowledge of the fishery. Not that I am disinterested in it, quite the contrary, I am very interested in it. It has always been the backbone of the economy of this Province for 500 years. Anytime that there is a demise in the fishery, or decline in the fishery, or a change in the circumstance of fishermen, it is always a concern for all of us in this House and in this Province. I take their plight at the moment - particularly on the northeast coast and the South Coast of Labrador and on the South Coast of the Province - in certain part, to be a very serious circumstance. I believe, however, Madam Speaker, that we have the equal level of concern for everybody in this Province who finds themselves with threatened employment opportunities, or closure of business opportunities, or a failure or demise of their business opportunities for any circumstance.

I say to the people of the Province and the people of St. John's North - to the extent that they might find themselves in difficulty from time to time with employment - we, as a government, I believe, have the same level of concern for them and will always - we have, at least for the last ten years, always tried to help where we could in any given circumstance.

As far as being a part of government for the past ten years, and I say this sort of in the context of it being clear to the people in my district, the people in the House, the people in the Province mainly, if they are interested at all, in the context that I have announced I will not be running in the next election. I say that I have spent a little bit of time reflecting on what we have been doing, as part of the government, for the past ten years. I think it is only fair that we reflect on what we do as members of this House and as members of government. I think it is only fair and right that we speak about those things, lest those who have been witnesses to them and even lest we, ourselves, sometimes be somewhat forgetful of some of the good things that we have done during our terms of office, whether they be short or long. I have been thinking about some of these circumstances and some of the issues that we have had to deal with.

I remember my first days in - and I would say this, that every time we make a decision in government, every time we are caused to bring forward an initiative, it is not always with universal acceptance. Sometimes it is not fully understood and we have a responsibility, as members of the House, as members of government, to explain why it is we initiate certain actions, why it is we take certain decisions and why we move in certain directions.

I recall first going into the Department of Health - almost ten years ago now, Madam Speaker. The first issue that I was either bold enough, or foolish enough, but, I think, in reflection, sensible enough to be challenged with and to face head on was the issue of trying to bring about what had been discussed in this city for many, many years, and that was the reorganization of the health care facilities in St. John's. It involved the closure of three or four facilities. It was something that was not easy to do. Nobody would want to be part of it as a matter of just doing it, but it was an initiative that we felt, as government at the time, was the right initiative to take in terms of the greater interests of health care in the city, in the region, and in the Province.

So, we brought forward the initiative of closing out some facilities and expanding some other facilities and reducing the number of sites from seven to four. In that context, we took the opportunity to build a brand new children's health centre for the children and for the expectant mothers of this Province. It wasn't, I say, Madam Speaker, an easy decision. It wasn't a particularly pleasant initiative, but we moved forward with it. I think upon reflection, if we look back upon what we have done, there would be very, very few of the people who protested and accosted us as politicians because of the initiative, who today would not say that we probably didn't, in fact, do the right thing. I think we have a better circumstance for the children of the Province with the new Janeway. I think we have a good and better circumstance with expanded services at the Health Sciences Centre and at the site on LeMarchant Road, the current St. Clare's Hospital. I regret that we had to take decisions about closing one site and keeping another open, but I believe they were the right decisions. It was only one of many decisions, I believe, that we have taken in the area of health care.

I think of the initiatives that we have taken in education reform over the last ten years. The initiatives that did not come about easily, and were not always understood in terms of why we were doing some consolidation and reorganization in education. But, upon reflection, I believe it is generally accepted as, with some regret, something that was necessary and had to be done. When we realize that twenty-five years ago we had 164,000 children in our schools in this Province, today we are down to 80,000 children, and hear projections that over the next five or ten years we are going to be at 60,000 children. Obviously, we had to do some things that if we has our druthers we would probably not have pursued. Those types of initiatives, government takes them not because you want to be controversial, not because you want to do things to upset the status quo or change a system just for the sake of change, but because of the long term you do these things in the greater interests of the people of the Province and in this instance, particularly our children.

I recall some of the other initiatives that I have had the good fortune, I say to the people of the Province, in particular to my constituents in St. John's North because they are the ones who have allowed me to have this opportunity. Other initiatives that we have taken throughout government. I think of the comments that have been made in this Chamber, by the Opposition mainly - and I do not mean to be critical of anybody - but there has been a lot of talk off and on in this Chamber about a certain vessel that we purchased to try and enhance the ferry fleet of this Province and how it has not worked out as well as probably we all might have wished it did. I have heard very, very few comments about the opportunity that we took, when I happened to be Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, when we bought a beautiful vessel from the federal government for about $300,000. We spent $2 million on that ferry, and today we probably have the finest first-class ferry service anywhere in North America which serves the people of Fogo and Change Islands with a boat that cost us $2.3 million-$2.4 million in total.

AN HON. MEMBER: The best boat in the Province.

MR. MATTHEWS: The best boat in the Province, the member says, and I agree. That was the type of initiative that we took, that gets very little recognition. The people of the Province who are being served by that good vessel today understand and appreciate what we done, why we done it and the initiative that we took. I guess when you take those types of actions, when you move in those directions sometimes they work out very, very well, as they did in this circumstance. Sometimes they work out less than at the highest level of success that you would like to have. So, as government you take these decisions, you go forward and you do the best you can for the best purposes.

I would say to the people of the Province, and I would direct my comments to the people in the St. John's area, that one of the proudest moments I have had as a member of government over the past ten years has not been something that I have been a part of trying to accomplish during my ten years in government, as being a minister of one of the five departments I have had, but it was during the five or six months that I had the opportunity to be Acting Minister of Education. I am sure that will not even go down as a significant footnote in the annals of history of the Province, that I did act as Acting Minister of Education for a period of time.

There was an issue in this city. There was an issue affecting the children in this city that I felt for many years government were not addressing in a fair and equitable manner. That was the issue of school busing. The children in St. John's were in a different circumstance and treated differently than any other children in the Province with respect to school busing. I say with thanks to my colleagues at the time that I brought that issue forward. It may have had something to do with the fact that I was Minister of Finance at the time and had my hand on the purse strings. It may have had something to do with that, but in any event, Madam Speaker -

MR. HARRIS: You're not going to claim credit for that are you?

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I do not care who claims credit for it. The fact of the matter was, because of the opportunity that I had of being part of government, we were able to bring redress and we were able to bring fairness to the children of St. John's in terms of school busing. To me, if you were to ask the people in my district, or even in my family, or even in the House, what might be the Member for St. John's North proudest moment in government? You might say something else, you might talk about my association with something else. To me, the most satisfying thing that I have been associated with has been the bringing about of fairness and balance to the children in St. John's on the issue of school busing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: It so happens, at the time that we had an Acting Premier who also wanted something in his district. I say that quite openly. We did have a discussion about supporting each other in a certain context. I will not go into what the issue was, but the fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, I say this: There are advantages to the people of the Province to have a member in the House because any member in the House of forty-eight can accomplish good things for their constituents. There is always a bit of an advantage, I would say in fairness, to having a member on the government side of the House. As a result of that, sometimes you can do something that probably you would not get done otherwise. I have had that good fortune, and I do thank the people of St. John's North for that.

It has been a singular pleasure to serve the people of St. John's North for the past ten years. I do not know, I may make another speech in the next seven days that would be my swan song or my concluding address.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) October.

MR. MATTHEWS: I say to the hon. Member for Ferryland, I do not expect to be here in October. I am not sure what his future is, but I have much more certainty about what my future will not be. I won't predict my own future in great detail, but I can tell him that my plans are, with some regret, not to sit in the Legislature beyond this term. I don't say that with any degree of suggesting that it is something that I decided to do for any particular reason other than the right reason. I believe public life, serving the people of the Province in the Legislature as one of forty-eight members, is an honour that, while only one in about 12,000 people in the Province get to do, I believe there are probably 8,000 or 10,000 of that 12,000 who, given the opportunity, could come here and would come here and could provide just as good a service to the people of the Province as any of the forty-eight of us.

We have had the good fortunate, as we go out and get elected, to come in and do our best for the people of the Province. I would say this to the people of the Province: I don't know what you think of us in this Legislature on a day-to-day basis, but my judgement, having been here for about ten years, is that of the forty-eight people who sit in this House all forty-eight come here with the best of intentions and with the highest of motives and with the greatest of credibility and with the singular desire of serving people as best they can.

I commend all members of the House because I believe that is where we are in our minds. We play a bit of politics from time to time. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a political system that we operate in, it is an adversarial system, but it is a system that I believe functions best when we deal with each other on a policy and on a principle basis and we lay aside the issues of personality. Sometimes we even lay aside the issues of politics, but you can't lay those issues of politics aside for too long because you forget that you are a politician. When you forget you are a politician you really forget the essence of democracy and what this whole thing is about.

Being a politician is an honourable profession. Being a politician and a member of the Legislature is a great opportunity, and I would commend the opportunity to anybody out there who so desires to seek election to the House of Assembly, to serve the people of their Province. It is a temporary trusteeship, I say to the people of the Province. It is something that we do at our own risk, if we take ownership or if we assume automatically that we have a right to be here. I don't think that is the case and I don't think any of us are of that mindset. We all recognize that we are here at the will of the people.

Being part of government and being in government and sitting in the House of Assembly is a place where ultimately we will, I think, all of us, be able to look back and reflect upon some accomplishments that have contributed to the greater good of the growth of this Province.

I am happy to have been in other departments of government, departments where we have had an opportunity to pursue, as this government has, singularly, a very, very supportable, a very, very sensible, and a very, very necessary economic development policy; and this government has moved forward with signing off on bold initiatives that I believe will serve the people of this Province for many, many years to come -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and will be a part of the positive lives, not only of our children, but I am at an age where I even reflect on the future of my grandchildren, and I think there are a number of us here, if we are honest, who would say the same thing. We today have a responsibility not only to ourselves to make the right decisions, but we have a responsibility to future generations.

I believe that the economic development policy of this government has been a sound and principled policy that has seen us bring about good development, and I believe that it is necessary for us to do those things so that we can grow our economy.

I recognize that we should be getting more from natural resource projects, the Voisey's Bay deal, the offshore oil. These are all things that must happen and must have happened for the good of this Province, and it is a challenge that we will have, unfortunately, for some time to come, to be able to work with the federal government to bring about a balance, or re-balancing, of how it is we interact and relate to ourselves as provinces versus the central government for the greater good of the whole country.

A dollar spent in this Province to see its infrastructure developed, a dollar left in this Province to see further development, is a dollar that is well spent on behalf of the entire country. I am happy to be a part of the country of Canada. There are adjustments that need to be made. There are changes that need to come about, and at the end of the day, not withstanding our differences, I say, Madam Speaker, we have to find a way to work together to accomplish the greater good on all our behalf.

I commend the current ministers, the ministers who are carrying the heavy timber for significant issues today: the Minister of Fisheries, who is carrying a heavy load with respect to the issue of the cod fishery closure, and all of the ministers. I believe that our concern and our commitment is equally shared throughout the Legislature and throughout the Province, and I believe that our intent at the end of the day is to work together for the greater good.

Madam Speaker, the other things that probably are futuristic for us as a Province: I have talked about education reform, I have talked about the things in health care, and I believe there is more work, quite frankly, if I could offer a little advice to future governments. I think there is still work to be done in those areas. I believe the time has come, in my own simple, humble judgement, and I can express it now a little more clearly, I guess, as a back bencher than I could if I were sitting around the Cabinet table. I think the time has come to probably look at the whole issue of whether or not we need twelve health care boards in this Province. I think there is a case to be made for further consolidation in that area. I am not sure that we need the number of education boards we have in the Province. We are a small Province with population dispersed widely and we need to maximize every dollar of resource that we have in the Treasury, or every natural resource that we can get out hands on to extract some wealth from. I would suggest that these are areas that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I think the members on the other side may be getting hungry. It is getting late, suppertime, because they are waving in fashions that are rather unusual in the House. I don't know if they are waving at themselves, or they are waving at me, or they are waving at fantasies that they are imagining in their head. Brothers, I am not coming over. I have long since made decisions that assure I will not be coming over. Now, I cannot go to you but you can come to us.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: As a matter of fact, I recall a circumstance in Holy Scripture of the rich man and the beggar. One was saying: Come on over. He said: No, I cannot come to you but you can come to us.

That is like it is with you fellows. You can come to us. I am not suggesting that you have all fully made up your minds that you want to come over, but Joey Smallwood, the former Premier of the Province -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - used to say, once in a while: While the light holds out to burn, the vilest sinner may return.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: So there is opportunity yet existent for those who are only seeing a glimmer of light -

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - may have a burst of glorious vision (inaudible).

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sorry, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I assume, Madam Speaker, my time is up. I recall one speaker (inaudible) this side, and the member did not want to sit down. He said: I am not finished. The Chair said: You are finished, Sir, sit down.

I guess that is the circumstance I find myself in, so I may just have to make one more speech, one more appearance, before I depart this great profession of public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am certainly put in very difficult position now, as a junior member following such a well-spoken, well-polished politician as the hon. Member for St. John's North.

MR. MATTHEWS: I will be in to watch you grow (inaudible).

MR. HARDING: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no doubt you will still be here (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: You can come out and campaign for me, too, in the Valleyfield area.

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARDING: Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I am sure I can speak for everyone on this side of the House in saying that the hon. Member for St. John's North really served his people, the people in his district, very well, and also the people in the Province. We certainly wish him all the best in his future endeavours.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to have the opportunity to speak on this Budget Debate. I guess I am like every other member in this House in that I am concerned as to where my tax dollars are being spent. I certainly want to ensure that I try to obtain whatever I can from the Budget for the benefit of the people in Bonavista North.

I would like to compliment the Minister of Fisheries who spoke a few minutes ago. She certainly spoke with compassion and sincerity, but it is very unfortunate that we are stuck in this sad, sorrowful state of a relationship between the main players in the management of the fishery, the federal government and our own provincial government. I believe it is the people of the Province who are suffering because of that relationship.

The minister made reference to the loss of EI income for people in the Province, and people in my district are certainly affected by that. While it is very important, and I do not want to undermine this, the fact that it is important to try to get the Gulf fishery reopened, it is also very important that we should concentrate also on immediate short-term relief for other people affected and to try to establish a long-term retirement and licence buyout program for all of the people involved.

The minister also made reference to joint management. Whether we talk joint management with Ottawa or singularly as a Province, or singularly as it is now, federally, something that is even more important than the management of that fishery is the enforcement. That is something that we are really lacking now.

Madam Speaker, the fishery is everything to the people of Bonavista North. It always has been, it is today, and hopefully it always will be. One of the important things connected with our fishery, not only fishery but other resource industries in the Province, is a good road system. I have said before, and I say it again, that with the absence of a federal-provincial roads agreement we are in deep, deep trouble with respect to transportation and the resource industries in this Province.

In my district, Madam Speaker, with the exception of a couple of communities, roads are a major, major problem. Most of the roads were upgraded and paved back in the 1970s and 1980s, and I would like to pay tribute to the only other PC member in the District of Bonavista North, Mr. George Cross, for all the millions of dollars that went into the District of Bonavista North in road upgrading and paving during his two terms as a member. I would also like to compliment Sam Windsor, PC member for Fogo District, in the lower end of my district now of Bonavista North, for the road work that he had done while he was a member during the Moores and Peckford Administrations.

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to say that since that time practically nothing, or very little, has been done with respect to roads in Bonavista North. I could use, probably, almost every road in the district as a top priority, whether it is the road in Noggin Cove, Frederickton, Davidsville, Main Point, Gander Bay, or the main highway to Gander, which I hope the Member for Gander will support us in trying to get funding to have it upgraded and paved this year. Whether it is the roads in New-Wes-Valley area, these roads are completely deteriorated and gone to the point where they are hardly passable. The roads to Aspen Cove, Ladle Cove, Musgrave Harbour and Deadman's Bay, practically every community in the district, the roads are in serious, serious condition. Also, the main road, Route 320 from Gambo to the Trans-Canada, this is a road where hundreds and hundreds of tractor-trailers travel over continuously. Tractor-trailers taking fish and fish products to and from the plant in Valleyfield. Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to do whatever he can this year to put as much money as possible into the upgrading and paving of the roads in question.

Mr. Speaker, we need as much money from our natural resources as we possibly can get. We need that money to provide the best possible social program that we can have in this Province. Lack of sufficient funds from our resource programs is detrimental to many of our social problems. One of the great social needs in my district right now, and also throughout the Province, is home support services. It has become one of the fastest growing and most challenging demands for the people in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, today I have been asked by the mother of a cerebral palsy child to speak on her behalf. Let me tell you about a case in Gander Bay North, Victoria Cove, a twenty-year-old young lady with cerebral palsy who is currently receiving only twelve hours daily of home care support. She is living in her own home built by her mother and her mother's husband. This is what she wanted to be, independently on her own. Her mother has health problems herself and the mother's husband is working away from home for most of the week. They also have a three-and-a-half-year-old son and a ten-year-old daughter. The mother has been trying to get twenty-four hour home care for her daughter. Despite dozens of letters to the department, to the minister and to the Premier, they will not grant the request for twenty-four hour home care for this particular person.

This young lady is also trying to attend school. In fact, she is doing a Grade 11 modified program and is doing very well. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what her teacher said in a letter a short time ago: Over the course of the past six years I have noted a severe deterioration in Jill's ability, as documented in numerous reports sent both to home and the Children's Rehab Centre. Jill cannot carry out any skills related to personal hygiene. Jill's severe disability does not allow her to support her own weight. Jill requires constant supervision while she is eating. The child's mother also has serious health problems.

Mr. Speaker, Jill deserves the right to live safely and with dignity. During the by-election last summer the former member promised that he would obtain twenty-four hour service, but it was not done. The point I want to make is that we should try to obtain as much funding as we can from our natural resources in order to provide the social services that we so drastically need in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to commend now with respect to tourism and tourism in my district. In May of 2001, the government, the Premier, the former Premier, and former member, the Minister of Tourism, the Minister of Finance, all came to Newtown to attend an announcement of $2.6 million for a golf course in Wind Mill Bight. In conjunction with that announcement, there was also a surprise announcement of $120,000 for the Barbour Heritage Site to provide core staffing for that facility. Mr. Speaker, there was nothing received in the year 2001; $50,000 received last year, and the people who run the Barbour Heritage Site are still looking for the extra $70,000 that was promised back in 2001.

Mr. Speaker, when I mention the Barbour Site, I am talking an employer who employed sixty people last year, an employer who attracted 22,000 visitors to Bonavista North last year, and an employer who won the Newfoundland and Labrador Cultural Tourism Award for Excellence in the tourism industry.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make reference to tourism and the Department of Tourism with something that happened this season with respect to the tourism guide and the official road map for our Province. Mr. Speaker, with no consultation the names of the towns of Badger's Quay, Valleyfield, Pool's Island, Brookfield, Wesleyville, Pound Cove, Templeman and Newtown were all deleted from the tourism guide and the official road map for this Province, for this year, 2003. These names were replaced with the new amalgamated town name of New-Wes-Valley.

Mr. Speaker, that may not mean much to a bureaucrat sitting here in St. John's or it may not mean that much to a minister who has always lived in St. John's or Mount Pearl, but I can tell you that it certainly means something to the Winsors and the Sainsburys who owned and occupied businesses all their lives in the town that they have always know as Wesleyville.

It certainly means something to Janet Davis, Mr. Speaker, a young businesswoman who started an art studio this year in the town of what was Brookfield. Ms Davis started this art studio in an old shop that was formerly owned and operated by the Kean family, the famous sealing captain Abram Kean and his family. Mr. Speaker, Janet spent thousands of dollars last year in printing publicity materials for that new business, and all of this printed material contained that it was located in the community of Brookfield as it was traditionally known.

Mr. Speaker, who is going to replace that money for the loss of business now that Janet Davis is going to incur because of the error made by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation? Who is going to help the other businesses in that area: Blue Mist Motel that has always been listed as being in the Town of Badger's Quay, or the Winsor Heritage House in Wesleyville? Mr. Speaker, a lot of businesses in that area are now caught up with this problem and I hope that the minister will take steps to have it corrected.

I would like to point to a letter written by one Mr. Wayne Davis of Newtown in reference to this problem. Mr. Davis starts off his letter with: wiped off the map. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what has been done in this case, wiped off the map. In addition to the loss of business, he says, this action by government has, in essence, wiped out hundreds of years of history and culture.

Also in relation to this, I brought this matter up on the Open Line show a couple of weeks ago, and who should hear it but Mr. David Blackwood, that well-known artist and native son of Wesleyville. Mr. Blackwood wrote me back only a few days ago and wanted to applaud the efforts that I have been making to try to get the name of Wesleyville and the other communities reinstated on the map of Newfoundland and Labrador. In his closing off, in David Blackwood's letter, he said: A country that denies its past has no future.

Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with what is called an education budget, I would like to make reference to a couple of observations with respect to education. I would like to ask the question: Is there anything in this Budget that will make the cost of education fairer and more equitable for post-secondary students from rural Newfoundland and Labrador as opposed to those from St. John's and the urban areas?

The cost of a student attending Memorial University from Deadman's Bay, or Carmanville or Centreville is practically twice the cost of that of a resident who lives in St. John's. I would like to ask what is being done for that student to enable them to leave Memorial University, after four years or five years or whatever, with the same debt load as someone from the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I taught school thirty-five years ago and I dealt with three grades then in the one classroom. Only last week, in talking to three principals from the schools in my district, I was told that, with the reallocation of teachers, they are now going to have to go back to double up grades in the one classroom. I do not know. I am sure that is not progress, Mr. Speaker, in terms of education.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that in order for our resources to be developed to the full potential we need immediate attention given to a federal-provincial roads agreement. We need immediate attention to a federal-provincial tourism agreement. We need immediate attention to a federal-provincial rural development agreement, and many others.

It is apparent, Mr. Speaker, that given the total breakdown of any current meaningful relationship with Ottawa, this government, for the remainder of its term, must regroup, must swallow its pride, bow down and go back to the same degree of constructive, meaningful negotiations that are required with our federal counterparts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few minutes in this Concurrence debate on the Resource Committee report to talk about some issues that are of pretty vital importance to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I listened with interest to previous speakers, including the Member for St. John's North, who has had the experience of being in this House, I guess, since 1989, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Since 1993. He has been here for ten full years. I should have remembered that because I would have been here before him. I am hoping that I will be here after he is gone, not that I wish to see him go, unless he is going to be defeated, to run and be defeated by a New Democrat in his district.

Mr. Speaker, the former minister said a few things that I think are of great importance to the people of this Province. Number one, I certainly have to agree with him, that the profession of a politician is a noble profession. It is a worthy profession, something that I would encourage. I want to encourage anybody who believes they have something to contribute, to offer themselves as a candidate, to come and serve the people of the Province in the capacity as a representative in the House of Assembly, or in the House of Parliament, or in municipal councils, as many people do. I have had the honour of being in this House myself, through the grace of my constituents, since 1990, and I certainly appreciate the honour and privilege that I have.

The minister has also had the experience of being on that side of the House for all of his tenure, of seeing things from a government perspective and being in Cabinet and being in a position to make decisions - in fact, some pretty important decisions - about our future and about agreements on issues such as resources that we are talking about now.

I do want to say, Mr. Speaker, along with the minister, that we have a long way to go, but I want to say this: When we look at our resources of this Province - and the fishery, of course, is the one that is in the forefront of our consciousness at the moment because of what we have seen with the Northern cod and the Gulf stocks being in a second round moratorium - we have to look from one resource to another. I have to say, if we look at whether the resource be the fishery, whether it be the forests which are being depleted and not properly regenerated, when we see what has happened to Churchill Falls, when we see the kind of mineral tax legislation that we have, giving special deals to the Iron Ore Company of Canada, for example, when we see the special tax arrangements for Voisey's Bay, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, when I look from one resource to the next to the next, it is very hard not to despair when we see what we have done as stewards of these resources, whether they be water power, whether they be minerals under the ground, whether it be the trees that grow, the renewable resource that should be providing prosperity for an eternity, we have not been - and when I say we I mean we in this Province, and I also have to obviously place some of the burden elsewhere as well, either with the Government of Canada certainly, to a major portion, with respect to the fisheries - we have not been very good stewards of our resources and neither have we been very good persons looking out for our own self-interests.

Government after government have entered into arrangements or given concessions or made arrangement that have ended up being detrimental to the people of this Province, whether it be from the fiscal point of view, when we look at Churchill Falls, for example, where the revenue and the benefit is going and went to the private developers, to the Rothschilds and BRINCO, who developed the enterprise, and to Hydro-Quebec who are, as we all know, getting the lion's share of that resource. When we look at the Voisey's Bay deal that we debated last fall and we see the Government of Canada being the beneficiaries of this agreement or proposal and the project to a tune of ten to one over this Province, where this Province will get projected numbers based on information supplied by Inco: $411 million over the life of the project; to the federal government, $4.9 billion. That is an astounding figure.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Education, the former Minister of Fisheries, is well aware of what has happened in the fishery throughout the last fifty years and in the last two weeks when we see what is happening to our fisheries. How has that been managed by governments in this Province and in Canada as well?

We in this Province - when I say we, I am actually saying them - this government and previous governments went out of their way to ensure that whenever they could grant a processing licence to any community they would do so with good intentions, but to the detriment of the economy of the Province and to the detriment of the fishery itself because we did not properly build our communities and properly build on the resource that we have. Now our fishing communities, the fishermen themselves, the plant workers, the truck drivers, the storekeepers, everybody who depends on that resource in rural Newfoundland are now in extreme circumstances because of a decision made by the Minister of Fisheries.

I think, Mr. Speaker, after fifty years we might be starting to wake up. It is no good for us to have joint management or control over the fishery if we are not going to do a better job on the fisheries than we have done on our forestry industry, which we do have control over; than we have done on the mining industry, which we do have control over; than we have done on the water power that we do have control over. We have to do a better job. We have to recognize that these are resources that are limited, that we have an obligation to be stewards of those resources. We have to do a better job of making sure that the benefits from these projects, the benefit from these resources, go to our people.

Just a couple of weeks ago I issued a release talking about the benefits and the money being made from oil produced at the Terra Nova project. That is one of the two projects that are now operating. It only gives you some idea, because we do not always get these figures in a manner that we can use them. But, Husky Oil, and I have to thank them for it, issued a press release a couple of weeks ago in which they were talking, not about Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, they were talking about their own finances and their own first three months performance; the first quarter performance.

In the course of their release they indicated that they made a certain amount of money from the offshore of Newfoundland through the Terra Nova project, and they have a 12.5 per cent share. They disclosed some figures that are very useful in figuring out what is happening in our offshore. They told us, for example, that the average per day production from Terra Nova was 157,000 barrels a day for the first quarter of the year 2003, up until March 31. They told us that the average price of Terra Nova crude received during that period was in the range of $46.50. They told us that the operating cost, the production cost, was $335 per barrel. They told us that the resource royalty received by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador during that period was forty-six cents a barrel.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I worked out the numbers, and what that revealed on that one project - this is not Hibernia, which is much bigger. Out of Terra Nova, the second project from January 1 of this year to March 31 of this year, 14.1 million barrels of oil were produced. They were worth $671 million in just three months, coming out of one project in Terra Nova. The operating cost at $3.35 a barrel was $47 million production cost, and the royalties, that left about $618 million. I might have the figures wrong. My math is off. Of the $671 million worth of oil that was produced, Newfoundland and Labrador government got $6.5 million in royalties. Less than 1 per cent. The oil companies, not just Husky - Husky only had 12.5 per cent, because the partners include Petro Canada; they include Exxon Mobil; they include Murphy Oil. They include two or three others that have a small percentage. But all those partners collectively took home $618 million after production costs and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador took $6.5 million. It gets even worse, of course, because of that $6.5 million, $2.2 million went to Ottawa as a 30 per cent equalization clawback. So another $2 million went to Ottawa - not $2.2 million, $2 million - leaving us with $4.5 million.

Mr. Speaker, if that was not all true and verifiable and guaranteed to be true, it would be a joke. I think it is a joke. If it were not so true and so important to the people of this Province, it would be a laughing matter. That the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: look at what they are getting, they must be fools. In that sense, Mr. Speaker, I think we are fools. I think we are being taken advantage of. No sensible jurisdiction would have that kind of regime on a resource like oil; no sensible jurisdiction. Would the people of Alberta stand for that, Mr. Speaker, taking less than forty-six cents a barrel on $46 dollar (inaudible)? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. Would the people of Norway stand for that? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. They get between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of the economic rent which a the value of the oil production in their country. What are we getting in this Province? We are getting a pittance. A mere pittance.

So, yes, I say to the former minister, the Member for St. John's North, who is the former Minister of Mines and Energy and the former Minister of Finance, we have a long way to go. We have not only a long way to go, we have to undo the damage that has been done. If we are going to have any self-respect as a people in this country we have to change these things. If we are going to be able to look in the mirror and say we are a people worthy of respect, worthy of self-respect, we have to change that. That has to change. That has to change just as surely as the regime of the fisheries has to change in this Province. That has to change just as surely as we have to change the amount we are getting for our water power in Labrador has to change. It has to change, Mr. Speaker, not just by making constitutional changes, not just by making a better deal on equalization with Ottawa. That is not the sole source of the problem. These things have to change, yes, but we have to have changes that give us and guarantee us a return on our resources so that we are getting the benefit; not oil companies, not mining companies, not pulp and paper companies. Yes, they are entitled to a share, a reasonable return on their investment. Absolutely! No question about it. We have a mixed economy. We support that, as the New Democratic Party, but we should not be in the situation that we are in right now where we are, in fact, the fools who are facilitating the exploitation of our resources, and I use that. It is not by accident that the word exploitation of resources is used because that is what is going on. Our resources are being exploited and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are being exploited and this government and previous governments have let it happen and that has to stop.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to concur in the report of the Resource Committee?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, before adjourning the House or making a motion for adjournment, I give notice that on tomorrow, Monday, the next parliamentary day, that I will move a motion that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their great participation this afternoon and wish them a great weekend. I move that the House on its rising do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.