March 28, 2001 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 8


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The Chair would like to make a ruling on the point of privilege that was raised on March 20. The Leader of the Opposition rose on a point of privilege respecting two instances of what he alleges was a deliberate attempt by the hon. the Premier to deny answers to him. The hon. Leader of the Opposition stated that the Premier had contradicted an answer given in the House in an interview outside the House on two different issues.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition is basing his point of privilege on what he believes to be inconsistency between statements made inside and outside the House. However the authorities are clear that these circumstances do not fulfill the requirements of a breach of privilege §31.(3) of Beauchesne's 6th Edition states, "Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege."

It was ruled in the House of Commons by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in a case on all fours with the one we are dealing with, namely a claim that a member had made inconsistent statements inside and outside the House. Speaker Lamoureux ruled that, "statements made outside the House or documents published elsewhere, ought not to be used for the purpose of questioning statements made in the Chamber...A dispute arising between two members as to allegation of fact does not fulfill the condition of parliamentary privilege." That is in the Debates, November 16, 1971.

It is also the case that one must accept the word of a member in matters within his own knowledge. Beauchesne's 6th Edition §494 states, "It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted. It is not unparliamentary temperately to criticize statements made by Members as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident."

It is in the opinion of the Chair that for the above reasons the hon. Leader of the Opposition has not established a prima facie case of a breach of privilege.

Statements by Members

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

MR. MERCER: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

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

Since 1986, the Pasadena Lions' Club has hosted the Pasadena Lions' Snowarama, a snowmobile excursion to raise funds on behalf of the Newfoundland Society for the Physically Disabled.

Mr. Speaker, each and every year this event garners more and more recognition by both the public and by members of the media. This year, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Lloyd Belbin, the Pasadena Lions' Snowarama raised in excess of $12,000 for this worthwhile cause, a 25 per cent increase over last year. This brings the total amount raised by this event since its inception to more than $200,000. I am pleased to report that this group has already begun planning to ensure next year's event is bigger and better than ever.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today to speak on behalf of a group of individuals from Conche. I mentioned them here yesterday, some members would remember. The Conche High School Girls Broomball Team, at 10:00 this morning, took to the ice in Ontario to take part in their first game in the Canadian Broomball Championships.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I guess it goes without saying that it is no small feat for a small community of Conche, with 250 people approximately. Sacred Heart All Grade School is the school that these people attend. To find a team capable of winning the provincial championships just about a month ago in Stephenville, and to go to the Canadian Championships today and participate over the next couple of days on behalf of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, is no small feat for a school of sixty-nine students, K-12. As a matter of fact, they only managed to get fourteen students from their school and they had to pick up two students from Harriot Curtis Collegiate in St. Anthony, two students from Goose Cove.

I hope all members would wish the Conche High School Girls Broomball Team all the best in their endeavors in Ontario over the next couple of days.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to advise members of a business success story in my district. Quality Bait Services of Canada Inc., at the Point of Beach in Harbour Grace, is finding a way to take waste material and turn it into a bait product that is needed for the ever-growing shellfish industry. The new product has made the company expand in the area. Steel from an abandoned nearby fish plant is being shaped into an 8,000 square foot expansion, which will allow the firm to consolidate its bait and bait bag manufacturing operations under one roof.

With $25,000 in assistance through the former Department of Development and Rural Renewal's business and market development program, it is developing its own marketing program. This operation employed seventeen people last year and is expected to employ twenty- four people this upcoming year.

Mr. Speaker, this bait operation is an example of the continued importance of the fishing industry in our rural areas. I wish Quality Bait Services continued success in their ever-growing operation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting and bizarre week in politics. On one hand we have a Premier who says he has a mandate to continue to govern for two years at least; and, on the other, on every major policy initiative in front, he has radically departed from decisions that he himself was part of a Cabinet that made. He claims he has a mandate to govern for the next two years or so because he is committed, he says, to faithfully stick to the policies and record that the Liberals took to the electorate in 1999.

In recent weeks he has taken new positions on Voisey's Bay, Fishery Products International and water exports, that not only depart from stated government policy but from the exact opposite - the exact opposite - of what government policy was.

I would like to ask the Premier: How could the Premier have campaigned for policies in the 1999 general election that he obviously did not believe in? How could he have served as a key minister in a government he did not believe in, and whose policies and records today show he held utter contempt for? Did his colleagues know, when they elected him as leader and Premier, that they really had a viper in their midst?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The general policy of the Liberals that ran in 1999 and earlier, even in 1996, was clearly to do anything and everything that is in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to move the Province forward both in terms of economic development and social development, and with a number of issues that come forward, we will certainly attempt and try to do that every single chance we get.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Voisey's Bay, Fishery Products, water exports are not matters of minor interests to the people of the Province, I say to you, Premier. They were vigorously debated.

Before and during the 1999 election, the people of the Province have expressed their will clearly on them, and as a result the former Premier and every person including you in that Cabinet took positions on those issues. What right, I ask you, today do you have to govern when you so blatantly rejected the record of the Liberal government, the mandate you sought and received in 1999, and the expressed will of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Of the three items that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, the one that was referenced in our platform in 1999 was Voisey's Bay, on which we have already had the debate; and there is no change in the government's position. None whatsoever.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, they can laugh at that if they like because maybe they don't understand that when, in fact, a government commits to try and get full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1996, and commits to try and get full processing in 1999 in Newfoundland and Labrador, and commits to try to get full processing in Newfoundland and Labrador in 2001, they can describe that as change if they want but they can't make it a change because it is not. Just because they say so, it is not. The government's position has not changed, and we will proceed to try to get a mandate and to try to get an actual project with respect to Voisey's Bay.

With respect to FPI, not in 1999 during the election, but after that, there was an attempt by the NEOS group -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER GRIMES: It was not an issue during the election in 1999, Mr. Speaker, and neither was the export of water from Gisborne Lake in the Liberal Red Book an issue in 1999. There was one issue that was in the Liberal Red Book of what he referenced in 1999, Voisey's Bay, and on that there has been no change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Here, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, he can say black when it is really white; he can say blue when it is really red; he can accuse us of trying to twist words and make it so, but let me ask him this, is he aware of what the former minister in Question Period on May 13, when my hon. colleague from St. John's South asked the question to the minister about water export. Here was what the current minister said: Mr. Speaker, we are not interested in the bulk export of water that have secondary processing done elsewhere. Why have you changed so radically the position, not only of your government and of the former Premier, but taken a position that you promised to the people of the Province that you would not take, Mr. Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know why the Opposition would not want to have a full debate with respect to the export of water from Newfoundland and Labrador. The debate will occur in this Legislature because if the government of day, if this government is to allow for the bulk export of water from Newfoundland and Labrador, after fully re-examining the issue again, it can only occur if we change a piece of legislation that has already been voted on in this Legislature. So there will be an opportunity to have a full informed debate in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the very fact that almost on a weekly basis when this Legislature is open, we debate pieces of legislation because we are amending, altering or changing pieces of law that have been in place for years or months or weeks. The fact that something was right in 1985, or 1991 or 1996 does not mean that it is absolutely right in 2001. We are quite willing to have the information gathered, the information collected, full disclosure of all the information because we are interested in developments that benefit Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we will go through that debate fully, freely, openly with full information if it can be demonstrated that it is something in the best interest of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the information is here. Every statement made inside and outside this House - including by you, as the former Minister of Mines and Energy, on bulk export, by every member, by every former minister - is here.

Now, the question that you failed to answer, that you will not answer is: Why have you taken a position completely contrary to the position that the former Premier has taken? Based upon that, how can you stand before the people of the Province and say: Well, I have a mandate? The only mandate that you have, sir, is for 638 Liberal delegates.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Go to the people of the Province if you want to take radical shifts in public policy that will hold them forever and a day and commit our children forever and a day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know that the puppet leader of the Opposition is under instruction from the leader, the king in waiting, to ask for an election every single chance he gets, but guess what? A couple of years' time, whoever is standing in that place, whether it is still him or somebody else, will still be asking for an election. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you this, we will deal with the issues that are in the best interests of the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have taken - and this is where the Opposition always misses a little bit of the truth - no position with respect to a change in the policy that currently in Newfoundland and Labrador bans the bulk export of water. We have brought no new piece of legislation to this Legislature. It has not been discussed in any detail in our caucus or in our Cabinet. We are gathering information and I have indicated, as the Leader of the government, that we are willing to get the information, we are willing to provide all of it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and have a fully informed debate in 2001 about the benefits, if they can be shown to be so, of exporting fresh water from Newfoundland and Labrador, probably and possibly even in bulk form to generate revenues that can be used in the Province for things like free tuition for post-secondary students. Also, Mr. Speaker, we will gladly gather the information -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - and if we come to a conclusion and have a public dialogue that suggests that it is the right thing to do, we will bring it before this Legislature and have it fully debated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it must have been a interesting caucus meeting in the government this morning, because one day the Premier says this, the next day he says that. He goes to government caucus and comes out whipped by his own members saying: Now, you have to go a little softer, Roger. You have gone too far that way, Roger.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: On FPI he has taken a completely different position than the former Premier. The former Premier stood in this House and said: there will be no change to the structure of FPI unless the communities in which they operate in say so and approve of it. The question I ask you, Premier is: Why on Monday, did you say they are only replacing one group of Newfoundlanders with another? Why on Tuesday did you say that I did not feel the need to ask any questions because I was not interested? Why did you say yesterday, as Premier: boy, I do not want to say anything because I am afraid I am going to be sued? When will you stand up and articulate and make a commitment to the people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to FPI that their communities and that their plants will not be thrown out the window for the sake, and only the sake of shareholder dividends and profits?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition can try as he like to misrepresent my words, and good luck in doing that. I know exactly what we are saying. The facts of the matter are these: we did not say anything differently and I have not said anything differently yesterday and today with respect to bulk water. What I said yesterday is that we are willing to have a full debate in the Province about the issue. That is exactly what we said. It was the same yesterday and the same today.

With respect to FPI and the issue that is on the public agenda in the Province today, the only interest and concern of this government is protecting rural Newfoundland, the communities and making sure that the fishery -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - is dealt with in that fashion. I would not, Mr. Speaker, try to mislead the people of the Province to suggest -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: - because the person who wrote the piece of legislation happens to be sitting a couple of seats down. He knows that there is nothing in that legislation that enables the government to intervene and prohibit anybody from being put forward at a shareholder's meeting as the possible chair of the board and as a member of the Board of Directors. He knows that because he wrote the legislation. That was the question that was asked in this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: What are you going to do about the fact that the shareholders might vote in a new chair?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Nothing, Mr. Speaker, because there is nothing we can do about that issue but our concern is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Our only concern is what is going to happen in the best interests of the rural communities of Newfoundland and Labrador where these plants operate; and that is what we will deal with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The only thing I can say is: Thank God, the Member for Lewisporte put in place that legislation because it would be gone out the window today if he did not!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, do you notice the difference? Yesterday: Frankly, I am not interested enough to talk about it. Today he said: There goes an issue that is important to rural Newfoundland. I think I will talk about it today. That is what the Premier is saying.

Let me ask him this question. In terms of the reference or request given by your department or your office through Executive Council to the Minister of Justice, could you table the letter or the request that you made of the Minister of Justice to seek a legal opinion on this? While you are tabling that, could you also table the time frame that you have given him to give government an opinion, which you said, on this very important issue? Would you be interested enough at least doing that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand the nature of the line of questioning and so on and the very tone from the Leader of the Opposition. He is under instruction to do that from the real leader, who controls the strings from elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I might add that maybe he should have a chat with the real leader who will be crowned in a little while and get him to learn something about how a corporation like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro operates because he was suggesting in Corner Brook last night that the government, that the elected government had something to do with layoffs of personnel in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro when in fact, anyone who knows the Hydro Act and the Electrical Power Control Act knows that the elected politicians in Newfoundland and Labrador - and it does not matter which one stands in his place - do not have the ability to have any decisions taken on a day-to-day basis about operations of a corporation like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. So you need to educate some people who are hoping to be where you are.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to legal opinions. He happens to have the advantage of having the author of the legislation itself, who also happens now to be a lawyer admitted to the Bar in Newfoundland and Labrador sitting two seats to the right. Now, if he is suggesting that there is some power in the hands of the government, in the hands of the Premier to stop a shareholder's meeting from voting on who the Board of Director is - why doesn't he ask? Never mind what legal opinion we are going to get. Ask the author of the legislation, who is a lawyer himself, and let him tell you point blank that there is no authority because the Premier of the day, Premier Peckford, when addressing said: there are only two protections in this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: Two protections, Mr. Speaker, one: A majority of the membership of the board have to reside in the Province and there is a 15 per cent restriction on owning the shares. There are no other protections, no other limitations. Ask the expert who wrote it, right next to you!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Premier, let me ask you: You are not, in all seriousness - you do not expect the people of this Province and those in the gallery today to believe that you can take $75 million from Hydro but you cannot direct them on not laying off ten people? Come on! Are you serious? You have the ability to do that but you don't have the ability to protect ten jobs!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Secondly, do you in all seriousness believe, yesterday in this House, expect the people on this side of the House, the people in the gallery and the people in the Province to believe that when that group came before you, you said: well, frankly, I was not interested enough to have a question. That you did not have the power, the power of government, the power of this Legislature to say to them: Beware, we will do whatever is in our power to protect rural Newfoundland and Labrador! The question is: Why did you not do it Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He need not get excited or exercised or worked up. The fact of the matter is this, it shows the desperation with respect to the Opposition in terms of being willing - and this is sad, Mr. Speaker, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, because we now have the Leader of the Opposition who, if he checked at all and read - he has two lawyers in his caucus over there - the legislation governing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its operations, he would read it and find out that in this Legislature - and they voted to support it by the way because the changes were made in the mid-1990s - that it was done to run Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a commercial operation with one mandate only: run the utility to guarantee that you get the lowest possible rates of electrical power for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because it is a public utility, with a board of directors, it takes no direction from the politicians.

He also knows, it is quite clear at any time, that a government on a completely non-related issue has nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of a company to say: if you have $50 million we would like for you to give it to the government instead of holding it in your own account. It has nothing to do with a decision about whether you run a maintenance plant in a community or not. Those decisions are totally in the hands of the boards. He knows the difference, but for political reasons they are willing to stand up and tell an absolute false, and give an absolute false impression as to the ability of the politicians to run the utility in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I do know a couple of things and this one I do know. Yes, we have two lawyers in the Opposition right now and in a very short order we will have number three, I say to the Premier of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask you this. Final question. In the interest of transparency and accountability, yesterday in this House - if you look at Hansard - this Premier tried to suggest that one of the individuals involved in the NEOS takeover supported this party financially. He opened the door. I asked him yesterday, he wouldn't stand and answer the question. Let me ask him again today: In view of the fact that you have opened that door, when will you, as Premier, table the list of contributors and how much they contributed to your leadership campaign so that everybody can see? Since you have talked about transparency and accountability, when can we all have a look at that, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER GRIMES: He is asking a question about a Liberal Party function, not a government function, a Liberal Party function in which the Board of Directors and the Executive of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador set the rules about expenditure limits and disclosure. I abided by every single rule that was put in place by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors and the Executive of the Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador also make their rules about how they run leadership campaigns, and quite frankly, that is something else that I have no interest in whatsoever. It does not matter to me how the Progressive Conservative Party decides to conduct its business and, quite frankly, it is only of interest to the members of the Liberal Party how we conduct our party business. They decided not to ask for disclosure. We abided by the rules and I am proud to have abided by the rules, and that's exactly where it will be left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Premier of the Province. Premier, I asked the former Premier, Brian Tobin, if the legislation that was being introduced was short-term to alleviate public pressure or if it was a long-term indefinite ban. His response was that the Province is introducing an unqualified ban on the export of water from this Province, and their position was quite firm. I ask the minister: Why is there a need now to go out and do research? You agreed with the ban at the time. It was firm, unqualified. Why the change now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

A passage of time, very interesting.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Minister, the former Premier said at the time the legislation was introduced that the export of bulk water from Newfoundland and Labrador is dead. It is off the table completely. It simply won't happen. I am asking you right now, minister, what is your position on the ban of bulk water export from this Province? Do you still agree with the stand government had taken at that time, or have you, too, changed your mind?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the tactic because I have used it myself before. Imitation, actually, is one of the greater forms of flattery. I do appreciate being imitated in the Legislature with that particular tactic.

The fact of the matter is this: The law in Newfoundland and Labrador today bans the bulk export of water. It was passed in this Legislature. We all know that. Just about every one of us was here. All I have said, as leader of this government, is that we will have the issue examined again. If we are going to change it, it will come back here to be changed, and then we will ask everybody, including the members opposite, whether or not they support the information for a change, because it cannot be done without an act of this Legislature, and there will be full time to debate it after we have had all the information gathered again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Here, hear!

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

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

I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, because you were the Minister of Environment at the time the Premier made this announcement that the legislation was passed in this Legislature, and you supported the legislation - you were very firm on the legislation, as was the Premier; an unqualified ban, quite firm - I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs: Have you, too, changed your mind on this legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obviously just a tactic they are trying, and it does not really warrant any particular response. We will study the issue, and if we are going to change it then we will bring it here for debate.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Now that the Premier has managed to outrage all the students of this Province in his comments about his support for the export of water, because he said he supported it, in the upcoming debate, and outraged people across this country, not only this Province, who are concerned about this.

Can I ask the Premier whether or not, when he met with the Prime Minister two weeks ago, did he discuss with him the fact that he was intending to break the National Accord and the agreement of all the provinces with the federal government on a national strategy to ban the export of bulk water? Did he ask the Prime Minister about that? Did he get a response? Can he tell us about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the students of Newfoundland and Labrador are outraged to understand that one of the aims and goals and objectives of this government is to provide free tuition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

That is the issue that we have raised: that we are interested in moving towards an objective of free tuition in Newfoundland and Labrador. We need revenue to do it. One possible source which we are having examined, and that is what I have said in the public, is whether or not we can generate revenues that we can keep from the export of water to pay for something like free tuition. That is what I have said, Mr. Speaker. They can try to represent it as something else if they like.

When I returned from Ottawa a week or so ago, I read a statement in this House and I listed out in that statement the items that were discussed with the Prime Minister. The export of water was not on that list.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I guess he did not see the press release where the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students expresses the fact that their members are extremely insulted that the Premier would assume that students would stand in support of mass natural resource sell-off so their goal of free tuition might be realized.

The Government of Canada and the other provinces of Canada are also involved in this issue. Why did the Premier not indicate to the Prime Minister of this country, to the federal leader of his party, that he intended to disturb the National Accord and the understanding across this country that bulk water export was going to be banned and that this Province was not going to jump off the Accord that has been reached by his predecessor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the member opposite wants to defend the Canadian interest, wants to defend the interest in the Province of Ontario, wants to defend the interest in the Province of British Columbia, feel free to do so. We have only one interest: what is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador, and if it means being offside with the Government of Canada, so be it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: If it means being offside with other provincial jurisdictions because they have concerns over the Great Lakes like Ontario, so be it.

We cannot - and I said this yesterday as well, in case someone would suggest that I have changed my view today - do something that is illegal, that just cannot be done. Anything that can be done, including removing ourselves from a National Accord - because we signed a National Accord with a Government of Canada suggesting that a federal piece of legislation was imminent, was to be tabled and passed within a matter of weeks. It is not passed yet. We are having the issue examined in its entirety. If we can do something that is in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador, we will do it, even if the Government of Canada and some other provincial jurisdictions think it is not in their best interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Yesterday, in Ontario, we saw residents suing Inco alleging contamination. We have recently seen, in that same province, similar action being taken by residents of Walkerton. In both cases, these actions were grounded on what is know as class-action legislation. There are some five provinces in this country, I say to the minister, whereby the citizens are protected and secured by virtue of class-action legislation.

I would ask the minister, could he bring the people of the Province up to date and let us know the status of initiating such legislation in our Province to ensure that the interests of our people are protected?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, like most of the responses here today, we are in no position to suggest where we will go. We believe in studying a matter fully before we take a course of action so that everyone is informed as to where you might be headed.

I can inform the member opposite, for St. John's East, that we have in fact had representations from the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Municipalities. We have also had them from the City of Mount Pearl. We have indeed struck a committee in the Department of Justice to review the comparable legislation across the country, to discuss the pros and cons of it, because there are always two sides to every story. We want to understand what the full story is. As soon as we are in a position to report back and make some decisions as to where we might want to go, that, of course, will follow the proper course in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the point of order that I raise is related to what I thought was the utterance of an unparliamentary word. If I made a mistake, I will apologize. I thought the Leader of the Opposition, in his first lead-off question, used the word viper in reference to the Leader of the Opposition. I would suggest that in my dictionary the word viper means a venomous snake or a treacherous person, neither of which is allowed to be in this House. I would suggest that it is unparliamentary to refer to any member of this House as a viper, which, as I have said, means a venomous snake or a treacherous person.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: I would ask that, in the interest of maintaining dignity and the propriety of this House, that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition withdraw that utterance.

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

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

I remind the hon. Government House Leader that it is also a great product put out by Dodge. The reality is that when it comes to the issue in the Legislature today, and the language that I use, I submit to the Speaker that it is and it was parliamentary. Certainly, if the Speaker decides that it was not then I will deal with the Speaker's ruling and apologize immediately, but I will submit that the word viper has many connotations. It is also a great product put out by Dodge, I say to the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will certainly review the Hansard to determine the context in which the hon. member used that term, and the Chair will rule on it tomorrow.

Petitions

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

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

This is a petition that has been gathered by a group in the Province dealing with the unfair, in my view, and unnecessary, HST on home heat generally. As people know in the Province, they have spent the last several months in preparation on putting together this petition, and the petition reads:

We, the Consumer Group for Fair Gas Prices, representing the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, hereby petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada respectively requesting the removal of HST from two basic necessities of life: home heating fuel and electric heat.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the largest petitions that has ever been presented in this House. The combined total of the names on this petition reaches nearly 50,000. People from every community, from the tip of Labrador to the southernmost tip of the Province on the Avalon Peninsula have signed this petition.

We support wholeheartedly the spirit, the intent and the actions that this petition calls for. In fact, in the 1999 general election, under our heading of what we would help to do for seniors, an accountable government to provide tax release, we proposed, as part of our parliamentary and policy and political platform, that a PC government would, upon being installed in office, eliminate and ban outright the 15 per cent tax on these two basic necessities for good reason. These are basic necessities.

Before the combination of HST, between the federal and provincial government, this was not an issue that we had to deal with; but, what the Harmonized Sales Tax did is that it yes, on the one hand, lowered it from 12 per cent and 7 per cent and 19 per cent, but what it did is that it broadened the base so much to include children's clothes, for example, but on this issue to include a basic necessity of life.

What member in this House has not heard from many constituents this winter on what 15 per cent reduction would mean to their home heating fuel? What member in this House has not taken calls from a variety of people, including seniors in their districts, complaining to them about the unnecessary and exacerbated cost of fuel, pleading with members of this Legislature to bring forward a progressive and just removal of HST that would provide some relief and demonstrate to the people of the Province that this government has an ounce of humanity left in it.

This is what this group is asking for. They have asked for it clearly. It is not just them. The government can believe that it just may be them, but it is not. It is supported clearly by about 11 per cent of the population, some 50,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: - that government take the message in this seriously and move to reduce HST on those two basic necessities of life.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, in view of the seriousness of the petition, in view of the large number of names on the petition, whether hon. members would break with the rules of the House regarding petitions for this one time and allow a response from the government side?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: If the government wishes to have a response for the same amount of time, so be it. We would like to hear, the people of the Province would like to hear, and the group in the gallery would like to hear why you did not include this very necessary item in your Budget recently.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: I understand the request of the Government House Leader. I appreciate it and I would note that the normal rules for petition, prior to the new rules of the House, was that the mover would move the petition, someone would rise to support it, and then there would be an opportunity for the government to respond. I would certainly be agreeable to revert to the old procedure and allow - if I could be allowed to respond, then the member for the government respond as well - that would be totally agreeable. Is that agreeable to the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That's agreed. I do welcome and thank the members on both sides of the House for agreeing to this. It is an important petition. It is one which has widespread support throughout the Province and it is consistent with an effort that has been made by many different groups to try to reduce the impact of home heating costs on the residents of this Province. In fact, two years ago when the government introduced its legislation, or its proposal, to reduce Income Tax in this Province, we proposed an alternative measure which, in fact, had the effect of rebating to citizens of this Province 15 per cent of the cost of home heat, whether it be oil or electricity. Knowing, of course, that unilaterally this government could not change the HST provisions, but could, effectively, provide a rebate of the full 15 per cent, which they have done to a minor extent last year.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this petition represents the better long-term version of that as opposed to a one-time rebate. The better long-term position is to change the HST agreement, which is an agreement between this Province and the federal government involving a couple of others provinces as well, to allow the removal of home heating fuel as an item to be subject to the HST. I want to congratulate the petitioners, and those who organized the petition, of their incredible efforts throughout this Province in gathering signatures -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - and providing a vehicle for the concerns of ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about the extreme costs. Particularly, to those on fixed incomes, senior citizens, retirees, people who are on low incomes who find an increasing burden and a great burden to heat their homes and to make very difficult and painful choices between heat and food. That is not a choice that should be forced on residents of this Province, given our place in this country and the world, as one of the world's most prosperous nations. Our citizens should not be forced to make that choice.

I urge the government to respond to these petitioners and to respond to the needs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to get some relief from the high cost of home heat.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I am very appreciative to have the opportunity to speak to such a very important and serious issue this afternoon on the home heating fuel. Certainly, a petition that warranted as many signatures is one that we take very seriously. I would say though that it is unfortunate. I am disappointed that those who collected the petition did not see fit to present to government, because I would have only been too happy to have received the petition and speak with them directly on this matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Based on the fact that government is being asked to make the changes, that is the premise of which I had made the statement about how it was presented. However, it does not decrease the importance of the issue. As members in this House know, with respect to HST we are in an arrangement with the other Atlantic provinces, particularly New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, on HST. As a result of that, one of the first things I will say is that I will certainly raise this issue with my two counterpart provinces as it relates to HST and home heating fuel when I have occasion to meet with them and discuss important issues in the future and, of course, Ottawa is one of the partners. It is a tripartite agreement and they would have to be a part of that discussion.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the cost of home heating fuel and the increases particularly, are driven primarily by the result of world market prices as opposed to taxation. The world market price is certainly something that we are all very concerned about. As a government, particularly, we have tried to address the issue somewhat over this year, within the best of our means at least, for one time only, provide a rebate of $100 for low income families who are users of home heating fuel. As well, the federal government did a one time credit of $125 per person or $250 per married couple. As well, in our senior's budget this year we also announced a 50 per cent increase for people over the age of sixty-five admittedly, from $200 to $300.

Mr. Speaker, I think what is most important to us and was made very clear over the last number of days through our Budget, whenever we make any changes in our allocation for cash we also have to be able to find a way to regenerate that with respect to revenue. In this particular case the home heating fuel HST component, covering both fuel and electricity, amounts to $35 million to government. It is a significant amount of money. It is one that we would certainly be open to hearing suggestions from the providers of the petition as well as members in the House, where we might find that extra $35 million because it always is a challenge whenever we identify a source of revenue which we want to eliminate or would like to eliminate. We have to find a way to put that money back so that we can continue to provide services like health, education and other social services that are very necessary to us in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would conclude by saying that we are very aware of the issues and hardships that this has created for many of our residents. I think that is evident by the number of people who have taken the time to sign. I know it is a very important issue and as I mentioned, with respect to our one time rebate to low income families and the federal government's initiative as well as our seniors' benefit, we will also take the opportunity to raise this issue with my colleagues from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the federal government. We will very seriously look at that as it relates to what we can do in the coming months as we look at preparing how we will balance our books and try to do the best we can with the resources we have. Finding $35 million is never easy, regardless of the significance of the issue, and this one is very significant. It still is quite a challenge.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I am not going to get into debate on this. We have had our say on it and the agreement is done, but I will say to the minister, she may or may not be aware, the group who spearheaded this petition are sitting directly in the gallery behind you. Maybe if you have a few moments between now and when the House closes you may take five minutes to meet with them. (Inaudible) want to talk to that point for a moment because I did not know if you were aware that they were here or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Orders of the Day

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a very important issue to the people of the Province of Newfoundland, and particularly, the people in the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, I guess if you want to look at how our fishery has been managed with regard to shrimp in the past year, this government, and no doubt the people of the Province to a certain degree, has lot a great deal of confidence in how our resource is being managed from Ottawa. It has caused us on a number of occasions to rise and express our concerns very strongly over decisions that they have made with regard to the resources in Newfoundland and Labrador as it relates to the fishery. It is unfortunate that today we rise again in the House of Assembly to present a motion. I will read the motion so that it is in Hansard:

"WHEREAS too often in the past the people of the Province have not received fair benefits form our resources;

AND WHEREAS there are people along the Labrador Coast in other communities of Newfoundland and Labrador in desperate need of access to the northern shrimp resource;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly strongly oppose any further allocation of the northern shrimp resource to out of the Province interests."

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with that motion knowing full well that it is something that will be supported by every member in this House of Assembly, and hopefully, by every person in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The fishery itself has been the backbone of the economy for many communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. While there had been many decisions made in the past as it relates to the shrimp resource that have not always derived full and fair benefits for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, some of those decisions that were made in the past, twenty or thirty years ago, while we may not be able to change the outcome of some of them today, we have to do our part to ensure that we make precedent setting decisions today so that when we look at the allocation of this resource, we will look at allocating it in a way that will benefit communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: If the member opposite would give me a moment maybe I will get to that before I finish. I am sure he would be happy to get up and speak this afternoon as well. I look forward to hearing his comments.

I want to talk for a few minutes on how this resource, in particular, has impacted upon the economic well-being of people in my district and along the Coast of Labrador. For a number of years we have seen tremendous allocations of shrimp to offshore interests. While I will reserve comment today on how that has been done and whether I agree or disagree, what I will say is that there has been allocations to companies like the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited, like Torngat Coop Fisheries in the north coast, like the Fogo Island Coop where we have seen the dividends that have been achieved from this resource reinvested back into communities to build the fishery, to build plants, to build opportunity and to build jobs for many communities. Mr. Speaker, I, myself, have experienced it firsthand. I have seen how the investments from this resource in Newfoundland and Labrador have contributed to building processing facilities, have contributed to training individuals for jobs in their own community, have allowed for people to participate fully in the fishing industry as fishers themselves. It has derived a great deal of economic wealth. I guess not all the allocations have certainly worked that way. As we know, there are something like eighteen or nineteen allocations today which are made offshore and a number of these allocations are made to interests that are outside of our Province. Seven of those, in particular, exist in other areas of Atlantic Canada.

When you look at the adjacency issue, you will notice that all of these allocations have been issued in areas 4L, 5L, 6L and 3L, which are the major portion of the shrimp grounds in this Province, and where the major quotas are allocated. All of these areas are directly adjacent to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think that when the federal government made the decision last year to make a quota allocation to the Province of Prince Edward Island, it was obviously something that was met with great dissatisfaction in this Province. Our former minister was very active in championing our issue as it related to the fishery, and making our views very known, not only in this Province and in Atlantic Canada, but all across the country, that this is not something that we would tolerate as people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that our minister at the time, had to do what he did and take the actions that he did. Take the firm stand against Ottawa -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you support him?

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

Mr. Speaker, in the past, and as we all know, the federal minister has the sole discretion to make allocations regarding resource management. He has the sole discretion, and although he does he has always made these decisions, or in the past most Canadian ministers have made these decisions, and have been guided by several principles. I guess one of them is adjacency and the other one was historic dependency. We have always held true to those principles. They have certainly been recognized and built from the United Nations Law of the Sea and they were established principles by communities that we honored, and we had hoped that all federal ministers, in making decisions on our resources and allocations, would honour those two direct principles.

Traditionally, as well, when decisions were made on allocations in Ottawa to communities in our Province, they also looked at the economic conditions. It was a big part of their consideration in any decision.

Since 1990 it has been no secret that we have gone through tremendous changes in the fishery. When allocations were made in shrimp and other resources, that was always looked at and it was taken into consideration - our economic dependency upon the resource, and the fact that key allocations were necessary to move us along. Obviously the minister, in making his decision, did not look at those guiding principles and has chosen to ignore them. What we have seen is a terrible precedent that has been set in terms of the allocation of these resources.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today and plead with the Government of Canada to honour the commitment and the principles of adjacency and historic attachment that have been put in place, and that when they make their decisions of allocations of shrimp, that they consider all the applications that are before them today from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to indicate to the House today that there are six proposals alone from my district in Labrador for additional allocations to this resource of shrimp. These people live adjacent to the area where the resource is. They watch boats, day in and day out, harvest on these grounds right from their doorsteps.

Today, in the Labrador Straits area alone, we are experiencing tremendous challenges in the fishing industry. We are seeing a number of people who have participated in the traditional scallop fishery having their quotas reduced for conservation reasons and are looking for alternative species in order for their enterprises to survive.

Mr. Speaker, this group has come forward. They are asking the federal minister to recognize their need today and to put some mechanism in place where allocations can be made to those fishers so that they may be able to sustain their enterprises.

We look on the Coast of Labrador, in the 2J area, where a large portion of this shrimp is being allocated as we speak and deliberated as we speak. The fishers in that area, the under thirty-five fleet alone, have experienced tremendous challenges in the industry because, as you know, the nature of the fishery has changed, there are fewer opportunities for the small boat fishermen, and therefore they have to look at whatever options are available to them.

One of the things that we have done in previous years, with the cooperation of DFO and the provincial Department of Fisheries and the unions, is to put in place a permitting for the shrimp fishery so that inshore fishers in the under thirty-five fleet could access permits to fish shrimp and use that income to supplement their regular enterprise. This is a program that has worked and has provided the necessary revenues. It has also given people who are participating in the fishery in the fifty-five or sixty-five foot fleets, an opportunity to have additional quota to fish at the same time. So, while it is one allocation, it benefits two sectors of the industry.

That was a good program and it is working. What we are asking today is that the federal minister consider that and look at making the necessary allocations so that we can not only continue with that program of helping sustain enterprises in communities with this quota, but at the same time look at how other people can become involved in it as well - other enterprises that need to have access.

There are a number of applications on the table today from communities, from companies, and from fisher people that need this resource in order to sustain their onshore operations, in order to provide jobs in communities, in order to be able to have full access and participation in the fishery and to ensure the survival of their enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, the federal minister has to consider all of those things. He has to consider the economic dependency, the adjacency, the historical attachment in making any additional allocations of this shrimp quota. Whether they be in Labrador or on the Island of Newfoundland, we all have a dependency upon this resource and we need it in order to build on the industry.

I would like to go on in a little bit more detail about what the shrimp industry has done for the people in my district in particular, and I sure there are many other members in the House today who could stand up and say how this particular resource has impacted economic development in their districts over the past two or three years.

We are about to open the first ever shrimp processing plant in Labrador, in the community of Charlottetown. This is a wonderful opportunity for the people there, and it is a wonderful opportunity for the company, but it was no small task in accomplishing it because, first of all, we had to lobby for access to the quotas to be able to do it. We had to work with our fishing enterprises in order to gear them up and have them prepared to be able to harvest this resource, but then we had to work with the companies to ensure that they could put together this kind of a deal, make the proper financial investments, and they have. They have done so and they are committed to ensuring that this operation goes ahead. As a government, we also saw fit to make the investment because it was investing in people in the rural areas of our Province and we were happy to be able to do so.

Through the leadership of the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited, we will open the first ever shrimp processing plant in Labrador by May or June of this year. It will provide anywhere from seventy to one hundred jobs in a small rural area of this Province, and that is the kind of wealth that is being derived from the shrimp industry. That is the kind of wealth that we are seeing from proper resource allocation, from proper investments and from people in the industry who are committed to doing what is right and what is just.

I am going to just make a brief comment on the issue that was raised by my colleague across the House before I sit down, and I am sure there are a number of people here who want to speak on this issue today, but the only thing that I will say as it relates to FPI is: I do not care what company it is, but when you look at the allocations of quotas in this Province, we have to ensure that what we have stays here, which means that we cannot transfer or allow for the transfer of quotas outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. Furthermore, we cannot allow the Government of Canada to make precedent-setting decisions that allow our resources to go outside of our Province to other provinces in Atlantic Canada for the benefit of other communities. These resources are valuable to us. They are what will ensure the survival of our communities, and I ask that all members today, in speaking to this motion, support it as well and stand together to try and secure the allocations that we not only have but any future allocations that may come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure, as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair indicated already, she is not expecting any opposition to this motion today from any member of the House or certainly, I would hope, from any member of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador. I think it goes without saying that this resource is of utmost importance to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, not just the fishing industry, not just rural communities, not just the tip of the Northern Peninsula, Southern Labrador, Fogo, or anywhere like that, but to Grand Falls, Gander, Clarenville and St. John's. Every community in Newfoundland and Labrador, practically, is impacted by the fishery and reaps some benefits from a developing, expanding shrimp fishery on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Just a little bit of history, I suppose, because the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair spoke about our historical attachment and the three principles that we would hope govern, to some degree, how allocations of fish resources are made. I would just like to speak, I guess, on the history of this fishery because it is very important when we are talking about present and future allocations in this fishery. The fishery basically started on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1979, and from 1979 to 1997 unfortunately, to a large extent, this fishery was restricted to the offshore freezer trawlers and, I guess, in large part the quotas were held by interests outside of Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess, because we have been wronged in the past on this fishery, because we have been wronged in the past when allegations have been made, for approximately twenty years, we should be careful when we talk about historical attachment to this industry. We should have had historical attachment, we should have been the major players in this industry for twenty years, but unfortunately we were not the major players for twenty years and only in the last four to five years have we really started to come into our own in this industry.

Since 1997 Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen have gained access, as I have said. They have provided much needed employment onshore from shrimp being landed with boats less than sixty-five feet to processing plants around Newfoundland and Labrador. It goes without saying that this provided a tremendous boost to areas like St. Anthony, Port au Choix, Anchor Point, Catalina and Clarenville. Is it in Bay de Verde or Old Perlican that shrimp plant is?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bay de Verde.

MR. TAYLOR: Bay de Verde.

I guess there are a couple of other places I am sure I missed, along with all the offloading facilities around the Province.

You cannot emphasize enough the importance of this fishery to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether they are fishermen, fish plant workers, off loaders, truckers, gas stations, snack bar attendants or whatever. This is a very important fishery to this Province.

Since 1997, as the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair indicated, there have been quite a number of people, individuals, fishermen, groups of fishermen, communities, that have been looking for access or increased access to this resource. Just this past winter, I expect DFO has been flooded with requests for increased access and new access to the resource.

I guess the reason for bringing that up is just to move further along on the three basic principles governing allocations for fishery resources. Economic need is probably the second one. If you look at the fleets in Newfoundland and Labrador that are in the fishery right now, quite a number of those fleets are looking for increased access. They are looking at their shrimp enterprise right now and looking at how viable that is as an operation or as part of their total fishing enterprise, and find that it is not very viable at all given the low allocations they have.

We have a crab fishery right now on the Northeast Coast and in Labrador that is looking to some troubling times, I guess. They are looking to some troubling times where we see prices have peaked and are moving down with some developments in other parts of the world. We are looking at some of the resource problems that appear to be looming there. Hopefully they are not going to reach any critical or crisis situations, but certainly we have seen a reduction of the quota by about 30 per cent last year, and there is always a possibility that the quota could be reduced further. We hope that whatever needs to be done in that resource to protect the long-term viability of it is done.

With those developments comes added financial pressure on the enterprises that have been basically depending on crab alone for the past number of years. Of course, those people are now looking for access in this fishery. We have areas of the Province that have the highest unemployment rate in the country. Certainly, those people are looking to the example that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair pointed out just now, the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company Limited, and looking at how, over the past twenty years, this corporation has, on behalf of the people in the area, on behalf of the fishermen in the area, managed a couple of offshore allocations of shrimp and used it to develop onshore processing jobs, to develop harvesting capacity in the area, and basically to produce or develop a fairly vibrant fishery on the South Coast of Labrador from L'Anse au Clair to Cartwright. Also, she mentioned the Torngat Fish Producers Co-op, and there are a few others in the Province that have similar allocations. A lot of people throughout the Province, or a number of places within the Province, are looking at these types of allocations and the success that they have had in their areas. There are a couple of organizations or areas in my district from Englee to Main Brook, and The Straits area, who would like see similar allocations made in their areas so that they could in some way benefit from a shrimp resource that has been growing and a fishery that has been growing for the past number of years, and they have seen very little in the way of benefits from, to date.

I guess the bottom line on this - and the member said that we should plead to the federal government. That is part of our problem here in Newfoundland and Labrador, that we find ourselves pleading to the Canadian government on issues like fisheries resource allocation issues, and pleading with them to look upon our situation, look upon our attachment to the fishery, look upon our dependence on the water - on the water - on the fishery for Newfoundland and Labrador - I won't get into water. I will stay away from water. Without water there would be no fish. - that depend on the fishery resources of the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and look at our situation. We should not be pleading to the government; we should be demanding of the Canadian government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that any allocation of shrimp in the present and in the near future be restricted to Newfoundland and Labrador based interests, and that we not revisit the problems that we have had for the past twenty years where Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, and I guess as recently as last summer, Prince Edward Island, gained access to the shrimp off the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I said when I started, I do not see any point in going on the whole afternoon on this, because everybody in the Province agrees with it anyway. Everybody on that side of the House, I hope, agrees with it, and everybody on this side of the House agrees with it. I pointed out at the beginning that there would be no opposition to it here. We fully support a motion like this. I wish - to get this point in - that we could agree with all statements from that side of the House on the fishery in the past couple of days the same way as we agree with this one.

As the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair knows, last year when the P.E.I. allocation was made, members on this side of the House, including myself who was not here at the time but actually happened to be 140 or 150 miles off St. Anthony at the time, certainly agreed with the former Minister of Fisheries' position on the P.E.I. allocation, that we were completely outraged by it, and hope that nothing like this will happen in the future.

We hope that this is an indication from members opposite that the fisheries resources in Newfoundland and Labrador, and allocation decisions that are made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, are looked at seriously by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that we are out front on these issues and we do not wait until after the barn door is opened and the horse is gone before we get up and try to stop things that appear to be looming. I guess that goes for the FPI deal just as well as it goes for the shrimp deal, that we should not be waiting for after the fact. We are not waiting today to speak out on the shrimp allocations that are not made yet, and I hope that the government will look a lot more seriously at what is developing in the industry today as it relates to Fishery Products International and their board of directors, and the control and management of one of the biggest fish companies in the world, and the basis for most of our existence here in Newfoundland and Labrador, a company that reaches much further than the communities their plants are in, and that we do not wait until after May 1 to try and figure out what is going on here and what we have to deal with, and that we deal with it now to the extent that we can. We are not asking anybody to do anything outrageous. We are asking for people to stand up and be accountable, to stand up and count on this issue.

Anyway, I will wrap it up right there. I hope, as I said, this is a sign of how serious the members opposite take the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. I will just say this; it is an old saying: When you are hunting for moose, don't get sidetracked by rabbits.

On the P.E.I. shrimp allocation, that was 1,500 tons of shrimp. When we are talking about allocations of shrimp in general in Newfoundland, let's not just get caught up in how shrimp allocations are made. Let's look at how all allocations are made in Newfoundland, whether it is turbot in the Gulf, shrimp on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, or how the industry, as a whole, is managed. That includes FPI, not just the shrimp, because FPI, as I said, and I have to say it again because it is so important, FPI, Clouston Foods, the offshore shrimp, every single community in Newfoundland and Labrador that is involved with the fishery, is impacted by any changes in FPI, and that we do not lose sight of that and just get focused on shrimp.

Mr. Speaker, I will wrap it up right there. I would certainly like to inform the government that we always support motions like this, and will continue to support them. As our leader said the day of the Throne Speech, we will support motions and any legislation that comes forward that makes sense and is protective of the interests of rural Newfoundland and Labrador - Newfoundland and Labrador in general - and we hope that anything else that comes from that side of the House is just as close to motherhood and apple pie as this one.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think one of the most difficult things I have to deal with is being referred to as the former Minister of Fisheries. I wish you would stop using that word. It is hard enough getting used to it without being reminded every single day.

Seriously, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair put forward this private member's motion, but where does it go? Where does a private member's motion go? I think the big picture is what we have to look at and the possible outcomes of what can happen, as the Member for The Straits mentioned about not only shrimp but other species that are important to the survival of Newfoundland and Labrador. I don't think anybody will argue the fact that we do not have fish stock surplus to the needs of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. What we have to do is make sure that we prevent any giveaway of our resource in the future as happened, for example, in the P.E.I. shrimp last year. The 1,500 tons, some people would say that is not a lot of shrimp, but it is the principle of the thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: It was taken away from fishermen who were actually out on the bay, out on the ocean catching the shrimp when they were told to pull their nets and come in. That is a serious situation. The bigger picture, what you have to remember, is the term that Minister Dhaliwal used last year: This is not a Newfoundland resource; this is a Canadian resource.

It is a funny thing. It is only a Canadian resource when it is around Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not a Canadian resource when it is off Nova Scotia. It is not a Canadian resource when it is lobster off P.E.I., or any other species adjacent to their shores. It is a Canadian resource when it is Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I say this quite seriously, all of us in this House of Assembly, and everybody who has a stake hold in the industry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, had better do some serious thinking on how they can prevent and stop this from happening in the future; because, here is what is taking place right now, and has been for some months, in the Government of Canada: There is an Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review taking place right now. It started last year, and there are two things that are going to impact on the future of Newfoundland and Labrador negatively if we don't get on top of it. One is the principle of adjacency. If the principle of adjacency is not clearly defined in this new policy to the advantage of the coastal communities, in the example we are talking about Newfoundland and Labrador, every resource that is in that ocean is in jeopardy for the taking by somebody else in the future.

In tune with that, the principle of adjacency, is access to the resource - the historical attachment. The historical attachment is something that is used, and used in some cases to the advantage of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but we had better be aware of how far we go on the historical attachments and what the access will mean in the future.

Let me tell you what the minister has just done, what the minister in Ottawa has just done. He has appointed an independent panel on access criteria. Now, where is the panel from? There is one from the University of Ottawa, there is one from Quebec, there is one from Ontario, and the last guy, I believe, is from somewhere out west.

MR. SULLIVAN: B.C.

MR. EFFORD: B.C., that is right. There are four people now appointed to review the access to fish stocks in Atlantic Canada, and nobody from Atlantic Canada on that panel.

You talked about the FPI thing earlier. The Opposition Leader said the other day that this is beyond partisan politics. Well, the future of the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador, while you want to make some points here in the House of Assembly, in the big scheme of things is beyond partisan politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: The industry themselves had better be aware of what is going on. Everybody who has a stake hold in the industry, whether it is the union, whether it is the fishermen's associations, whether it is a committee of any sort, FPI, National Sea, the Quinlans or the Daleys, everybody had better be on top of this; because I can tell you now, the lobbyists hired by the multi-millionaires on the backs of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - the shrimp they have taken away - have lobbyists in Ottawa every waking minute of every hour of every day in the week making sure that they get their interests protected. I ask the question: Are we, as an industry and as people in Newfoundland and Labrador, doing the same thing? I doubt it very much.

Now, the other thing that we want to be aware of is that it is not just good enough to ask not to give access of quotas to any other new entries; we had better start maintaining the quotas that we have and stop increasing the quotas, because here is what is happening now on the Flemish Cap, and this was proven by scientists just a short while ago. The Member for The Straits & White Bay should be aware of this, on the fisheries resource council. When you look at the stocks, the shrimp that is up in Hawkes Channel and up in other areas being caught, flows right out to the Flemish Cap. The people who are fishing on the Flemish Cap, the Icelandics, have now increased the quota out there an extra 30,000 tons, because of the lucrative shrimp fishery that is flowing out there. When you talk to the fishermen here in Newfoundland and Labrador now, most of the shrimp they are getting are small industrial shrimp. Now, we had better be aware of what is happening.

One thing that we should do is make sure that the best science information is given and that, as a country and as an industry and as a Province, we had better make sure that we do not do the same thing with the shrimp industry as we did with all the other species in the past. We are headed in the same direction, but if we do not clearly define the principle of adjacency and who has access to the stocks adjacent to the shores, then we will put in jeopardy the whole of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me again support what the Member for The Straits just said, because Nova Scotia is waiting now as we are talking, and have been for the last two years, on access to crab outside of our 200-mile limit. They are waiting and they have their lobbyists in Ottawa. They have their request in, and if the principle of adjacency and those stocks are not clearly defined, there is the next move that could happen.

Now, we will probably take a reduction in quotas of crab in some areas this year because of the state of the stocks. There is a known abundance of virgin stock outside the 200-mile limit that we are not allowed to fish, only at certain levels. It was decreased out there last year and controlled out there last year. Yet, Nova Scotia, while we are talking about it, while we are arguing among ourselves here in the Province over issues, they are waiting for access of that stock. If that shrimp fishery and that principle of adjacency that was set down last year, given to P.E.I., is not controlled in the principle of adjacency, and that is not defined in the very, very near future to the advantage of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, here is the next move that is going to happen.

What I would caution, apart from presenting this private member's resolution to the House of Assembly, we should be aware of the possible outcomes of this in the future and somehow, through the industry stakeholders, there should be discussions held and some forum put together to make sure a committee is put together and that these things are acted upon immediately because you cannot wait for two or three years down the road. As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we have to get rid of this complacency and this passive attitude we have because we proved that last year on the shrimp fishery. If two or three of us had not kicked up that noise last year, where would that have went? At least we stalled it and made them stop and think, but the problem is not resolved yet. So be aware of the future of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, be aware of the possible outcomes of what this principle of adjacency, if it not clearly defined, the impact it can have.

Can you imagine if we went to PEI and started fishing their lobster or if we went on the Scotian Shelf and started taking Risley's offshore lobster, what kind of a war it would be? Boats would be burned, things would be turned, plants would be gutted, but here in Newfoundland and Labrador we talk about it, we argue about it among ourselves and there it dies. So a little bit of caution of what is about to come down the tube and the access to fish stocks and the principle of adjacency. If we do not stay on top of it, as an industry here in this Province and as stakeholders here in this Province, it will be defined and clearly defined to the advantage of the people in Atlantic Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the resolution of the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, resolving that this House strongly oppose any further allocation of the northern shrimp resource to out of the Province interests. Mr. Speaker, that is a given. As the former Minister of Fisheries said, that is an issue that is beyond any partisan interests. All members of this House, I am fully convinced, will rise and support unanimously of this resolution here today.

This is only one element, one possible element in what ought to be a far more serious and significant effort. I agree fully with the former Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Port de Grave, when he says that we have to be as proactive as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as the lobbyists are who, by the way, are financing their lobbying activities on the income that they receive on a daily, a weekly and a monthly basis from the resources that they are already getting in our offshore. We watched on T.V. last year the people of Prince Edward Island or the members of parliament of Prince Edward Island, saying: what are they complaining about, we are only asking for our fair share. They are talking about their fair share of our resource. Their fair share of a resource they say, that is adjacent to our shores.

I know the Member for L'Anse au Clair is right and others, anybody who has visited the Labrador Coast, particularly the Southern Labrador Coast, and talked to the people, the fish harvesters who looked out of their houses at night and can see fishermen from Quebec, from other parts of the country fishing in the waters within sight of the shore, fishing for shrimp, fishing for other species, and then taking it and landing them in Port au Choix or elsewhere on a daily and a weekly basis. It has to and it does, upset them very much. So we do have to be vigilant and I know the issue that the previous speaker, the Member for Port de Grave, is talking about, this panel. The first I heard of it was a telephone call to an open line program by Gus Etchegary. The member knew about it, but that is all very interesting. Why is that ordinary citizens, individuals, come up with these things and raise the alarm? Where is the significant body which has responsibility for these issues for this Province? Are we on top of this? Was this government aware of it? I will say this on a nonpartisan basis, did the federal minister for Newfoundland know about this? Did he have any input into it? Was he asked? Were the seven members of Parliament from Newfoundland, whether they were Liberals or Conservatives or whatever, were they involved? Were they up to speed on it? Where are we going with this? It is all very well to pass this motion - and we will do it, no question about it. Nobody in this Province, nobody in any seat of this House of Assembly is going to vote against this resolution but we will all wonder, what else can we expect or will we expect or will we get from our government who has the power, who has the resources and has the constitutional authority to deal with some of these issues?

This is of fundamental importance in relation to our place in Canada. This Province is a part of Canada. We have been here fifty years and we have seen in that fifty years a real lack of attention by the Government of Canada to the interests of this Province when it comes to our fisheries; whether it be from the very early days when the Government of Canada decided that there was going to be no special program for the Newfoundland fishery. There was an expectation and a hope, Mr. Speaker, that with Confederation, with the increased power and financial resources of the Government of Canada that this could bring about a change, and a positive change, for the fisheries of Newfoundland and Labrador. Their response was negative for the people of this Province and worse than that, inaction when it came to protecting this resource from the foreign draggers, the foreign fleets, the factory freezers and trawlers that started it in the early 1960s and took the vast majority of our resource away while the Government of Canada looked on. This is an extension of the policy of the Government of Canada which only recognizes this resource as a: Canadian resource.

These are the kind of speeches that we are hearing from the Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa. This is the kind of attitude, I would suspect, that we will get from these academics from Central Canada, with the interests of Central Canada in forming their views, with the interests of the Province of Quebec in forming the views of the Quebec representative, with the interests of Ontario in forming the Ontario academics but academics are no different than lawyers or judges. Why do you think that the people of Quebec and the Province of Quebec insists on having three judges on the Supreme Court of Canada? There is a reason for that, because they believe fundamentally, that their interests can be represented by people who are sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada who are judges and lawyers who are trained in the Province of Quebec. Just as we have academics who have views that are not independent. Academics are individuals who happen to have academic training. They are not, in any way, impartial by their training. They are going to present a point of view based on their own experience, based on their own political view of the world, based on what it is that they believe. It is based on where they come from. They are human beings like everybody else.

I fully expect that we are going to see a report from this committee on access that talks in generalities about the interests of Canada and will only give lip service to the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to have a policy on adjacency in this country that respects the fact that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the fish harvesters, the plant workers, the population of Newfoundland and Labrador, has to be subject to an adjacency rule that gives us control over the economic benefits of our resources.

We see, not only within the 200-mile limit - as previous speakers have mentioned - a reduction in our quota inside the 200-mile limit and, at the same time, new licenses to new entrants and new players in the fishery being given to other provinces. In fact, in some cases, to other countries. We want to put a stop to that. We have to expect more from our own government. Certainly, the industry can do something. Groups like FANL and the union can do something, but they do not individually, have the kind of collective resources that are present in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like to see, in addition to the private members' resolution from the government member opposite, some commitment from the government itself, from the Minister of Fisheries, from the Premier, from the Cabinet, to tell us what it is that they are going to do to follow up on this resolution and insist, as a primary priority of this government, that this resolution be followed and adopted by the Government of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr .Speaker.

I am glad that the Opposition applauded because by the time I am finished I am sure they may not have the same response.

I want to speak on the motion put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. I fully support it; however, I want to add a few words in that it is just not Ottawa that I am worried about. It is also the government of the day and the governments of the past.

If I can say just a few words, I remember when Bridgette Bardot was blamed for killing the seal fishing industry and Ottawa put down $100 million to help offset those people who were in desperate need. Most of the people who went to the seal hunt, a lot of them, want it as a second income, but the people who were most affected by the closure of the seal fishery were the people in the riding of Torngat Mountains, and there was no subsidy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, the cod fishery. As a little boy growing up, I can remember the draggers moving in when the ice moved off. We saw the government of the day, in the 1960s, build what we call aspenite buildings in Smokey for the Newfoundland fishermen and provided running water while the people in Makkovik and Rigolet never had water and sewer and couldn't get five cents to build a stage head.

When the salmon fishery failed in Newfoundland, the government of the day, and the federal government, pumped millions of dollars into the salmon farms and they killed the market for the Labrador salmon.

The government of the day, the federal government and ACOA took the young char and the eggs from Northern Labrador and started farms on the Island that killed the fishery. Now, the North Coast of Labrador is hit the hardest; you have the poorest economy. In the wintertime, when our boats are tied up, we can see the lights of the draggers that are up off the North Coast of Labrador reaping the shrimp. For the last five years we have been fighting for an allocation of shrimp to put seventy people to work in Rigolet, and we haven't been able to get a pound.

While I fully support the concept put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, if we are going to fight for adjacency then we, as Government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, have also to keep in mind that when we lobby for these quotas, we help those who need it the most and those who are adjacent to it.

We traveled to Ottawa when we fought for more money for the TAGS program. The hon. members across the way, there was some on that committee as well, knew I had no problem in telling Ottawa what it was like to be the only riding in this Province that did not get one penny. Mr. Speaker, we were successful. I am glad that I could tell of where homes were broken up, where people could not afford a birthday card let alone a birthday present. Yes, we need to lobby Ottawa, we need to get control of our quotas, but most important of all, just as we are as fast to jump on Ottawa for these quotas, we have to jump as a unit and make sure that those who it need the most get a fair share.

Seventy people - we looked at several options for the community of Rigolet, and the only possibility we have right now is for a shrimp plant. We are looking for a quota to put seventy people to work, and yet the draggers can go out there and scrape the bottom day in and day out and we can't get enough to put seventy people to work.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, but I say to this hon. House, too, that when we lobby Ottawa and we get our quotas, we make sure that those who are adjacent and need it the most get their fair share.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

If the hon. the member speaks now, she concludes debate.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate the comments by all the members who spoke on this motion today. No doubt, they are words of people who have certainly been involved in the industry, associated with the industry, have been decision-makers, have been the end users, and have participated in a number of aspects of the fishery.

I want to said that protecting our resources, and our fishing resource in particular, is the responsibility of all of us in society and all of us in Newfoundland and Labrador. No doubt there are guiding principles that have to prevail. They have prevailed in the past, in certain instances, and they have been there for our protection, and we have a responsibility to ensure that they prevail in the future. They are the principles of adjacency - very strongly, adjacency. It is a big issue for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the principle of historical attachment and economic consideration. All these things have to be considered.

While we are discussing shrimp today, I want it to be clear, and it should be clear, that the stand that we take applies to all resources and all fish species that are adjacent to the waters of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether it be crab, shrimp, turbot, cod, or whatever the species may be, and it applies to all regions in our Province, not just the region that I represent, but all regions in our Province, because it is shared by all of us.

I just want to highlight one thing before I close, and that was a comment made by the hon. the Member for Port de Grave. He is absolutely right when he says that we, in Newfoundland and Labrador, cannot be complacent when it comes to our resources. We cannot be complacent when it comes to decisions being made in Ottawa with regard to allocations, with regard to adjacency, and with regard to who participates in the industry and who does not. We have to ensure that we all do our part and that we all uphold the principles that have been outlined, and that we all ensure that Ottawa is accountable to us, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in saying that, I just want to thank the hon. members who spoke in support of the motion today and I will close on that remark.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

This being Wednesday afternoon, the House does now stand adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.