May 11, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The Speaker has a number of rulings ready for presentation and is anxious to

present them. As indicated yesterday, privately to some hon. members, we would

begin that process today.

The Chair apologizes for the delay in ruling on a point of order raised by

the Opposition House Leader on Wednesday, April 20. The point of order related

to a withdrawal of comments the Premier made during Question Period, while the

Premier did withdraw his comments when asked, but added a short commentary

thereto. Under parliamentary traditions, when the Speaker requests a member to

withdraw an unparliamentary comment, the member should do so forthwith and do so

without commentary, or as we say in parliamentary language, unequivocally. The

specific words used by the Premier were: despicable and cronies, in reference to

some hon. members.

While the Speaker acknowledges that the point of order should have been

raised immediately, the Speaker also notes that on the day in question there

were several disruptions that may have prevented the Opposition Leader from

raising his point of order in a timely manner. In the interest of consistency,

the Speaker now asks the Premier to withdraw the unparliamentary words used on

April 20, unequivocally.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I unequivocally withdraw those remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

The Speaker has other rulings which we hope to present later in the

afternoon, probably just toward the end of the routine proceedings.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has member's statements today as follows: the

hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, the hon. the

Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West, the hon. the Member for the

District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the hon. the Member for the District of

Lake Melville, the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West, and the

hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

The hon. the Member for District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Danielle Power of St. Alban's has recently been awarded $1,000

scholarship from the Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion. The

President of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 53 of St. Alban's, Ms Christine

Farrell, presented the award to Danielle on May 1.

This scholarship was awarded to Danielle in recognition of her academic

achievement for the academic year 2003. Danielle studied at Mount Alison

University in Sackville, New Brunswick where she received the honour of being a

member of the Dean's list. Danielle is currently continuing her studies as a

fourth year Political Science student at Memorial University and will graduate

in December of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, today I must also acknowledge the contribution of the Royal

Canadian Legion for their continued support as an organization that offers many

services to Canadian veterans, and also makes a tremendous contribution to the

youth of Canada. For example, the Legion offers this scholarship and bursary

program to a child or grandchild of a member of the Royal Canadian Legion.

Danielle's parents, Jerome and Margaret Power of St. Alban's, are also to

be congratulated for their dedication to the advancement of their daughter's

education.

I wish Danielle best wishes for her continued educational studies and good

luck with all future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands there is a matter of mis-communication

between the Chair and the Member for Burin-Placentia West, he will be doing his

statement on tomorrow.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a young student in my district who has recently

been recognized for her linguistic skills.

Mr. Speaker, Laura Riggs, a Level I student at Carbonear Collegiate is the

2005 provincial winner of the Concours D'art Oratoire sponsored by Canadian

Parents for French.

Mr. Speaker, this competition was held Saturday, April 29, in Corner Brook

and involved competitors from across the Island and from Labrador. Laura took

first place in the Core French Level I

section winning both a cash prize and a

trip to St. Pierre. Laura is the daughter of Cheryl and Boyd Riggs of Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, this award recognizes Laura's commitment to her studies and

everyone in the community is so very proud of her.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in

congratulating Laura Riggs on winning this recent award and wishing her the very

best as she continues her studies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the importance which nurses play in

providing health care in communities, hospitals and long-term care facilities

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

In honour of National Nursing Week, I would like to recognize the work of

nurses in our rural and northern communities, particularly in my District of

Lake Melville and, indeed, throughout the Labrador region, Mr. Speaker.

With our vast geography, the nurses who staff the ten community clinics, two

hospitals and long-term care facility throughout Labrador work in an expanded

role, with a broad spectrum of health care duties ranging from health promotion

and disease prevention to emergency trauma support, from midwifery to community

health. In fact, many of the nursing stations along the coast only see a

physician once every four to eight weeks.

Mr. Speaker, it is often the nurse practitioner or regional nurse who renders

the specialized emergency care ordinarily performed by a physician in urban

areas. Ultimately, our communities rely upon the care of those nurses to live

healthy and productive lives. In speaking with nurses in my district, I

recognize the effort they have put forth to ensure that patients, families and

communities receive the care they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, these nurses work hard, on a grassroots level, to ensure the

highest quality and safest patient care possible is delivered everyday. Our

Province's nurses and, indeed, all nurses, deserve to be commended and

celebrated for their compassion, their courage and their commitment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

MR. HICKEY: - today and every day, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There you are. It is a very precise world I live in.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 27, I, along with a large

crowd, had the privilege to attend the first annual Premiers Athletic's Awards

held at the Holiday Inn in St. John's. Presentations were made by the Premier

and emceed by the Minister of Tourism.

I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, two of the awards went to athletes in my

district. Joey Russell, who is a well known figure skater, received $1,500 to

help offset costs. Stephanie Corbett of Wabush also received $1,500 for her

skills in cross-country skiing.

Mr. Speaker, those awards will go a long way to help support our athletes as

they pursue even greater accomplishments in the future. They are great

ambassadors for our Province, and we wish them well in their future endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to pay tribute to Debbie Hawco,

who was named the Stephenville-Kippens Citizen of the Year for 2004 at the

Stephenville awards banquet held on April 23.

Debbie was nominated by the Bay St. George Association for Community Living,

where she has been a key person in that organization for many years. Last year,

she received a national award for Inclusive Education from the Canadian

Association for Community Living, and was one of ten people in Canada to receive

the award.

She is an active member of the Stephenville Winter Carnival Committee and, as

well, she played an important role in the launching of the first Relay for Life

in Stephenville last year for the Canadian Cancer Society. This event was

extremely successful, surpassing all expectations. She is also part of the

Society for the Care and Protection of Animals, and she volunteers for many

charitable activities at the Stephenville Middle School where she is a teacher.

Ms Hawco's victory was particularly moving because she was also the primary

caregiver for her late sister, Diane, who passed away with cancer earlier this

year.

On behalf of all members, I congratulate Debbie Hawco on her well-deserved

award, and as well all other volunteers who were nominated for the award. They

were: Denise Butt, Mel Dean, Bill Janes, Noreen Murphy, and Ada Shave.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is confusion resulting from the Minister of Natural

Resources' comments in the House regarding the Abitibi situation. Last

Wednesday, he took a tough stand and said that government will link new power

developments on the Exploits River to a two-machine operation at the Grand Falls

mill. Yesterday, we found out that government is negotiating with the company to

develop power projects on the Exploits River while they have no such commitment

from the company on a two-machine operation for Grand Falls.

I ask the minister: Will he clear up the confusion he has created? Will he

tell this House, and the people of Central Newfoundland, which is it? Is he

going to demand a commitment from the company, as he stated last Wednesday, or

is he going to continue to negotiate with Abitibi while they make more plans to

push workers out the door?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, our approach to the situation dealing with Abitibi's

operational review has been consistent. Today, I met with the Mayor of Grand

Falls-Windsor, the Mayor of Botwood, the Mayor of Bishop's Falls. Last week, I

met with all the mayors affected in Stephenville. We have met with the union

representatives in both communities. We have engaged an approach with

stakeholders - all stakeholders, Mr. Speaker - to adopt a formal and common

approach to ensure that the operations that exist in the Province right now

today continue to exist, unlike the members opposite and the Leader of the

Opposition, for example, when they shut down number six machine. Here is what he

said in the Grand Falls Advertiser : I found out about the layoffs in the

House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, our approach is simply this: We will leverage every and any

opportunity to protect workers, to ensure that there is a viable operation or a

viable pulp and paper industry in the Province, and to ensure - and the member

knows, Mr. Speaker, she asked this government to ensure - that the commitments

with respect to Bill 27 in 2010, which guarantee or demand a two-machine

operation in Grand Falls-Windsor, that we would uphold that legislation. We have

given that commitment to everybody in the Province and, unlike the member

opposite - this is a very serious situation. We are adopting a common approach

with the stakeholders. I ask her to jump on board with the government to ensure

that happens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is double-talking. He said in this

House last week that he would not negotiate with Abitibi until he got a

commitment from them. He reneged on that today.

Mr. Speaker, there have already been fifty-six layoffs at the Grand Falls

mill. It is time for this minister to wake up. There are well-founded fears that

the company intends to make even more layoffs if government lets them get away

with it. The company, to this point, is implementing its restructuring plan

without any interference from government, and government had this plan last

fall.

My question to the Minister of Natural Resources is: Is this going to be yet

another example of how your government caves into big business and allows them

to use the resources of this Province without any obligation to the workers and

rural communities? When are you going to back up your tough talk with action?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely incorrect to suggest that we have had

some plan since last fall. Abitibi indicated to the people of the Province about

their operational review. Their operational review was made known to government

and we have reacted and responded to that, Mr. Speaker. We have been tough with

the company. We didn't wait, like the Leader of the Opposition did in 1990,

when he said in the Advertiser : I have no reason to second guess Abitibi

Price's decision to close number 6 machine. We have been questioning their

operational review, we have been questioning the decisions they have been

taking, for one reason and one reason only, to ensure that the people who work

with Abitibi in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, after this review is completed,

can count on going back to work the next day. That is what this government has

been talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, he is talking about history in 1988, this is

2005. I have a plan in my head that you had last fall from Abitibi and I will

lay it on the Table so you can read it again.

My question now is to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

I asked that minister yesterday to get involved and investigate the layoffs at

Abitibi and ensure that all aspects of the newly minted five-year labour

contract were upheld. The minister got up in her place and said her department

would work within the Labour Standards Act. However, I must inform the minister

that Abitibi is a unionized workforce and I would suggest that she work within

the signed contract.

I ask the minister: Will she now turn her attention to providing adequate

resources from her department to facilitate a speedy arbitration to handle the

current grievances from laid off workers. Can you do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and

Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday and I want to reiterate

today, it is a very serious situation in Grand Falls-Windsor that is happening

with Abitibi Consolidated. The Labour Relations Agency is a body that will help

assist in any way when their services are needed. If the union in Grand

Falls-Windsor with Abitibi seeks the services of the Labour Relations Agency,

without any problem, without any bias, we will assist and we will deal with any

issues that come to the attention of the Labour Relations Agency.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, schools are considered to be the backbone of many rural

communities. As of now, there is a plan in place in Central Newfoundland to

close schools in places like Bishop's Falls, Leading Tickle, Charlottetown and

Musgrave Harbour, a decision that is being challenged by parents and students

alike. Many teaching positions will be slashed and many programs will be

eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this government has no commitment to

education in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and thus no commitment to the

future of rural communities.

I ask the minister: Why isn't your government reinvested in our education

system instead of forcing boards to implement more cuts?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In addressing the question from the member opposite, again, I say to the

member that we have very, very great challenges as we try to deliver an

education system to every nook and cranny of Newfoundland and Labrador. These

challenges, we are certainly rising to meet; as the challenges were there on

your plate when you were Minister of Education. You certainly know that we are

facing challenges of declining populations, and we are resourcing as much as we

can to address the needs that are out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, he might be facing challenges but the answer is

simple, leave the teachers in the classrooms instead of firing them.

Mr. Speaker, the central board has announced a plan that will see schools in

the more rural areas of that region - such as Musgrave Harbour and Eastport -

closed. Surely, the members from Bonavista North and Terra Nova are opposed to

this.

Does the minister support the plan or will he stand today and overrule the

central board, like his colleague did with the Western health care board just a

week ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, the school boards of this Province

have a responsibility to look at the needs in their particular catchment zones,

in their particular jurisdictions. The schools boards are working closely with

the department, with this government, with the people to make sure that what

decisions they are making are the right decisions to address, again, the needs

of the people out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister again, your government overruled a health care board,

why can't you overrule a school board?

Mr. Speaker, in the past eighteen months this government has slashed 401

teachers from schools around this Province while government members applauded.

Schools in rural areas, such as Petit Forte and Rushoon, have recently been told

that they are losing teaching units this fall. Surely the Member from Bruin

Placentia West is concerned about this, even though he refuses to meet with the

parents of these children.

Will the minister now admit that the children in rural towns, like Rushoon

and Petit Forte and many others, are not being offered the same quality of

education as their counterparts in the large urban areas of this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, providing educational services to

Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed a challenging situation. I would not mind,

but this gentleman standing on the other side, he was Minister of Education, as

two others who are over there. They know the challenges that they had to meet

and they know what they had to do with regard to closing schools, with regard to

taking teachers out of the system. You know full well the challenges we are

going through. We are rising to it and we are making sure that the resourcing

that we are doing is radically meeting the needs that are out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

renewal publicly stated there is overcapacity in the processing sector for crab.

There are too many plants already and the government's new plan will enable

the government to do something about it. Meanwhile, the Minister of Fisheries,

also speaking on behalf of the same government, has just issued an extra licence

for St. Anthony, putting even more capacity into the system.

So, I ask the Premier: Since two different ministers in the same government

have done two different things, what is the government's policy? Are there too

many plants already or not enough?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, and everybody knows, he was

certainly part of a government that issued a significant number of crab licences

during the late 1990s. He also knows he was also part of a government that

committed a licence to St. Anthony. He was also part of a government, leader of

a government, that refused, in 2002, to issue a licence in St. Anthony at the

same time that they reactivated a licence in Twillingate and issued a new shrimp

licence in Twillingate. So, those are all the facts.

What we are trying to do today in Newfoundland and Labrador, as a government,

is to manage our way through a very difficult situation. We had a situation in

St. Anthony where a court ordered us to reconsider the decision of the former

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. We did that. We issued the licence. The

licence is there. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, right now, as we have

been trying to do for the past year-and-a-half, is manage our way through a very

difficult situation that the former government left the fishery of Newfoundland

and Labrador in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we know is that this great, new government has been in there for

eighteen months and they do not have a clue what they are doing with respect to

the issue.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries rejected,

outright, the proposal from the FFAW to end the crab impasse. Government MHAs

last night and today are publicly saying that they have not seen this proposal

and do not know the exact details.

I ask the Premier: Why did he and the minister not consult with their caucus

about the proposal put forward by the FFAW yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect. Certainly, government

members have a copy of it. They have seen the news release, of course, that was

provided by the FFAW -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - and, in fact, they have also seen the response that

government has sent back to the FFAW.

Whatever the Leader of the Opposition is talking about, and trying to play to

the galleries, and trying to play politics here, nothing is further from the

truth.

In addition, the minister was at a meeting late yesterday afternoon with some

plant workers. Members of the FFAW were there. Mr. McCurdy was there. He had a

meeting this morning, again, with another member of the FFAW. We are in constant

contact with them. We are doing whatever we can to try and resolve this problem.

We are very, very concerned about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are

very, very concerned about the plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. We

have already indicated to the plant workers that we are there for them. We said

that right from the start, as soon as this matter seemed to be in dispute. We

said that we would stand up and be counted for them, and we still continue to do

that, but people need to understand that what we are trying to do here is act in

the best long-term interests of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and we are very

proud to be doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you that the one person who would know about being far from the

truth is the Premier, who does not remember that a promise is a promise.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries is quoted in today's The Telegram ,

in reference to the union's offer of yesterday - these are his words,

"They..." - being the union - "...endorse the principles that we

are trying to achieve.... They support regional balance. They support caps on

corporate concentration, final-offer selection, collective bargaining...".

They support those.

I ask the Premier: If your minister is saying that most, if not all, of the

principles that your government is trying to achieve with your pilot project

have been addressed by the proposal from the union yesterday, why are you and

the minister not willing to try the system as they have outlined it for a year,

end the impasse, and let the crab fishery get underway?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I did not read The Telegram today, but if they reported

all of what I said out in the scrum yesterday they would have went on to say -

AN HON. MEMBER: The report (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: That is exactly factual, what I said there. I did say that

the FFAW support the principles of the policy that we are trying to

advance, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue is a lot more animated

in the House this year than he was this time last year when we were trying to

find a deal for Arnold's Cove.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: The Member for Bellevue, when we were trying to find a

resolution to the Arnold's Cove situation last year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - wasn't so quick to open his mouth to ask questions about

what the government was doing in the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, yes, they support - we believe they support - the

principles that we have outlined. What I also said is, the proposal that they

had advanced, we do not see how we can operationalize it to achieve the policy

objectives and the principles that both they and we support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest that the Minister of Fisheries can just relax and answer the

questions; he does not need to get upset.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier would note that in Saturday's edition of The

Telegram his former trusted advisor - because I guess he does trust his

advice any more - and touted ambassador to Ottawa, Mr. Rowe, stated that the

Premier's approach is not working and that he should reconsider forcing a

production quota system down the throats of fish harvesters, go back to square

one, and keep his promise to consult with them.

I ask the Premier: Is he willing to listen today to his former close, valued

advisor, Mr. Rowe, and consult with the fish harvesters, as he promised and what

Mr. Rowe is now recommending that he go back and do? Keep a promise. A promise

is a promise.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I respect freedom of the press, and I

respect the opinions of any columnist who sees fit to write and express an

opinion on anything that we are doing.

What we have done is, we have put in place, in the beginning, a pilot

project, a two-year pilot project, which we said was an experimental project.

What we have done since then is, we have taken that two-year project and cut it

in half. We have cut it back to a one-year project which, in fact, is only three

months.

What we have also said is, rather than just have government decide what is

going to happen here, we will put an independent committee in place which will

administer the pilot project while it is in place, manage it and oversee it. At

the end of that process, we will have an independent chairman who will make a

recommendation to this government.

We have taken the decision out of our hands. We have put it in the place and

in the hands of an independent chair whose recommendation we will accept.

What happened yesterday was, we made another move forward. We appointed -

suggested the appointment - of Richard Cashin, a person who is highly respected

in the fishery in this Province, who is a former head of the union. We have

basically taken the decision of government, placed it in the hands of a former

head of the union, and we are saying we will abide by that decision. That is

very fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the Premier might appreciate freedom of the press, we found out that he

does not appreciate and respect freedom of expression. There is a member sitting

just over here who knows all about that.

Mr. Speaker, the Mayors of Old Perlican, Bay de Verde and Hant's Harbour,

in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde, have all stated publicly that this plan

will be the ruination of rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, and

they are calling on the government, through their member, to scrap this system

for this year and go back to the consultation.

I ask the Premier: Does he respect the views of the mayors of our rural

communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely! I hold the opinions of the mayors and the

heads of municipalities around this Province in the highest esteem. We value

their opinions. Nobody will support that more than the minister, who has met

with probably a couple of hundred of the mayoralties around the Province. We do

respect that and we do listen to it, but there are lots of opinion that come to

us, as a government. For every opinion of a mayor that has come to us, there

have been ten or twenty or forty other opinions from people who are affected by

this, who basically are supporting the government's position.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible). It doesn't exist.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: For example, yesterday we had a letter sent to us from

three very small fish plant owners who basically said that this system, as

presented, will protect them and protect their workers on the Southern Shore. We

are trying to protect the people who are on the bottom of the totem pole.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I understand if the mayor of Old Perlican, who has a

major plant and a major operation in his community, speaks out on behalf of his

community. There is a lot of pressure on people in the Province, so we do

understand that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Premier and the government members, that the

offices of the Official Opposition, our offices, have been flooded with e-mails

and faxes from mayors, Progressive Conservative Party campaign workers, and

concerns citizens from all over Newfoundland and Labrador begging MHAs to stand

up against Raw Material Sharing system introduction by the government this year.

Most of these e-mails and faxes were destined for government members and copied

to us.

Will the Premier, once again, Mr. Speaker, today, reassure all his government

members on his side that there will be no repercussions to any of them today if

they stand up and speak for their constituents as they have been asked, and vote

on behalf of their constituents and their communities later today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all a comment on the e-mails and faxes that have been

received. We have been receiving them as well, and we have been receiving them

from districts. I was kind enough to provide the Member for Twillingate &

Fogo with a copy yesterday of a submission that was sent to me on behalf of

people in his district.

MR. REID: You did not give me one.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Well, it was left to be sent over to you, but there was

one. I will just tell you now, though, that is the case. There was one that was

sent to us yesterday on behalf of the people in Twillingate & Fogo

indicating concerns, of course, with the stand and your position. I share that

information.

On the other point: Our caucus here and our government members are all free

to vote as they wish, just as you were, of course, back in denominational

education days, when a survey was done of your particular district and I think

58 per cent of the people voted against denominational education. What did you

do? You voted for the government, so you voted against the people in your

district, but (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is too bad that the Premier continually wants to live in the past. Mr.

Speaker, let me point this out -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognized the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, maybe the nice, trained crowd opposite will

laugh at this statement when they are reminded that in the Premier's own

district, with respect to Voisey's Bay, Humber West was polled and 70 per cent

of his constituents wanted him to vote for Voisey's Bay and he did not listen

to them either, just like today.

Mr. Speaker, a final question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to get to his question.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a final question for the minister.

It is obvious to everyone who has followed this issue, that the government's

plan is in place for one reason only, to satisfy the minister's desire to put

both a crab licence and a crab quota into St. Anthony, in his own district. The

minister, in doing this, has caused an economic crisis, paralyzed the crab

fishery, all the benefit of a fish plant in his own district. The minister's

personal credibility, the government's credibility, is gone.

I ask the minister: Why won't he do the honourable thing today, admit that

he should accept responsibility for all this chaos, all this mess, just to go

forward with a political motivation in his own district, resign, let the Premier

off the hook so we can get back to a crab fishery instead of a political plan

for his district?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I sat in the minister's chair for twelve months, I believe it

was, and refused to issue a crab licence in St. Anthony. I never did consider

issuing a crab licence in St. Anthony until I was ordered by the court to

reconsider the patently unreasonable decision of the Member for Twillingate

& Fogo. A court decision by three Supreme Court Justices, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

Colleagues, the Speaker will have to recess the House if this continues.

Thank you very much.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I might have touched a nerve over there this

afternoon.

I will tell the Leader of the Opposition, and everybody who wants to listen,

why we are doing this and I will accept responsibility for a lot of the chaos

that is underway right now. We are doing it for the same reason that the people

in Alaska are doing it.

As it is reported here in the Packet , "The plan was designed to

protect the interests of several groups dependent on the fishery - harvesters,

processors and communities." "She says - this lady, Ms Boone - in

formulating the plan they want to ensure that plants have a foothold in the

communities so those communities are not left high and dry if the processors are

unable to compete in an open style bidding market."

Mr. Speaker, those are the reasons why we are trying to do this. We are

trying to ensure that the demise of rural Newfoundland that was underway under

their watch, is stopped under ours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Earlier this afternoon I met with nearly

fifty women who are plant workers, fish harvesters and wives of fish harvesters.

These women are saying that their lives are paralyzed, their futures and their

family's futures are in jeopardy because they need to get working now in a

fishery that respects them and their needs and their opinions, not one that is

imposed on them by a government they think do not understand.

Now that we have a proposal from the FFAW and a counter-proposal from

government released to the media, will the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries

sit down face to face in a serious effort to work out the details of a solution

that will get this crab fishery underway as soon as possible? Face to face, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was coming to the Assembly this afternoon I stopped and spoke with some

of the women who were outside. Unfortunately, in the interest of time, we did

not have a long time but we took what we could and we heard their concerns. I

understand that they need to get working now and I understand that it affects

their families. So, it is not lost on us, believe me; not by a long shot. That

is why, as I stated earlier this afternoon, that right from the get-go in this

dispute we came out and said that we would support the plant workers because

they were the ones that we were really concerned were going to be affected the

most and afflicted the most by this. Government is in the process of preparing a

plan, the minister spoke to that just a couple of days ago. So we are very, very

concerned about it.

From a perspective of face-to-face meetings, as I also indicated yesterday

afternoon, if I am correct, the minister was meeting with plant workers. At that

particular meeting there were senior officials of the FFAW who were there. He

met with them less than twenty-four hours ago. This morning there was another

official who met with him this morning, another senior member of the FFAW. That

is less than six hours ago. We are meeting constantly. We are talking

constantly. We are trying to find solutions and just recently -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Because of time

sequences, we have to keep our answers to within a minute.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the Premier should meet with these women and find out that they do not

want make work because they are making decisions now to take their children out

of post-secondary education, urging others to leave the Province to get work and

worrying about how they, themselves, will survive.

Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to send letters back and forth and have

tit-for-tats here and there but we do not need more letters flying back and

forth and talking jellybeans to the media. Can we have a sit down face-to-face

meeting with the Premier, with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, with

the FFAW and their leadership and talk about the realities of life and find a

detailed solution? We have a three-page letter here and a three-page letter

here. Can we sit down and come to a rational conclusion that is going to make

this fishery work and get people back on the water and get this industry going?

Can you do that instead of trying to play these media games?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only media games - this is a very serious matter. The only media games

that have been played here have been played by the hon. member and the Member

for Exploits when they sit together at their press conferences and they sing

from the same hymn book and they get on with that. I mean if those are the media

games, those are the media games.

Yesterday afternoon we came up with a solution that I felt quite certain that

you would be quite comfortable with because as you and I know in a past life,

you have the greatest respect for Mr. Richard Cashin. I do not know if that has

changed but I certainly understood that you did. I also have the greatest

respect for Mr. Cashin and on that basis alone we have passed over the decision

on this particular matter to a person who I understand you have the greatest

respect, that is the former head of the Fishermen's Union. I cannot see how

you can personally object to having him make a recommendation to our government

which we will follow unequivocally. Tell me if you have any issue with Mr.

Cashin being there to make that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that arose

during Question Period. I think this is the appropriate time to raise it, right

after Question Period.

Mr. Speaker, during Question Period in answer to a question, it is my

contention that the Minister of Fisheries made an absolutely, totally false

statement in this House where we are all committed by our offices to tell the

truth. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that he should be asked to withdraw the false

statement. Basically, he indicated that he issued a licence in St. Anthony

because the court ordered him to do so. That is exactly what he said, you can

check.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: That is exactly what he said. You can check. That is exactly

what he said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition making a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If we could get the Premier just to stay quiet for a second and take the

issue seriously we might get on with this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I could finish the point, I am sure that your own checking of

the tapes in Hansard will verify what the Minister of Fisheries said. He said,

Mr. Speaker, that the court ordered him to issue a licence.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if we could get the Premier just to pay

attention for a minute.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: He is talking about reading decisions. He should listen to

what is happening, because it also impacts on what he says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition now to complete his point of order

rather quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad the Premier is speaking from

his chair because it is part of the point that I was about to make.

Three statements, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge the Minister of Justice to

stand up and state that the court ordered a licence for St. Anthony; because,

Mr. Speaker, here are three statements. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to consider

whether or not the truth was told. There are three statements I will make and

ask you to consider. In the court case itself, it said that the minister should

reconsider the decision with respect to a licence for St. Anthony in line with

government policy. The government policy, as stated in this House by the

minister, is: There is overcapacity, the system needs rationalization, and new

licences would only redistribute poverty.

Mr. Speaker, the minister and the Premier were just saying there was a

reference to a decision being patently unreasonable, and what is happening in

this House is that the Premier and the minister have been giving a patently

erroneous

interpretation of a decision.

I ask the Minister of Justice to stand up and state (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Responding to the point of order, the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order here. The minister

has been consistent, not just today -

MR. BARRETT: You are the Speaker now, are you?

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Bellevue, I have a right to respond

to the point of order and you are not going to interrupt me when I am about to

respond to the your leader's point of order. It is as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is as simple as this: There is no point of

order. This is a line of questioning that has been ongoing by the Leader of the

Opposition for about seven days.

The minister has been quite clear, unequivocally clear, that three judges of

the Court of Newfoundland and Labrador issued a directive to say to the minister

and the government that they should reconsider a patently unreasonable decision.

All we have here, the only point that is going on here, is the point that the

Leader of the Opposition wants to play to the galleries of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is the only point, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members will know that points of order should not and cannot be used to

continue debate or to extend Question Period; however, the Speaker will listen

to the tape and review Hansard and come back tomorrow with a decision.

Before we continue, I wish to make a ruling or a commentary. During the

exchanges in the House this afternoon, the Speaker clearly heard the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo refer to a comment made by the Premier with the

expression "another lie".

I ask him if he would withdraw that comment.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Premier said he sent me a petition yesterday. He did not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have had a lot of discussion about unequivocally withdrawing comments. We

want to be consistent, and I ask the member if he would withdraw unequivocally

and do it now.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw.

A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries stood today, as he has

stood many times in this House and outside of this House in recent times, and

categorically stated that I issued a crab licence to the Town of Twillingate

when I was Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, I say nothing could be further from the truth. I repeat it:

nothing could be further from the truth. The crab licence was issued to

Twillingate fish plant in 1997, four years before I became the Minister of

Fisheries.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, to stand and withdraw that statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member will know - and I am quoting from Marleau and Montpetit - that: A

member may not direct remarks to the House or engage in debate by raising a

matter under the guise of a point of order.

In this particular matter, while there may be disagreements between the

Member for Twillingate & Fogo and other members of the House, including the

Minister of Fisheries, this is a disagreement between two hon. members and we

have to accept their words even if they are contradictory to each other.

MR. REID: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of privilege has been raised.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I have to say that the minister has been basically slandering me in

public by putting forward mistruths' to the public about something that I

did, in an attempt to convince people that he should do something for his own

district.

I say that I did not issue a crab licence to the Town of Twillingate. It was

done four years before I became minister, Mr. Speaker. If that is not a point of

privilege, you can call it what you like.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members will know that a point of privilege relates directly to whether or

not the member's rights to participate in debate, to express himself as a

duly-elected member, have been in any way abrogated or compromised.

In this particular case, the Chair does not find the Member for Twillingate's

rights to participate - there may be a disagreement, but disagreements between

two hon. members, as found in Beauchesne and other references, do not

constitute a point of privilege.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I again rise on a point of privilege.

This has nothing to do with the ability to debate, or anything else. You said

this is a disagreement between two members of the House. Mr. Speaker, I beg to

differ. To me, what I am saying is a fact, not a difference of opinion, and I

wish that the minister would withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: As the members will know, it is quite clear in Beauchesne ,

in particular , where it says that a disagreement between hon. members as

to the facts does not constitute a point of privilege. The House may have to

accept two difference versions of the very same event, but it does not

constitute a point of privilege.

That is what the authorities would say, and that is what the Chair would

rule.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would like to table the following document.

In compliance with the Public Tender Act, I am submitting herewith for

tabling in the House of Assembly, the Report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for

the month of April, 2005.

Notices of Motions.

Notices of Motion

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

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

In accordance with Standing Order 11, I do give notice today that the House

meeting tomorrow not rise at 5:30 p.m., and furthermore give notice, according

to Standing Order 11, that the House not rise at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?

Answers to Questions for which notice has been given.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in the House, I was asked by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au

Clair - it says, "...that patients of prostate cancer are being delayed for

radiation treatment for up to six months. I ask the minister if he can tell me

why there is such a delay..." I indicated I would follow up because I was

not aware of that situation.

Subsequent to yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I called the cancer specialist who is

the Director of Radiation Oncology, and he absolutely, categorically denied it.

He said, it is not so. He informed me that the average wait time for prostate

cancer -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have Hansard from yesterday, the question that was asked. I ask her to

check it on the Table there, what the member asked. Then you should speak when

you know what the question is. It is in print. I have a copy here, and it is

there on the Table for everybody.

The specialist also said, the Director of Radiation Oncology indicated, the

average wait time is four and sometimes up to eight weeks. That is the average

across the country. He also indicated to me that there are certain areas in

Ontario and BC where the wait time is three months. He indicates that he doesn't

know where such knowledge came from.

I want to say to the House, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is unfair when the

Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair puts fear out among people who are

suffering from cancer, who are sick, when she hasn't gotten the facts and

found it to be true.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Answers to Question for which Notice has been Given?

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a petition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of fish harvesters, plant workers, and

their families in the Province who again, as they have been for a couple of

months now, are calling upon the government to do one very simple thing, keep a

promise, the promise that was made in writing by the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture to the FFAW and its membership on April 21 last year, when they

said: We are considering the resource management sharing plan outlined in the

Dunne report, but we will take no action whatsoever until there is a full

consultation with all stakeholders, every stakeholder, the plant workers, the

union, harvesters, processors, and the government itself. That was the promise

in writing made by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture on behalf of the

Premier and the government.

The petitioners are asking for one thing. We are asking for the government to

keep its promise. A promise is a promise. That is what everybody in Newfoundland

and Labrador supported the Premier in doing, when we all asked the Prime

Minister of the country to keep his promise about the Atlantic Accord.

It seems odd and strange, not only to me but to these petitioners, that they

in their communities -ones I talked about today, Hant's Harbour and Old

Perlican, communities in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde, almost to a

person. I believe to a person, supported the Premier when he asked to be backed

in making sure that the Prime Minister of the country kept his word. Well, the

Premier of the Province, through his minister, gave his word in writing to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they would not implement this system

unless and until there was a full consultation with all the stakeholders. All

they are asking, a very simple petition: Why would a Premier, why would a

government not want to keep its promise? That is the part that is puzzling

everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador today. What is it that is causing the

Premier and the government to be stubborn and pigheaded about wanting to break a

promise instead of wanting to keep a promise? It is not complicated, Mr.

Speaker. It is not complicated, it is very simple. It is very straightforward.

Yesterday, I presented a petition on behalf of 1,100 constituents of the

District of Bonavista North asking their member to stand up and say in this

House exactly what they have said to him in person. We will see later today, in

a free vote and a free debate, who stands up and says what on behalf of their

constituents. There are 1,100 of them that we know who put their names in

Bonavista North in just three days. It will be interesting to see whether the

member says anything and how he votes later on today.

It is very straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to present this

petition on behalf of residents of Salmon Cove, Freshwater, Carbonear, Harbour

Grace. So, from all over different regions of the Province there are people

simply saying: Will the government, please, just keep its word? Take this off

the table. Let's have the consultation that we were promised and then maybe

something different can be tried next year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of my

district regarding the government's proposed plan. The undersigned people have

asked the government to consult before it acted. That was a promise that the

government made. They haven't done that. They have refused to do it,

consistently refused to do it and keep coming back with counteroffers to the

union, to the fishers, to the fish plant workers making no sense, imposing what

they wanted in the beginning. That is all that is happening here. A twist of

this or a twist of that and the outcome is still the same. It seems as though

the Premier wants to have absolute power here, total control over the fishery.

We are talking, Mr. Speaker, about people's lives. My phone is ringing

constantly with hardship cases that are starting to come up, and I hate to talk

about those hardship cases because we may be playing right into the Premier's

hands and the government's hands. Because it seems as though, as the Member

for Twillingate & Fogo has said, it is almost as though the plan here is to

starve them, create hardships for them, force them into submission. It is

terrible what is happening here, I say, terrible.

The lady I spoke to from Victoria is waiting, worrying about when she is

going to get back to work to get her insulin. Major concerns, Mr. Speaker. Truck

payments and car payments, mortgage payments, those things. It is inconceivable

that we could be at such a point in our lives where we see so much stubbornness.

There is so much stubbornness. There is such an unwillingness to co-operate and

listen to the people. We have had people come to this House day in and day out

asking for audiences with members.

Mr. Speaker, when the government of day, the PC Party and the Premier went

door to door in this Province, they made so many promises that they would be

different, that they would act and listen to the people and look after their

best interests. What is wrong, Mr. Speaker? What is wrong with these people

today that they cannot listen to the people of this Province and do what is

right here?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier made a quest for power to be in control of this

Province. He has it. There is a point where he can stop and be reasonable. I am

sure it appears to a lot of people that he wants absolute power. Well, I heard a

long, long time ago that absolute power breeds absolute corruption. I want that

on record. I want that on record because history will show that the people of

this Province, right now in this period of time in our history, are being

treated unfairly.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: The Member for Lake Melville, if you want to say something,

get on your feet and say it, but while I have the wind in me and the power to

stand -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: - I will speak for my people and not be bullied by you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

In addition, it being 3 o'clock on Wednesday, the Chair now calls the

Orders of the Day. I do believe we are debating a resolution by the hon. the

Member for Port de Grave.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

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

To begin with, as you stated, it is a private member's motion on the crab

fishery. Just briefly, I want to read into the Hansard again what this private

member's motion states. It says:

WHEREAS government has not met the conditions outlined in recommendation 9.12

of the Dunne report prior to implementing raw material sharing in the crab

industry of this Province; and

WHEREAS in a letter to fish harvesters dated April 21, 2004, the Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture promised consultations before raw material sharing

would be implemented in this Province; and

WHEREAS the 2005 crab fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, valued at $500

million to the provincial economy, is in jeopardy;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on government to

drop the raw material sharing system for this year and do the proper

consultations with harvesters and processors before bringing this plan into

action.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes, first of all, to touch on some of

the comments that are in the Dunne report. To the Premier I say - like he said

about the judgement that came down on an issue - this is in black and white as

well.

With regards to the Dunne report, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries

and Aquaculture continuously are saying that they are implementing what Mr.

Dunne had put forward in that report. Mr. Speaker, that report states very

clearly that recommendation 9.12 , the production quotas, in order for that to

come in they should have at least 75 per cent of the processors on side and

would have consulted with the harvesters in this Province. To this date, Mr.

Speaker, neither of those issues have been dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, the government, if they proceed with this plan, I say sincerely

that this will be, what I would call, a legalized cartel; the same cartel that

the now Premier asked a competition bureau just a few years ago to investigate.

In the Dunne report, as well, he stated very clearly that this report is not

an attempt to bring into action any recommendations there. He said that would

have to be done only when government and industry consulted. I have to say, Mr.

Speaker, industry means more than processors.

Mr. Speaker, it also states in the report, and I have to quote, he said:

There are no known examples of similar sharing systems in the processing sector

of any of the worlds fishing industries. He goes on to outline six major

concerns that he would have with it; changes, regional concentration of

processing. He went on to say the processing employment losses if consolidation

occurs; increased pressure for selective harvesting and misreporting; limiting

the competition of raw material; placing another layer of regulations on the

industry; and finally, he said, discontent with sharing formulas and transfer

provisions.

Mr. Speaker, the positions of the harvesters and the plant workers in this

Province are totally in the opposite direction of that put forward by the

harvesters. The fishers of this Province, according to Mr. Dunne's report,

state very clearly that they believe it is an attempt to drive down the prices

and give control for the supply to the processors. Not only that; he went on to

say that the fishers, when he met with them and consulted with them, he stated

very clearly that the fishers will be told when to fish, where to fish, and who

to sell to.

The plant workers were also concerned when they went on to say to him, when

he met with them, this will lead to greater corporate concentration, fewer

plants, and decreased competition for the catches.

I have to say that every plant worker and every harvester in this Province

has a right to be concerned. Once processors get control by this plan, I can

assure you - many plant workers today are crying out for the plants to open. I

have to say that once this happens, if it should go ahead, we will not see the

second shift in many plants around this Province because the harvesters will be

told when to fish and the people will be brought in on a smaller scale. They may

get a couple or three weeks work more per year, but, I am going to tell you, a

lot of their members who were working in the plants with them last year will not

be there this year.

We talk about consultation. The Dunne report stated very clearly that - and a

letter went out from the minister on April 21, saying to the harvesters that he

would consult with them before any implementation took place. That was one of

the main recommendations in the Dunne report. The Premier of the day, in this

major crisis, has yet to sit down face to face with the president or any members

of the FFAW.

Mr. Speaker, the only consultation the harvesters got this year was in March,

when the Minister of Fisheries went totally back on what he had stated in

writing and just forced on them this plan of attack.

We hear the community leaders, we hear the youth, we hear former ministers of

the government of the day, their colleagues in past Administrations, crying out

to say: Look, this is not all that important that you have to force it down the

people's throats this year. Sit back. Take your time. Let's look at it in

another year, and get this industry on the road, Mr. Speaker.

The only two people I have heard really crying out and saying this is a

wonderful plan, are the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries. Thousands of

plant workers, thousands of harvesters, thousands of business people, and the

population of this Province, are not singing the same tune. There are odd ones

out there, yes, and I guess we would not be in a democratic society if we all

agreed with the same thing.

I have even heard the minister, when he stood in his place in this House,

many days he stood up and said: If that is what they want, we will take it off

the table.

I believed that he would do that, but he cannot do it because the Premier

just will not let him give into it.

We talk about the provincial economy, $500 million. If anyone opposite can

look at me and say that there is not a problem in their district, they are not

telling the truth, Mr. Speaker. I live in a district that is heavily dependent

upon the fishery, but still we live close enough to St. John's that many

people travel back and forth here to work and they can pick a dollar fairly

easily; but, you take rural Newfoundland. It is not the same, and if the people

are not hurting there, there is something wrong.

Mr. Speaker, $500 million, and the Premier, what does he do? He throws his

hands up in the air and says: What can I do if the season does not open? What

can I do if 5,000 people do not go to work? What can I do if they travel to Nova

Scotia or Quebec and land their crab?

The answer is very simple, Mr. Speaker. All you have to do is take it off the

table, sit down, listen and consult and, I am going to tell you, he will get his

message as to what to do.

The economy, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to many businesses in my area. We get

e-mails. As a matter of fact, I had petitions from them saying that their

businesses are devastated this year: car salesmen, business in the supermarkets,

building supplies, and the list goes on.

This government, when they took power, we know they had to make changes. They

had to raise taxes and fees, they had to cut job positions, but the answer was,

every time we brought it up: Well, now, boys, listen. We are in a state of

financial problem here. We are doing this for our children and our

grandchildren, and your children and your grandchildren.

Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important to the children and

grandchildren of this Province, and in particular in rural Newfoundland, than

the fishing industry. Once Hibernia is gone, White Rose, Voisey's Bay, the

fishery will be here, as it has been for 500-plus years.

Mr. Speaker, we come to this hon. House - forty-eight of us are elected - we

come here to represent our people. We come here to vote on legislation, which we

saw happen here yesterday, but what is before us today is not breaking our oath.

It is not breaking any legislation or anything when we should be able to stand

up and represent what our people want us to do.

I was appalled yesterday when the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde got to her

feet and presented a petition - and I congratulate her for that - but made no

comment on it, on how she felt, until she went out in the scrum. When she was

asked: Why did you do this, and why are you leaning one way or the other? Well,

she said, I had to be educated on the fishery issue.

Mr. Speaker, I say to her, in all respect, you took the wrong advice. You

were educated by the Premier, and you did not listen to the knowledge of the

people in your district when they told you what the issue was on the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I honestly believe, Mr. Speaker, she is probably going to

vote for this today, with us, because she hasn't got her mind made up fully. I

have a letter here that she sent to her constituent, and I quote. She says,

"First, let me say that I did not say I was in total support of RMS."

So, Mr. Speaker, there is a little bit of light on the other side, and I hope

that shows through today.

I was with the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, with about 300 people in

the audience, when they asked him to come in here and toe the line in their

favour. Unfortunately, when he came to St. John's he got on the wrong end of

the line, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Bonavista North used to say that he met with his people, and I

know he did. He is a wonderful MHA, but how come he did not bring the proper

message back when it had to be given members on this side, with 1,100 names on a

petition, to be presented on behalf of his people, his plant workers, his

fishers and all the rest?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few moments on a convention that was held

in Gander, I think it was, back in 2003, when this lady, Joy Thorkelson, from

the B.C. fishermen's union, met with the delegates for the FFAW-CAW seventh

Constitutional Convention. The issue may not have been identical to ours, but

her message on what we are dealing with today was loud and clear. She went on to

say that this system has a devastating impact on harvesters and plant workers.

She said, in B.C., four major companies have all the say. Harvesters, deckhands

and plant workers have no say. She went on to say that it reduces employment and

there is less economic spinoff for communities. Control of the fishery is bad

for harvesters, plant workers and communities. She asked the delegates to fight

the agenda and, Mr. Speaker, the people who attended that meeting listened. They

are fighting so that corporate control will not take over.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. members opposite brought their messages back

from their constituents to their caucus room - I really believe that - because I

believe every individual here is an honourable individual; however, I have to

say, Mr. Speaker, it fell on deaf ears. We all know that when we saw what

happened to the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion - I will get an opportunity to finish up - I want

to say that it is an honour and a pleasure to stand and present this motion

today because there is nothing more important to rural Newfoundland, and then to

go beyond rural Newfoundland - we have many members opposite and on this side of

the House who probably do not live in rural communities, but I can tell you that

the industry, whether it is cod or crab or whatever, affects each and every one

of us.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, we are not asking to destroy raw material sharing

for eternity. We are just asking that it be taken off the table for this year

and do what Mr. Dunne asked, do what the minister suggested in his written

response, that we will sit down with you, we will consult with you, before it is

brought forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to put a certain perspective on the

situation in our Province today. There are not too many people, I guess, in our

Province happy that people are not working. I think that would be safe to say on

both sides of this House, because the fishery is what built rural Newfoundland

and what we want to sustain rural Newfoundland. The path that the fishery is

going down today in our Province, rural Newfoundland is becoming depopulated and

people are moving away. We have seen it in the last number of years, and in

particular the last few years, that more and more of an industry is getting in

the hands of less and less. Over 40 per cent of the crab produced in this

Province is in the hands of four companies. At the rate it is going, the

progression, in their hands will be sixty to seventy within the next three or

four years.

Governments are elected to preserve the integrity of rural Newfoundland and

to allow people to be able to maintain and work in the communities, as close as

possible, in which they live. Mr. Speaker, when we look at the future, it is

easy to make a decision to get us by the next turn and get us around the next

turn in the road and we have a bigger problem down the road again. We have

looked at this in great detail. We have looked at the future, what it could

bring, what the map of rural Newfoundland will be in ten or fifteen years'

time. I can tell you, on the path it is going, the map of rural Newfoundland

will be a bleak part of our future.

We are looking at developing, in rural Newfoundland and around this Province,

centres where we can build and sustain the economy, invest in enterprises and

the economy - $35 million in economic initiatives this year in the Budget, to

try to be able to sustain an economic base in parts of our Province that are

becoming depopulated.

Mayors are telling us they have to increase taxes; they cannot maintain

infrastructure. The government had to finance and bail out communities. The

former government started the process, and I supported that process, whereby

they had to refinance and lift the burden from these communities. My colleague,

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, continued that process, and we

did last year, because we want to see a future.

What will happen in rural Newfoundland in the future? Four or five people

will decide where rural Newfoundland is going to be. There will be no regard to

adjacency. People in a region have a right to get work from a product that is

brought ashore near their shores, whether it is in Labrador, the Northern

Peninsula, the Avalon Peninsula, the South Coast, West Coast, or wherever it is;

there is a right. We do not want to see four or five people draw the map for

this Province in the future, and that is where it is going.

Mr. Speaker, that does create some problems for people who have a direct

vested interest. I understand the concerns and emotions and the fears of the

unknown for people who are looking at where we are heading. I have used an

opportunity to try to put forth and answer a lot of these concerns in four

meetings I had.

One of the public meetings had, I guess, 200 or 300 people - I do not know

how many were there - a large number of people. In three other meetings I sat

down with significant numbers of people and asked: What are the concerns, so

that we can get this moving and get back on the right track?

One of the major concerns people had is - and they have a right, and it has

been in the public airwaves - well, I can't decide who I can sell it to. Mr.

Speaker, that is not factual. Any individual can decide to sell to whomever they

wish. It has historically happened in this fishery, and it is incumbent upon a

company not to refuse if you are dealing with somebody. That is a role of us, to

ensure that a program is in place, that it is done properly and it does not

jeopardize the harvesters out there who have established those long-standing

relationships. We have a responsibility that they live up to the commitments as

they have done in the past. That is important.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I listened to your colleague very intently, I say to the

Member for Bellevue, and I would like an opportunity to pass my comments.

Other questions - and it does have value. People have raised the concern:

Well, what will happen if we go down this road? What about the future of my

enterprise?

Many people in the fishery today are in their forties and fifties. It is

difficult to get young people today, twenty and twenty-five year olds, go to

work in a fish plant where they get $5,000 or $6,000 and $5,000 or $6,000 on

unemployment. Young people do not want short-term work. They want a decent

paying job, longer work. They want to be able to have some luxuries in life that

other people have and they are not going to stay around and go into the fishery.

In the next ten years you will not get somebody to work in a fish plant in this

Province. You will not be able to find anybody because young people do not want

to do it. You will looking at people retired from the workforce to go to work.

That is what will start happening.

We have to look at the value of an enterprise. Yes, maybe there might be an

effect on a value. A harvester now who may want to get out of the fishery and

sell their enterprise, there may not be a company who would want to buy that

enterprise. That may be so. If they do buy it, they will owe more of it, but

there is an opportunity for another harvester out there who wants to take over,

younger and move on and own an enterprise and be able to build a life around the

industry based on that. Keep it out of the hands of a few.

Our proposal is looking at dealing with corporate concentration in the

industry. That is one of the platforms that the Minister of Fisheries, when he

talked about it - don't let this Province get into a few hands driven toward

private interest and profit. Profit is important in business. It should be a

part of business, but we cannot neglect the people all over this Province when

we make decisions.

In Central Newfoundland, the pulp and paper industry; a $1.6 billion industry

in the forestry industry. Look at the long term. Some of the things we have done

is to preserve the integrity of Central Newfoundland and support the legislation

of Western Newfoundland and other areas. We do not want people living in two or

three centres in this Province and rural Newfoundland decimated.

Overall, another important consideration is: What price are they going to

get? Are the harvesters going to be compromised now because of raw material

sharing? Are they going to be able to get a fair price? Mr. Speaker, I, for one,

will stand and say if the raw material sharing does not work and it compromises

the opportunity for people to continue to get the best possible price they can,

well, I am one, at the end of the trial period, who will not support that if it

does not work and it compromises these people.

The price to market is important. The price you get is important. The price

on the market is important. The better the price on the market - some things we

cannot control. We cannot control the exchange on the dollar very much at all.

We are usually at the beckoning call of the United States and China. Numerous

international events are changing the value of our Canadian dollar. The higher

up it goes, the stronger it gets, the more difficult it is to get a fair price.

We cannot control that. We cannot control it. Sometimes we cannot control glut

on the market and sometimes when there are high inventories. These are things

that you try to work around and try to deal with in a marketing basis, but other

things we can control. We can control an orderly harvesting and processing of

species.

Alaska - the minister referred to it today - is moving forward a fishery of

the future; bringing in, at the same time, individual quotas for fish harvesters

because it is the right thing to do. Individual quotas, or processing of raw

material sharing so their area will be able to survive and there will be a

future in Alaska for the people there. They are moving hand in hand with that

process.

We have responsibilities to all the people of our Province. We have

responsibilities to plant workers, we have responsibilities to fish harvesters,

we have responsibilities to the people who truck that product, we have

responsibilities to people who work and live and want to stay in rural

Newfoundland, and we have a responsibility to be able to do that and have rural

Newfoundland with enough population to sustain reasonable economies in

communities. If not, they will all die. We believe this is a process that is

difficult in the short-term, but it will set the road in the future and make

Newfoundland and Labrador still a Province of rural communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to add my few comments to this extremely

important debate today and to be noted, a free vote today with respect to people

being able to stand and say what is on their minds without any repercussions,

and to vote on behalf of the people who voted for them to come here and speak up

for them.

Mr. Speaker, let me just make these few comments. December, 2003, just a

couple of months after the election, the government indicated, through the

Minister of Fisheries, that they had accepted and adopted the Dunne report as

the basis for their fishery policy into the future. They made that statement and

the Dunne report had a recommendation about raw material sharing, which is in

this motion, it was recommendation 9.12. It said it should be considered but it

did not say just do it. It said it should be considered if it can meet two

conditions, and the two conditions were that 75 per cent of the processors be in

favour - which was the case a while ago, it is not anymore - and secondly, that

there be no substantive objections from fish harvesters and the union that

represents them.

Everybody has known from day one that there have been substantive,

tremendously substantive, objections from fish harvesters. Still for all, the

government, for some reason, mainly through the minister and the Premier, wants

to stand up and say: We are following Mr. Dunne's recommendations. Well, they

are doing the exact opposite of what Mr. Dunne said. Mr. Dunne said, make sure

there are no objections. As a matter of fact, the second step in making sure

there were no objections - and we have talked about it now for months, since

March 3. A couple of months now we have been talking about this. The minister

then, following up after December, in April of last year, over a year ago, wrote

to the FFAW and said: We want to talk about the raw material sharing system that

Mr. Dunne recommended and we will not implement any of it until we come and

consult with you, because you might have some objections and we would like to

talk to you about them. Then the next step is, fast forward to March of this

year and an announcement by the minister that: We are proceeding with a raw

material sharing system this year. We have not talked to anybody, we know the

harvesters object, we think the processors agree, but we are doing it anyway,

because we are the government and we were elected to make tough decisions.

I can say to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, who just concluded his

remarks, and I listened intently: He talks about plants closing and communities

being decimated. With respect to crab plants, the only way the communities that

have a crab licence now can lose it is if the government of the day lets the

current operator transfer the licence. They cannot do it by themselves. They

cannot walk away from a community and take the licence unless the government

agrees. The decimation that he talks about, the future that he predicted with

only three or four communities left processing crab - the Minister of

Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is out today saying there are too many

plants, there has to be rationalization, there is overcapacity. What she is

saying is this government plans to close some plants. This government is going

to let these people transfer these licences.

When the minister has been asked about it he said: No, no, I will not let

them do it during the pilot project. How long is the pilot project now, folks?

One year. So the licence is going to stay in your town for one year. What

happens after that? They are going to be allowed to transfer them. As a matter

of fact, this year in Englee where there is a licence and where the plant is not

operable because it is not in a condition to operate, they are going to let them

transfer the licence this year. He has not come right out and said it yet, but

that is the plan. He is going to let them transfer the crab licence out of

Englee this year over to New Ferolle, again all up in the district that he

represents. What do we have? We have a promise in writing that was not kept.

I am glad, actually, that the minister talked about Alaska. Alaska has no

bearing whatsoever on raw material sharing for plants. What Alaska is doing is

bringing in individual quotas for fish harvesters because it is in Newfoundland

and Labrador already. They have realized that the system that we have in this

Province to catch crab is the right one. That is what Alaska is all about. Did

he understand that? Did he know that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: No, it is not about plants. There is no plan in Alaska for

plants and I defy the minister to find anywhere in any documentation where there

has been an agreement in Alaska to have quota production systems in plants,

because it is not there. I know, the way he operates, if it was there he would

stand up now on a point of order and a point of privilege and he would waive it

around and show it to me. He cannot show it to me because it is not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is in progress.

MR. GRIMES: Now he says it is in progress of being discussed.

Well, here is the issue, Mr. Speaker. Here is the whole point of my debate.

Here is the whole point of my debate! If they had done what happened in Alaska

with the fish harvesters - it has nothing to do with plants. They are talking

about it for plants, he is right, because they are doing what this government

promised. They are having a consultation and they had a consultation, by the

way, just like the government here said they were going to have, with respect to

the catching of the crab. Guess who was involved in the consultation? The

government was involved, the harvesters themselves were involved, and the

processors were even involved in that discussion. If they were going to catch

it, they would want to know that there were processors around to actually

process it. They had to have someone to sell it to.

The issue, as it was outlined clearly in The Telegram today, was they

needed to something because it turned into a free-for-all. People actually died

in Alaska, because the rules for catching King Crab, which are very valuable in

the marketplace just like our crab is, was that the season opened, everybody had

a licence, there was no quota, you could go get as much as you can the first

day. Of course, what did fish harvesters do? They all went out the first day and

they collided with each other in their boats, people got killed, and they said:

This is not right. They said: We need a system. They looked around and they

said: Where is a good system for how to catch crab? Guess where they found it?

In Newfoundland and Labrador, because the harvesters have the quotas, the

harvesters knows how much they can catch. That is the system they just put in,

in Alaska.

I am glad he talked about Alaska. Guess who is monitoring it in Alaska? A

joint committee, and on that joint committee, because they promised a discussion

just like this government did, they had a discussion. They found a solution

together, together and jointly and as a group, in the best interest of Alaskans.

The harvesters, the processors, the rural communities, they found a solution

together. It wasn't unilaterally imposed upon them by a government that stands

up and says: We were elected to make tough decisions. We are going to tell you

how to catch a crab in Alaska whether you like it or not, and we do not care if

you lose a season or two. Too bad! We are going to tell you how to do it. There

is a difference in approach.

I would say to the government here, if they would only live up to their own

words, if they would only have the consultation, do you know the future that I

foresee? I foresee the government, the union representatives, and the

processors, through ASP, their association, in a tri-party group agreeing to how

the processing will be done in future years, and monitoring - you won't need

an independent outside panel with someone like Mr. Cashin. Just as an aside, why

would people now be a little bit suspect about Mr. Cashin? The Premier thinks he

is the answer to everything. Mr. Cashin happens to be on the government payroll

today. He is the Chair of the so-called independent Fish Licensing Board working

for the Minister of Fisheries. That is who he works for. He is independent all

of the sudden. He works for the Minister of Fisheries. The government wants

everyone to believe: Oh, but he used to be president of the union a long time

ago. That being said, he will favour the union and everyone should trust him.

I will tell you how much the government trusted him and how much the minister

himself trusted him. He set him up as the chair of an independent licensing

board for new licenses. The first license that got issued was for crab for St.

Anthony. Guess what Mr. Cashin was allowed to do about it? Nothing. The minister

said: No, no, I am not going to let Mr. Cashin talk about St. Anthony. I am not

going to let this independent board, that he set up by the way ten days before -

he had an announcement: Mr. Cashin is chair of the board, Mr. Cashin and his

group will make the decisions about licenses, so government is not going to make

political decisions about licenses. He came out, ten days later -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: It is true. It is exactly what he said. He came out ten days

later and the minister said: Mr. Cashin and his group are not going to have

anything to do with this, because they are not ready to make the decisions yet.

He said: I am going to do it because the court ordered me to do it.

MR. E. BYRNE: A nice story, but not true.

MR. GRIMES: It happens to be completely true. The minister will verify it

tomorrow. The Justice Minister will verify it tomorrow. The Justice Minister

himself, tomorrow, will stand in answer and question period to a direct question

and acknowledge that the court never, ever ordered the Minister of Fisheries to

give a license to St. Anthony. It did not happen, and the Government House

Leader is acknowledging that is the truth.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, boy, he is not.

MR. GRIMES: Well, the Minister of Justice will acknowledge it tomorrow in

this House, because he has to tell the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: If anybody here has to tell the truth, it is the Minister of

Justice and he will tell it tomorrow.

Let me say this, Mr. Minister, in concluding: All the government has to do is

live up to its own words, gain the respect of every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian. I have said this since the election eighteen months ago. People

elect their governments, they want them to lead and they want them to succeed.

We need our governments to succeed so that the Province can move forward, so

that we an all advance and be better off tomorrow than we were yesterday. What

do you have a government doing today? Going back on its own written word,

insisting that they foist something upon people in rural communities that they

do not want. The only reason that anybody can see as to why it is being forced

on people is because the leader of the government has decided that is the way he

wants to do it.

I would like for the Member for Trinity North to stand up and talk about the

meetings he had, and how the people in his district talk about it. I would like

for the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde to talk about it. I would like for the

Member for Bonavista North to talk about it, because they have been at the

meetings. We do not expect the ministers to have a free vote. The Premier did

not commit to that yesterday, because the ministers have to back the government

decision, but the rest could all speak freely. We will see who speaks today. We

will see what they say, and the only request is simple: If the government lives

to its word, you can have the same outcome for processing in Newfoundland and

Labrador that they arrived at in harvesting in Alaska. You can have the

government, the union, and the processors together. You will not need a

so-called independent person like Mr. Cashin at all. They will agree, on a

tri-party committee, to monitor it, and they can put a new system in place, but

it needs to take the time to have the discussion that people were promised. A

promise is a promise; that is what we all believe.

All I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that the government would just keep its

word, talk to the union, get the season started, let the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador and these rural communities go back to what they know how to do,

fish for crab, process crab, provide for their families, keep their communities

strong and help grow Newfoundland and Labrador into a better Province today than

it was yesterday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to have the opportunity to rise and speak on this very

important, very critical, issue that is facing the Province.

I live in probably one of the greatest fishing districts in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Over the past number of years that area has been one of the most

successful, economically, in all of the Province. That can be attributed, Mr.

Speaker, to a large extent, to all of the loyal fishers and the plant workers

who live and work in the area. They were led, Mr. Speaker, by one of the most

successful and respected business people in this Province, the late Mr. Boyd

Way. The Skipper, as he was known to all of the people on the shore, started his

company, Beothic Fish Processors Limited, back in 1967. Through his long work,

long hours and dedication, he built it to be one of the greatest fish processing

companies in our Province. It is being called by many people, Mr. Speaker, as a

model for the industry. He did that through trust, through loyalty and respect,

between himself, the fishers who fished for him, and the plant workers.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, there is no other company in this

Province that has done more for their workers, for their fishers, in terms of

overall fairness, in terms of workers' pay, prices and service to fishers, and

having been a good corporate citizen in this Province. It has been said time and

time again, by practically everyone on that shore, what is good for Beothic Fish

is good for everyone who lives there. Mr. Speaker, that may be a unique

situation, but that is just how it is.

It would appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that now some of these people, because of

this issue, this raw material sharing issue, have turned their backs on that

company. I would like to think, Mr. Speaker, that it is more because they have

been misinformed and do not fully understand the full meaning and intent of this

pilot project; but, Mr. Speaker, I am one who understands the issues. I do

understand the concerns and I do understand the implications of having this

pilot project implemented versus not having it implemented. It is because of

this, Mr. Speaker, that I am one who will not be turning my back on that company

over this issue.

I could easily play politics with this, Mr. Speaker, and back away from it,

but the lives and the future of the people who live in that District of

Bonavista North are more important to me than my political career.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, any time change is implemented, whether it is

in the fishery or in any other industry, it is understandable that there will be

objections in some form or other. This case, with respect to the new policy on

raw material sharing in the crab fishery, is certainly no exception.

I remember several years ago, Mr. Speaker, when the federal government

adopted a new policy for harvesting fish, for harvesting crab, when they brought

in the system of IQs for fishers as opposed to what they had before, a

competitive fishery. In 1995 they implemented, or tried a pilot project with

some sectors and in some areas of the Province. In 1996 they put in a full pilot

project for IQ systems right throughout the Province. In 1997, after a complete

review of this process, they implemented IQs for fishermen.

Mr. Speaker, I remember then that fishermen were concerned at the time about

having their rights taken away because the competitive fishery was taken away

from them. They had concerns about competition for volume of crab. That would be

gone. They would be losing a large part of their income was another concern that

they had, and companies would take over and rule the day.

Mr. Speaker, looking back on it now, I do not think it turned our too badly

overall. Fishers can plan their season based on IQs. They know at the beginning

of the season now how much money they are going to make. It is much safer for

them. They can

schedule their trips now around the weather. They have the right

to buy licences, to sell their licence, and to transfer their licence. Most

importantly of all, Mr. Speaker, the quality of the raw material that they are

bringing to their plants has improved immensely. I would say that if a survey

were done now as to what fishers would prefer, an IQ fishery or a competitive

fishery, I would say, without a doubt, that the conclusion would be obvious.

Now, Mr. Speaker, our government has put forward a new policy with respect to

raw material sharing. Again, there are many concerns and I understand them

fully. What was originally planned to be a two-year pilot project is now a

one-year pilot project. A committee is being struck that is representative of

all areas of the fishery, and is being led now by none other than the founder of

the FFAW, Mr. Richard Cashin. They are going to very closely monitor this

fishery throughout the season and, at the end of the season, a thorough review

will be done involving everybody in the industry. Whatever decision is made by

that committee, it has been said, and it was said earlier by the Premier, that

it will be accepted by this government. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say

that there is a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion over the raw

material sharing process, and that is very unfortunate.

I have heard fishers express concern with respect to corporate concentration.

Well, Mr. Speaker, under the old system - and I want to correct our minister

from earlier - four companies have more than 50 per cent control of the crab

resource in this Province. What is interesting about that, Mr. Speaker, is the

fact that three of these four companies are non-unionized companies for the most

part, and two of these four have only been in the industry a relatively short

time in comparison to the Beothic Fisheries and P. Janes who started this

industry.

Mr. Speaker, we already have corporate concentration and it is getting worse

under the old system. This concentration, as far as I am concerned, escalated

greatly since five or six years ago when we brought in Final Offer Selection. It

was only last year that the industry made a change to the formula for

determining price, because prior to last year, the price that was set was just

the minimum price and it left processors with extra money to pass around. Mr.

Speaker, last year, I believe, under the system that was adopted, the formula

that was used in determining price was fair and equal to every fisher in the

Province. If that is what fishers want, an equal price for their product, then I

would suggest that they demand nothing less than the formula that was used last

year in determining their price.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the Collective Bargaining Act is being

strengthened to ensure proper negotiations take place between processors and the

union. To further confirm this pricing system, Mr. Speaker, an independent

accounting firm will be conducting bi-weekly audits of the processors. I know

there is major distrust between fishers and the processing industry, and I fully

understand where they are coming from. However, I would have to say, that there

are still a number of good, reputable processors in this industry.

If you take a company like the Fogo Island Co-op, a company that is owned by

the fishers themselves, why would they want to change the invoicing for what

they receive for the price for their product? Over the years, Mr. Speaker, I

have seen the selling prices on a regular basis of what the other companies are

getting, and I can tell you now, that the actual average price received by

pretty well all of the processors, there is very little difference, except for

some companies that have a reputation for poor quality product. Based on the

invoicing of four, five or six or those processors, it would be a really good

indication of what the overall price is in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, this price to market system is similar to what has been used in

the lump roe fishery for the past seven or eight years. The lump roe price is

set at the beginning of the year and, at the end of the season, the books of two

or three companies are audited, and based on that, the price is adjusted

accordingly for the fishers. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this system has worked

very well in the lump roe fishery. Some of the same companies whose books are

being audited for that can be used for the crab fishery. Whatever system we

have, we are going to have to put some trust, some degree of trust, in someone.

Mr. Speaker, this is a one-year pilot project, a project that is going to be

monitored very closely by all parties. A major review will be conducted at the

end, throughout the fall and before any conclusion and recommendation is made

that the government will finally agree upon, whatever it is. I believe this to

be a fair process, and, in the absence of any viable alternative to date, and in

consideration of the time of the season where we are now, I believe that this

project should be given a chance right now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Member of Bonavista North, I, too, agree that Beothic Fisheries

is a good company. I can also see why you stand today in this House and support

production quotas, because as you said on the news media around the Province as

of late, that you worked for that company for fifty years. I say to the member,

though, that in speaking today he did not reference the 1,100 name petition that

was brought to us yesterday from fish harvesters and plant workers in your

district who are opposed to production quotas.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Bonavista

North.

MR. HARDING: I object to the statements being made by the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo. That is a number of times now that he has made issues

concerning me and my involvement in the fishery. When I speak for that company,

I speak for all the fisher people and all of the plant workers on that shore. If

you go and talk to them at any time, you will find that is fact.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I remind members that they should not use a point of order to re-enter

and engage in debate.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to tell you today why I am opposed to the scheme that the Premier

and the Minister of Fisheries are trying to force upon or starve the harvesters

and the plant workers in this Province into agreeing with. Let me tell you what

it means.

What the Premier is trying to do is take the entire crab quota for this

Province, of roughly 100 million pounds - it is probably more like 110 million,

but we will use 100 million pounds, for example - and give it to thirty-eight

crab plants in this Province. What he is going to do with the production quotas

he is saying to these thirty-eight plants: You can divvy up 100 million pounds

of crab among you without having to compete on the head of the wharf for that

crab. If the crab is landed, these individual plants will get their crab. No

longer will they have to compete. No longer will they have to go on the head of

a wharf. They know if it is landed it is theirs.

Let's talk about the thirty-eight plants, because in my estimation these

thirty-eight crab plants are owned by fewer than twenty individuals in this

Province. Think about that: twenty individuals owning thirty-eight plants that

control 100 million pounds of crab. They were given a licence, a privilege in

this Province, that none of us or no one in these galleries had the privilege to

have. Believe me, it is valuable commodity, one that is bought and sold for

large amounts of money. Now, of these thirty-eight plants, like I said, that are

owned by fewer than twenty individuals in the Province - the Member for

Bonavista North stood today and made a statement I was going to make. Four, in

fact, processors in this Province control 50 per cent of the crab that is

landed. That is 50 per cent of 100 million pounds or 50 per cent of a $500

million industry.

What you are doing, I say to the Premier and the members opposite, is

legalizing a cartel, the same cartel that the Premier when he was in Opposition,

the same cartel that the Minister of Fisheries when he was in Opposition, called

in to the Competition Bureau of Canada to investigate, because he said they were

colluding to limit the price they had to pay to fisherman. I say to the members

opposite, what you are doing is legalizing a cartel and you will ensure that the

prices to fishermen will be driven down because there is no doubt in my mind -

and no one, and I say no one in this House today, no economist in this country

today will stand and say that if you eliminate competition that the price paid

to harvesters is going to go up. It is just not in the cards. It just will not

happen, I say to the individuals opposite.

Now, how will this cartel or this production quota scheme affect fishermen

and how will it affect plant workers? Well, let's start with the fishermen. If

there is no competition at the head of the wharf, as I said, there is nowhere

for the price to go only down. There is no way out of it. It has to go down. Why

would a processor, for example, pay a fisherman more for his catch if he knows

all he has to do is sit back in his office and the crab is going to come in and

he is going to get his share of it? Think about that. Why would you bother to go

out and say: Boy, I am going to give you more money for your crab even though

you have to land it to me? I mean, who in their right mind would do it? I am not

a processor but I know right now that if I could get a deal I would go for a

deal. I go for a deal in everything I purchase, from my clothes to my house to

my vehicles. I go for a deal on everything, that is human nature. Do not tell me

that if you can get a better deal or force a price down to a fisherman that

these processors are going to go along with that and say: That is alright boy,

we are going to raise what we are going to give you this year because you are

such a nice person.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries say: Well, we have a

way around that, to ensure that these individual harvesters are going to get a

fair price. We are going to force these processors to open their books. We are

going to examine their books. We are going to force them to open it so the

fishermen in the Province will know what they are making and know what they can

pay them. I asked the Minister of Fisheries two weeks ago in a committee

meeting, not held in this House but held upstairs: How much crab was landed in

Englee last year by a particular processor? Do you know what his answer was? I'm

not telling you. As simple as that, not telling you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: That is what he said, in those words: Not telling you. That is

what he said.

These processors, like I said, are the same ones that this Minister of

Fisheries and the Premier basically called crooks. Three short years ago - I am

not saying and I am sure that no one in this Province are going to say that

processors or all processors are crooks, I will tell you that. There are many

respectable individuals involved in the fish processing sector of this Province,

and I know them. These are the same ones that the minister called crooks a few

years ago, that he wants to open the books; that they are going to come forward

now and open the books on.

People have a short memory, but I do not. Three years ago we all heard about

the processor that was landing fish in Gaultois - illegal fish, I might add -

fish that was not supposed to be caught, fish that people never had a quota for,

that was bought by a processor, trucked to another plant and processed

illegally. That individual was caught and charged by the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans in Ottawa. These are the individuals we are going to say are going to

open their books and give fishermen a fair price. That is what I say.

Processors themselves have said publicly on the airwaves in this Province, we

- Mr. Clarke, the head of ASP, the association of fish processors, or processors

in the Province, said publicly: We have a problem with opening our books to the

government. Well, God help the fishermen, I say, because they certainly will

never see their books. If they will not open them for government, or they have a

problem with it, they are certainly not going to open their books to the poor

harvester in this Province, I will guarantee you that. Besides getting a lower

price for their product, I will guarantee you, that they will no longer get

deals on ice and bait. They will be told when to fish and where to land it, and

if they do not do it when they are told and land it where they are told to land

it, then they will be forced to pay for their trucking because no longer will a

processor be on the head of a wharf saying: Come on, boy, I will take your crab;

while there is another one there saying: No, come with me and I will give you a

few cents more and I will pay for the trucking, I will pay for the bait and I

will pay for the ice. You can forget that. It is never going to happen again

under this scheme. Never going to happen again.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the small boat fishermen that the minister

says are all in favour of this. Well, I have not talked to any small boat

fishermen. These are the ones who are supposed to be getting ripped off,

according to the Member for Bonavista North. What will happen to Doyle Warren in

Toogood Arm under this system who has 12,000 pounds of crab in an eighteen foot

boat? What is going to happen to him when he lands at his wharf in Toogood Arm

with 500 pounds of crab and he calls up and says: Come down? No longer are you

going to see two processors on the head of that wharf. No longer are they going

to send the truck down, I will guarantee you that. He will be told: You get your

crab up here. If you are not, go somewhere else. But, guess what? He has nowhere

else to go because he knows that no one else will buy his crab. What is going to

happen to the price of his bait? What is going to happen to the price of his

ice? We all know what will happen, Mr. Speaker.

Let's go to the plant workers, and there are some in the gallery here

today. Let's talk about them. Anyone who has ever gone into a crab plant,

anyone who knows anything about the crab fishery knows that the only reason

there are two shifts in a plant is because of the way fish is landed and when it

is landed. If the fishery were open today we are going to see fishermen leave

the wharf, most of them at the same time. They are going to arrive back from the

plant and we are going to have a lot of crab flowing. I will tell you, the first

shift is not going to able to clean her up this evening. As a result, they are

going to call the second shift in tonight. That is how these people survive.

Well, when these processors can tell a fisherman when to fish and when to land

it, you can say goodbye to that second shift; those hundreds of people who work

on second shifts. I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, they are not going to see the

inside of a plant anymore because they will no longer be required.

Let's talk about production quotas. I might add, transferable production

quotas because this is the thing that galls me most about this program,

transferable production quotas. What is going to happen to the small plants and

the people who work in the small plants around this Province when this group,

that the Member for Bonavista North was talking about today? He basically said

they were a cartel. He said they are owned. It is corporate concentration. What

is going to happen to the small plants now that their owner is given a

production quota? What is going to happen to them? Before if he wanted to get

out of the fishery, if he wanted to sell his plant, he sold his plant. It was

not worth a lot. Do you know why? Because he had no quota attached to it. He

sold the building. He did not sell the crab. Now, not only is he going to be

able to sell the building, he is going to be able to sell the crab. So, he has

his retirement package right there in his arse pocket. What have the plant

workers got? They got absolutely nothing because if he sells his quota the plant

will be closed, the quota will be transferred and many of these small

communities will never see a crab plant again. This is what you are supporting.

The processors put this on the table for me in 2001. I say to the Member for

St. Barbe, they said: Here is the plan. Here are the quotas for each of the

individual plants; for shrimp that was, I say to the member, and you know what I

am going to say. I looked down through the list of production quotas. They had

it all done out. So-and-so was getting 10 million pounds, another fellow was

getting 12 million and someone else was getting 5 million. Guess who was absent

from the list? The Town of Twillingate with their shrimp plant and the Town of

Black Duck Cove on the Northern Peninsula. I said: What about these people? Do

you know what the answer is? They don't belong in the fishery. They don't

belong in the fishery! We don't need these people. I said, no, I am not doing

it, and I am saying no today. I say to the Member for St. Barbe, you know,

because I guarantee you, buddy, Millie Dredge knew.

Mr. Speaker, why do they want to do it? That is the question. Why do they

want to do it? The minister stands day after day and says, we have too many

plants. Well, boy, with production quotas you can look after that pretty

quickly, close them down and transfer their quota. All you have to do is look at

Harbour Breton. FPI has, and have had for thirty years, the only production

quotas in this Province. Harbour Breton owns, as far as I am concerned, part of

those production quotas. FPI begs to differ. FPI took the quota from Harbour

Breton and they transferred it. Guess what? We don't even know where they

transferred it yet, if it was transferred to Marystown or to China, and we will

never find out. Talk to the people of Harbour Breton about production quotas.

That is what I say. Talk to them and ask them if they agreed to them when they

are trying to fight today for their livelihood and trying to fight today to get

part of that production quota back into their community.

Mr. Speaker, why are they doing it? I have no idea. I can only guess that

this Premier has talked to some of these rich plant owners in this Province and

he has told them: Yes, we will give you your production quotas. Yes, we will put

you back to where you were 300 years ago, 200 years ago, 50 years ago, when the

merchants controlled the fishery, when the merchants had production quotas

because they owned each individual cove and harbour around this Province. They

owned them. They didn't compete with each other when they stood in their

mansions downtown, St. John's, with their cocktail parties at Christmas. They

didn't have to, there was enough for all.

MADAM SPEAKER (S. Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. REID: Just a few minutes to clue, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a quick comment about the

suggestion that the Premier made with Mr. Cashin going as the independent

arbitrator on this committee. I have the greatest of respect for Mr. Cashin, but

there were three reports done for government on production quotas. One was the

Dunne report. Mr. Dunne said: Don't do production quotas unless it is

negotiated with the union and the union is on side, the fish harvesters. David

Vardy recommended production quotas but, he said, it should only occur if it was

negotiated and put into a collective agreement with the union.

Richard Cashin recommended production quotas in 1996, with no caveats. He

just recommended production quotas. He did not say that they had to be done with

the support of the union. He did not say that they had to talk to the union. He

just recommended production quotas, and that is my fear. An individual who is

now employed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, a man who has

recommended production quotas with no conditions attached, is now going to be

the independent arbiter who is going to determine, at the end of three months,

whether or not we get production quotas.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that we have a Premier who

knows nothing about the history of the fishery. He wants us to revert to a time

when you were told to: fish and be hungry, or don't fish and starve.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is an opportunity this afternoon - fifteen or sixteen minutes, I guess, is

what we have, I think - to have a few comments on the raw material sharing

system that we propose to implement in the crab fishery in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot said about the raw material sharing

system over the past two-and-a-half months, and certainly over the past five or

six years. There has been a great deal of debate, some of it factual and some of

it misrepresented.

Madam Speaker, there are a number of ways that the fishery in Newfoundland

and Labrador can be managed, and I have said that in the House on a number of

occasions. It can be managed in a free market system where the highest bidder,

the strongest company, the strongest fishermen, t