The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

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

MR. MERCER: On March 2, the Pasadena Lions Club hosted its 17^th Annual Snow-A-Rama in support of the Newfoundland Society for the Physically Disabled.

Since its inception as Newfoundland's first organized snowmobile run in 1986, this annual event has raised in excess of $200,000.

In part, this money has been used: to help send Western Newfoundland physically disabled children to the annual "Breaking Barriers youth Conference" at the Lions Max Simms Camp; and to provide SEED money for the construction of the first disabled swimming pool for the Corner Brook Arts and Culture Centre.

This year's route took sleders approximately 160 kilometres from Pasadena to Howley to Big Falls to Cormack to Deer Lake and thence back to Pasadena on trails maintained by the Corner Brook based Western Sno-Rider and the Deer Lake based Junction Trail Blazer Snowmobile Clubs.

This year, for the first time, the Pasadena Nordic Ski Club participated in the event and raised approximately $1,000. In excess of 200 sledders, some from as far away as Mississauga, Ontario, participated in the run and raised in excess of $15,000. Gus Maccolder from Lexington, Cape Breton Island was the top fundraiser among sledders, and Emily Poole of Pasadena was the top fundraiser amongst skiers.

I ask this hon. House to join with me in congratulating the Pasadena Lions Club and in particular Lloyd Belbin, 2002 Pasadena Snow-A-Rama chair for organizing this year's event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the dramatic artists at O'Donel High School in Mount Pearl on their excellent production of Irving Berlin's musical, Annie, Get Your Gun which played, I might say, to full houses every evening at the Arts and Culture Centre from February 7 until February 10.

This production was the result of a huge commitment by the students, faculty, parents, friends and supporters of O'Donel. O'Donel has established a very fine reputation in the region and the Province for its dramatic presentations and this year's production of Annie, Get Your Gun continued that standard of excellence for which O'Donel has become known. The high energy, the choreography, the set designs, the exceptional talents of the school band, and the choral presentations contributed to a wonderful evening of entertainment.

Mr. Speaker, while each artist gives us cause to showcase the talents of our youth, I would be remiss if I did not mention the exceptional talents of Kristen Murphy who played Anne, and Andrew O'Brien who starred in the role of Frank Butler.

Congratulations to the producer, Larry O'Brien, the musical director, Sean Carrol, to the artistic director, Marsha Tulk, to the choreographer, Janine Fraser, and to the stage directors, Leo Converse and Suzanne Goodland. Of course, I would also be remiss if I did not mention the tremendous contributions of the school Principal, John Walsh.

O'Donel is one of the finest schools in our Province and the place where the talents of our youth are discovered, and where students are encouraged in both curricular and extracurricular activities to share their creative with their school community and with the community at large.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to congratulate a business in my district which has been recognized by its peers.

Powell's Supermarket in Harbour Grace was judged to be one of the top ten small independent grocers in Canada, according to a recent judging by the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers.

This achievement is especially impressive, Mr. Speaker, because it is only the second year Powell's in Harbour Grace had been entered in the competition, and in fact open. The store was recently awarded the Canadian Independent Grocer of the Year Award of Merit at the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers annual convention in Toronto.

Powell's 12,000 square foot supermarket in Harbour Grace has been open since the summer of 2000. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate owner David J. Powell, General Manager Brian Bugden, Store Manager Walter Parsons, and especially all the staff at Powell's on this honour.

The store services residents of Harbour Grace and attracts customers from surrounding communities in Conception North and Trinity South.

Mr. Speaker, it is another example of the success of local businesses in the Carbonear-Harbour Grace District. I look forward to further success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today I would like all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in congratulating Mrs. Jessie Randell of St. Luke's Home who is celebrating her 100^th birthday. As a matter of fact, she celebrated that yesterday and had a celebration at the home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mrs. Randell is formerly of Fogo Island. She remains very active, in good health and takes part in many church and social events at St. Luke's Home. Mrs. Randell is a gentle and caring person who has devoted her life to her family, home and church activities.

I would like the House of Assembly to join with her family and friends in wishing her a very happy birthday and many more to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WALSH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We recently celebrated an important heritage event in our Province. Our provincial anthem, the Ode to Newfoundland, celebrated its 100^th anniversary on January 21^st of this year.

The four verse, Ode to Newfoundland, was written by Governor Sir Cavendish Boyle, and first performed by Daisy Foster at the Casino Theater in downtown St. John's. The music, as we all know, was composed originally by E.R. Krippner in 1902 and later updated by Sir Hubert Parry in 1904, and that part of the music and that composition is still used today.

Although the Ode, believe it or not, did not become officially enshrined in the laws of our Province until 1979, it has been, and remains to be, an important part of our heritage as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of the House of Assembly to join with me in remembering the contribution made to this Province by Sir Cavendish Boyle, and recognize the importance of this historical event; and continue to remember that we will always sing the Ode to Newfoundland whenever a public function takes place or whenever we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, gather.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to pay tribute to one of our Province's, and indeed one of our country's, finest athletes. Alf Parsons, a long time resident of Labrador City.

Alf Parsons is an all around athlete who is active in many sports. He has represented our Province in the National Broomball Championships, National Skeet Shooting Championships, and competed in many provincial tournaments in those sports and others.

However, Mr. Speaker, Alf is best known for his achievements and dedication to cross-country skiing. In Labrador West he is referred to as Mr. Cross-Country, a title both fitting and deserving.

Recently, Alf travelled to the World Masters Cross-Country Ski Championship which took place in Val Cartier, Quebec. I am proud to inform this House and the citizens of our Province, that Alf won the silver medal in the 30 kilometre freestyle event, with a time of 1:20:18, finishing only thirty-three seconds behind the gold medal winner from Germany, and ahead of the United States, Norway, Austria and other countries.

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Masters Championship was taking place at the same time and Alf, in true form, went on to win the gold medals in the 10 kilometre race, the 30 kilometre race, and the 45 kilometre race.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I am getting tired just reading it, and I didn't ski any of the distance.

Mr. Speaker, Alf did all this on his own while others had an entourage of assistants, including trainers, ski waxers, et cetera.

On returning to Labrador West, Alf was met at the Menihek Nordic Ski Club by a large group of people of all ages to help him celebrate his accomplishments.

Alf Parsons is an icon in cross-country skiing, someone for our youth to look up to and an inspiration to us all. Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in applauding the accomplishments of Alf Parsons and the recognition he has brought to our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS KELLY: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend my best wishes, congratulations and thanks to everyone who helped make the recent Newfoundland and Labrador Winter Games such a stunning success.

Some 1,500 athletes competed at venues in Gander and Glovertown in one of the most exciting and well organized Games to date.

I was particularly impressed with the Girls Hockey teams and all the efforts that were made to include them in this year's Games.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: - the Lieutenant-Governor's Spirit Award. A very special thank you to Minister Aylward for intervening and ensuring these dedicated athletes made it to Gander.

I would like to extend my congratulations to everyone who participated, especially the winners of the Premier's Cup and the Sport Newfoundland and Labrador Trophy: Western and Mount Pearl South regions.

So many people helped make these Games successful. I would especially like to thank the Town of Gander, the Host Committee who flourished under the leadership of Tina Adey and Percy Farwell, the multi-talented Mark Thibault for his work on the spectacular Opening and Closing Ceremonies, and the gifted Greg Seaward for his beautiful logo and medal designs.

I would also like to express a very heartfelt thanks to the hundreds of volunteers who, once again, came through when they were needed. Voluntarism in Gander and area is alive and well!

As you can tell, Mr. Speaker, these Games were truly outstanding and I invite all of my hon. colleagues to join with me in extending congratulations to each and every one involved.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House gave leave to the minister to make a member's statement which, unlike Ministerial Statements, are supposed to be non-political in nature. I noted that in her remarks, her member's statement, the minister gave credit to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation for intervening to get the Labrador delegation to Gander. In fact, it was the Member for Labrador West who intervened, and the minister knows that!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: The minister knows that, was not big enough to admit it, and tried to politicize a statement about the Winter Games in this House of Assembly. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is supposed to be a non-political statement about something going on in her district, and that minister turned it into a political statement by ignoring the fact that it was the Member for Labrador West who, in fact, intervened, with the help of the minister - there is no question about that - but that minister should have been big enough to admit that and acknowledge that in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, speaking to the point of order.

MS KELLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would apologize for any incorrectness in what I have done from a political nature. It was certainly not my intention. I was there as all of this occurred, and since that time the Member for Labrador West has pointed out himself, and complimented and congratulated the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation on this matter.

I know that he was involved and working with the minister that day, very closely, but it was he who complimented the minister before I did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is really no point of order. I think the hon. minister did explain the circumstance. I listened carefully to the statement and I did not see anything in it that would be a major political statement or of any political nature, so there is no point of order.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on November 19, 2001 in the wake of terrorist attacks in the United States, the Premier informed hon. Members of the House of Assembly of actions government had taken to improve security in this Province. Since then, government has been working diligently to develop the additional measures to further enhance the safety of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular individuals working in or visiting government facilities. Today, I would like to provide an update of those activities.

While it was determined the security risks for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is low, we believe the protection of government employees, visitors to our buildings and the general public should be a high priority. Government is, therefore, introducing concrete measures to help achieve a security-sensitive environment within its facilities and among its employees. This will help ensure the rights and the safety of employees, MHAs and visitors, as well as the smooth continuation of the day-to-day operations of government and the House of Assembly.

Mail handling procedures have been developed in the event that suspicious packages are delivered to any provincial government facility. These procedures have been forwarded to all department heads.

Additionally, effective April 15, employees in the Confederation Complex will be required to wear ID cards while at work. Identification badges will help us distinguish visitors from employees, increasing the convenience and safety of both. Once ID cards have been implemented in the Confederation Complex, their use will be considered in other government buildings.

Visitor pass protocols are also being developed. In the near future, visitors to the Confederation Complex will be issued passes for the duration of their visit, after signing in at the security desk in one of the two main lobbies. Use of visitors' passes in other government buildings will be evaluated once implementation in Confederation Complex has been completed.

An independent review of safety and security in the House of Assembly in particular, and the Confederation Complex generally, was conducted by Mr. Dennis M. Clark. Mr. Clark is the Sergeant-at-Arms and Executive Director for Building Management and Conservation for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Mr. Clark's report identified a number of improvements that should be made in the building to protect the employees and visitors, as well as government facilities. The Commission of Internal Economy, which represents all MHAs in this hon. House and oversees the operation and administration of the House of Assembly, accepted this report and endorsed its recommendations.

Many ceremonial and fund-raising events are, and can continue to be, held in various areas of the Confederation Complex. These events require prior approval from and can be facilitated by the Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

In keeping with the review recommendations, effective immediately, demonstrations and protests will be held outside of government buildings. Citizens will be able to exercise their right to assemble and protest in the area around the Coat of Arms Lookout, which has been designed specifically for public gatherings.

The House of Assembly will still be open to and, indeed, welcome visitors. Security enhancements will enable us to provide a better, more safe and secure environment for members of the public visiting the gallery, employees and Members of the House of Assembly.

In the coming weeks, employees will receive more information regarding security enhancements. As public employees, we all share a responsibility to help achieve a safe and secure environment together, by following basic guidelines and co-operating with standard security procedures.

Mr. Speaker, we now live in an environment of heightened security. Government places great importance on the protection of its employees and of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We will take every reasonable and practical measure to enhance the safety of our employees and the public in general.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for sending over a copy of his statement today before the House sat. I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, this action is really a sign of the times that we live in. I have always, personally, felt safe in this House of Assembly. Still, today, I do, and I still feel safe in my office; but, since September 11, some people do feel more exposed to danger, and that is too bad.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister said, the Internal Economy Commission has met on this, has reviewed it, and they have supported it. We have had some discussion on it. Really, it is just an extension of the security of this House of Assembly to the Confederation Complex. I don't think the employees or the public will have a major problem with this as long as we do not go too far; that we do not limit public access to this building, to this House of Assembly, when it is not necessary to do so.

I want to talk about access to the building itself, with respect to the lobby, for public events such as Armistice Day, Canada Day, and what have you. That will not be limited in any way, I do not think, according to the minister. I think the people of the Province, in a democratic country, have a right to free assembly. The Confederation Complex itself, outside the building, will be available to the people for public demonstrations, or whatever the case may be. For security purposes, I think this side of the House does not have any major problem with this, as long as it is not taken too far.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While we can agree with a lot of the measures that are taken by the minister in terms of security, we do take exception to the fact that protestors will not be allowed in the main lobby. I do not think there has ever been a problem where people have felt threatened by protestors being in the lobby. It is a right that protestors of any group that wanted to protest have enjoyed since this building has been here.

We talk about going outdoors, Mr. Speaker. What about the weather in February and March? If we have a group of seniors, or persons with disabilities, who want to demonstrate and get a message across to this government, are this government saying to them that they have to go out in all kinds of weather to get their point across and demonstrate, as they are able to, in a democratic society? No, Mr. Speaker, I believe that is wrong.

I say to the Premier, he has his Maxwell Smart elevator that costs $60,000 or $80,000 out in the lobby now, so he does not have to face the crowds when they are there. I think it is fundamentally wrong and it is very undemocratic, Mr. Speaker, to bar people from expressing their opinions by way of demonstration in the building that the people of the Province own.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier. As did all Newfoundlanders, yesterday I listened with great disappointment as I heard the recent results of the census in which Newfoundland and Labrador recorded the greatest population decline in the country. In fact, people are leaving rural Newfoundland in record numbers.

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

the President of Inco, who said that Inco's goal is to ship concentrate out of the Province in as large quantities as possible for as long as possible, and that he is close to a deal with a government, a government, in fact, that is more flexible than any other government they have negotiated with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier: Does he recognize the concern of the Opposition with ore leaving the Province? Does he, in fact, understand the connection between ore leaving the Province for Sudbury and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians leaving the Province to find jobs because the resources are being taken away once again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, two parts to the question in the lead-in with respect to the census information, I would suggest to the Leader of the Official Opposition that he might get the transcript of the presentation made with respect to that by the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, who spoke of it at length and quite eloquently today on the Provincial Affairs radio broadcast. He did a very good job of summarizing it -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize again, as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are beginning to recognize every day, that the Leader of the Official Opposition is frightened to death that we might actually finally get a deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The truth, Mr. Speaker, is this: It is the exact opposite. It is the exact opposite of what he just described.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER GRIMES: If we can find a way, Mr. Speaker, to finally have projects like Voisey's Bay proceed and maximize the benefits for Newfoundland and Labrador, which is what we are trying to accomplish, then maybe that will help reverse the trends that were announced yesterday, not make it worse. It is not that there is a tie-in. It is because we haven't been able to find a way, for political reasons and others, with people like himself who will not support the deal. We will gladly talk about Friedman Goldman, if there is a question with respect to that. It is because we haven't been able to do those kinds of deals and create the opportunities, that unfortunately some of our people have had to leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I sat in this House yesterday when our House Leader questioned the Minister of Industry, Trade and no Rural Development about the out-migration statistics, and I was quite amazed to hear him tell the people of rural Newfoundland and Labrador how strong the economy was. How strong do you think the Dredges in Black Duck Cove think the economy is? How strong do the Pennells in Trepassey think the economy is? How strong do the Hanns in Burgeo think the economy is, when they sit home in their living rooms unemployed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister, in his statement on Monday, talked in terms of concentrate that may leave the Province. On the contrary, Mr. Peter Jones, Chairman of Inco, yesterday said: discussions now are not concerning whether it will leave but how much ore will actually leave the Province in quantity; how many kilotons of nickel will actually leave the Province. Those were his words.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the Premier of this Province tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador just how flexible he is going to be, because the more flexible that he is, in these negotiations, the more jobs we lose from this Province and the more people leave this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me answer in this fashion. I did have the great privilege of doing a course thirty years ago or so now, maybe a bit longer, in university - because yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was bragging about being thirty years at the Bar and so on. The course was Logic 101, and as far as I can recall, because my memory does fade, I passed the course.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the logic, as I see it, would be the exact reverse and opposite of what the Leader of the Opposition just described in somewhat angry tones, I do not know why. We are trying to get a deal. The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: we had a position in Newfoundland and Labrador where nothing was to leave the Province, not one spoonful; and not one spoonful has left and the people have left. The exact opposite of what I would describe here.

What we are suggesting is that maybe some will leave and be returned later because that is reasonable and can be guaranteed, and then maybe the people will not have to leave. The choices are the exact opposite of what is described by the Leader of the Opposition. I am still amazed as to why he resists real attempts to try to find a way for the Voisey's Bay project to proceed so that we can in fact, give a better reason for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to stay right here, work right here, raise their families right here, and contribute to the economy right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The position that you are espousing now, Premier, is a mandate that is directly opposite to the mandate upon which you were put in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: If that is your position and that is the mandate, then call an election and lets go to the people on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, like any good business, Inco is trying to make as much money as it can on the deal, and we cannot blame Inco for that. It is their goal to try and make as much money as they can. But it is this Premier's job to safeguard the interests of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: Something that this government did not do for the people of Marystown. The Friede Goldman fiasco -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I would ask the Premier: In light of the fact that both Scott Hand and Peter Jones of Inco have said that hydromet technology is not proven and requires a lot more work and has only been tested in a lab, what safeguards and guarantees are you going to have for the people of this Province to ensure that they have the long-term processing jobs that they have been promised, and so rightly deserve, to stay in their home Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? What guarantees, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I commend the Leader of the Opposition this time for at least waiting three days before he asked for an election, because it is the third day of the Legislature. I was surprised, I was actually expecting him to call for an election on Monday. He lasted until Wednesday. It seems as if he is obsessed with the idea of having an election. The people of the Province, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, want their government to go ahead and proceed and try to get some things done so we can turn around the circumstance, that was displayed and explained yesterday, of out-migration.

Mr. Speaker, we have asked and answered all of these questions before, and it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be the only person in Newfoundland and Labrador who doesn't want the Government of Canada -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We covered all this ground in numerous Question Periods before Christmas, where the Leader of the Opposition is the only person that I know of - because I know lots in his caucus don't support the view - who is against the notion that the Government of Canada should invest $100 million of research and development funding here so that maybe the process can work in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: - that he is frightened to death that it might actually work and the people might actually stay in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador should record from that answer that the Premier is giving them no guarantee whatsoever that there will be long-term processing jobs in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: He is flexible on shipping the ore out. No jobs! The ore is gone. We have given away once again.

Mr. Speaker, this government has a long history of giving away. Friede Goldman gave away our assets. In Labrador City, it gave away our iron ore, the pelletizing plant, to Quebec. The Premier would have given bulk water away if he bothered to check to see if it worked or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WILLIAMS: And he would have given away FPI to John Risley if he had been interested enough to be concerned about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: I ask the Premier: When are you going to stop cozying up to your corporate buddies and start looking out for the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, who are leaving this Province in record numbers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me try to deal with just a couple of parts of the answer. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition would like to tell his friends, one to his right and one to his far right, why it was that when he was in the corporate world that he supported Clyde Wells in the election of 1989 instead of the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Why it was, in the election past, that he supported Brian Tobin instead of the Member for Kilbride? Talk about corporate buddies, I guess there are some corporate buddies, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that today in Question Period there is a continuation of the show that some of us witnessed here - not on live television - last night.

Let me deal again with one part, because there were four or five items in the question. Just this one with respect to bulk water as an example. The record that the Leader of the Opposition is spinning in Newfoundland and Labrador is that - I think the phrase he has used is that I have been naive. In Corner Brook he called me stupid. He actually said: Is that man stupid or what? He said to the group in Corner Brook.

Mr. Speaker, the point he was making was this, he said that we opened the bulk water debate without finding out whether it was valuable or not. We opened the debate and said we would check it out, which is what we did.

Last night I quoted the Member for Kilbride, who was the Leader at the time, and I forgot; but I found today the quote from the current Leader of the Opposition who, I guess, did not check it out either. In the Clarenville the Packet, April 9, 2001, Mr. Williams described the export of the bulk water out of the Province as a huge issue. There is more profit in water than anything else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER GRIMES: In the meantime, he is willing to stand up and say that I must be naive and really stupid because -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Finance. Stats Canada's figures released yesterday show a loss of 39,000 people from our Province. The Minister of Finance stated that the impact on federal transfers is $2,700 per person. The Department of Finance in Ottawa estimates that at $2,856 per person, but we will use the minister's own figures. Let's take the minister's own figures that are even less, at $2,700 per person. The impact of transfers and this loss in population would be $105 million on the economy (inaudible) of this Province on transfers.

Why didn't the minister, Mr. Speaker, make that clear to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador yesterday?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think the only person who is not clear about it is the member opposite. I said yesterday, when I was interviewed, that the census is a count at a point in time. The numbers we are using are the estimates, the population estimates, which are now at 533,000. The numbers that were released yesterday, and the predications to where they will go in eighteen months is less about 2.2 per cent. I said, based on those numbers, we will be down. Approximately $2,700 per person, rounded out, works out to approximately $30 million less. That is what I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker. That is simple enough.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is not being forthright with the people. She is trying to put her spin on it and conceal the real impact. If you are going to use that theory, Minister, you should now start counting decline in this year and project it for next year in the new figures, if you are going to use that reasoning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Our per capita GDP, I say to the minister, is $27,000. If you multiply that per capita GDP by a 39,000 loss -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I am asking the question, Mr. Speaker. If you multiply that per capita, of $27,000 GDP per capita, by the 39,000 loss of population in this Province, I say to the minister, the negative economic impact will be $1 billion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In light of the fact that economists use those numbers in calculating global economic impact, and the $1 billion figure, I say, is in that ballpark, does your government have any idea of the impact of that population loss, not only on the economy of this Province but on the economic opportunities in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the previous question is an excellent lesson in voodoo economics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is talking about spin. Every day in this House, Mr. Speaker, every day, the member opposite stands up and says: Minister, GDP does not mean cash; Minister, GDP is not a good indicator. Now he is standing up and trying to create this fear about the GDP.

Mr. Speaker, the GDP reflects the strength of our economy. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I will not go there because our economy is strong, our economy continues to grow, our housing starts are up. Mr. Speaker, we know exactly where we are in this position with respect to our GDP, as has been identified by outside groups, but we also know the devastating effect it does have on our own economy, which we take very seriously, which my colleague spoke to yesterday. We are working on that very seriously and taking it very seriously, unlike the member opposite, who is doing nothing more than fearmongering and trying to capitalize on voodoo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Environment. Mr. Speaker, the residents of Chapel's Cove have today been informed of the results of tests in arsenic in their bodies and the results, I say to this House, are not good. The cross-section of residents right from infants to senior citizens is indicating levels four times, ten times, over the limit of the standard in these results.

The water is still flowing into these homes, even though not for consumption, we hope. We want to know from the minister: Can the minister guarantee the people, the residents of Chapel's Cove today, that they are not at risk - now that they have increased levels of arsenic in their body - of absorbing even more arsenic into their bodies as a result of use of this water, Minister?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, given that the question pertains to the level of risk of the individuals, as I understood it, perhaps what would be most helpful would be for me to respond by giving the information that our medical health officer for the region provided to these people as she informed them of the results of this testing. In fact, what she has communicated to people in this area says that, first of all, this result does mean that they have had increased exposure. She goes on to say that this result "...does not mean that you have or will have any harmful effects. The actual level in hair..."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS BETTNEY: Excuse me, I am quoting now from the medical health officer who is on the scene with this issue as a health issue.

If I could continue...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BETTNEY: "The actual level in hair does not reflect the risk of getting sick as the arsenic level in hair can be affected by external contamination as well as by the drinking water." She goes on to say, "The result will help your doctor to assess your health now and in the future." - and advises them to consult with their doctor.

In fact, Dr. Donovan has been in contact with each one of these individuals. This is the best medical information that she has been able to provide them at this time. She is in contact with the family practice physicians in the area, and she is also in contact with any experts as necessary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, these are the same residents who - the testing, the sampling of water was done in June and August and they never got the results until January. These are the residents who have been sitting back now for a month, or a month-and-a-half, waiting for these results, and the minister is telling me that they are going to do nothing?

There has been plenty of time to look at and research what should be done. They have increased levels of arsenic, a heavy metal, in their bodies. I am asking the minister: What is the contingency plan? What are they doing, medically or otherwise, to allay the fears of these residents of Chapel's Cove?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BETTNEY: Mr. Speaker, if I could clarify one statement that was just made. As soon as the medical officer was notified of these results from the water testing, she immediately sent out an advisory to people in this area with respect to the water situation, advising them not to drink the water; and, subject to that, and following on that, put a process in place so that in February all of the people in the area were invited to come forward for voluntary testing, for hair samples.

There is a scientific and a medical process that has to take place here, and it has taken place. They have undertaken to do the samples. They have sent the samples for analysis. Yesterday, when they received the results of these samplings, they provided that information to every person who has been tested, and the medical advice - again, I can only say to you that I am not the medical expert here. This is not the case of the minister here deciding what medical action needs to be taken. I leave that to the judgement of physicians and medical experts.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS BETTNEY: Our medical health officer has been in contact with the medical people that she needs to contact. She is following their advice, and she is doing that appropriately with the people in the area.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education. Mr. Speaker, among the many thousands of people leaving this Province, as indicated in the results of the census yesterday, are students who have to leave this Province to find a job to pay off their huge student loan debts which are now three times what they were when the Liberal government took office; a debt load of graduating students now tripled to $25,000.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has noted that the government and this minister are sitting on some $6,000 in student bursary money that has not been disbursed to students. This has been reported now in two Auditor General's reports, and yet the government has failed to pass this money out to students who are eligible for it and should have received it.

What is this government going to do to undo this wrong and make sure that the students who are entitled to this money get this deferred student bursary money?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, the government has not refused to pay out these deferred bursaries. The money is in the government's accounts and is well accounted for to pay out these bursaries.

We have - I think it was from 1993 to 1996 or 1997- sent letters out each year to students who we felt should be owed some money. Some are owed as little as less than $100. There are students who are owed more than that, but when the letter keeps coming back to you as, not able to contact the person by mail, well then, you have to look at other means of doing it.

One of the things we have been doing is talking to various other students, making sure that we talk about it publicly, and we have now posted everything on our new Web site. All of the information is there at the number 1-888-657-0800 for any student who feels that they are owed a deferred bursary, who finished school to the end of the years 1992-1993 loan year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS KELLY: We have been putting that information out and, in many instances, parents have been calling us for the information. We pass it to them, and they pass it on to students who may be out of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I believe the cheque was in the mail, I actually might have some satisfaction. There is $6 million in this account and the minister says the mail keeps coming back because the students have changed their addresses. Well, if they have been forced to leave the Province, of course they have changed their addresses.

Is the minister prepared to conduct an advertising campaign in the newspapers across this Province to help to identify anybody who is owed this money from 1993? Is the minister prepared to do that so their families can know that they should check this out? To repeat a telephone number in this House of Assembly is not enough, Mr. Speaker. It did not work from 1999 to 2001, and it is not going to work now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

We have been doing everything that we practically can. That is why we have just added this new Web site information.

As to taking out an ad across the Province, the member has been just pointing out that these students are probably not in the Province, and I agree with him. That is why we have been making every endeavour that we can, in every program that we put out. For instance, this is the government that reduced tuition by 10 per cent this past year. We have done more proactive measures to lessen student debt than any other government in this country. When you meet the criteria for loan remission in this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS KELLY: If you meet the criteria through timely completion of your program - this is one of the few provinces in this country that you can get almost all of the provincial portion of your debt written off.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has ended.

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

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

I would like to table the annual report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation for the fiscal year 2001.

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

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First I will read the motion we are debating today here in the hon. House of Assembly so that everyone is aware of the issue that is before us. The motion is on Canada taking custodial management of the continental shelf off our coast.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Wonderful. Good news.

WHEREAS the marine resources on the Grand Banks of this Province are a critical element of the global ecosystem; and

WHEREAS these resources have the potential to provide tremendous economic benefits on a sustainable basis; and

WHEREAS the protection and conservation measures provided by the international community and organizations such as NAFO are not sufficient to protect marine resources on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks off the coast of this Province; and

WHEREAS the longer this ecosystem remains unprotected, increased and possibly irreparable damage continues to occur;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the Government of Canada to take custodial management of the continental shelf off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on the Government of Canada to put in place the necessary provisions and resources to enforce conservation measures for the marine resources in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I have added an extra;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Newfoundland and Labrador be an integral partner in any management structure and conservation measures deemed necessary to protect marine resources adjacent to our shores.

Mr. Speaker, this is a motion which I hope will draw support from all Members of the House of Assembly. It is not put forward, I add, to generate debate based on partisan politics but rather to bring attention to a very important issue and to send a message to the Government of Canada.

I am hoping that we can speak with one voice today to send a message to the politicians in Ottawa, to the Canadian public, and to the international community, Mr. Speaker. If we are to be successful in bringing about changes to this issue we have to start bringing attention to it, raising a public awareness and putting pressure on the federal government to make changes.

The problem, Mr. Speaker, facing us is serious and action must be taken. The EC countries have repeatedly rejected quota levels that have been set by NAFO and have fished virtually without restriction on our continental shelf. They have done so in complete disregard for the state of the ecosystem and the sustainability of the resource, and also to the resource of the Canadian fishing industry. This is unacceptable and it cannot be allowed to continue. The time for action is already long overdue and the issue should be top priority for the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this motion, I want to comment on the nature of the resource which we have off our coast. The first two sections I referenced refer to one of natures most productive marine environments that lay off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. For generations the Grand Banks have been supported with an abundance of fish. When John Cabot travelled to our shores in 1497 he reported that they could scoop the fish up in baskets. It is hard to believe that this valuable marine resource is now close to being wiped out by foreign overfishing.

Having said that, I would also like to add that I admit to this hon. House that I am far from being a professional when it comes to the fishing industry. However, I came from a fishing family. My father fished in the summer, in the trap fishery. In the fall of the year he did handlining and jigging. Later in the fall he would travel to Lunenburg to fish in the dory fishery, and then on the draggers out of Burin. Mr. Speaker, I can remember quite a few years ago when he would say that out on the Grand Banks it was lit up like a small city. So it is no wonder that the devastation has continued.

The Nose and Tail of the banks is approximately 42,000 square kilometres in size and is a vital spawning and nursery area of cod, redfish and various species of flatfish. The fish stocks off the Grand Banks are a renewable resource. With the proper management and care the stocks can continue to be a major source of food for the entire world and supply a livelihood for the fishers of the world for generations to come.

Canada, as the adjacent coastal state, has a responsibility to act quickly to ensure this marine resource is not destroyed forever.

The motion also deals with the current state of protection and conservation measures. While the Government of Canada is dramatically restricting Canadian fishing within the 200-mile limit in order to give domestic stocks time to rebuild, foreign fleets continue to fish on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. This is happening because NAFO is powerless to enforce any quotas. Powerless! It is not good enough that fish plants have to close and thousands of people put out of work, while at the same time foreign fishing fleets still plunder the stocks off our coast.

Mr. Speaker, it was only a few years ago when it was reported that there were 100-plus vessels on the Grand Banks fishing; foreign overfishing. Then we had been advised that the numbers have been down in the twenties. That's wonderful! The number of fishing boats have decreased, but I can assure you, the amounts that they are taking has not decreased.

It was only recently I read in an article that some of the nets that are being dragged by those large trawlers on the Grand Banks, on the Nose and Tail of the Banks - the size of the nets could hold twelve jumbo jets across the mouth of the net. We can only imagine what devastation and destruction is taking place.

Mr. Speaker, the all-party committee, as they travelled around this Province, heard the word from the people, and I think it is time for the Government of Canada to act.

This motion today calls on Canada to take custodial management. Extension of Canada's 200-mile fisheries jurisdiction to the edge of the continental shelf should not be viewed as a unilateral grab for justice over a vast stretch of international waters, rather it should be an extension. It should be viewed as a forward thinking move by a prudent resource manager interested in preserving the resource wealth for many generations to come. The groundwork has to be done so that such a move to take custodial management would place Canada in a leadership role of an environmental protection and proper resource management.

Mr. Speaker, we are leaders in every other phase around this world, and I cannot see why it cannot happen here in our own backyard. By taking custodial management, all we are asking - we are not taking everything away from the other countries - is that we would be the guardians to protect and maintain the resources that are there for future generations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Foreign overfishing is not a new issue for this Province, or for Canada as a matter of fact. For over twenty years, prior to the declaration of Canada's 200-mile limit in 1977, foreign fishing fleets undertook the unrestrained harvest of all the major fish stocks off the East Coast of Canada. At that time it constituted the single greatest threat to the Canadian fishing industry post War World II. After 1977, Canada declared the 200-mile limit and the stocks inside the zone began to rebuild because of the strict regulations and quota controls for the Canadian fishermen.

In 1979 NAFO was formed with the purpose of managing a portion of the Grand Banks fishing grounds, the Nose and Tail, outside Canada's 200-mile zone. In 1982 the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was adopted internationally, and its marine resource provisions are considered to be customary international law. In 1985, distant water fishing fleets from Spain, Portugal and Germany started to increase their catch on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. Some stock difficulties in NAFO areas started to be recorded.

In 1986, using the objection procedure under the NAFO convention, the EC began to unilaterally adopt its own quotas for NAFO stocks, far above the quotas that had been set by NAFO. These quotas were primely assigned to Spain and Portugal. Around this time, to make matter worse, vessels from non-NAFO countries, mainly Panama and Korea, began to fish in the NAFO area, despite having no quotas whatsoever.

It is clearly evident that NAFO has no power to solve these problems of overfishing within the European Community. In fact, during this whole fishing crisis, it is evident that the European Community is attempting to export its fishing problems from the European waters to the waters off our coast.

In recent years, Mr. Speaker, some steps have been taken to give appearance that NAFO is doing something to improve surveillance and restrict overfishing, but EC vessels continue to overfish quotas and misreport their catches. It is clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have no other choice. As a nation, we either take action outlined in this motion or we give up any future recovery for the fishery off our coast. The only responsible option left for Canada is to take custodial management over this resource; the extension of Canada's 200-mile fisheries jurisdiction to include the whole continental shelf. We have acted unilaterally in the past, and we should not be afraid to do so again in the future.

Some examples of where Canada has taken unilateral action in the past: In 1964 Canada adopted straight base lines, demarcate the territorial sea. In 1970, when we, as a nation, declared the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy to be within Canada's jurisdiction. In 1970, when we asserted sovereignty over waters in the Arctic Island chain, and when we extended fisheries jurisdictions outside the 12-mile limit. In 1977, when Canada declared jurisdiction to 200 miles. We took bold action then when we arrested the Estai and brought her into port.

These were strong moves at the time, Mr. Speaker. We were not afraid to act then and we should not be afraid to act now. The situation requires bold action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: As a nation, Canada must be making our case before the full international community. We should using every means possible to make sure our case is heard, and that foreign nations listen to what is happening off our coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: We should be expressing our case to the international community through the United Nations. We should develop a comprehensive public relations campaign to explain to the international community where Canada has and stands on the custodial management possibility. You may ask: What can we do? This issue will not be resolved here in this hon. House of Assembly today. There may be some fine speeches given to this issue. We may leave here better informed on the issue, but I do not expect immediate action to be taken by the federal Government of Canada.

I am hoping that what we are doing here today will be part of a bigger, a larger effort, a bigger campaign. I hope others will hear what we have to say today and join us in the cause. I want to ask all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to become involved in this campaign. We can speak out on this issue; we can write to the Minister of Fisheries federally; we can contact the Prime Minister; we can call the Open Line shows and talk to our federal members in Parliament.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: - but I have to say, I ask at this time for my country to step forward. I call upon the federal government, regardless -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Ottawa.

MR. BUTLER: Never mind whose cousins are in Ottawa. This is not a political issue, and I don't care what color of political stripe they hold. I ask them to come forward, and I call them to take action.

I say to my hon. colleague along the way: It is wonderful to have cousins in Ottawa. Some people will not have them there for a long, long time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I call upon the federal government, Madam Speaker, to take action, and take it immediately.

I listened yesterday evening, or last evening, with interest to Mr. Loyola Hearn, the MP for St. John's West, who happens to be on the committee. I was listening with interest when he made a report - I think it was from the Boston Seafood Show - where he said that the hearings they have had to date, he is very discouraged because the most that they have spoken with were bureaucrats who were coming up with every reason in the world why this should not take place. He is hoping - and I am sure he will receive it, because I understand the Opposition and our minister will be making presentations to them when they arrive in this Province.

I say to the Government of Canada they should read the history of Iceland. Just a few years ago Iceland was in a similar situation. Other foreign countries were destroying the fish stocks off their shores, but that little country took action, and I am sure we all know the story. I think it is time for our country to do the same.

We can arrest our own little boats fishing in 3N + 3O a few years ago, and foreign fishing continued. We are going through a motorium but still foreign fishing takes place, and here we are being threatened by being arrested if our men go fishing.

If we could take the time, and an individual had to fire a shot across his ship to make sure it returned to port, if we could have done that at the time, surely God our country can stand up for us now and not only protect the resource that is going to be beneficial to this Province but to our nation, to the country, and to the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Madam Speaker, this is very important to the future of this Province, and we should make sure the people of the federal government realize how important it is to us in this Province, and realize how it is important to our nation, Canada, and the whole world.

I would like to ask all members to support this motion today and also to continue the campaign to have the Canadian government do the right thing.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

First of all, let me say to my colleagues how pleased I am that they have asked me to lead off the debate for our caucus on this important matter today. Obviously, I am pleased to be able to do so.

Secondly, let me take the opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Port de Grave, the new Member for Port de Grave, for bringing forward this very important resolution. As I was sitting here listening to the hon. gentleman make his presentation, and reflecting on the contents of the resolution, I could not help but think that, in my just about twenty years in this place, I would say a resolution of similar sorts has been before this Legislature perhaps every year during that time.

It seems that, for some reason or other, we in this Province always have to keep pushing the envelope. We always have to keep making the case, we always have to keep banging our heads against the wall, to try to get somebody to understand, to try to get somebody to listen to the fact that the precious resources of the living sea that is off our shore has to be brought under the control and management of Canada for the good of this Province, for the good of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Resolution after resolution, year after year, by one party or the other - it does not matter; no one party has a monopoly on what this resolution is all about - year after year, one party after the other, resolution after resolution, this House has gone on record time and time again, Madam Speaker, in asking the federal government, perhaps in words not exactly as they are here today but in words very similar, in asking the federal government to come to our rescue.

Nay, Madam Speaker, not to come to our rescue, to do what is right, to do what is right and proper for Canadian citizens living in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is all we are asking. Year after year, decade after decade now, this Legislature has unanimously, as I am sure it will today - I do not think there is anybody in this House who will vote against this resolution today. There has been more than one unanimous resolution adopted by this place. There has been more than one protocol adopted by this place and sent up along. The sad reality, Madam Speaker, is that unfortunately those things have continued over the years to fall on deaf ears when they got up along. That is the reality of what we are facing here today.

I guess the question that is operative becomes: What do we do about it? We have all had our political smack at it, Madam Speaker. The present party have tried to influence their party when they were in power in Ottawa previously and again now. Our party, when we were in power here and in Ottawa, tried to influence our political cousins. We have all had a smack at it politically, to try to get that understanding, to try to get the federal government to come to grips with the reality that if we do not take charge of that territory just outside of 200 miles, then we are never going to solve the problems that plague the fishery in Atlantic Canada in general, and in Newfoundland and Labrador in particular. We are never going to do it.

I think the question becomes:What is it that we have to do? We can send up unanimous resolutions, as we have done year after year. We can lobby our various political friends in the political parties in Ottawa. The member mentioned about lobbying MPs and calling the Open Line shows.

You know, we are in Confederation; fifty-odd years we have been doing that. There has been some small progress made from three miles to twelve miles to 200 miles. These were all giant steps when they took place. The reality, Madam Chair, is that Canada is one of only, I believe it is two countries in the world that has a continental shelf that extends outside of 200 miles: Argentina, and I do not recall the other but I believe there is another country in the world.

We are in a unique situation. That is one of the international calamities that has befallen us, Madam Chair. If there were thirty-five or forty or fifty countries in the world that had a continental shelf that extended outside of 200 miles - if the United States had a continental shelf that went beyond 200 miles, if the former Soviet Union or present-day Russia had a continental shelf that went beyond 200 miles, if the European Community had any of its member countries that had a continental shelf that went beyond 200 miles, do you think we would be here passing dead-end resolutions, asking that this matter be gripped in the consciousness of Canadians? It is hard to have it gripped in the consciousness of Canadians when you cannot have it become an issue and a focus in the international conscience. That is the kind of problem that we are facing. We have to continue, I say to my friend who brought in the resolution, the resolution which we support, we have to continue the battle. It is going to be a continuous battle. Hopefully some day, somewhere, whether it is in Ottawa or whether it is in Europe, or whether it is in the United States, hopefully some day the light will go on. There will be a click and hopefully some day those environmental - what is the right word to describe them, I wonder? - those wisdoms of environmental -

AN HON. MEMBER: Environmental geniuses.

MR. RIDEOUT: - environmental geniuses out there will latch on to a real cause, Madam Chair. They will latch on to a real cause, not a cause that brings money into their coffers or increases their profile or downgrades hard-working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians or Aboriginal Canadians, not a cause of that kind, but a real environmental cause. This is an environmental disaster happening to the living resources of the sea off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Chair, my friend makes reference to NAFO in his resolution. I suppose I have to say that, without NAFO, matters might be worse. I am not sure how much worse they could be, but it would be stretching it to say that they would be worse. The fact of the matter, Madam Chair, is that over the years - there was a time when NAFO was conceived following the old ICNAF regime, then it became NAFO - Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. Following that, when that organization was put in place first, Madam Chair, Canada had a lot of clout in NAFO. Canada could lobby and trade with Norway and Iceland and the former Soviet Union, and between us, collectively, we could carry the day in NAFO, for what it might have been worth. The problem is today -

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

MR. RIDEOUT: That is another issue. The problem today is that Canada no longer has any clout in NAFO. Canada has absolutely no clout in NAFO today, in my view. There was a time when the Deputy Minister of Fisheries for Canada could line up the ducks before going to a NAFO meeting and the Canadian agenda would be adopted. It happened year after year.

What did they do this year when they met? Every item that Canada had on the agenda, I understand, was voted down. We never carried an item on the NAFO agenda this year in terms of conservation and quotas and stock management and conservation management and all of that. Not an item did we carry.

Then, to add insult to injury, Madam Speaker, the European Community gave notice of their intention to object, and set the quotas that they wanted anyway on flounder and redfish. The question becomes: Why are we there? NAFO has turned itself into a toothless, idiotic organization.

Now, I remember years ago when I was Minister of Fisheries, the lobbying by Canada, and people like John Crosbie and so on going in and trying to browbeat NAFO. I had visions of him being in Marystown the other night, when I saw him on television. This is how he used to get on at the NAFO meetings. It might have worked at NAFO, but it did not work in Marystown.

The fact of the matter is that this NAFO organization has outlived its usefulness, if it every had any usefulness. We have to wrap our minds around: What are we going to do about it? What are we going to do about this? Are we going to continue to be a part of a paper tiger organization that does nothing for the Province and the resource of this Province, or anything for the country for that matter, just to say that we are nice, to be nice and have cocktails with our international buddies? Is that what we are going to do?

I say the time has come, like the old fellow would say, to fish or cut bait. It is time for us to bring NAFO to its senses, and strengthen it or get out of it. Strengthen it or get out of it.

What is put forward in this resolution today, Canada taking custodial management of the resources to the edge of the continental shelf, makes sense. I think it makes sense. It has been a policy that I think many of us have been supportive of over the years in various political parties. I think we ought to be clear what we are talking about. It is not only the edge of the continental shelf, which would include the Nose and Tail of the Bank, but I think it also has to include the Flemish Cap. That is all NAFO territory, as the member who brought in the resolution knows. I think we are talking about an area here that is very significant, and one that we have to move on.

I think the other part of the question becomes this, Madam Speaker. Canada appears to have gone down another road. Canada has signed onto this United Nations Fish Agreement, so Canada appears to have gone down another road. Canada appears, I say to my friend who brought in this resolution, to have abandoned the possibility of taking custodial management of the resource. Canada appears to have advanced itself along another road and have signed on to this United Nations Fish Agreement.

This United Nations Fish Agreement, even though thirty-odd countries, I believe, including Canada, including Russia, including the United States - thirty-two I believe, including significant countries like Canada, Russia and the United States - have signed onto this agreement, the European Community have not signed onto it. So, Canada has moved off this more proactive, aggressive ground of unilaterally saying we are giving the world notice that we are going to take custodial management of the resource because somebody has to become responsible for it, there is a marine eco disaster waiting to happen unless somebody become responsible for it. We are the coastal state. We have the right, in international law, to extend our custodial management of that resource and we are going to do it, and we are going to challenge the whole world to say why we cannot do it. No, Madam Speaker, not this pussyfoot Canada that we are part of today.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have done it before.

MR. RIDEOUT: We have done it before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Exactly.

The point I was trying to make, I say to my friend opposite, is that Canada appears to have backed off from this more aggressive proactive approach of saying, "We are going to take the right to custodially manage that resource", and have gone this more pussyfoot, diplomatic, United Nations approach. That might be all very well if there were a lot of countries in the world that had the same problem, but there are not. It is a case of diplomacy lost rather than diplomacy gained. It is not going to go anywhere; because, if every country in the world signs onto it, what is the point? If every country in the world signs onto it and the EEC and their components stay out of it, nothing is going to happen.

I would hope that the focus of the debate would be the need to try to convince Canada to back off this little floppy diplomatic approach like we have become so used to in Canada, we have become so comfortable with. I would hope we would try to focus the debate to convince the Government of Canada to back away from that approach. Not necessarily give up on it, because you can work two fronts the one time, Madam Speaker. It may do us some good somewhere, some day, somewhere along the line; but, in the meantime, while we are doing the fiddling here, Rome is burning and we have to stop the fiddling. We have to put out the fire. We have to take control of the resource now because, if we do not, it is almost horrendous to think about the consequence.

There are more vessels, I understand, fishing off in the NAFO area today than there were when the Estai was brought into St. John's. More NAFO and non-NAFO vessels fishing off 200 miles today, the Flemish Cap in particular, the Nose and Tail of the Banks, than there were at any time since the Estai was brought into St. John's.

What does that tell you about the will of Canada to extend management over that resource? There is no will at all, Madam Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Ottawa?

MR. RIDEOUT: In Ottawa, yes. That is what I am talking about.

So I think again. I go back to my original point that I made when I began. How do we get this matter seized in the consciousness, first of all, of Canadians? That is the operative question. How do we do it? We lobby our politicians. We have seven members in Ottawa. So, big deal! We have lobbied our respective parties when they were the Governments of Canada. When they see us coming, there is another problem that they do not want to see coming. Newfoundlanders coming moaning and groaning again about all the hard times that they are having down there.

Somehow or another this is not fitting in, and it has not fit in. You know, Madam Speaker, it is a sad commentary on our history, isn't it? Fifty-odd years ago we voluntarily joined this great country, and we brought a resource -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, my friend, the anti-confederate, was at least 50 per cent plus one.

We brought a resource with us, Madam Speaker, the likes of which no other country in the world could boast about. Can you imagine, the living resources of the sea, the hydrocarbons under the sea, all of that, from Cape Chidley in Labrador down to wherever the boundary might be fixed between Nova Scotia; and 200 miles or 225 miles offshore. Just the geography of it alone is enough to blow the mind.

But we brought it all with us, and said: Here, Canada, here is what we have for you. You have this rich resource, this huge geography, take it and manage it for our good and the good of all Canadians. What has been the result? The result has been poverty. The result has been suffering. The result has been devastation to our rural communities. There would not be a non-prosperous rural community in Newfoundland and Labrador today if that resource were healthy and properly managed. Every single rural Newfoundland community today would be prosperous communities, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: There would be nobody banging on doors talking about restricting ownership of FPI or more layoffs in the groundfishery or, can we get our crab permit turned into a crab licence? There would be none of that.

If the groundfish resource or the fisheries resource in the totality off the continental shelf of Canada, that Newfoundlanders, gladly and willingly, maybe unknowingly turned over - turning over the control of management was a political matter that we did back in 1949. One that perhaps, I suspect, we will live to regret for a long time, but nevertheless it was done. We turned it over to the Government of Canada to manage for the benefit of all of us and today, Madam Speaker, we have become paupers in our own house because of it. Paupers in our own house, when we should be one of the smallest, richest parts of the world; based on fish alone. Never mind the hydrocarbons, never mind the hydroelectricity, never mind the forestry, never mind all the rest of the tremendous resources that we have in this Province, but the fish alone, properly managed, should have made this place heaven on earth. What do we have? We have the reverse, where people are lining their U-Hauls up at Port aux Basques to get out to look for a way to survive.

If there is any fishery that comes back in five, ten, fifteen or twenty years time, there is not going to be the skills to even operate a fish plant in many of those rural communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is getting there now though.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is getting there now.

You know P.E.I. today imports fish plant workers from Newfoundland. New Brunswick imports fish plant workers from Newfoundland. Where will Newfoundland go to import fish plant workers from, if this resource ever rebounds in twenty years time? It will be no good looking to the oil fields of Fort McMurray because they are not coming home then.

Do you know what has happened in this Province? Not only have the young people moved out in rural Newfoundland where - out in my district, in the Lewisporte area. Not only have the young people moved but for the first time in our history I have seen this in rural Newfoundland, the parents are gone now and the grandparents have followed them because they want to be with the grandkids. That is the big thing that is taking place in the out-migration this time, I say to my friends. That is tremendously and totally different than any other out-migration that we have ever had in our history.

Before, when our young people went, they went for experience. They went to upgrade their skills. They went to enjoy the world and perhaps come back to Newfoundland and Labrador, but this, Madam Speaker, many of the young people who have gone will never come back, including my son who is in British Columbia, and I am sure there are lots of other sons and daughters around this place. Not only have they gone, but out in rural Newfoundland in particular, many, not all, but many of the parents have gone and the grandparents. That is why you see more boarded up houses in Stoneville, in Fleur de Lys or La Scie than you see anywhere else. The root cause is the principle of this resolution today. The root cause has been the devastation, the impoverishment of rural Newfoundland because no Canadian government, of any political stripe, has had the courage and the fortitude to manage the resources for the benefit of Canadians who live in this Province, and until we turn that around, Madam Speaker, the future of rural Newfoundland is indeed very bleak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the Member for Port de Grave on putting forward this resolution to us today.

Let me also say to my personal friend from Lewisporte, that I want to congratulate him on a speech well delivered; on a speech, I am sure, that is vital and feels vital in the hearts and minds of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. As a matter of fact, he reminded me of the late 1980s when both of us were here at the same time, and he is right. He is absolutely right. The same resolution has been debated over and over and over in this Legislature. It has been forwarded to Ottawa. It has been forwarded to PC governments. It has been forwarded to Liberal governments in Ottawa. All to no avail, because we still have, in spite of some of the things that has happened off our coast, in spite of some of the actions that has been taken, we still have the destruction of a resource; not only a resource for us, but a total ecosystem.

I say to him today, that there has not been - he knows this and we both agree on it, and all of us in this Legislature agree - a greater environmental disaster in the world than what is occurring. It is occurring under the water. You cannot see it. It is not a forest being cut down. It is not some wildlife being destroyed. It is fish which is under the water, and for many people, for many of the environmentalists in this world, Madam Speaker, that is out-of-sight and out of mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: And for many Canadians, for many people in Canada, and for governments in Canada, it has been out-of-sight and out of mind.

He is absolutely right about what is happening in rural Newfoundland. He is absolutely right about what has happened. We can stand in this House and play all the politics we like about rural Newfoundland, but the truth of the matter is, that through the destruction of that ecosystem we have destroyed a way of life and a culture. It has been done by successive Canadian government's lack of action. Not the actions that they have taken, but by their lack of action. There has not been the kind of action that we need to take. For those people who are wondering what we are talking about - maybe there are some people in this Legislature who do not really know the area that we are talking about.

I understand that the Member for The Straits & White Bay North said: Why don't you include in the resolution, the Flemish Cap? Now, that is area 3M. If that is what is necessary to be reflected here, I want to go on the record now, on behalf of the government and my friend from Port de Grave, as saying we are not only talking about the Tail and Nose of the Grand Banks - and if the Flemish Cap is not considered part of the continental shelf, we are not only talking about the continental shelf, we are talking about the Flemish Cap as well. The whole resolution speaks to that. Madam Speaker, for those people who do not understand what we are talking about here, I would ask the Clerk's people if they would distribute the map of the areas of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries management division.

Now, Madam Speaker, what we see is a red line that comes down across, circles out 200 miles off our coast and yet leaves an area of the continental shelf - an area, by the way, a couple of years ago supplied crab in deep water for Burgeo, and the federal government decided that they would take us out of that. They would not make that resource available so that the people of Burgeo could make a living. Well, I wonder who is catching it now? I wonder who is destroying it now? Is it Portugal or is it Spain? Because, as my friend from Lewisporte rightly pointed out, NAFO has become a toothless tiger. It has become a toothless tiger. There is nothing happening to conserve that ecosystem as a result of NAFO. Yes, I say to him, that we should, indeed, consider whether we are going to stay part of that organization or not.

But, Madam Speaker, where do we go? I think it is important, and the Member for Lewisporte has framed what I want to say very well. What is the answer for us? We have to convince, as a people, not only Canada - I wish they would help us. That is the key, to get them to help us first; but we have to convince an international community that we should indeed have custodial management. Not ownership. Who cares? Who cares who owns it, as long as you can manage it and manage it right. Not only for ourselves, but for mankind. Who cares?

As I said, it is an environmental disaster off this coast that we need to be able to persuade the international community, and force the international community. Canada should move to force the international community.

Can you imagine if the Government of Canada put forward the means of saying: We are taking it over, to manage it for the world, to manage it for all mankind. Can you imagine how any country in the world could argue against Canada preventing an environmental disaster? It couldn't happen. Canada has an opportunity here to save an ecosystem and to make its place in the world like they have never had before. An opportunity exists for them to say: We are taking over this, not on behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians only, not only on behalf of Nova Scotians, New Brunswickers, Quebeckers, or people in B.C. Yes, we want to see the people who live close to that resource benefit from it, but we are taking this over on behalf of all mankind. It is an ecosystem that is being destroyed by a group of people, by the way, who have destroyed their own. Portugal and Spain no longer have the fish that they need.

As my friend from Lewisporte pointed out, when NAFO says you should take this quota, this is the part of the quota you should take - Portugal - they object, and once they object they have to let a period of time go by, and I do not even think they do that, and then they can go set their own quotas, and they do.

What has been very disappointing in the last little while is the action of Iceland. Iceland, the country that took on the British navy and said: We want to protect the area around our coasts. I understand that they now are objecting to putting observers on boats, and that they have threatened to take them off their own. Why are they asking to take them off? I can only assume one thing: that they, too, would like to over fish, take the resource out of that ecosystem and take it back to their own country, and do it for their own profit.

The onus is on Canada to say to the world that this is a destruction of an ecosystem like no other and we will not stand back and see this ecosystem destroy the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Canada, the country of Canada, prides itself on being one of the great nations of the world, one of the great nations where people are allowed to live, make a living, and live in freedom, and have the freedom to choose and to make a living.

When you see what has happened to outport rural Newfoundland today, outport Newfoundland as I call it, when you see what has happened, for example, to the Northern Peninsula - the greatest example is in areas like Burgeo, and areas like the tip of the Bonavista Peninsula - when you see what has happened as a result of the destruction of the ecosystem, of which they are a part - they were part of it for 500 years. They lived with it, they conserved it, they kept it for themselves and looked after it for the world. When you see the destruction of that ecosystem, when you see that Canada has allowed that ecosystem to be destroyed, when we see that Canada is willing to go to NAFO and do the cocktail circuit and then sit back, it poses a vital question about this place called Confederation, to be frank with you, in my mind. It poses a vital question. As the member said, we took that resource and we took it into Canada. That resource, that ecosystem, was part of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was adjacent to this country called Newfoundland and Labrador when we became part of a confederation.

When you see what Canada has allowed to happen, then you have to question if they really care about this part of the country at all, if they have any regard for people and for an ecosystem, as I said, that belongs to the world, for a resource, for ground that belongs to the world, and they have allowed it to disappear. They have allowed it to disappear. They have allowed a people to disappear. They have allowed a culture to disappear. We have the same (inaudible). That is about what we have, and that is not doing us very well either. You have to question where we are.

Madam Speaker, let me just say this: Yes, I say to the Member for Lewisporte, we have debated this issue in this Legislature, as he said. He was here before I was and he was out awhile, while I was here. For about twenty years both of us stood in this House and debated it, and we have not debated it in a partisan way, but here is the deal. We have not debated it in a partisan fashion. You remember when we were in the Opposition and he was in government, it was not debated in a partisan fashion. It was debated as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians concerned about where we were going, what we were doing.

We cannot give up the fight. The question is now, how do we proceed? How do we proceed? The first step for us has to be that we have to convince Canada that we are not up there looking for something to grab for us; we are up there looking for something to say: Let's conserve this for everybody in the world, but conserve it in a fashion that is not governed by greed, that is governed by the fact that you have to be able to carry on sustainable development, and that people who are part of the ecosystem have a first call on the resource.

Madam Speaker, I do not see, to be frank with you, any point in Canada asking Portugal, Spain and some other countries in the EU, and indeed some other countries outside the EU, to come in and fish willy-nilly. There is no point in going to them and using the diplomatic means, at this point, and saying: Would you give us custodial management, because we want to conserve this? No. Take control of it.

I don't think there is any doubt that what we did with the Estai woke the world up a bit. It woke the world up a bit when we brought the Estai ashore. But it was not in the name of conservation, it was not done in the name; we want this for Newfoundland and Labrador. It woke the world up a bit. We need to do the same kind of thing on a much broader scale.

Madam Speaker, I am not going to stay here forever and go over and over what has been said already. There is no need. I do say this, that we - and I think we have to put Canada on notice - are at the end of our rope with NAFO, we are at the end of our rope with being neglected, that we will not live in this Province adjacent to the sea, part of us, a resource and an ecosystem that is part us. We will not do that, Madam Speaker. We will not allow that resource to be taken, that ecosystem to be further destroyed, that they will not - just let me say to the hon. gentleman, he is trying to act very, very cute over there. He is acting very, very cute over there. The Member for Cape St. Francis should sit back and reflect, all of us need to reflect, on how we solve this problem. Unlike the hon. gentleman, I don't have an easy answer.

I know where we have to go. I know who has to be convinced, as does the Member for Lewisporte. The first step is to convince Canada, the people of Canada maybe, that this resource, this ecosystem, has to be protected, in the same way as we try to protect the Great Lakes, in the same way as we try to protect the forests in British Columbia, in the same way as we try to protect the forests in the Amazon. We have to convince the Canadian government that this is not a Newfoundland and Labrador cause, it is a Canadian cause. That is the next step, I say to the hon. gentleman.

The method of doing it: Hopefully all of in this House within the next little while can come up with a solution as to how we do it. Once we do that, let me say to the hon. gentleman, we are on the road. I would say to him, it is not funny, it is not something to be amused about, to build his ego or mine or anybody else's. It is a matter of the future, not only of this Province, but in many cases the future of an ecosystem that contributes to the food supply of the world.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to make a few comments on the Private Member's Resolution brought forward by the hon. Member for Port de Grave. Certainly, in starting, I would like to congratulate the member for bringing forward this resolution, and start off by saying, I will give it, and we will give it, I am sure, our full support.

Madam Speaker, I also have to say, in starting off, that I have not had the benefit of - I do not know if it is benefit, but anyway - the experience of twenty years in this Legislature, in this hon. House, and have not had, fortunately, I suppose, the opportunity to debate this before in this House. As with anybody who is involved with the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador knows, this type of resolution, the comments that are in it, the issue that it speaks to, is debated in every house around this Province, and on every wharf, every shed, every stage, every shop, and on every beach and every slipway on an ongoing basis for the last, I guess, thirty years, certainly since the extension of jurisdiction out to 200 miles in 1977.

Madam Speaker, I cannot say anything more than what already has been said, I don't think, but I will relate my comments to what I heard on the road a couple of weeks ago, in late January and February, when we went around as part of the all-party committee on FPI. Of course, the foremost issues in the FPI meetings were the issues surrounding the groundfish operations of FPI on the South Coast of the Province: Harbour Breton, Fortune and Marystown mainly. Along the way in other FPI towns or areas where FPI used to have a presence, such as Port Union, for example, and Trepassey, the issues that came up, not necessarily from those places, but the issues that came up that spoke to a history in these places, were related to the lack of groundfish, and access to groundfish, to put through these plants.

We only have to look at the resources that the South Coast FPI plants in particular depended on over the past twenty to thirty years, since their inception. They depended primarily on the groundfish stocks of the Southern Grand Banks and, in particular, the flatfish and redfish stocks of the Southern Grand Banks. Now, what is happening to those species? They have been depleted to the point almost of annihilation, and they have depleted, in large part, as a result of mismanagement by foreign jurisdiction outside of 200 miles. That is in large part.

We all know that we have done our share of damage of all of the groundfish stocks on the Grand Banks. Of course we have done it. We readily admit it. We closed down our fishery. We have done what we could in the past ten years to try and rebuild those stocks. We have done what we could in trying to rebuild them in that we called a moratorium on them. We can do nothing more than that, other than to stop fishing. What have the other nations done? Very little.

I will just give a little brief history. Of course, we all know this. I have here the history of the international communities participation in the management of the Northwest Atlantic fishery. Back in 1950, ICNAF was established. ICNAF was established in 1950, and what was the mandate of ICNAF at that time? It was to investigate, protect and conserve the fishery resources of the Northwest Atlantic. Didn't they do a wonderful job? They brought the groundfish resources of the Northwest Atlantic to its knees by the mid-seventies. By the early to mid-seventies, ICNAF managed, or mismanaged, the resources of the Northwest Atlantic almost to the point that we collectively brought it to again in 1992. That is what ICNAF did.

After the extension of the jurisdiction in 1977, NAFO replaced ICNAF, in 1979. I will read a shortened version, I guess, of the NAFO mandate: the conservation and management of fish stocks outside 200 miles.

It goes on to say, through consultation and co-operation, its role is to contribute to optimum utilization, rational management, conservation of the fishery resources of the convention area.

The only thing that I can see that NAFO has done in the twenty-three years since its inception, is ensure that there has been optimum utilization of the resources in the Northwest Atlantic; optimum utilization to the point where it has been devastated. That is what is after happening in the last twenty-three years since NAFO has been in place in the NAFO regulatory area outside of 200 miles.

Mr. Speaker, we look at the history here, the history of these areas, and we look at what is happening outside of - I will read some of the past NAFO problems: ineffective compliance with NAFO conservation measures; repeated use of the NAFO objection procedure, primarily by the European Union, to set unilateral quotas much higher than those allocated by NAFO; EU fishing were in excess of unilateral quotas and resulted in catches exceeding NAFO Total Allowable Catches; EU objection to the NAFO enforcement regime; unregulated fishing by non-contracting parties; over fishing resulted in stock decimation.

Mr. Speaker, those are the things that we saw in the past. Those are the past NAFO problems. We will jump ahead now. We will jump ahead to a synopsis of the latest meeting, the special meeting of NAFO just about a month ago. What does it say in the synopsis? The meeting has exposed non-compliance by foreign fleets and highlighted difficulty in achieving adequate conservation measures in NAFO. The outcome has demonstrated the significant influence of the European Union and raised fears that objectives for stock rebuilding will be compromised and measures now in place will be eroded. One hundred per cent observer coverage up for review in 2002, and there is strong opposition to its continuation. Growing public debate over the effectiveness of NAFO and need for greater Canadian management jurisdiction to safeguard stocks. The challenge is to find ways to make NAFO work better, but there are no quick fixes.

That is what was said in the synopsis from their meeting just about a month ago. What does the NAFO Scientific Council say about what is going on outside of 200 miles? I will just read before I get into that, actually. I will read the actual stocks - maybe I won't; I had them there - the actual stocks that are managed by NAFO. What did I do with it? Maybe I won't. I will carry on. Anyway, just a couple of the stocks that are managed by NAFO in the NAFO regulatory area: 3N + 3O cod, we all know, a resource that was depended on by a great deal of fishermen in this Province, and certainly in Atlantic Canada. Nova Scotia fished it regularly over the years, ran a lot of plants in this Province, and a lot of plant workers depended on it. The Scientific Council is concerned that catches of cod in 3N + 3O have increased substantially since 1995 such that fishing mortality is now close to f0; 1, although the stock is currently under moratorium and a very low spawning stock biomass.

We have a stock that is under moratorium, yet foreign parties fishing in the NAFO regulatory area have increased fishing mortality to the point where it is now close to f0; 1. f0; 1, for anybody who doesn't know, is the target for fishing exploitation under a stock where fishing actually takes place. 3LN redfish, NAFO moratorium has been in effect from 1998 to 2002. The Scientific Council estimated that the catches of this stock were 900 tons, 2,300 tons and 1,700 tons in 1998, 1999, and 2000 respectively. 3N + 3O witch flounder, stock remains at a low level despite a moratorium since 1995. Catch is at 500 tons, 600 tons and 800 tons in 1997, 1998, and 1999 respectively. Move into 3LN + 3O, American plaice. 3LN + 3O American plaice is one of the stocks that the South Coast groundfish plants, and plants, I might add, that have now disappeared, such as Trepassey, plants like the National Sea plant that was here in St. John's, the Port Union groundfish plant has not disappeared but compared to what it used to be it has disappeared, now 120 people working there in the shrimp plant compared to 1,200 when it processed groundfish. What has happened? What is happening with the stock, one of the main stock that fed these plants? It was up over 40,000 ton quota in the late 1980s before it started to decline and eventually was put under moratorium. It says here: Even under moratorium, catches have increased substantially in recent years. The Scientific Council estimated that catches of this stock were 1,600 tons, 2,500 tons and 5,200 tons in 1998, 1999, and 2000 respectively. Mr. Speaker, 5,200 tons of American plaice in a stock that is under moratorium. I do not think we need to say anything more than that about the effectiveness of NAFO and policing the fishery outside the 200 miles in a NAFO regulatory area.

Mr. Speaker, as other speakers have said, this issue has been debated long enough. There are two problems. One is commonly referred to, I guess, as the tragedy of the commons. The tragedy of the commons, where there is common responsibility for management of a resource. There is really no responsibility for management of the resource, and that is the problem we have outside the 200 miles. Everybody is responsible for looking after it; therefore, nobody looks after it. There is only way to have the stocks that we depend on, that the world depends on, that the Spanish and the Portugese, let alone our own, depend on: for us to take over the custodial management of the resources out there for the good of, not only Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen, not only Atlantic Canadian fishermen, but for everybody who has had a history of participation in the fisheries out there.

The other thing, I think, that is a problem, the reason that we are faced with this - and Bruce Colborne, I think - and somebody mentioned on the other side about out of sight, out of mind, when a tree falls in the forest is the song. When a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear? Well, nobody hears what is going outside the 200 miles because it is out of sight and out of mind. The management of our fishery, the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery, the Atlantic Canadian Fishery, takes place at 200 Kent Street in Ottawa. That is a lot of the problem; 200 Kent Street, in Ottawa, is where our fishery is managed from. Unfortunately, it only goes up, I think, fourteen floors and it is not hardly high enough to see the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is the reason why we have so much trouble with the fishery down here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: You can barely see the Ottawa River.

MR. TAYLOR: You can barely see the Ottawa River, I am reminded.

Madam Speaker, that is the problem that we have. We have two jurisdictions responsible for management of groundfish stocks that this Province depends on. One is in Brussels, the other is in Ottawa, and neither one of them really gives a hoot about what happens here with us. That is where the problem lies. How do we change it? I am sure we will not change it by debating this resolution today because if it could have been, it would have been fixed twenty years ago I am sure. What we are doing here today does help put it in, to some extent, the public eye again here.

On Friday coming, as the Member for Port de Grave and the Deputy Premier mentioned - and I am sure the fisheries minister will when he gets up - the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans will be here in town. They will be here on Friday and Saturday to listen to what we have to say about extension of jurisdiction outside of 200 miles. I am glad that they are coming to town. I am glad that are coming to this Province to hear what we have to say, but what do they honestly expect to hear when we have had the devastation heaped upon us over the past twenty years that we have seen outside the 200 miles? Do they honestly expect us to say anything other than: extend jurisdiction outside the 200 miles; take custodial management of this area; do something to stop foreign nations from continuing down the road that they have been on for the past fifteen years, in particular? Honestly, do they expect anything more? I hope not, because that is what they are going to hear.

Madam Speaker, I don't know how much time I have left.

AN HON. MEMBER: One minute.

MR. TAYLOR: One minute.

I have one minute to wrap up. In wrapping up, Madam Speaker - and I talked to the Member for Port de Grave on this - I am going to propose a slight amendment. It is keeping with the spirit and intent - to use the words that we have used so often lately - of the resolution. I will read the first THEREFORE. I am not sure how I am supposed to do this. I have not done it before.

In the first THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED section it says: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the Government of Canada to take custodial management of the continental shelf off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador."

Madam Speaker, I know we do not expect to change anything today, and as a result of what we are saying we do not expect that in the next twenty-four hours jurisdiction will be extended, unfortunately. But, what we are talking about is more than the continental shelf. As a matter of fact, from somebody who has quite a bit of experience in the fishery, you rarely - especially for these species - fish on top of the shelf. You usually fish the slopes. The slopes are where, if it ever happened - and we only included the shelf. We would miss the slope. So I am proposing - and as the Deputy Premier mentioned, the Flemish Cap was not included. There is a large fishery on the Flemish Cap. Right now it is primarily a shrimp fishery, but over the years Greenland halibut, redfish, cod, all those species have been fished there, and others I am sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I will. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, my amendment will be to replace the word, continental shelf, with the NAFO regulatory area. I will read that clause in its entirety:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon the Government of Canada to take custodial management of the NAFO regulatory area off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That includes the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and the Flemish Cap. That portion of 3L and 3N outside of 200 miles, and 3M. That is what we are talking about. That is the NAFO regulatory area, and that is my purposed amendment.

On that, Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Mercer): The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to the amendment.

MR. HARRIS: I am assuming that we are not going to vote on the amendment or the resolution until the end. Did the minister want to speak on the amendment?

MR. SPEAKER: To the main motion, we will take the amendment under advisement with the Clerk for one moment.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join, today, in the debate on the private member's resolution put forth by the Member for Port de Grave.

The Member for Port de Grave has brought to the attention of the House a matter which is, of course, of vital importance to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, vital in importance to the interests of Canada and to the interests of conservation generally. I should say that the amendment purposed by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North takes into account the fact that the Nose and Tail themselves exclude the area of the Flemish Cap and the significant fishery that is carried out there.

This goes back, I suppose, to the mid-1970s and the 200-mile limit. Canada, at that time, did not extend its jurisdiction to the limits of the continental shelf, although there is an economic zone recognized internationally. Ironically, Mr. Speaker, we do have a control over the minerals under 3N or under the Nose and Tail. We have control of the sedentary species such as crab or any species that are attached to the bottom, but we don't have any control over the fishery.

The evidence is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, that there is not only overfishing going on but there is also apparently directed fishery in areas where species are under a moratorium. There is also a so-called bycatch which is almost having the effect - the moratorium may as well be gone. The amount of the so-called bycatch, in fact, is almost equivalent to what would be allowed if there was a directed fishery controlled under normal rules for conservation methods. That is, if there were no motorium. That is, if there were no fragility of the stock and no necessity for recovery.

The results have been identified most recently, at the most recent NAFO meeting, that there has been significant non-compliance by NAFO countries for the past number of years. We have no recovery of most groundfish stocks. We have excessive bycatches of American plaice, cod, redfish which are - according to the Scientific Council - jeopardizing recovery. We really have a lack of any meaningful commitment from the European Union and other countries, to improve conservation measures in the area of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

Canada, in the NAFO world, Mr. Speaker, occupies a very small part of what has been referred to as a relatively isolated position within NAFO, while the EU influence is growing. We have an increasing trend of non-compliance by foreign countries and foreign vessels in the area of the Nose and Tail. What it all adds up to is an open season on one of the few areas of the offshore fishery of Canada, particularly off Newfoundland and Labrador, that is not properly regulated. It is the duty, in fact the obligation, of Canada as the coastal state to take action.

I would be the first one to want to see the extension of what was the 200-mile limit out to incorporate all of the bank, the slope and the Flemish Cap. Whether that can be done immediately is an important question that can really only be answered by international lawyers and diplomats. I think what has happened so far, is that the Government of Canada has not had the interest even to extend custodial management, to take responsibility for the conservation and the preservation of the stocks, some of which are straddling, some of which are outside the 200-mile limit, but are on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

We see that there is a lack of commitment, to do more than monitor the situation, by the Government of Canada thus far. While we may not be able to move directly, Mr. Speaker, to extending the limit, we can, and should, move to what is called custodial management, because that is taking jurisdiction for conservation reasons and conservation issues.

Mr. Speaker, I think it has been amply demonstrated over the last number of years, not just in the last couple of years- the Canadian government has finally spoken out strongly about it at the NAFO meetings, but this has been going on for quite some time. In fact, the former Premier of this Province, Clyde Wells, made a statement to the First Ministers' Meeting in 1989 in which he outlined that there had been overfishing from 1986 to 1989 of some 600 per cent in these areas, the area of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. So a debate has been going on for quite some time, Mr. Speaker. Canada has known about it for quite some time, and Canada has not acted effectively to limit the conservation, to limit the catch, to limit and take charge of the interests, not only of this country, but the interests of the species themselves and the future of those species.

We have to take action, Mr. Speaker, because we are the coastal state and we are also, incidentally, the country, and in this case the Province, most dependant upon the health of the fish stocks off our shores. We have to do it, not just for ourselves, but under international law, to be recognized, we have to do it for the stated intentional purpose of the conservation of the stocks and species, and do that on behalf of all humanity.

The statement of Premier Clyde Wells on November 10, 1989, was that, in 1986, the European Community began to disregard the quotas set by NAFO. Over the four-year period, 1986 through 1989, the European Community has overfished its quotas by 600 per cent; 600 per cent by the European Community alone in the period 1986 through 1989. That is how long, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the continuing overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks that we have evidence for, and we know that the influence of the EU on NAFO is considerable.

NAFO is also, Mr. Speaker, an area conspicuous by its absence in endorsing the United Nations Fisheries Agreement. Thirty-one countries have endorsed the United Nations Fisheries Agreement which would require countries to abide by international conservation efforts. The European Union has not done so, and it's member states, Mr. Speaker, continue to take a cavalier attitude towards conservation issues. NAFO itself, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, is dominated in many respects by the numbers of countries who vote on motions, who vote on quotas, based on their own self interest and not on conservation measures.

When we see that happening, Mr. Speaker, when we see that happening where conservation is outnumbered by self interest, then that gives support, Mr. Speaker, for the need and obligation of Canada to act. It is in that context, Mr. Speaker, that this case has to be made. It is in this context that Canada can move forward in ensuring that the species that are at risk can be protected and the species that need to be recovered and rebuilt can be rebuilt. As long as we see, Mr. Speaker, large catches, huge fish, what they used to call at one time in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, the mother fish -

MR. RIDEOUT: You will not see them now.

MR. HARRIS: You will not see them now, says the Member for Lewisporte, but we did see them a long time ago, Mr. Speaker, huge fish that were - I guess it was a colloquial expression for fish that were breeding, that were large breeders, that were populating and repopulating and building up the stocks. As those fish are being taken out - and they are being taken out now, Mr. Speaker, outside the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks - the stocks are further and further in jeopardy.

This is not just a Nose and Tail problem, Mr. Speaker, and it is not just a Newfoundland problem, it is the whole North Atlantic ocean problem. In fact, Mr. Speaker, at a recent meeting in Boston by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, on February 16, there was a study released by an international group of fishery scientists that have looked ocean wide at the North Atlantic and say that what has happened in the last fifty years in the North Atlantic Ocean is that the catches have gone down by two-thirds. The catches of preferred food stocks rather, cod, tuna, haddock, flounder and hake, decreased by more than half, but a tripling of the fishery effort. There is three times as much fishing effort going on and the amount of fish caught has been decreased by half.

What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that throughout the whole of the North Atlantic, we are seeing a depletion of the fishery resource, we are seeing a depletion of the stocks, we are seeing a depletion of this resource which is a major food stock, not only for North America, but for the world.

When we undertake conservation, Mr. Speaker, we are not just doing it as a resource grab by one country, we are doing in the interest of conservation of those stocks and, ultimately, Mr. Speaker, whether it be through international diplomacy, it is the hope that we will be able to extend our own fisheries jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile limit. For the immediate interim first step, we have to get behind an effort to ensure that, in the first instance, the fishery has to be saved, the stocks have to be preserved, the species have to be protected, and this overfishing has to be monitored, policed and stopped, Mr. Speaker, because it can't continue, the resource can't sustain it, and there doesn't appear to be any real evidence that the NAFO, the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization, is capable of enforcing the rules.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that my party is in full agreement with the resolution. I thank the Member for Port de Grave for bringing it forward. I know he and his party, just as our party and the official Opposition, will have an opportunity on Friday or Saturday to make presentations to the Committee on Fisheries and Oceans of Canada, which is having hearings here in Newfoundland and Labrador. It will be a further opportunity to make a strong case for the implementation of this resolution, for the Government of Canada to take strong action to begin the process and to move quickly toward custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and the area referred to by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the Minister of Fisheries, just to inform the House that the amendment, as put forward by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, has been deemed to be in order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Member for Port de Grave for putting forward this resolution this afternoon, and I would also like to thank the previous speakers for a job well done, and the emotion with which they presented their positions here this afternoon. I will try not to repeat what the others have said, Mr. Speaker, even though that might be difficult.

The Member for Lewisporte talked about how NAFO came about back in 1978. Prior to 1977, Mr. Speaker, we had a 12-mile limit, and the people we are talking about today, fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, were fishing just 12 miles offshore. If you lived in any community on the Northeast Coast of the Province you could look out at night and see these same factory freezers, that are now out on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks out of sight, you could see them from land, going back and forth, back and forth, night after night, year round.

Mr. Speaker, in 1977, as a result of a Law of the Sea Conference ruling, Canada's jurisdiction was extended to 200 miles. Unfortunately, as the Member for Lewisporte said, the 200 miles did not take in the entire continental shelf of Canada. It left out very significant parts; the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. Mr. Speaker, that is the reason today that we have a NAFO organization, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. The reason I stress Northwest, Mr. Speaker, is we don't have a Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Organization because the countries in the Northeast of the Atlantic, their continental shelves don't go out beyond 200 miles. Their continental shelves don't exceed 200 miles and, therefore, they are not in the need for such an organization. So what happened after the jurisdiction was extended to 200 miles, there had to be an organization who would regulate the fishery that was going to happen on the Nose and Tail, and the Flemish Cap on our continental shelf. This is where they dreamt up this wonderful organization called the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note, because I do not think that most people realize which countries are involved in this organization or how many of them there are. I would like, if permitted, to read into the record which countries we are talking about here. We are talking about, not only Canada, but we are talking about: Bulgaria, Cuba, Denmark, Faro Islands, Greenland, Estonia, the European Union - all members of the European Union who want to fish there can - France are in there because of St. Pierre et Miquelon, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, the Ukraine, and the United States. These are the countries that make up NAFO, Mr. Speaker. So, not to be confused that there are only two or three out there. There are many, many countries who fish on the Nose, the Tail, and the Flemish Cap.

Mr. Speaker, here is how the organization works. It is made up of a general council, a fisheries commission, and scientific council. It is this scientific council, Mr. Speaker, who gives advice to the NAFO organization as to how these stocks outside of our 200-mile limit should be regulated. They have scientific capabilities and each year they come over and do an assessment of the stocks off our continental shelf. They set quotas of each particular species that they are allowed to fish and how much they are allowed to fish, but they have total disregard. A number of these countries have a total disregard for the quotas that are set by their own scientific advice and by their own governing body of NAFO.

Mr. Speaker, not only do they have no respect for the quotas and they go on to overfish them but there is an objection procedure in NAFO, that I am sure my colleague opposite is well aware of. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is if a country - for example, you take Iceland, and if we were to say today that you are allowed to fish 1,000 tons of shrimp in 3L, just outside of our 200-mile limit. If, for example, NAFO sets that quota at 1,000 tons and Iceland is supposed to get 67 tons of that shrimp, all Iceland has to do is launch an objection. All they have to do is say: no, we are not satisfied with that. We object. Then they can go and fish as much as they want; no restriction. All they have to do is say, we object, and they can go and fish whatever they want. That happens all the time, Mr. Speaker.

What I am saying is that even though NAFO has the scientific capabilities to establish what the quotas should be, the NAFO organization is supposed to have the capabilities to enforce that and say: this is all you are fishing. Just let me give you an example of what happened out there since 1999. The trends have always been there. It sort of ceased after the federal minister, Mr. Tobin, sent the gunboats out there in 1995, but each day they are gradually creeping back more and more into the same old fishing practices that they had before, what was known as, the turbot wars.

Mr. Speaker, here is what they have been doing out there since 1999: increased landings of moratoria species. Mr. Speaker, moratoria means they are not supposed to fish these species. We do not fish them. Canadians inside the 200-mile limit are not allowed to fish these species. As my colleague, the Member for Port de Grave, said, if they did we would send the gunboats from Canada out there and have them arrested, brought in here and fined, and maybe their licences taken away. So, there has been increasing catches of moratoria species. They are overfishing 3L shrimp. Parties are exceeding Greenland halibut quotas; increased use of small mesh gear; and a failure, by some parties, to submit observer reports.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, in talking about those moratoria species that I mentioned, there were 10,000 tons taken last year. Ten thousand tons, 20 million pounds of moratoria species taken on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. That is fish that all the scientific advice tells us you shouldn't fish because if you do, there is not going to be any left. Yet, these countries took 10,000 tons last year. Just imagine what 10,000 tons of any species of fish would do for a town like Burgeo, which my seat mate represents here in the House of Assembly. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, what 10,000 tons, 20 million pounds of any fish species would do for that town. The reason I mention Burgeo is because shortly after being sworn in as the Minister of Fisheries last winter, that was the first town that I visited as the minister. That was the most heart-wrenching experience that I ever had, to walk into a town, every single man, woman and child stood quietly in front of the town hall in Burgeo and passed me a petition, and asked me to do everything I could to help these individuals because there was nowhere for them to go. There was no work in the town because the town was built on the fishery. That was all they ever did in that town, and they cannot do anything else there. We are not going down there with a car plant. An IT sector is not going to set up a call centre there, Mr. Speaker. So, just imagine what we could do with 10,000 tons of moratoria species or any kind of species that we could put into Burgeo.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I talked about the infractions that they have had but what do you do about it, is the question. What we are proposing here today is the right thing to do and that is to take custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. I think what you have to do is think about the words: custodial management; because my hon. colleague from Port de Grave is not saying that we should extend jurisdiction. He is saying that we should extend jurisdiction and take custodial management of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap.

What custodial management means, Mr. Speaker, is that we would take control of it. We would use our scientific advice, and NAFOs if they so desired to give it to us, and we would take that scientific advice and establish quotas; not just for Canada, but for anyone who has historical rights to fish on the Nose and Tail and the Flemish Cap. What we are saying to them is: You give us the right. We will take custody of it. We will allow you to fish because there are certain countries there, Spain and Portugal, who have been fishing off our coast for hundreds of years.

The White Fleet used to come here into the harbour, Mr. Speaker. Most of us here remember the White Fleet. I do not think that any of us are young enough not to, but they have fished on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and in our waters for a couple hundred years. We are not saying to Spain or Portugal or any other NAFO countries: we are going to take custodial management; we are driving you out; you are not going to be allowed to put a net in the water; you are not going to be able to catch a fish. What we are saying is we would set the quotas; but, we would also ensure that they obey the rules that we set, and that we would enforce the rules. Rather than have a boat today that we know is foreign overfishing, that one of these foreign boats that is overfishing - all that happens today is that once it is reported, or once we spot them fishing species that they are not supposed to be fishing, or overfishing their quotas, if we find that out, we will report it. But, the problem is, Mr. Speaker, that once they are notified this boat sails back to Spain, back to Portugal, with its fish in the hole of the boat. Guess who it is left to prosecute them? Guess who it is left to fine or imprison them, or take their licences? The host country.

So if there is a Spanish vessel fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks today and they have an infraction, they have to go back to Spain where they go before the judiciary over there. We are not even aware if they ever fined. We are not even aware if it is ever mentioned once they get back to their host country. What we are saying is, we extend jurisdiction for the purposes of custodial management. We will allow them to fish, but they will fish under our rules, our regulations, and we would have the ability to enforce those rules and regulations through fines, or any other means that we might think necessary.

Mr. Speaker, we have to make the distinction when we talk about custodial management to the people in Ottawa, but I think we could also win that battle in any court of public opinion in the world. I do not think that if we were to talk to an individual on the streets of London today and put forward that case, that they could disagree with it. All we are saying is that here is the scientific advice. Here is how much you should be fishing. If you go beyond that, you are going to be fined. You are going to lose your licences. I do not think that anybody would disagree with that.

I am going to keep my remarks short. I am hoping to appear before the Standing Committee on Fisheries from Ottawa and make this case for the Province. I would like to thank all the members here in the House of Assembly today for supporting this motion; but, as we know it today, NAFO does not work. I know you have all heard it before, it has been referred to as a toothless tiger. Who do they govern, this toothless tiger? They govern a bunch of high-seas pirates, because there are no other words to describe them. They are breaking every rule, regulation and law that was ever established, that they are supposed to operate in, so I consider them to be pirates, toothless tigers.

As my colleague, the Minister of Justice, said earlier, we listened to George Bush, the President of the United States, declare war on terrorism and we all supported that. The House of Commons supported that, but the House of Commons and the people of the world, or the Western World, are certainly not supporting a war on the eco-terrorists and the eco-terrorism that is going on, on the Nose and the Tail and the Flemish Cap just off our shores. They are not doing anything about that. That does not seem to matter, that we are destroying a pot of protein that could help to feed some of the hungry people of the world. They have no problem with that. They do not even mention it.

As my colleague, the Member for L'Anse au Clair said earlier this afternoon, we have a group here in this Province today, of individuals who are out campaigning on what is happening, a campaign on eco-terrorism that is happening in Belize, because there is a Newfoundland company, a Newfoundland and Labrador company, that wants to build a dam in Belize. All of a sudden we have one of the Kennedys from the U.S., one of the relatives of the past-President down there, up here with individuals from this Province, and all of a sudden there is a big campaign on the go about a dam in Belize. Nobody - I can't say it - but no one gives one about what is happening on the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks out there, right? Nobody seems to care about that, Mr. Speaker.

I think that we have to hammer home our cause with the federal government, because if we cannot get it through to Canadians the importance of extending jurisdiction for custodial management purposes, if we cannot convince our own brothers, sisters, and cousins on the mainland, we might as well forget trying to do it to the countries that make up the NAFO regime.

Mr. Speaker, again, in closing, I would like to thank my colleague from Port de Grave for bringing forward this very important private member's motion today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: As my hon. colleague from Lewisporte, across the floor, said, he has been doing it here for twenty years, and if it takes another twenty, we just cannot lie down, roll over and play dead on this issue. We have to continue to do everything in our power -

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. REID: - to extend jurisdiction for custodial management purposes.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to say a few words on this particular resolution that was brought forward by the Member for Port de Grave. I, too, compliment him for it.

When I read the resolution, I wondered if I should even get up and speak about it, because it is something that has been brought forward - in the nine years that I have been here, I think it has been brought forward at least eight times, a resolution similar to this. I wondered if it was even meaningful to get up and talk about it again, and to take part in the debate. Then I felt that I should. I felt that we have had such devastation in the fishery - it has been so meaningful and has been so helpful in years gone by in my district, and there has been so much devastation by what has happened in the fishing industry, that I had no other choice by get up and talk about it and speak about it because I suppose if we all, as the minister said earlier, if we all roll over and play dead and do not bring those kinds of issues and those kinds of concerns to the forefront and to the decision makers, that we will probably never, ever get anything done about it.

I do not know how many people in this House of Assembly have ever gone out to the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. I am sure some people have. Maybe there are people here who have gone out and fished on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to you that I have been out to the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks on four separate occasions. There is a surveillance flight that leaves here, Provincial Airlines has the contract, and the contract is let to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There is a pilot on the plane, there is a navigator, and there are two equipment operators. There is always a fisheries officer on the plane, and there is always one vacant seat left on that particular plane. While you just cannot go and show up at the airport and get on board, it is not hard, I say to members here, to go and make arrangements to have a call the night before the flight originates, to get on the plane and go out and spend five hours flying around the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, or the Flemish Cap, wherever the flight takes them on that particular day.

I have gone out there four times. Let me tell you, it is heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking to see what is happening on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. While those foreign boats are not fishing inside the 200-mile limit, they are right on the contour line, prime fishing area. It is not uncommon to go out there and count twenty, twenty-five, or thirty boats at one time. I am not talking about sixty-five-foot vessels. I am talking about large fishing vessels. I am talking about vessels 150 feet, 200 feet, 250 feet, and 300 feet in length. It is not uncommon to go out on the Nose and the Tail of the Grand Banks and see two of those fishing vessels fishing side by side with two cables, Mr. Speaker, a cable on each boat. You can imagine what is coming behind. You can imagine what is in the water, when you see a cable on each boat, two boats, towing a net through the waters on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks. You can imagine what is happening.

The sad part about it is: When you come back, you land at the airport, you take a trip back to your district the next day, or that same day, and you visit a fishing community and see your own boats tied up to the wharf. You see your own fishing boats tied up to the wharf, your own fishermen at the wharf with nothing to catch, and your own fish plant workers laid off with nothing to process. That is the sad reality of what is happening.

Back in 1995, everybody will remember the turbot war that we had, when the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of the day, Minister Tobin at the time, took part in the turbot war. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what we accomplished, but this is not the day to talk about what we accomplished with that particular incident. It did do one thing, I will give him credit for that. It highlighted what was happening on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks.

That is important, and that is one thing that was accomplished. The rest of it - the jury is not still out. The jury is back and the answer is there, because I do not think we accomplished a lot by it, but we did accomplish the fact that we highlighted the situation of what was happening

The sad part about it is that it wasn't continued. It was allowed to stop. The Estai came in, and I was on the harbourfront, and many people here. I think it was on a Sunday afternoon. It was brought in and the FFAW got all their members in. A lot of media there, media coverage from all over the world, when the Estai was brought in under the surveillance of, I think it might have been the Cowley at the time that brought her into St. John's Harbour. The sad part about it was that, after that, it was allowed to drop. The net was taken to New York and there were some photo ops, but there was nothing continued. Only the other night on Open Line -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member would just take his seat.

It is 4:45 p.m. Normally it is the member who opens the debate on Private Members' Day who closes the debate, and he has reserved that fifteen minutes.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) allow the hon. member two or three minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much time do we have left?

MR. SPEAKER: It is 4:45 p.m. and the last fifteen minutes is reserved for the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

I understand from the Government House Leader that the member has a few minutes to finish up.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) private member's resolution, I say to the Government House Leader, who told me I could have five minutes of his time, so I will gladly take the five minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the shame of what happened with that particular incident, that it wasn't allowed to continue. The other night I was listening to Open Line. Some people can talk about open lines and the people who are on them, but it is a good way to listen to public opinion, Mr. Speaker. I take part in it sometimes. I heard somebody call in - I just forget who it was, so I do not who to give the credit to. Somebody called in and talked about the over fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, and they talked about the way to bring it to the highlight. They talked about going out and taking pictures and displaying them, putting them on television; putting them in the newspapers. They are 100 per cent right; because, if people could see, if the ordinary person could see the devastation that is happening on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and the devastation that is happening to our rural communities here in Newfoundland, I am certain that there would an upheaval. I am certain there would be an upheaval of concern, but it is allowed to happen because nobody knows it is happening. Nobody pays a lot of attention to it. Occasionally NAFO will come and put forward a statement, and all of a sudden it will be in the news for a couple of days and then it is old news again; it is gone, Mr. Speaker.

I have to refer to Port Union. I cannot refer to the fishing industry without referring to Port Union, the plant that used to process in excess of 3 million pounds of Northern cod a week, putting in excess of $500,000 in payroll payout every week in the surrounding areas of Port Union, Catalina, Melrose, Little Catalina, and the other communities that would feed into the plant. Mr. Speaker, those people are sitting at home today because of what is happening on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and what is happening outside on the Flemish Cap.

It is not all countries, I say to the minister. The minister named up all the countries that were part of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. They are not all out there causing violations, or at least there are some worse than others. My understanding is that Spain, Portugal and Russia are probably the main culprits when it comes to groundfish, when it comes to exploiting the groundfish fishery on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, Mr. Speaker. When it comes to taking advantage and exploiting the shrimp fishery, my understanding is that it is the Estonian countries and the Faeroe Islands vessels.

When you look at this past meeting that took place with NAFO over in Denmark, when their own scientists issued caution and said that the quotas should be cut back, their own scientific evidence said that they should reduce the fishing effort on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, what did the NAFO countries do?

MR. TULK: They ignored it.

MR. FITZGERALD: They ignored it. They did not ignore it, I say to the Deputy Premier, but they went and voted themselves an extra 4,000 tons of quota to be able to be caught this year. If that happened anywhere else, I say to people opposite, there would be a war.

The minister referred to what is happening over in Belize, where you have people now carrying on this big media campaign about some area that is supposed to be flooded. I think the problem is that there is some kind of a crow that is going to disappear. I don't know what it is, a parrot or something. That is the problem. Some parrot or crow is going to have to go somewhere else to nest; and here we are with the devastation, the ruination, and the exploitation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, I know the member wants to, and has every right to, end up his private member's resolution, and I thank him for the time. In conclusion, I say to people opposite: No, it is not a waste of time to debate this resolution here today. I honestly believe - the minister said he was going to make representation to the federal fisheries committee when they come to Newfoundland. I think there should be other people as well make representation to that fisheries committee, and I think this House of Assembly should form a committee to meet with the new federal minister in Ottawa in order to raise this issue. I think this is of an important enough nature that there should be an all-party committee struck in this House of Assembly to immediately go and meet with the Prime Minister and the new federal minister, to tell him the story and put our pleas before that individual to make sure that this issue is addressed and addressed immediately.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, I want to thank the Members for Lewisporte, Bonavista North, The Straits & White North, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, Twillingate & Fogo, and Bonavista South, for the debate on this motion this afternoon. I know every member in this House would probably have loved to have had the opportunity, but I honestly believe that they have spoken on behalf of all members.

When I began this afternoon, I stated that we would not resolve the issue here today, but I did say I think we would give some wonderful speeches on this subject, and I have to commend them all because there is very little that has not been said.

Mr. Speaker, I believe, and I said in the beginning, that Canada must act and protect this resource before it is totally destroyed. If not, what would be left for Canada to trade to those other countries? They must take a stand with NAFO. We must convince the people of Canada that we are protecting a marine resource, as some other speaker has said, on behalf of all mankind; because, I can assure you, as other hon. members have said, the EC countries take and take, with no respect for conservation.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to note the amendment that was put forward. I think the words that were used were, rather than the continental shelf that it would read NAFO regulating area. We can also add 3M to it or whatever, that is fine with me with regards to the amendment.

Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all three parties for taking part in the debate and I know all three parties are going to make representation to the federal fisheries committee when it arrives here this weekend. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not a person who is violent, I do not believe in violence, whether it is on the land or the high seas, but if we prove a point - and I have to go back to my friend because I knew the guy who fired the shot across the bow, not intentionally, to sink them. Mr. Speaker, he fired the shot to bring the ship back to port. Whatever has to be done, Mr. Speaker, I believe our great Country of Canada and the government of that country, have to stand up before it is too late because we have seen the destruction with the moratorium and so on to our people in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, on that note I want to thank all those who took part in the debate and I look forward to their vote on this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

MR. TULK: I was wondering if we could have that (inaudible) unanimous?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will note that the Members of the House supported the amendment unanimously.

On motion, amendment to the resolution passed unanimously by the House.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution, as amended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against.

Carried.

Again, unanimous support for the resolution as amended.

On motion, resolution as amended passed with unanimous approval of the House.

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

MR. LUSH: Before Your Honour adjourns the proceedings, I would like to move a motion in a matter that - I consulted with the House Leaders on the opposite side and they indicated that they would give me permission to give notice of this motion. It is this:

BE IT RESOLVED that on this year of celebration marking the 50^th Anniversary of the succession of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to the Throne, this House do convey to Her Most Gracious Majesty, as Queen of Canada, warm and heartfelt congratulations from the Government, and people, of Newfoundland and Labrador on the completion of fifty years of devoted and inspired service to Canada and to all of the people of the Commonwealth, and express to Her Majesty our constant and unswerving loyalty and allegiance to the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the resolution ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against.

On motion, resolution carried.

It being Wednesday, this House now stand adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 p.m.