June 3, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 41

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon we would like to welcome some visitors to our galleries. We

have 100 Grade 7 students from Villa Nova Junior High School in Manuels, in the

District of Topsail. They are accompanied by their teachers: David Sullivan,

Robert O'Keefe, Mike Dinn and Susan Mosher, and teacher's aid, Miss Bungay.

We welcome you to our House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by members.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have statements by the following members:

the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans,

the hon. the Member for St. Barbe, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains,

and the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I wish to congratulate the Mount Pearl Special Olympic Tigers who won

the end-of-the-year Floor Hockey Tournament that was held last night.

Mr. Speaker, I was the honourary guest referee for the tournament and it

gives me great pleasure to say that the Tigers beat all of the teams and were

successful in the final game, and walked away with the championship.

The Mount Pearl Tigers Special Olympic Team showed great determination in

their victory. The members of the team are: Eddie Hynes, Harry Fitzgerald, Tracy

Barnes, Robert McGrath, Geoffrey Power, Andrew Hynes, Danny Russell, Andrew Ash,

Nadia Brenton, Matthew Kelly, Jasmyn Azizan, David Wells and Travis Sceviour.

I would like to thank the Dog's Rugby Team, Greeley's Bruisers and the

Fortune Bay Aces for their participation in the tournament.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the coaches and volunteers for

this event. Without their efforts, tournaments like this would not take place.

In closing, I must also mention that the Mount Pearl Special Olympic Tigers

and other Special Olympians will be travelling to Gander and Gambo on June 11

and June 12 for the Provincial Games.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like for all members to join with me in

wishing them and all other Special Olympians good luck, have fun, and enjoy your

weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of dedicated, talented youth in Grand

Falls-Windsor. I rise today to congratulate not only one, but twenty-five of our

community's best and brightest who were nominated for the Grand Falls-Windsor

Youth of the Year 2003.

On May 26, the nominees gathered at McDonald's Family Restaurant on Cromer

Avenue, who for the past thirteen years have co-sponsored this event with the

Town of Grand Falls-Windsor. At the end of the evening, Nancy Clarke, a Grade 12

student from Exploits Valley High, was honoured for being named Youth of the

Year 2003.

Like all other nominees, Nancy boasts an impressive resume of community

activities. She began four years ago with the scouting movement and has since

volunteered her time with the Grenfell Intermediate Breakfast Program, school

tutoring program, and the canteen for the Minor Baseball Association. Nancy also

offers her help to the Memorial United Church, where she is a member of the

Junior Choir, a Sunday school teacher, Communion server and reader. Not stopping

there, Nancy also volunteers with the Lung Association, Heart and Stroke

Foundation, Epilepsy Group, Diabetes Association and the Kidney Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Nancy Clarke is a leader in her

community. I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating her on

being recognized as Grand Falls- Windsor Youth of the Year for 2003. I would

also like to once again congratulate all nominees for their outstanding

citizenship qualities.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate a hero. In July of 2000, a

young man from the Northern Peninsula would have lost his life if not for the

selfless actions of his boating companion and friend.

On Neddies Harbour, a group of young people were attempting to make their way

back to shore when their boat oars were lost in the water. Jonathan McKenzie

went into the harbour to retrieve them but was caught by the current. What

happened next, Mr. Speaker, is a true act of bravery.

Without thought about his own well-being, Jonathan's friend Gregory Shears

jumped into the cold water and rescued Jonathan. He used his training as a

lifeguard to calm his friend Jonathan and properly return him to the boat.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, Gregory was recognized in a ceremony in Rocky Harbour

for his actions. He received one of the highest awards a Canadian citizen can

receive from Her Excellency the Governor General, the Certificate of

Commendation.

While it is nearly four years since that fateful night, Gregory still speaks

humbly about the events. He feels that he did that night what anyone in the

situation would have done. Mr. Speaker, while I certainly admire Gregory Shears'

modesty, he is still a hero to many, especially Jonathan McKenzie.

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

true friend and hero, Gregory Shears, for receiving the Certificate of

Commendation from the Governor General of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a woman, a very special woman, an Inuit woman

from the North Coast of Labrador, from the community of Nain: Isabella Pain.

Mr. Speaker, Isabella Pain was Co-Chair of the negotiating team for the

Labrador Inuit Association that recently negotiated a final deal between the

Province and the federal government. She was also the Chair of the committee

that negotiated IBA with Voisey's Bay for the Labrador Inuit Association. Mr.

Speaker, her community work speaks for itself in helping out and reaching out to

families in need and, most important of all, Isabella Pain is an ordinary

down-to-earth human being.

In Toronto, a couple of weeks ago, she won a big award. Last night, I, along

with the Member for Virginia Waters, had the opportunity to go to Memorial

University as she accepted her award for the top forty under forty.

Mr. Speaker, to the young Inuit people on the North Coast of Labrador, a week

ago they ratified the agreement. What a role model for these people to have, to

know that people from the North Coast of Labrador can stand shoulder to shoulder

with anyone in this country.

I ask members of this House to join me in congratulating Miss Pain on an

award that she so rightfully deserves.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to offer congratulations to the sponsors, organizers and

participants of the 10 th Annual Y Enterprise Olympics, which took

place May 27-30 at Hotel Gander.

With the help of the sponsors ACOA, HRDC, the Royal Bank of Canada, the

Newfoundland and Labrador Credit Union, the Y Enterprise Centre, and the

Department of Education, 100 Grade 11 and 12 students from ten school districts

participated in this showcase. There were two competitions, the NLCU Enterprise

Showcase Competition and the RBC Business Plan Competition.

The Project Manager, Paul Dwyer, indicated that the talent that these

students have exhibited over the past few days, in both the Showcase and the

Business Plan Competition, have been incredible.

The NLCU Enterprise Showcase is designed to encourage senior high school

students to display their enterprising ventures in a trade show setting. The

winners of which were: First place went to a venture called the Newfoundland and

Labrador Chocolate Moose, and that was won by Lisa Leshane and Melissa Caravan

from Ascension Collegiate in Bay Roberts. Second place went to Kelly Lynn Au and

Christen Williams of Prince of Wales Collegiate, and third place, a tie between

Ryan Tobin from Stephenville High and Stephanie Nash from St. Catherine's in

Mount Carmel.

As for the RBC Business Plan Competition, first place went to Compu

DustClutch which was put forward by two students -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

MR. HEDDERSON: By leave, Mr. Speaker, just to finish up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HEDDERSON: The first place went to Compu DustClutch, that was Megan

Burke and Cheryl Barron, from Dunne Memorial, St. Mary's. Second place to

Olivia Heaney and Krista Kennedy, Mount Pearl Senior High, and third place, to

Sarah Greenslade from Queen Elizabeth High in Foxtrap.

The Y Enterprise Olympics have been a great learning experience for these

students and I am sure that I can call upon the members of this House to join

with me to offer congratulations to these young entrepreneurs for their very

worthwhile venture.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As the son of a man who was a young officer cadet landed on the beaches of

Normandy on the June 6, 1944, and who later became the commanding officer of our

own Royal Newfoundland Regiment, I am very pleased to rise today in recognition

the 60 th anniversary of D-Day and to honour all veterans who fought

and died for our freedom.

Mr. Speaker, on June 6, 1944 tens of thousands of Allied troops stormed the

beaches of Normandy marking the beginning of the end of World War II. The Royal

Newfoundland Regiment formed an artillery unit and many Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians fought in various battalions for Canada and Britain.

Mr. Speaker, Canadian airmen, sailors and soldiers were among the first to

arrive on the coast of Normandy to begin D-Day, a battle that is widely regarded

as the turning point in the Second World War. Allied nations incurred

significant losses on D-Day, however, the courage, the bravery and perseverance

of our soldiers led to the end of that war. Many of the soldiers who fought on

D-Day and during the Battle of Normandy gave their lives, and they must be

remembered by all of us.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday Veterans from several Allied nations will be honoured

at a very special 60 th anniversary in France. Ceremonies have also

been planned throughout the Province and I encourage Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians to pay tribute to our veterans by attending.

Mr. Speaker, I find it fitting that we honour our veterans in this hon.

House, as they fought and died for the very values and virtues that this House

represents. Every year, the anniversary of D-Day reminds us of the importance of

democracy, the damage of tyranny and the heavy price that comes with both.

Mr. Speaker, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we have been blessed with

sovereignty and freedom. That freedom did not come without sacrifice and I feel

it is our duty as citizens of this great Province, to guarantee that the

tremendous contributions of our soldiers are never forgotten. Too many good men

and women perished in the name of peace and freedom. I ask that all members of

this hon. House join me in remembering them today and always.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate receiving an advanced copy of this particular

statement and, I must say on behalf of the Official Opposition, we are glad to

have the minister and the government recognize such an occasion by making a

statement in the House today as this weekend approaches.

I think, Mr. Speaker, there is quite a history attached to this in

Newfoundland and Labrador . People in our Province would know that prior to

Confederation, Newfoundlanders always played a larger than life role in

unfortunate conflicts within the world. As Canadians today, it is well known and

recognized that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians make an inordinate contribution

in comparison to our population to the Canadian military and to peacekeeping

efforts around the world.

Again, I think, Mr. Speaker, it serves us all well to remember issues that

arose, and instances that arose out of conflict, to learn from them but never to

forget. We are glad to join today as members of the House, and glad to be asked

to join with all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in remembering so that we do

not ever forget. Unfortunately, too many people made tremendous contributions

and sacrifices with even their lives in the past, and our hope and wish is that

we all learn from it and it never happens again. So, I am glad to join in the

comments and the statements made by the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We, too, would like to acknowledge the importance that our veterans played in

all the conflicts that have taken place throughout this century in particular,

and the efforts that they made. Even though our very right to sit here today as

a Legislature, the right to participate in organized labour and negotiate

freely, the right to attend church even, the basic things that we enjoy as a

society today are all owed to the efforts of the men and women who fought and

paid the ultimate price in past wars.

Mr. Speaker, the past wars that did take place are unlike the ones today

where we see a lot of high tech warfare taking place and tools being used. This

was largely a hand-to-hand, in the trench and in each other's face fighting.

That certainly took a lot of effort and, as I said, many people paid the

ultimate price. I think it is important to remember, as well, that a lot of the

men and women who served in the First World War and the Second World War - well,

we say men and women, but they were actually more like boys and girls, because

they were very young. I wonder sometimes if we, today, could meet the task that

they met and do the same thing that they had to do when required to do so on

behalf of all of us.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform members of this House, and the people of

the Province, that government has been, for quite some time, and continues to

work with High Liner Foods Inc. on possible solutions to keep the fish plant in

Arnold's Cove in operation, and to secure access to quotas associated with

that operation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Arnold's Cove plant employs close to 400 people and

generates approximately the same number of indirect and induced employment. Two

and a half years ago the facility was offered for sale, however, Mr. Speaker,

there were no buyers.

The plant in Arnold's Cove is state-of-the-art. The superb management,

staff, and technology, make it one of the best groundfish plants in North

America, if not the world. It is the type of processing facility that is

required if Newfoundland and Labrador is to remain a major player in world

groundfish markets. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, should groundfish stocks recover, it is

critical that we have plants like this one to ensure that we can process fish

found in our waters for the benefit of the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, High Liner Foods operates the plant and has access to

substantial enterprise allocations that are important to the people of this

Province. While these allocations are currently at low levels, it will be

prudent for this government to ensure that these quotas and the historical

rights associated with them remain available to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

as a whole. This government, Mr. Speaker, will do what is required to preserve

the historical rights to fish in our adjacent waters.

Mr. Speaker, the Arnold's Cove fish plant is an anchor of the local economy

in most communities ranging from Southern Harbour to Clarenville. Without the

involvement of the provincial government, and commitments from the workers and

from other agencies, it is questionable whether this operation will continue. I

must note, Mr. Speaker, a very important note, that the Province's policy of

not providing loan guarantees and direct financial support to primary processing

companies remains in place. Any solutions must, and will, Mr. Speaker, be

consistent with the policy of not subsidizing the operations of processing

plants. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are open to new and innovative ways of

doing business, and we are open to new technologies and directions. Only a

long-term strategy will ensure that the Arnold's Cove plant will remain open,

and that the quotas associated with them remain accessible to Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians.

I am optimistic, Mr. Speaker, that commitments will be reached with other

stakeholders in the coming days - commitments that will provide for a stable

future for the Arnold's's Cove fish plant, and commitments - most

importantly, Mr. Speaker - that will retain access to these quotas for the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I will pledge to this House that I will provide

a public update on the status of the plant and the associated quotas as they

develop, and report them in a timely manner to the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister -

MR. WISEMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: I ask the Member for Trinity North - this is too serious to

be getting on with that kind of foolishness.

I wanted to thank the minister for providing me a copy of the statement, and

I want to compliment the government in terms of their initiative in working with

the people and the management in the Arnold's Cove area in terms of working on

this very worthwhile effort.

I would like to say that I echo the comments of the minister in that, in his

statement, he indicated that it had one of the best workforces in Newfoundland

and Labrador, and that is true. Also, the operator of this particular plant,

Bruce Wareham, is probably one of the best operators in the world in terms of

fish plant operations. That is one of the reasons why this plant succeeded

during the cod moratorium, because of the management and the workers at the

plant. I would like for all of us today to lend support to this endeavor,

because the people there have never had a hand out, but right now they need a

hand up.

Congratulations to the minister. I want to compliment him on such great work.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Arnold's Cove plant, as the minister said, is a state-of-the-art food

processing operation, fish processing operation, a high-tech and a highly

qualified workforce.

While recognizing, Mr. Speaker, that this is a challenge for government, I

would ask that not only the Minister of Fisheries, but the new Minister of the

new Department of Business, and the new Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development, start thinking about this as an opportunity for some innovation,

for some thinking outside of the box, some way to say: We have a facility, we

have a workforce, we have the technology, and we have the management. Let's

find a use for this and maintain those quotas at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, the spectre of Burgeo, and Burgeo's fish quota being shipped

to Canso, Nova Scotia by representatives of the Barry interests that hangs over

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: - hangs over plants like Arnold's Cove, if we see an

opportunity, if someone sees an opportunity, of taking that quota and moving it

elsewhere. This government has to be committed to ensuring that does not happen

to Arnold's Cove and that we find a good use for this plant and that we have

an opportunity for these workers to maintain their jobs and their commitment to

doing a good job and producing a good product.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am pleased to rise today to comment on the twentieth

annual conference of the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association which is

concluding today with an address by the Premier, as we speak. This conference

provides Newfoundland and Labrador with the opportunity to showcase our

abilities, to support the growing petroleum and gas industry in the Province and

elsewhere, and to promote the potential - significant potential - off our coast.

This conference also attracts numerous visitors from around the world, including

all of the key decision makers from all of the major companies on the planet,

who are operating in the oil and gas industry.

I believe it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that we have established ourselves - and

I am speaking about the Province and the service and supply sector and NOIA,

itself - as a significant oil producer; an accomplishment that is all the more

staggering considering that less than a decade ago, Newfoundland and Labrador

did not produce one barrel of oil. While exploration has led to discovered

hydrocarbon resources totalling over two billion barrels of oil, ten trillion

cubic feet of natural gas, our undiscovered potential is much greater with

estimates of more than six billion barrels of oil and over fifty trillion cubic

feet of natural gas awaiting exploration and development.

A key partner with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in promoting

our capability and our potential is NOIA. I take this opportunity to commend the

Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association and its members on the significant

role they have played in developing and helping this Province to establish

itself in the oil and gas industry and throughout the world. Through sponsoring

this annual conference, and by NOIA's participation in the oil and gas shows

in this country and around the world, this organization is an integral part of

the continued promotion and development of this very important industry.

Over the course of the conference, those attending were provided with an

update on the status of the Province's petroleum projects as well as the

latest in emerging technologies.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the theme for this year's conference, East

Coast Canada: Success in a Challenging Environment , offshore

Newfoundland and Labrador is a challenging place in which to operate but also a

very successful and profit-based place to operate. However, we have proven, I

believe, beyond a shadow of a doubt, particularly with the Orphan Basin,

Laurentian Sub-basin, the Flemish Pass, areas left with the Jeanne d'Arc

Basin, and many more, that profitable projects can be developed. We are

committed to building on the success of this industry as a government. We are

committed to ensuring that the benefits of the oil and gas industry are

maximized like they have never been before, for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. Indeed, the NOIA

conference over the past number of years has grown. Every year it has grown, it

has gotten bigger and better, which shows the level of interest, no doubt, of

the industry players in our offshore industry. It is a great opportunity for the

stakeholders involved to get together to find our what is happening and what is

about to happen and what other opportunities exist. For example, we have had a

lot of development over the last fifteen years: the White Rose project, which

brings benefits to Marystown, for example; what has happened in Bull Arm with

the White Rose project; the natural gas announcements of recent days by Husky is

a great potential we have here; the Laurentian Sub-basin, and us having gotten a

favourable decision last year on that matter; and the opportunities in the

Orphan Basin and the South Whale Basin. So, there are lots of opportunities

there. We have done pretty good so far, in terms of the benefits to this

Province. We have to maximize the opportunities and the benefits that we have

there.

My only disappointment to date is that this government is not putting the

feet of the federal leaders to the fire and getting their commitments vis--vis

our benefits from the offshore industry. This is a perfect time to do it, now,

during this federal election. They have not taken us up on that offer or

suggestion yet, but they certainly should. The minister, of course, is very up

front and no doubt wants to see benefits maximized; so, whatever he can do to

persuade the Premier of this Province to get on with it and get that commitment

from our federal leaders, NOIA will be even bigger and better in the future.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to congratulate NOIA on its twentieth annual conference and

its twenty years of growing with the oil industry in this Province, and showing

what we can do to participate in that. I do not share the rosy view that the

Opposition House Leader has in terms of us getting benefits from our offshore

oil and gas.

The real challenge to this government is to take the same kind of stance that

they did when the Inco agreement was being talked about, to give notice that we

want, not just to maximize our resources in some general way, but we want to

show that we are going to be full participants in our offshore oil and gas

development, that we are going to have an equity share in what goes on. We need

to hear some specifics from this government, and the Premier and his government.

The Premier with his business experience should be able to say to the oil

industry that we expect to get more than we have gotten and show us how we are

going to do it.

We are looking forward to that kind of leadership from this government

because that is the kind of expectation that they created when they were over

here when they talked about Inco.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the federal Minister of Natural Resources refused to

give a commitment to the people of the Province regarding changes to the

Atlantic Accord. As a matter of fact, in the media today it was stated and

quoted, attributed to the minister, that share of oil revenues is not an

election issue.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier, or whoever has the dubious

distinction of answering on his behalf today: Does the Premier and this

government - which touts their wonderful relationship with Ottawa as one of the

keys to the future - agree with the statement made by the federal Natural

Resources Minister yesterday, that share of oil revenues is not an election

issue? Is that concurred in by the government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It is interesting to note today, Mr. Speaker - first of all, I want to say to

the Opposition House Leader, the only federal leader who has not talked about

committing more of the resources, financial and otherwise on the Atlantic Accord

to Newfoundland and Labrador, happens to be Paul clawback Martin. The only

federal leader.

To the issue that the Leader of the Opposition has raised: Do we believe it

to be an election issue? You better believe we do, and over the next four weeks

we are going to make it even a bigger one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: But the question is this. Here is the question that needs

and deserves to be answered by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This

week the federal minister met with the entire Liberal caucus and they committed

to support him and every Liberal candidate. How is it that you can go out and

chair campaigns and support Liberal candidates who do not support this Province

in its efforts to get more of its resources for Newfoundland and Labrador? That

is the question that you need to ask today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that the Government House Leader has been taking yelling and

screaming lessons from his leader, the Premier. It does not help answer the

questions, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the government, and to the House Leader or the Premier,

now is the time to get the commitments from Ottawa. After a federal election I

believe everybody in this House understands and agrees that it will be too late.

Mr. Speaker, his description of a caucus meeting that we had yesterday shows

quite clearly that he was not in the room and knows nothing about what was said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the current federal government, the Prime

Minister has no trouble giving commitments about health care, infrastructure,

all of the things that are important, but nothing about the Atlantic Accord.

The question is this: What exactly does the government, with its great

lovey-dovey relationship with Ottawa, and the current government plan to do to

secure a commitment during the next four weeks?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, he uses the term - and I suppose he must use

it very loosely, lovey-dovey.

I would like to ask this question: How is it, I ask the Leader of the

Opposition, that the Member for Bellevue, for example, is chairing the current

MPs campaign, that every member opposite is supporting every Liberal candidate

with themselves, their workers, et cetera? How is it that you can stand in the

House today, in all honesty and sincerity, and ask what we are doing when we are

doing everything within our power, while at the same time every member of the

Official Opposition is out knocking on doors for the federal Liberal Party of

Canada? Come on, give us a break and the people of the Province a break!

Mr. Speaker, why won't the Leader of the Opposition say publicly what his

stand is? Why won't he come out and every member say they will not be

supporting Liberal candidates in the current federal election?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the students who are with us today, and their

teachers, would understand - they have been told many times - you cannot answer

a question with a question. It means they do not have an answer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: It shows they do not have an answer. There is no answer

because they are doing nothing. Mr. Speaker, when we offered to work with them

last week their Premier said: We don't want you; which was the answer last

week.

Mr. Speaker, another issue related to the offshore. The 8.5 per cent

ownership of Hibernia, and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi talking about

having a share of the action. What action, if any, is going to be taken by the

government with its great relationship with Ottawa to get a commitment about the

8.5 per cent share of Hibernia during the election within the next four weeks?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I recall in this House in 1996 when there was potential of a

significant find of the magnitude of Voisey's Bay. It was called Cartaway. Do

you know what it turned out to be? It turned out to be, like every Liberal

Leader who I have ever met in my life, an empty hole full of promise.

The fact of the matter is this, that - why didn't we want your

participation? Why would we want the participation of members opposite who,

throughout the next four weeks, are supporting, will knock on doors, are

cheering federal Liberal candidate campaigns in this Province? Why would we want

the support of a party that on the one hand asks questions, but when the true

test comes, the real test, Mr. Speaker, of where they stand with their feet, it

is going to be knocking on doors for a party that won't support

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians? That is why we don't want your type of help,

I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would only suggest that the Government House Leader has much

more credibility when he acts like himself instead of trying to act like the

Premier. That doesn't quite work.

Mr. Speaker, custodial management and fisheries issues, with the relationship

between the current government, the current Premier, and the Government of

Canada, which has been talked about as being such a wonderful relationship, what

plans are there - because we have gotten no answers with respect to the other

issues - what plans are there by this government and this Premier to make that

issue an election issue, or is he going to have another federal minister come

here and say, custodial management is not an election issue, and the Premier

going to answer, but I have a wonderful relationship and that is good enough for

me?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, you know, I have to say, the way the Leader of

the Opposition is getting on today, you wouldn't know but before the federal

ministers are coming here that the Premier of the Province is writing their

script for them. I mean, give us a break.

The fact of the matter is this, in the next -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) do about it?

MR. E. BYRNE: What we are going to do about it. We are going to get rid

of Paul Martin and the federal Liberals during this election. That is exactly

what we are going to do about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: And, Mr. Speaker, if they had any ounce or shred of

credibility, they would be out today either working for a Conservative candidate

or an NDP candidate, to ensure that not one Liberal is send back to the House of

Commons on June 28. That is what they would be doing.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, one has to ask the question: Why is it that members

opposite, such as the Member for Bellevue, who was out cheering the campaign of

the current MP, Liberal campaign, how is it that you can sit in the House one

day demanding that we do something while you go out, in the real test, and

continue to support that type of politician and that type of politics? That is

what the people of the Province want to know from you, you, you, you, the whole

lot of you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say, the imitation of the Premier by the Government House Leader is

getting a little bit better. It is getting a little bit better. It is getting

closer to what we would actually expect.

Mr. Speaker, the question is this - and I am glad he answered as he did,

because we know that the Prime Minister of Canada is going to be in Newfoundland

and Labrador tomorrow. My question is - I expect that our Premier is going to

seek an opportunity to meet with him, because they have such a great

relationship - is he going to ask for commitments in the offshore or, Mr.

Speaker, is he going to say to the Prime Minister of Canada tomorrow, like the

Government House Leader just said, that our intention is not to work with you

but to get rid of you. Is that going to be the question and the answer tomorrow

in their meeting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House eleven years. For six

of those, I was the Leader of the Opposition's critic when he sat here. I

always know when you get to him, because he starts to get personal. Always, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Just for history's sake, a little trip down memory lane,

in the past he has called me the puppet leader, he has called me a viper, he has

called me a babysitter, and now he is calling me an imitator.

I can tell you this, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, there is one act

that we will not be imitating, and that is the act that they are perpetuating on

the people of the Province by supporting candidates - Liberal candidates - in

this election who will not stand up for this Province.

The one thing that we will not be doing, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition, and to all people of the Province, like those members are doing, is

supporting policies and programs that keep people in Newfoundland and Labrador

in a dependent state. We are after more independence for the people of the

Province. That is what we are after. Why aren't you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So much for answers. Perhaps we will ask a question of someone else over

there and we might get an answer instead of simply rhetoric. My question is for

the Minister of Justice and Attorney General responsible for the Public

Utilities Board.

Last month this government, Minister, beat unions over the head and would not

use the law concerning binding arbitration because you wanted to make decisions

yourself. Yet, with the insurance law, we see your government refusing to deal

with this issue. You are abrogating your responsibility and you are passing it

off and foisting it off onto the Public Utilities Board - a board which was

supposed to be an independent, quasi-judicial body that only regulates. It is

the responsibility of government to make policy, and the responsibility of the

board to regulate.

Why, Minister, is your government misusing, abusing and compromising the

independence of the Public Utilities Board in asking them to make policy

decisions regarding the auto insurance industry in this Province, rather than

doing it yourselves and just trying to avoid an issue that you do not have an

answer for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I have been out of the House for the

past two weeks, I am not sure exactly what the hon. member is referring to but I

will certainly take his question under advisement. I want to ensure him that I

am sure that the Public Utilities Board will provide a major, independent,

quasi-judicial role in dealing with the regulation of insurance in this

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, I appreciate that you were absent, but certainly you stayed tuned

enough, I suppose, to understand that the responsibility of the board is to

regulate. You are the minister; you know that.

Another example is where this government got rid of the Petroleum Pricing

Commissioner, are now going to have to change some law so that again they can

foist it off unto the Public Utilities Board.

To you, as the minister, what do you think of this government who will not

stand up and deal with the issues because they might be a bit hot and

controversial, and they are foisting them off to a board which you are

responsible for, which is supposed to be independent? You are supposed to make

the decisions and handle the problems, not pass them off to somebody. What is

your opinion on that, as a minister? Where do you stand on it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board has played a

major role in regulating utility rates in this Province. It is a perfect place

in which to look at regulating the automobile insurance, not only for automobile

insurance but also for all types of insurance. We look forward to their analysis

and we look forward to the role that they will play in helping regulate and

control insurance rates in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is quite clear that the minister does not understand the difference

between regulation and policy-making. Maybe if you get that difference straight,

you could give the board some proper directions.

Minister, in line with your government's commitment to be open, transparent

and accountable, would you, as the minister responsible, today, now, here,

undertake to table in this House all letters, e-mails, directions, instructions,

and any and all other correspondence of any kind in your department or from your

government to the Public Utilities Board regarding the directions and the

conduct of these public hearings into the auto industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board is there to

protect the consumers in this Province and we will ensure that they have all the

information they need to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Government Services and concerns the

automobile insurance reform package.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is happy with what the government has proposed; not the

industry, not the consumers, not the general public. Given the fact that the

minister plans to have a major reference this fall to the Public Utilities

Board, is she prepared to table in this House today, the Terms of Reference of

the work that the Public Utilities Board is going to be expected to do, so we

will know what exactly it is they are going to inquire into and whether or not

they will give a real hearing and a real opportunity for a full study on public

automobile insurance?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we have before the House now

will give the authority of the PUB to have those hearings, and, in due course,

the details will be released.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It appears that the minister has not thought about the Terms of Reference,

but will they be asked to do what the New Brunswick all-party committee did in

terms of looking at the start-up cost, looking at the operating cost, the trade

implications, the types of coverage that might be available, the type of public

automobile insurance system that they might recommend, all of the things that

might need to be considered so that the people of this Province will have a full

understanding of their full option of public automobile insurance? Is that going

to happen, or has the minister even thought about that yet?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, in the hearings that are going to take place, all

options of insurance are going to be looked at. The auto, the commercial, the

marine and the residential are going to be looked at, and the public system as

well. All information will be available for presentation, and the hon. member

can do a presentation at that hearing with his public system. I am certainly

going to compile all the data that is available. Particularly, this government

has a mandate to mandate insurance.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if the minister thinks that she can do the kind

of work that this committee did in New Brunswick by one submission to the board,

she is out of touch with reality.

Mr. Speaker, at the rate that insurance companies are leaving this Province,

shouldn't the minister have something done soon to have a public automobile

system ready to go when the insurance companies abandon this Province because of

her and her government's policies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, this government does not want to lose any

business from this Province, but the companies have a right to make a business

decision. We have written these regulations and these reforms for the consumers

of this Province. That is who we are concerned about.

Thank you.

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.

My questions are for Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period, I ask the minister why he was

bringing in legislation which would force an auction system for shrimp upon

fishermen and processors in the Province. The minister responded by saying that

it was not forced; it was an option. I ask the minister: If this auction system

is optional, why do we have legislation in the House to bring in an auction

system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation that is presently before the House, and

hopefully will get passed before we conclude, whenever we conclude, is enabling

legislation. It gives the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment,

and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture the authority to institute an

auction for the fishing industry in the Province. Without that authority we

could not do it under the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

There are many aspects of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

There are many aspects related to union dues, grievance procedures and all those

types of things that must be covered off, both in an auction and under the

normal course of collective bargaining, if we are to go forward. Without the

amendments that we have put forward and the enabling legislation, there will be

no recourse, for example, for fish harvesters to grieve against processors if

they did not get what they were offered under the auction, and there will be no

recourse, for example, for their organization to collect union dues and so on.

So, that is the reason that the legislation is before us today.

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.

Mr. Speaker, in debating the bill later in the day, the minister said what he

was legislating was a voluntary pilot project for the auctioning of shrimp.

Nowhere in this legislation - and I challenge the minister - will you find the

word, voluntary. Nowhere will you find the words, pilot project, or nowhere will

you find the word, shrimp. In fact, this legislation gives the minister the

authority to establish a mandatory auction system for all species of fish,

including crab. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he confirm this to be

true?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, in the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining

Act, under its current rendition, there is no reference to shrimp, crab,

herring, or anything like that. It is referred to as fish. There is no

requirement in the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act for a negotiation

on mackerel, on herring, on cod, on crab, on shrimp or on any other species.

However, the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act enables the minister,

the industry and all its various components, to engage in that process.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, for an auction. What this auction does, what this

legislation will do when it is passed, is enable an auction to be set up in any

of those species. Yes, Mr. Speaker, but what I said in the House yesterday and

what I have said consistently is that we are endeavouring - what we are trying

to do is institute an auction in the shrimp fishery. At the present time - over

the past couple of weeks we have engaged in a discussion on an optional auction

for shrimp. That, Mr. Speaker, is what is going on right now. That is what we

are attempting to do -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude by saying this to the member. Why is he so adamantly opposed

to an auction? One day he is saying we cannot have plant production quotas

because there is no competition, and the next day he is saying we cannot have an

auction because there will be.

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.

The minister talks about an optional auction system, yet he refuses to put

the word in the legislation. I asked him to do it yesterday. He refuses to put

it in there. What he is suggesting is a mandatory auction system for all

species.

I ask the minister a final question: Why is he here today, or why was he here

yesterday, bringing in a bill, talking about an auction system for shrimp, when

fishermen are out there fishing shrimp today and landing it to processors who

are processing shrimp today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I will tell you why I am here today bringing in legislation

to enable an auction to take place in the shrimp fishery, Mr. Speaker, because

obviously the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for this Province

must have slept through the past seven years.

Yes, today, Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry is prosecuting shrimp, yes they

are fishing under a collective agreement, yes they are fishing under a

negotiated price settlement, a price that was settled through negotiations. What

happens on June 24, Mr. Speaker? Is it going to be the same as it was last year,

with a substantial portion of the fleet tied up for six weeks? Is it going to be

the same as it was the year before when it was closed down by processors for

part of it?

What the auction will enable people to do, Mr. Speaker, is enable individuals

to make individual decisions. It will reward people for quality, and it will

reward people for landing in close proximity to plants. That is what we are

attempting to do in the auction. In case he missed it, Mr. Speaker, while he was

the Fisheries Minister, the shrimp fishery -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: - in Newfoundland and Labrador shut down on two or three

occasions. What we are attempting to do is put a new regime in place that

hopefully, Mr. Speaker, will prohibit that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, on a final

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member can get into his personal attacks all he wants. That is only

a way to deflect away from himself, because he won't answer the question.

Simply put: Why are you forcing an auction system on fishermen and processors

when neither want it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, you are not supposed to answer a question with a

question, but nevertheless: Would he prefer that I impose plant production

quotas, because the fishermen don't want that? Would he prefer that I impose

Final Offer Selection binding arbitration which they refused to accept this

spring? What is it that you are going to do in the fishery in Newfoundland and

Labrador that people won't be opposed to?

We are trying, Mr. Speaker, to take a leadership position here, to change the

process that is in place in our fishery, that has utterly failed under the

previous administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Government Services.

Minister, your government's treatment of our seniors is simply deplorable.

First, you try to claw back the pensions of public service pensioners, then you

increase government user fees, particularly those for ambulances, driving tests

and vehicle registrations, and now you have failed the seniors again in

addressing the insurance reforms. Seniors pay substantially more for insurance

coverage even though they may have driven their entire lives without an

accident.

Minister, can you tell this House, and the seniors of our Province, why this

administration has eliminated the age discrimination piece from Bill 30?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the age discount - the age has been eliminated

from this bill right now. It will be in the full public hearing, but I would

like to say that the seniors would have lost a discount that they presently have

if we put that in. We are now going to go to a public hearing to see exactly

what the people want us to do with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: There is an average savings to everyone with a policy, auto

policy insurance here in this Province, an overall average of 15 per cent on

their policies when these reforms come in.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will advise the minister and inform her, when we get to debate on this

issue, why she is absolutely misleading again, when she talks about the seniors

losing under this discrimination clause. It is absolutely improper.

The Premier continues to tout the level of co-operation you have with other

provinces in this country on a variety of issues. All four PC governments, for

example, in Atlantic Canada, have put forth plans, including your own party, to

implement a $2,500 cap on insurance. Yet, your government now have changed your

position to go from a cap to a deductible. We also know, Minister, that as

recently as this week in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, where a cap was

used, that consumers are benefitting by as much as 30 per cent in the reductions

on their public liability piece.

Why are you and your government offering the consumers of Newfoundland and

Labrador a paltry 9 per cent on public liability when these other provinces next

door could get and are getting 30 per cent? Are aren't we getting 30 per cent

here in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the New Brunswick Province have

put in a cap and have been experiencing problems and they have had a committee

to look at it again. Their savings are anywhere between 12 per cent to 14 per

cent.

This government was committed to having savings and bringing auto reforms for

the consumers of this Province, and this is exactly what this legislation is

doing. The consumers of this Province will have 15 per cent savings.

The one thing I would like to say to the Opposition is that they had a file

for eight years and did not do anything with it. All they did was talk, no

action. We have seven months in office and the people of this Province are going

to see 15 per cent savings on their auto insurance, and they are going to see a

lot more, Mr. Speaker, when we get through with our public hearings.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people of this Province have seen in the last seven months what this

government has done. You have slammed them every way that you possibly could.

That is exactly what your Administration has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Minister, every province in Canada has devised a way to

reduce claims, to achieve a reasonable level of savings for consumers. Some

provinces have used public systems. Some provinces have chosen no-fault systems,

and some have chosen caps. Why is the Newfoundland and Labrador Government the

only Province in Canada, the only government, to reject the implementation of

insurance reforms that cap or limit claims?

These systems have been proven to work, contrary to your comments about the

New Brunswick experience, and put money back into the pockets of consumers. Why

are you forcing this legislation down the throats of everybody in this Province

- the consumers, industry, everybody - when nobody is in favour of it except for

you and your party? Why?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, let me say that the Opposition Leader said, where

did you get the deductible, last evening?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: Where we got the deductible, the select committee in 1998

recommended a $15,000 deductible. The Opposition Leader also said that the

select committee was put in place to investigate a no-fault system on insurance,

not because rates were increasing. This is not correct, Mr. Speaker. The select

committee on no-fault insurance was put in place to address the significantly

increased cost of automobile insurance, as stated in this book - a document

which the Opposition Leader should have read the first line, what it exactly

compiled.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: It was put in place for the rates, because they went up 172

per cent, and this government is going to do something about that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

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

I rise in the House today to table the following reports: The Department of

Forest Resources and Agrifoods for the fiscal year 2002-2003; the Newfoundland

and Labrador Livestock Owners Compensation Board For The Fiscal Year Ended 31

March, 2003; the Newfoundland and Labrador Crop Insurance Agency For The Fiscal

Year Ended 31 March, 2003; the former Department of Mines and Energy for the

fiscal year 2002-2003; Report of Mining Leases, Mineral Leases, And Surface

Leases Issued For The Period: April 1, 2003 - March 31, 2004.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural

Development.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I hereby submit the 2002-2003 annual performance report for the

Department of Industry, Trade and Rural Development. This report addresses the

department's activities and outcomes from April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I am also advising hon. members that this report includes

information on three external government corporations that reported to the

minister in 2002-2003 namely: Newfoundland Hardwoods Limited, Newfoundland

Oceans Enterprises Limited, and the EDGE Evaluation Board. The 2002-2003 Annual

Report of the Business Investment Corporation, a fourth external corporation,

was tabled in November, 2003.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my hon. colleague, Minister Burke,

Responsible for the Status of Women, and in accordance with the government's

commitment to accountability, I am pleased to hereby table the Annual Report for

the Women's Policy Office for the fiscal year 2002-2003. The report documents

the activity and the outcome of the Women's Policy Office from April 1, 2002

to March 31, 2003.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of

Transportation and Works, to table the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of reports?

The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to

table the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the Department of Justice, and also to

table the Annual Reports for the Legal Aid Commission, the Human Rights

Commission, and the Public Utilities Board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There has been some shouting across the floor between some hon. members. I

ask members, if they wish to carry on these discussions, that they should do it

outside the Chambers, not in here, and thus interfering with the presentations

of the House. The Chair had difficulty hearing the Minister of Justice and

Attorney General making his report a few moments ago.

Tabling of further reports? Notices of motion? Answers to questions for which

notice has been given? Petitions?

Petitions

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am standing again today, Mr. Speaker, to give a petition on behalf of the

people of Grand Falls-Windsor in their plight to secure the consolidation of the

two health care boards that are currently now in Grand Falls-Windsor and in

Gander.

No matter how many times I get on my feet and give this same petition, I

still get no answers from the government of the day. I have outlined the

business plan of this proposal on several occasions. I have asked for the

criteria from the Minister of Health and Community Services, what she will be

laying out to both boards so they may, in fairness, provide and put forward

their proposal to the Minister of Health and Community Services. I have gotten

no answers and I have been able to tell her day after day that the Central West

Health Care Board, which covers a distance between Baie Verte and Eastport -

they are only one hour driving distance from the Central West Health Care Board

from all of the constituents, clients or patients who might use that particular

service.

We all know that the consolidation is for administrative people only. It is

an administrative wing that will look after all of these facilities. They do not

need to travel by air. Ninety-nine percent of their work is road based. The good

part about it, I guess, is the fact that over 60 per cent of the current

patients who are served by the two boards live in the area of Grand

Falls-Windsor and are currently served by the Central West Health Care Board.

They have had a fabulous record of being able to recruit and retain professional

specialists in the Central West Health Care Board. Not only that, they have the

best record for fiscal matters in this Province of any other board. The mere

fact that the Central West Health Care Board are able to offer this

accommodation, of combining two boards at no renovation cost to the government

and no rental fee in the future, is an offer that they cannot refuse.

I do not understand why the Minister of Health and Community Services is not

able to tell us here in this House or advise either of the boards what the

criteria is, so that they will have an equal opportunity to put forward their

business plan. As representing the people of Grand Falls-Buchans, we have been

led down the garden path before on the consolidation of the school boards where

no criteria was used. Everyone can clearly see that we should have been chosen.

We had the most modern up-to-date facilities and we are in the middle of two

districts but yet, for all that, the Minister of Education went out and chose a

different board. He chose the board in Gander. So, these are the kinds of things

that we are up against -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have Leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

MR. E. BYRNE: We will give her leave, a few second to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: A few moments has been given.

MS THISTLE: Thank you for the generosity of the government to give me a

couple of seconds to clue up.

I do implore and ask that the government would be fair in their deliberations

and just offer the basics, and the basics is the criteria required so that the

two boards will have fairness in bringing forward their proposal, that is all I

ask.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of the people in Labrador.

Today the signatures come from the people of Labrador West and Wabush, in full

support of an auditorium to be built in the Upper Lake Melville area.

Mr. Speaker, again, as I said in the days past, the Upper Lake Melville area

needs an auditorium to service all of Labrador; every riding in Labrador. Most

importantly of all, they need that so the children in Labrador can have access

to a way of life that most other children across this Province take for granted.

Mr. Speaker, there is no auditorium available in Goose Bay. Again, these

children who get together from the Coast of Labrador, the North Coast, the South

Coast, from Labrador West who travel into Lake Melville, they do not have the

opportunity to go to drama festivals and music festivals to show their talents

and what they have to their peers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is too much talking across the House, again. The Chair is having

difficulty hearing the hon. member. The hon. Member for Torngat Mountains has

the floor, let's listen to his petition and the prayer that it contains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is, indeed, a very important issue for the people of Labrador.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Education, to the Minister of

Transportation and Works, and the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs,

and to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Minister Responsible for

Labrador Affairs to listen to the Member for Lake Melville because I know that

he has brought this issue to caucus and to Cabinet ministers time and time

again.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the government opposite, that because of the

construction season in Labrador, if this auditorium is not started this year,

not only do we stand to lose some of the federal money that has been allotted

there, but the students all across Labrador will have to do without an

auditorium for at least another year-and-a-half to two years.

Mr. Speaker, I say to every Cabinet minister across the way, what the

children from Labrador, in particular, are asking for is what students in other

parts of this Province take for granted. I urge government, the Minister of

Education, to go back and revisit this serious situation and give to the people

in Labrador what they rightfully deserve.

Mr. Speaker, with that I will sit down for today but I will be back again

Monday with another petition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the Public Service Pensioners

in the Province. Mr. Speaker, these pensioners have been hard done by. They are

senior citizens and they have asked us to present a petition on their behalf.

They feel that this government has, in fact, led them down the garden path. They

have suggested they were going to do things, when in fact members of the

government side were telling them quietly: no, the government will not do that.

We are just doing this but you can rest assured that you will not be treated in

that manner.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Public Service Pensioners are

questioning why a government would do that, why they would use them as pawns in

the negotiations in the last strike. They are not happy with that because they

really believe that they have made a significant contribution to this Province.

I think we all recognize that seniors have in fact done so much to lead our

Province to where we are today. They need to be recognized for that and treated

with respect and the dignity that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at our Public Service Pensioners and how long they

have gone without an increase in their pensions - in fact, the first increase

they got since 1989 was in 2002. We all know what has happened in terms of the

cost of living in that time frame. I think we all recognize as well that anyone

who is put in the position, whether on a fixed income, must find it very

difficult when you find other costs are escalating.

I know the seniors in my own district, the District of Grand Bank, need every

penny that they can get their hands on. I know every year I have been hosting

what we call a seniors' forum where they come together. It is an opportunity

for them to not only network and have a bit of fun together and get to know

other seniors from other parts of other districts, but it is also a chance for

them to explore ways of finding better things to do for themselves and, as well,

to express concerns that they have. Of course, every time we have this forum we

invite people in to address issues impacting on seniors, whether it is health

care, whether it is safety issues and so on. I can tell you that in talking one

on one with those seniors, I know that for many of them it is a difficult,

difficult time. Difficult to make ends meet in a lot of cases when you see the

cost of utilities rising; when you see the cost of living overall going up. Of

course, when you look at the fees now that this government has imposed, it is

having an impact on the most vulnerable of our society and, of course, our

seniors are listed among that group.

When you look at the increase in fees, for instance, to take an ambulance,

and when you realize the cost of drugs and you realize that a lot of our seniors

have health care problems and they need those drugs; they need access to a

hospital. So in a lot of cases where they do not drive themselves, if they need

to get to a hospital and it is a critical situation for them, they will have to

call an ambulance to do that. Of course, the cost of an ambulance has gone up.

Also the cost of a medical escort. If a doctor determines you are so sick that

you need a medical escort to go with you in the ambulance, that has also gone

up.

For those of our seniors who are still driving, of course, then it is an

added cost that we are seeing today with just getting your driver's licence

and registering your vehicle. Overall, the cost of living for seniors -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

MS FOOTE: Just some time to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS FOOTE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, again, I present this petition on behalf of our Public Service

Pensioners and ask the government to recognize how important it is to come to

their aid and do whatever we can to try and alleviate the burdens that they face

as they try to live day to day in our Province.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to present a petition. Before I do so, I want to take the opportunity

to wish one of my colleagues in the House of Assembly a Happy Birthday. The

Member for Cape St. Francis, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs,

the one who passes out all the money for municipal infrastructure in the

Province, I want to make sure that the hon. gentleman has a Happy Birthday

indeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am sure the member knows that her comments to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs are really contrary to

Section 92 of the Standing Orders. I

cannot see that it is pertinent to the petition she is presenting, whatsoever,

but I am sure we all agree with her compliments to the minister.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do apologize if that was somewhat out of the realm of what was allowable at

this time under petitions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to present a very important petition on

behalf of the people in my district. It is with regard to the Williams Harbour

highway.

Mr. Speaker, I have presented petitions on a number of occasions in the House

of Assembly with regard to the community of Williams Harbour. I say to the hon.

Member for Lake Melville that I would appreciate his support in his lobby

efforts inside the government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - to move forward this particular initiative. Maybe, if he

wants to listen now, I can tell him why this is so important to the people of my

district and to the people of Williams Harbour.

Mr. Speaker, this is a small, isolated community in Labrador. They are about

eighteen kilometres from the Trans-Labrador Highway, a new piece of highway that

was built under the Liberal government and just completed within the last year.

Mr. Speaker, this community was under the understanding that they would, indeed,

get a highway connection as well. The environmental assessment work has been

completed., the routing of the highway has been completed, and there is

absolutely no reason why this road cannot proceed. There is enough money in the

Labrador Transportation Initiative Fund to allow for the construction of this

highway and to ensure that the people in the community of Williams Harbour will

have a complete road access within the next twenty-four months.

Mr. Speaker, the people are very upset. They are very disappointed.

Unfortunately, they do not have the privilege to come here and to protest on the

steps of Confederation Building, like many other people in the Province have had

to do over the recent months and years; but, Mr. Speaker, I am here to present

their case and to speak on their behalf. They are not happy with the fact that

government has chosen to spend money out of the Trans-Labrador Highway fund to

put a marine service vessel in Lewisporte that the people did not want and did

not see as a necessary expenditure. They do not agree with the fact that money

out of this fund will be used to run the terminal facility at Lewisporte, and

the onshore operations, and that their concerns are being left unaddressed.

Mr. Speaker, I have said to the minister once before -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to conclude my comments?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader has granted leave.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the Government House Leader knows the importance and the magnitude of

this issue, and I hope that he will encourage his Cabinet colleagues, the

Minister of Labrador Affairs and the Minister of Transportation, to fund this

important initiative, because it is important to the people of Williams Harbour.

It is important, indeed, to the people of my district.

It will not cost the general revenues of the government one particular cent,

because the money can be used to build this road out of the Labrador

Transportation Fund. I say to the hon. people, come to this community and talk

to the people there. You, too, will understand how important this is, and the

reasons that it needs to be constructed. It can be done in very short order with

just a commitment from the members on the opposite side.

Orders of the Day

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

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

First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are going to do Motion 1, first reading of a

bill,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill

33)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 33)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Human

Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And

Compensation Act, " carried. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And

Compensation Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the

said bill be read a second time? Now? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 2, first reading of a bill,

An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products

Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of

Government Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act To

Amend The Petroleum Products Act. (Bill 32)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Government Services

shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Government Services to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act, " carried. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a

first time.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Carried.

CLERK: A bill,

An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act. (Bill 32)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the

said bill be read a second time? Now? On tomorrow?

AN HON. MEMBER: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 32 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Order 4. I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole

to debate clause-by-clause

An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective

Bargaining Act. (Bill 26)

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair

for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on the said bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House

to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the said bills?

All those in favour, aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.

Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining

Act." (Bill 26)

CHAIR: Clauses 1 to 8.

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

MS JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I just rise to have a few words further to the debate that occurred yesterday

on Bill 26. Mr. Chairman, I guess this bill fell certainly far short of what I

was expecting when the amendments for the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining

Act were being brought forward. I want an opportunity to explain a couple of

these things because, in the commitments that were made by the minister on

several occasions - I think the first occasion was in January, when he made the

statement that he would bring in an auction system, and then later reneged on

that in hopes of having some kind of collective agreement or collective

decision-making process implemented between the processors and the fisherpeople

in the Province. In the absence of that, the minister once again came out with

an ultimatum that he would implement a shrimp auction.

Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding, as was the understanding of most

people in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, that any particular

initiative that the minister would impose within the industry would be directly

related to shrimp - an auction system that would be directly related to shrimp

and shrimp only - and that the system would be a pilot project to determine if

an auctioning system could work in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, we have all heard and been around, actually, auctioning systems

that have been occurring in other parts of the world. It has been used in a lot

of the European countries in terms of how fish gets sold or bought within those

particular countries, but it is certainly a new concept, for all intents and

purposes, to be introduced in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was my understanding

that this would be done as a pilot project on shrimp to see if it could work and

if it was a mechanism by which we could look at the sale of fish within the

Province.

Mr. Chairman, the act, Bill 26, which is before the House at this time, does

not indicate that. What Bill 26 does indicate is that this will be an auction

system for fish, which means that it can apply to any fish species, whether it

be crab, whether it be caplin, whether it be cod, whether it be lobster, turbot,

urchin, whatever the case may be. It can apply to any particular species.

According to this act, it can be implemented whenever the minister requires it

to be done. It would be at the minister's call, at the minister's whim of

whatever is going on within the industry in the Province. If he saw this as a

mechanism that he could implement, he could go ahead and do it and it would not

require consensus of the industry, just like this bill today is not requiring

consensus of the industry. It would not require consultation with fisherpeople,

or with processors or unions within the Province. Basically, it would require

nothing more than a decision of the minister himself, or herself, to proceed. I

have some problems with that. One of the problems I have is, first of all, the

impression and the intent that was left within the fishing industry in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

The impression that was left was quite clear, that this would be a pilot

project, that it would be done on shrimp alone and that it would be optional. We

do not see anything in the legislation that allows this to be an optional

mechanism for the sale of fish. Mr. Chairman, that is a huge problem, and I am

going to give you some examples because I have talked to a number of processors

in the last couple of days. I have talked to a number of fisherpeople, actually

as recently as this morning, with regard to this particular bill. This is what I

am being told. Mr. Chairman, as we speak today the shrimp fishery is conducting

itself under the existing collective agreement. There have been final prices

negotiated for shrimp to be landed to certain areas or certain plants within the

Province. Those agreements have been worked out between processors and

fisherpeople.

Mr. Chairman, the situation is this, that process is in place. It is working

right now, today. If we were to implement this bill and bring in a shrimp

auction immediately, how will that impact upon the current arrangements that are

already existing?

Now, I am sure the minister is prepared to get up and provide an explanation

to me on that particular question, but it needs to be explained because those

are the questions that I have been asked as recently as this morning. And that

is: Right now, I have a current negotiated price with a plant to sell my shrimp

at this amount landed in this location. How will this auction system impact upon

that? Do I have an option to continue with the agreement that I have with the

processor or do I not? According to this bill you would not, because nowhere in

this bill does it allow you to have the option.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: No, it does not. Well, the minister can have his opportunity to

explain, but nowhere in this bill does it allow you to have the option.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, if you have to go to an auction system on shrimp

- say we are dealing with just shrimp and you have to go to an auction system,

will there be protection for people who want to sell to certain processors? I am

not convinced, Mr. Chairman, that is the case. Reading the legislation, studying

it, reviewing it clause by clause, I have not seen a mechanism that would allow

that to transpire. That concerns me, for a couple of reasons. One, because I

have processors in my district which are actually companies that are owned by

fishermen and, of course, they want to sell their product to their own company.

They are the people who founded the company, built it up over the years, and

they want to be able to sell to that company. There is no guarantee, as I see it

in this bill, that will give them the option to sell to that company and not

have to participate in an auctioning system process. So that has to be

clarified.

The other thing that has to be clarified is the fact that it applies to the

sale of fish. We cannot have a piece of legislation going through the House of

Assembly that allows for an auction system to be implemented in all fish species

at any time. I will tell you why. Because the people in the industry have to

have the opportunity to have their views known as well. Mr. Chairman, that will

not happen. If this bill is to pass that will not happen because an auction

system could be implemented starting in May of next year for crab. It could be

done arbitrarilly by the minister simply because this legislation would allow

him to do that with no consultation with the industry, and that would be wrong.

We all know how volatile the fishing industry is right now. We know how

volatile the crab fishery is, in particular. We know that there would be, if

there was an auction system, probably the opportunity for a lot of small

processors to lose out because they would not be able to bid the prices up, to

compete for the product like larger plants can do and, therefore they would be

left out and probably would see their entire business compromised because of it.

So by doing that, by passing this legislation which will allow for this system

to be implemented in all fish species, it will compromise a lot of the small

processors that are out there. If you were to have crab, for example, they would

not be able to compete with the larger companies. They would not have deep

enough pockets to bid the prices up, to get the product, and therefore their

entire business would be compromised.

The other problem I have with that system is that you have fishermen, some

with 5,000 pounds of crab, some with 500,000 pounds, and that is a big

difference, Mr. Chairman. When you are talking about offering your product up

under an auction system - and I am talking about crab now, because this bill

allows the minister to do this for crab as well as for shrimp. If you were to do

that you would have very small enterprises which would become very vulnerable in

that process because they would not be guaranteed to get the kind of prices that

they would want for their product as a larger boat, or a boat with more crab and

so on and so forth, and that would not be appropriate.

I think that before we pass a bill in this House which gives the minister the

authority to implement an auction system on any fish species, we need to make

sure there is consultation with the industry and that it is something that is

wanted. Mr. Chairman, I can guarantee you today that the conversations I have

had with fishermen, as late as this morning, and with processors in this

Province, that this is not the preferred piece of legislation that they want to

see. They were under the assumption that the minister would look at a pilot

project for a shrimp auction which would be optional. I think that all of us

might have been able to give that an opportunity to test the waters out there in

the Province to see if it would actually work, but what the minister is coming

in and asking for now is an open book policy. It is a policy that allows him to

implement an auction sytsem on any fish species, at any time, and that is where

the problem is, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair that her time has

expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will sit down now and come back to this in a little while.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the

Minister Responsible Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I want to endeavour to answer a couple of

questions. I thought I had answered them yesterday, but I will try again.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, this is, as I said in Question Period, as I said

yesterday and I have said on a number of occasions, this is enabling

legislation. It enables us to implement an auction. It can be a mandatory or an

optional auction.

Mr. Chairman, I am endeavouring to answer the questions. Does the legislation

speak to it being mandatory or optional? No, it does not. It does not say

optional, neither does it say mandatory. What we have in front of us is not a

piece of legislation that says that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

will implement a mandatory auction for all species, which is what some of the

members opposite are, in essence, suggesting that we are trying to do. What we

are trying to do is implement an auction system in shrimp.

There is also, as I told members yesterday, some interest by some processors

and some fishermen on the South Coast in having, in 3PS, an optional auction on

cod for the fall fishery. Mr. Chairman, whether that can be brought together or

not remains to be seen. That is where it is at.

What everybody, members of the public, fishermen, fish processors, and what

have you, have to remember is that currently, under the Fishing Industry

Collective Bargaining Act, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture has a great

deal of authority when it comes to conditions of license. The Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture, as they both well know on that side, can implement

today, I can today implement, plant production quotas in this fishery, just by

signing a conditional license and mailing it out to every fish processor in this

Province, telling them how much, as a conditional license, they are authorized

to process. Have I done it? No. Did they do it? No. You can only go down some

roads so far, and you have to have a certain amount of support and bring things

along. Mr. Chairman, you have to have the authority to be able to do these

things.

Mr. Chairman, I know earlier the year, when the crab fishery was tied up,

when the shrimp fishery was tied up, members opposite were crying out, members

in the industry were crying out: What is the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture going to do about it? What is he going to do about it? Mr. Chairman,

we are trying to do something about it. We are trying to give ourselves another

tool, give the industry another tool, to set prices and allow the fishery to

proceed. Mr. Chairman, that is all we can do. We cannot, Mr. Chairman - within

the confines, for example, of the current legislation, there is nothing more

that we can do other than appoint an arbitrator, appoint a conciliator, appoint

a mediator, to act as a go-between for the various parties in the industry. That

is all we can do. Either that, or impose plant production quotas, for example.

Mr. Chairman, we have said, and the industry is well aware of this, on all

other species, what we have said is that, we will not be - and I said this

earlier the year. I put it in a letter to the processors and the union, that we

will not be imposing, implementing, or whatever you want to say, plant

production quotas in any fishery this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: This year?

MR. TAYLOR: That is right, this year.

What we have said is, come the middle of September, and concluding by the end

of October, we will facilitate a discussion on plant production quotas, fish

auctions, whatever, any other idea that anybody has about how we might

restructure this industry, and bring that to fruition, hopefully, by the end of

the next season. That is what we are trying to do.

I will say this: The members opposite, in their discussions, in their

assertions about crab, first of all what they certainly must recognize is that

under the current system we have a minimum negotiated price. I know the Member

for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair raised the possibly of a person in an auction,

a person who has a 5,000 pound quota - which there are probably none in the

Province - but a person who theoretically had a 5,000 pound quota would not have

the same bargaining power in an auction as a person with 500,000 pounds. That is

absolutely false. As a matter of fact, the person - for the first time in

history, probably - who has 5,000 pounds has exactly the same bargaining power

as the person who has 500,000 pounds. The reason for that, is that the auction

deals on a load basis, on a trip basis.

If we had a scenario like we have in the Province today where, at the

beginning of the season, or prior to the season starting, the fish buyers and

their respective agents are traipsing all over the Province - the fish

processors and their agents are traipsing all over the Province - trying to

secure deals with fishermen over and above the negotiated price, then, if you

have 500,000 pounds verus 5,000 pounds, you have a great deal more of bargaining

power.

Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do here, and I think what everybody must

recognize, is that we have a collective bargaining process in this Province that

is broken. It has been broken for a long time. Final Offer Selection has not

worked for a number of years now. It worked for the first couple of years, and

there have been significant problems with it ever since. We are trying to put

another regime in place that will allow a fishery to continue without the

interruptions that we have seen in the past. Can I guarantee that will be

successful? No, I cannot; but, Mr. Chairman, to do nothing would be

irresponsible on the part of us and irresponsible on the part of the people on

the other side.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I appreciate their raising their concerns. I say to the

Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, I sat and listened, and I would

appreciate if she would do the same; because, if she sat and listened, maybe

they would hear the answers and maybe some of the questions they ask, they would

not have to ask again.

Mr. Chairman, this is enabling legislation. It enables you to do things. What

we have said, and what the industry is clear on, is what our stated intentions

are.

That, Mr. Chairman, is where this thing lies. As for the question about -

again, I will say it, because obviously, I do not know if they do not hear it or

what, but clause 35.2 says, "The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture may

establish an auction system for the sale of fish." - may. It does not say

shall. It does not say will. It says, may. We, in the context of may establish,

have said that we will establish an auction for shrimp. Under the current

discussions that we have been having with the industry, it will be an optional

auction.

The question that the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair asked - I hope

she is paying attention so she will not ask me again - under an auction, whether

it is an optional auction or a mandatory auction, it is still very much possible

MS JONES: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I absolutely resent the comments by the minister. I was being addressed, Mr.

Chairman, by the Speaker of the House of Assembly and I was, in no way, not

listening to his comments or avoiding him in any way. In fact, I find this bill

very serious. I am listening very intently, and I can guarantee the minister

that I will study this bill and respond to it clause-by-clause as we go through

this entire process, so he need not worry about my attention on Bill 26.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible

for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I, certainly did not suggest that the member

was not paying attention. I said, I hope that she is paying attention so that

she will not have to ask me the same question again, because a couple of the

questions that she went over just now were asked yesterday by her and her

colleague and I answered them then. I will endeavour to answer them again now,

but I am not going to answer them many more times.

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, the answer is the answer. I do not mind

answering questions, I say to the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, as

long as the answer is received. If you do not like the answer, well, that is

good enough.

The answer, Mr. Chairman, when she asked whether a fisherperson who has a

relationship, say, with the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company, if they

would be able to maintain that relationship under what is being proposed in the

shrimp? The answer is absolutely, yes, because if we have an optional auction

and there is a collective agreement, if we have a minimum negotiated price,

fishermen can fish under that or they can fish under the auction. They make the

choice. If they decide to fish under the negotiated price, they can go in and

sell to the plant of their choice, the same as before, the same as what we have

right not.

If we pass this thing today, for example, will this change what is happening

right now in the industry? No. The present price

schedule is in effect until

June 23, and will remain in effect, to my knowledge, until June 23. It will

remain in effect until we reach an agreement with the industry on the

implementation of an auction, or some other event prevents us from carrying on.

That is the status. Although, I will say this: If we did have a mandatory

auction, there is absolutely no reason why individuals, say, on the Labrador

Coast, who wanted to sell to the shrimp company's facility in Charlottetown,

would not be able to do so.

Mr. Chairman, that plant is very much strategically located. Fishermen on the

Labrador Coast, I would expect, would hail in only to the Charlottetown port

when they hail in from at sea, saying what is their preferred port to land. If

they said Charlottetown, well, I would think that there is nobody else in this

Province who will be able to compete with the plant in Charlottetown for that

product; because, first of all, there would be no transportation - and I will

conclude with this - costs associated with moving the fish from the boat to the

plant in Charlottetown but there would be a substantial cost associated with

moving the fish from the wharf in Charlottetown to some other production

facility in the Province. For that reason, I think that fishermen would still be

able to maintain their relationship with the companies of their choice.

I will conclude right there and endeavour to answer other questions as they

arise.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to speak to Bill 26 as well, because, as I said yesterday, even though

it falls under the Department of Labour, it is probably the most important piece

of fisheries legislation that I have seen here in the last nine years. It

concerns an auction system. It started out to be a auction system for shrimp

and, in questioning the minister yesterday in the House, he told me it was a

voluntary or a pilot project, an optional pilot project on shrimp; but, if you

have read the legislation carefully, as I have done and my colleague for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair and the members on this side of the floor, we

realize that the words: optional, voluntary, pilot project, are not used. That

gives me concern. The fact that the minister never mentioned the word optional

until I questioned him yesterday leads me to believe- it worries me. To say it

bluntly, Mr. Chairman, it worries me that there might be another motive here

that we do not see, because if we had the straight answers up front, maybe we

would not be here today.

I have some concerns about an auction system for shrimp and the other species

of fish because, if we pass this piece of legislation today, the Minister of

Fisheries for the Province can mandatorily - he can legislate or he can enact an

auction system for any species of fish starting five minutes after we put this

bill through the House today. That concerns me. It concerns me because I have

talked to numerous processors, I have talked to numerous fishermen, and nobody

seems to want it. Nobody seems to want an auction system.

I know the minister said, just then, that some processors and the harvesters

on the South Coast of the Province want an auction system for cod. If that is

the case, Mr. Chairman, I would have no problem with the minister writing into a

piece of legislation that there would be an auction system for cod on the South

Coast. Like I said yesterday to him, we would agree to something like that, but

it is obvious that he does not just want an auction system for cod. Yesterday,

when I said it was an auction system for shrimp, well, I found out since then

that it is an auction system for everything.

He talked yesterday about, he had visited European countries. I think he went

a few years ago when he was working with the FFAW -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Okay, Mr. Chairman. I think you said it worked elsewhere in the

world. An auction system worked elsewhere in the world. I do not know why he is

so touchy. This is what leads me to be somewhat leery of the bill. He went

somewhere out of Canada, to visit countries where auction systems were in place.

Probably it was Iceland. Maybe he does not consider Iceland to be part of

Europe, and maybe it is not, but he said he went to other places and saw an

auction system in place and it worked quite well. Maybe it did work quite well,

but I will tell you one of the reasons why it would not work quite well in

Newfoundland, like it would in other places around the world, is because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Maybe in Iceland the system is open, but the problem here in

Newfoundland and Labrador is the system is not open. The Member for Kilbride

might want to learn something here. The reason that it is not open in

Newfoundland and Labrador is became the minister, who sits right across from me

here, has the ability to issue processing licences, just like all preceding

ministers had. They had the ability to issue processing licences, but we do not

issue processing licences to everybody. There are only a select few individuals

in companies in this Province who own processing licences. I think that an

auction system would work best if anybody could buy the product that the

fishermen is going to sell, but when you have a very limited number of people

involved in a particular fishery, the processing of a particular fishery, there

could problems. I will give you an example.

Two years ago - I think it was two years ago - the Minister of Fisheries,

when he was the Fisheries critic, and you, Mr. Chair, the Member for Bonavista

South, and the Premier sat in front of cameras and you indicated, you

insinuated, that there was a cartel in the fishing industry in this Province and

that these processors were colluding to fix their price for crab. As a result of

that - and I think you got the information that you needed to take it to the

Competition Bureau. I think you might have gotten that from the Member for

Bonavista North, at least that is the word in the industry out there. Anyway,

you had information in your possession that led you to believe there was a

cartel in the fishing industry and, as a result, you were going to the

Competition Bureau of Canada to have these processors investigated. That was a

very serious allegation. The Competition Bureau, as far as I know - and maybe

the minister might not like me after because he was the one who called them in

here. I do not know if they reported back.

If you have a group of processors out there like the minister, like the

Premier of the Province and some of his caucus feel there is, who are trying to

limit competition - well, if you have an auction system, let me tell you what is

going to happen. If indeed this is true, what the Premier believes, that there

is a cartel in the fishing industry, well, obviously, when a fisherman leaves

the wharf, goes out and catches his load of shrimp, if these people are

colluding to do a number on the fisherman, well these harvesters, these

processors will also collude to drive the price of shrimp down to that fisherman

when he comes in. If it is true what the Premier insinuates and says is true

about these processors, what they will do is they will sit in a room and say:

George is out there now, he has 30,000 pounds of shrimp on and he is heading to

the wharf. He is going to hail in and he is going to ask us how much we want for

his shrimp. Well, let's no one bid over twenty cents a pound for his shrimp.

Under this thing, he will have to sell it.

I asked the minister the other night in Estimates: Would a fisherman have to

sell to the highest bidder even if he did not want to sell it to him? The answer

was: Yes, you have to sell to the highest bidder. If there is a cartel in the

fishing industry, I would see - as the Premier insinuates - that you are going

to see the price of shrimp go down rather than up.

I have another problem with it. I represent a district with two shrimp

plants, one in Twillingate and one in Seldom. The one in Seldom is owned by a

co-operative. It is called the Fogo Island Co-operative. It is owned and

operated by the plant workers and more importantly, for the debate here today,

the fisherman of Fogo Island. They own the facility. They own the shrimp plant.

They also own the crab plant out there. They also own the groundfish plant. Now,

under the minister's system, if he were to say tomorrow - if we pass this

piece of legislation and the minister says tomorrow: I am enacting a shrimp

auction. You have to obey by the rules. You cannot strike. You have to fish. The

processor has to buy it because it says right in the legislation that you have

to do it.

So, if an individual fisherman, like Glen Best from Fogo Island, sails

tomorrow to harvest shrimp and on his way in from the fishing grounds with a

load of shrimp onboard the auction system starts, if he is offered fifty cents a

pound by the Fogo Island Co-operative and the plant in Twillingate offers fifty

cents plus one one-thousandth of another cent, he has to sell his shrimp to the

fish plant in Twillingate even though the individual I am talking about is the

Chairman, the President of the Fogo Island Co-operative. He does not want to

sell his shrimp in Twillingate. He wants to sell it to the company that he is

the president of, that he is a member of, that his family also works for. His

relatives work at the plant. His neighbours in the community work at the plant,

and for reasons other than that one one-thousandth of a cent, he would rather

sell his shrimp to the Fogo Island Co-operative. Well, under this piece of

legislation the gentleman would not be allowed to do it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is right. I will not be voting for

this bill as it is written here today. I tell the minister - I had a discussion

with him outside the House yesterday - I will work with him to try and amend

this bill so that it is acceptable to me, acceptable to the Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, it is acceptable to everybody and, more

importantly, that it is acceptable to the fishermen and the plant owners in my

district, and the plant owners and the fishermen in this Province.

Yesterday when I questioned him about being mandatory, he said: No, it is

not. Here is what he said it is: It is an optional pilot project for shrimp.

That sounds fine and dandy, a pilot project. An optional pilot project for

shrimp, but what if you really read the bill, as I have done? It is not very

long, Mr. Chairman, the amendment to the bill. It is actually one, two, three

pages. I challenge the minister to read it, I challenge the Member from Goose

Bay to read it, I challenge all the members opposite to read it, and tell me

anywhere in these three pages where you see the words optional pilot project for

shrimp. You don't see the word optional in these three pages, you don't see

the word voluntary in these three pages, and, more importantly, you don't see

the word shrimp. What you see is, this legislation will allow the minister to

bring in an auction system for fish. Under this very act the definition of fish

is all species except for cured fish. The original bill was probably written in

the day when there was just salt fish, that is all we were selling here, salt

cod.

What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that none of this is what the minister is

saying, which leads me to believe: Why is he trying to mislead me, mislead the

House, in saying that it is optional? I notice that the Health Minister and the

Member who happens to be from Topsail and the Member from Deer Lake are over

there grinning and laughing at me, and making fun at me, but I don't blame

them because I don't say there is a fisherman or a plant worker in their

districts, so this is of no interest to them. I suggest you go elsewhere and

have your little laugh.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

There is far too much shouting and bantering back and forth across the House.

MR. TAYLOR: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, on a point of order.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I don't mind the member opposite disagreeing

with what we are trying to do here, that is his democratic right, obviously, Mr.

Chairman, but when he suggests that I am trying to mislead him or trying to

mislead anybody in this House, I think it has been determined that that is

unparliamentary language, and I would ask the member to withdraw it, because I

am certainly not trying to mislead anybody. I have clearly been on the record

about this since January, about what I am trying to do. I am trying to work with

the industry and I will try to work with anybody to try to improve on this

industry. I am not trying to mislead anybody in this, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The Chair certainly didn't hear the remarks, because he was into

a conversation with the Clerk at the Table. If the minister feels strongly about

that, then the Chair can review the tapes and rule on it at a later date.

I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, that his time has expired.

MR. REID: Can I just speak to that point of order, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the minister is so testy, but I

don't think that I said deliberately misled. I know I said misled, but I don't

think that the word misled is unparliamentary. If I have offended you, I will

withdraw the remark anyway.

Thank you.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to make a few more comments. I appreciate the minister standing in the

House and providing the explanations, as he has. One of those was with regard to

the system being an optional system. I raise it, Mr. Chairman, only because the

minister, himself, has raised it and has said to people in the fishing industry

that this will be an optional system. My problem with this is that nowhere in

the bill does it indicate that. Of course, he says nowhere in the bill does it

indicate that it is mandatory, and he is indeed correct. It does not say in the

bill that it is mandatory either, but what it does, it leaves the impression and

it leaves one to interpret the legislation to believe that it is an optional

system. You have to be very clear because I have seen it done many times, and

yesterday was a good example.

Yesterday, when the act for the professional fish harvesters was amended in

the House of Assembly, it was done so because there were loopholes left in the

legislation that allowed for a court challenge, and therefore the regulations

had to be tightened up to fill those gaps to fulfill the original intent of

which the legislation was designed.

All we are saying is that, again, we are dealing with a situation where the

minister, his intentions, I believe to be good, and I believe his intentions to

be just as he conveyed them, but the legislation does not reflect what the

minister's arguments are. This is where we have the problem; because, if the

legislation is not going to guarantee that this is an optional system and that

it is going to be done in shrimp alone, we cannot support it. At the present

time, the industry is not prepared to accept legislation that will be a blanket

policy that allows an auction system to apply to all species, and this is where

we have a difference of opinion.

I say to the hon. minister that if the legislation reflected what his

intentions are, and reflected the arguments that he made publicly - and that is,

that this would be a pilot project, that it would be an optional system and that

it would be done on shrimp alone - then, Mr. Chairman, I tell the minister that

I would be one of the first people in the House to support the legislation

simply because I, too, believe that we have to look at other mechanisms and

other options. But I am not prepared to write a blanket policy for this minister

or any other minister to go out there and restructure the way that fish pricing

and collective bargaining is done in the Province, at the whim of anyone within

the future. I am not prepared to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you this: The other thing about this legislation,

and I think it is an important point and it needs to be noted, is that there

have been amendments made to

section 35.4 of the legislation, which is the

section that talks about lockouts. One of the things that I experienced last

year when I was sitting in the department, is that there was a disagreement out

there in the industry between processors in which they had a bidding war on

prices. One was competing with the other one to the point that the prices

escalated, bonuses were being negotiated with fishermen as side deals and so on.

As a result of it, the price being paid for product escalated to where it was no

longer profitable for the processor to continue. What happened, Mr. Chairman,

because of that dispute, the plants were locked up, the plant workers were left

without work, and government was left with almost no mechanism to deal with that

situation.

I say that because the only mechanism available was to withdraw processing

licences, at which time the processor could go out and issue a court challenge.

I do not know, Mr. Chairman, what the verdict would be, but having been in the

position, my guess was that probably within forty-eight or seventy-two hours

they could have had it reinstated again. Really, you were left almost powerless

to deal with this kind of a situation. What really needs to happen is, there

needs to be penalties brought in under this

section so that, when the act is

defied, there is a mechanism for the minister and for the government to deal

with it.

I was really disappointed when I saw that the minister did not do that,

because it certainly would have been my intention, and I certainly would have

seen that it was brought into legislation; because right now, today, in this

Province, if that very exact same situation were