The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER: Today the Chair welcomes the following private members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North, the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands, the hon. the Member for the District of Bay Verte-Springdale, and the hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday afternoon I had the pleasure of attending the annual ceremonial review of the 774 RCACS St. Anthony Cadet Corp. and I rise in this hon. House today to recognize the efforts of these cadets, their commanding officers and the organizers of this fantastic event.

Commanding Officer, Captain Beverly Scott is extremely dedicated to the cadet movement in St. Anthony and works hard for the young people that participate in the program. This dedication is evident when you see the number of special awards that were distributed during the afternoon's celebration and the cadets of St. Anthony are to be commended for their hard work in the program as well.

Along with the special awards that were presented, Warrant Officer 2, Kimberly Green received the RCMP Cadet of the Year Award and the Commanding Officer Award. The RCMP Cadet of the Year Award is presented to a senior cadet that has excelled throughout the year and has successfully taken on leadership roles in the squadron. The Commanding Officer Award is presented to a senior cadet who has shown outstanding dedication and deportment throughout their cadet career.

Ms Green was also selected to participate in an international exchange program where she will be travelling to the United Kingdom with twenty-one other cadets from across Canada, an experience that no doubt will enhance her training and abilities with the cadets. Another young lady, Chelsea Sexton, received the Master Corporal Kirk Noel Scholarship. This is a $1,000 award given to a cadet that has excelled in the area of aircraft survival during a squadron competition.

During the afternoon's celebrations, displays were performed by the drill team, band and flag bearers, and what a fantastic job was done by all those involved, a highlight of the afternoon's event.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the 774 RCACS St. Anthony and extend sincere best wishes to them for their continued success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a bright young man with a very promising future, Mr. Scott Wight from the Town of Gillams.

Mr. Speaker, Scott is a Level III student of Templeton Academy in Meadows. I am pleased to stand and report today that Scott recently was awarded the Memorial University Alumni Entrance Scholarship valued at $25,000, which would be one of the highest scholarships ever won by a student at Templeton Academy.

Mr. Speaker, Scott will be attending Memorial University, Corner Brook campus, beginning in September and will be starting his studies which will lead him to a career as a mechanical engineer. Mr. Speaker, this young man is the son of Paul and Sherry Wight.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members here today to recognize Scott as another young Newfoundlander and Labradorian who will provide our great Province with education to keep us successful in such exciting years ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to rise in this hon. House today to congratulate Springdale Foodland for being the proud recipient of two significant awards. The two awards, Foodland Store of the Year and the Community Service Award is a testament to the standard of excellence achieved by the business.

Mr. Kerry Butt, Manager of the store, and his entire staff, are to be commended for their outstanding commitment to serving the general public. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, they are to be applauded for providing outstanding leadership. For many years, Springdale Foodland has contributed to the local school system by donating to the school breakfast program, and to the scholarship fund. They have recognized and accepted their corporate role and as a result their business is an important asset to the community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. colleagues to join with me in delivering accolades to the manager and staff of Springdale Foodland for earning the title Foodland Store of the Year and also for receiving the Community Service Award. I wish them many more successes as they continue to serve the people of the area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize and congratulate Justin Miller, from the Goulds, on his outstanding performance at the Canadian Powerlifting Union Championships held in Quebec City from April 7 – April 11, 2010.

Justin is nineteen years of age and in his competition in Quebec City he was a perfect nine for nine in his lift attempts, which included a best squat of 275 kilograms in the junior male division.

The competition allowed Justin to show his true athletic ability and drive by setting fourteen new Canadian records. He set nine new records in the junior ranks and five new records in the men's open division. His impressive results allowed him to be named junior lifter of the meet. He also set a new CPU Wilks formula record with 563.51 points on the second day of competition, but saw that mark bested on Saturday. Justin, however, now stands as a national junior best in his field.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join with me congratulating Justin Miller from my district on his successes to date in the sport of powerlifting and wish him well in future competitions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the beginning of a three-day North American road check blitz for the commercial trucking and motorcoach business industries. Continuing through to Thursday, enforcement officers with our Motor Registration Division are joining local police forces in twelve-hour shifts to check compliance of trucks, buses and their drivers with road safety rules.

Enforcement officers in Canada, the United States and Mexico have set up more than 1,500 locations to conduct comprehensive roadside inspections. Officers are looking for mechanical deficiencies, overweight vehicles, unsecured loads and general driver errors such as seat belt violations.

Mr. Speaker, although enforcement activities take place every day on our roads and highways, this blitz raises awareness of how important it is for all vehicles to operate safely. This campaign places a spotlight on commercial vehicle safety and on the thousands of highly-trained professional inspectors and officers across North America who help ensure that motorists on our highways reach their destinations safely.

The Department of Government Services is responsible for ensuring that commercial traffic using our roads and highways comply with weight and dimension regulations, are being operated by qualified and safe drivers, and that the vehicles transporting cargo and passengers in this Province are mechanically fit and comply with federal and provincial legislation. These roadside inspections of commercial vehicles are conducted in accordance with nationally developed inspection criteria.

Mr. Speaker, our government has demonstrated a strong commitment to improving our highways. As a part of Budget 2010, the Department of Government Services and the Department of Transportation and Works will establish a new fixed weigh scale in Labrador –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: – to be located at the Labrador West end of the Trans-Labrador Highway. Six new weigh scale inspectors will be hired to staff this weigh scale and conduct portable scale patrols.

The installation of this fixed weigh scale, Mr. Speaker, is an important proactive measure to enhance commercial vehicle and highway safety in Labrador, and protect the tremendous investment of this government in the Trans-Labrador Highway against damage caused by overweight vehicles.

These initiatives and the ongoing highway safety activities of my department and our partners in Transportation and Works, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, are all helping to make our highways safer for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the visitors to our Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement and to know that I think this is a wonderful thing, the North America road blitz, which entails enforcement officers in Canada, the United States and throughout Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, from the information I have - like the stats for last year - there were some 72,255 trucks and buses that were inspected, that were performed last year. It was one of the best compliances that they ever had. When it comes to the operations of the vehicle, they were 80.4 per cent compliant, and with regard to the drivers themselves, it was 95.71 per cent.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are always in favour of any enforcement with regard to safety on our highways and to see that this promotion is ongoing. It is good to note that the minister mentioned the Trans-Labrador Highway and the new weigh scale for that area. We would also suggest that probably they should consider the one on the other end where most of the transport trucks are entering on that highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, we know we are talking about inspections of larger vehicles here, but they are many other issues when it comes to safety on our highways. We hear so much about the moose situation. We hear talk of the safety by not using snow tires. So I thought it was good opportunity to get that in again. I know there about 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the people in our Province using snow tires, but I suggest to the minister that he should work very closely with the other 20 per cent or 30 per cent.

We hope, Mr. Speaker, even though the drivers had notification of this blitz coming up, we hope that any drivers who are on our highways will be caught and that issue will be resolved.

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. Obviously, an initiative like this one is a good one, and it certainly makes sure that it gives drivers a sense of, I think, security that things are being checked with regard to these huge vehicles that they are driving. We need this kind of thing happening more frequently, Mr. Speaker. It is good to have a blitz, but we need to make sure that we have regular, daily almost, random checks going on so that safety measures are really enforced and well-maintained.

I am glad to see the new weigh scale for the Labrador Highway. If we are going to have a highway, it has to be safe. Of course, we do know that it is a difficult highway yet to drive. It does not have blacktop and the regular inspections will be really important because it is harder to keep vehicles well-maintained driving over that kind of a highway.

The big issue though, I think, is having adequate weigh scales across the Province and adequate staff so that the weigh scales can be open when they need to be open to make sure that we have safe vehicles, because where all kinds of vehicles are on the highway, certainly maintaining these large commercial vehicles is extremely important, both for the drivers and the drivers of other vehicles.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on May 25, the Minister of Health stated in the House of Assembly that it could take up to a year before a medevac is stationed with the air ambulance in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It appears, however, that the minister forgot to advise the people of Labrador.

I ask the minister: Has anyone been recruited to fill these positions, how long will it take to complete the necessary training and when will the medevac teams be stationed on the ground with the plane in Happy Valley-Goose Bay?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think when government made the announcement that the airplane would be moving from St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay that coincided with an announcement in this year's Budget, that a new medical flight team would be added to the service this year as a part of this budgetary process, Mr. Speaker, and that is exactly what will take place.

The plane is now moved to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The staff associated with that plane and that service that was in St. Anthony are now relocated to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and the process of recruiting that team has started, I say, Mr. Speaker. So, there will be a process embarked upon where the paramedics and the nurses will be recruited and the appropriate training will be provided. When that is concluded, they will be in place and they will be stationed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay where the plane is currently located.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the government has failed to give us is some dates and timelines around when that will happen.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend there were medical emergencies in Labrador that required the air ambulance in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Because there was no medevac team in place the St. John's air ambulance flew to Labrador to pick up a patient while the other air ambulance sat on the Tarmac in Goose Bay.

I ask the minister: If your plan was so well-thought-out, why is it that the plane in St. John's is required to travel to Labrador for emergencies while the Goose Bay air ambulance sits on the Tarmac?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that are really important to understand here is that the service that was in St. Anthony has now been relocated to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The plane is now located in a different location. How the service operates, has not changed.

The Opposition is trying to make a story as if we have done something to Happy Valley-Goose Bay that did not exist in St. Anthony. All we have really done is moved the plane from St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, a more strategic location.

Mr. Speaker, while the plane was in St. Anthony over the last number of years, the same method of operation existed. Any time that the medical flight team was needed for a flight out of St. Anthony, the plane came from St. John's to St. Anthony with the team, and if not, the plane from St. Anthony flew in to St. John's to pick up a team. The method of operation has not changed, Mr. Speaker, has not changed at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that in relocating the aircraft without the support services, you have set this system up to fail but, more importantly, you have set up a system that will fail the people who need it, I say to you, Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the minister rushed out with a poorly thought-out decision to move the air ambulance, and I can only say it is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Today, if the air ambulance is needed in my district, that plane would have to fly an hour and forty minutes to St. John's to pick up a medevac team, fly an hour back to Blanc-Sablon, fly fifteen minutes to St. Anthony to drop off the patient, fly an hour back to St. John's to drop off the medevac team and fly an hour and forty minutes back to Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, this does not include the (inaudible) –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member if she has a question to pose it now.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: How does this convoluted flight plan make any sense and how does it contribute to improving air ambulance services in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, one thing we can feel pretty comfortable about, the member opposite is not doing the scheduling for that service.

You can take math and you can make it sound like anything, but one of the things that is very important to understand, Mr. Speaker, not every single time an air ambulance flies does the medical flight team need to fly with it.

In fact, when this service operated out of St. Anthony last year – in 2009, Mr. Speaker, out of St. Anthony - only 50 per cent of the time did that flight leave where a medical flight team was necessary. That is the first thing. That is one statistic, Mr. Speaker, she did not share.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, only 3 per cent of the time, only 3 per cent of the time last year did the aircraft have to leave St. Anthony and come into St. John's to pick up the medical flight team. We have no reason to believe that those numbers will change very much because it flies out of Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know even how the government can stand and defend that decision. I say to the minister, it is not about the math, it is about people's lives and it is about real cases. Let me share with you a real case, minister. Let me tell you what happened yesterday on the Coast of Labrador, in my district.

Eight o'clock yesterday morning, Mr. Speaker, there was a patient who needed an air medevac flight. That patient, Mr. Speaker, was waiting for an air medevac aircraft out of St. John's that happened to break down in Gander with the medevac team onboard. Then they had to send another aircraft, the one out of Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, to pick them up. Then they brought the medevac team into Goose Bay. Then they got onboard a twin-engine aircraft and they went…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that Question Period is not a period of debate. If she has a question, I ask her if she would pose it now.

MS JONES: I will, Mr. Speaker – and that patient got medevaced out around 6:00 or 6:30 yesterday evening.

I ask you, Minister: Is this an acceptable service for patients in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is really important to understand here, the member opposite – it is very important when the member opposite stands that she is reasonable, she is balanced in her commentary, and her questions are based on fact.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, any comparisons made to the services being provided now need to be made between the service provided out of Happy Valley-Goose Bay versus the service provided out of St. Anthony. In this case, Mr. Speaker, if the plane was stationed in St. Anthony, that would not have changed the plane breaking down. That would not have changed the need to have the medical flight team travel out of St. John's, because that is exactly what used to happen when it was in St. Anthony. So any commentary made by the member opposite needs to be balanced, Mr. Speaker. Needs to be said in the context of what has actually changed by virtue of moving the plane from St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay and that is the only thing she needs to be focusing on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I am not going to get into a debate of pitting one against the other. This is a debate about providing, Mr. Speaker, good air ambulance service to the people of this Province. Minister, I am trying to get you and your government to open your eyes to what you have done to the people of this Province. Moving the air medevac to Goose Bay without a medevac team adds an hour and forty minutes each way to that service.

I ask you again, minister: Can you stand in your place today and tell these people – three cases I know of over the last two days – that that is an acceptable service that they are receiving?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: When the member opposite raises a question about what this government has done to improve air ambulance service in Newfoundland and Labrador, she fails to recognize and fails to acknowledge that it was this government who has purchased a new plane, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: It was this government who has committed to a second plane, Mr. Speaker. It is this government who has committed to, in this year's Budget, a second medical transfer team, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: When we start talking about this government's commitment to improve air ambulance service in this Province, you only need to look at those three commitments in the last two years, Mr. Speaker, that our government has made. So there is no need to stand in this House and lecture this government about whether or not we have a commitment to improve air ambulance services. That is what we have done in this particular case here, Mr. Speaker. We have now more strategically located an ambulance that is now in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and we have one in St. John's. Any time a plane flies it is only sixty minutes from any destination in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows it does not matter where you relocate that aircraft in the Province; without a medevac team, that particular service is not going to effectively serve the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we understand that St. John's air ambulance –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: – is down for service due to a broken windshield. That means the Goose Bay plane is now serving the entire Province.

I ask the minister: How long will the St. John's plane be out of service and what additional delays will now be added to the response times for the Island portion of the Province as well?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The member opposite, in her preamble, made probably the most accurate statement that she has made in this entire Question Period, when she said: It does not matter where the air ambulance is located, if the medical flight team is not there, it changes how you deliver the service. So the reality of it is, as of today there is no difference whether that ambulance is in Happy Valley-Goose Bay or in St. Anthony. When we have the medical flight team in place it will improve the service. We all know that. That is why we made the commitment to do it, Mr. Speaker.

So for members opposite to stand in this House and criticize our government for moving it from Happy Valley-Goose Bay, or from St. Anthony to Happy Valley-Goose Bay as being an inappropriate decision or a poorly timed decision, the member opposite just acknowledged, it is not the location that will improve the service. It is the location - part of the process. Have it in a more strategic location, enhance the services of the flight team, and that is exactly what we are doing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only problem with all of that is that it is not necessarily the best strategic location. We need two aircraft, and the minister knows that. We need one in Labrador, we need one on the Northern Peninsula and we need medevac teams in this Province if the system is going to operate properly. The minister knows that, Mr. Speaker –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - and he has not answered my question about how long the plane in St. John's is going to be down.

I ask him again: The plane is out of commission, how long is she out of commission for, minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Business.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would not want the member's last statement to go unchallenged, because what she has suggested is that if we need three planes in this Province they need to be in St. Anthony, and they need to be in Happy Valley-Goose Bay and they need to be in St. John's.

I want to remind the members of this House, that the recent evaluation that we had conducted talking about the location of air ambulances in this Province, Mr. Speaker - the operation was in St. Anthony, the recommendation was to move it to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, and we have done that. If and when we were to add a third, it will be located in Deer Lake and not in St. Anthony.

For the member opposite to stand and start a process or start making public commentary to suggest that a third might potentially be in St. Anthony is irresponsible on her part, establishes an unrealistic expectation that they would deliver that, Mr. Speaker, because that is not going to happen. We have been abundantly clear about that from the beginning. Our commitment, from the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, is to improve air ambulance services to all of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only thing irresponsible here is the government in neglecting to provide an appropriate air ambulance service for the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, what is even more appalling is that I have asked the minister twice now why the second air ambulance is broken down in this Province and how long it is going to be down for. Obviously, the government knows nothing about it and has no answers because they have not provided any.

Mr. Speaker, Corey Banks, the Director of Air Ambulance Program, recommended that there be a three to five year phase in period of moving the aircraft. Mr. Speaker, by moving the plane prematurely, the proper infrastructure and human resources are currently not in place as is evident over the last couple of days.

I ask the minister: Why did you ignore this recommendation in Corey Banks' internal report but yet accept all the other recommendations he put forward to your government?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I would not want the member opposite to stand and accuse me of not answering her question again. So let me go back to her earlier question around the repair of the aircraft.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, aircraft have mechanical problems periodically, but the critical thing is how we respond to that. If you look at the history of our government, any time that planes have had a mechanical failure, which will happen, it is a mechanical device, it will happen –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Any time that we have done that, Mr. Speaker, we have had a backup plan. The backup plan is we have arrangements to lease planes. We have arrangements with private airlines to be able to provide a charter for us so we can lease planes. We always, Mr. Speaker, in knowing and recognizing that planes will have mechanical problems we need to have a backup plan.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: So it is not whether or not planes breakdown, Mr. Speaker, the important thing to understand and recognize is: Do you have a backup plan? The answer is: Yes, we do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister again has not answered the question. The question, of course, is that the internal documents in the Department of Health said that this phase-in period for the relocation of air ambulance could take up to three to five years in order to do it appropriately. So, we have no explanation as to why they did not follow that, but they followed all of the other recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, also we are still waiting for the Department of Health to provide documents related to the air ambulance move. The timelines have already passed. We do not understand why we are not receiving the documents other than the fact that the Minister of Health has refused to sign off on the information and release it to the Opposition.

I ask the minister today if that is what is happening here.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how the member opposite stands day after day, her and her colleagues, talking about reports and internal reports and external reports. We have had criticism of Corey Banks and the Corey Banks report. We have had criticisms of the Drodge report and the recommendations. Then, the next day talked about how the recommendations are the same and similar.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, what is fundamental here is that there has been a very in-depth critique of the air ambulance service in the Province and a couple of different individuals, one - not with the Department of Health I might add, but Eastern Health has made some recommendations and made some observations as a person responsible for that service, as did the independent study we had done. Some of them had similar recommendations, Mr. Speaker. There were similar recommendations from both individual's perspective and one kind of reinforces the validity of the other.

What we have done, Mr. Speaker, is we have moved forward to implement the recommendations that will see an overall improvement in air ambulance services within this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To say the recommendations were similar is an understatement, as my colleague said it was more like a photocopy, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has announced that they are going to dispose of surplus lighthouses in the Province including some very well-known and historically significant properties. There are already delays in opening the provincially operated historical site at Point Amour, due to an agreement between the federal and provincial governments that have not yet been ratified.

I ask the Minister of Tourism today: What is the nature of the negotiations that have taken place around these lighthouses and associated properties in transferring them to the Province, especially on provincially owned sites?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me first say that we are certainly very interested in the Point Amour Lighthouse, and we are in a process of negotiating now for the turnover of that lighthouse to the Province. I think last year they had over 5,000 visitors, and we certainly realize the tourism potential and how much that means for the tourism product in Labrador in itself.

Mr. Speaker, there is also the Bonavista Lighthouse that is also one of our provincial historic sites, so certainly that would be of grave interest to us, should a devolution of lighthouses take place in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the reality of it is that the federal government has over, I believe, 100 lighthouses in this Province, of which forty or fifty of them are not even active. Mr. Speaker, outside of several of the lighthouses, as a government certainly, we would never be in a position, nor would we or could we, to take over 100 lighthouses in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister confirm for me today that there is a negotiation or an agreement to take over the lighthouses at Point Amour and Cape Bonavista, or are they just on a lease agreement between the Province and the federal government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, this is very important, and a very important question indeed. We talk about the Point Amour Lighthouse - just as recently as before I came to the House, there were conversations had from my department with the people who are involved with the Point Amour Lighthouse. If the hon. member opposite would pay attention and stay in her own district and ask a few questions, she might very quickly find out where we are to with that, Mr. Speaker.

I will give you a prime example of how out of touch she is with the Point Amour Lighthouse and the people of Point Amour. Last week in the Northern Pen, she was chastising government for not doing what we should be doing - chastising us that we were not doing anything right when it came to the lighthouse in Point Amour. However, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that runs the group down there, the local historical society, says he is not concerned at all. I quote him, "It hasn't suffered at this point…" - and I will keep quoting him, "Both governments I think are doing the right thing at this moment as it all takes time…" –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister and other members to refrain from quoting documents while asking or answering questions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is all too aware that I have talked to people in my district and I have talked to him on two or three occasions about the lighthouse in Point Amour and what the status is. In fact, Mr. Speaker, up to an hour ago, I talked to people who are affiliated with the lighthouse properties. They are telling me they are still locked off the site. They cannot access the site.

We are two weeks into the tourism season. We understand that any agreement between the federal and the provincial government to take over the properties are now off the table.

I ask you, Minister: Will there at least be a licence to occupy or a lease agreement in place in the next few days so that this site can open?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I chatted with the member opposite the week before last and I told her to assure – she brought to my attention that people were worried and concerned in her area. I respect that, Mr. Speaker, and I told her at that time to go back to her district and tell them not to worry.

It is in hand, Mr. Speaker, it is going to happen. We realize we are a little bit late this year because the federal government has decided to do business a little different than last year. To paraphrase, Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase the local gentleman down there on the ground: I am confident – I am confident, he repeated - that this Province will be able to take it over before too long.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Other than the Point Amour Lighthouse, which we have no indication from the minister at this stage if they will be taking it over and when they will be taking it over, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask also about other lighthouses at properties in Cape Spear, Red Bay –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having great difficulty in hearing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pose her question. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am straining my voice here to ask the question. The lighthouses at Cape Spear, Red Bay, Rose Blanche and Ferryland are also other tourism attractions that need to be protected.

I ask the minister: Has the Province looked into taking over control of any of those lighthouses, and if so what criteria will be used to determine which ones in the Province are taken over?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, as minister of this department, we certainly realize the importance of our provincial historic sites around this Province, of which some of them have lighthouses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: So obviously, Mr. Speaker, as I assured the member opposite, the Point Amour Lighthouse is a significant piece of history, something that has significant potential for attraction to Labrador, to the opposite member's district.

Mr. Speaker, again, I say –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members, for the final time, for their co-operation, and to allow the hon. minister to provide his answer.

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, here we are now with a federal government that is devolving of over 100 lighthouses. We have hundreds of historic churches in this Province, Mr. Speaker. There is no possible way that this government could take over every lighthouse that the federal government has devolved of in this Province. However, Mr. Speaker, we certainly will look at the ones that are important to our historical background in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I will be totally frank here now, totally frank with the people in this Province, there is no possible way that this government can take over 100 lighthouses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Gulf turbot fishery opened in 4RSP last Thursday and closed at 8:00 p.m. on Saturday. Immediately following the 8:00 p.m. deadline to have nets out of the water, DFO launched an investigation into charging upwards of twenty-five fishing enterprises in the 4R area, simply for going a few hours beyond the catch close or time limits. These fishermen are stating that inclement weather and insufficient off-loading sites delayed them getting back on the water to retrieve their fishing gear.

I ask the minister: If he is aware of these potential charges, and if he or his department is investigating the allegations put forth by the fishermen of the Northern Peninsula, and have you been in contact with DFO or even the minister on resolving this matter?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of the situation. I do not know if the hon. member saw my news release that went out this morning, but I am meeting with Minister Shea on Saturday. Mr. Speaker, I intend to raise that particular issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The time frame allocated to this fishery is only forty-eight hours for some eighty to 100 boats. The steam line is up to five hours and there are some that are using up to 200 nets and so on. Inclement weather and off-loading and so on obviously are additional challenges for the harvesters. Given these factors which hamper fishermen getting the gear out of the water in this forty-eight hour time frame, I ask the minister: What do you intend to request from the federal counterpart when you meet with her in this meeting that you just mentioned?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, prior to the opening of the House this session, I travelled around the Province quite extensively and met with a number of people. I met with some people on the Northeast Coast, with the member from that area, and this was one of the issues that was raised. This turbot fishery, it is a very viable, lucrative fishery for a very short period of time. The fishermen on the ground believe that there could be an increase in quota and science is saying that it is sustainable at its present levels.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we certainly have to relay to our federal counterparts speak specifically to science, to ensure that we have accurate science and that proper decisions, correct decisions are made to the benefit of all involved and, in particular, Mr. Speaker, the resource.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly support aiding other parts of the world in an emergency, yet we must also ensure we do not leave ourselves scrambling at home in the event of our own emergency. Mr. Speaker, since booms are critical to contain oil from a potential spill in the ocean and since we have learned from media reports that Coast Guard has shipped some of our boom south to assist cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Environment and Conservation if she knows whether or not the plans for containment of an oil spill in Placentia Bay are adequate for keeping oil from hitting the Province's shoreline?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the member had not asked me, I was certainly going to rise on Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given, because I committed yesterday that I would contact the Coast Guard and I had done that, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: - and they informed me that they did deploy 600 metres of boom. There is still 750 metres of boom remaining. There is also a single side sweep booms of 500 metres and there is also 8,000 metres of thirty-six inches of inshore boom available. So they have assured me that the capacity is available within the Province to respond to a spill should there be one here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I do thank the minister for coming up with those answers today. It is important information that we need to have.

What I would like to know though now, as a follow-up to that: Is she, in her department, going to meet with these agencies to discover whether or not in general - not just now at this moment, but in general - what they have in place is adequate if an oil spill happened in the Placentia Bay? Is what they have in place adequate to keep oil from reaching our shorelines, taking into account the wave movement in that bay, the islands in that bay et cetera?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

As I said yesterday, while it is not in the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment, I also said that we certainly consult with our counterparts on the federal level, at the Coast Guard, at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Speaker, and certainly Transport Canada. The oil spill plans are certainly in place. They have required times. Certainly, the oil companies are required to have a certified oil spill response organization in place and they are also required to have oil spill emergency plans and contingency plans in place. There are very stringent rules. It is a very strict regime.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: There are certainly timelines involved in terms of tier one, tier two, and tier three responses.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the exercise and the training that is done, I am told that in every instance they have certainly exceeded the timelines required to address an oil spill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest treasures of this Province is our marine wildlife. Recently, experts have been raising the alarm that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will have dire effects on our migratory bird population which could devastate, for example, Cape St. Mary's Ecological Reserve.

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister immediately strike a committee of independent experts to monitor and make recommendations on what we can do to save what we can of our natural heritage in the face of this growing environmental disaster now spreading throughout the Atlantic?

MS JONES: A good question.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the Leader of the Opposition who just shouted it was a good question, and it is a very good question. We are all concerned about the environment, not only people in this House but people outside this House. We see what is happening in the Gulf right now, and, Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute disaster and one that we hope we would not want to see here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, we meet regularly with the federal government. We participate on REET, which is the Regional Environmental Emergencies Team, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Wildlife Service has an oil spill response plan in place, and, Mr. Speaker, as part of the REET organization they can draw on –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, if I could have the opportunity to continue. This is a very serious issue and the Leader of the Opposition continues to mock me when I say that the environment is of a serious concern. It certainly is of a serious concern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for her co-operation.

The Chair continually rises here and asks for co-operation. The Chair is going to have no other choice but to start naming members who continue to shout while answers are given or for members to continue to shout while questions are being asked.

I will give fair warning right now that the Chair will not be standing any more and giving four or five warnings, but will ask the hon. members who are causing disorder to immediately apologize or the Chair will not recognize the hon. members who are causing the disorder until they apologize to the House. Gone are the days that the Speaker is going to ask people to leave the Chamber. It is playing into the political hands of the people who are causing the disorder, but the people who are causing disorder will remain invisible to the Chair until there is an apology issued.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. minister to kindly continue with her answer.

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we see, time and time again, that the Leader of the Opposition tries to make this political, and this should be so far from any political stripe. Every single political party should be concerned about what is going on in the Gulf. We certainly are, in this government. I can assure the member, the Leader of the Opposition, that we do meet regularly. REET is an excellent organization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is reluctant to do this. The Chair just rose and asked the hon. member for her co-operation. The hon. member continues to shout disorder. I ask the hon. member to immediately apologize to the Chair for causing disorder in the House, and I ask the hon. member to do it now.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for any disorder I may have caused in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation, to now conclude her answer.

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to conclude, I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that we do meet regularly. There is a lot of consultation that goes on with the federal government, the Coast Guard, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Speaker. We take it very, very seriously. It is an issue that we do not want to see happen here, and (inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees

Tabling of Documents

Notices of Motion

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day, the Chair will now hear the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North as he presents his private member's resolution.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my privilege this afternoon to be able to rise and share this private member's motion on an interim fishery compensation and support program.

WHEREAS there is a crisis in the fishing industry of our Province; and

WHEREAS government's focussed strategy to address these escalating problems has been to sign a Memorandum of Understanding, referred to as MOU, with only two key players in the industry; and

WHEREAS it has been nearly a year with no significant and practical progress on this MOU and there are concerns about its ultimate effectiveness; and

WHEREAS the process does not include a community voice or the federal government; and

WHEREAS the Province failed to allocate any funding to launch strategies of the MOU process; and

WHEREAS restructuring is occurring now, including fish plants closing and license transfers occurring, affecting people's livelihoods and the economic viability of rural communities;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the provincial government to launch an interim program and action plan that would assist fish plant workers and communities affected, which would include an Early Retirement Package, a Workers Adjustment Program and a Community Investment Initiative to assist in this transitional process.

Mr. Speaker, there was a quote that I saw online, actually, in a little briefing. It was from an Open Line show caller back in April who said that the fishery really is about people. Certainly, that is a true statement. It is all about our people, and that is why this afternoon I am pleased to be able to stand on behalf of the Official Opposition to present to the Members of the House of Assembly this private member's motion.

The troubled 2010 fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is a puzzle that really begs to be fitted together with the smartest pieces to ensure that its short-term survival and long-term future is evident for the benefit of people and of our communities, not only today but also into our future.

The 2009 fisheries Year in Review report that was presented by the government revealed that there was close to a 22 per cent decline in total production from 2008-2009. That is a statistic that we obviously are concerned about, and this statistic alone should be a wake-up call for both federal and provincial governments, really, to take a more bold and a more holistic approach to fishery recovery and to really reshaping the industry as is warranted today.

The annual turmoil in both the snow crab and the shrimp fisheries in this Province also highlight the need to really tackle this evolution head on and with all guns blazing, so to speak. The fact is that there has been a significant loss of people since 1992, in the collapse of our cod fishery, with very few of them coming back. The truth is that rural Newfoundland and Labrador continues to decline, and it should also heighten our sense of urgency to address this complex issue.

In response to the announced closure of the Jackson's Arm plant just a few weeks ago, I challenge the Minister of Fisheries in the House of Assembly on what government is prepared to do to help communities like Jackson's Arm. It is just an example, really, of what is going to happen in our Province, and how they deal with plant closures in the lead-up to the MOU being actualized. The people and community of Jackson's Arm epitomize those who really will fall through the cracks while government hangs on to the hat of the MOU agreement, so to speak.

These plant workers have lost their plant this season, and they are fearful that it will be a permanent closure – and I realize that we do not know the outcome of that yet, but that is their fear - and there is no meaningful transitional support to help them make the leap to the future, so to speak.

The most common response that we have received as we have questioned the Minister of Fisheries, when questioned on the issue of investments in communities and so on, like Jackson's Arm, I quote from Hansard on June 1, when the minister said, "The industry players that are involved in the MOU, those being the FFAW, the ASP and government, are instrumental in bringing about reform in this fishery." I agree with that in principle. He was quick to suggest that the Opposition may not have full faith in the process, but he was certain that, as a minister and as a government, we do.

So, all government can retort to at this point, as far as we can see, is that they have faith in the MOU process, hoping that it will bring about some long-term stability and that it will bring about a better livelihood for the people who are involved in this industry.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition hopes that the MOU will bring about some long-term stability as well. We support in principle what is trying to be accomplished here; however, we have no idea how it is going to play out. It really does not show itself. We do not see it unfolding before us as we reach almost the anniversary date that the minister speaks about sometimes being just a month or so away. As a result of that, as an Opposition party, we do not believe, nor can we accept, that this government should sit back and wait for it to unfold. That would just not be acceptable for those who are facing devastation as it comes down the road.

The reality is that it may take years for this process to unfold. We really do not know that today, so we cannot simply sit back and allow these workers and allow these communities, like Jackson's Arm and other places, to be at the mercy of restructuring without the benefit of adequate support and without the benefit of long-term strategies.

Fish processing and the workers involved in that industry are within the Province's jurisdiction. Because of that we are under obligation to look after them as a government, and they deserve such without really having to protest it.

In my district, the plant at Englee, for example, closed back in 2004. While there was some investment into work-making projects and so on, there really has been no investment by the government to entice other industries to the town to see what can be done to help that community recover. I can tell you that today Englee is reeling on its heels as it tries to understand its future and it tries to deal with the devastation of the closing of this all-important industry that it has enjoyed for decades.

The plant in New Ferolle is still not in start-up mode. It has been down since last year; it is into this year with nothing happening. Again, the people are asking the same kind of questions: What is the future of my community? What is the future of me, as an individual, of my family, and my ability to earn income in this community, as I have done for so many years?

If you look at Anchor Point, another community that is in my district and one that is of concern to me and I am sure it would be of concern to all of us in the Province, operating at a considerable reduced capacity compared to last year. As a matter of fact, they just opened on June 3. It used to employ 150 people. Now, 150 people do not sound big in St. John's, but in Anchor Point 150 people are pretty important to the economy of the town.

Well, today there are approximately 100 people working at Anchor Point. That means one-third of its workforce has gone by the wayside in the past two years. Thirty-five or forty people, or so, of these are basically out of that particular sector, if you will, they are out trying to find other work and so on.

In the first year, three years ago when this new processor took that plant over, these people enjoyed thirteen weeks of work. Last year, they were able to get ten weeks work. This year, last week was the first time that they worked, and I will say what was shift A and shift B. Shift A had twenty-six hours work last week and shift B did not get any. This week, Shift B has nineteen hours work and Shift A will get thirteen hours.

Now, that concerns me, and I am sure it concerns each one of us here this afternoon. Where do we go with that? As we wait for the MOU process to unfold, what does that mean for the people of Englee and other communities like it and so on?

So, one of the shortfalls that I have noted, and we have noted as an Opposition, in this whole MOU process is that there is no community voice at the table. There isn't anyone really lobbying for the community of Anchor Point and the community of New Ferolle and the community of Jackson's Arm and so on. That voice isn't really there in a very strong fashion. If the MOU process holds the future of those communities, as we believe it does, then I believe that as we await that plan, I believe that they have a right to have their voice heard as that process unfolds rather than having their voice heard once the process has unfolded.

Now, there is no doubt that there are some tough decisions that will have to be made in the fishing industry, and we acknowledge that as an Opposition. It is important for those communities to be part of the dialogue that leads to reform and not just the receivers of information once the reform and the decision have been done. These cuts are coming basically in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are happening now. Government needs to be to honestly acknowledge this to get a plan in place as they roll, so to speak, towards the MOU process.

Mr. Speaker, the motion that I put forward today by the Official Opposition called for an interim program. It called for an action plan that would assist fish plant workers and assist the communities in which they live, and this program basically would include three things. I want to speak to them just for a moment.

The first thing that we have asked for in this motion is an early retirement package. Mr. Speaker, this House ought to know by now, I am sure, that we have a large number of our 60 plus clubs, if you will, working at our local fish plants. Quite frankly, they have done an honourable job all of their lives in really helping that industry be what it has been, and helping support this Province in terms of its economy. Mr. Speaker, this group of individuals now find themselves in a situation where they literally do not know where their next dollar is coming from. Their plants are closing, and the question is: Will they have to uproot and move on, and if so, where will they go? Where does a person go at sixty-two years of age who has worked at the local fish plant for the past forty-five years or whatever the case might be? The options are very limited to them. If you try and retrain them, realistically, what can we retrain them to do for the next three or four years?

I have mentioned before, and I will mention again, during the by-election, visiting Englee, one of the things that really remains in my memory, so to speak, and entrenched in my mind, as I recall the by-election process and the excitement and just going through that whole thing, was visiting Englee and going to the municipal building there and visiting a classroom that was set up in the basement, if you will, where they were retraining displaced plant workers to do carpentry work. I spoke to a lady who was sixty-two years of age. For the very first time in her life, she was trying to introduce herself to a carpenter's square, to the basics of doing carpentry and so on. She was very distraught, quite frankly. Her self-esteem was not as high as it was when she worked in the fish plant and so on. So, we are asking that for people who fit in that category, if you will, that there has to be something that helps them to be honourably introduced to early retirement.

It is not a new thing. If you look back – I have a news release here, back in June of 2004, when the then Minister of Fisheries, Trevor Taylor, who was the MHA in my district, as you all know, he talked about the aging plant workers for Newfoundland and Labrador at that time, and the fact that fish stocks were declining and so on. The quote in his news release is this, it said, "The outlook for plant workers is unclear given that technological innovations continue to reduce the labour demands of the fishing industry." So, that is six years ago that this government has known that there is an issue, in terms of the aging population of plant workers.

We could on from there, in 2007, Premier Williams, during the election campaign or coming close to the election campaign, he expressed concern about the Province's fish processing industry. He said that the industry would collapse in five years due to an aging workforce and younger workers moving west and so. At that time, the Premier said that in the absence of an early retirement program, there would be a serious problem to the industry. So, he expressed to the federal party leaders at that time for the need for an early retirement initiative, obviously trying to get the federal government on side, and we know that the pleas for that basically fell on deaf ears. That means that the onus then falls back on this government to try to understand what it is that we are going to do with these displaced fish plant workers. I think that an early retirement package is a must in terms of what we do as we get ready for the MOU. We know what is going to happen. We know that there are going to be drastic cuts and things that we probably do not like and we do not need to sit back and wait for that to unfold.

A second thing that I have mentioned in this private member's motion - I am trying to rush a long a little bit because my time is running out - is a workers' adjustment program. Again, I saw that last year during the by-election as well. A workers' adjustment program, looking at displaced older workers, it kind of sheds some light on what the current status of the situation and so on is. Basically, while we have find programs, it is important that these programs are meaningful. It is important that they are not programs - and while it is good to cut brush by the side of the road and it is good to do other things that really keep the face to our Province and so on, I think we need to look for ways that really help it to be more meaningful, if you will.

Also, probably the more important piece of that is the time frame in which we do it. We know, this year, that long before December comes that there is going to be a need for that type of work. So, rather than wait until September and October to try to get for ready, these programs need to be ready for August. We know that an adjustment program is going to be necessary and we can have that in our back pocket, so to speak, have it ready to roll out, give people an opportunity to have their income boosted for that year to where it needs to be and just let it happen.

The last thing that we have mentioned in this private member's motion is that of community investment initiative. That can take the form of many things but it is important, whether it is investment into a business that may be able to hire four or five of these people who have been displaced by the fishery, or whatever the case might be, it is important that that is allowed to happen.

A couple of examples that I could use, Mr. Speaker, in my district in Shoal Cove there is a seal tanning place there where basically they are doing great work and so on. In the midst of doing a community enhancement investment, probably that is a type of business, if you will, that can be expanded with the help of government with funding available to support these displaced fish plant workers, it can be used to expand that process and so on. So there are many things.

I am pleased this afternoon to present this private member's motion, and I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to our debate on it in the next little while.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not suppose there is enough time in this session, and probably for the next two or three weeks, for all of us in this House to get up and debate and to speak about our thoughts on the fishery and where it should head. There are about 500,000 people in the Province, Mr. Speaker. I swear to God, in the last five months I have heard 250,000 different opinions as to how this fishery should be restructured, but with it comes much challenge.

The hon. member who just spoke mentioned that this is about our people. Anybody who – I do not suppose anybody, I think everybody. Everybody in this Province has a strong connection to the fishery, whether they are a banker, whether they are a teacher, whether they are a welder, whether they are a fish harvester or a processor, a plant worker. We all, in this Province, have an attachment to the fishery; we have an attachment to the water. Mr. Speaker, it is in our blood, and anybody who comes to this Province and travels to this Province knows exactly that. In my former portfolio, I remember someone saying that when people come to the Province to visit, they do not come so much to see the urban parts of our Province, the bigger centres. They want to get out and see what is happening in our rural communities and see the fishing equipment and see how that is carried out.

Mr. Speaker, for all of us, we find this issue around the fishery a very, very troubling one. Since I have been involved in this portfolio and in this process called the MOU, there are two questions I have asked people over and over, and I think everybody in the Province should reflect on them a little bit carefully. Question number one: Why is it that we as a Province – it seems that we are the only jurisdiction in the fishery who have what I will call a snarl every spring with the opening of the season. Alaska, who is in the crab fishery, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Quebec, that are in the waters adjacent to our Province, they start every spring without any issue. So people need to ask themselves: Why is that? The second thing I think people need to ask themselves is: Why is it that the price of our crab seems to be generally lower than in other jurisdictions?

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you can get to the bottom of those two questions, we will not have a snarl in our fishery every season. Mr. Speaker, we have to move with something that is going to change the shape of this fishery in the Province. There are two things that are involved. I will agree with the member that we do need measures that get people through this particular stage.

My hon. colleague, the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment will speak to some of those issues shortly. Because in the case of Jackson's Arm that the hon. member mentioned, we had started on that anticipating that something was going to happen in Jackson's Arm. The Member for Humber Valley and the minister and I met this morning, as to what it is we need to do to get in there and support these people immediately. Mr. Speaker, that is the short-term thing and the second thing is the longer term.

Mr. Speaker, we have people working in our plants that I do not know how they survive on the income that they make; a total income of $12,000 to $15,000 annually. That is what they have to operate their households. That is what they have to operate their vehicles, just the ordinary day-to-day operations of living. Mr. Speaker, these people in some ways are, I suppose, ransomed by the situation that they are in. As soon as I say this, that we have too many plants, there is somebody out there who will react and send me an e-mail and say you are wrong.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have to invoke a process whereby the parties, the key players in this game have to come up with the action plan to resolve this. To say that there has been inaction, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. I will not say that they are lying or anything like that, but, Mr. Speaker, we have made progress. Meetings are continuing.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, in one of the amendments they said that the government did not support this financially. Mr. Speaker, we put $800,000 into this last year to get this process carried out. We have gone through that process. We have hired two firms to do financial analysis of the harvesting and processing sector. Just this past week, Mr. Speaker, we provided more support to look at some possible scenarios and have that individual work with the MOU participants, the working groups, to let's find our way forward here.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased, because there were a couple of times in Question Period this week I wondered if the Opposition were in agreement with the MOU. I am glad to see - and I had to go back to Hansard to get the hon. member across the way, I swear to God, I said that I do not think they want to see this process working. Well, he rose to say: Let me say first of all, certainly we do hope the MOU process brings us a good solution. I have said that before and I will say it again. In the same session, he repeated the same thing. So, Mr. Speaker, I am very much pleased that the Opposition supports this process.

I will be bringing forward some amendments to the hon. the member's motion. I did not hear him today, but somebody told me he said on Open Line that he hoped that we did not water it down. Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think what we are going to put in here will strengthen the resolve of the MOU and will allow us to –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition will support us with those amendments, it will show to the people of the Province that we are coming forward with an MOU motion that will come out of this House today showing that everybody is committed to making this a stronger process.

I issued a news release this morning that indicated I would be meeting with Minister Shea on Saturday. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is certainly top on the agenda is to inform her of the status of the MOU because, again, Mr. Speaker, I have said on a number of occasions, it is not much point in us going to Ottawa if we in this Province do not agree with what we are bringing forward. That is what this MOU process is about. It is about the partners sitting at this table, walking away from this MOU process and saying – the FFAW, the ASP - we as a government saying: All three parties agree, federal government, and we are bringing this forward to you. We think it is reasonable. We think it is workable. We know it is long-term and we expect your support in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in this House and I have indicated in the media that the anniversary is fast approaching. July 11 was the announcement of this and I have asked the chair, in conjunction with the groups, that I want a progress report by the anniversary, and that shortly after that I would like to have a written report, an agreement of what we can present to Ottawa.

So, Mr. Speaker, the onus is on us. We are the people engaged in this process, so the onus and the responsibility to the people of this Province, the fishery, the plant workers, the harvesters, the deckhands, the processors, all of us involved in that, the onus is on us to put forward that plan. Mr. Speaker, that is going to mean some very, very, tough stands. It is going to mean the opening up of the various parties to say that I am going to have to let go of this to make this happen. There will be challenges. There will be communities – everybody seems in agreement that there has to be some kind of restructuring here; that is, Mr. Speaker, until it hits their community. That is very tough. There is no doubt about that, that is tough. Anybody who has sat in government and has had an industry close down in their district will tell you, it is one of the toughest things that we have to deal with as government members. So, Mr. Speaker, that will require a challenge on everyone's part.

Mr. Speaker, I will propose an amendment to the motion, seconded by the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame: To move that the private member's resolution currently before the House be amended:

(1) by deleting, in the first recital clause, the words "is a crisis" and substituting therefore the words "are challenges";

(2) by deleting, in the second recital clause, the word "only" and substituting therefore the word "the";

(3) by deleting the third recital clause;

(4) by deleting, in the fourth recital clause, the words "does not" and substituting therefore the word "will" and deleting the word "or" and substituting therefore the word "and";

(5) by deleting, in the fifth recital clause, the words "failed to allocate any funding to launch strategies of" and substituting therefore the words "invested $800,000 to launch";

(6) by deleting the sixth recital clause; and

(7) by striking out the resolution clause and substituting the following therefore:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly encourages the provincial government to continue its ongoing programs and action plans for worker adjustment and community development to assist fish harvesters and plant workers through the transitional process in communities affected by fishing industry challenges; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House encourages the provincial government - upon completion of the important collaborative work of the government, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers and the Association of Seafood Producers under the MOU - to work with the federal government to implement measures to ensure the economic sustainability of the Province's fishing industry.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, this is seconded by the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, have you had a chance to see the changes to this resolution?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has asked that we recess to give you time to look at the resolution and make commentary after.

This House will now take a brief recess to allow for that action to take place.

This House is now recessed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition if they have had an opportunity to review the amendment, and if there is any commentary?

MR. DEAN: No, no commentary.

MR. SPEAKER: No commentary.

The Chair has also had an opportunity to review the amendment as well, and the Chair provides that the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and seconded by the hon. Member for The Isles of Notre Dame as being in order.

Further commentary on the private member's motion?

The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

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

It is a pleasure to be able to stand today and have a few comments with regard to the private member's motion that was put forward by my colleague, and it was a pleasure to be able to second that private member's motion.

Mr. Speaker, just some opening comments with regard to the amendment that was put forward. I want to say from the outset, maybe some of the minor changes that were made in this amendment I could agree with but the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that was listed in the private member's motion that was put forward, where it was to encourage the provincial government to launch an interim program and action, that has been taken out and the word "continue" put there.

So, Mr. Speaker, based on that, as well as the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED in the amendment, where it states "that this House encourages the provincial government - upon completion of the important collaborative work of the government, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers and the Association of Seafood Producers under the MOU - to work with the federal government to implement measures…".

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is another reason why I think something should be done now, because the fishing industry in this Province is so important. I know the word "crisis" has been removed and exchanged with "challenges" but I have to say, Mr. Speaker, from the people that I speak with, not only in my district but throughout this Province, many people think the fishery is in a crisis situation. So, Mr. Speaker, based on that, I want to advise the hon. minister that I personally will not be supporting the amendment that was put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back over a period of time when we talk about the fishery in this Province. I understand fully the position that the minister finds himself in, and I can assure you, many ministers before him found themselves in very difficult positions because it is a situation that cannot be resolved very easily.

I want to go back, Mr. Speaker – and I know how important the fishing industry is not only to my district, even though we have one of the, I suppose, most prominent and richest resources that we have there in the Town of Port de Grave, as well as all of the surrounding area in my district. We have to go back quite some time, many years. We always find ourselves in a crisis with the fishery within our Province. I can go back to a very early age, my father being a fisherman who would spend the summers in the trap fishery and would have to go away in later years on the draggers. Prior to that, he would have to leave his Province because of the downturn in the fishery and take part in the dory fishery out of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take you back to 1985, when our party was in Opposition at the time. The Conservatives were in power. There was a major, major issue that came forward from the fishers around this Province. It was not only totalling around the crab fishery because at that time the crab fishery was not what it is today; it was more or less along the lines of the cod fishery. I know there was a committee put in place that travelled throughout this Province. They went to places like Port de Grave, Port Rexton, Summerford, Fogo, St. Barbe, Triton and many other areas. They sat down and they listened to what the fishermen had to say, the people who knew what was going on. They came back with staggering comments about what was happening in the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, that was twenty-five years ago. The message of that day that the fishermen of this Province put forward fell on deaf ears. Regardless of who was in power, it had nothing to do with it; both federal and provincial governments did not listen to what those people were saying. All of a sudden we ended up with a moratorium, which was a tremendous downturn for the economy of this Province and to the people who were involved in the fishery. It only this week, I read an article - because I think many times, all too often if we do not come together and listen to what those people are saying, we are heading for a very serious situation with the fishery in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reference the capelin fishery, which is a component of this fishery. We are wondering why the cod stocks are not returning as they are. I read an article the other day where the capelin fishery in the North Pacific, which is shared between Japan and Russia, and what they do – they are the very people who come here and buy our capelin. They take them back to use as they want. They do not catch their own capelin. They leave them in the ocean so that the cod fish and the other species have a food supply for them. Maybe that is one of the problems that we have when it comes to our groundfishery. I know that is not as prominent as what it was a few years ago.

Mr. Speaker, in 2005 there was a document put out through Memorial University in conjunction with the Harris Centre, and it was called: Memorial Presents Fishery Policy and Rural Revitalization. Some of the key things that they brought up in that report, under one component was the human resource crisis. How they mentioned - and the minister mentioned it in his opening comments, about how the plant workers income was some of the lowest in this country. How the reliance on EI, they were becoming dependent upon it, and how the youth of our Province are not interested in the industry. Many of them are getting away from the industry. Each and every week I have someone who is trying to retrain to get away from the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, the other comments that came out of that report was the uncertainty of the resource. We know today, and I hope this figure is correct, I think it is somewhere around 75 per cent of the value of our fishery today has to do with crab and shrimp. No doubt about it, some of the fishermen will tell you that there are areas where they see a decline now in the crab fishery. There have not been any major significant replacements in the cod stocks and we wonder why. Even though science will tell us that there is a slow return of the cod but many fishermen will tell you that they see, in different areas of our Province, more cod than they ever witnessed before.

Only last week we heard the minister, and I hope our minister will speak with the federal minister when she arrives here for the meeting on Saturday, about - I think it was in the Gulf, where they are going to have a cull on the grey seal because of the damage they believe it is doing to the stocks. I hope the minister will encourage her to look at a cull with the harp seal in our waters because we can only imagine what 6 million seals, or that is the estimated number, are doing to the cod stocks. Only this year we had a report saying that when the seal hunt was on, and I cannot verify this but it was a legitimate call on it, saying that the seals were now even eating the younger crab.

So, Mr. Speaker, the minister is correct, and I believe my hon. colleague when he brings it forward. The present structure cannot last the way it is. The fishery cannot continue in its present format. If we think that the industry is going to depend upon the crab solely into the future, I think we are sadly mistaken. We cannot continue, and fishermen will tell you that it is fine now, it is a very lucrative fishery even though it is not what it used to be but something has to be done. I believe that there has to be a joint venture between the provincial and federal governments to deal with this issue. I know the minister stated in his amendment that once they carry out the work that the MOU has to do, they are hoping to then present it to the federal government. I believe that the federal government should have been involved in day one because they play a very important part in the fishery of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the fishers have been speaking out for years, and I know it is a very difficult situation. My fear is - another thing that we hear from the fishermen around this Province - that once the small processors – and we heard the minister say there is going to be major changes, and that is why I am very fearful about the MOU, what will come at the end of the day, even though we are hoping that this will resolve the problems that we encounter in the fishery. My fear is that by eliminating the small processors and the buyers the small boat fishermen will be unable to sell the small quantities of the very species that they have to sell. That is a concern that they are expressing on a regular basis.

Then, we get to the moratorium of a Memorandum of Understanding, Mr. Speaker. We know this started, and the minister said the anniversary date is July of this year, I hope that the parties can come together with a situation that will resolve it, not only for this year, the short term, but something can come out of this for the long term. I believe, sincerely, that the federal government should be involved. We always hear when we talk about environmental issues, well, that is a federal issue. I can tell you the fishery is also very important when it comes to the federal involvement, and I think they should have been involved.

The other thing I believe, Mr. Speaker - and I know the FFAW is involved and I do not want to take anything away from the union, but I believe that the harvesters should have representatives there as well. Even though the FFAW represents them, they also represent the plant workers. Mr. Speaker, those are the people – and I have had people say to me in the district: Look, we are hoping that this is going to work. We hope that there will be no problems. What is happening? They are having meetings; we do not know what is going on. We are represented by the union, but there is nobody reporting back to us the way that we believe that it should be reported back to us.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard so much in recent years. We have had a summit on the fishery. We have had major issues when it came to the raw material sharing. We have had meetings where the Premier and others went to the EU countries. We have had numerous private members' motions down through the years. I know the first one I did was back in 2001. We have had them both provincially and federally, but, Mr. Speaker, it seems like all of this falls on deaf ears. I think now that we have the opportunity, whether we wanted to call it the MOU, or whatever it is, I believe that everybody should be at the table: the voice of the community, the federal government and, as I said before, representatives from the harvesters, even though they are represented by the union.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but bring up the comment, and I think it was during one of the very first caucus meetings that this government had in 2001, I believe it was – I am sorry, 2003, that is when you formed the government. My apologies for putting you there a lot longer than I wanted you to be there. Anyway, there was a meeting that was held, a caucus meeting. I think it was on the Bonavista Peninsula, if I am not wrong, and I could not find the article – I have it somewhere – where the Premier made a comment. Now, whether it was a slip of the tongue or what, I do not know, but he said: We have to get away from the involvement that we were always used to with the fishery. I can understand where he was coming from, that changes have to be made, but if we are going to get away from the fishery of the past, because one of those days – and it is not going to be too long, I hope it never happens, but we are going to see where the shrimp and the crab fishery will not be what it is today. The fishers around this Province in all the small outlying communities now who that rely on the small quantities of cod that they are allowed to catch, they are going to have an opportunity to be able to say: I hope that is going to be there for me.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that is what we have to do to try to protect what is left of this fishery. I know, as I stated before, I was EA to the Minister of Fisheries, it is no easy task. Whoever sits in that position, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, have their hands full. From the time you have to deal with the processors, the union, and everybody involved, it is not an easy situation. We have seen situations that became very explosive here in this Province. I remember seeing as high as sixty constabulary officers here in the lobby of the Confederation Building dressed in riot gear because there were 1,000 or 1,500 fishermen parading up the road coming to this building. Mr. Speaker, we do not want to see that any more.

I hope that when the minister meets with the federal Minister of Fisheries that all issues, regardless of what they are, will be laid on the table. I believe that he has to lay them there strong and firm because the federal government, I believe, is getting away from their responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, just to say, as stated in the amendment, that once the work is done, I believe something has to be done now in the interim, because in a very short time, we are going to be hearing right throughout this Province, each and every one of us who represent the districts, wondering if there are any programs going to come down this year. What is going to happen when my plant closes? We have to put something in place that those people still can live in the communities that they were born in and carry out the livelihood that they were always used to, and that is their involvement in the fishing industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to stand today and speak to this amended motion. Though my district certainly does not lend itself to fishing, being Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, I think the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture hit it on the head when he said that the fishery and our oceans and our way of living are aspects of our identity that are part of who we all are as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. So, it is absolutely my privilege to stand and to speak to this particular amendment and this motion.

Mr. Speaker, whilst fishing is not a particular concern in my District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans, we certainly have known the effects, however, of industry loss, of downturn, of downsizing of industry, and so on as it relates to the mining sector, as it relates to the pulp and paper and the forestry sector. So, I can certainly understand the concerns of people in our fish plants, people in the fisheries itself, because those are issues that are near and dear to my heart as well.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite who spoke just in advance of me make some comment about he was fearful of what might happen to the MOU process and where it might go and where it might take us. Mr. Speaker, I just have to comment that from my observations from sitting around the tables that I sit around, from the discussions that I have been involved with, I think that this Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is perhaps one of the most dedicated, one of the most determined, and one of the most unrelenting ministers –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: – that we have seen as it relates to trying to find solutions, not simply identifying problems, Mr. Speaker, but seriously looking at trying to find solutions as it relates to the fisheries. Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence that the MOU process that he is part of will make progress. In fact, I think we have reason to be happy with the progress that has already been made in terms of fisheries restructuring in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS SULLIVAN: The minister has certainly requested and received many proposals on industry restructuring and rationalization and marketing from various participants of the MOU process. He has received particular information from ASP, from the FFAW, and from others who are not directly participating in the process: for example, the Newfoundland and Labrador Inshore Shrimp Fleets, the Newfoundland and Labrador Independent Fish Harvesters Association and so on. He has also involved the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in these discussions and, as he mentioned today in the House, and several times during Question Period, he is in regular contact with our federal counterpart, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the hon. Gail Shea, as well, as this MOU process moves forward. So I have every confidence, Mr. Speaker, that through the process, through the MOU steering committee that is put in place, through the various working groups that are engaged in this particular process, that the analysis that will be needed and the industry restructuring that we hope to see is a process that is well underway, that is well in hand, Mr. Speaker. Independent consultants, as well, Mr. Speaker, have been involved in this process. So, basically, I think all of the players have been put in place to deal with the particular issues.

The success of the MOU, as the minister has alluded to on many occasions, however, rests in the hands of the participants in the process, rests in the leadership, the true leadership that those participants are able to show as this particular MOU and the process itself works forward. Of course, I, like everyone in this House, and like all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, we all look forward to the completion of the process and being able to see exactly the results of this particular Memorandum of Understanding.

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to address today, as well, is something that pertains to my department specifically, my Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and that has to do with what we do to support people affected by a downturn in the economy, by people who are affected by closures of particular industries, by people who are affected by industry adjustment and so on. So I would like to speak to the particular suite of programs that we put in place to ensure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this government is there for them, that this government will hold on, will find a way to help them through these difficult times in their lives; because certainly the loss of a job, certainly the closure of an industry, all of those events are difficult times, not just for the workers involved but, Mr. Speaker, as well for their families.

Through my department, and through the Department of Municipal Affairs, as well as INTRD, we have a number of supports that we put in place. In particular, I would like to make reference to one of the programs that is in place through the Department of Municipal Affairs, and this particular program is referred to as the Fish Plant Worker Employment Support Program, and that focuses on creating short-term employment for workers from fish plants designated by government as permanently closed.

When we are speaking about Jackson's Arm, of course, that is not a fish plant that has been permanently closed, but in any case that is a program that has been in place that has benefited many of our fish plant workers in the past. Hopefully, that is not the scenario here, but if it were to come to pass then that, too, is a program that people can avail of.

As well, through Innovation, Trade and Rural Development there is another program, the Fish Plant Workers Employment Assistance Program for Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Mr. Speaker. It is another well-known program, and a program that does well in terms of supporting our workers who have lost opportunities to continue to work in their traditional means of employment. This program provides new entrepreneurs in expanding small businesses with funding to employ fish plant workers negatively affected by the closure of a fish plant. We have seen those kinds of employment opportunities work, and work very successfully, in the past. In fact, anecdotally I have heard of a situation just recently where there has been an employer who has taken advantage of that type of a program to employ some fish plant workers.

Mr. Speaker, within my own department there are a number of programs, a number of services that we are able to offer. I would like to point out that we have been very proactive on this file, particularly in terms of Jackson's Arm. Notice was given by the company last Friday, Mr. Speaker - June 4 was when the notice was given - but I would like to point out that my department has been on the ground, has already made contact with the workers, the fish plant workers, with the management people as well in that particular fish plant about two weeks ago now. What we intended to do was to be proactive, to make those initial overtures, to speak to people in the fish plant to say we have a suite of programs and, should you need our assistance, we will be there for you. Our government's priority is to support employees but also their families, all of those who will be impacted by a plant not reopening, or a plant closing, or a plant downsizing.

As a result of our previous experience working with individuals affected by industry downsizing, we have determined that the most important thing that people want in a situation like this is that they want access to information, Mr. Speaker. They want access to the programs that are available to them. They want access to the services. They want an opportunity to ask questions generally or questions that are specific to their own circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, we are currently in the process of working with other local service providers to see that we put that access to information in place for the workers of Jackson's Arm. When I talk about other service providers, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about other governmental departments as well: the Department of Education, through the industrial education piece; the Department of Municipal Affairs; we are talking about partnering with the College of the North Atlantic; we are talking about our own EAS offices – our Employment Assistance Services offices, Mr. Speaker. We partner with Service Canada as well for the EI Part I expertise that we need in offering that access to information.

What I started to say as well is that in doing that we will provide information sessions for the people once they have given us the indication that they want those particular sessions. We will work out dates with them. The information can be provided to them in a group setting or we can provide individual sessions for those particular workers as well. Some people have individual questions they want to ask, they have privacy issues, and they often ask us for individual counselling sessions or individual information sessions. We are happy to provide either, Mr. Speaker.

We have many programs in place to provide a wide range of supports to workers – a suite, in fact, of labour market adjustment supports - to respond to the needs of displaced workers. We have some very professional staff as well. Through our fourteen Career Work Centres across this Province we have offered those supports many times in many areas.

So, depending on the needs of the individual workers, Mr. Speaker, these supports may include one-on-one career and employment counselling by group workshops, or, as I indicated earlier, individual consultations, if an individual so desires. Up-to-date labour market information, as well, is provided to people. As well, we would help people with wage subsidies. If they have opportunity to go to work some place else, but that particular employer may need a wage subsidy in order to employ them, then we have particular programs that may be of benefit to them. Again, one-on-one or in a group session, we are able to counsel them with regard to wage subsidy programs that they may be able to access.

As well, there are training opportunities that we are able to provide service for, Mr. Speaker. Now, I know that the proposer of the bill in the first place talked about that, and seemed to indicate that training is not a route to go, that people do not want education. Well, Mr. Speaker, that has not been my experience, particularly in Grand Falls-Windsor where we had a major, major, loss in the closing of the AbitibiBowater mill. Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the member opposite that the training opportunities that we provided were very highly regarded by the workers in Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding areas. Many of them have taken advantage of that, many of them have found employment opportunities as a result of that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, certainly we are not saying that is the answer for everybody. I just listed other opportunities and other things that we might be able to do. Certainly, training is an aspect that people do truly want to look at when they are facing situations of this magnitude.

Mr. Speaker, in reference to Jackson's Arm as well, I do not know if the member opposite is aware of the age, he talked about older workers not particularly wanting to go back to school. I have seen some of the statistical information already with regard to Jackson's Arm. The average age there is a lot younger than we would anticipate. So, these people certainly would be interested, I would believe, in training opportunities that would help them to up-skill or re-skill or find opportunities to transition to other jobs within the labour force here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

So, that is part of the current suite of labour market initiatives that we offer, and I think it is one that will be very well-received out there. Again, it is not for everybody, but is certainly one of the initiatives that we are able to put on the table to offer to the people in the area. Upgrading their employment skills better prepares many of them for emerging employment as well. As we have new megaprojects coming on stream here in Newfoundland and Labrador, we certainly know there will be opportunity, particularly in the skilled trades area. So, opportunity at this particular point in their lives to take advantage of that training may well be something that they would like to be involved in.

HRLE has a partnership already established in the Jackson's Arm area with the White Bay South management committee, Mr. Speaker, to deliver these programs and services through the Employment Assistance Services office, which is also known as the Career Assessment Centre in Pollards Point, Mr. Speaker, so that access to those services should be fairly easy for the employees in question. We also have been in touch with Service Canada. Service Canada is located in that same office. So once again, we are able to facilitate the ease of information transfer because people are working out of the same office, and because we have a very good partnership organized between or among all of those particular partners.

Our services will be available, Mr. Speaker, to all of the impacted plant workers. That would include the unionized workers, the non-unionized workers, and the management employees. There are a number of initiatives that we are prepared to offer, and we would be prepared to offer them to all of the impacted plant workers.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first instance where the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment had to become engaged in offering these kinds of services, and not particularly to fish plants either. We have provided supports to Englee, to Marystown, to Fortune, to Port aux Basques and most recently in Trouty, where fish plants have closed permanently. So, we have some expertise in this area, Mr. Speaker. We are happy to be involved. We will offer whatever support we possibly can to the workers in this area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this motion today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise today to support the original motion that was put forward by my colleague, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North.

Mr. Speaker, the motion was put forward to support the fishery in this Province and to provide support for those individuals today who are finding themselves being displaced in an industry that they have been a part of for a very long time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is any secret what has been happening in the fishing industry, even over the last couple of years in Newfoundland and Labrador as we continue to see quotas decline to a certain extent, we continue to see enterprises being amalgamated, and all of this affects the onshore production in plants. In the last couple of years, we have seen a number of plants downsize to half the workforce that they once had. We have seen their production levels cut, some of them, in some cases, by ten and twelve weeks in a year. We have plants today, Mr. Speaker, that one time would provide sixteen weeks of employment where workers are having a very tough time just trying to get ten weeks of employment out of those particular plants.

So it has not been easy. It has not been easy for any of these individuals who are dependent upon the fishing industry. Whether, Mr. Speaker, you are an owner in the industry, in the processing sector, or whether you are a harvester or whether you are a plant worker, all of these sectors have been challenged in many ways.

Mr. Speaker, I guess the real alarm always comes when we see closures. I go back a few years ago when we saw the plant in Englee close down. It was absolute devastation is what it was; there is no other way to describe it. Whenever you walk into a rural community across Newfoundland and Labrador, a community whose entire economic base had been founded around the fishing industry, a community of hundreds of individuals who got up every day, put on their fish plant clothes and went to work, whether that was through the groundfish days or whether it was through the shellfish days or a combination of both. Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden, you are getting up this morning and that industry is not there for you any more. That job does not exist in your community. How devastating is that? Not just in the fishery, but in any industry. That is what happened to the people in Englee, Mr. Speaker. That is what happened to the people in Englee. That is what happened to the people in Stephenville when the mill closed down out there, and that is what happened to the people in Grand Falls just a couple of years ago when their pulp and paper mill closed down. What a horrible, devastating blow to a community and to individuals when those things happen.

What happened in Englee since their plant closed, Mr. Speaker? Of course, government moved in with the suite of programs that the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment likes to talk about today. They moved in with those programs, and there is nothing wrong with those programs, Mr. Speaker. Do not get me wrong. In the years I have been in this House, I have pushed for programs like that, and I think they are valuable. When there is an opportunity that people can retrain, when there is an opportunity that you can provide some kind of supplements and supports to people who want to be able to look at re-entry into the job market in a different field, those things are fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them, Mr. Speaker, but are they the solution for every industrial crash that we see in the Province? No, they are not. Are they the measures by which every person will be saved in terms of employment opportunities and career plans and changes? No, they are not, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, I am going to go back to Englee again, because let me tell you what happened in Englee. Those programs were all available, and guess what? Make-work projects were available as well - job creation. The same programs every year, Mr. Speaker, I come begging and fighting and lobbying to the government for to get money for workers in my district, because I know that without those programs, many of those workers are going to end up on social assistance, or forced to move out of their communities because the industry no longer gives them the amount of seasonal employment that they need to be able to sustain a year-round income.

Mr. Speaker, those things are temporary measures. They are not the replacement of an industry. They are to supplement industry when industry is in a stagnant period, or is in decline. That is what those programs do. They help get people through a transition. They are not a career, they are not an industry and they are not an economic base for a community. Mr. Speaker, that is the difference. That is what happened in Englee. When all of the industry collapsed there, the plant closed down, the government went in and they did the responsible thing. They provided employment programs to people in that community. They were responding to a decline in an industry and a closure of a fish plant. What came behind those job creation programs, Mr. Speaker? What came behind them? There was no economic development agenda for the community. There was no infrastructure money. There was no task force to work with the community, Mr. Speaker. There was no investment with the town in economic development to bring new industry in to attract people into that community, to attract something to replace the 150 jobs they had just lost in this one region of the Province.

So once the job creation ran out, once the bump of the closure of the plant was done, there was nothing left. There was nothing left. What happens in a community, Mr. Speaker, when you do not have an industry? People eventually are forced into living on lower incomes. They are forced into either having to move out of the area or settle for low-income wages. That is the options that they are left with. Is that where we want to see rural Newfoundland and Labrador? Is that where we want to see communities in this Province that have hit a bump in the fishing industry, or end up with the most devastating result, and that is one of their plants closing. I do not think that is a good enough response.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, that was not how the government responded when the pulp and paper industry collapsed under their watch in this Province. Even though they said there would never be a mill close on their watch, we had two close. We had nearly 800 or 1,000 people in this Province who were affected as a result of that, but there was more than a retraining allowance and a job creation initiative to get them through that particular cycle, Mr. Speaker. There was a task force of Cabinet ministers who went into those communities, who organized other task force groups in the communities of local leadership to go out and to come up with ideas. They put money into the towns, millions and millions of dollars into the towns to build infrastructure, to create an economic development strategy, to entice new business to come in. Did we ever see that in a fishing community when there has been 150 jobs gone in this Province? No, we did not. No, we did not, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Harbour Breton.

MS JONES: Well, the minister says we did in Harbour Breton. Maybe he can tell me about Harbour Breton because we certainly did not see it in any of the other communities, Mr. Speaker. We did not see it in the other communities and I can guarantee you that we did not see it –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I was already ruled today for causing disruption in the House and now I cannot hear myself speak again, and I ask for your protection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure we will hear about Harbour Breton. I know the government did, at the time, put some money into Harbour Breton because they held a number of announcements and they also invested in aquaculture. I do not know if that directly went into Harbour Breton or went into that area. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that there were no programs like that in the area of Englee that was affected by all of this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with another situation in Jackson's Arm. I have heard members say that Jackson's Arm is only temporary; it is a one-year thing. I hope they are right, but I do not see anybody putting that in writing, that we are only going to be closed in Jackson's Arm for one year. The reasons that the company has given for closing Jackson's Arm is the 30 per cent reduction in shrimp, which I do not see changing in the next twelve months, and the issue of trucking product in and out of the area. I do not see that changing.

Ever since the plant opened, Mr. Speaker, in Jackson's Arm in 1999, when the licences, in fact, the minister complains about that were given out I think at that time, because there was a number of shrimp licences in the Province that were given out for onshore processing. They talk about the new licences issue, but what you have to realize, Mr. Speaker, is that shrimp was all done by factory freezers offshore, and if you did not give it a licence to do it onshore, I guess it never would have gotten done onshore. Anyway, that is another issue for another day.

Mr. Speaker, since production in Jackson's' Arm has occurred there has been a trucking component to the industry. So that was nothing new. What I am saying is that the reasoning the company is giving today for closing that plant, those two reasons in particular are not going to change in the next twelve months.

What we are asking the government to do, Mr. Speaker, in the motion that we presented today, we are asking the government to respond to fishing communities in this Province the way that they have been responding to other industrial communities that have lost their industry. We have not seen that consistency applied in the fishing industry in any way, shape or form, I say to government members. We have not seen it. In fact, it seems like wherever government is going to invest money, the fishery is at the bottom of the scale. It is always the lowest on the rung in terms of investment. That is not just words from me. That is being felt by the industry across this Province. That is being felt by the pundits who listen and talk to the people there. It is being felt by the people who live in these communities, by the fishermen who work in the industry, and the plant workers who work onshore.

Mr. Speaker, they all have televisions, they have radios, they have newspapers, and they keep up with what is going on. They see this government every day developing land in mining that private companies should be doing. They see them drilling holes in the ground for oil, which oil companies should be doing. They see them buying equity in offshore oil projects, Mr. Speaker, when they should be collecting royalties instead. They see them putting money in and writing off money for failed companies in this Province who could not pay their debts to the government. They see all that. They see the standard that the government has set for investing in communities that have lost industry in the pulp and paper sector, Mr. Speaker, but they are not seeing the same consistency applied in their communities, their rural communities, I say to government members. Rural as rural can be is where the fishery is based in this Province. Not that there isn't any in other areas, Mr. Speaker, not that there isn't a full fleet of boats down on the Harbour Front in St. John's. Do not get me wrong, there is lots of that, Mr. Speaker. There is lots of fishery goes on in urban areas as well, but the economic impact is felt in rural communities, Mr. Speaker. The economic impact is felt in these rural communities just like it is going to be felt in Jackson's Arm when 150 paycheques is taken out of that community this summer and the impact that will be in that community.

Mr. Speaker, our motion today was asking the government to do the right thing by these workers, to step up and not just ensure that there are employment programs – which should be ready to go within a couple of weeks, not within four months – but also to ensure that there are long-term strategies and plans in place, that there is money being invested so that the communities can look for other industry, so that the infrastructure related to the fishery remains within the communities and not be owned by some processors forever who want to put the locks on the door. Can communities buy that infrastructure? Of course, they cannot. Most of them have a tax base, Mr. Speaker, of less than $100,000 a year. They do not have the money to buy out that kind of infrastructure. Workers, Mr. Speaker, who are over the age of fifty-five or sixty – I think fifty-five is the standard set in this Province – for early retirement in the industry. Why is that not being afforded to individuals? While Jackson's Arm is a relatively young workforce, Mr. Speaker, there are other areas that are affected where workers would be able to make a transition to early retirement if it was offered to them.

All of these things we see as important in responding to crises in the fishing industry; however, they are not on the table, and government's response is always the MOU. Well, Mr. Speaker, they made an amended motion here today that guts everything I have just said and says that, as a government, we will do nothing only go talk to the federal government once we have an MOU with processors and the union.

Well, that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. If they were really serious in doing their job, the federal government would be the first key player at the table for any MOU. There would be four signatures to that MOU, I say to the minister, and the federal government would be one of them. To bring a motion here to go lobby them after you have an agreement, what kind of a partnership and co-operation is that, Mr. Speaker, with the Government of Canada whom this Province is going to expect at the end of the day to pay the bills?

Mr. Speaker, no one is saying that there is a problem with the spirit of the MOU, but we do not know what the MOU is. For all I know, Mr. Speaker, the MOU might be the recipe to gut every fish plant in this Province. It might be the recipe, Mr. Speaker, to gut rural Newfoundland like we have never seen it before. Am I going to sign on to that today when I do not even know what it is? No, I am not; but, do I support the spirit and the intent of having a discussion amongst all of the players and reaching a strategy? I do; but, Mr. Speaker, you have to realize that all of the players are not even at the table. All of the players are not even there, and the motion, the government says, is, after a deal with the Fish, Food and Allied Workers and the Association of Seafood Producers under the MOU, they would work with the federal government to implement measures to ensure the economic sustainability of the Province's fishing industry.

What they are saying, Mr. Speaker: We will try and get a deal with the industry at home, and then we will go lobby the federal government for some money. Are you going to support us or are you not? It does not affect the workers today who need those (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for The Isles of Notre Dame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a pleasure to have the opportunity to rise today and make some comments on the motion put forward from the hon. Member for The Straits & White Bay North, and certainly to have some comments about the amended motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition talking about gutting rural Newfoundland, and gutting the fishery, and fear mongering again, and espousing to things that are just not talked about on this side of the House, not planned, not a part of any process, but yet continues to kind of ramp up and support the federal government, wanting the federal government to be a part of our issues, and to sit at the table. I can take her out to a number of people I have talked to in recent weeks, and I can tell you they are no fan in support of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and what they have done for our fishery in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, having said that, and looking at the motion today, and it is certainly great that we would bring the fisheries issue to the attention of the House again, we recognize that there are some serious issues in the fishery right now, in some of our communities, like Jackson's Arm, Hermitage, places like Little Bay Islands. Mr. Speaker, we just came through a month of where our crab fishery was shut down, with dispute over prices, many people out of work and facing a lot of uncertainty. Mr. Speaker, we just came through a series of announcements, quota cuts in shrimp and crab, and these are challenges. These are challenges, Mr. Speaker, that exist in the fishery, but they are not new.

As the Member for Port de Grave referenced, we can go back in history and we have many challenges, perhaps none greater than we faced on July 1, 1992, when the moratorium was announced and we lost a fishery that impacted individuals, families and communities. Mr. Speaker, you go to every bay and every cove and there was doubt. People were afraid. There was fear, anxiety, and, Mr. Speaker, there was the largest layoff that we have seen in our Province – some 40,000 people out of work. At that time, Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of reference - our character, our spirit of Newfoundland and Labrador, our rural communities, is gone.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if we looked back in history from 1992 to now, the fishing industry grew to be a billion dollar industry in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I think it speaks to the resilience of the people involved in the fishery and the fishing industry in this Province. We recognize that the fishery is certainly the heartbeat of our economy in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

While we have seen, since 1990, some forty-two plants close in this Province, Mr. Speaker, we have survived. We have survived. Through the period of the 1990s when we saw the closure of the cod fishery, it was an opportunity for us to reshape and restructure our fishery in this Province. At that time, Mr. Speaker, if we go back, very haphazardly there were plants going everywhere. Some twenty-one shrimp licences were issued. Some twenty-eight crab licences were issued in the 1990s, Mr. Speaker, without a vision and plan, without a strategy. As a result of all of that, now a lot of our harvesters, our communities, processors, are facing some uncertainty, some challenges. We are paying a price and, Mr. Speaker, we missed an opportunity. Quite frankly, we cannot afford to miss another opportunity right now.

Speaking to the motion today – and there have been several interpretations coming from the other side on the motion – one of the basic premises of the motion today is they want government to step up and again put some money, throw money, a band-aid solution, into the fishery. Mr. Speaker, our government is on record as supporting rural Newfoundland and Labrador. It is on record. The premise of throwing money - I am a little confused about their motion today, about stepping up with an interim program. Mr. Speaker, our government has stepped up for many communities in this Province that have been hit hard by the fishery. We have gone into communities like Arnold's Cove, Grand Bank, Harbour Breton, Fortune, and the list goes on; and we will be there again, Mr. Speaker.

When I specifically look at the motion that was put forward, one of the things, I guess, that struck me in terms of talking about the MOU - and they are on record as supporting the MOU, and we certainly thank them for that, but - one of the statements in the motion today was the fact that they referenced the MOU, that it has nearly been a year and we are losing confidence.

Mr. Speaker, our fishery has had challenges for a lifetime, for years, decades, and finding a solution is not going to happen in a short time. There is a process, and this process needs to unfold. Mr. Speaker, through that process and the challenges that we meet our government will invest and support harvesters and plant workers. Just last spring we demonstrated that, Mr. Speaker, with some $5.3 million that was put forward for the harvesters and plant workers of this Province. Some 375 harvesters and some 1,150 plant workers benefited from that funding to help them through the winter. Mr. Speaker, almost $500,000 of that was spent in my district alone.

Mr. Speaker, recently I had an opportunity to speak to a fisheries symposium in Twillingate. My district, some thirty-seven communities, fishery communities, we recognize the fishery is certainly the heartbeat of our district. Mr. Speaker, I have five plants, some 600 plant workers or more, and last year 932 harvesters registered in my district. Mr. Speaker, we realize when we talk about the fishery and the future of the fishery, the importance of it not only to our communities but indeed to our Province. We have a great responsibility to do what we can to support it.

Mr. Speaker, realizing that our Province has gone through a period of prosperity thanks to, perhaps, our Premier and our government being able to position our Province to take advantage of our resources, we realize, certainly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the staple of our economy is the fishery. The fishery has so many direct jobs, not only harvesters and plant workers, but we have the trucking companies, the graders, the monitors, the people who off-load the products; it is endless, Mr. Speaker. The spinoffs are great.

We have also seen, Mr. Speaker, in the fishery much improvement in recent years: better education, better training, better technology, professional development. We have seen some young people make a big commitment to the fishery. Mr. Speaker, despite that, we still recognize we have a troubled industry.

There are many complex challenges in this industry. When we talk about the MOU and putting forward plans of where we can support our fishery in our community, we need to recognize that there are many, many complex challenges that are not easy to deal with and many not in our control, Mr. Speaker.

If I might reference some, through the last few months I have had an opportunity to meet with many fishermen and plant workers and have a discussion about things like the availability of resource and declining stocks and the uncertainty of the stocks. Mr. Speaker, I talked to people about the capacity, the processing and harvesting capacity. There are many studies referencing overcapacity.

We talked about the prices for product and what people are getting paid in other jurisdictions and what issues are there, as the Minister of Fisheries alluded to earlier, in terms of what is happening in Nova Scotia. Why do they get paid for their product more than we do? Is it a quality issue? Mr. Speaker, one of the complexities of this, is the increasing cost for processors and harvesters to do business. I have spoken to harvesters who have made investments in the fishery, banking on a certain quota only to realize that next year they are cut by 12 per cent or 30 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the bonus issue which not many people want to talk about, but do we know what the true impact of the bonus system really is on our fishery?

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to fishermen who want to stay in this industry. They are inshore fishermen and they want to invest in the fishery. They want to find a means to be able to borrow without having to be tied to a particular company. These are issues out there that people want some answers to.

Mr. Speaker, some of the other challenges that we face: things like the Canadian dollar and our dependency on exporting to the US markets; global competition; quality issues. The whole issue of marketing products is certainly another issue in terms of do we brand our products. Can we be doing a better job out there in the markets? It has been referenced here today about plant workers and a retirement package and an aging workforce. These are realities of what we are facing, but do we have a solution and an answer to that once they do retire?

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about the federal government. The federal government is responsible for our harvest management plans and we question the science and some of the decisions that are being made. What about all the regulations that we hear about? I talked to fishermen who are tired of all the regulations. The issue of combining and ‘buddying' up and the challenges that presented to many inshore fishermen. We talk about the licensing fees and it goes on because the federal government does share in the jurisdiction of our fishery.

Mr. Speaker, when we are trying to find solutions and answers to our fishery, a part of that is that all of these people have to make money, it all about a profit and a business. So, these are some of the challenges, Mr. Speaker, that we have to confront, we have to deal with and how do we do that; there is no short-term answer to it. I have spoken to a lot of fishermen, as I said, and a lot of plant workers and, Mr. Speaker, the sense I get is that the future of the fishery is in question and certainly begging for answers. Was there one answer? I doubt it. Are there sacrifices that need to be made? That is for sure. Mr. Speaker, can one group solve these problems? It is not likely. Certainly, another band-aid solution is not going to solve the problems of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, what we need to do, we need to pull together, we need to make investments in a solution, not be investing in the problems. I think for too long we have done that. One of the comments today in the motion put forward by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North is, "…WHEREAS Government's focused strategy…" I think it is a very positive statement that he has made because he has recognized that our government recognize the challenges that we have, and we do have a very focused strategy on how we are going to deal with and support the fishing industry. We are not sitting back, Mr. Speaker. Our strategy is about the MOU process. We are collectively, governments, all levels of government, fish harvesters, plant workers, unions, the business sector, everybody is going to have an opportunity and have a role to play in the future of our fishing industry.

On June 14, Mr. Speaker, the MOU was signed, in 2009, where the provincial government, in support of the FFAW and certainly the Association of Seafood Producers, consider the long-term structural issues of our fishery, look at the financial state of the fishery, consider the long-term marketing strategy and look at the restructuring models of the harvesting and processing sector. Mr. Speaker, our government put $800,000 towards that process, and I believe that the major stakeholders of the fishing industry look at their own responsibility to this industry and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and they demonstrate their vision and share their input and their interest. I am sure we will come to a resolution where we can add some stability to the fishing industry.

Today, Mr. Speaker, when I read the motion, hence I think the reason why we see some amendments to the motion, there is some cynicism there in the motion, and we have sceptics, but we must remain positive. We must have the hope and the confidence in the MOU process that it is going to provide the valuable insight into this troubled industry, but not only that, more importantly, provide a framework, Mr. Speaker, for a sustainable and viable future in the fishery for many years to come.

This whole process, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the stakeholders are engaged and a part of this speaks to the very essence and the very need for us to get involved in a very detailed process where we can pull together and deal with the challenges that land in this industry. Mr. Speaker, we have to give it a chance. We cannot undervalue, we cannot underestimate the importance of the fishery to the people of this Province. As we work through this process, we have the harvesters and plant workers working with their unions and getting the message through. We have our processing companies who employ some 13,000 people in this Province collectively with community leaders and business people, Mr. Speaker. We have to work together. We have to pull together through the MOU process and through that process we have to develop a plan, a master plan. Mr. Speaker, that is not a government plan. That is a fishing industry plan with the support of government, a plan that offers solutions, a plan that addresses the problems, a plan that, when created, will provide the stability and optimism for many harvesters and plant workers and the communities who depend on the fishery in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, that is the plan that we need to take to the federal government. That is the plan that when we sit down with the federal government they can see that we have our house in order, we have our work done, and collectively the Province and certainly every member of this House supports the plan. We go forward with Ottawa, who shares in the jurisdiction of our fishery, to sit down with us and find, again, the ability to work through and find the right solutions to put our industry in a stable position.

Mr. Speaker, as a government, and certainly as a rural member - and I know I have spoken to my colleagues, the Member for Humber Valley, certainly as of today as well speaking to the Member for Baie Verte-Springdale and the Member for Ferryland, we talk about the fishery a lot. It is so important in our districts, Mr. Speaker, and I can commit to these people. We can commit to the people of the Province that as a government we will do what we can to support the fishing industry and continue to support the communities in this Province. The people deserve our best effort, Mr. Speaker, and together with the industry, we have to get this industry in a stable position where we can, and continue to support communities throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand this afternoon and to take part in the discussion, the motion that has been put forward by the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. Of course, now that an amendment has been put forward by the government side of the House, I want to make comments on that amendment. That is what we are speaking to now, basically.

Obviously, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I do not represent a fishing community, although in times past there would have been two fishing communities in the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, but as Leader of the New Democratic Party I do spend time in other parts of the Province. I need to do that as leader to represent my party elsewhere. So I have a broader notion of the issues in the Province than if I were just a Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. It is because of that role that I play as leader of my party that I feel it is important for me to stand today and to speak to the issue that is here on the floor.

When I look at the amendment that the government side of the House has made to the motion that was originally presented, I have to say that it discourages me, because it discourages me when I do not see the government recognizing that we do have a crisis. I am pretty certain that the reason is because while there are an awful lot of people over there on that side who represent communities that are fishing communities, there are also an awful lot over there who have not been out and seen what is going on in some of the communities.

When I read this amendment from the government talking about the programs, its ongoing programs and action plans for worker adjustment and community development to assist fish harvesters and plant workers through the transitional process in communities affected by fishing industry challenges, I ask: What programs are we talking about? Are we talking about the kind of programs that I saw last year in the fall of 2009 up on the Northern Peninsula? Are we talking about programs based on upping people's stamps so that they can get EI over the winter?

I have mentioned this in the House before, and I am going to mention it again. Women plant workers – middle-aged women plant workers out on the side of the road in snow in the fall in 2009, out there cutting brush without any place even to take care of their personal needs during the day, from 7:30 in the morning until 5:00 in the afternoon, in order to get enough stamps to get EI over the winter. That is not a program, Mr. Speaker. I have no objection in having meaningful work for people when the plant closes so that they can get their stamps, but what I saw going on up there, that was not what we should be doing for people. That is not dignity. That is not dignified work.

Cutting the brush, I have no problem either, but why not have what is needed for people when they are out in the out of doors like that, doing that work? For example, porta-potties; I was shocked, and that is only one example of what I saw. I know the member for that district saw that himself. We were all out there campaigning at the time. How anybody could look at that and say that was satisfactory and that was a program to help people, than I am shocked. This is what upsets me, is the refusal to acknowledge that people in the fishing industry are out there desperate, are out there suffering.

I remember in 2007 being at the plant gate in Marystown at 6:30 in the morning and seeing, again, middle-aged workers going through those gates. I think the average age down there in the plant is almost fifty – going through those gates. People who are looking at wanting to have early retirement, wanting to be able to stop, who have been at it for years and whose bodies are worn out from the work in the plants. I do not know how many of us have been in plants, I have, and I know others in the building have as well, others in the House of Assembly have as well, but I do not think we all have. That is really hard work. I know I would not be able to do it. Yet, I saw people in their late fifties going through that gate, knowing the kind of day that they had ahead of them, and yet we cannot get a government to support early retirement? An industry that they should be proud of and they are proud of. You know, I do not understand it. This industry is the heart of who we are as a Province.

Fishing people over in Norway are not ashamed to say they are in the fishing industry. They are not embarrassed to say they are in the fishing industry. People living in Iceland are not ashamed to say it either. I do not think they are ashamed to say it over in the Maritime Provinces or out in B.C., but here, there is a pall over our fishing industry, which was the heart of who we are, and a pall over the people who work in the industry. Not over the processors, but certainly over the small boat fishers, the small boat harvesters, our plant workers. We have people who no longer feel proud to be in the industry that they were part of.

Now, we have an awful history in our industry, we know, with the role of merchants and the role of those who did the work. I am not sure that we are much past where we were 200 years ago in terms of the structure that we have in this fishery. Unless we name it, we do not deal with it. It is absolutely unacceptable that the people who do the heart of the work in this industry get nothing from it. That is the shame of our industry, and what are we going to do to turn that around? I do not see us turning it around.

One of the things that - I hope we can turn it around but I do not see it happening yet, and that is my concern, Mr. Speaker. I do not see it happening yet, and I do not see the sense of leadership in this government and I certainly do not see it in the federal government. If we do not get all governments together working, we are not going to get anywhere. We are now eighteen years next month, we will be celebrating, in quotation marks, the eighteenth anniversary of the moratorium. Eighteen years since we had to stop fishing the Northern Cod stock, yet we still, eighteen years later, do not have a plan. We do not know what is going to happen to that cod stock. Nothing really has been done to really deal with the rejuvenation of that cod stock. There is nothing on the horizon for people with regard to that. It is like we just accepted that there was nothing that could be done. There are all kinds of things that could be done and there are people out there, people who have been working on these issues, who know that something could happen.

One person in particular and we all know his name is Dr. Jeff Hutchings, the Chair of Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC. Some people sort of treat what he has to say lightly. I do not think we should. He is a professor of biology at Dalhousie and he talks about what a recovery plan would be, and we do not have a recovery plan. He tells us first of all, a recovery plan should have a recovery strategy with quantitative targets for recovery. You decide how much can be recovered. You name it and you go after it. We have not done that. You set a stock abundance level that you do not want to go below. We have not done that. You set a timeline for rebuilding. Well, we certainly have not done that. We do not have a timeline for rebuilding, there is no doubt.

You set rules that govern catch levels. What kind of rules do we have? Nobody knows from year to year what is going to happen with regard to catch levels. So, we need to look at other countries. We need to look at countries like New Zealand and Australia and Northern Europe. They know how to put recovery plans in place and we do not seem to know how to learn from other people. That is one of the frustrations here in this Province for me and in this country. Why can't we learn from others? We just do not seem to have the will in this country to turn the Atlantic cod stocks around, and I believe they can be turned around. It is a renewable resource. Every renewable resource can be maintained, so why aren't we maintaining our Northern cod stocks?

The minister said last week he was happy to hear me stand up and ask about the MOU because I never talk about the fishery. Well, I have asked him questions on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, about the fishery. I am speaking to it again today because I know how important it is. The MOU, what is there to ask? We do not know what is going on. We have no idea what is happening. We really do not know. The minister says he hopes to have an update on the progress that has been made before the July 11 anniversary of the signing of the MOU. He hopes to have a report, so what is there to ask about it?

Then, they are asking me here today to encourage the government, upon completion of the work of the MOU, to work with the federal government. I would encourage them first to get in there at the table and get an MOU in place, to get a strategy in place, and to have something to bring to us to show that they really know what they are doing, that this government is really giving leadership, that this government is really involved in the process because I have no sense that is the case, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am concerned about the fishery and I have questions, but we never get answers to the questions, so sometimes you get tired asking them. The answer MOU is not the answer for me. I want something concrete. Until I get something concrete, then I am very disappointed. That is one of the things that bother me about the amendment that has been made to the motion that was on the floor of the House today, Mr. Speaker, because the amendment takes out the concrete actions that were being asked for in the motion. Those concrete actions are the actions that we should be voting on today instead of the amendment.

I know I am coming to the end of time, Mr. Speaker, and I am aware of that, so I just want to close off by saying that we have to do something in this Province to not only maintain but to revitalize in a mayor way an industry that is already a $1 billion industry, but an industry that will benefit the people who are doing the work in that industry, the small boat fishers, the harvesters, the plant workers. The communities where those people live have to be revitalized. Until we do that, no matter how many meetings are held, it will not mean anything to me until we know that industry is not only growing but is benefiting the people who are really doing the work in the industry.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Under Standing Order 63.(6), the Speaker recognizes the proposer of the motion.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank those who have spoken here this afternoon: the Minister of Fisheries for his comments; also the Member for Port de Grave; the Minister for Human Resources, Labour and Employment; the Leader of the Official Opposition; the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Quidi Vidi –

AN HON. MEMBER: The Isles of Notre Dame.

MR. DEAN: The Isles of Notre Dame – I know I missed one, sorry. I believe that is it, and I would like to thank each one of those for their comments.

In closing, I would like to take a few moments just to speak to the amended motion – the amendment that the minister put forward to the motion that I presented to be debated here this afternoon.

If I could just kind of read down through it a little bit, if you will. The first WHEREAS clause that has been changed from there "is a crisis" to "are challenges". It is a play on words and really we do not have a lot of issues with that – or I do not have a lot of issues with that.

The second WHEREAS talks about "…Government's focussed strategy to address these escalating problems…" We said "…with only two key players in the industry." The minister changed that to suggest that it would be changed to "the" two key players in the industry. That concerns me because I believe there are more than two key players. One of the groups that we have been identifying as missing from this MOU process is those who work in the communities, those who work in the fish plants. They are not involved in this process and they just do not have any say.

So the communities involved, where we know that fish plants will close, where we know that there will be reductions and so on in place, there really is not a voice there that is representing those communities. So to suggest that changing from "only" two to "the" two key really stresses again the missing of the mark, if you will, with the importance of them being involved.

The next WHEREAS we said "…the process does not include community voice…" and it says that it "will" include. Again, we have been asking that if the community voice is going to be included, it needs to be included today. We have asked that the MOU be amended so that they can be included, and from this point forward, so to speak, allow them to be a part of the process, allow them to have their input, allow them to be a part of the bargaining, if you will, and so on, so that when the outcome is there, when the MOU process is complete and is presented, it is presented with their voice as well, not to them and asking for their approval.

The other thing in that particular line, as well, that says "…WHEREAS the process will include a community voice and the Federal Government…" – and this is the one that really concerns because we are saying that the MOU process will include the federal government, then when we go down to the resolution that has been totally changed at the bottom, the second paragraph says "…BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House encourages the provincial government - upon completion of the important collaborative work…" talking about the MOU process, upon completion of the MOU process, that they will work with the federal government.

So, on the one hand we are saying that the process will include the federal government – that is talking about the MOU process. Then, on the other hand we are saying that the federal government will not be involved until the MOU process is complete. Again, as the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi suggested, certainly the federal government, and as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, certainly the federal government needs to be involved in this process. We recognize and we realize that they are one of the key missing links.

It is interesting that the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame suggested that the federal government does not need to be involved. Yet, in my presentation, I would remind them again that it was in 2007 that the Premier expressed concern about the fish processing industry, and he says that the federal government needs to be involved. He pressed the federal government to be involved and to have their support for an early retirement program. Yet, here we are today saying that we do not need the federal government involved. So, absolutely, the federal government needs to be involved. Absolutely, it needs to be involved today.

I would suggest, as well, and agree with the member who said that it is harder to bring them in after decisions have been made, after the process is complete, and I believe it is very difficult to bring the federal government in then to buy into the program, especially if we are asking for their financial support and so on, than if they were at the table through the process. So, I realize they were not there when the process began. We cannot change that, but I certainly would encourage them that they be involved in the process now, if that is possible. I would certainly urge the Minister of Fisheries to encourage that to happen.

So, in terms of the amendment, I, personally, cannot support the amendment for the reason suggested. What we have put forward today was the request for an early retirement package. If we continue the programs that we have today, we will not have an early retirement package. Again, I go back to the Premier in 2007; he lobbied the federal government for their support to an early retirement package. Three years later we do not have that package, and what we are suggesting in this amendment is that we can leave it until the MOU process is complete.

Mr. Speaker, I feel we cannot leave it until the MOU process is complete. I feel it needs to be there today. There are a lot of workers that as things are unfolding, and as the example that we used of Jackson's Arm - and I understand we realize that we do not know where that plant is going to go and how it is going to play out. Yet, as plants close in the interim of waiting for the MOU, I believe there should be an early retirement package that people should be able to retire from this profession they have worked in for so many years. They should be able to do it admirably, and certainly there is no reason that that cannot take place.

The minister mentioned that everyone has a strong connection or attachment to the fishery, and I certainly would agree with that. All of us in this room do. It does not matter if you live in rural Newfoundland or if you live in the larger urban centres. It does not matter if you have travelled even to rural Newfoundland very much, as I am sure most of us have, but yet we have that attachment to the fishery. It is the industry that has shaped us, and I believe it is the industry that binds us today as a Province. So, as we go through this restructuring process – and yes, the minister wants to put us on record as supporting the MOU, and in principle we do support the MOU, but I do not support the outcome until I know what it is going to be. If we want the right outcome, than I believe if we have someone left out of that process, then we can switch gears, we can stop, we can fix that, it is not that big of a thing. I think we should have community representation, and we definitely should have the federal government there as soon as possible. To leave them out would be the wrong decision.

The Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment mentioned in her commentary on the motion - one of the comments she made was basically in the fact that, mentioning my comment regarding training. My comment regarding training was in reference to an early retirement program and someone who is age sixty-two. We obviously understand – I understand the need for someone to be trained, someone who is thirty-five, forty years old. I believe she mentioned, or the minister mentioned the age bracket of the people in Jackson's Arm. Yes, they are a much younger group. They are a group who can be retrained. They are a group who can go and find other professions and so on, but in the situation where someone is in the last two or three years of their working time, if you will, then retraining most times – I would not say all times, but most times it is not on for them, I would think. It is in that situation that the early retirement really speaks to.

While the MOU process gets close to that year - again, while it is dragging itself along we are asking today, or we did ask today for a program that would bring interim solutions to the industry, to the crisis in the industry. That is what we are asking for. The fishing resource that was delivered by this Province to Ottawa back in 1949, as we all know, is a mere shadow of what the fishing industry was at that day. We have lost 80,000 of our people, we have lost 25,000 of our jobs, it continues to downsize, it continues to go, and certainly we need to have strong leadership, we need to be involved, we need to know where we want to take it, and we need to offer the programs that are available. I would commend the Minister of Fisheries for the job he is doing, as his counterpart did, but I would suggest that it is not the end-all be-all where we are today.

So, Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege today to have been able to present this private member's motion, and the debate that ensued, and I now take my place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: We are ready.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the amendment as put forward by the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the motion, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion, as amended, is carried.

Motion, as amended, carried.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Private Members' Day, and the business of the House being concluded, this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow, being Thursday.

This House is now adjourned.