Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Members' Statements; Statements by Ministers — 7 May 2014 (47th General Assembly, 3rd Session, Vol. XLVII No. 23)

2014-05-07

Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)

PDF Version

May 7,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVII No. 23

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR.

SPEAKER (Wiseman):

Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR.

SPEAKER:

Today we will have members' statements from the Member for the District of

Bonavista South; the Member for the District of Bellevue; the Member for the

District of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi; the Member for the District of The Straits

White Bay North; the Member for the District of St. John's East; and the

Member for the District of Torngat Mountains.

The hon. the Member for the District of Bonavista

South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

LITTLE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Honourable colleagues, I rise today to recognize and

congratulate the members of the Bonavista Peewee Cabot Hockey Team for their

recent victory. The team brought

home the gold medal from the Subway Classic tournament in Lewisporte on the

weekend of February 21, 2014.

There were five teams in total that participated in

this event and the Bonavista Peewee Cabots were undefeated in round robin play.

In the championship game they faced the host team, Lewisporte.

The Bonavista Cabots were down by a goal when they scored with four

seconds remaining in the third period to tie the game.

The game went on to the overtime period and the Cabots scored the

game-winning goal to bring home the gold medal.

Team members of the Bonavista Peewee Cabots, winners of

the tournament are as follows: Sam White, Riley Elliott, Erica Dunn, Blair

Smith, Bradley Elliott, Jenna Lea Phillips, Mark White, Mark Hollaway, Logan

Keats, Cameron Hayley, Adam Martino, Andrew Fisher, Marc Eddy, Liam O'Brien,

Braden Skiffington, Nick Marsh, Nick Fitzgerald, trainer Leona Martino, coaches

Randy Elliott, Curtis Fisher, and manager Duane Eddy.

Mr. Speaker, hon. colleagues, please join me in

congratulating the Bonavista Peewee Cabots for their perseverance to bring home

the gold medal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue.

MR.

PEACH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a student

from Crescent Collegiate of Blaketown, Isaac Bonisteel.

Isaac is from New Harbour and he is the son of Dr. Stephen Bonisteel and

Mary Harris.

Isaac is a Level II student who was selected to attend

Pearson College, a united world college in Victoria, BC.

Isaac has won a $68,000 scholarship that will cover the cost to attend

the college and to complete a two-year program.

Isaac was required to submit an application and undergo an interview to

be successfully selected.

Isaac's sister Erin was also a student from Crescent

Collegiate who previously received the same scholarship amount, $68,000.

She finished her two-year program in 2013 at Mount Allison University in

Sackville, New Brunswick. These are

two very positive outcomes from Crescent Collegiate of which the principal,

teachers, and staff should be proud of.

I ask all members to join me in congratulating Isaac

and Erin Bonisteel on winning these prestigious awards.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Signal Hill Quidi Vidi.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, we are blessed with a

vibrant, thriving film community. In

the past few months, two residents of Signal Hill Quidi Vidi have been

honoured for their roles in helping to build this important industry.

Barb Doran and Noreen Golfman have been integral to the development of

film in this Province.

In March, at the fourth annual Women Making Waves

conference in Halifax, both received Wave awards recognizing significant impact,

extensive reach, and high-quality contributions to the Atlantic Canadian screen

industry.

Then, just two weekends ago, both Noreen and Barb were

honoured by the Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council.

The Fortis Properties Arts Hall of Honour Award recognizes a person,

group, or arts organization that has made a distinguished lifetime contribution

to the cultural life of the Province, and was awarded to Noreen Golfman.

Cox & Palmer Arts Achievement Award recognizes a

practicing artist who has made an outstanding contribution to the cultural life

of Newfoundland and Labrador over a number of years, and Barbara Doran was a

deserving winner of that award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in

congratulating Noreen Golfman and Barb Doran for the richness they have brought

to our lives.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for The Straits White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MITCHELMORE:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize a youth in my district, Tristan Earles of St.

Anthony. At just ten years of age,

he has illustrated the highest degree of caring, compassion and generosity for a

young girl he has never met, living in another Province.

After learning about the health struggles of young

Ashley Cull, daughter of a St. Anthony native, who became unresponsive,

underwent surgery and spent several weeks recovering at a children's hospital,

Tristan told his mother they needed to do something to help.

A Dance for Ashley was held on March 29, with dozens

of local children helping to raise money for the Cull family.

Tristan's creativity led the kids to sending a recorded message to

Ashley, signing a big get well card, and a rap song, which he performed at the

dance.

Tristan brought many people together, including support

from the St. Anthony and area Fire Department.

The event successfully raised close to $1,000 and achieved the goal of

putting a smile on Ashley's face, knowing that so many people as far away as St.

Anthony were thinking of her.

I invite all hon. members of this House to join me in

acknowledging Tristan Earles. He is

truly an inspiration.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR.

MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the greatest pleasures of being the MHA for St.

John's East is sharing the celebrations of the people in the district.

People like Nora Theresa Alteen who, on April 27, celebrated her 102 nd

birthday at Glenbrook Lodge.

Mrs. Alteen was born on Bell Island in 1912, to

Lebanese immigrants Simon and Rose Tuma.

The Tumas were integral to the small business community in Bell Island,

Carbonear, and eventually Corner Brook, where they established S.E. Tuma

Jewellers on Broadway.

Nora eventually married Nick Alteen and with him built

another successful business, National Shoe Store, also on Broadway.

After Nick's untimely death at age forty-two, Nora raised their six

children and stayed in the house they had built together until she moved to St.

John's in 2011.

She is a kind and caring woman, grandmother of sixteen,

and great-grandmother, at last count, to eighteen.

The family feels blessed to still have Mrs. Alteen in

their lives. I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, we are all blessed to have such an extraordinary woman among us.

I ask all hon. members to congratulate Mrs. Nora Alteen

on reaching her milestone 102 nd birthday and in wishing her many more

years to come.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR.

EDMUNDS:

Mr.

Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Members of the

Nunatsiavut Government who were successful in the election held yesterday.

The unofficial results are as follows: Nain, Mr. Sean

Lyall and Mr. Richard Pamak; Hopedale, Mr. Greg Flowers; Postville, Mr. Tyler

Edmunds; Makkovik, Ms Kate Mitchell; Rigolet, Mr. Darryl Shiwak; Upper Lake

Melville, Mr. Roy Blake and Ms Patricia Kemuksigak; Canada constituency, Mr.

Daniel Pottle and Ms Patricia Ford.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank

all candidates for putting their names on the ballot and I look forward to

working with all members of the Nunatsiavut Government.

I also want to thank all members who have served Nunatsiavut for their

service and wish them the best of success in the future.

While Nunatsiavut has seen tremendous progress in the

last few years, much work remains to be done.

It is very important that all levels of government work closely together

to address issues like housing, transportation, communication and justice.

We also have to ensure that the valuable resources that

exist in Nunatsiavut are developed in an environmentally-friendly manner and

that the residents of the region receive the maximum benefits from those

resources.

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

congratulating the members of the Nunatsiavut Government on their election, and

to wish them every success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the hon. House today to discuss

efforts by the all-party committee to address inequitable shrimp quota

allocations recently announced by the federal government on April 4, 2014.

Mr. Speaker, over the last two days I was joined by the

leaders of both provincial Opposition parties to make presentations to the House

of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and the Senate Standing

Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

United, we conveyed the concerns and feedback received from fisheries

stakeholders, and made recommendations that would achieve better outcomes for

all rural communities that depend on economic activity generated by the inshore

fleet.

We called on the federal government to rescind previous

allocation decisions based on the Last In, First Out policy, and establish a

new sharing arrangement between the inshore and offshore through a process that

is consistent with those applied to other fisheries.

We asked the federal government to ensure that this

sharing arrangement considers adjacency and reflects the history of both fleets

in the Northern shrimp fishery.

We requested an immediate, full scientific assessment

on the Northern shrimp resources, and asked that full assessments occur annually

during this time of apparent resource decline.

Mr. Speaker, we also called on the federal government

to implement a plan to study the impact of climate change on the ecosystem and

the Northern shrimp resources.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government is pleased to

have the support of members of all parties in the House of Assembly on this key

issue of importance to the provincial economy and to our rural communities.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the committee members: the

Minister of Natural Resources and MHA for the Isles of Notre Dame; the Member

for Port de Grave; the Member for Bonavista North; the Leader of the Official

Opposition and Member for Humber Valley; the Member for The Straits White Bay

North; and the Leader of the New Democratic Party and Member for Signal Hill

Quidi Vidi for the time and insights they are providing.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Education

and MHA for Grand Bank; the Member for Baie Verte Springdale; the Member for

Carbonear Harbour Grace; and the Member for St. John's East, all of whom were

very active as alternate members to the committee.

Together with industry, the business community, and

municipal leaders, this government will press that case in the weeks ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Minister, for the advance copy of your

statement. I was pleased to be part

of the delegation that went to Ottawa representing all of Newfoundland and

Labrador on this, what is a critical issue, and the presentation that we gave to

the Senate committee and, of course, the Parliamentary committee to the House of

Commons. So, I was pleased to

join the minister and the Leader of the Third Party, the NDP.

I was, of course, as the Official Opposition, one of

three members; and today the other two members, in the private member's

resolution, will be speaking to this issue today.

It is critical to our Province.

One of the things that was impressed upon at the

committee meetings was that this was an all-party committee that was presenting

in Ottawa. They felt the level of

presentation gave them a better understanding of how important this is to the

fishery in our Province.

The all-party committee representing, as I said, the

three parties met with the Senate committee, the parliamentary committee, and we

will continue to press and do whatever we can as the Official Opposition, and I

am sure with the support of government and the Third Party, on this issue.

It is important as it has a critical impact, as I say, on all rural

communities in our Province.

Before I finish, and as I conclude, I want to

especially point out and recognize the work that has been done by the staff in

the department in putting this together and receiving the presentations we have

in the last few weeks from many of the stakeholders across our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his

statement. I want to say how pleased

I was also with the meetings we held in Ottawa and also with the fact that we

were able to form the all-party committee.

As has been said already, that really impressed both the parliamentary

standing committee and the Senate parliamentary committee.

The fact that all of us together and we worked through, we had our

discussions after the hearings that we held, and we were solid in the

recommendations we presented. There

was no dispute over those recommendations.

The commitment of moving forward to follow up with both

committees and with the minister, and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

made that clear today in the scrub we had, that we will be continuing and we

will be following up, is a sign to the people of the Province that when all

three parties have their well-being together in a unified way in hand, we can

work together. I hope all of this

also becomes a model for us as we move forward in this House of Assembly of

working together for the good of the people of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Municipal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

KENT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in this hon. House to recognize

today as Municipal Awareness Day in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Municipal Awareness Day is a time to recognize and

thank the thousands of women and men throughout our Province who work tirelessly

to provide important programs and services to our residents.

Mr. Speaker, during the Municipalities Newfoundland and

Labrador Symposium which took place last week in Gander, the provincial

government, together with Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and the

Professional Municipal Administrators, proclaimed May 7 as Municipal Awareness

Day. This coincided with the release

of our Municipal Council Handbook to councils, and the end of phase one of our

fiscal framework consultations.

Municipal governments throughout our Province are

holding awareness events in their communities today in recognition of Municipal

Awareness Day. As well, many

councillors and staff will visit schools to speak with students about the many

positive opportunities associated with involvement in municipal government.

Mr. Speaker, I highly encourage individuals throughout

our Province, especially our youth, to become more involved and take a greater

leadership role in their towns and communities.

All of us in this hon. House recognize the significant

contribution that our elected councillors and municipal administrative staff

make to our residents and communities, as well as the rewards involved with

being elected to office and giving back to our communities.

In fact, many members of this House of Assembly have previously had the

privilege of serving on municipals councils.

Mr. Speaker, our government has demonstrated its

continued commitment and support of our municipalities and as part of

investments through Budget 2014: Shared

Prosperity, Fair Society, Balanced Outlook , we have allocated $200 million

over the next three years for new municipal infrastructure projects.

We are also continuing our work on the review of the

provincial-municipal fiscal framework to identify options for efficient and

effective ways for services to be delivered, paid for, and shared in our

Province.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me in

recognizing councillors and staff of municipalities throughout our Province for

their commitment, dedication and tireless work on behalf of the residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

MR.

JOYCE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy.

The Official Opposition would also like to recognize all the municipal

councils, the staff and all the support workers who make our towns work so well

and provide so many services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I noticed the minister mentioned the Municipal Council

Handbook. That is a good handbook.

A lot of municipalities already mentioned that they use it.

It is a great guide for them; it gives them a lot of information.

They are very appreciative of that.

It was done in collaboration with a lot of municipalities.

So that is great for new councils coming in, for new administration staff

coming in. That is a positive step.

I noticed the minister mentioned the fiscal

arrangement. The minister committed

here in Estimates that there will be a fiscal framework by the end of the year,

which is great for all the municipalities in the Province to take the burden off

the volunteers in the towns that need the extra funds.

I just want to comment the minister on that and the government on that,

if they come up with a new fiscal framework for all the municipalities in the

Province.

I noticed the minister mentioned $200 million.

I checked here and a lot of us I do not know how many from the Liberal

caucus. There have been

announcements made for the Liberal districts.

I have to say to the minister, there are a lot of volunteers here in the

Liberal Opposition who donate their time and energy, and they should be rewarded

with some new funding to help with the municipalities.

There are more than just PC districts; there are a lot of Liberal

districts that deserve that also.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR.

MURPHY:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would also like to thank the minister for the advance

copy of his statement. It can be a

thankless job sometimes when you are serving on a municipal council, especially

when there is no remuneration.

Sometimes there is very little remuneration.

Sometimes they have to make some pretty tough decisions.

We also want to thank those councillors, mayors, and

people who are out there serving on respective councils for the fine job they

do. We know their backs are against

the wall sometimes, particularly when it comes to water issues, aging

infrastructure, and declining populations.

We know that there are challenges to be met.

We just wanted to point out to the minister as well

that in Estimates we had a very good conversation in Estimates.

He promises me that he is going to be answering a few more questions that

I have because there was not simply enough time to do it.

He addressed the one problem that we do have out there, addressing water

issues that are out there. We will

keep on holding his feet to the fire, not only on that issue but other issues as

well.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in the media Frank Coleman said that

negotiations of breaking the contract with Humber Valley Paving started in

earnest in February 2014, but the minister claims that the talks did not start

until March 2014.

I ask the minister: Who is right, you or Mr. Coleman?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for Mr. Coleman.

I have not had any conversations with him concerning the termination of

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again I will say that on March 13, after a

conversation, it was passed on to my officials to start negotiations with the

termination of a contract. There

were many conversations from July of 2013 up to February and March about the

difficulties caused by a fire in Western Labrador that caused difficulties for

that particular company.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister can clarify.

The discussions that he is talking about from July to March I want to

talk about the ones from February that Mr. Coleman spoke about in the media

yesterday.

Was that about the termination, the cancellation, of

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let us keep in mind that previous to this the minister

said that this was a discussion or a decision that occurred with him in his

department. Obviously, someone else

was involved in this decision.

The minister has revealed that Humber Valley Paving

first requested an extension on the contract on July 11, 2013; that is last

year.

I ask the minister: Who made the request on behalf of

Humber Valley Paving for this extension?

Who was it?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will go back to, I think, it was June 24 of 2013 when I received

a call in my district that there was an enormous fire.

I had just left the district, so I witnessed the 27,000 hectares that

were burning. I went back there and,

at times, I went back with other ministers during the duration of that fire

burning and I witnessed the effect that it was having on business.

We were approached then in July of 2013 that was before I was in the

department, but I know that certain departments were contacted about the issues,

the difficulties, that was causing for businesses and this particular business

happened to be one of them. I can

only account for what happened when I was there.

MR.

SPEAKER:

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said on July 11, 2013 there was a

request for an extension because of the issues that the forest fire had caused

in slowing down that particular project.

It was on September 11, 2013 that that was granted, to give them a

one-year extension.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Was this a written request, and

will the minister table that request in the House of Assembly?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we get a lot of written requests and they

carry a lot of information. This

actually was a written request and it has a lot of complex information,

financial information, in the document.

I checked with my legal staff this morning to see if that could be tabled

here in the House of Assembly. I can

table the document, but there will be an awful lot of redaction because of the

priority information that is in the letter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a priority how you protect the financial

information for the company, not a priority how you protect the finances of this

Province. Government granted an

extension to work in September. Just

six months later, they were in talks with the company to cancel the contract.

I ask the minister: What happened in the period from

September, 2013 and March, 2014 that convinced you to let the company out of the

contract without penalty? This is a

contract that they were previously asking an extension for.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will not speak on behalf of Humber

Valley Paving or any other company here; that is not my role.

My role is to speak on behalf of the Department of Transportation and

Works.

In this particular case, we were approached to enter

into a negotiation to see if we could mutually terminate a contract that a

particular contractor felt that they had already lost a lot of money on and they

could not carry on with the contract.

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member across knows, when it comes to tendering,

quite often things change in the tender.

When this job was retendered, it was added into another eighty

kilometres, plus five kilometres in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area.

When you put out a much larger tender like that, sometimes there is

wording that needs to be explained.

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, as I just said, I am not going to

speak for a company that I have nothing to do with.

My role was to take care of transportation and works.

I felt it was in the best interest, and I still feel it is in the

interest of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to get this job completed on

time, on budget, and that is what my goal is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is already speaking for the company.

He is familiar with their financial status.

He already said it would have been a hardship and therefore he was

obviously very intimate and understood the financial situation for this company.

He is already speaking on their behalf and protecting them, I will say,

Mr. Speaker.

When the story broke in the media, the minister said

the contract was cancelled because of issues resulting from a forest fire in

Labrador West. However, it is now

clear the company cited the forest fire as their reason for requesting a

one-year extension. This was in July

of last year.

I ask the minister: How can you use the forest fire for

an excuse to grant the extension, but six months later use the same excuse, the

same reason, for cancelling the contract?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation and Works

deals on a daily basis with contractors, companies, and contracts and we are in

regular contact with the contractors during the course of the contracts.

If they see a problem and they approach government at a particular time

during the contract, then we talk to them about that particular problem.

That is what we did in July.

We worked through that problem. They

had another problem in March, and we worked through that problem.

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the other problem in March is the problem

that the Opposition has been bringing up here for the past week.

The company was in trouble, and they were looking to mutually terminate a

contract. We agreed to mutually

terminate it so we could move on and get the project finished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Typically, Mr. Speaker, when a company is in trouble, you do not help the

company. What you do is protect the

investment on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is the history of this government, I will say.

At that point, why did you not go and trigger

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

had two options, Mr. Speaker. I

could have called in on the bonds.

If I called in on the bonds, it would take probably two years by the time you

get through the process of the bonding agency.

You would never know the outcome of what is going to happen.

The Opposition, Mr. Speaker, has put a perception out

there

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister just said that if you called in the bond

you may not get anything at all. Did

you not check with the bond to make sure that performance bond, that the labour

and materials bond was in place and sufficient enough to complete the job?

That is part of your due diligence.

Were the bonds appropriate enough to cover and complete

that work?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I will answer his question first.

Yes, the bond was more than sufficient to cover the work.

It was a $19 million bond for a $19 million job.

That is sufficient in my eyes.

There was 60 per cent of the work done.

When you go to a bonding agency, a bonding agency,

first of all, will say: Did you exhaust every other option you had before coming

to the bonding agency? Our legal

advisors felt that in best case scenario, we will get a small amount out of a

bond because of the money still on the table.

They felt it was in our best case to work with the company to reach a

mutual agreement, terminate the contract, and move forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The legal opinion and the analysis on this contract is,

obviously, that should be a public document.

You have made a decision based on that.

I ask the minister: Will you table the legal opinion

that led you to this decision?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have some of the best professionals in

our legal staff within government and I trust them very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We had a number of ministers who have been involved in

this file over the years. I guess

the new Minister of Justice will be involved, or should have been involved

considering this was a legal opinion.

I ask the minister: Will you table the legal opinion

BALL:

Mr.

Speaker, the minister tabled a letter in the House of Assembly yesterday

confirming the release of Humber Valley Paving from their contact.

This is the letter I have right here, and strangely there is no date on

this letter.

I ask the minister: When was this letter written?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the letter that was sent to Humber

Valley Paving in this case and was signed on March 21, the same day it came back

to the really it is unusual, isn't it, to not date a letter?

In the undated letter the minister tabled, it says Humber Valley Paving

have requested additional compensation for their work.

This is the first we have heard of a request for more money or for

additional compensation.

I ask the minister: What additional compensation was

requested and what were the reasons?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in July 11, 2013, after the

devastating forest fires in Labrador West, Humber Valley Paving started sending

correspondence to the department questioning for the extension, and explaining

delays in the project that they were working on.

After they had realized at their fiscal year-end I cannot speak for the

company again, they realized that they had encountered many expenses that they

could not get back.

They looked for compensation for that and I did have

conversations with Mr. Gene Coleman on that.

They were told that they would not be compensated.

The forest fire was not on the fault of government, it was

an act of God,

and, therefore, there was no compensation to be there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again I ask the minister, since this is a critical

decision that has been made, the minister did mention correspondence from Mr.

Gene Coleman, I will get to that later; will the minister please table the

correspondence that you had from Humber Valley Paving about the additional

reasons and the request for more compensation?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, we deal with

contractors every day, and dealing with different issues and problems that

contractors have. The issues here

that we were having with Humber Valley Paving or the correspondence had nothing

to do with their request for termination.

It had to do with them making us aware of the fact that they were having

some difficulties.

They had lost a lot of finances due to issues outside

of their control, mainly the forest fires in Labrador West.

They were looking to see if they could be compensated.

That is what those letters were about, nothing to do with termination.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

ask the minister once again: Will you table that request for additional

compensation? You did not go through

with it, so what is the problem with making that documentation available to the

people of the Province?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I see no reason to table it because these

documents have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

They have to do with a company and, as I said, we deal with companies

every day, different companies, different contracts.

When you get into issues, then you move forward with those issues.

The issues that we have here, the member opposite is trying to say that

one is part of another; it had nothing to do with the request for termination of

the contract that we are talking about in question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I think without seeing the letter, I am not so

sure that I agree with the minister and his

interpretation that the people of

the Province should not see this document that led eventually to termination of

a project. The minister claims that

there was no paper trail on several matters about this project.

He said that there were no e-mails, there were no letters, and that he

received a call from Gene Coleman on March 13 to discuss cancelling the

contract. Today, the incoming

Premier said that this is not the case.

I ask the minister: Who is telling the truth, is it you

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When you say you spoke to Mr. Coleman, was that Mr.

Frank Coleman or Mr. Gene Coleman?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think he is trying to fill up his question time there

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, government can keep back 10 per cent holdback on

any contracts.

I ask the minister: Does this government have a 10 per

cent holdback on the contract with Humber Valley Paving; and, if not, how much

is left?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

An excellent question from the Official Opposition.

Yes, we do have a 10 per cent holdback, it is in the form of a mechanics'

lien, and it is all left.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, did government check to see how much money Humber

Valley Paving owes to suppliers and subcontractors and if the 10 per cent of the

holdback will cover that amount?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure how to answer that

because I am not an accountant for Humber Valley Paving.

I will tell you that as of the date we terminated mutually the contract

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

What we made sure we have in place is a mechanics' lien

of 10 per cent of the project that could cover if there were people who were

owed money

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

MCGRATH:

They have the opportunity to take avail of that mechanics' lien and that is

still in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.

MR.

BALL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is a simple question: Yes or no?

It is a simple document. It

is part of the due diligence.

Do you have a sworn statutory declaration that this

would be money that would be used to pay the suppliers and subcontractors on

this project, indeed protecting many of the small businesses that you want to

protect with Humber Valley Paving?

Do you have that sworn statement of declaration on file with your government?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

MCGRATH:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, the Leader of the Opposition is

trying his best to try to deface the integrity of the department.

We have a mechanics' lien in place.

It is 10 per cent of the contract.

We feel that is more than sufficient for what we need in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MICHAEL:

This Province has received a low grade for our treatment of temporary foreign

workers by the Canada Council for Refugees.

I ask the Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations

Agency: Will he improve the protection of foreign workers by making changes to

labour standards as has been done in other provinces?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

CRUMMELL:

Mr.

Speaker, our government is committed to protecting workers in the Province.

It does not matter if they are from away or if they are from here, Mr.

Speaker. We have labour legislation

to protect Canadian workers, Newfoundland and Labrador workers, and foreign

temporary workers as well, Mr. Speaker.

Other jurisdictions do have some special legislation

around temporary foreign workers. We

feel right now, at this moment in time, our legislation is working very well;

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Does he recognize that

complaint-based labour standards is not adequate and that he needs to take a

more proactive approach?

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

CRUMMELL:

Mr.

Speaker, I had that discussion with my officials just last week.

We discussed how Occupational Health and Safety works in this Province.

It is a model for the rest of Canada.

We are proactive in our enforcement.

There are other provinces that look to us to see what we do there.

Yes, when we look at where we are going to be going

forward in the future, that is one of the areas we talked about.

I agree with the member opposite, there is some work to be done around

there; but, Mr. Speaker, we have a very robust department.

We have complaints driven mechanisms in place right now.

We take any complaint very seriously and we will investigate, Mr.

Speaker, in a timely manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: If he has been in touch with the

federal government over the allegations of complaints concerning the use of

temporary foreign workers in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Service NL.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

CRUMMELL:

Mr.

Speaker, we have reached out to our federal counterparts to see what exactly is

going on there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

CRUMMELL:

Mr.

Speaker, we certainly are looking into the situation.

We are going to continue to monitor the situation.

We will provide an update at the appropriate time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR.

MURPHY:

Mr.

Speaker, government's answer is that the Auditor General is free to investigate

anything that he wishes. The

minister knows full well that under

section 16 of the Auditor General Act,

government can ask the Auditor General to investigate under

section 16(1) of

the act.

Will you put forth in a formal request to the Auditor

The

hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR.

MURPHY:

Mr.

Speaker, calling in the Auditor General was done for the fibre optic deal in

November of 2006 and the ensuing report from the Auditor General cleared the

air. We need to clear the air on

this issue.

Why will you not do it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I do not like wasting the members' Question Period

time; however, I have called for order.

MURPHY:

Mr.

Speaker, the ground is shifting daily under the Humber Valley Paving fiasco.

There is the release from their contractual obligations; allegations of

political favouritism are out there.

The minister has said that he became also personally involved in the last couple

of days. This is all the more reason

to have the contract investigated by the Auditor General.

Why not ask the Auditor General to investigate?

The

Notices of Motion

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR.

KING:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice under Standing Order 11 that I shall move

that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 12, 2014.

Further, I give notice under Standing Order 11 I shall

move that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, May 12, 2014.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl South.

MR.

LANE:

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 humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there are extreme overcrowding issues in St.

Peter's Elementary and Mount Pearl Senior High, a direct result of poor planning

by the Department of Education; and

Board to deal with this now crisis situation will have a devastating impact on

many students, families, and teachers at Mount Pearl Senior High, Mount Pearl

Intermediate, St. Peter's Elementary, and Newtown Elementary; and

WHEREAS there are other less disruptive solutions which

can be introduced to alleviate this overcrowding issue, including capital

investment as a preferred option, as well as catchment area realignment; and

the financial flexibility by the Minister of Education to explore other more

suitable options; and

WHEREAS the government has intervened in board

decisions in the past, such as in 2005 in Bishop's Falls, reversing the closure

of Leo Burke Academy during a by-election, I might add;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to intervene in this matter, commit appropriate resources to the

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that I have presented

in the past. I have a lot of them to

present. I have had conversations

with many families, certainly in Mount Pearl.

I held a meeting with families in Mount Pearl last night.

They are very distraught, very upset, and very angry about the decision

that was made.

Very pleased there is a little glimmer of hope, that

we have a new Minister of Education.

Of course, we know that the former Minister of Education was not prepared to

provide any funding to support the family and the students in Mount Pearl.

I am hopeful and the parents are hopeful that the new Minister of

Education, unlike the previous Minister of Education, is going to actually

listen to the people and is going to actually have a sober second look at this

and provide the funding required so that we can look at more suitable options

for the students, families, teachers in the Mount Pearl school system.

I will continue to stand on my feet now day after day

after day presenting these petitions until the new minister listens, and I am

very hopeful that he will.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Burgeo La Poile.

MR.

A. PARSONS:

Mr.

Speaker, I have a petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled:

WHEREAS private and community ambulance operators

provide ambulatory and paramedic services to the residents of Newfoundland and

Labrador and are compensated for these services by the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador; and

WHEREAS the contract for ambulance operators expired in

March of 2012; and

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

completed a review of ambulatory services in the Province, which review was

completed August 2013, and released to the public in October 2013; and

WHEREAS ambulance operators agreed to hold off from

negotiations with government until the ambulance review was complete, and showed

good faith; and

WHEREAS government's current position in negotiations

has been heavy-handed, and will see cuts in ambulance services across the

Province;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the government to negotiate a

fair deal with ambulance operators that ensures the safety of our ambulance

professionals as well as the patients in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first of these petitions that

I have had the privilege of presenting here in the House.

I wish I did not have to do it, but unfortunately I have been forced to

do it by the actions of this government over the last couple of years when it

comes to dealing with the ambulance services in this Province and the

paramedics.

We know that the operators showed good faith and said

we are willing to sit back, let the review come out, so that we can see what is

the best way for us to move forward as we provide these services to the people

of the Province. What did we see

from that good faith? Well, what we

seen is a government that is sitting down, trying to impose cuts to ambulance

services all across this Province affecting people in my district, affecting

people all over on this side and all over on that side.

It is funny, though; I do not hear much on it from the other side.

We are seeing a cut in emergency services to the people

of this Province. It is a reduction

in emergency services. It is

absolutely unreasonable. I brought

this up in Health Estimates and I will give the minister credit.

He has only been on the job less than a week and he did his best.

I do not expect him to know everything yet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

A. PARSONS:

What I did get out of the bureaucrats in the department was very little as well.

We know that up to this point the government has been very hard to deal

with when it comes to these negotiations.

The fact is they are saying: Here is a new model; you are going to accept

it and that is all we are going to do.

What I am saying on behalf of the people in my district

and do you know what? I am going

to say on behalf of the people in this Province and on behalf of the members

across who have not spoken about this yet, even though it is going to affect

their people. They are going to see

a cut. Any reduction in emergency

services is absolutely unacceptable.

What I am doing is calling upon government, calling

upon the Department of Health and the Department of Finance to come to a good

deal, one that sees an improvement in services, not a reduction in services and

layoffs across this Province when it comes to paramedics.

I look forward to seeing that and I look forward to dealing with the new

minister. Hopefully things change in

the department because up to this point the negotiations have not been very

good.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair.

DEMPSTER:

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 humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS Route 510 from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay is in

deplorable conditions and requires immediate upgrading; and

WHEREAS the condition of the highway is causing undue

damage to vehicles using the highway and has now become a safety hazard for the

travelling public; and

WHEREAS both residential and commercial traffic has

increased dramatically with the opening of the Trans-Labrador Highway and

increased development in Labrador; and

WHEREAS cold patching is no longer adequate as a means

of repair;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to immediately allocate resources to Route 510 from L'Anse au Clair

to Red Bay that allows for permanent resurfacing of the highway.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, before Easter break I was up a number of

times talking about the very, very serious condition of the highway.

On Easter weekend, the transportation workers were called out and they

did spend their Easter weekend I imagine they were paid double time for that.

The timing was unfortunate, but it was critical.

It was just unfortunate it did not happen two or three weeks earlier.

They did once again fill up all of the potholes in the Labrador Straits,

but, Mr. Speaker, this is a temporary solution.

Up to now we know the commitment is there to complete

Phase I. That is almost done to

Goose Bay. We have eighty kilometres

that are out to tender right now on Phase III.

We know this minister has said several times that the priority is the

gravel road in the southeast from Red Bay to Happy Valley, but at the stage we

are going right now it will be 2020 before Phase II and Phase III are complete.

The Labrador Straits from L'Anse au Clair to Red Bay simply cannot wait

until 2020. We are talking about

pavement that has already exceeded its life expectancy by at least a

decade-and-a-half. It is cold patch

after cold patch.

I call upon the government to address this situation,

to get the Labrador Straits on the radar for paving before something very

serious happens.

I will continue to stand in my place in the House, Mr.

Speaker, and call upon this Route 510 to be paved as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for the District of St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

J. BENNETT:

the hon. House of Assembly for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS there is no cellphone service in the Town of

Trout River, which is an enclave community in Gros Morne National Park; and

WHEREAS visitors to Gros Morne National Park, more than

100,000 annually, expect to communicate by cellphone when they visit the park;

and

WHEREAS cellphone service has become a very important

aspect of everyday living for residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is an essential safety tool

for visitors and residents; and

WHEREAS cellphone service is essential for business

development;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly

pray and call upon the House of Assembly to urge the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador to partner with the private sector to extend cellphone coverage

throughout Gros Morne National Park, and the enclave community of Trout River.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, Trout River has become noteworthy

worldwide in the last two weeks because a very large blue whale came ashore

there with the ice. Right now, there

is a team from the Royal Ontario Museum in Trout River who are working on the

whale preservation and the restoration.

In fact, within the last hour or so I have arranged to meet with the lead

individual and the committee in Trout River at 7:00 on Friday evening.

The irony is, for all of the good news and the showcasing that Trout

River and the Province will get, is that we are going to get a black eye for not

having cellphone coverage in Trout River and in the enclave.

Trout River will be able to be seen as a place where

wonderful things happen, exciting things happen, and an enclave community in

dependence.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move and to speak today to

this private member's resolution to eliminate the Last In, First Out policy of

the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and to instead distribute

Northern shrimp quota allocations more equitably and it is a very important

word, more equitably using the principles of adjacency and historical

dependence.

Mr. Speaker, during my time speaking today I intend to

underline the need for the federal government to rescind the recent allocation

decisions by focusing on the economic importance of the shrimp sector and the

negative impacts that will result if the LIFO or Last In, First Out policy

continues to be applied to quota allocation decisions.

As I start, firstly, it is important to give a quick

explanation of the Last In, First Out policy or LIFO.

In 1997, inshore harvesters were granted temporary licences by the

federal government so they could harvest the shrimp resources in Shrimp Fishing

Area 6.

Mr. Speaker, the waters to the East Coast of Canada,

between Canada and Greenland down as far as Newfoundland and Labrador, are

divided into seven or eight SFAs or Shrimp Fishing Areas.

The Shrimp Fishing Area that we are talking about being greatly impacted

by this LIFO decision is Area 6.

That area is defined by a line drawn eastward, somewhere between Cartwright and

Happy Valley-Goose Bay area, and another line drawn eastward from Cape Freels,

which is in the District of Bonavista North, in my district.

That Shrimp Fishing Area 6 is where the major, major focus is of this

LIFO and of their quota reductions.

Prior to 1997, Northern shrimp was fished exclusively

by the offshore fishing sector. To

protect the economic interests of the offshore sector, a threshold, at that

time, of 37,600 metric tons was established for the offshore.

Meaning that the offshore allocation would not go below what they had the

year prior to entry of the inshore into the fishery.

Much later, six years in fact, LIFO was mentioned for

the very first time in an integrated fisheries management plan, and the

reference read, I will read this and then I will repeat it.

Should there be a decline in the abundance of the resource in the

future, temporary participants will be removed from the fishery in reverse order

of gaining access-last in, first out (LIFO).

Now, Mr. Speaker, the reference here is temporary

participants. In 1997, that is

exactly what these new inshore fishermen were.

They were temporary participants.

They were granted permits each year to enter and take

part in this

fishery. They were given a quote

each year individually. They did not

know if it was going to happen the following year, but they knew they had one

this year.

In 2003, this policy was first mentioned.

I want to also note, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial inshore fleet

stopped being temporary participants in 2007.

In 2007, ten years after their entry into the shrimp fishery, the federal

government provided participants with their regular licences.

After ten years, these temporary participants were

given full-time, permanent licences, regular licences; however, in that same

year, Mr. Speaker, the federal government changed the way LIFO was referenced.

This is how they wrote the reference in 2007: Should there be a decline

in the abundance of the resource in the future, new participants/allocations

will be removed from the fishery in reverse order of gaining access-Last In,

First Out, LIFO.

Just quickly look, Mr. Speaker.

In 1997, temporary licences, temporary permits.

In 2003, the first mention of LIFO.

In 2007, temporary permits were given full-time, regular, licence

category. That is when they changed

the meaning of what LIFO referred to.

They tried to change it after the fact, Mr. Speaker, to new participants

or new allocations.

To introduce LIFO after inshore harvesters have been

given access to the resource and then change the wording after the harvesters

were given the regular licences, underlines the confusion industry has faced

while trying to pursue valuable commercial activity in the shrimp sector,

especially in Shrimp Fishing Area 6.

In short, Mr. Speaker, the LIFO policy forces inshore

harvesters who have been involved in the fishery since 1997 if we do the math,

that is about eighteen years it will soon be, or seventeen years.

These harvesters now have to bear the brunt of any quota cuts that are

necessary to protect the stock, just because they are the newest entrants to the

industry.

Now they are the newest entrants to the shrimp fishing

industry, Mr. Speaker, new to shrimp.

Who are these people who are adjacent and historically connected to every

aspect of the entire fishery in our Province on the East Coast?

New to shrimp, but historically connected to cod, capelin, turbot, seals,

lumpfish, crab, and finally the shrimp.

Not just one species attachment, Mr. Speaker, attachment historically to

the entire fishery.

Mr. Speaker, LIFO was established by the federal

government with little consultation and no consensus from the Northern Shrimp

Advisory Committee. The policy gives

no consideration to the economic or social impact of assigning the bulk of quota

cuts to the inshore fleet.

Federal shrimp allocations affect more than 100

communities in our Province, Mr. Speaker, in which provincial harvesters and

plant workers reside. If the LIFO

policy continues to guide these decisions, it will endanger the economic

well-being of communities, of families, and of the fishing resource throughout

most of the East Coast, and even parts of the West Coast of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

To illustrate the impact of quota cuts, I would like to

note that of every 1,000 tons of quota reduced to the inshore sector in 2014,

this equates to approximately $1.5 million in lost revenue to inshore fishing

enterprises. Also, it is a loss of

20,000 person hours of employment in onshore processing plants, with lost wages

of approximately $250,000.

This speaks how seriously employment could be impacted,

as well as the viability of fishing operations and plants.

It is important to note here that for every 1,000 tons the same amount

of quota reduced to the inshore sector this year, it equates to over $2.5

million in lost revenues in the ten shrimp producing plants large, great

impacts, Mr. Speaker.

The quota allocation decisions recently made by the

federal government do not give any consideration to this economic impact, and it

will affect more than 250 small boat enterprises in the inshore fleet sector,

more than 2,200 plant workers, and multiple businesses throughout the Province

that supply this industry. Mr.

Speaker, this simply cannot be allowed.

Over the Easter break, as our minister referred to

earlier today, just before the Easter break he announced an all-party committee

to discuss the shrimp allocation quotas for the Northern shrimp.

On that committee was the minister

himself, the Member for Ferryland.

On the government side I had the honour to be there, as well as the members for

Port de Grave and Twillingate. The

Opposition was represented by Humber Valley and The Straits White Bay North;

and the Third Party, the NDP, represented by the Member for Signal Hill Quidi

Vidi.

There were alternates, as the minister mentioned as

well, from Baie Verte Springdale, Grand Bank, Carbonear Harbour Grace, and

St. John's East who all stepped up and were actively all a part of the meetings

that were held. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, I think the committee got together four, if not five times over the

Easter break, which culminated in a select portion of the committee travelling

to Ottawa earlier this week, returning very late last night, and presented the

opinions and the evidence that we gathered.

How did we gather information over the break, Mr.

Speaker? Well, we met and we sent

out a plea for people who wanted to express their interest of the shrimp fishing

industry to the committee and we accepted information from the offshore sector.

We met with CAPP, the Canadian Association of Prawn Producers.

The inshore sector, we met Fogo Island Co-op, SABRI, St. Anthony Basin

Resources, and Torngat Mountains group.

We also met with the FFAW representatives, so we had union involved as

well.

There were numerous e-mails and letters individually

written. As well, there were

individual conversations in our districts as we travelled around with people who

knew we were on the committee and wanted to get their two cents' worth in to all

the committee members individually.

Then, of course, we would relay this information back to the committee.

Bonavista North, Mr. Speaker, has a connection to the

shrimp industry in the same fashion as most of this Province, as the connection

is there. It is not as historically

connected. We do not have a plant.

There was one plant that applied for a licence back in the early 2000s.

They were not successful in getting that licence, but in 1997 about 10

per cent of the fishery in shrimp, or up to about twenty-five to thirty boats,

were from the Bonavista North catchment area and fished out of that region.

In 2007, like everybody else, Mr. Speaker, they got

permanence. Licences were combined.

There were major dollars invested by these harvesters.

They borrowed, they invested, and they risked their life savings in lots

of cases on the fishing enterprises they were creating, not to realize these

licences could be devalued so demonstrably when this LIFO policy could come into

effect. The fisherpeople I talked

to, the harvesters and the plant workers, I could hear concern in their voices

as to what would happen, and the union members in our area were the same thing.

Their voices were very, very concerned.

Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to finish all

of the information I have here at this point, but I will come back to this as I

conclude a little later today.

Clearly, the issue is of tremendous economic importance in my district and in

each and every district in this Province, whether the district is landlocked or

on the ocean. There are probably

people who either drive the trucks or they fish in the boats.

They are connected or they have families who are connected.

That is why the provincial government has been strongly

opposing this policy since 2010, and while the government acknowledges quota

reductions will be required to protect the shrimp resources off our coast, we

feel that the reductions must be shared equitably.

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

I remind the member his time has expired.

MR.

CROSS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Member for Carbonear Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SLADE:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the all-party

committee's recommendations. First

of all, I would like to thank the minister and all of the all-party committee

members for spending so much time on this.

It was an important issue. It

just goes to show that when we stick together, we can certainly do great things

for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, just to give you just a brief, the

committee met over Easter. They had

many, many people come to them: the FFAW, the Canadian Association of Prawn

Producers, the Labrador shrimp union company, St. Anthony Basin Resources

Incorporated, Fogo Island Co-op, as well as several fishers, and industry.

The term adjacency, of course, is very important to all

this that we are doing here now. The

principle of adjacency of course is these cuts do not fairly take into account

the principle of adjacency or community viability.

In 2007, these inshore licences were made permanent.

As a result, millions of dollars were invested by small enterprises.

Mr. Speaker, I was fishing in 1992 when the moratorium

was called on cod. Let me tell you,

it was quite devastating. It was

personally devastating. It was

devastating to communities. It was

devastating to plant workers. It was

just devastating to the Province as a whole.

It was very important to recognize that and to make sure that this does

not happen with our shrimp resource.

It is very important that we do what we have done here, to bring it together,

and for all of us to be singing from the same songbook.

There is nobody sitting around these tables here, I am sure, wants to

deal with another 1992.

Mr. Speaker, these inshore boats that were allowed into

it made huge investments into their enterprises.

I do know of one gentleman this winter that went and bought another

shrimp licence. Just to give you an

example of that, if he bought a licence for 100 ton of shrimp and went to the

bank on that principle, now his 100 ton of shrimp is probably reduced back to 50

ton of shrimp. So, it is quite a

huge thing. The banks certainly do

not accept any excuses when they are looking for their payments on the boats and

the investments those people made.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is serious stuff.

Then I want to talk about the implications as it

pertains to the plant workers in the communities.

We have a lot of plants around Newfoundland and Labrador that produce

this shrimp, cook this shrimp, peel this shrimp, and a lot of workers in those

plants. So, of course, the reduction

in the shrimp quotas this year is going to have some large implication on some

of those workers, and communities in general.

It is a serious issue and it is something that we

should all be concerned about, because the cut is in 2014, and maybe, just

maybe, it will happen again in 2015 and 2016.

So we have to be very, very careful on what we do and we have to make

sure that LIFO is completely knocked out of the system, because it is unfair to

people who have large investment or have made large investments.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to pursue this a little further

somewhere down the line, and I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

would certainly like to do the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just shrimp.

This could relate to cod, or crab, or anything else down the line.

So, I often have thought about it, here you have people thousands of

miles away making decisions that affect fish harvesters and fish plant workers

and communities lives, and no consultation.

I have a real problem with the consultation process, because in order for

us to have a say into it, in order for us to have a say into what we do and how

we control our own lives, we have to have a say.

Somewhere along the way somebody has to listen and have that public

consultation. If there is no public

consultation, Mr. Speaker, those people are the people who are making the

decision that affect our lives every day.

You have fish harvesters out there who do not know if

they should make investments. You

have plants out there that employ plant workers and do not know if we should

make an investment. Mr. Speaker, it

is very, very important that we pursue that avenue, too.

What I am referring to there is joint management.

I know many governments after coming through this hon. House have pursued

that aspect of it. As it stands

right now, not yet, but I am sure if we stand together as a group, like we did

on the shrimp issue, I am sure we can do great things here in this Province and

I am sure we will make the people of Newfoundland and Labrador very proud of us.

Mr. Speaker, we need to be proactive instead of

reactive. If not, we will just be

back here year after year making the same arguments.

We have heard that the type of work we have been doing with this

committee needs to continue. People

want a say.

Mr. Speaker, as I just said to you about the plant

workers and the communities, the communities are directly affected, the

businesses of the communities are directly affected, which, as everybody knows,

there is a large, large spinoff for communities with regard to the fishery, the

plants, and everything else. I heard

somebody saying not too long ago it is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, when you

think about it when the moratorium was called some years ago, several

businesses in Mount Pearl closed.

That is how large of a spinoff somebody would look at you and say there is no

fish or anything in Mount Pearl, but it was businesses that were created to

service the fishing industry and there were jobs lost in that, even in Mount

Pearl. Of course, we have to be

very, very vigilant on that.

The science part of it and I am very, very encouraged

that the committee actually spoke on the science part of it; it is an important

piece. Personally speaking, I

participated in science since 1996 up until last year, Mr. Speaker.

I changed my occupation this year.

I did a sample of the survey for the federal government, the cod survey.

I started that in 1996 and I have done it up until 2013.

The information, it was a great thing because it was the science branch

working with the harvester. The

harvester could see what was going on.

They provided that information to the science branch.

Mr. Speaker, again, it is called co-operation and it is what we need to

see happen in this hon. House.

Mr. Speaker, adjacency is a long-standing principle

that has guided fisheries management in our Province.

The Canadian government used the principle of adjacency and community and

regional development benefits as criteria in granting the offshore licences to

community-based organizations in southeast Labrador in 1978 and granting similar

special allocations to regional organizations on the Northern Peninsula in 1997.

Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Mifflin was up there that is when

the inshore fleet came into it. Now, in

order for everybody to survive at this there has to be a sharing of the

resources. There just simply has to

be a sharing of the resources. If

not, communities will die. I know,

in this hon. place, that we all care about rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

I know each and every one of us does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SLADE:

Mr.

Speaker, the term and the reference we say for adjacency are those living

closest to the stock will benefit from it.

LIFO takes away that very, very idea.

It is not correct and, for whatever reason, either it was snuck in there

or whatever the case may be, but there was no consultation on it.

In a lot of cases, harvesters were not even aware of it.

Because I am sure, Mr. Speaker, if they were aware of it, they would have

certainly not invested a large number of dollars.

The shrimp industry, you can spend a lot of money.

It is nothing to go out and spend $1.5 million or $2 million on a boat,

plus the equipment and everything else.

There is nobody going to take a huge risk like that if anybody ever had

to know that there would be a LIFO policy.

Will this policy come down and be implemented in the

crab industry later on? Apparently,

the minister can do so at her discretion.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it is simply not good enough.

Just to give you an idea on that, Mr. Speaker.

Just let me give you a situation on that as I spoke to you about the

minister's discretion powers.

Decisions affecting industry are largely made by the federal government through

the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under the Fisheries Act, 1868.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

SLADE:

The

principle of the federal statute that manages Canadian fishing resources, the

federal fishery minister is accorded widespread, absolute discretion in matters

of a fishery under the Fisheries Act.

This discretion is often used by the federal Fisheries Ministers over the

years and sometimes much to the detriment of our industry and our Province.

Successive ministers have been legally challenged,

including a recent victory won by the BC First Nation over their herring fishery

after a minister overruled recommendations of our own scientists.

It is one of the reasons federal Minister Gail Shea has ruled as she did

on the shrimp quota to avoid reducing catch of the FFT that catches the shrimp

quota she wrongly awarded to the PEI businessmen some years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I just thought I would speak on that for

just one moment. If you use the Last

In, First Out policy, the fish harvesters and I am referring to the

sixty-five-foot fleet are actually not the last ones in.

In actual fact, PEI fish harvesters were the last one in, so they would

have to be the first ones out. By

the way, they did not receive cuts this year.

I have some concern about that too, on what exactly has taken place

there.

I just spoke to you a little there, Mr. Speaker, on the

importance of science and the fact that the all-party committee has recommended

a comprehensive assessment of Northern shrimp science for a full study of

climate change impacts is a reflection of the ongoing gutting of budget and

services to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, especially in the scientific

sector with more cuts expected to come down the chute.

Like I said, we have to stay on top of this issue and other issues as it

pertains to the cuts.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the latest example of a

fisheries decision being imposed on us by people thousands of miles away, people

who know little of our concerns, lifestyles, and values show why the pursuit of

a joint management fisheries board is so vitally important to our prosperity

generation over generation for the past thirty-five years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Oh,

oh!

MR.

SPEAKER:

Order, please!

MR.

SLADE:

Successive Governments of Newfoundland and Labrador have endeavoured to enter

effectiveness and sustainable management of our fisheries resources.

At best, we can only pressure the federal government to consider our

effort and interest amongst others forming its policies.

Mr. Speaker, I am just about down to the last thing.

Again, I would like to just say to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture, and the all-party committee, congratulations, Sir, and I hope to

see many efforts go to Ottawa when it comes to our fishery and the people in our

rural communities, and all over Newfoundland and Labrador, because together we

can do it, I am pretty sure of it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR.

HUTCHINGS:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member across the

way for his comments and his insight into the issue we are discussing here today

in regard to the private member's motion.

Obviously, from his professional career he can speak eloquently to the

industry and what his experience has been.

Certainly, that is important to hear all of those who have interest.

That is how we develop insight and direction in regard to policy that is

reflective of the needs of the industry as we move it forward.

Mr. Speaker, the motion today is very important in

regard to what we have been working on the past number of weeks, the elimination

of the Last In, First Out policy (LIFO) of the Department of Fisheries and

Oceans. As we have talked about, and

as we know, we some time ago struck an all-party committee with all parties

involved and all members involved.

Over the Easter break we had very good sessions, all

collectively, and very good discussions when we reached out to stakeholders in

relation to the fishery, all across Newfoundland and Labrador.

They came and presented to the committee, thoughts from their perspective

on where they stood in regard to LIFO, Last In, First Out and what it would mean

to them from the operations perspective, from the harvesting perspective,

processing and as well from a community perspective.

This is all interrelated in regard to economic opportunity.

It relates right down to the SMEs, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in

our rural and coastal communities.

So it is economical in terms of the regional impact, which is indeed

significant.

If we go back and look at the history in regard to

access for the inshore fleet to the Northern shrimp, we know when we go back to

the mid-1990s, 1996, that temporary status was that entrance was made, as we

have seen downturn in the ground fishery in prior years at that time.

There was a need for our inshore harvesters to get access to a resource

and to build their enterprise. That

was acknowledged, and they got access to that resource and were able to build

out.

With that came investment.

Like any business enterprise, certainly the fishery is no different, they

had to invest in other enterprises, often bigger fishing vessels, and the type

of gear they have on those vessels, all of those kinds of things.

They continued work to support the fishing enterprises, then conversely

support the processing sector on land, and as well support their communities.

Right now, we have about ten plants that process on the Island and in

Labrador in regard to shrimp, and five of those, if I remember correctly, mostly

deal with just shrimp. The

repercussions of what we are talking about today are certainly significant, from

a processing sector as well.

As we move on from 1996, when the inshore fleet gained

access, it moved along in terms of the Integrated Fisheries Management program

with DFO, in terms of how they gave oversight, reaching to the point in 2007

where collectively the federal government and the Province, federal Minister

Hearn at the time, and as well provincial Minister Rideout, came together and

talked about it. From the federal

perspective, they decided they would make these inshore fishers permanent.

As we heard recently when we were in Ottawa, they called them regular in

Ottawa, but at the end of the day they are permanent.

They were brought and allowed to have permanent status in this industry

in 2007.

At that time, too, it is very important to recognize

there were other initiatives or directions at the time collectively to build

that sector and certainly to rationalize it as well.

There was the ability at that particular time for licences to be used as

equity in terms of raising financing and capital to build their enterprises.

There was a combining policy which encouraged rationalization, but also

encouraged investment, obviously, when we try to rationalize the industry and

make sure those that are left get a better return and can build successful

enterprises.

What we argued and the all-party committee argued when

we were in Ottawa is a significant key to what we are talking about in regard to

the LIFO policy. In 2007, and from

there on, those who were involved understood it.

It was their belief, and rightfully so, it was never clear.

There was indeed, a lack of consultations on the whole issue.

That meant they were stakeholders in the inshore fleet and that meant

there was further investments. We

are talking about significant investment in vessels below 100 feet, really,

anywhere from $1 million to $2 million in terms of actual vessels, and a

significant investment in the whole process of buying licences and increasing

the capacity within your individual operation to make sure it is successful.

We went from in excess of 300 enterprises in the

inshore fleet down now to somewhere around 250 and probably 230, if I remember

correctly, are active. That is the

key point in 2007 from our perspective in terms of that.

An investment was made. The

acknowledgement was they were regular participants in the fishery, and from that

they continued to build their enterprises.

At that time, the resource over those years continued

to grow. In 2010, based on the

science and based on how the resource was doing, it was recognized that there

needed to be some reductions. Those

reductions started approximately in 2010.

I guess, based on LIFO, which is Last In, First Out, those inshore

harvesters who had access obviously, the offshore was there initially starting

in the 1990s or before, and then in 2010 when the cuts came based on the LIFO

policy those inshore harvesters that had invested, they were the first out, and

special allocations as well received cuts.

They were the ones that received significant cuts,

which is so devastating, and what we are fighting against and looking to have

that policy readjusted. Because that

is what it is; it is only a policy at a point in time.

You can argue back in 1996 or 2007 who understand what, of what the

reality was.

The reality today is that that policy and the way it is

implemented is detrimental to one sector, which is the inshore sector.

That is why it can change. It

is at the discretion of the federal minister, DFO, exclusive jurisdiction to

make that and to make that change.

What we have advocated for collectively is that it needs a change.

We need to pull back LIFO, LIFO needs to go, and we need to look at the

resource, recognizing the biomass and conservation efforts are required, but we

need to look at sharing that equally between the two sectors.

We are not advocating one sector against another; we

recognize that there is significant economic return to the Province from the

offshore fleet. They have invested

as well. We look at employment on

those vessels. We look at landing

sites, I think it is four or five in the Province, and what that means in regard

to work on site and storage and all of those things.

We certainly recognize that.

That is what this is all about. It

is coming to an understanding, a new way of doing things, amending the policy

that allows that equal share and allows these industries to continue on, these

sectors to continue on, but certainly recognizing that there is a decline in the

resource that we have seen in the last couple of years and we need to deal with

that. We need to deal with it

collectively, not one verses the other.

It needs to be dealt with in a holistic fashion.

That is why as well, through the work of the committee,

there was significant work done and evaluation done on certain science, certain

surveys and assessment and analysis and how important that is.

We are going to make good decisions LIFO goes and if we are going to

strike a policy that looks at how the resource is evenly and equitably

distributed, we need to have good science and we need to have a clear picture,

certainly for current years and certainly for future years.

As we move forward with the industry and based on the

decline in the resource, there may be further changes, but we need to make sure

the decisions we make today are certainly based on good science, good policy,

and based on the long term for the benefit that are all involved.

When we were in the Commons committee meeting we had

questions and discussions in regard to science, how much science is being done,

where it is being done in regard to the eight zones from zero to seven.

Some of the trial surveys that are being done and the amounts being done

are often done in particular areas and certainly areas that are predominantly

fished by the inshore and the offshore.

We look at SFA 6 in regard to the amount of fishing that is done there,

mostly that is where the inshore fleet would fish, some of it done in seven,

projections for seven in future years is certainly not looking good so in six

the offshore and the inshore are there, with the inshore doing most of their

fishing there.

In regard to the research piece, when we spoke of it,

it is very important. There are two

methods now, my understanding in DFA in terms of what they do.

They do their surveys that are done annually, those would be their trial

surveys they would do where they go out and do actual hauls and identify in

various areas what the shrimp prevalence is and those types of things.

They are set to statistical parameters.

That is to look at the volume of the overall biomass.

Then, with those, every two years there is an

assessment done. That assessment is

very broad, it is very detailed, and it does not only look at the science, it

looks at things like catch rates and certainly I think from the perspective of

the inventory knowledge that is attained from those that are fishing and brings

all of that together. That

assessment looks at things, as I said, like catch rates, what is recruitment

looking like, mortality, and survey, so that is a full scientific analysis.

Our recommendation when we met and it came out of our

all-party committee is that needs to be done every year.

We want one done now, certainly to where we are now in regard to the

stock and the indications of decline.

We need a renewed focus on science and as well on all of the zones from

zero to seven.

If we are looking at opportunities or recommendations

in regard to how we move this forward with LIFO going, maybe the inshore fleet

would do a significant amount of their resource or have a guaranteed amount, we

will say, in SFA 6 and then based on what is available in other zones the

offshore could certainly fish there to make sure they get what amount would be

designated for their enterprises.

That is interesting because I know in the Senate

committee there was actually a Senator who did suggest that in regard to what

if, looking forward, the inshore had more of an access to SFA 6, and then the

offshore would make up what they need collectively in the other zones.

That was interesting that based on their discussion and I give credit

to the Senate committee and the House of Commons committee.

They did their homework, a lot of them.

They had some knowledge of what we were talking about.

Through the discussions it was interesting to hear from them based on

what we were saying would this be an option, would that be an option.

From that perspective we were delighted to have that interaction and to

have that discussion.

That is very important to science.

That is why in our recommendations we talked about that in regard to the

science piece. First and foremost

for this year it is the LIFO policy.

As a government since 2010 we have made formal representation to the federal

government with regard to LIFO. When

the cuts started in 2010 we knew first-hand that this was having a serious

effect on the inshore fishery and on Newfoundland and Labrador.

As my colleague mentioned earlier and rightfully so, it

is in rural Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of where the activity pretty well

carries on, but it filters into all regions of our Province, our urban centres,

and our regional centres. It is all

about wealth and generating revenue.

That is spent all over. That is not

just spent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

He is right when he says that and I agree with him.

It is an industry that is integral to Newfoundland and Labrador economy

and it is spread right throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is why it is so important.

First and foremost, our recommendations were that LIFO

had to go and we had to establish a new sharing arrangement looking at the

elements of adjacency and historical attachment.

As well, as I said, the research piece is significant.

We have to look at that and make a commitment to it from a stock

assessment point of view every year.

Then on long term look at collectively the whole ecosystem, the interaction of

our species, whether it is shrimp, crab, and cod, whatever that is.

In one of our committee meetings as well, it is

interesting, I do not know if it is the Commons committee or the Senate, they

asked about seals. That is part of

the whole ecosystem, too. We have 8

million seals now and how they interact with the whole ecosystem is extremely

important. On a go-forward basis we

need to take that broad perspective in terms of all the species in the ecosystem

and how they interact.

So, to conclude, certainly it is a great motion to

bring forward. Collectively we are

working together, all members in the House of Assembly, on this initiative.

We need to continue our efforts with DFO, and we will continue to do that

in terms of pulling back the LIFO and making sure that we can move both sectors

forward with a fair and equitable distribution of that resource.

It is so vital to Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is certainly worth all of us fighting together, and I congratulate the

hon. member for bringing the motion forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER (Verge):

recognize the hon. the Leader of the Third Party.

MICHAEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased this afternoon to be able to stand

and speak to the motion that is on the floor.

It is very good to follow the minister who laid out very clearly what it

was that we were doing in Ottawa the last two days.

So I would like to pick up on a couple of the points that the minister

has made.

Probably the thing that is the most disturbing about

the decision made by the federal minister and we all understand that she has

the right and the discretion to make the decisions that she does make, but

probably the thing that is the most disturbing and that really upsets us is the

fact that we see a real lack of understanding on the part of the minister of the

importance of the inshore shrimp fishery.

We almost see an, I don't care attitude from the minister.

I am not saying she does not care, I am saying it gives us a sense of not

caring about what is going to happen to rural and coastal Newfoundland and

Labrador because of the decision that she has made.

The word that comes to mind, and we have used over and

over in the committee, is the word equity, and the word that goes with that,

equitable, the adjective. What has

happened is a decision that looks at only one sector of the fishery and makes

that sector pay at this moment, and actually has made it pay inordinately over

the past few years.

In the offshore and the inshore, we know we have people

from this Province who are working.

It is not just in the inshore that we have employees from the Province.

We know on the offshore shrimp boats there are Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, even on the ones that are not owned by Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians. We know that.

We know we have two ports where the offshore transships

the shrimp they harvest, shrimp that goes to Russia and to China.

We know those ports where you have the transshipment going on are ports

that benefit from the economy of having that activity happening in the

community. We know we have people

employed in those communities, and we agree with that.

That was presented to us by the Canadian Association of Prawn Producers.

What we have to also recognize is even though that

industry does benefit the Province economically, and it does, even though people

are employed in that industry from the Province, we know that is true, we also

have to build into the economic picture the scale of impact on communities of

the decision made by the minister.

When we look at the scale of impact on the communities of the decision made by

the minister, we see that the inshore is being affected much more than the

offshore.

We also see when we are saying that, we are talking

about basically whole communities that could crumble economically because of the

decision that has been made by the minister.

That is the issue we have to deal with.

That is why the number one recommendation that was presented to the two

committees in Ottawa on May 5 and May 6 was that we have to eliminate LIFO.

We have to eliminate a policy that DFO put in without

consultation, naming it as a policy in 2003 and 2007.

We have to have that stopped, because LIFO in and of itself means the

inshore fishery. It was the

explanation by the minister and by the mover of the resolution that gave a

background as to who came in first into the industry, and we know it was the

offshore, and when the inshore was brought in and LIFO therefore as a policy,

deliberately attacks the inshore.

Now, in 2007 and the minister has spoken to what

happened in 2007. In 2007, when the

harvesters in the inshore were given permanent quotas, they thought they were

now on an equal footing with the offshore when it comes to being in the

industry. They had no reason to

believe they were going to be treated inequitably.

The very act of DFO changing from temporary quotas to permanent quotas

was a sign that they were now in the industry on the same footing as the

offshore. What they have found out

is that, in actual fact, is not the case.

Not in the eyes, anyway, of the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

When you look at what has happened to the inshore over

the past four to five years, you see an inordinate change for them, a cut year

after year after year that has resulted in the inshore this year now being cut

to a point where they are even below the recognized threshold for harvesting, a

threshold that was set back in 1997.

They are now below that threshold.

In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, from 2009 to 2014 the inshore has lost 56 per cent

of its quota.

Now, this is devastating.

The cut this year, which is having almost like the final push, as it

were, is the thing we are most concerned about.

This year, the cuts that are being made are being shared, yes, by the

inshore and the offshore, but the inshore is having to take 90 per cent of the

cut that is being made, and the offshore only 10 per cent.

In actual fact, in one of the exhibits we presented to the committees, it

is very clear in a bar graph that we presented to them that there has been very,

very little change for the offshore over the years.

When you do the math, you find that the offshore per cent change has only

been 10 per cent.

A case was made to us by the offshore, by the Canadian

Association of Prawn Producers, why this was an okay situation.

We are not trying to pit, as a committee as members of the committee we

talked very carefully about this and we have it in the presentation one sector

against the other sector. That would

not be the way to go and that should not be the way to go because in a lot of

the cases we are talking about the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are

being affected. However, we cannot

expect one sector, and especially one that is so based on coastal and rural

communities, to take the whole burden while the other sector just continues on

its merry way with hardly a change happening to it.

This was the position we took with the two committees,

with the parliamentary committee and the Senate committee.

This is what we tried to get them to understand, that you just cannot

look at economics from the dollar-sign perspective.

When you look at it from the dollar-sign perspective, you can say: Well,

the offshore is more valuable, as CAPP says.

They say it is more valuable because the workers in the offshore make

bigger salaries. They say it is more

valuable because the money they make by sending their catch to Russia and China,

where they want head and skin on, is a more valuable resource when it is being

sold; that means the offshore is more important.

I think the conclusion we came to on the committee is

we have to look at the coastal and rural communities.

When we look at the coastal and rural communities where we still have ten

plants that the inshore is dealing with, we are looking at communities that can

actually die. The Fogo Co-operative,

for example, will lose all of its quota.

The Innu Nation will lose all of its quota.

Mr. Speaker, however, at the same time and I am sure

the federal minister would prefer we not say this, but it is a fact that we

have in her plan communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, whole communities,

losing quotas and other communities that are going to be so badly affected we

know that plants are going to have to shut down because there is not going to be

enough shrimp to harvest, while that is happening the company based in PEI has

not lost anything. They are going on

their merry way.

That is why we had to get into the whole issue of

adjacency. What does this new

sharing arrangement mean when it comes to adjacency?

The second recommendation is calling on the federal government to ensure

that the sharing arrangement considers adjacency and reflects the history of

both fleets in the Northern shrimp fishery.

This is something we have presented to the committees

and really hope that the parliamentary committee of the House of Commons is

going to speak to the minister about because the adjacency issue is a key one

and it does not seem to be one that in the eyes of the minister should be

considered at all. The only

principle she seemed to use in making her decision was the LIFO principle, which

in our books is not a policy or a principle.

It is not a principle. It is

a policy that DFO arbitrarily put in place and now the inshore fishery is

suffering from.

The challenge we had in Ottawa yesterday and the day

before was to try to get the MPs and the Senators to understand what is going

on. One of the things I mentioned in

both of those hearings was back in the 1980s when Michael Kirby as a

Commissioner did his big study on the fishery.

One of the things he warned against was using the fishery I am

paraphrasing now as a social program just to keep places going in Newfoundland

and Labrador. He said we cannot make

the decisions based on that.

At the time I protested against Michael Kirby saying

that and I still do. I accept what

he is getting at but you cannot underestimate right now in today's time with

what we are dealing with the economic benefit of the communities that still

exist. You cannot underestimate the

economic benefit of the coastal and rural communities that are still not only

benefiting from the harvesting of shrimp and the harvesting of other species

you cannot underestimate what they also give back to the Province's economy.

compartment. You have to look at the

whole economic picture in which the decision is based.

Having done that, it was hard to tell.

We have been asked by the media today and we were asked yesterday what do

we think is going to happen. You

certainly saw glimmers of understanding in some members of the committees.

You could tell by body language and the questions they asked that some of

them really did understand the importance of the impact on the rural

communities.

We also tried to get them to understand that as we

continue in the industry we understand, we know that the resource is being

depleted. That is why we have to

start taking steps on more than one level to try to understand what exactly is

happening.

If cuts have to continue to be made they have to be

made in an equitable way. We can

find ways in which maybe we can slow that down.

I think the minister has referred to that and I think the mover of the

resolution referred to that as well.

That is looking at different ways in which the allocation throughout all eight

of the shrimp fishing areas that we look at all of the allocation being used.

Right now the offshore has access to all of the areas,

but only concentrates itself on one area because it is more convenient for them

to do that.

Whereas, we know that

there is shrimp all over, in all eight areas, that could be accessed.

So there has to be a look at the reallocation, total reallocation, and

there has to be a look at the fact that LIFO just cannot be the answer.

We have to make sure that everybody is going to contribute to maintaining

the resource as long as we can and everybody is going to bear the brunt of cuts

when they have to be made, not one group more than the other.

It is the life of our rural and coastal communities that we are talking

about, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

SPEAKER:

The

hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!

MR.

DALLEY:

Mr.

Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to have a few moments this afternoon to

speak on such a very important issue for the Province and, indeed, for the

people I represent in the District of the Isles of Notre Dame, certainly as an

MHA representing their concerns. As

a former Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very important

issue.

Again, it is a pleasure to speak to the issue around

the shrimp allocation, particularly around the LIFO policy, and to be a part of

the voice that is coming from this House and, indeed, many around the Province

that are strongly advocating for the federal government, who is responsible for

this decision, to reconsider the LIFO policy, to take into consideration the

implications of such a decision and to find a better way, to find a creative

way, an innovative way, a solution that minimizes the impact of this decision,

that recognizes the value of the shrimp industry to this Province.

Mr. Speaker, that has been the position, I guess, and

the arguments put forth by the committee.

I do want to commend the committee and certainly the Chair of the

committee for the work that he has been doing and the support from the House of

Assembly, from all members. Because

we recognize, and I think we can all stand and speak individually how we

represent some of our rural communities and fishermen that we know, but at the

same time, whether you are in a rural community directly impacted by the shrimp

fishery, we all acknowledge in this House the importance of the fishery to the

Province, the economy, and particularly to some of our mainstream areas.

You can go to Clarenville, you can go to Gander, you

can go to Grand Falls, you can go to Corner Brook, you can come to St. John's,

Mr. Speaker, there is no question the contribution and the value of the fishery

is seen each and every day in these communities and we know that.

Maybe not so much in the good times, but I can tell you in the downturn

of the fishery, when the fishery is in decline and it is uncertain for a season,

you can feel the impact, not only in our communities but right across this

Province, Mr. Speaker.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about a few things

about the fishery. For me, I have

friends in the fishery. I know

people from my district who have made significant investments.

I think of the Baggs, the Browns, or the Baths; I think of the Bests over

on Fogo Island and the Pentons.

These people are all in the fishery, providing for their families, and making

significant contributions to our community and the economy of our region.

It strikes home the value and importance of the fishery, and I think that

is one message we are seeing here with an all-party committee, a focus.

We are parking the politics.

It transcends politics. It is about

who we are, it is about our place, and it is about the fishery and what it means

to our communities. That is not lost

on any of us.

Mr. Speaker, certainly during my time as Minister of

Fisheries, you see the attitudes, the approach, and the discussions about the

fishery in the Province. One area is

a respect for the fishery. Some

would argue it has been in decline.

It has certainly been challenging over the years.

We transition from one fishery to another, but I think it is times like

this when we all can come together, galvanized and united in a position to

support the fishery, support some of the issues, and support the people involved

in the fishery.

I think that is where we bring it back to a level of

respect that it deserves, not only the fishery and its contribution to the

Province, but certainly the people who are in it.

The fishermen day in and day out are met with many challenges, but

certainl

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	2014-05-07
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	2014-05-07
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fa0151b4187ccafbcb094ee3d5825b94102674a0

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).