PDF Version

December 4, 2024 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. L No. 96

The House met at 10 a.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Government Business

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 2.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister Responsible for Labour, that

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act No. 2, Bill 101, be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 101 be now read a third time.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

On third reading, I just wanted to once again reiterate that while in principle, I think the purpose of everything is good, but I don't think it goes far enough to actually achieve what the purpose of the amendment is.

Just one more time on the record, I just want to state that I think there's more that needs to be done on that front when it comes to sick notes and making sure we're protecting employees when it comes to being sick and that and employers still having the ability to demand sick notes of employees. It's still going to send people up to emerg. People are still going to be sitting up there hours – and in a case the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands said, possibly days trying to get a sick note.

So I think it doesn't actually reiterate exactly what the purpose of it is. I think that government needs to re-evaluate what they're trying to do here. I don't think this will achieve anything that they think it's going to achieve.

Thank you, Speaker.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I'll just take a couple of seconds to respond to the Member. Just for clarity for this House, today, by law in this province, as the Labour Standards Act sits, an employer is required to give an employee seven days of unpaid sick leave. What we did yesterday with the amendment is basically just removing the requirement for them to go looking for sick notes for that.

But I thank the Member for his comments.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: Now seeing no other speakers, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK (Hawley George): A bill,

An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act No. 2. (Bill 101)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, “An Act to Amend the Labour Standards Act No. 2,” read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 101)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I call from the Order Paper, Order 13.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister Responsible for Labour, that

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act No. 2, Bill 104, be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 104,

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act No. 2, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, “An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act No. 2.” (Bill 104)

SPEAKER: The hon. Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm pleased to rise in this hon. House today to bring forward amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act . I would be remiss, Speaker, if I didn't at the beginning toss a huge bouquet to the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company just coming off their biennial, their big meeting that they have ever second year – an incredible, incredible success story.

They keep the lights on in Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair with their five or six processing facilities and taking care of the harvesters and they have offshore factory freezers, et cetera. In January, they will move ocean to plate and be marketing their own product. They started in 1978 and it's been a continual through some very challenging tumultuous times. It is an incredible success story that we love to tell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. DEMPSTER: Speaker, back to the piece of legislation that we're going to be debating here this morning. We all recognize that the fishing industry is a major economic driver in this province. One that requires stability and reliability. Unfortunately, Speaker, the past number of fishing seasons have certainly been met with frustration and upheaval, I think it's fair to say, with respect to some of the species.

Speaker, I've said it a number of times, already in my short time in Labour, where FICBA sits, nobody wants a repeat of what we have experienced the last couple of seasons. As a government, we have listened to concerns and we have taken action to address them.

Currently, the establishment of fish prices in this province is achieved either through a negotiated agreement between the harvesters and the processors or through binding arbitration provided by the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel.

These proposed amendments that we're bringing in today, Speaker, will see a return to a more traditional collective bargaining model, whereby the right to strike and lockout will be reinstated. While the right to strike and lockout will be reinstated, it's important that I n ote here that this legislation will provide for the parties to mutually agree to proceed to the Fish Price Setting Panel for a binding decision utilizing FOS or final offer selection process. This option is available to the parties any time during negotiation but ceases to exist once they are able to take a strike vote or a lockout.

Speaker, this government wants to build upon the efforts from last year and the proposed collective bargaining amendments do just that. The proposed changes will provide both parties with their right to strike and lockout, while also providing a mechanism for binding arbitration in instances where both sides agree that it is the best option. Our government is committed to legislation that is fair to both harvesters and processors and that allows more flexibility.

I ask all Members of this hon. House, Speaker, to support these amendments, and I look forward to debate and to hearing what my colleagues in this House have to say as we move into second reading and, hopefully, eventually Committee today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you very much, Speaker.

It's a pleasure to stand and engage in debate on the fishery in our province because, again, it's so important to us all. I think my hon. colleague from Mount Pearl - Southlands had stated on a couple of occasions that he doesn't have a strong linkage with the fishery but, in Donovan's Industrial Park, it's sure the beneficiary of a lot of economic activity from the fishery.

I stand today representing the District of Bonavista. I've stated in this House on a couple of occasions before how prominent the fishery is for the District of Bonavista. But it's also very significant for the District of Terra Nova, which is a regional centre. You'll find most of the business enterprises would be in Clarenville. But if you check with most of these, they will say the impact from the fishery is huge.

So what makes us different than a lot of other areas in the province? Well, we have one of the largest processing plants in the province. OCI has a plant in Bonavista that employs in excess of 400 people in the plant. What's different between Bonavista and a lot of other locations is that all those workers, the 400-plus, come from the peninsula. I say that I now know that there are five Ukrainian employees that are working that plant as well, but they are residents of that peninsula as well and their employment is through that OCI plant.

The economics of the plant is that it puts into our economy, in the District of Bonavista, in excess of $300,000 a week on payroll when the plant is operating. Keep in mind, 400-plus workers depending on the fishery starting when it's supposed to, the snow crab, and it running its course. If something happens with the fishery, either supply of the snow crab, or a labour event, strike, we've got those 400 plant workers that are out of work. The $300,000 into the economy of the District of Bonavista stops. It doesn't exist.

So this is a significant matter for the District of Bonavista and my colleague, who would have a Beothic plant, which is another large one that I would think primarily workers from the area would work.

I want to officially stand now and congratulate the new president of the FFAW, Dwan Street.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

C. PARDY: The first female president of the FFAW since their beginning.

For those who don't know, Dwan is from the District of Bonavista. Her parents lived in Spillars Cove, which is just adjacent to Bonavista, and that is where she grew up. I have a lot of faith in Dwan. I'm sure that if this agreement, what we're doing here, is going to be mutually worked upon, then she's a good candidate that will represent the fishers and the plant workers in the province extremely well. I have a lot of confidence that she will do well.

I think of the previous bill that we had, where now the Minister of Justice and Public Safety had brought that bill to the floor, maybe early last year, that was the price-setting panel, that we looked at it, and the makeup. We did our due diligence on that bill. I know I contacted both parties, whether it be the ASP, the Association of Seafood Producers; the FFAW, and solicited feedback. Neither wished to see a change in the final offer selection. That's one year, neither wished to see a change.

The only issue they had, at the time, especially one of those entities, was that now they had to pay for their representative on the board, as opposed to the taxpayers paying for the representative on the board. We didn't bring that up. We never raised that at that debate, but I look back and say the final offer selection, they had no problem with it, other than that aspect.

But the significance of having a work stoppage in our fishery in relation to the snow crab is huge. Every opportunity has to be taken to avoid work action in the snow crab.

So the season opens around April in Newfoundland and Labrador. It runs to July; you lose one week at the start because of strife, or lack of agreement, it pushes it back one week, maybe sometimes out of July. And if anybody knows the snow crab industry, you know that there comes a point in time when you get to July, the quality of the product is now being questioned, it's now being looked into and it could be a concern.

So what I would say is the importance of getting this industry, the snow crab industry up and running in April is huge; huge for the harvesters that go out with the catch; huge for the plant workers, like the 400-plus in Bonavista plant that depend on that product being brought to shore and processed. That is how significant it is. If we push it into August, which we've done in the past couple of years, we find that the quality takes a hit. If Newfoundland and Labrador is producing crab that's pushed into August with soft shell and not as high a quality, that affects us all.

It affects our GDP, it affects our economics, it affects all of us, even Mount Pearl - Southlands, Donovans Industrial Park, we all take a hit. So the importance of making sure that the snow crab industry starts in April is contingent upon a good working arrangement between the FFAW and the Association of Seafood Producers – very important.

Do I now feel confident that we will have that agreement for snow crab? I do. I feel confident with the players now that I would hope that we're going to have that in April to avoid any kind of job action. If I stood here today and said that people ought not to have the right to strike, I'd be out of place. I need time to think about that statement, and that's why I'm not making it. But everyone, I think, ought to have a right to be able to protest. But I can't overstate the impact that if we had a shutdown in our fishing industry, what the price and what the cost is going to be for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The last work stoppage that we had where we were delayed, we had people whose EI benefits had run out – it had elapsed. I spoke about that in the House last year. People were struggling to make ends meet because their EI had elapsed. Then we ran into August where the crab was soft, the quality was bad.

So the season for the plant workers, which is the largest private sector group of employees in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, their shortened season with snow crab means that they are not going to get the hours in order for their EI. That is the reality. So however we make it happen, we need to make sure that our fishery and our snow crab harvest begins in April when it should.

Another thing I want to mention with the snow crab is that if it doesn't happen in April, then we'll find that it's pushed back. When it's pushed back, we'll find that we don't harvest our capelin at that point in time. Other species are affected because of the crab pushed back into another time frame where we harvest other species. It is a sequence of significant hits to the economy, and that's where it would be.

We agree with free enterprise. Who would disagree with free enterprise? We know that there's got to be lots of discussions about how we frame it and what we do. There's a whole lot of work to be done. If I understand what the minister had said in her

preamble, she had stated that the restrictions on the collective bargaining must be supported by both parties to continue – both parties.

I'm assuming the two parties would be the Association of Seafood Producers and it would be the FFAW. I think we're fine with that. Restrictions on collective bargaining must be supported by both parties. I said a short time ago, I think we've got a desire and the people in place to make it happen. I am optimistic that we can get it, to get it done.

One thing with free enterprise we look at, I just stated a short time ago the plant in Bonavista generates $300,000-plus a week in payroll. Imagine if they don't have crab to process. I said it serves the Clarenville area, the District of Terra Nova as well. Just imagine if we have less crab to process. That can only happen in two ways. One is the season doesn't start. I should probably say three ways. If the season doesn't start on time and we don't capture that short window for extracting the snow crab.

Secondly, the species moves. Global warming, water warming and, all of a sudden, we find that the species has moved and we haven't got a quota that's sustainable with our processing sector. The third part, which we never had to think about before, was that fact now that we can ship it out of our province.

We don't need the 400-plus workers in the District of Bonavista who are all residents on the peninsula. We don't need them to process now because we just shipped out one million pounds last year. Maybe more this year. But every time we've got product shipped out, we'll find that that affects our GDP. It will affect our economy because the $300,000 a week in Bonavista is not being seen or materialized because the product is not being processed.

I know Tom Rideout mentioned about the importance of secondary processing and many voices have championed that since. It's important that when we frame free enterprise, we frame that it is the best for Newfoundland and Labrador. It's the best for the harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador. It's the best for the plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. Check off all the boxes to make sure that free enterprise.

When I looked at free enterprise and when we talked about it before, we had people embark in our galleries, they came to the steps of Confederation Building and when they came, they were upset. The current government had no or very little engagement with the group when they first came – notice that. We were ridiculed for the budget and we opted not to come in and pass the masses that were on the parking lot. Not to rehash that, but that was something we stood for, because we know that these people and the industry were in a tough situation. We opted not to come in.

But time went on when there wasn't anything from government to reach out to these people. Then the meeting came, after the budget, and then that one short meeting produced a lot of what would be in the 10-point plan and what the provincial government rolled out. Free enterprise was born at that time, at that meeting.

We all said here that the meeting should have occurred before. Our leader stood and said why in the world have we not met with the hundreds and hundreds, the representatives that would represent the masses that would be on the steps? It didn't happen – it didn't happen. It only happened when the parking lot was pretty well full out there, after the budget, the meeting happened and then they went home and we had a new direction.

But the framing of that new direction is correct, is what is important. How it's framed will set us on the right course. I know that there are many parts of the industry now that are wondering: where does free enterprise start; where does it end; what is the impact that would be on the 400-plus workers in the Bonavista plant; are they are part of this picture; is there any consideration of this largest labour group in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador – private labour group – the inshore or the plant workers – close to 5,000 of them – is there consideration in the concept of free enterprise?

That is what we're looking for: the direction. I really thought, on the free enterprise, that sealing was going to be – because we talked about seals in this House for a significant number of times. We did on this side. We said look at the news releases and find out who has talked more about seals, the Opposition or government? Check it out and find out who has talked more. We know what their predation, what they eat from the harvesting product that we draw out of our oceans to meet our food supply.'

Check out the news releases. But free enterprise didn't apply for seals. Someone made that decision in free enterprise that we're not going to consider that. Even though they are considered by many to be the greatest predator of our marketable, financial-bearing product that we take out of the water for our economy, is the seals. What an opportunity, 2023, but it didn't happen.

I throw out another industry: the sea urchins. I think that the sea urchins is one that we talked about. No, no, no, not free enterprise with the sea urchins. Government is making a decision, and it's a very important one: what does the free enterprise stand for; what does mean; who's going to be impacted; where is it going to go?

So, yes, we're in favour of the free enterprise, but we know that there are only elements to make sure that the plant workers are looked after. We want to make sure that our economy turns, because we've said here numerous times that we believe that $1.2 billion, $1.3 billion is not enough for our fishery. There ought to be action planning to say that we need to see an increase in that. Someone will say, well, that's easier said than done. We know what seals consume. An effort from government to make sure that we catch our allocated quota I think would pay huge dividends for what product we take out of the ocean.

We'll have more to take out of the ocean. I just think that we don't have to be a DFO scientist to realize that would be the case, but no action.

Mr. Speaker, we've talked about that since 2019, my first year in the House. But check the news releases, anybody watching today, check the news releases and find out what action we've taken on the seals. I think that would speak volumes. One news release says that we did attend Ottawa, the trade show on the fur institute. That's good, nothing wrong with attending that. But that's not the type of release that we're looking for. We're looking for action to make sure that we look after our ecosystem in Newfoundland and Labrador because we have a great resource, we have a great resource, but we need to know what the action plan would be, what we would have.

It came up last year where we talked about the department officials doing the inspections at plants. The minister could probably speak to that a little later. I had someone really reputable at a plant that I consulted with, great individual in a management role, he talked about when the officials come in they often don't see what the officials would report on the quality. We know last year we had the issue with a lot of crab being dumped.

This individual said, if I presented to you a live crab and a crab that recently died and I showed you the meat, you wouldn't know the difference – you wouldn't know the difference. Remember now, there's a time frame on everything, but it can be harvested. That would be from the person in management and the person that was involved with the processing. They know their stuff. They're quality control, they know their stuff because they got a lot of skin in the game, is what some would say. The quality they produce has got to be paramount because if not, your quality drops, what happens to your markets?

So they've got a lot of interest in making sure of the quality, but with some of the officials that go out to do these inspections, there seems to be an issue with them taking an upper hand in that and sometimes there's very little collaboration within what work they go about to do. Whether we're talking about some one-offs, I don't know, but I know that the few people that I've spoken to in different plants had said that that was an issue, but I know that we've got to make sure of quality of product. Remember I said before quality is essential. If we're going to market something, quality is essential.

We give out licences and, remember, we need to increase our processing is what we've stated here. We need to make sure that harvesters can bring their product in and we've got processing capacity.

I know I'm biased to my plant in Bonavista. I mean, I'm ultra biased but I can't be because I got to think of every other plant. But we've got a plant with 400-plus employees that are all living on the peninsula, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians with families to support and they're getting their income from the fishery, from the plant. How does that weigh with a plant that would bring in foreign workers to operate the full plant? Does there be any consideration of the difference between the two: a plant that has 400-plus local workers or a plant that has all foreign workers?

Ought there be something in the way we think of the fishery to say, boy, we're getting bigger bang from our buck from that plant with 400-plus employees that would be living and getting their income from the peninsula.

Now, I don't know if the government would see the merit in that, but it's not straightforward. You can't just willy-nilly say we're going to give out the licences without some thought and parameters as to how you give them out.

I would think the people in the District of Bonavista are worried that if the scientists are right, that in another two to three years we're going to see a decline in the crab that would be off our shores. We've got it here pretty good now, but they're saying in two to three years we're going to see a decline in crab.

We adjust our processing licences now to meet the demand now. It's not unrealistic for the people who work at the plant in Bonavista to say: What happens when the quota drops down? What happens when it falls down and we've got an excess in processing that we find that we can't get enough hours in the plant in Bonavista, the 400, in order to get EI for the winter? What happens in that case? Free enterprise, lack of planning.

When they came here, the harvesters, slow responding; the sealing industry, no action; look at the press releases, no action, silence.

The only thing I would say to you, we've got to trust that there's going to be action and thought and parameters given to what we've got listed and what we're embarked upon. I think a lot of us here we're confident in the harvesters, we're confident in plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, we just need to make sure that we're making the right regulations and policies from the government side to support them to the nth degree. That is what, I think, a lot of us have concern about. We've got concern about that.

We know that once you create monopolies, that can be a problem. When we look at labour standards, I asked in the House in Estimates: Does the government know how many controlling agreements that would be out there with harvesters? Now, for those viewers watching at home, controlling agreements means that we've got a harvesters that's linked to a processor, being financed for their operations and they're illegal. They are illegal. They're not permitted.

So last year, we had one that became public. We had a gentleman from La Scie, Jimmy Lee Foss. It was public. CBC covered it.

He was in a controlling agreement. Basically, it ended from the processor side and this guy was left out in the cold. He lost his livelihood. We're not sure what happened to the processor side of that, and if it was illegal, we're not sure were there any penalties associated with it, I don't know. But I know that Jimmy Lee Foss in La Scie, his life was turned upside down and his livelihood was greatly impacted.

Some would have thought that maybe the government with the Loan Board would've come and said, hey, Jimmy, you were caught up in this collective agreement, maybe no fault of your own because you were approached. You were approached to take the money and get this enterprise and work it for your family. That ended. I thought the government may have reached out and said, listen, we'll help you through the Loan Board. You maintain your operation for your family. You got caught up in it. That didn't happen.

Jimmy Lee Foss today, he's out his livelihood. What he had, the sample of in a contractual agreement, the minister said it was private. But it's illegal. But if we got one harvester out there that's affected by that illegal agreement, it may be nice to help that individual out. It may be nice to say we can help them out. I don't mean to give it to them. All we need is to be able to finance and allow him to go fish, do his thing, one less agreement, and that is what the Loan Board or the guarantee loans that we were giving out, that's what the genesis and the intention was, was to do that. That's where we were. But not much has happened in relation to that.

I stated before that, on the labour standards now, I think we've got a good feeling to know that between Dwan Street, and I guess the executive director of the Association of Seafood Producers, Jeff Loder, we've got a pretty good working arrangement as of now.

How do I know that? Well, I recently saw a Facebook post of the FFAW, and the FFAW seemed pretty promising when they said that they were in negotiations, talks and they were optimistic. I know that they're hoping that they will see benefit from that.

I'm thinking in future years, if the Marine Institute is correct, with the climate change that were going on, we're going to see an increase in the Northern cod in our waters. That's what the scientists are saying. That's what the Marine Institute states. We've got it coming that we're going to have that. Are we prepared for the processing of Northern cod, if what the scientists are saying are correct? Are we going to be able to pivot to be able to accommodate it and is that discussions that the government would be involved with the industry in? That would be fair question.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure there's going to be other people now who wish to speak on this bill. I'm going to take my seat. It is a topic that most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are involved in. It's important to our economy. Our party will stand behind those that would be in the industry. The harvesters, the plant workers, we need to make sure that we support them with good legislation. We need to support them with good regulations, and that's what we would expect from good governance, good regulations. That is what we're hoping for and that is what our job as an Opposition, to challenge government to produce and that's what we hope to do in the days and months ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Thank you, Speaker.

What a privilege it is to stand here today to Bill 104, there's no doubt. This bill has the potential to change history, Mr. Speaker. It has the potential to create competition.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that shows that our government, through a long drawn-out process, we're approving that we support plant workers, harvesters and processors. We are listening, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: Our Premier went around last year and he sat down with the harvesters. He had meetings. He heard what they were saying, Mr. Speaker. We governed. We are showing Newfoundland and Labrador that we can govern.

This bill, Bill 104, as I said, creates a potential for competition. I have been around the fishery my entire life, Mr. Speaker. My grandfather was a fisherman. My husband is a fisherman. My uncle was a fisherman and my cousin is a fisherman. My husband has fished for 38 seasons; 36 of them were crab. He has fished multiple species.

So this Bill 104 is about all species. It's about setting the clock. It's about changing history. It's about empowering our harvesters, empowering the process, Mr. Speaker. It's about competition. It's about collective bargaining. It's not just about my constituents in 3Ps, 3LNO. It's about 2H, 2J, 3K, 3LNO, 3Ps, 3Pn and 4R. It's about everybody.

It's

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. While I said, again, the bill does not speak to competition, it creates an atmosphere that enables our harvesters to get a fair market share of their product. That's key: fair market share. That is what our harvesters wanted. That is what our harvesters were trying to sing out and talk about. That is what our harvesters communicated to us, that they wanted a fair market share.

At the same time, we need more processing in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There's no doubt. Last year our government showed that they increased – there's a plant in my district, Placentia - St. Mary's, St. Mary's Bay Fisheries Inc. It started two years ago. They started at 2.5 million. They went to about five million and then at the end of the year last year they had capacity to process seven million pounds. There are some other small plants operating in the province that were added.

So we are slowly but surely adding more processors. As my colleague from Bonavista said, you just can't add processors all over the place. We understand that. We get that and we've proven that and we've shown that. We have shown that we are slowly increasing the capacity to process crab in this province. We've shown harvesters that we hear the capacity that they want for the competition and they want to be able to do it themselves. It's a business. Fishing is a business. The harvesters and the processors, they do want the capacity to arrive at a fair price themselves. This is what Bill 104 is talking about.

The change causes some competition among the processors and it has helped the price of crab edge up. We did that last season. At the beginning of last season, I believe the price of crab started out somewhere around $2.20 a pound and then, at the end of the season, the rumours on the wharf were that some of our harvesters were getting $4 a pound for crab.

So from $2.20 to $4. So what happened? What changed? What changed was we increased some competition and that enabled the price to go up. We were listening to the harvesters.

I have to give a shout-out to Rough Water Traps in Fox Harbour; a small independent business and he's doing multiple species and he's doing processing and he's going to grow. I expect we should look out for him in the future, for this company, Rough Water Traps, because they're going to be a processor for the future and they're going to be a component in this competition.

Again, this bill, Bill 104, has the potential to set a foundation where a percentage of the market price is afforded to the harvester and a percentage afforded to the processor. That's key. It is putting the processor in place. That is what Bill 104 has the potential to do.

Why were our harvesters so frustrated last year? Why were they exhibiting such frustration about what was going on? There was some inequities, they felt, in the way they were debating the price and the way they were trying to arrive at a price and they were trying to articulate what they felt and what was going on with them.

They always experience deductions for things like barnacles, that's not unusual or for temperature change of the species, that has happened in the past, but they never had a price reduction for temperature change of the species. Last year, there was the potential to introduce a price deduction if you came in and they did a sample of, say, two pounds of crab and if the temperature was down on the species a little bit or up, there was a potential to decrease the price and they were very frustrated about that.

Yes, when they arrive at the wharf, Mr. Speaker, with crab and they want to offload it and the processor doesn't have the human resources to offload it, or capacity – that was key, didn't have the capacity to take the crab that had arrived at the wharf. So if you don't have the capacity to take the crab, the crab has to wait. So when the crab waits, the temperature changes on the crab. If the temperature changes on the crab, the harvester has the potential to lose a lot of money.

So while you may think they're getting $4 a pound for the crab, they're not because by the time the crab gets to the processor it could be down to $3.50 or $3.40, who knows. Everybody is individual. So the price is not the price and that is why they were so frustrated. That is why. But we listened, we spoke, the Premier met and this bill is here today, Bill 104 is here today in this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many thoughts going through my mind about this bill. I'm just trying to organize them all. I'm trying to speak for the harvester and the processor.

I have to just allude to St. Mary's Bay Inc. What a fabulous addition that has been to the District of Placentia - St. Mary's. I now have an employer in a corner of my district that was nearly dead. If you go to speak to any of my constituents down there, the numbers in the school were declining; CEEP, Community Enhancement Employment Project – all you've got to do is look to the past, to look to the numbers and the dollars and the amounts of CEEP that had to go into that

section of my district to keep people. This year for the first time in history, Mr. Speaker, St. Mary's did not apply for a CEEP.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: The first time in history. It speaks for itself. They have a processer. They're processing crab. They're hoping to process more species as we go forward. We have people that are employed and, yes, we did use temporary foreign employees in that plant, 50 per cent, what was needed, but every single person that was able to go to work in that plant and wanted to work in that plant was employed from Markland, Whitbourne, right to Trepassey, every single person.

No CEEP for the town of St. Mary's for 2024 – no CEEP.

P. TRIMPER: For the first time.

S. GAMBIN-WALSH: The first time in history. The first time that they have never had to apply for a CEEP. That's huge.

Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I just want to say again that Bill 104 has the potential to create competition in the fishing industry. It was 18 or 20 years ago I believe we had that, so this particular bill now here on this floor – I'm sure everyone is going to support it – will go down in history. I can guarantee you this is going to change the course of history for the fish harvesters and the processors of Newfoundland and Labrador. This government is listening to those in the fishing industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

J. MCKENNA: Thank you, Speaker.

Like my colleague there from Bonavista, I want to congratulate Dwan Street on being the new president of FFAW.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. MCKENNA: Before I get into the real meat of what's going on here today and the debate that's taking place, I wanted to go back in history.

I'm a Fogo Islander, born and raised. I know the fishery, I know the transportation department down there, I know everything, just about, that there is to know in my district.

Well, let me take you back in time. Back in the 60s when the former premier, Premier Joey Smallwood, came out and told the fisherman: Pull up your boats and burn your boats, it's all over.

What did our forefathers do on Fogo Island? They stood ground.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. MCKENNA: They stood ground. They formed what as called an Improvement Committee and they put their heads together and said we got to figure this out. We're not giving up on this. So in that process, which was known later as The Fogo Process, they formed what was called a Fogo Island Co-operative. They merged the plants. They knew we had to have bigger boats, we had to move farther offshore. They opened up a shipyard in a place called Shoal Bay. They built bigger boats, they took a different outlook on the fishery, they went farther out, they caught plenty of cod and from there we took off.

We have right now, on Fogo Island, three fish plants. We have a crab plant, we have a shrimp plant and we have what we call a multipurpose plant. To this day, right now, our plant workers on Fogo Island are at work every day – every day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. MCKENNA: This is the kind of vision that we all have to have. We've got to be more open-minded and look farther ahead than we did in the past.

Right now, with the out-migration of the younger people moving into the larger centres, higher education, bigger jobs, we needed to bring in some people to replace them, to give work in the fish plants. So they put their heads together again. Right now, we've got about 20 to 30 Filipinos working in our fish plants on Fogo Island, hard-working people.

Housing: There's a problem right throughout this province with housing. What did they do? They bought the hotel right there by the ferry terminal that was up for sale and they housed the Filipinos. To add to that, they provided transportation. They went and they bought a bus and are busing the plant workers to and from the plants. So this is the kind of vision we've got to have, if we're going to continue.

I was born in a fishing community and I've seen what happened and seen where we became today, I think we need to put our heads together a lot better than we're doing and have a further in-depth look into what's ahead of us.

With the industry on Fogo Island and, of course, throughout my district, as my colleague said, we have similarities when it comes to fishermen and plant workers and everything else, because in my district, we not only have three plants on Fogo Island; we have a plant in Stoneville, sea urchins, multipurpose, buy a bit of crab, a bit of lobster and what have you. We have a fish plant in Dover that employs over 200 people. We have a fish plant in Valleyfield, Beothic fisheries, that's employing over 400 people. We are putting hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in the District of Fogo Island - Cape Freels into the economy of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. MCKENNA: Don't forget the fishery was what brought us here. The fishery is what's going to keep us here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. MCKENNA: Let me tell you something else. If the fishery fails, you're going to find it in urban areas bigger than what you think, because that's where the money is generated to in those areas. You take out the number of people that's attending universities and colleges from rural Newfoundland, it's putting a lot of dollars into this economy right here in the urban areas. So it's very important that you keep in mind that when we talk about the fishery, you've got to be talking about rural Newfoundland.

So with the situation on Fogo Island, it's not only improvements in the fishery that we want out there – and I'm going to stand by, like I said, every harvester and plant worker in my district throughout Fogo Island and Cape Freels because that is the backbone of our economy there and I'm going to stand with them and do whatever is best. I hope that with this bill here today, that you make the right decisions, the right policies and make the right choices because we are standing by our harvesters and our plant workers.

That's our job as MHAs, that's what we're voted in for and that's what I'm going to do because I take it right here. When I speak, it's right from here, because I know. I know the hardships that could be and I know how important this is to the economy of this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. MCKENNA: When I said it's another concern that I have, we live on an island. Fogo Island is an island, as well as Change Islands. We have a lot of fresh products that's shipped out from Fogo Island and shipped in to Fogo Island. Right now, we're doing hundreds of thousands of pounds of sea cucumbers. We need to make sure that we have a better transportation system in place.

We've got into a crisis last spring with our ferry system. We almost had to dump product, pretty close. We might have lost some. We had the same thing happen again a week ago, because we had four to five tractor-trailer loads of fresh sea cucumbers coming into our plants. What did the Transportation Department do? Pull out the ferry overnight, no consultation whatsoever, 24-hour notice. Gone – gone – left us with a small ferry that could only accommodate 18 vehicles and we with four to five tractor-trailer loads of fresh sea cucumbers coming into Fogo Island. Left us in a dilemma. We had to fight that.

We got a little resolve out of it right now. We don't have the two largest ferries in the province right now. We have three of the smallest, so we're barely getting by with it. That's something else that this government has to look at. I challenge the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure to wrap your head around that too because that's important to this economy, as well as to the economy of Fogo Island - Cape Freels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. MCKENNA: I just want to go back to some of the things that my colleague spoke about when it comes to free enterprise. Yes, I agree with free enterprise, because that's what we have on Fogo Island. We have our own markets. We don't have to be governed by controllers. We formed our own co-operative and I think it was a good idea. I think it's what saved our District of Fogo Island and Change Islands.

So whatever decision you make here today, I hope it's good. I hope it's good for the harvesters, I hope it's good for the plant workers, because this is a very important bill. I hope that they have the right vision put into this that affects the whole province and brings the whole province together and make a stronger fishery, because we should not only have a billion-dollar industry, we should have a $5-billion industry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. MCKENNA: I want to go back to processing. We should be doing more processing in this province, creating more employment. Ready to go to market when it comes out of the plants. That's where we're losing our dollars to. We're losing big dollars shipping out fresh product to other provinces.

We're facing climate change. It's like my colleague said, there's going to be an increase in cod. Well, we have proven this year with the lobster fishery. We have never seen a lobster fishery like it ever before in our lives. Millions and millions of dollars from the lobster industry this year. I know of some cases where one lobster fisherman with one licence shipped over 200 boxes, 100 pound per box and that's as high as $8 to $9 per pound.

So when we talk about late fishery for the start-up of the crab, and we all know the earlier we can get the crab in, the better quality of product that we have. So if we can't have our plants, our harvesters on the water in early April – because that's the key right there. Nobody wants to see what happened here last year. Nobody wants to go through that again, because we were close to a riot here because our government didn't come in and support the harvesters. They never had the support they should have had.

I'm hoping that your policies and this bill addresses all those issues and supports what the harvesters and the plant workers are looking for, for years.

With that, I'm going to say that I have to reiterate that how important the fishery is to the economy of this province. I can't help by saying that because that's what brought us here; that's what's keeping us here. You can talk about all the offshore oil and all these high-end dollars and the big money that's coming in the offshore, but that's going to stop one day.

We're talking about a renewable resource, and keep it in your mind that's a renewable resource. Not only the crab, everything out there is a renewable resource. When you start a late crab fishery, like the hon. Member for Bonavista said, that affects the other fisheries because it drags everything back. We lose millions of dollars on quality of product and the crab, sometimes, has to be left because time wasn't in it to bring it ashore.

Whatever policies you bring in today in regulation, I hope and I pray to God that it's for the best interests of the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

J. BROWN: Thank you, Speaker.

I am from Labrador West; I was born in Labrador West. So when it comes to the fishery, I guess I don't know much of the first-hand of it, but when it comes to labour I do know that.

One of the important pieces is a group's constitutional right to take job action. The right to strike is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of this country. As the justice said in a case there, the critical role in collective bargaining is why the right to strike is constitutionally protected under

section 2(

d) of theCharter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the freedom of association.

It's important having that privilege to take job action and it's a fundamental and protected right of this country. Because it's a part of the bigger picture, which is the right to collective bargaining. In order for collective bargaining to be meaningful, labour should have the right to withdraw service. This is a fundamental part of not only of our country, it's a fundamental part of the rights and freedoms of the people of this country. Having that ability and protecting that ability is important. That's why we see that.

To have that right of a labour organization, of a labour group is important. To give that back to a group is also a very meaningful and important thing, especially when they've asked for it.

To go on further, as other hon. Members have mentioned, the importance of the fishery and the importance of the workers and the importance of all workers within that thing, it's important that we have a meaningful and thought-out way of how we go forward. I agree with the Member for Fogo Island-Cape Freels that it has to be thought out, it has to be meaningful, it has to be good policy and good regulation behind the meaning of what you're doing. That also extends to meaningful and engaging consultation with different stakeholders that this bill affects.

So we're talking about the FFAW, the plant workers and the fishermen. Even having engagement with other stakeholders in the community and things like that to make sure what the process is and how it's going to play out is meaningful and engaged. We're not going to leave anyone behind. We're not going to negatively affect one group over another. We're going to make sure that everyone is on a fair and level playing field when going forward.

In particular, the FFAW has stated that they've had issues with previous processes. We, obviously, know; we've seen what happened last year, last spring, that the processes have to be laid out in a way that gives everyone a fair, equal opportunity and to make sure that the price setting, which for all intents and purposes is a bargaining process, that it is done in a way that is fair and equal and everyone has an opportunity for all the information that's available, and have the information to make a fair and balanced bargaining process with setting prices.

This is something that has led to some disagreement under the current status, the changes – so this bill amends the Collective Bargaining Act to allow fish harvesters and processors to engage in cessation of business dealings and lockouts, will have to go to conciliation first and the appointed officers by the minister, and have 10 days to attempt to work out a deal between the parties.

If the report is tabled and no agreement is met, then there's a seven-day cooling period before a strike or lockout can occur, and still the parties have the right to send disputes to the panel at any point up until the seven-day period expires, if both agree to pursue the route; modify the process when referring to matters with Standing Fishing Price Setting panel; provide Parts V and VI of the Labour Relations Act apply to matters within the scope of the act; and replace references to the Trial Division with the Supreme Court.

There is a process now, and it seems to be laid out in a way, but we've got to make sure that it's fair, it's equitable, it's balanced, and make sure that all the associated regulation and everything that goes with this is meant to make sure that it does what I guess what all the parties are working for, but also strike that balance.

We've seen that the right to strike and the right that also other labour groups have, under their charter rights, and also having the idea of taking job action, but also having a plan and process to make sure it doesn't get to that point, make sure the processes put in place are designed in a way to give everyone the same opportunity and make sure those that are sitting on the Price Setting Panel, it's fair, it's balanced, and that they actually can be able to do their job and reach an agreement so we don't see job action.

That's the ultimate goal at the end of the day, is we want bargaining to not lead to that. We want a process that is there. But also to protect the worker's right to take job of action if they do choose so, if things are not going in a fair and equitable way.

We'll have questions in Committee on it. We want to make sure that stakeholders were engaged, make sure that their feedback and any concerns or anything like that they had was taken into consideration, and that their suggestions and opinions and that for the consultation process behind this legislation was taken down and to make sure both sides and everyone had the opportunity to be a part of this and to work together on a meaningful and key consideration for this bill. We do have some questions for the minister when that time comes.

But we want to make sure that this process and everything that we have is laid out in this piece of legislation and will do what is intended and make sure that, you know, once again, that all stakeholders were engaged, to make sure all stakeholders were consulted and to make sure that all parties are able to have the input and everything into the crafting of this because this is a very large change. It's also a very important change. Also to make sure that workers are protected and make sure that their rights and everything are also going to be protected when it goes through all this.

So I want to thank you for that, and with that, I'll take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER (Gambin-Walsh): The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

P. LANE: Thank you, Speaker.

I'll be supporting Bill 104 as well. I do so because, from what I can gather, both parties who are part of this, who would be the subject of this legislation, seem to be in agreement, from what I can understand. This is something they're asking for. If it's something that's going to help facilitate the process and ensure or at least help lead to a situation where our fishery is operating in a timely fashion when it should be operating and that there are mechanisms to hammer out any issues and concerns that would be in place, and to get the plants up and running and the fishers out at the optimal time .

If this can help lead to this, and the FFAW are in agreement, then there's no reason why I would be against it, of course.

There is a provision here for, I guess, as has been said, strike lockout but also a provision for binding arbitration. I did hear my colleague from Bonavista – and I have to say that he's my local expert on the fishery, from my perspective at least when –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

P. LANE: I always listen intently when he speaks because he's a good speaker, number one, and it makes a lot of sense what he's saying. I don't know a lot about the fishery, to be honest with you. I try to learn as best I can but it's not something that impacts me directly. It certainly impacts my district indirectly for sure.

But he did talk about the Final Offer Selection and this is what both parties wanted. I was a little confused about that and I'll tell you why, maybe I'm mixing it up with something else. I'll ask it in Committee of the Whole, maybe someone will address it when they speak, but I thought part of the problem we had when we had the fishermen outside here protesting and so on was with this process whereby the union suggested a price and the processors suggested a price and then the committee, tribunal, whatever they were called, had to pick one or the other.

I thought part of the issue was the union were saying, why can't they cut it down the middle? In other words, if the union are saying the price should be – I'll just throw out some arbitrary figure – $5 a pound and the processors are saying no, it's only $4 a pound, I thought the issue was that the tribunal had to pick $4 or $5. I thought the union at the time wanted them to give the ability for the arbitrator, the tribunal, to say, we'll cut it down the middle and make it $4.50 or maybe $4.20 or maybe $4.80, but they didn't have to pick one or the other.

So when I hear that the Final Offer Selection is what they want, I thought that they kind of didn't want that. They wanted the ability to pick somewhere in the middle. You didn't have to go with the processor's price, you didn't have to go with the union's price, that the tribunal can say I'm going to pick something between the two, that they weren't forced to go high or go low. I thought that was the issue when the fishermen were out here. Maybe it's a different issue and someone can educate me, maybe the minister. I will ask about that in Committee of the Whole.

But there have been a few points that have come up about the fishery. Of course, the fishery, as we know, is important to us all, everybody in this province, regardless of what district you represent, as I say. Some districts are more directly impacted than others, but it impacts the GDP of the province and the economy of the province, which, in itself, is good for us all.

When it comes to different regions of the province, there may be a processing plant in Bonavista that benefits 400 people, but as my colleague from Bonavista said, it also positively impacts the people in Clarenville that are working in the businesses that would service the fishery. Donovans Business Park being no different, there are a lot of businesses that benefit as well.

One of the things that our former colleague from, what was St. John's South and then turned to Waterford Valley, I think is what it's called, where the new Member just got elected, was that the greatest amount of fish actually landed in Newfoundland actually happens down at the Southside, which I never realized at the time until the former Member brought that up.

So it does impact us all in a very positive way and we should be doing all we can do to nurture the industry and to put regulation, policy, legislation in place that's going to nurture that industry. This appears to be something that both sides want and everyone feels it'll be a benefit. So I will support it in that regard.

There were some things, though, that I did hear in speaking to some of the fishermen when there were outside here, because I did go out and talk to a lot of them, actually. The issue has been raised here about controlling agreements, illegal controlling agreements.

That's something that – well, it's illegal, for one thing. But if it's happening, it should be stopped. I heard from fishermen long before even then talking about that type of thing, where you're under the thumb of the processor. If there are regulations that tie into, if not this bill, related bills, then I would say to the government that is something that you need to get a handle on. You can't have enterprises that are under the thumb of any of these large processors.

I heard stories. I heard a story from one gentleman and he ran a fowl with one of the processors. I can't remember exactly what the issue was, if it was over the price or what the issue was, but there was an issue and he called the Open Line and he spoke to Paddy Daly to express his frustration with the processor in terms of how he felt he was being treated unfairly. He told me he received a call that night from said processor who said: Don't bother to bring any of your catch to me anymore. Our relationship is ended. He said: What am I going to do with my fish quota? He said ask: Paddy Daly if he wants to buy it. That was the comment: Ask Paddy Daly if he wants to buy your fish.

I had another fisher and he was catching cod. He had an issue, because he had brought the fish in one day and it gets dropped off, I think, on the wharf but the processor was supposed to take it from the wharf and process it, but the processor, for whatever reason, maybe it was a legitimate reason, decided I'm not going to take this fish and he left it in a box on the wharf that day and that night. The next day, he came and took the fish. When he bought the fish he said: You're only getting paid for grade two or grade B or whatever it is. He said: This was grade A fish. Well, it's grade B fish now.

He said: Well, that's not my fault. When I landed this on the wharf, and I guess whoever looks at it, the inspectors or whatever, it was grade A. It's grade B because you didn't bother to take it. No, you're only getting paid for grade B fish.

But the impression I was given in both cases is that it wasn't as simple as saying, well, if you won't take it, then I can give it to this person and they'll take it because there was some agreement or whatever in place that I don't know if it was an official agreement that no one else is allowed to take it because of the rules or if it was a case of processor A calls up processor B and says, listen, if he tries to bring the fish over to you, don't you take it. Because if you do that to me, the next time someone tries to do the reverse, I won't take theirs, you don't take his and we look after each other.

These are the types of things that have to be stopped. If these things are happening, I don't believe this person – and, certainly, I can tell you for sure the second person I know very well, a lot of us here know him. He wasn't lying. I can tell you I don't think either one of them were.

If this is the kind of stuff that's happening, then somehow in regulation and policy or whatever, there has got to be ways to prevent that kind of abuse. Because that's what it is, it's abuse. I don't care what anyone says, it's abuse. But some sort of way to prevent it or at the very least some way to appeal it. Maybe some kind of an appeal board or something to hear both sides and then make a ruling and to hold people accountable for unfair labour practices or whatever the case might be but that kind of stuff got to stop.

The other point, which I thought was a very good point, that the Member for Bonavista raised – his head is getting bigger now as we're going – that I never thought of and there's a lot of stuff he raised when it comes to the fishery that I never thought of, I don't know about it, but it's an excellent point. When we're allocating fish quotas and so on – well, the feds allocate the quotas, I guess, the licensing to the fish plants to process and so on – what factors are we taking into account in terms of who gets the licences and how much fish they're allowed to process and so on?

It is an excellent point that if we got community A over here – and again, I'm going to use Bonavista because he was the one who brought it up. I think he said they got 400 plant workers and there's only so much quota to go around. Fish plant B who's somewhere else and maybe they have 200 workers or 300 workers and only half of them are Newfoundlanders and half of them, or all of them for that matter, are temporary foreign workers, should the quota be going to a plant that's not employing local Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

It's a good question. I think it's a very, very valid question because it's supposed to be our resource –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: You can laugh all you want. There's lots I could laugh about you I can tell you that, that's a fact. Anyway –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: Pardon? Yes, and if the shoe fits, wear it.

Anyway –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

P. LANE: No, you got that right, you'll never wear my shoes.

Anyway, I digress. It is a valid point in terms of where is the benefit of our resources going. I have nothing against, by the way, a temporary foreign worker or anybody coming here. If we can't fill positions and stuff, it's not about that. But it's about ensuring that the local benefit for our product stays here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are other things I think about when I think about some of these processing plants and so on. We had situations, I've been told, I don't know, where there have been plants that have been bought over the years where some processor buys a plant only to shut it down. They buy it for the purpose of shutting it down, because they want to consolidate plants and so on. I understand that if anyone is going to open up a business, obviously, they're at it to make profit and it has to be profitable. Anybody with common sense understands that.

But given the fact that this is the people's resource, should we be allowing individuals and owners to be buying up multiple facilities only to shut half of them down and to transfer product from one part of the province to the other, simply to increase profits?

I kind of liken it to the airline industry prior to deregulation. This is part of the problem we have in the country now. When they deregulated the airlines, prior to that, if you had the pleasure, the opportunity to operate an airline and be profitable – nothing wrong with that – you had to take some of the tougher routes. In other words, you're making a boodle of money over here, but part of the condition that you can make a pile of money on this very profitable area is that you have to put in some reasonable flights to these others areas that are not serviced as much. You might not be making much money.

You might not be making any profit. You might be losing a little, but you're more than making up for it over here.

When deregulation came along in the airline industry, it was all profit driven. That's why you see places where it is like outrageous prices to go to Labrador and places like that because they got to make money and they have to be profitable. Because of the surge and so on, the prices are up.

Whereas, before deregulation, there would be mechanisms in place, legislatively, to say you have to keep prices down here because you're still making a pile of money over here.

I could make that same argument for fish processing licences. When we hear about someone saying, well, I can remember a few years back when there was some kind of fish – it wasn't redfish. It was an odd kind of fish. Anyway, they had to ship it out unprocessed. It was out in Arnold 's Cove, I think, or somewhere. There was some kind of a fish. It wasn't cod, it wasn't redfish, it was a different kind and, remember, they sent it out of the province, totally unprocessed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yellowtail.

P. LANE: Yellowtail. There you go. Yellowtail.

Arguably if you have a processor, and you can look at their bottom line, and they're making millions and millions of dollars off our resource – not their resource; our resource – why does every aspect of everything they do have to be profit driven? Why can't you say, listen, if you're going to make a million dollars over here, maybe you're only going to make 100 grand over here, sorry b'y, in order to make the million here, you have to take on that? You can't pick and choose because it's not your resource. You don't own it. It's the people's resource.

So I just throw that out there in terms of consideration when we are allocating fish to come of these plants of our fish – not their fish, they don't own it – it cannot simply be about profit and more profit and more profit and coming up with ways to consolidate, cut back, cut back, cut back, consolidate, make more and more and more and more profits off our resources at the expense of the people.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we go back to the days that there's a plant in every community and that everyone's going to be losing money. No one's going to do that. But I wonder has the balance gone too far the other way? That's all I'm saying: Has the balance gone too far the other way where we're so consumed of taking that corporate model and placing that corporate model on our resource where everything is driven by shareholders and more profit and more profit and more profit to the detriment of the fishers and to the people that work in these plants?

That's all I'm just throwing out there, just as a discussion point. We can agree; we can agree to disagree, that's fine, but it is the people's resources.

Anyway, with that said, I will be supporting the bill.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture.

G. BYRNE: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

It's always an experience to follow the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands. The muscles of your inner core, your mid, just clench when the Member stands up and says: Now, I don't necessarily understand anything or much about the topic at hand, but then he'll speak for 20 minutes on the topic at hand. We're elevated by his remarks and we appreciate them. We all have a contribution to make. Some stars burn brighter after we hear from the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands.

So with that said, Madam Speaker, I want to address the core issue at hand, which is the eloquence and the precision being offered for the hope of a solution to what appeared to be an intractable problem, one without solution, where tempers and emotions and examination had lost all hope to a resolve. The voices that have spoken and spoken loudly in support and praise of the approach that is being taken by the government to an otherwise intractable problem, speaks to the eloquence, to the precision and to the fairness of the government's initiative.

Madam Speaker, who supports this plan? Who has been given options under this plan to support themselves? Who are those voices? It is the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union and its members, represented by its executive. It is the Association of Seafood Producers, represented by its executive director representing the interest of its members. But it is also – and this is what gives us great courage and resolve – it is the fishermen. Fishermen like John Efford and Jason Sullivan, who have said this plan is a good plan.

So with that said, the captain of capacity, the commander of corporate concentration control, the five-star general of free enterprise, thank you, hon. Member for granting me leave for such a title.

I will say to all involved, this has been an effort that has been successful; it has been an effort where the parties will now take the benefit of this foundation and they will be the resolve to come. Options are now available that did not previously exist or were not necessarily understood to exist.

Let us all remember that in 2006 and the passage of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act with the provisions for the panel and Final Offer Selection, it was a decision that was taken not by government, but by participants in the industry, to voluntarily put into abeyance what might otherwise be called a constitutional right to bargain collectively, and to exercise the right to withdraw business or services under a strike or lockout as part of the bargaining process.

It was the parties in 2006, the FFAW and ASP, who took that otherwise established constitutional Charter right and held it in abeyance for something which was believed to be a better approach at the time; a panel approach and Final Offer Selection that would be binding, the equivalent of binding arbitration on the parties. Perhaps over the course of time, over these just about 20 years, maybe there might have been the evolution of a belief that this was in perpetuity, that the surrender or the restriction, the self-imposed restriction was binding in perpetuity, the decision, the die had been cast, that they no longer held that right.

It was us that reminded that that right is sacrosanct and can be reclaimed with due and proper notice to rescind legislation and return to the right to strike or lockout. That is the essence of the free enterprise argument.

So with that said, the FFAW did indeed come forward with a notice to reinvoke the right to strike or to be locked out. Discussions were held and, as a result of those positive, productive discussions by members of the industry, along with organizations that represented the industry, we now find ourselves with not just one elegant solution, but 10 elegant solutions. The 10-point plan advanced by this government has been absolutely, universally well received by harvesters.

Allow me to make special note of a person who I have come to deeply respect; known for many years, known by his legacy of the family he comes from. He says: Every bit of competition in this industry is helping retain and ensure the survival of coastal communities. So the wisdom lies within harvesters in this industry. It is the harvesters who support increased capacity. We have a government who is listening, we support this approach in its entirety. We support the government. We have a government who is listening. John Efford just sent me that message just moments ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

G. BYRNE: Another voice to this industry : The Liberal government added processing capacity in 2024 and that ended up bringing $100 million extra dollars to our coastal communities through competition. Fishermen are excited that their businesses will have more buyers to help even the playing field and let true market price shine through. We need those millions of dollars in the pockets of thousands of harvesters, rather than in a handful of merchants. Well done, government, well done, a minister on our side. That comes from Jason Sullivan, inshore harvester.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

G. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, there is work to be done. We have set-up, we have established options to be exercised, what will go forth now upon passage of this legislation. It will be constructively held, as I would say, in a vault. The opportunity will remain in place for the parties to negotiate collective agreements that allow for a blended approach. The prior approach was very specific, very prescriptive. It was FOS panel or FOS; it was collective bargaining and the only other opportunity beyond normal collective bargaining was a referral to the panel and to a Final Offer Selection process. There was no right to strike or lockout.

This is a trifold option process now. There will be discussions. There are already discussions that occurring between the FFAW and ASP right as we speak. Collaboration is occurring right now.

The FFAW and ASP report to us that those discussions are under way to see if, within the collective bargaining process, that certain species can indeed right to strike or lockout, while others have a formula-based approach. As was described, that will be taken as a decision by ASP and FFAW and they welcome that opportunity and have put so in writing.

With that said, if over the course of collective bargaining, of discussions and negotiations there is found to be no agreement, then the parties have the right to invoke a right to strike or lockout. Or, Madam Speaker, they also have the right to retain that which has existed, that which has been in place of the panel and Final Offer Selection for all species.

The point being the choice is now theirs. They are choosing to negotiate now to see if a resolve can be reached. They welcome that choice. They welcome that opportunity and are working earnestly to resolve all issues. While, at the same time, they welcome free enterprise. They welcome the fact that their constitutional charter right can indeed be reinstated through this legislation. They welcome that.

They welcome the fact that this legislation, by having a deferred commencement clause, gives them opportunity to resolve their own issues. No longer is this in the hands of government to dictate terms and to create resolution. This is now in the hands of those who reach those hands out and demand that right, that power, that capacity to influence and affect their own futures. That power now rests in the hands of the FFAW and its members and within the hands of the processing sector and the communities where they live, that power is entrenched.

It is there for them to hold and to have and to exercise and that is the beauty, the precision, the eloquence and the fairness of this. They have the ability now to choose negotiations. They have the ability to choose strike or lockout. They have the ability to go and say the panel and Final Offer Selection is our best option. They have the ability now to say that. They have the ability to choose. The future is now in their hands where it belongs. That is the precision and eloquence of this approach.

So with that said, Madam Speaker, I feel as though, I am certain as though, the course of voices who will be supporting this legislation will not just be the ASP and the FFAW, it will be every Member of this House supporting the approach the government has laid down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay.

L. PADDOCK: Speaker, as the son of a fisherman, as the grandson of a fishing captain and schooner builder, coming from a district where the fishing industry and aquaculture is truly important, I think I can offer some overview of where we are, not just on this bill, but for the fishing industry as a whole.

So let me start first by going back to the

preamble. That

preamble indicated that our fishery was merely an economic driver. Let me correct everyone here. Our fishery is the most important industry in this province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: Our fishery could be so much more, as was highlighted by the MHA for Bonavista. It could be so much more if the government was truly behind it. Actions speak louder than rhetoric.

Let me give some examples: A mackerel fishery where there was no push back to the federal Liberals, a mackerel fishery that is worth $300 million to this province, multiply that by three for an economic impact, we're looking at close to a $1-billion impact – silence from the government.

We're now in a situation, again as was highlighted by the MHA for Bonavista, where we have a growing opportunity for TAC for northern cod and that has been reiterated to me in talking to fish harvesters – and I encourage every Member of the House to go out and talk to fish harvesters, not just for a photo op, but to actually listen to them.

A fish harvester will tell you that there's an opportunity here for an increased TAC, and that increased TAC will provide an opportunity for a true economic multiplier across the province. We must ensure, with that TAC, that the primary beneficiary of it is the inshore fish harvester, because that is about the sustainability of rural Newfoundland.

Now, again, we come back, and as it was highlighted by the Member for Fogo - Cape Freels, the fishery can be sustainable. But we have an issue in our fishery, as was highlighted by the MHA for Bonavista, and that is pinniped predation. For those of you who are not aware, pinniped means seals.

The government side cut the funding to CSA, the Canadian Sealers Association, that was Newfoundland based at $100,000 cut. Their source of support was wiped out. Again, actions and support from the government means everything if we are to grow our fishery. The impact of seal predation over this decade of darkness, both federal and provincial, has been significant. The seal population has never been as high as it is right now.

That is impacting the livelihood of really all fish harvesters. As was highlighted by the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, it has an impact right across the province. We have to do something about seal predation, pinnipeds. There is also an opportunity in our fishery, as we have been highlighting, and as the MHA for Bonavista highlighted, and that is expanding our fishery. Our fishery can be much bigger than what it is, if we look at leveraging underutilized species. Again, there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in government in doing that.

Now, the other point that was highlighted in the

preamble was building on efforts from last year. I wasn't in the House at that time so I was watching a lot of that from TV and from news media. One of the things that appalled me in watching that was the use of the RNC Mounted Unit. We had to be very careful to let collective bargaining run its process and not interfere with it. There's still a young gentleman – I call him young because he is still involved in the fishery or hopes to get back to the fishery – who was seriously injured during the use of the RNC Mounted Unit. Hopefully, government compensation can be forthcoming to him for it.

The other thing that I noted with that dispute, the heated dispute from last spring, is it took two years to reverse a board decision – not a board decision but a government decision to not increase the processing capacity. The board has made a recommendation to government two years previous. Government basically shut it down and then what happens? We have a significant dispute outside of this Legislature. That board was based on a review based on science and consultation. I hope the government hoists that in, that the entire industry needs to be consulted going forward.

The MHA for Placentia - St. Mary's indicates that this bill will revolutionize the industry. This is like a pharmacist giving a patient some Cēpacol to placate them for a little while while the greater health issues are being addressed. That's where we are right now with our fishery, this is a small step but there are significant issues that need to be addressed.

You know, it's too bad with regards to the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture, who laughed at the Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands, yet the Member correctly highlighted that the fishery impact is not just limited to a small rural fishing community, it impacts every community in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. PADDOCK: In fact, a sizable majority of the landings are here in St. John's, your own district, Member for Mount Pearl - Southlands. It's the indirect impact with regard to what happens in our fishery, indirect impact in that supply chain and it is that we need to protect as well.

You also correctly highlighted that we are not there with free enterprise. I talked to a lot of fish harvesters this summer right across the province and a number of them right across the province called me. Again, what is said on a piece of paper with regard to free enterprise is not what's happening in practice. They're still being told when to fish, where to fish, how much to fish, how they can fish, when they can land. It is putting people's lives and livelihoods at risk and that has happened, not just across crab, but also across northern cod as well. Those are significant frustrations across fish harvesters.

We also have an opportunity, as was highlighted with regard to the Member for Bonavista, to do more with regard to our sealing industry. You know, the former Member of this House and former MP John Efford said: seals are not eating turnips. That is correct and w e collectively have to address seal predation. We also have to collectively look at how we develop markets for the seal industry. There's an opportunity here to expand the sealing market. We even have a company right now in my own district that's looking for a processing licence to do the same.

So do we have free enterprise? I think that's a question that the government needs to do some soul searching on.

Again, like I said, this is a small step. This is yet a necessary step, but we have much bigger issues in our fishery to address and they have to be addressed, not by small steps, not just by baby steps, now is the time for us collectively to start taking major steps to improve both the capacity of our fishery, the secondary processing of our fishery and with regard to the underutilized species in our fishery. It can go, from what the MHA for Bonavista has highlighted, from about $1.2 billion to probably $2 billion or $3 billion. Add in a multiplier on that and we have a major economic force for the province.

So we're here now, like I said, with a small step and I think most of us agree that it is a necessary step. But I would hope that the government would work with us in actually tackling some of the significant issues in our industry. We're getting roadblocks, not just from the other side here, but also from Ottawa as well. Our fishery is an opportunity to grow. Let's start tackling the major issues now.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: Thank you, Speaker.

It's certainly a pleasure to get a chance to get up and speak on the fishery, for sure. It's a big part of my district, absolutely, starting in Petty Harbour and going all the way, right up to St. Shott's. It's certainly a great opportunity to get up and speak. It's certainly not a photo op, Mr. Speaker, in my district for sure.

We would not be in this mess today if you didn't give it away to Royal Greenland. That's where it all started, when you were the minister. When you were the minister, this is where this started. The fishermen are not happy until this day when you gave it away to Royal Greenland. So don't start on me over here today, I can tell you that, about photo ops

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. O'DRISCOLL: So I'll talk about the district. I'll talk about Petty Harbour. It started in Petty Harbour. There's a fishery down there as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. O'DRISCOLL: There are lots of fishermen down there. When they were out here on the steps last year, we were out there supporting them. They didn't go out and support them. They were forced to go support them at the end of it, when it all happened. That's when it happened. We were out there supporting them when it started and by the time it was all done, they had to get them in here so they could get them to support it, because they didn't do it when it first started, I can tell you that.

So it started in the fishery. When it started, we were in Bay Bulls. I grew up in the fishery. If there's anybody in here, I certainly grew up in the fishery. I'm not a fisherman, but I grew up in the fishery. I grew up going down and cutting out cod tongues. My mother worked in the fish plant, my father was a fishermen, my brothers worked in the fishery. We all worked in it and it's an important, vital part of all the Ferryland district, I can tell you that – vital part.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: It was a vital part of when we grew up, I can tell you that, a vital part.

In 1981, when the fishery was on strike, I was fishing with my father. I was 15; I wasn't get paid to go fishing. I had to get called up out of bed to go out and help him as a fisherperson, and I wasn't a fisherman. But I was out every day and they went on strike, and they were on strike for more than a month. They sold all their fish. They brought it in, they gutted, they salted it and then when they dried it, we brought it out to the Saltfish Corporation down on Southside Road.

So I can tell you, if anybody is involved in the fishery – and I'm not a fisherman, but I can tell anybody in here about the fishery and where it goes. I can tell you that, no doubt about it.

It gets me worked up when we start talking about it, to be truthful, I have to tell you. It really does. I mean, in 1992 when the fishery closed, it affected our family, for sure. It was on my birthday on July 2, '66, and I said that numerous times in here when it happened and we were all in the basement of our house watching the announcement, in shock, to be truthful.

So now the fishery – and I'll jump back when I do – is open to a commercial fishery. In 1992, anybody in this building could go get a fish if they wanted – anybody. So the commercial fishery opened again, everybody can't go get a fish. They can go get them on certain days. They should be able to go get it the same as they could before in 1992. Why couldn't they? They should be able to go out and get a fish.

Now they have to go certain days. For 10 days in September, the fishery was open. Ten days it was open; two days they could get out and fish on this end. There was no one over there who fought for those people to be able to get out and get their fish, because they wait until the end of the year when they get the fish that they're more solid in a fall fish. It's a better fish than it is in the summer. But they didn't fight for that either for the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The fishery, when it shut down in 1992, there were 3,000 people in Trepassey. There are 385 there now. So that's a big difference in the community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

It's very difficult to hear the Member speaking.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

L. O'DRISCOLL: So I'll go through some of the communities as I go along.

Witless Bay has a fish plant. They do crab processing for a certain period of the year. Talking about the economy, it certainly helps the economy. They rent houses off residents in the communities. There are people who come in from around the bay and all over the place to come in. They go to the grocery stores. I've seen them walking up the road in Bay Bulls. There's a house over there that seven or eight people come from around the bay to come over and get their hours to be able to qualify for EI. So there's all kind of stuff that happened.

In Cape Broyle, there's a crab plant there as well, and they do sea cucumber. In Aquaforte, there's another fish plant there as well that they have foreign workers there and they have locals. When you go up there in the summer, they have campers that are parked in the back of the parking lot by the fish plant that are coming from around the bay.

They take their campers and park there and sleep in their campers, obviously, when they're finished work in the plant. They don't drive home for three or four hours. They bring their campers over there and they stay for the summer, so it's a big part of our economy. I would certainly like to see this and we don't want the mess that's happening here for the last 10 years with this fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

L. O'DRISCOLL: And I'll leave it at this: When the Member for Corner Brook said, great, it's out of the government's hands, we're delighted because for the last 10 years you made nothing only a mess.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

T. WAKEHAM: Thank you, Speaker.

I wasn't going to get up and speak but I feel compelled to get up and speak because I want to let it be known to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador has always stood for the fishers of our province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: We were there on the steps when the harvesters showed up. We didn't call in the RNC and a police unit with horses to push them away. We will welcome them with open arms and we will continue to work with the people that lead and use and need our fishing industry in this province because, as my hon. colleagues have said, this is the backbone of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: And let us not forget that the fishing industry is a renewable megaproject. It is a renewable megaproject that brings in new money every single year and I think all of us are tasked with the idea of how do we grow that from $1 billion to $2 billion.

We all want that for our communities. We all need that for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no disputing that by anyone in this House, but at the end of the day, you've got to be able to put it forward. The last few budgets we've seen put forward by the Liberal government opposite had very little to say about the fishery, a few lines, but we have stood here in this House continuously and have stood here for decades and talked about the need for joint management of our fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: We will continue to stand here and demand joint management of our fishery. We will demand it from Ottawa. We will continue to fight it until we get joint management of our fishery, and we will be there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

T. WAKEHAM: So let's make sure that everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador gets that message, Speaker. Hears that message.

I'm glad to hear the Members opposite support us. I'm glad to hear the Members opposite stand up and support us when we've talked about joint management for years in this House and now we have an opportunity, because at the end of the day, with all due respect to everyone in this House, it is not about us. With all due respect, it's not about us. It's about the people who are working in the industry. Everything else aside, that's what's important.

Let me tell you a little story if I can. It was about a time when the crab harvesters weren't on the water and I ran into a small convenience store owner. I went into his shop and he said, today, 5,000 lunch tins didn't get filled, and what he was talking was fish plant workers who were not working. His little convenience store always had a portion of those workers who would come in and get their snacks for their lunch boxes, whether it be a can of Coke or a Pepsi or a bag of chips.

But that's how the fishery impacts so many industries, so many people. So there are lots of big industries but there are lots of small industries and communities that depend on it. All of us want to see changes and good changes brought in, good legislation brought in that protects the people that make their living from this great industry of ours in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and all over Newfoundland and Labrador.

We will always stand here and stand up and support and cheer for the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let's work to get joint management, because that's what we ought to have in our province, and we will continuously stand up for the people that risk their lives every single day and go out on those waters to catch that fish.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

I want to say good job, actually, to our leader. He is very passionate and speaks highly of our position on this side of how we support the fishery unequivocally.

Bill 104 is

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act No. 2. What we're looking for in this legislation, obviously, is fairness for all people in the industry, from harvesters and processors, but also to the wharfingers and the fish plant workers. These are a very vital part of our industry. We need to attract more people in those parts of the industry.

It's always an honour to speak on behalf of the people of Placentia West - Bellevue where we have a lot of enterprises and we have several fish plants. One I want to point out, in particular, that has been an industry standard and a real industry changer is the one of –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

It's been very difficult; the speaker is here right in front of me and I can barely hear him.

The hon. the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

J. DWYER: I have to thank you for your protection because it wasn't nothing directed at me, but the youngsters are playing today.

Anyway, I will say that Icewater Seafoods in Arnold's Cove has been a very impressive thing to support going throughout my district because it is so important to the region. It's not just the refinery or Bull Arm or anything like that, we also have Royal Greenland in Southern Harbour. But what happens in Arnold's Cove is that it processes cod only; 99.8 per cent of every cod that comes through the door at Icewater Seafoods is processed. That's 0.2 per cent waste. That's unbelievable. It's an industry game changer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

J. DWYER: They made a $10-million investment. There are about 1,000 people in Arnold's Cove, so that's $10,000 they invested into their company to keep it going, to stay in the fishing industry for every man, woman and child that it affects in the immediate town that they're operating in.

I want to make a shoutout to Alberto Wareham. He's the owner and operator now, but he's the eight generation. His son, Ryan, that's coming behind him is a very smart, intelligent young man. I think he's going to be a game changer as well in making sure of the advancement of the industry. So like I said, a great shoutout to the Warehams for putting in the effort. We really appreciate it.

Speaker, not only for the Warehams to be in the industry that long; they also have workers there. There are fish plant workers in Arnold's Cove that have been with the Warehams for over 50 years. Now that's dedication to the fishery, not just to the Warehams, but that's the relationship that they've had. I've been at a couple of ceremonies already where we celebrated people 50 years working for the Warehams since they landed in Arnold's Cove.

These plant workers are very dedicated. It is a game-changing plant and I encourage anybody in the province, if you want to see state-of-the-art fish processing, you go to Icewater Seafoods in Arnold's Cove.

I won't be long, I won't take 20 minutes, certainly, but I have a young couple – actually, I'll give a shoutout to Taylor and Kelsey Hollett, they just got married this past summer – in their 20s, grew up in the fishing industry. Kelsey is actually the last –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

J. DWYER: Thank you, Speaker.

I'm making a shoutout to Taylor and Kelsey Hollett. They're in the fishing industry as well but they're not able to break into it as easily as we would like. The point I'm trying to make is that we don't want to lose the fishery because we have nobody coming behind in further generations because of difficult roadblocks that they have to overcome to get into the fishing industry and carry on their parents' enterprise.

But with Kelsey and Taylor, Taylor is one smart cookie, I can tell you right now. Kelsey runs the business; Taylor's the technologist. They have Hollett's Marine Service in Arnold's Cove, they service all the latest technology that's on the boats from fish finders to GPS, everything. The problem with it is, right now, he has too small of a shop. He's just on the side of Foodland. He came to me looking to expand.

I can't get ACOA, I can't get government, I can't get anybody to give this young fella help. I can't get anybody to give us some assistance in getting this business an ability to expand. Because they have such great things to do, it would save the enterprises that are in the area from having to go to Mount Pearl - Southlands to get their parts or to have to get a technologist to go down aboard their boat, that's only across the road from them. We need that kind of support for young people that want to part of the industry.

Taylor's parents, Merv and Lajuan, are enterprise owners, so Taylor grew up on the boat with his father, but he needs 75 per cent of his income. So we want him to shut down his service industry, he can't take over his father's enterprise because he's not doing 75 per cent of his income, we can't get him some expansion, so what are we doing for the young people that want to break into the industry or want to continue on that family tradition? That's what I'm looking at.

The other thing is that the availability of competition is what helps drive price. The biggest game changer is going to be competition. That's what this legislation is going to do is open up the free enterprise because that's what the industry has asked for. That's what we need to do, listen to the boots on the ground, not the ivory tower decision in Ottawa that's telling us to give up on the fishery and start growing seagrass, because I don't know who put that person in place, but that person needs to move on.

The trickle-down effect, this is the greatest renewable industry in the country, let alone this province. That will tell you how important it is to this province, but we need to be stewards of it.

The Atlantic Accord is in place and it should be implemented when it comes to our fishery to give us joint management so we understand that we actually have a say in how our fishery is run. This is what this legislation is giving us an opportunity to do with binding arbitration, but we need the same thing between the province and Ottawa. That's what we need more than anything.

Like we said, this might be a stopgap measure or it might be a short-term resolution because of what happened last year, but we need to think more long term when it comes to our fishery because it is the greatest renewable resource that we have. If we're going to be sustained here in Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery needs to stay as one of the most important resources that we have. It's as simple as that.

So for young people entering the fishery, we need to assist them in getting it done. We don't want to lose these family traditions because the thing is, the young people that want to break in are traditionally a fishing family. We're not going to attract people from, probably, Mount Pearl - Southlands or from the larger centres to go into the fisheries. It's not what they're interested in.

In rural Newfoundland, they are interested in it but we're driving them away. We're taking away the opportunity for them to stay interested. It's the trickle-down effect that we don't get to appreciate our own because we're getting dictated to by Ottawa.

To me, if we turn around and we take away that 75 per cent, we have a look and we negotiate what would be fair and understanding; I think it should be 33 per cent to be quite honest. But if 33 per cent can't be met, then that's fine, we're talking about income. We don't get people to shut down industries or go on other jobs so that they can sustain their family while they're trying to get the 33 per cent income and their education at the same time. So we need that to be straightened out.

Like I said, the free enterprise is what we need and really we need to think about the whole picture and to go back to what the legislation is going to do. It's also going to help the harvesters, the processors, the plant workers and the wharfingers.

To me, if we don't focus on the fishery and understand how important the fishery is, not only to St. John's, but to the whole economy of the province, to each and every district and each and every town, because, as the Member for Placentia - St. Mary's said, you've got a community that's not applying now for the CEEP.

What I noticed, after she made that comment, was that the towns that are applying for CEEP in my district all had their fish plants closed. What we have in those towns, now, are enterprises and people trying to self sustain the fishery without a great lot of support.

On that note, Speaker, I'm going to take my place, but I just want to say that we certainly need to support the fishing industry and make sure that we're doing it for the right reasons.

Thank you, Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: Seeing no other speakers, if the Minister Responsible for Labour speaks now, we'll close debate.

The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: My goodness, Speaker, there's a lot of passion around about the fishery, I'll tell you that.

There was quite a number of speakers here today – no surprise – and I do want to thank them. Everybody wanted to talk about the great impacts of the fishery in their community, in their district and even those who didn't have plants or harvesters, they certainly are feeling the positive impacts of the fishery.

There are a few little points that I want to make very, very quickly in the interest of time, and I was going to say, I, too, like many that spoke, grew up in a fishing family in a fishing community and now representing a fishing district. Many in my family involved, not only as harvesters and processors, but my family owned the last privately owned fish plant. It closed in 1992, so lots of history there.

Where we're going, I want to reiterate, basically with the strike or the lockout, is we are providing, giving, listening and responding and giving the parties what they have asked for in terms of wanting the right to strike or lockout, but also providing off-ramps.

I would be remiss if I did not go back and mention there was a lot of reference in the dialogue back and forth about where were you in the last two years and we were outside and we stood with fish harvesters. I would be remiss if I didn't mention my colleague, Minister Bragg. We went out and he addressed the crowd. He did that two years ago. The next Fisheries minister, Minister Loveless, he went out and he did that. But if you want to get into negotiation and listening to the fishermen, you can't do that standing in front of a large crowd. For the record, I want to say we did that. Besides that, we had multiple, multiple, multiple meetings.

Speaker, I just want to reference and thank the people who spoke. It was the Member for Bonavista that shared some comments and talked about the economic driver in the fishery. The Member for Placentia - St. Mary's, I think, gave a real state-of-the-union address. Lots of passion there and involved in the fishery right from her family and represents a fishing district. The Member for Fogo Island - Cape Freels talked about the value of the fishery to his area. The Member for Labrador West, not a lot of fishing activity happening there, but certainly, he's very connected with his partner from Southern Labrador.

The Member for Corner Brook, and, Speaker, I want to say how much I appreciate the work that myself and the Fisheries Minister have been able to do; ongoing dialogue with both FFAW, with the Atlantic Seafood Producers. Last week in Southern Labrador we had dialogue, we started this week with both FFAW and ASP sitting in front of us, and I appreciate the work we've been doing together. The FICBA happens to fall under Labour, it's me, but we're also working closely together because it is a fishing matter.

I want to thank the Member for Baie Verte - Green Bay; he did talk a lot about we need to do more of this, more of that. I was waiting for a solution, had my earpiece in, I didn't hear anything. I'm quite happy with the direction as a government that we are going in and working with the parties.

Because what we are doing, Speaker, just to be clear, is we're providing parties with options. They can conclude a collective agreement on their own; they can conclude an agreement through the conciliation process; or they can choose by mutual agreement to go to the panel. If none of that works, they will have the option to strike or lockout.

What we're doing really there is giving them what many other groups already have. Just about finished here, I want to thank the Member for Ferryland, the Leader of the Opposition – I find it funny, because I didn't even know where the cameras were in this place, for a lot of years. But they don't speak to you, they speak to the camera. I guess there's a video clip coming. And I want to thank the Member for Placentia West - Bellevue.

Speaker, in my clue-up, clearly we all place a lot of value on this renewable resource, and certainly we appreciate the processors and the harvesters, and I like a lot of talk about the balance here, of supporting both the processors and the harvesters –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

L. DEMPSTER: – we have to always consider two of them.

I think I'm going to sit down, and hopefully we're going to move to Committee. I didn't say it when I opened, but I do look forward to working with this province's first-ever female president of FFAW. I said to her on Monday, I joined an all-male team in 2013, and I'm always really pleased and delighted when we see women sitting in seats that historically they have never sat. I'm looking forward to continuing to build a positive relationship with the president of FFAW, President Street, and also place a lot of value on the relationship I'm building with the Atlantic Seafood Producers.

Thank you, everyone, for your contribution. I look forward to taking questions in debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SPEAKER: Order, please!

Are the Members ready for the question?

The motion is that Bill 104 be now read a second time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act No. 2. (Bill 104)

SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time.

When shall the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole?

J. HOGAN: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, a bill, “

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act No. 2,” read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 104)

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister Responsible for Labour, that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 104.

SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 104.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SPEAKER: All those against?

Motion carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Trimper): Order, please!

We are now considering in the Committee of the Whole, Bill 104,

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act No. 2.

A bill, “An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act No. 2.” (Bill 104)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: Thank you, Chair.

We've had a conciliation board to the bill, the amendment. What guarantee do we have that those appointed to the conciliation board will be knowledgeable in the fisheries?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: I was a little bit distracted there, Speaker, just coming off my –

CHAIR: Will I repeat the question?

L. DEMPSTER: Yes.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: What guarantee do we have that those appointed to the conciliation board will be knowledgeable about the fisheries?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Are you talking about the Fish Price Setting Panel?

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: You've added a conciliation board that's part of the process here that either party can determine that they wish to go to, but I'm just wondering about the makeup of the conciliation board as to their knowledge of what the fisheries would be and whether there is any thought given to the composition of that committee.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Sorry, just moving parts.

They certainly will have expertise in the area of processors, in the area of harvesters. I misunderstood first. I thought you were talking about the Price Setting Panel where ASP gets to appoint one and the FFAW gets to appoint one and then there's an arbitrator. We will ensure that they have expertise in the area of processing and the fishery.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: In your closing commentary, you thanked the Minister of Fisheries, Forestry and Agriculture for the ongoing dialogue with the FFAW and ASP. Can you quantify that? How much dialogue have you had with those two entities over this bill? How much?

I know you did, because I know I read it in a Facebook post of the FFAW. So I'm just wondering how much dialogue you had.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: You said with regard to this bill, so the actual contents of the bill you can't speak to until you're in second reading. However, we are moving in this direction because it is what they have asked for.

I think, in September, we had our first contact in terms of the FFAW. On the 31st of October, myself, the Fisheries Minister and the Premier we met for three hours with the FFAW, the full Inshore Council was there, and it was a cross with the Fish Price Setting Panel. There are 13 species, so it was a broad conversation about the fact that the Fish Price Setting Panel is working for most of the species, if we look back through the years.

Then last week up in Labrador, at the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company biennial, the president of the FFAW was there and the executive director of ASP was there. They both spoke at that event and we had conversation. Then, on Monday, each of those parties sat down with myself and my colleague, the Fisheries Minister, and each party had a number of people with them.

So all of this direction, where we are going, they have been asking for the right to strike or lockout. But, also, I call it a bit of a hybrid model, and that's my words, not theirs. At the end of the day, sometimes bargaining can be or an agreement can be reached more quickly, I think, if you're able to have the option to exert that economic pressure, let's say.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Bonavista.

C. PARDY: On that Facebook post that the FFAW had, just let me read the final part, just to get your commentary on it. Both parties also agreed to defer – and both parties would be the FFAW and the ASP – defer any legislation changes to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act regarding the strike-lockout process, and government has agreed that nothing will move forward until both parties have an agreement.

Am I assuming that this bill that we're going to pass through the House now will not get Royal Assent, that we're going to wait to see until those parties mutually work it out?

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister Responsible for Labour.

L. DEMPSTER: Thank you for the question.

Back to the conciliation process, I just want to say that it was correct. I had needed to get assurance that those members will be selected by both parties.

About the bill and what we're doing here today, we have been moving forward in lockstep with the parties, saying we have heard that this is what you want. We began drafting legislation in response to what they want.

However, we have heard from them. They each represent groups, as you would know, and they answer to members. So they have asked for time to consult with their members and then they will come back and say a yay or a nay. They may say, yes, we like everything here; the members are all on board. Or they may say, actually, we're going to move forward this year with what is in place.

So to prepare, in advance of this is our last week in the House, we will pass this today, hopefully. It sounds like everyone is in support. But what is proposed here will not come into effect until it receives Royal Assent. We will not move forward to receive Royal Assent until we have heard back from both parties. We made that clear with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: I call the attention of the House that our Standing Orders require that at 12:30 we are to stop for a recess. However, if the will of the House is to continue and we have leave, we can continue.

So is there leave to continue?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: I move, seconded by the Minister Responsible for Labour, that the Committee rise and report progress.

CHAIR: Okay, thank you.

Did I get a seconder, Sir?

J. HOGAN: The Minister Responsible for Labour.

CHAIR: Okay.

So it's moved and seconded that this Committee do rise and report and ask leave to sit again.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, the Speaker returned to the Chair.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lake Melville and Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

P. TRIMPER: Thank you, Speaker.

The Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and asked me to report progress and ask leave to sit again regarding Bill 104,

An Act to Amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargain Act No. 2.

Thank you.

SPEAKER: The Chair of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and directed him to report that they have made progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the report be received?

J. HOGAN: Now.

SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the Committee ask leave to sit again?

J. HOGAN: Presently.

SPEAKER: Presently.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently, by leave.

SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

J. HOGAN: Thank you, Speaker.

I moved, seconded by the Deputy Government House Leader, that this House do now recess.

SPEAKER: This House do stand in recess until 2 this afternoon.

I remind Members of the Management Committee we have a short meeting up in the Committee room.

Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

SPEAKER (Bennett): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Before we begin, in the public gallery I'd like to welcome Doris Hudson of Pouch Cove. Doris is joining us this afternoon for a Member's statement.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I'd also like to welcome a new Page here with us today, Emma Harris. Emma is completing her Bachelor of Arts degree at Memorial University, wit h a major in psychology and a minor in law and public policy.

Welcome, Emma.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: I'd also like to welcome young Orion who's joining us this afternoon, sitting with his mom, the Minister of Education.

Welcome.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

SPEAKER: Today we'll hear statements by the hon. Members for Torngat Mountains, Waterford Valley, Baie Verte - Green Bay, Bonavista and Cape St. Francis.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

L. EVANS: Thank you, Speaker.

Marjorie Flowers, née Andersen, born and raised in Makkovik, Nunatsiavut, moved to Hopedale in 1996 to start a life with the love of her life, Brian. Sadly, Brian passed away 23 years later, but Marjorie continues to live the positive and productive life that they both planned.

Marjorie began as a chapel servant in the Moravian church but stepped up to take on the responsibility as lay minister. She, along with other dedicated members, keep the church going, holding regular services, marrying, baptizing and laying their parishioners to rest. All with the message of hope, love and resilience.

Her convictions formed young. Marjorie, along with her siblings, had to go away to residential school; the dorm we used to call it. Marjorie shares her experiences, educating others to the truth, so our history will not be forgotten.

She served the people of Hopedale for 19½ years with the Labrador Inuit Health Commission and, later, Nunatsiavut's Health and Social Development before running for AngajukKâk.

She has been elected by the people three times to lead Hopedale and represent them in the Nunatsiavut House of Assembly. Marjorie works hard every day to improve Hopedale and in the House of Assembly her voice is respected greatly.

Please join me in congratulating Marjorie on her contribution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

J. KORAB: Thank you, Speaker.

Community food pantries play a transformative role in ensuring food security, fostering compassion and strengthening neighbourhoods. In both Shea Heights and Southside Road, the Little Free Pantry initiative embodies this spirit by providing accessible, no-barrier support to those in need.

In addition to addressing immediate needs, the Little Free Pantry fosters a culture of giving and mutual support. By encouraging residents to take what they need, and give what they can, these pantries nurture a sense of community, connection and responsibility. The impact of these Little Free Pantries in Shea Heights and Southside Road extends far beyond the items on their shelves. They symbolize hope, dignity and shared humanity. They remind us that collective action can create meaningful change, and ensure no one in our external community is left behind.

Please join me in congratulating the Little Free Pantries.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear