PDF Version

March 18, 2015 HOUSE

OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 63

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Verge):

Order,

please!

Admit strangers.

Today I would like to welcome to the public gallery Ms Jenny Wright,

executive director of Marguerite's Place, St. John's Women's Centre.

Welcome to the gallery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

I believe she is

also joined by some staff.

Statements by

Members

MR. SPEAKER:

Today we have

members' statements from the Members for Conception Bay South; Fortune

Bay Cape La Hune; Bay of Islands; St. John's North; Mount Pearl South;

and Bonavista South.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. HILLIER:

Mr. Speaker,

today I rise to congratulate twenty-three young adults from Queen

Elizabeth Regional High school in my district who recently achieved the

Duke of Edinburgh silver medal award.

I also want to acknowledge their mentor and teacher Mr. Jim

Butler and guidance counsellor Ms Denise King for their dedication to

the students and to the Duke of Edinburgh program.

Queen Elizabeth has always placed a great emphasis on high achievement

for their students. This

initiative has been no different and it is why during this presentation,

these twenty-three students made up one-third of the awards given out

for the region. A tremendous

accomplishment!

Mr. Speaker, these students and mentors have committed a tremendous

amount of time toward achieving the silver medal.

From physical fitness, volunteer work, building survival skills

and adventure hiking these students have succeeded in the program of

self-improvement.

It is also important to note, that thirteen of the students have now

completed the requirements for the Duke of Edinburg gold medal.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating the students of Queen

Elizabeth Regional High school, Mr. Butler and Ms King on their

achievement.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Fortune Bay Cape La Hune.

MS PERRY:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to deliver accolades to Sandra Dominie,

Harbour Breton's Citizen of the Year for 2014.

Sandra is an energetic and committed volunteer who gives wholeheartedly

of her time and talent to help others in the community.

Along with a very busy

schedule as a public health nurse and a

mother of two, Sandra coaches the senior girls at King Academy, and is a

member of the town's Age Friendly Program and Emergency Planning

Committee. She is also a

Community Youth Network board member, and plays a very active role in

the South Coast International Women's Day Committee.

In 2012, Sandra, her partners and her students established Averee's

Garden, an organic garden project at St. Joseph's School.

This project teaches students how to be self-sustaining and grow

their own vegetables while being active and involved in the community.

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

congratulating Sandra Dominie for her dedication to her community and

for being an excellent role model to others.

We look forward to her continued commitment for years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE:

I rise in this

hon. House to recognize Scott Blanchard of Gillams.

Scott is known throughout the region for his musical talents and has

released a number of CDs.

Scott's most recent CD, called Son

of a Son , is extra special for him as he lost his dad, Bernard

Blanchard, in a terrible boating accident last summer.

Bern was known for his accordion playing and was featured on

every recording Scott made and played at many benefit concerts.

The music part of Scott's latest CD was completed a couple of weeks

before his father passed away, but other studio work needed to be

completed. As difficult as

it was, Scott returned to the studio in the late summer to finish the

project which included an instrumental jig that he and his dad wrote

together.

On January 31, a CD release party was held in Gillams, with other local

entertainers invited to take part.

The evening was a tremendous success, with all monies raised

being used to purchase a music system for the Gillams community hall in

Bern's memory.

I ask all members to join with me in extending congratulations to Scott

on his new release and wish him continued success in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY:

Mr. Speaker, I

stand in the House today to celebrate the life of my friend, Wayne

Rodgers. While many knew him

from his work as a realtor, many of us knew Wayne because of his

contributions to our community, especially Leary's Brook Junior High.

It is not difficult to find good things to say about Wayne, the

difficulty lies in condensing everything that should be said about this

man in one statement. There

are a good number of ways to describe his qualities: devoted dad,

opinionated, outspoken, passionate, community-minded, witty, and

sometimes 'comedically' humorous.

I met Wayne through the Leary's Brook Junior High breakfast program

where he was involved for eight years, feeding hundreds of students each

week. In addition to the

breakfast program, Wayne loyally contributed his time to landscaping and

beautifying the school grounds.

In a fitting tribute, I understand that Leary's Brook will be honouring

Wayne by naming the space where the school breakfast program is held

after him. There will also

be a garden planted in memory of his contribution to the school grounds.

I ask all hon. members to join me in honouring Wayne's life and his

volunteer contributions. He

was truly one of the good guys.

Thanks to Wayne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR. LANE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

It is my privilege to stand in this hon. House to offer congratulations

to a group of individuals who have made a significant contribution to

sport in my community. The

Mount Pearl Sports Hall of Fame was founded in 1995 by the Mount Pearl

Sport Alliance and, since that time, has inducted seventy-six tremendous

individuals.

Today I would like to acknowledge the achievements of three others who

have been inducted in the builder category this year.

Ed Evelly has been inducted for his tremendous contribution to

swimming; Walt Mavin for his many accomplishments in the sport of

soccer; and the late Jim Grant for his dedication and commitment to

minor hockey in Mount Pearl.

These individuals are a credit to their respective sports and to their

community.

I would ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating

Ed Evelly and Walt Mavin on this significant accomplishment, and wish

them all the best in their future sporting endeavours.

I would also ask that you join me in expressing Mount Pearl's

appreciation for the family of the late Jim Grant for his significant

contribution to our community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. LITTLE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Honourable colleagues, please join me in recognizing and paying tribute

to Marvin Ryder, who was a strong community leader and a highly

respected volunteer.

Marvin served as coach, manager, co-ordinator, and President of the

Bonavista-Trinity Minor Hockey Association.

He also held positions of Vice-Chair and President of Hockey

Newfoundland and Labrador from 1998 to 2006.

He received many impressive local, provincial, and national

awards for his outstanding dedication to the game of hockey.

For his remarkable contribution he received numerous awards, including

the Hockey Canada Order of Merit in 2004, the Canadian Hockey

Association Outstanding Volunteer Award in 1996, the Bonavista-Trinity

Minor Hockey Association Executive Member of the Year, and the federal

government's 125 th Anniversary Medal for volunteer work in

hockey.

In addition to his commitment to hockey, he was a pillar of the

community. He was a beloved

teacher for twenty-eight years in Catalina, and served on the Bonavista

Town Council and various committees.

Marvin's amazing legacy lives on as every player in the

association bears his name on their jersey as they play in Cabot Stadium

beneath his memorial banner.

Please join me in honouring Marvin Ryder who will be remembered as a

dedicated husband, father, volunteer, caring teacher, and outstanding

member of our community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Statements by

Ministers.

Statements by

Ministers

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I

rise in this hon. House today to highlight the Prospectors and

Developers Association of Canada's annual international convention and

trade show held earlier this month in Toronto.

The Premier and I attended, along with Mining Newfoundland and

Labrador, department officials, and provincial mining companies.

Despite the recent slowdown of the mining industry globally, we continue

to have much success in our mining projects.

In fact, Newfoundland and Labrador ranked in the top ten of the

most attractive jurisdictions worldwide for mineral exploration

investment in the Fraser Institute of Canada's recently released

International Mining Survey.

PDAC was the ideal venue to showcase mineral resource opportunities in

Newfoundland and Labrador and provide support to local exploration

companies and prospectors.

The provincial government partnered with industry to feature the

redesigned Newfoundland and Labrador Pavilion at PDAC, and to provide

funding for prospectors to promote their local properties.

While at PDAC, we met with Vale, Tata Steel and Teck, and we visited

many booths of other mining companies exploring in our Province.

Tata Steel's high-grade iron project in Labrador's northern

Menihek region represents a $1 billion investment in that area.

The Iron Ore Company of Canada is demonstrating its long-term

focus with its proposed Wabush 3 project.

Mines such as Anaconda Mining and Rambler Metals are securing

economic and employment benefits in rural communities throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Junior companies and prospectors are also to be commended for their

mineral exploration work, which represents the potential for new

discoveries and the future of the industry.

Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm and resourcefulness of our mining

professionals is driving the industry forward in this Province.

More than 6,600 people are employed by the mining industry in

many communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

The price of nickel remains strong and we are optimistic that the

price of iron ore will rebound.

We are forecasting $3.6 billion in mineral shipments in 2015, up

from $2.9 billion in 2014.

We will continue to work together on opportunities for mineral

exploration and development in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. Barbe.

MR. J. BENNETT:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for providing an advance copy of his statement.

Mr. Speaker, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada

is the premier worldwide development organization for prospecting all

over the world. It is an

absolutely essential conference for anyone to attend.

In fact, last year, up to the end of November on the Toronto

Stock Exchange, 63 per cent of all equity capital raised globally was

raised on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

I do not object to the Premier and the minister going to PDAC.

What I do object to is them not having a pavilion for our

Province and sharing a pavilion with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and

a photo op showing Nova Scotia's and New Brunswick's flag over our

Premier. Why are we

promoting other Atlantic provinces when we have so much mineral wealth

here?

What I do object to is 23,500 people went, and the Premier spoke to 300.

He spoke to 300, probably at the same cocktail party at the Royal

York Hotel that I attended last year when I attended the conference.

Now I do not mind him getting away from the bad weather and the

bad polls at taxpayers' expense for a little while, but I do mind the

missed opportunity not to secure venture capital for mining in this

Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

I too thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MS MICHAEL:

Government's

optimism for the future of the mining industry is all well and good, but

people in Labrador West are very worried about their future and the

future of their communities.

Iron ore prices are very low, as the minister has recognized.

The Wabush operation has shut down and plans to reopen do not

look promising.

Alderon's Kami project has stalled.

IOCC is looking for concessions from workers and cutting back on

spending. So I ask the

minister: What is government doing right now to help avoid disaster for

the workers and the families who are presently being affected?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. GRANTER:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House to highlight the success of the provincial

delegation that attended Seafood Expo North America in Boston from March

15 to 17.

Mr. Speaker, this expo is the largest seafood trade event in North

America, attracting over 20,000 industry representatives from more than

100 countries. In addition

to facilitating hundreds of international trade opportunities for

provincial seafood companies, the expo also provided me the opportunity

to engage federal and provincial fisheries counterparts and various

industry leaders on matters of mutual concern.

Participants including Ocean Choice International, the Newfoundland

Aquaculture Industry Association, Northern Harvest, and Whitecap all

noted the tremendous networking made possible by the expo, and expressed

appreciation for the support they received at the provincial

government's Newfoundland and Labrador pavilion.

Our Province continued to be a strong competitor in global seafood

markets in 2014 with provincial seafood being exported to more than

forty countries. The expo

was instrumental in the increasing success of the seafood industry

internationally. The United

States is our largest export market, representing 37.4 per cent of

export value in 2014. These

trade achievements, in combination with our government's commitment to

research and development, science, marketing, and quality control, set

the provincial seafood industry up for future success.

Mr. Speaker, since the early 1980s, delegates have represented

Newfoundland and Labrador at Seafood Expo North America and have proudly

highlighted the strengths of our Province's fishing and aquaculture

sectors. Seafood products

from our Province were showcased by local chefs Courtney Ralph and

Damien Marner, with industry representatives from around the world

interacting directly with those who make a living from seafood farmed

and harvested off our coasts.

As one of the largest seafood trade events in the world, the expo is an

excellent opportunity for the provincial government to work closely with

the industry to strengthen current relationships and foster new ties

with international players.

This year there was a noticeable increase in the number of international

buyers from Asia, who showed interest in Newfoundland and Labrador

fresh, live, and shellfish products.

Identifying new export markets diversifies the industry and

ensures that our seafood sector continues to flourish, creating benefits

for families and communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR. SLADE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement on the Seafood

Expo in Boston, formally known as the Boston Seafood Show.

Mr. Speaker, I stood in the House on March 20 last year and responded to

the Fisheries Minister's statement on his jaunt to the seafood show.

As I repeat that same message, because nothing has changed

marketing is the name of the game in the world seafood market, but

nothing this government has done has been significant.

This government has not been able to make any significant headway

on marketing despite a decade at the helm.

This is the same government that sold off the lucrative marketing

of FPI and now Highliner is reaping the huge profits.

Again, in 2010 government announced they accepted all of the marketing

recommendations of the MOU and still no headway.

In 2013, the $400 million fishery investment fund that was

supposed to include support for marketing is off the rails.

This is a government that allows our resources to be shipped out

unprocessed.

Attending a seafood show is all well and good, as they say, but where is

this seafood marketing council this government promised but never

delivered?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind the member his time has expired.

MR. SLADE:

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Every year we hear about provincial delegations trip to the

Boston Seafood Show and that is not bad, but what has also been going on

for years is the call for a Province-wide seafood marketing strategy,

and that means more than just going to Boston, Mr. Speaker.

Government has, for many years, lobbied the success of its tourism

marketing strategy and has, for just as long, refused to see how the

same strategy might work for the fishing industry.

Setting up a seafood marketing council is a necessary step for

the growth of the fishing industry.

I have to ask the minister: Is this every going to happen, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS :

Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN:

Mr. Speaker, I

rise to recognize March as National Nutrition Month and today, March 18,

as Dietitian Day in Canada.

The provincial government is pleased to support Nutrition Month in

partnership with Dietitians of Newfoundland and Labrador, other

government departments, and many of our community partners.

The theme of this year's Nutrition Month campaign is

Eating 9 to 5!

It is intended to inspire us all to eat better at work and to

make other positive changes for a healthier workplace.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development

was created, in part, to bring more focus to government-wide efforts to

promote physical activity, healthy eating, and other wellness

initiatives. In recognition

of this year's Nutrition Month theme, the department is working with the

Human Resource Secretariat to promote healthy eating throughout

government departments by promoting

Putting Health on the Agenda, A

Model Policy for Healthy Meetings and Events .

We are also working with regional health authorities to promote this

policy, along with our partners in education to promote the School Food

Guidelines. Their collective

efforts and important work support residents, communities, and families.

Earlier today, I took some time to visit a Nutrition Month Expo held in

the West Block. The expo

included four exhibitors

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker; I know everyone is interested in it.

Eat Great and Participate, the Kids Eat Smart Foundation, the School

Milk Foundation, and the Food Security Network.

The expo provided a great opportunity to learn more about how

these local organizations are helping to support healthy eating in the

community.

Dietitians are working throughout the Province to promote healthy eating

in our communities and hospitals, rehabilitation centres, and in primary

care, long-term care, private practice, government, public health,

industry, and educational institutions.

They use the evidence-based science of nutrition and promotional

efforts to help residents make healthy food choices, separate fact from

fiction, and promote healthy eating habits to prevent and manage

nutrition-related chronic diseases.

I invite all members of the House to please join me in thanking

dietitians throughout the Province for their work and to recognize their

contribution to the health of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. HILLIER:

Mr. Speaker, I

thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I am also pleased to join in recognizing the important work that

dietitians and nutritionists do to promote healthy living.

Helping people eat healthier requires education about the role a healthy

diet plays in health promotion.

Mr. Speaker, as an educator, I also recognize that education

requires that students eat healthy as well, as many of our school lunch

programs show.

Mr. Speaker, it also requires access to healthy food.

Due to factors like income and geography, access to healthy food

is not equal. Poverty plays

a big role in restricting lifestyle choices like diet.

We know two litres of milk costs three times as much as two

litres of soft drinks.

Mr. Speaker, despite spending more per capita on health than anywhere

else in Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador is the worst-ranked Province

in the country, scoring a D on a recent Conference Board of Canada

health report card. We have

the highest rates of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes, as well as the

highest obesity rate in the country.

Mr. Speaker, we are paying lip service to nutrition, one Nutrition Month

at a time. It is fine to

have a plan, but like a lot of the plans of this government, it is not

working and needs re-evaluation.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

With the high rates of obesity in the Province and the tsunamic

cost of diabetes, government should make sure that dieticians are a part

of primary health care teams.

Mr. Speaker, 9.3 per cent of our population has been diagnosed with type

1 or 2 diabetes. This is

expected to increase, putting great strain on our health care system.

Beyond encouraging people to eat better between 9:00 to 5:00, we must

also remember how important nutrition is for seniors.

Food banks, soup kitchens are seeing an alarming increase in

seniors who cannot afford to eat well at all.

I would like to thank those organizations who are supporting this

program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

This government has already committed $5.39 billion to a $7 billion

Muskrat Falls Project. The

generating facility is already 18 per cent behind where government had

planned it to be at this point in construction.

I ask the Premier: How did you allow this project to fall so far behind?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, as

the hon. member knows, the decision to build Muskrat Falls was one that

had to be made in the best interest of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

and in the best interest of securing a reliable future with respect to

our electricity needs.

This particular project has been ongoing for some time.

It is still early stages, Mr. Speaker, but we have measures in

place both through Nalcor, through the Oversight Committee, through the

independent engineer to maintain oversight on the progress of the

project. As committed to, we

continue to make that information available to the public.

With any large project, we have seen it in Vale, we have seen it in

Hebron, Mr. Speaker, there are puts and takes.

There are things that are happening all the time.

The project is still on schedule, and we are still expecting

first power in late 2017.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The minister is right, the government is responsible for the Muskrat

Falls oversight, but they have repeatedly shown bad management on this

oversight. As a result, the

generating facility continues to track slower than they planned.

The fact that they are bringing in a new project management

organization and increase the size of the project team so early in

construction is another sign that you did not plan effectively.

I ask the Premier: Many of you have stood in this House on the Muskrat

Falls debate and claimed that you had done a significant amount of work

in advance, why is this plan failing?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, I

would certainly disagree with the hon. member that this plan is failing.

Mr. Speaker, we are building one of the largest projects in

Canada and the largest projects in our history, and I can tell you, one

that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be proud of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, like

any large project, particularly in start-up and so on, as I said we see

it with large projects that are in this Province, there are always

changes and things that have to be made through the process.

What is good about this, Mr. Speaker, it is recognized early in

the process that some changes had to be made, some mitigating

circumstances had to be addressed, and risk has been recognized early.

That is what is important.

That is what speaks to the management of this project.

If you look at the record, Mr. Speaker, there are some aspects of this

project that are well ahead of

schedule as well, and I think that is

important to point out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, I think the minister should know that the most complicated, most

complex piece of this construction is indeed the generating facility,

and for that facility to be falling so far behind early in this project

is not a good sign, I say to the minister.

Aside from bringing in a larger project team, Nalcor is working

with the contractor to increase its concrete pouring capacity, all in an

effort to keep the project from falling further behind schedule.

So I ask the Premier: Who is paying for these extra costs,

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians or Astaldi?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, the

member opposite would suggest that the measures that are being taken to

ensure we manage the costs and we maintain the costs, that we build this

project in the right way for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador

he is making a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that we should not be doing

that. We should not be

taking extra measures. We

should not be bringing in extra (inaudible) so we can pour the cement in

the summer seasons. We

should not change out management, or we should not change out workers.

If there is a problem that needs to be addressed, then we fully expect

Nalcor to be on the ball and do that, Mr. Speaker, and work with Astaldi

to ensure that what is committed to in this contract will be delivered.

So when changes need to be made, we expect them to be made, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, with this minister and the Premier who stood in this House of

Assembly and assured people in Newfoundland and Labrador that there was

considerable pre-planning done on this project, we see it falling

farther behind.

My question to the Premier is: Who is paying for this, Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians or Astaldi?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, the

work that has been done previously has been highlighted as a part of

trying to maintain control of costs and so on of these projects.

We can cite many projects that are 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 70

per cent, or 80 per cent over budget.

We are not seeing that with Muskrat Falls.

Well over half of the engineering was done before the project

started.

As I alluded to in big projects on the ground, trying to get things

sorted out, making sure the right management and the right people are

there, Mr. Speaker, that is always an ongoing process; but, with respect

to the contracts, there are varying types of contracts with Muskrat

Falls.

I will say in this House that it is my understanding that the Astaldi

contract is a fixed price and they are responsible for the cost of this,

Mr. Speaker. Just to be

sure, I will check and if there is any difference, I will gladly let the

member opposite know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I assure the minister, if you keep in mind that it is your department

and your staff that are part of the oversight committee, you should know

that answer, I say to the Premier.

Premier, you don't you answer that question?

Who is paying for these extra costs? Is it Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, or is it Astaldi?

It is your oversight committee.

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The minister has answered the question and has already advised he would

provide the details to the member opposite.

I rely heavily on ministers; they lead departments.

I have full confidence in their ability to know their departments

and be able to articulate matters that are important to their

departments and important to people.

I want I remind this House, Mr. Speaker, and remind the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador why we are building Muskrat Falls in the first

place. I can tell you; just

recently, I had the opportunity to meet with governors: US governors,

New England governors in the United States.

It was a worthwhile venture for me to travel to meet with those

governors.

I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker; Maggie Hassan down in New

Hampshire, you ask her. She

is at 6 per cent renewable electricity in her state.

She is looking for a source of renewable electricity, Mr.

Speaker. When Muskrat Falls

is built, this Province will be at 98 per cent renewable electricity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Any governor, any Premier, would take it but not at the price it costs

to recover the price of the project, I say to the Premier.

You did not answer that question, did you?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier's mandate letter to the Minister of Natural

Resources is clear: Finalize a deal with Statoil by the end of this

year. Statoil has said that

they will not know if there can be a development at Bay du Nord until

May, 2016.

I ask the Premier: Why did you mandate a deal for this year when you

will not even know how much oil is in the field until next year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I will get to the member's question, but to his comment about Muskrat

Falls, because you cannot stand up and make comments and not expect to

be held accountable to them or for me not to respond to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

I do not mind

responding to your comments.

We hear them from your backbench.

We hear them from members opposite.

We hear comments sometimes from the Member for St. Barbe, like we

heard in January

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

but we never

heard any justification for his comments that he made back in January, I

say to the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

So, Mr. Speaker,

to my comment about governors, because I met with several governors and

they have a significant need

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Premier, to continue.

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. JOYCE:

(Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, I have called for order three

times.

The hon. the Premier, to continue.

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when I met with several governors of the United States

and they all have a common problem; they have a need and a desire and a

responsibility to move from coal-fired, electrical generation, from

nuclear. Mr. Speaker, they

want to move off those sources of electricity and move to renewable,

clean, green sources of electricity.

Newfoundland and Labrador has it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I say to the Premier, of course we have it, but do they want to pay the

price that it costs to get it there was the question I asked of the

Premier.

I will go back to my previous question about the mandate letters.

I said the Premier's mandate letter to the Minister of Natural

Resources is clear: Finalize a deal with Statoil by the end of this

year. Statoil has said they

will not know if there can be a development in Bay du Nord until May of

I ask the Premier: Why did you mandate a deal to be done this year when

you will not know how much oil is in that field until next year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

To respond to his question again regarding Muskrat Falls, because you

just asked a question, if they are willing to pay for it.

I will tell you one thing that the governors of the United States

are looking for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

They are looking

for an alternative of the monopoly that Quebec holds on power supply to

New England, Mr. Speaker.

That is what they are looking for.

They are looking for an alternative to what Quebec currently has

as a monopoly on the supply of clean, green electricity to United

States.

We now have that option because we saw the foresight.

We had the foresight.

We had the ability to build a relationship with Emera, with Nova Scotia,

and we now have the ability to supply electricity to the United States,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I will ask the Premier for the third time today: Why did you mandate a

deal for this year on Statoil when you will not know how much oil is in

that field until next year?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

So for the first

time in his three questions, he did not ask two questions.

Now he is down to one.

So now I will answer his question, Mr. Speaker.

I will answer the question, I say to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

PREMIER DAVIS:

They should

settle down over there a little bit.

I will answer the question, Mr. Speaker.

For the first time he has asked a single question.

Mr. Speaker, mandate letters, for the very first time in the history of

Newfoundland and Labrador, were put online; therefore, all of the

public, and people of the public to see, and that was done by me, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

When I issued

mandate letters to our ministers, for the very first time in the history

of our Province, they have been made open.

We have made it open for transparency.

They are put online for the consumption of anybody who wants to

see it.

I have directed my minister to engage with Statoil and to carry out the

steps that he needs to take to achieve an agreement with Statoil.

Mr. Speaker, I tell you what, we will not because of a mandate

letter or otherwise, if it is not a good deal for Newfoundland and

Labrador, we will not be doing it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, yesterday the minister indicated that releasing government's new

generic royalty regime would jeopardize any opportunity to have a good

deal for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

A generic royalty regime is designed to be in the public and

create some certainty to the industry, and we know the industry is

looking for this.

I ask the Premier: Why would you not be releasing the new generic

royalty regime to the public?

Why not let the people see it, and how would that jeopardize a

new deal?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker, we

have been very clear. I

think we have shown and demonstrated, the Premier has alluded to this,

the Opposition continues to ask for information and we continue to put

it out there, Mr. Speaker. I

can tell you from my department the amount of reports and reviews that

we put out, we will continue to do so.

With respect to developments in the offshore, Mr. Speaker, whatever we

can put out there, whatever is not commercially sensitive, we will

absolutely put it out there.

With respect to the generic royalty that this government has been

developing for the benefit of development of our offshore, then we will

make that available, Mr. Speaker, when it is done, when it is crisp and

clean, and when it makes sense out there to do so.

I will say to the member opposite, we are in negotiations with Statoil,

and I do not know how you do your business but we do not discuss our

arrangements and our negotiations

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind the minister his time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Well, my question to the minister is yesterday you said that this would

jeopardize, this would be commercially sensitive.

How would this jeopardize a deal for the people of this Province?

Why would you not want them to know?

Why do you feel it is commercially sensitive?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. DALLEY:

Mr. Speaker,

contrary to his concern that we might get a deal with Statoil, we are

negotiating with a large oil company that has a significant find in our

offshore. It is about

building a future for Newfoundland and Labrador, the building blocks

that helps us deal with the financial situation we are in right now, Mr.

Speaker. We are in

negotiations. We do not have

a deal, nor will we have one if it is not in the best interest of

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Mr. Speaker, we will negotiate with Statoil.

We will negotiate in good faith as we have done and showed and

proven with other large companies that have come into this Province,

companies that have come in and created jobs.

We will continue to do so, but I will not do it out in the

public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR. BALL:

Mr. Speaker,

yesterday the Premier was once again backtracking from comments he made

about privatizing pieces of our health care system.

While backtracking on health care, he mentioned privatizing

pieces of our public college system.

I ask the Premier: What specific pieces of our education system are you

considering privatizing?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, I do

not know, like sometimes the spin that is put on over there is

unbelievable.

What I explained yesterday was while I was encouraging people to attend

Budget consultations which I am glad that people from around the

Province have engaged in and have participated in we talked about what

the role is of private business in this Province and is there a greater

role for business in this Province.

I also talked about examples of where currently exist

partnerships with private business, where government and business work

together, where business provides certain aspects of programs and

services, and some places where governments provide it.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for all governments to consider

options that lay before them and opportunities to develop those programs

and do a better job of it in the future and how that may happen.

Those are the discussions that we are having.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker,

after three delays, the RFP to replace the aging vessels on the Labrador

Marine Service closed in June 2014.

It was scheduled to be awarded before the end of this year.

Three months later we are still waiting for the award, despite

many promises of coming soon.

I ask the minister: When will you finally award the contract for the

fifteen-year operation of the Labrador Marine Services?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

This is a very in-depth process that we are using here.

This is a long-term investment.

We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure that

the service to the people of Labrador is the right service.

We want to look at new, innovative, creative ways to make sure that

service meets the needs now and into the future.

We are talking a fifteen to twenty-five-year process here, Mr.

Speaker, in an investment.

We want to make sure that the service is the right one.

My officials are still reviewing it.

I am reviewing the RFP process.

I have had consultations, as the member opposite knows, over the

last number of months with the stakeholders from that area.

I want to make sure the service we provide to the people of

Labrador is the service that is going to get them to the next two to

three decades.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

MS DEMPSTER:

Mr. Speaker, I am

asking about when it is going to be awarded but based on the details in

the RFP, our needs clearly are still not going to be met; that is

concerning.

The new service was scheduled to start in 2016.

With the numerous delays in the award of the contract, the 2016

starting date is in jeopardy.

I ask the minister: What is causing the delays in awarding the contract,

and will you honour your promise of a 2016 start date?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

As I have mentioned, we have had conversations with stakeholders.

We want to make sure this is the right one.

We have identified this year alone some of the issues we ran into

with heavy ice, stuff that was not forecast in previous years.

So, I want to make sure that the capacity of those ferries, the

ice class that they will be, the size of the engines, would be adequate.

We are looking at that process.

We are looking at the RFP.

Our officials are going through the process.

Within the next number of weeks, we will be ready to sit down,

make a decision, and move forward with this process.

Our intention is to service the people of Labrador.

We have made a commitment to them.

We are going to live up to that commitment, and the people of

Labrador will have the service they deserve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Mr. Speaker, we

have been waiting almost a year for the RFP of the Labrador marine

services to be awarded. Part

of this RFP included a provision of marine services to the communities

of Nunatsiavut and Natuashish.

I ask the minister: Contrary to the land claims agreement, why was a

qualified Nunatsiavut Aboriginal company excluded from the RFP without

any explanation from your department as to why?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

As I mentioned earlier, we had a very in-depth process here in the RFP

call. We went through the

process. We had a fairness

monitor something that is not always done on proposals like this.

We had a fairness monitor as part of the process.

My officials that come with over 100 years of marine service

background assessed it, we went through the whole process, and it was

determined then that we wanted to go to a short list.

We went to a short list, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, one of the companies was not on that short list.

We have gone through that process.

We are saying right now we are looking at the service that best

serves the people of Labrador.

The two proponents that were left, and we went back to a further

call on the RFP, are the companies that we feel can best service the

people of Labrador with what we need as a service over the next number

of years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Mr. Speaker, the

Inuit have been around for thousands of years.

Mr. Speaker, the Inuit land claims agreement was signed in good faith by

all three levels of government.

In all cases of the legislation, the provisions of the Labrador

land claims agreement take precedent.

The RFP has clearly ignored the agreement.

I ask the minister: Why have you ignored the provisions of the land

claims agreement that clearly state an Aboriginal company shall be

awarded contract if their proposal meets criteria?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, as I

outlined, we had a fairness monitor right through this process to make

sure all the integral parts of this RFP was covered.

As part of that, we looked at the type of service we wanted and

the provider that could offer that service.

As we assessed all of this, what we looked at was the best means of

operating a service in Labrador and the best service we could provide.

The lands claims issue was not part and parcel of the RFP call

there. As a process, we are

now down to two companies that we will assess which one is the best

provider for the services for the people of Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. EDMUNDS:

Mr. Speaker, the

Nunatsiavut Group of Companies, one of the bidders in the RFP process,

has received a letter from the department saying that their proposal was

in compliance.

So I ask the minister: Why did he change his mind and, all of a sudden,

say that they are non-compliant, when they already addressed the

proposal as being compliant?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. BRAZIL:

Mr. Speaker, as

what has been outlined in the RFP itself, we were looking for a provider

that could offer a service that was going to be able to provide a

twenty-five year service based on the principles of what we needed the

type of vessels, the service, the freight abilities.

We have gone through that process again, as I noted, with a

fairness monitor in the room, going through it, analyzing every part of

it.

Unfortunately, one of those proponents was not at the same level as the

other two. A short list was

put in place, Mr. Speaker, and as part of that process we have now

determined that one of those two proponents in the near future will be

assessed and awarded that contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, following an agreement between Vale and the Province to provide

compensation for the export of material from Voisey's Bay, the

Nunatsiavut Government criticized the Province, claiming they were not

consulted. The Minister of

Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs then told the minister with Nunatsiavut,

go ahead and sue the Province; we are going to win anyway.

So I ask the minister: When you made the statement, was it based on a

legal opinion from the Department of Justice or Attorney General's

office?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. RUSSELL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

We take our duty to consult very, very seriously, and we are confident

in our

interpretation of the obligations that we have to consult that

are contained in the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

The amendment in question is about Long Harbour and, in fact, it

is a good thing.

What it does, Mr. Speaker, is it keeps the project going, it keeps

beneficiaries in jobs, it keeps the benefits flowing from the IBA.

If we were not doing everything in our power to keep that project

going, they would be complaining about it over there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I ask the minister: When you made the statement was it based on

a legal opinion from the Attorney General's office or the Department of

Justice? If so, will you

table that opinion here?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. RUSSELL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

That particular comment was an excerpt of a much larger conversation.

It was not about a legal opinion and it was not about anything to

that nature. What it was

about is that we are confident that we did not violate the land claims

agreement and that we should have increased dialogue.

We should be sitting and talking as opposed to discussing

litigation.

Like I said, it is a good thing for the people of the Province and a

good thing for beneficiaries of the land claims agreement to keep them

working, to keep the benefits flowing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR. A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I say to the minister and say to the Premier, as a minister of

the Crown and in consultation with the Nunatsiavut Government, you asked

them to sue us.

Was that based on an opinion?

If not, why would you make that comment?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. RUSSELL:

Mr. Speaker, in

my conversation with the minister for Nunatsiavut Government we

discussed many, many topics.

It was not to antagonize, it was not to appear arrogant, and it was not

to say come out and sue us.

My point was that it is about keeping the project going.

Our

interpretation of the land claims agreement and our

obligations to consult, as per the Voisey's Bay

chapter in the land

claims agreement, are about mining operations in the Voisey's Bay area.

The conversations we had were about the amendment to Long Harbour, Mr.

Speaker. We are confident in

our

interpretation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Burgeo La Poile has time for a quick question.

MR. A. PARSONS:

I ask the

Attorney General: Do you have a legal opinion on this proposed

litigation?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs has time for a quick reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. RUSSELL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

As I said to the member opposite, it was not about a legal opinion.

It was not about antagonizing.

It is about keeping the project going.

We are confident in our

interpretation that we did not violate

the land claims agreement.

It is about keeping the benefits from the IBA flowing to the

stakeholders to that IBA.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Yesterday the Premier said privatizing services has been successful, but

when the Liberal government privatized our hospital laundry services in

the 1990s, it ended up costing more and the services reverted to the

public sector.

I ask the Premier: Will this government learn from mistakes made in the

past and not risk public money and safety by privatizing services?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I would suggest to the member opposite, with all due respect, there are

many successful stories of, and displays and examples, where private

business has done a very good job at providing services and programs to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I mentioned yesterday, a family doctor operating a private practice

in a community is a private business providing a service to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador that is paid for by government, Mr.

Speaker. Pharmacists are

private business operators who provide services to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Dentists are much the same way in health care.

Our ferry services; we have ferry services operated by the Province.

We have ferry services operated by private business, and I would

suggest there are many examples in the Province where private business

has a place and a role, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL:

Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

I point out to the Premier that doctors are part of our public health

care system.

The Premier has said that private sector financing and management of

road construction has worked successfully elsewhere.

It certainly did not in Ontario, where the Auditor General showed

that over a ten-year period privatization cost the taxpayer $8 billion

more than if the projects had been managed by the public sector.

I ask the Premier: On what evidence does he base his claims that

privatization saves money?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

PREMIER DAVIS:

Well, Mr.

Speaker, I just gave some examples.

Examples of road construction is a good one, Mr. Speaker, because

government does not build roads.

We do not construct buildings.

We do not do that.

Mr. Speaker, we engage with private business in the Province that

provides those services to the government, to the people of the

Province. It is private

business that carries out some of those programs and services.

Mr. Speaker, there are countless examples of where there is a place for

private business, but what I had said was it is a valuable discussion

for us to have as a government.

I think we would be remiss if we did not have it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, amid

rumors, all eight women's centres wrote the minister asking if their

yearly grant would be cut.

Last week the minister wrote back saying no decision has been made.

Their fiscal year ends March 31, yet they still have no idea

whether they will be able to keep their doors open or keep their staff

who are doing critical lifesaving work.

I ask the minister: Will she guarantee the women's centres across the

Province at least their current level of funding?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MS SULLIVAN:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

The work of the women's centres across this Province is something that

we, as a government, have admired and supported for many, many years,

and we will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker.

As with any request that comes in involving finances at this particular

point in our fiscal year, obviously, that goes through the Budget

process. We will take a look

at all of the requests that come in and we will make our decisions; but,

Mr. Speaker, let it be known that we are very much admirers and

supporters of all of the women's centres across this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's Centre.

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the

doors cannot be kept open simply on the basis of admiration.

I ask the minister: First you cut the Family Violence Intervention Court

and now possibly reduce funding to women's centres, is this your message

to women in crisis in our Province?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MS SULLIVAN:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the tone of the commentary from the questioner is really

alarming to me. It is

absolute fear mongering.

I have no idea that anybody on this side of the House talked about

cutting women's centres in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the wonderful work that they do.

We support the work that we do, and we are very, very happy to

stand here in this House of Assembly and give accolades for all that

they do for women in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. member has time for a very quick question.

MS ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker,

during tough economic times, research shows an increase in domestic

violence.

I ask the Minister of Justice: Will he reinstate the Family Violence

Intervention Court as stated in the Premier's mandate letter?

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Justice and Public Safety, for a very quick reply.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. KING:

We will give it every

consideration, Mr. Speaker, as part of the Budget process.

MR. SPEAKER:

The time for

Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of

Documents

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

In accordance with

section 19(5)(

a) of the House Of Assembly

Accoutability, Integrity And Administration Act, I hereby table the

minutes of the House of Assembly Management Commission held on October

22, 2014.

Further tabling of documents?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. KING:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to table the strategic plan for the

Department of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development for the

time period 2014-2017.

MR. SPEAKER:

Further tabling

of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for St. John's North.

MR. KIRBY:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

considering a proposal to bus Kindergarten to Grade 6 students from Holy

Family School in Paradise to the former School for the Deaf on Topsail

Road in St. John's, twelve kilometres away; and

WHEREAS many parents have expressed concern about the impact of long bus

rides to and from school for primary and elementary school-aged children

who would otherwise attend Holy Family School in Paradise; and

School District to consider alternatives to having children from Holy

Family School attend school at the former School for the Deaf;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon

the House of Assembly to urge government to direct the Newfoundland and

the proposal which would see students from Holy Family School in

Paradise attending school at the former School for the Deaf.

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, since this petition was written, the board has come to two

options. One is actually

busing little kids in Grade 2 up to Grade 6 to the School for the Deaf,

forty-five minutes away, or putting more portables at an already

overcrowded school.

It was interesting yesterday that the co-Leader of the NDP took a real

hard line in the debate and said that she wants to bus these children to

Holy Family School, forty-five minutes away.

Now, I do not agree with that.

I think we should not get involved in this and let the board of

trustees do their job and pick the best option based on feedback from

parents. Now as far as I am

concerned neither one of these proposals makes any sense at all, either

to put something like 1,000 students at a school that went over capacity

in 2009, at a school that was built for 600 students or something like

that, to put 1,000 students there or bus them across town.

This is symptomatic of the problem that we have had in this Province for

a number of years now, this government not planning properly, not

accommodating the number of students.

So I do not agree with the co-Leader of the NDP on this at all.

I think that we really, really it is a sad thing that we are in

this situation and these people have not planned appropriately for kids

in Paradise. It does not

make any sense, because we have ministers the Cabinet is full of

ministers from Paradise, basically, who represent parts of that town,

and it makes absolutely no sense to me.

I offer this on behalf of the parents 100 of them have signed this.

There are more petitions coming.

These are parents who are against the busing, but I will present

petitions on behalf of the other parents here as well because they

deserve to have their opinions heard.

This issue should not be determined by anyone here in the House

of Assembly, the co-Leader of the NDP or anybody else.

This is a job for the board of trustees.

They have to make the decision; that is the law.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

Orders of the Day

Private Members'

Day

MR. SPEAKER:

It now being

Wednesday and Private Members' Day, 3:00 p.m., in accordance with our

Standing Orders, I go to the Member for Baie Verte Springdale to begin

debate on his private member's motion.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. POLLARD:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I am certainly pleased to stand in this hon. House today to move this

resolution, which was seconded by my colleague for Bonavista South.

I appreciate that.

I will read the resolution for the record, although I read it yesterday,

but verbatim:

WHEREAS the Northern shrimp fishery is an extremely important fishery in

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS both the inshore and offshore sectors have a history in this

fishery and are both important drivers of economic activity in the

Province; and

WHEREAS the inshore sector is adjacent to the Northern shrimp resource,

has been involved in the fishery since 1997, and was given permanent

status in 2007; and

WHEREAS the application of the Last In, First Out (LIFO) policy in the

face of quota cuts has had an extremely disproportionate impact on the

inshore sector; and

WHEREAS Last In, First Out (LIFO) is a policy which is only applied to

the Northern shrimp fishery; and

policy for Northern shrimp will result in widespread economic ruin for

hundreds of rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and the

thousands of our people who earn their living from the Northern shrimp

resource;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urges the Government

of Canada to discontinue the LIFO policy and replace the allocation

policy for Northern shrimp with a new sharing arrangement that is fair

to both valued fleets the inshore and the offshore.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to have some time here in this hon.

House to speak in favour of this resolution.

All of us here today in this hon. House know the importance of

the fishery to our economy, to our communities, and to our districts for

sure. Indeed our Province as

it exists today was built upon the fishery.

The fishery defines us as a people.

It is our culture. It

is part of our heritage. It

has shaped us as a people, Mr. Speaker.

I remember when I was a little boy, my grandfather Charlie Randell and

my grandmother Beatrice, his wife, they earned their living in the

fishery, Mr. Speaker. My

aunts and my uncles earned their living in the fishery in Hooping

Harbour and in Bide Arm.

I am proud of my heritage. I

was part of that heritage, Mr. Speaker, although I did not become a

fisherperson myself. I do

not think I was very brave on the water, so I went on and got a degree

in university, but I was very proud of my heritage though, of my

relatives. They made a

tremendous career in the fishery.

My grandfather lived until he was ninety-eight years old.

He was on the water probably when he was eighty-four or

eighty-five years old.

While the fishery has evolved through time, through new technologies,

and ups and downs in the stocks of the various species harvested, it has

always remained a part of who we are.

It has helped our communities to survive, to thrive, and to be

sustainable. Mr. Speaker, it

kept food on the table. It

kept our families going.

Every person here, for sure, in this House of Assembly has been impacted

by the fishery in some way, shape, or form, and do appreciate the

industry.

The federal government's Last In, First Out policy, known as LIFO, with

respect to Northern shrimp says that the last entrance into the fishery

are the first ones to go, first ones to be removed.

Mr. Speaker, this policy is not applied to any other fishery

not the crab, not capelin, just to Northern shrimp only.

The motion we are debating today calls upon the federal government to

eliminate this current policy of Last In, First Out for the allocation

of Northern shrimp and to replace it with a new sharing arrangement that

is fair to both inshore and offshore shrimp fleets, Mr. Speaker.

I want to point out here this afternoon, nobody here will pit it is

not about pitting one sector against the other.

Both sectors will learn to co-exist.

There is room for both, Mr. Speaker.

Both fleets are of tremendous value to this Province, to our

culture, and to our heritage.

I am looking forward to a spirited and informed debate this afternoon on

this issue. I know that

members on both sides of this House represent districts that are

impacted by the federal government's application of this LIFO policy and

the negative impact, the negative effect, it has on the inshore

harvesting enterprises, their vessel crews, the processors, and the

plant workers who rely on their catch.

From my understanding, Mr. Speaker, it might be upwards of 3,000

or 3,100 jobs lost if we lose this.

Let me give you some background, some history, pertaining to this issue

as we begin debate on this resolution this afternoon; it would be

helpful. We all remember

that cod moratorium, I believe, in 1992, what that meant to fish

harvesters across this Province, what it meant to rural communities

across this Province and our Province as a whole.

It was a dark time in our history, Mr. Speaker.

It was filled with uncertainty, fear, a time when many inshore

harvesters were left seeking new harvesting opportunities.

Their communities were dying.

Their families were moving out elsewhere to try to earn a living.

Their livelihood was threatened.

The community sustainability was threatened.

The harvesters were sort of saying to themselves, well, where am

I going to go to make a living?

Should I stay home?

What is my next move? Do we

have any hope? They were

seeking new opportunities, Mr. Speaker.

Now, back in that time for many, guess what that new opportunity was?

That new opportunity was the Northern shrimp.

It gave them great hope so they could make a living again and

stay home. The federal

government back in 1997 initially gave temporary permits to enable these

inshore harvesters to harvest shrimp off the Northeast Coast.

Back in 1997, from my understanding, under Minister Mifflin at the time,

harvesters were granted access to what we call Shrimp Fishing Areas

SFAs to SFA 6. A

threshold of 37,600 tons was established for the offshore sector at that

time, meaning that the offshore allocation would not go below what they

had the year prior to the entry of the inshore.

So they were sort of protected, Mr. Speaker.

At that time in 1997 under Minister Mifflin, there were four what

we call sharing principles that were adhered to.

I would like to mention them briefly.

Principle number one was the principle of adjacency.

Number two, the Aboriginal people were given priority as well to

access. Number three,

priority was also given to the inshore fishery below sixty-five feet.

The fourth principle was that employment would be maximized both

in the harvesting and the processing sectors, where possible.

At that time, I want to point out as well, though, there was no mention

of the policy, LIFO Last In, First Out.

The concept of adjacency was identified as one of the fundamental

principles, leading to the decision to allow or permit these inshore

harvesters into the Northern shrimp fishery.

Now, what does the word adjacency mean to us, Mr. Speaker?

A 1997 Fisheries and Oceans backgrounder defined adjacency as

the principle that those who reside next to the resource or have

traditionally fished in those waters should have priority access to it.

The same backgrounder stated, This principle is used throughout

the Canadian fisheries and is recognized internationally.

In 2003, the Integrated Fisheries Management Plan for Northern shrimp

states, One of the principles underlying this sharing arrangement is

that those adjacent to the resource should benefit.

Therefore, new entrants have mainly been individual core fishers

with vessels less than 65 feet in length based in SFA 5 or 6.

What is the implication here, Mr. Speaker?

This implies that DFO recognized that individual core fishers

with vessels less than sixty-five feet in length based in SFA 5 or 6 are

adjacent to the resource at that particular time.

Interestingly enough, like I said earlier, there is no mention of

LIFO at that particular time.

LIFO is Last In, First Out.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that these inshore allocations were deemed

temporary at the time, allowing inshore harvesters into the shrimp

fishery generated a great deal of fishing and economic activity over the

next ten years. I believe

over 3,000 jobs were created.

I believe it was twelve or thirteen plants that were established.

Mr. Speaker, the Province saw over I believe it was $200 million of

private sector investment in vessels and plants at that particular time.

I believe, from my understanding, 365 inshore fishing enterprises

were licensed at that particular time.

Everybody got on board.

Everybody was excited.

Everything was going okay.

In 2007, the federal government issued regular commercial licences to

inshore harvesters after many years of very productive fishing activity,

Mr. Speaker. This meant they

no longer and it is very important here operated with temporary

permits. In other words, the

inshore fishery understanding was that they are on solid footing.

They are equal to the offshore fishery.

They were now considered permanent fishers.

Associated with this, the federal government made provisions to enable

harvesters to use the licences as collateral as well so they could

finance buying and combining quotas.

It was the federal government's own policy that granted permanent

licences to these harvesters and then encouraged them to take on more

debt to participate in the Northern shrimp fishery.

Inshore harvesters made significant investments in boats and equipment

at the time, and they created a significant amount of economic activity

in rural and coastal areas through their participation in this fishery

that opened up for them. It

was a tremendous benefit to them.

They employed crews; it could be four, five, or six on a boat,

for example.

They created all kinds of employment in processing plants and have

contributed both directly and indirectly to their local economies for

sure, Mr. Speaker. Plants

were opened up; I believe it was twelve or thirteen.

In order for a plant to be opened up, it is my understanding that

it could be a $16 million investment initially to open up one plant, Mr.

Speaker. That is crucial.

In the application of this LIFO, this policy, over the last few years,

fishery science has revealed that Northern shrimp resources off the

Province's coast guess what have declined.

It is not good news, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of this decline, the federal government announced a

significant quota reduction in the area of the Northeast Coast in April

Now, we embrace science. We

embrace conservation. It is

very important, Mr. Speaker, but we also have to conserve as well.

So most of the quota cut fell to the small boat inshore fleet,

with only a minor reduction to the offshore fleet as a result of the

federal government's application of LIFO.

You wonder, why did this happen?

It is so unfair.

Based on the application of Last In, First Out, the inshore shrimp quota

has declined more than 50 per cent from 2009 to 2014.

I think, to be exact, probably about 56 per cent, Mr. Speaker.

It begs the question: Is this fair?

Is this a balanced approach?

Who was bearing the brunt of this burden, Mr. Speaker?

The answer is obvious; it is the inshore fishery.

Inshore harvesters and processors have seen a return on their

significant investments getting smaller and smaller and smaller,

diminishing, and causing a significant reduction in the number of

licensed enterprises and plant closures.

I believe we might be down now to about 250 or so fishing

enterprises and four or five plants have closed.

LIFO was not applied to any other fishery, Mr. Speaker.

The position of the provincial government, our government, and

more recently the All-Party Committee on Federal Shrimp Quota

Allocations is that LIFO is simply unfair.

On that point, I just want to thank the All-Party Committee for

their stellar work. They

have represented all the stakeholders across this Province, Mr. Speaker,

represented industry, and represented everybody in the Province.

They went to Ottawa May 5-6, I do believe, they made their

presentation, and I believe that is a good sign that we are pulling

together. We are singing

from the same songbook, Mr. Speaker, and that is the sign that it is

important to all of us as a Province, as a whole.

I will take my seat for now, and I will come back later to clue up.

I am interested in hearing some other comments made by my

colleagues.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace.

MR. SLADE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this resolution that will no

doubt be supported by all members of this hon. House.

To begin with, this is an absolute honour for me to speak on anything

pertaining to our fishery.

As a lifelong fisherman, I have a strong appreciation for the value the

fishery brings, not just to the economy of our Province and regions but

to our culture and to our rural community.

Fish is what brought us here many centuries ago, and I am

confident that fish is what will keep us here for centuries to come,

long after the oil and gas runs out, only if we do two things.

First, we must take care of our resources.

In 1992 the moratorium on the cod fishing resource was one of the

most devastating things that ever happened in our industry.

We had a mass exodus of our people, which is one of the most

precious resources we have.

This ecological disaster must never, ever happen again, not to any of

our fish species or to any future generations of our people.

Secondly, we have to be vigilant in ensuring that the resource we have

is shared in a just and equal manner so that the benefit of the fishery

gift is shared by all, especially those closest to the resource, which

brings me to the resolution at hand, Mr. Speaker.

It speaks of our Northern shrimp resource and the need to manage

it more fairly and equally among the various participants in that

fishery. As we know, our

shrimp resource has been declining in recent years, and there is a need

for a precautionary approach to managing this fishery which again, no

one would argue against. As

I say, we cannot and we must not have a repeat of the 1992 moratorium in

our shrimp fishery.

So protecting our stocks is priority one.

This private member's resolution speaks to how important the

Northern shrimp fishery is to our Province.

We have all heard the numbers before, but I think they are worth

repeating. Our Northern

shrimp fishery on the Northeast Coast and Labrador supports over 250

enterprises; 1,500 crew members; ten shrimp plants; and a 2006 study

shows that an average plant processes 10 million pounds of shrimp per

year. Each of these plants

employs between 100-150 people who support their family on this income.

It is not just direct jobs in the fishery; statistics show that

for every 100 jobs in the fish harvesting and processing sectors, an

additional 1.3 jobs are created outside of it.

If the quota cuts come down, there is a fear that upwards of 750 jobs

would be wiped out of our economy, not to mention at least four shrimp

plants. These are not good

numbers, any way you look at it, for our Province.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the resolution before us is more than a call for

a simple policy change. I

believe it is a cry from our people to the federal government for a

better partnership on the fishery.

As we know, under the Terms of Union in 1949, the federal government

agreed to take over management of the fishery.

It has been sixty-six years since this momentous agreement, and

experience has shown that people in Ottawa are poor managers of our

fishery. It is a failed

experience, Mr. Speaker.

As one fisherman said to me, the definition of a federal Tory minister

is somebody who never, ever wipes salt water from their eyes.

This is sad and a stark reality.

There is not a year nor a season that goes by that does not

illustrate the federal government does not truly understand our fishery,

and why it is so important and how it should be managed.

It seems we have to fight with the feds on everything in the fishery in

order for them to see how it should be used to the benefit of our

Province. It is not good

enough, Mr. Speaker. The

shrimp crisis we have in our Province today is really a crisis in

partnership between the federal and the provincial governments.

Mr. Speaker, failures of the provincial government and I believe that

the current provincial government has to be held accountable for not

holding the federal government's feet to the fire on the fisheries file

over the years. To begin

with, the current Administration has shown little or no interest since

the RMS fiasco in our wild fishery.

The poor relationship this government had with Ottawa is also

another factor of why our fishery is suffering as it is.

This government is not engaged with the fishery, and it is not engaged

with the federal government in a proactive and meaningful way to ensure

our fishery thrives and not struggles along.

I want to point out several areas where this government has

failed short on the efforts to press the federal government to come to

the table to dialogue about a better way forward for our fishery.

In the federal election of 2011, then Premier Dunderdale wrote a letter

to Prime Minister Harper on a number of issues, including the fishery.

In his response was, and I quote from the PM: the Province must

be given a formal role in the management of our fisheries.

A re-elected Conservative government will move forward with

legislation in the next Parliament to give the Province a formal role in

management of our fisheries.

There has not been any indication that this government held the feds

feet to the fire to keep this important promise.

This is the same PM who promised custodial management back in

2005. Again, still no

indication that the federal government engaged the feds on this promise.

The federal government instead reneged on it constitutional

commitment to provide the science and more effectively manage our

fisheries.

What did the provincial government do?

It invested money in the area Ottawa should be funding.

While it is a good thing to have our own scientific information,

it is not good enough that this government has allowed the feds off the

hook with respect to funding obligations.

It is not good enough that we do not have a formal process to sit

at the table and dialogue about our fisheries issues.

It is not good enough to rub shoulders with the federal minister

at a trade show or in the US and talk about important fisheries issues.

After eleven years at the helm of government, maybe if this government

did a better job of engaging the federal government, putting their feet

to the fire on their promises, we would not be here speaking to this

resolution on the fabricated policy called LIFO.

Mr. Speaker, no matter how the current federal minister tries to

rationalize her decision, based on the late-to-the-party policy called

LIFO, it is flawed. First of

all, when the inshore sector was granted an opportunity to participate

in the Northern shrimp fishery back in 1997, there was no mention of

LIFO, absolutely no mention.

LIFO crept into the integral shrimp management plan by 2003.

LIFO is an industry driven policy.

LIFO favours the offshore.

LIFO will destroy rural communities.

LIFO is not used in any other fishery.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just to elaborate on this, this is not a battle about

the offshore versus the inshore.

This is something that our federal government has put those two

groups into a fight, and the offshore, as well as the inshore, should be

equal partners.

It is simply a policy that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the

ultimate discretion to enforce or change.

There is no historic significance.

There is no precedent.

This policy can and should be changed.

It is simply a policy that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can, at

her discretion, enforce the change.

There is no historic significance.

There is no precedent.

This policy can and should be changed.

My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that LIFO in the shrimp sector is

just a start. What is it to

stop it flowing over into the crab fishery, or any industry for that

matter, where our people have made huge investments in boats and

equipment?

Mr. Speaker, just to elaborate a little bit on that, I can remember

first when I got into the crab fishery when I was fishing, I can

remember it came out as a permit.

Then after five or six years as a permit, it turned into a

licence. That is how we got

into the crab fishery. If

you can use LIFO on the shrimp, afterwards you can do the same thing

with the crab. So if trouble

comes along right now with the crab, I would suggest to you that LIFO

could also be used, therefore decimating many, many inshore harvesters.

I just want to elaborate a little bit on that with you.

Mr. Speaker, sharing of the resource by the federal government in the

past few years during the times of quota cuts, but there are economic

fallouts as well. The 2014

inshore quota of shrimp was down by more than 24 million pounds from the

2013 quota. That meant the

inshore fishery had to shoulder 27 per cent of the cuts last year, while

the offshore took a 3 per cent cut in quotas.

Applying LIFO policy does nothing more than pitting the inshore against

the offshore, and that attitude needs to change.

That is unfair, unjust, and unreasonable, Mr. Speaker.

What is fair and just, Mr. Speaker?

It is a long-standing principle that guided fisheries management

in our Province called adjacency.

The Canadian government used the Principle of Adjacency and

community and regional development benefits as criteria in granting

offshore licences to community-based organizations on the southeast

coast of Labrador in 1978 and in granting similar special allocations to

regional organizations on the Northern Peninsula in 1997.

In 1997 when Minister Mifflin bumped up the TAC (because the shrimp

resource was growing and healthy) to increase the opportunity to create

new jobs for inshore fishermen and onshore plant workers, he

specifically noted that 'Adjacency' would be respected.

I quote Mr. Mifflin: In regard to the allocation of increases in Shrimp

Fishing Areas 5 and 6, which are situated off the shores of Labrador and

Newfoundland, I have been guided by the longstanding principle of

adjacency, which will be respected.

Those living closest to this stock will benefit from it.

In fact, even Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the 2011 election letter

to the Province stated that adjacency would be the guiding principle in

the management of our fish resource.

Maybe it is time to have adjacency legislated.

Even though it is enshrined in the shrimp management plan, it

still seems to be overlooked when decisions are made respecting our

resource.

Mr. Speaker, I was elected by the people of my district on November 26,

2013. In my maiden speech in

December of that year, I stated that I would remain firm and deep in my

belief with both rural Newfoundland and Labrador and in the fishery.

I stated I would fight tooth and nail for our small rural

communities.

I also stressed that I am a firm believer in joint management of our

fisheries

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER

(Littlejohn):

Order, please!

MR. SLADE:

with all stakeholders and

especially with the federal government.

I also suggest that our fishery has to manage sustainability

sensibly and it must be done in collaboration with all stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House of Assembly have shown a spirit of

collaboration. When we got

together and formed the All-Party Committee on the shrimp fishery, I was

proud to be a part of this important initiative.

We showed a similar spirit in collaboration when we headed to

Gander earlier this month and attended a rally, held by the FFAW, to

show our support for the future of rural communities at that rally.

At that rally I was especially touched by a woman, Heather Sparkes, who

is a proud and articulated fisher operating out of Carmanville.

She came to share her passion for the fishery and to plea for a

better sharing arrangement.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

Mrs. Sparkes and other fishers like her bring in brand-new

dollars into their communities.

Their entrepreneurship and hard work will ensure the survival of

rural Newfoundland and Labrador communities, and we need to fully

support them.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, this government has spent millions and

millions of dollars on award-winning tourism ads showcasing our

Province. Most of these ads

highlight our wonderful rural communities.

Because of our unique communities and our hospitability,

good-natured people are drawn.

The inspiration to ensure our coastal communities survive is not

just for the tourists to come and visit; more importantly, our

inspiration and commitment must be to ensure people stay in our

communities and outports and keep our century-old culture and

communities alive. Empty

outports have been and always will be a crime against our people, Mr.

Speaker.

So this PMR is about securing the future of our coastal communities.

With the LIFO policy applied to the management of the shrimp

fishery, thousands of jobs are at risk due to an unfair sharing of the

Northern shrimp resource. It

is not acceptable. There has

to be a new way forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I ran out of time.

I just had another couple of pages to go, and I would have really

liked to get it out.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to stand and speak to this

motion from my colleague for Baie Verte Springdale.

It is a very important motion.

I will just highlight several points within the motion itself

that speaks to the importance of this actual motion, the importance of

the Northern shrimp fishery to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador,

certainly to those who are directly involved with it, but certainly to

our Province from an economic point of view; to the contribution it

makes to many areas of our Province to all areas when you look at

the distribution, not the direct distribution of wealth from it but the

spin-off activities supporting the industry, that is extremely important

to Newfoundland and Labrador.

The motion talks, as I just said, it is extremely important to the

fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Certainly, there is an inshore and offshore component to this

industry. As my hon.

colleague just suggested, it is not about pitting one industry against

another; it is about two very important industries in Newfoundland and

Labrador, the offshore fleet and certainly inshore fleet, and how both

of them drive economic activity, provide work, an income for many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It is also about adjacency.

When this was originally brought in there was reference to adjacency.

Those that have a history in the fishery in Newfoundland and

Labrador, that it is recognized and promoted, that those that are

adjacent to the resource should have access to it and certainly can reap

the benefits from it.

As well, the Last In, First Out policy, as we have known, we have said,

certainly the cuts are disproportionate to those who were last in.

That is one of the fundamental things we have with the policy and

how it is laid out. In 1997,

when those involved in the fishing industry were given an opportunity to

get into the industry on temporary licences, then in 2007 when the

federal government decided to make those permanent, and after having

nine or ten years in the industry, certainly from many businesses

perspective, from an entrepreneurial perspective, for anybody that is

involved in an industry, that gives you an indication that it is

permanent. You have

invested, to date, on a temporary basis and on from that, you are going

to invest because you know you have a livelihood.

You are going to make investments; you are going to need a means to draw

down to pay off that investment.

That means that it would be a permanent licence, it would be a

part of the industry going forward, and you could carve out a portion of

that industry going forward that would certainly pay off your debt and

provide meaningful income for

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. HUTCHINGS:

your

enterprise, for your operations, and certainly for those who you employ.

Those spin-off activities in the communities and in the regions

would continue.

This, too, is from an industry perspective in terms of species.

This is probably one of the few, if not the only, species and a

regulatory framework by DFO where this actual LIFO policy applies.

It is peculiar indeed in terms if you look back over the history

of this policy and this framework, how it evolved, what the intent was,

and where we find ourselves today.

From a very broad-based perspective, this is about sharing the pain.

We understand in terms of resource what has happened since 2009

when some of the research started coming in and looked at the Northern

shrimp, indications of a downturn in the allocations every year.

The Northern shrimp operates out of eight zones from zero to eight.

When you think about it Northern shrimp pushed south over the

past number of years down to areas adjacent to Areas 6 and 7 where most

of the inshore fishers would prosecute that fishery, most of it in Area

6, but continued to push down.

Some would say based on the science that is tied to our ground

fishery in terms of when cod especially, predators of shrimp, began to

fall off in 1992 when we had the shutdown of the groundfish industry,

based on that the Northern shrimp moved further south.

Now there is some indication that it could be possible that due

to the prevalence of cod coming back that it is having an effect again

on the Northern shrimp.

Either way, the issue is science tells us where we are.

It is what it is. Now

we need to find a way forward that recognizes that science.

I do not think anybody is criticizing that science.

We recognize it is what it is.

Collectively, we need to work with industry.

We have done that as a government.

The federal government needs to recognize and the federal minister needs

to recognize that a way forward means that we need to share out that

pain, as I said, in regard to what we need to do to maintain this

industry from an environmental perspective, from a science perspective

and how we move it forward to make sure we can secure the future the

best that we can for the industry, for the harvesters, for those who

work for the harvesters, for the processing facilities, and for all that

income and funds that are generated for the companies that support the

industry. That is our

challenge.

Since 2009-2010, this government has been steadfast in terms of making

representation to the federal government, to the federal minister, to

step up and recognize what needs to be done in this industry with the

Northern shrimp in regard to the resource tailing off.

Last year, based on the recommendations certainly as Minister of

Fisheries and Aquaculture for the Province, I am quite aware in regard

to the research and what was coming forward.

I had many discussions with the federal minister and other

ministers in regard to the way forward.

At that time they announced, roughly, a 20 per cent cut.

Almost 90 per cent of that went to the inshore.

That is devastating in terms of the inshore fishers and harvesters and

their enterprises. There are

about 250 involved directly in that, about ten processing facilities as

well. For those facilities

to operate they need access to a certain volume of resource.

If you do not have volume of resource it is all a business

model, you need it. If you

lose it, that means those plants are down, and all of those support

services for them and all of those people who were employed with them.

That was last year. This

year we move forward. Last

year was seen to be an indication that, again, they were expecting this

year. Due to the resource,

we may see another 20 per cent cut.

So as part of that last year, this government and our Premier took the

initiative to strike an all-party committee.

He recognized the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the

Third Party, and members from this side and the other engaged in that

committee. We did some very

good work. We went to

Ottawa. Myself as Chair, and

the Leader of the Opposition, and, as well, the Leader of the Third

Party. I thought it was some

very good dialogue. We

represented the Province collectively.

We presented to the Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, as well as

the House of Commons committee on fisheries.

We laid out for them where we find ourselves in Newfoundland and

Labrador in regard to the Northern shrimp industry, why we feel the LIFO

policy is prejudice in regard to one sector of it here in Newfoundland

and Labrador, and fully recognize that both play a key element in the

economy of Newfoundland and Labrador and in the industry.

As I said before, it was not posing one against the other.

It was to make sure that collectively we find a way forward.

The way to do that was our first recommendation to those

committees. It was to peel

back LIFO, take it away, take it out and let's sit down and see how we

can allocate that resource based on the science, based on the

environment that we can ensure a certain level of stability going

forward today and in the future, and how we can address that.

That is important.

That is all we ask for. We

recognize, as I said, the science and some of the challenges with that.

The other thing when we met in Ottawa, the All-Party Committee, a very

important component of it was dealing with science, and every year

ensuring there is a full, comprehensive science review done because that

is so important. Right now,

the way it works, it is done every second year.

If we are going to understand the vast area, we are talking

around from SFA 0 to SFA 8 in the south.

A broad range of areas, up through the coast of Labrador down

along our coast, down to the Avalon and so forth.

That is a broad range of ocean and environment.

We need good data.

We need to understand the changing environment, as I said before, in

regard to groundfish and what we are seeing.

That ecosystem is changing.

It is not just about surveying or researching one species, it is

about the ecosystem. It is

about understanding the ecosystem, the interactions of the various

species in that, which Northern shrimp is one very large component.

We need to understand all of that.

Based on that, that provides good, sound science.

From there we can make good public policy, DFO and the Province,

to ensure the longevity of the industry for Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians and others who avail of that industry.

We also talked about the All-Party Committee when we met adjacency,

about that fundamental principle, about permanent status in 1997, when

they were given temporary access.

Those adjacent to the resource should benefit from that resource.

That certainly means the harvesting sector; it certainly means

the processing sector. That

everybody who is adjacent to that in Newfoundland and Labrador can have

access to it and see the benefit from it.

I talked about climate change as well, and the ecosystem on the Northern

shrimp. It is comprehensive.

We need to do more work on that, and we made it very clear to the

House of Commons committee and to the Senate committee that that was

required. It is fundamental,

I think as we move forward collectively, that we have that information

and we can rely on it. It

needs to be up-to-date, it needs to be comprehensive.

We know the federal government over the past number of years has backed

out of science in the groundfish and other areas.

Over the past twenty years go back and look at the cuts in DFO in

terms of science. As a

Province, we stepped in. We

did not have to step in but we know how important science is for today

and for the future. We have

committed to that. We have

done it over the past number of years.

We continue to do it in the area of groundfish, but as I said, it

is the ecosystem as well.

There is integration between groundfish, shrimp, and other species.

We need to understand that in this Province we thought it was

money well spent. That is

why we committed to do it for the industry, for those involved in the

industry, for our economy, and for the Province as a whole.

That is so important, and we have done that.

Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with this motion it is important to look

at where we go from here. My

colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, along with the

other members of the All-Party Committee have reconvened and have

started that process again of connecting with the federal minister.

I understand there have been discussions with her already.

I understand they have asked to meet with her and to lay out to

her the economic impact of further cuts to this industry.

As it looks now, there may not be further cuts this year.

From a science perspective and looking forward, we have to ensure

that we have a long-term plan, and as well that the federal government,

the minister understands the economic impact of further cuts to the

inshore.

We need a collaborative approach where we look at both sectors, we see

how we can move them forward until the Northern shrimp stabilize, or we

know where it is going on a long-term basis.

We need to do that and we need to make sure it is taken care of.

In 2007, when this access was made permanent, we had a number of

processes go on with stakeholders.

MOU, industry renewal were processes that were undertaken by the

Province, along with the federal government, looking at an industry as a

whole and things we needed to do to support the industry and move it

forward to support our economy.

One of those things as a Province we have done as well is through our

Fisheries Loan Guarantee Program.

We knew that we heard from harvesters and those in the

industry. They often need

access to capital. Through

that program, we expanded it to the amount that a fish harvester could

access in terms of buying a licence, in terms of enhancing their

vessels.

Through that, and through our initiative and through public funds, like

any other industry we often help, we made that available.

In good faith those harvesters who saw a future, who had invested

to date, they further invested through things like the Fisheries Loan

Guarantee Program. I think I

read there was over $200 million of private sector investment.

It was not just public funds, it was private investment that was

garnered to build that industry and build the infrastructure.

Things like harvesting vessels, processing facilities, all of

those are extremely important to the industry and support the industry.

We thought it was important to the Fisheries Loan Guarantee

Program to make those changes, to make it more accessible to those

funds. What we have seen

since then is certainly that has occurred.

What the negative effect of LIFO is that those who have invested, done

what they needed to do to grow their business, to be entrepreneurial, to

hire those on their vessels, all of that is now being challenged by a

regulatory provision by DFO and the federal government that does not

fit. It should not belong,

it should be removed. We

have asked that it be removed.

It must be removed for the benefit of our industry moving forward

Northern shrimp.

Obviously, Northern shrimp is one species, but as I spoke of there is an

ecosystem there with many variables, many species.

We need to continue to grow our industry as we have done and as

we continue to do. The

federal government needs to recognize the importance of LIFO and what it

means if it is going to stay.

I said earlier when I started, there are two industries here.

Offshore and inshore play a huge role in Newfoundland and

Labrador and the supports.

We need to get this changed.

I know the Chair of the Committee, the Opposition Leader, certainly the

Leader of the Third Party, and others here in the House will work

collectively to move this forward, to make the federal government and

DFO realize what LIFO is doing and will do in the future if it is not

adjusted.

It is so very important to us as a people.

We have 400 years of history in terms of the fishery in this

Province. That is why all of

the harbours and coves were settled here many years ago; it is a huge

part of who we are. We have

an expansive economy here in Newfoundland and Labrador but let no one

think that the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador is not still

important. It is still a

priority. It will still

drive our economy. It will

today; it will for decades to come.

The federal government need to come to their senses, step up, change

this policy, and collectively we will move forward together with both

sides of the sector to make sure we have a viable Northern shrimp

industry for decades to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for The Straits White Bay North.

MR. MITCHELMORE:

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the private member's

resolution today. I

reiterate what the Minister of Municipal Affairs said about the need for

collaboration. When you talk

about getting effective change, you need to collaborate, you need to

have dialogue and discussion with all stakeholders and groups, and

really come together to find a common solution.

What the resolution here in the House is stating, it is urging the

allocation policy for Northern shrimp with a new sharing arrangement

that is fair to both valued fleets.

It is highlighting that there needs to be some form of new

agreement that can share the resource in a way that can be a fair

arrangement.

What we are seeing and what we have seen last year in terms of shrimp

allocation cuts one of the reasons why the All-Party Committee was

formed is because there were significant cuts announced and that had a

devastating impact on the inshore fleet specifically.

I have had the privilege on this Committee, along with other members of

our party and members of all parties here in this House.

I listened to my colleague, the Member for Carbonear Harbour

Grace, who is very passionate about the fishery, has an in-depth

knowledge about it, and has spent a career as a fisher.

When we look at what is being put forward we have to look at all

the areas, the zones, and get a broad understanding of what is actually

taking place here.

I am just looking at the numbers and being the Member for The Straits

White Bay North the shrimp fishery is a very important industry in my

district, in particular, and on the Northern Peninsula, given that there

are four shrimp plants in the current District of The Straits White

Bay North and St. Barbe, as well as transshipment that takes place there

and another plant in Labrador.

There are ten overall in the Province, and it certainly creates a

significant amount of on-land processing jobs and other economic

benefits that were mentioned by other members here in the House.

One of the important pieces, looking at what has been happening under

the LIFO policy, is that when you look at zone SFA 7, which was the

Bonavista to the east, that area, has been deemed that is not

commercially viable any more.

So there was a loss of several thousand metric tons there that

have an impact over time and now there will be no fishing activity

happening there. That is a

loss to the region.

In SFA 6, which is the dominant region where most of the activity takes

place specifically for the inshore as well as activity for the offshore

and that is an area that goes from Cape Freels all the way to

Cartwright, Labrador. So it

is a very big area. There

are a lot of players there.

Originally in 1996 there was only 11,050 metric tons and that was for

the offshore licence holders, which there are seventeen, and eight of

them are licensed in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In 1997 there was a real shift where the inshore came in and got 9,050

metric tons, as well as there were a special allocation holder like

SABRI added. Then, over

time, there were other special allocation holders added and the industry

peaked for the offshore and the inshore in 2008-2009 where for the

inshore it went up to just under 60,000 metric tons for SFA 6 and 16,600

for the offshore. That

number gradually went down for both fleets with a bump up in 2012-2013,

but drastically dropped for the inshore to 32,151 metric tons.

Having such a drop has a significant impact on overall operations and

being able to sustain fish plants on the ground and communities; it has

a significant impact because in 2014 the Northern shrimp quota was 73

million pounds overall down by more than 24 million pounds from the 2013

quota.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. MITCHELMORE:

The cuts

were a 27 per cent decline, a significant impact on communities.

There was a real fear that this trend would continue and the

inshore fishery would be slashed by another 50 per cent.

Based on the science and the information that is out there and we will

not argue with science it is showing that there is a sign of some

recovery in Area 6, as well as some possibility to see reinstatement in

5 and increases in 4, which would be more north of Cartwright.

That presents some opportunity, I think, when you look at

collaboration, when you look at finding a solution moving forward in the

industry.

Let's just put into context right now with the inshore.

There are about 250 enterprises, the harvesters; over 1,500 crew

members; and there is about $1.5 million in lost revenue to fishing

enterprises that came as a result of the quota cuts.

If we look at the impact on municipalities if you look at the

Port au Choix shrimp plant that is there, that pays 53 per cent of all

commercial property tax revenue in that town.

It is significant to the economy and what it would mean to

sustainability of municipalities and what it would mean to the residents

if that tax revenue was not there.

In Anchor Point it is as high as 89 per cent.

In Bay de Verde it is 50 per cent.

In Charlottetown it represents 63 per cent.

It is real significant when you talk about the people who live in

these communities.

The sustainability and survival of most coastal communities is strongly

linked to the overall viability of the fishery.

We need to make sure that when we are looking at the value of a

resource such as Northern shrimp at $180 million that we look at factors

such as the historical attachment and adjacency, and we get a more

comprehensive review of science.

The federal government is deviating.

In 1997, when the inshore fleet entered the shrimp fishery,

adjacency was clearly stated and future allocations of Northern shrimp.

We need to make sure that those who live near the resource are

going to be able to get benefit from that particular resource.

There are significant examples of that.

The communities, the municipalities, in the region have significant

landings. The ability to

look at and get to the table and actually be able to negotiate is an

important aspect when you look at the resource and when you look at

coming up with a new sharing arrangement.

It is a complex issue.

It is not simple, but I think there are solutions and there are

ways.

Right now under the LIFO policy the way it works is that if there are

future increases, then the inshore gets 90 per cent of those increases,

10 per cent will go to the offshore.

The reverse can be said when there are decreases.

This is where we are in a very challenging situation for the

inshore fleet and what it means for the sustainability of many of the

communities that have harvesters who work there, plant workers, the

communities are upwards of 100.

Is there a way to get the inshore and the offshore together to maybe

renegotiate and come up with a solution where if there are going to be

increases in Area 5 and 4 where there is going to be additional millions

of pounds of shrimp that can only be caught by the offshore, maybe there

is a way to go back and look at coming up with some sort of agreement in

Area 6 where there is over 13,500 metric tons, where some of that

increase can be shared then to area to the inshore?

There are options and alternatives that are out there.

I think that it needs to be done in a way that is negotiated,

that has the players at the table with the inshore, the offshore, as

well as good dialogue between the federal government and the provincial

government. I think that is

something that is truly missing here in all of this conversation.

The minister stated previously that I go to the Boston seafood expo and

I will probably rub shoulders with the minister and maybe have a

conversation about this.

There needs to be detailed meetings.

We should have a relationship where we can actually sit down and

have a conversation, have a meeting from an all-party committee

perspective with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister

federally on this matter.

There has to be a new way forward.

The job of any government that has an interest in keeping our

fishery alive is to really have that permanent table and build that

bridge. What we see from

this government is that they have no partnership in Ottawa.

They cannot get the job done in Ottawa.

They have not been able to meet with ministers.

They have no interest in moving forward on dialogue.

We have seen many things fall apart.

You have a Premier who says that you just cannot trust the Prime

Minister. So trying to move

forward and negotiate and get any type of deal with the federal

government, how does that impact being able to have those meetings and

try to get solutions? It is

going to have an impact.

The federal-provincial table and having a partner in Ottawa is

important. We need to look

at how we can renegotiate a new sharing arrangement for Northern shrimp

that can be equitable, and a fair sharing arrangement that for the short

and medium term, should the biomass end up being in decline, as the

Minister of Municipal Affairs said, that pain can be shared.

We want to see where opportunity where if there is gain, that

it can be a balanced gain for both fleets, and so that one does not have

to lose for the other to gain.

We would like to see a more fair arrangement.

We also need to look at the longer term and how we transition,

transition to other species, transition to greater value.

The seafood review came out, industry review, and it showed that

under this government's watch the fisheries and aquaculture industry

lost $150 million from last year.

There were lots of jobs lost in the fishery from last year.

It is a poor track record, and it is nothing to be proud of when it

comes to the negotiations that have been happening.

We really do need more of a joint approach where, in this

Legislature, we are not just speaking about the issues; we actually act

to address the issues. We

need to see good management.

We are not seeing good management from this government.

We need to see the All-Party Committee more active, involved, suppose if

we have to send that delegation to Ottawa to talk about these

opportunities, because I see a significant opportunity in Newfoundland

and Labrador when it comes to our fishery, and what we have the

opportunities. We have great

infrastructure in place, like in St. Anthony, with the port

infrastructure, in Bay Roberts, in Harbour Grace, in Argentia, when you

talk about shipping product to Europe and to the high-end markets, and

the value that presents.

As well as the transshipment and offloading ports for the inshore and

the offshore, and the processing jobs, and where we can get into more

value-added, where we can develop more industrial shrimp at our plants,

because the product is getting higher value.

So we can find ways to use programs, maybe like the Fisheries

Technology and New Opportunities Program to see how we can grow, grow

the industry. That is what

really needs to happen. We

need to see a government that has a vision and has a plan, and is

willing to work, rather than just bicker back and forth and not get any

results at the end of the day.

So I have put forward a couple of suggestions.

I am not saying that would be the answer to what is on the table

right now, but what needs to happen is there really does need to be a

negotiated approach or else there will be just chaos in the industry

moving forward.

I say, let's keep working together as all parties on this Committee to

build a better federal-provincial table, let's work together not

occasionally; let's do it more often, day in and day out.

It is really the only way forward.

I say, let's move forward, not backward; but, under this

government, we have been moving backwards in the fishery.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. SPEAKER:

The hon. the

Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear,

hear!

MR. LITTLE:

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I am delighted to speak as the MHA for Bonavista South on this very

important motion today. Our

district is still one of the largest fishing districts, regionally, in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Every aspect of the fishing industry is vital on how it ties us

into the future fishing industry.

It is very important that we look at reality.

The fishing industry is a very complex industry.

It has grown to be over a $1 billion industry.

It is important that when we make future decisions on the fishing

industry that we make the correct ones.

That is what this government has been working on in the last

number of years, Mr. Speaker.

This industry is a renewable industry that can be sustainable into the

future for years and years and years.

That is important and we need to keep that in mind.

I do not believe that we should be pointing fingers in the House

of Assembly at either side on an important issue like the fishery.

Our Premier actually showed some great leadership in relation to the

All-Party Committee and putting forward a collective, collaborative,

united effort to form the All-Party Committee which was a great move, in

my opinion. Our government

have made recommendations on numerous occasions to the federal

government. That particular

issue needs to be outlined, especially when some members are getting up

in the House of Assembly making some statements concerning what this

government has been doing in the past.

The Member for The Straits White Bay North and the Member for

Carbonear Harbour Grace made some statements in relation to that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR. LITTLE:

I would like to

correct those statements, because we are working on behalf of the people

in the fishing industry in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador,

Mr. Speaker. This government

is engaged with all stakeholders in the industry in relation to the

fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the federal government announced quota

reductions and again signed most of the quota cuts to the inshore fleet

while leaving the offshore fleet relatively unaffected.

The federal government justified this with its Last In, First Out

policy, which says the last entrants into the fishery are the first to

be removed.

This policy created a major impact on coastal communities in

Newfoundland and Labrador and caused economic decline, and brought

hardship to many fisherpersons in many c