March 16, 2005 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 2


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Admit strangers.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Statements by Members

This afternoon we have members' statements as follows: the hon. the Premier, the Member for the District of Humber West will ask leave to make a member's statement; we have a member's statement by the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the hon the Member for the District of Baie Verte, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and Labrador Affairs will ask leave to make a member's statement; a statement by the hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's North; and the hon. the Member for the District of Grand Bank.

I ask the house, does the Premier and the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation and Labrador Affairs have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank all hon. members for leave.

On behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, but particularly the citizens of Corner Brook, I want to pay tribute today to Dr. Noel Murphy, who passed away on the tenth day of March at the wonderful age of eighty-nine.

Dr. Murphy was a truly impressive individual who leaves a legacy for Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed for Canada, of dedicated community service that will benefit us and inspire us for generations to come.

He was a community doctor who earned the respect and trust of the countless patients he helped during his career. That alone would be a tremendous legacy worthy of a celebration, but he was also a radio pioneer, a newspaper columnist and a commentator who conveyed his views with dignity and class. I will especially miss his Christmas turkey show: Stuffing the Turkey with Murphy.

Not only was he prepared to state for the record what he believed in, but he was willing to stand by his convictions, to put his name on the line and to run for public offices where he knew he could make a difference.

He was elected as Mayor of Corner Brook, and he was elected to represent the people of Humber East in this hon. House of Assembly. Not surprisingly, given the magnitude of his contribution, Dr. Murphy was distinguished with various national and provincial honours during his lifetime. No matter where he went, people were eager to claim him as their own.

But his heart belonged to Corner Brook, and that is where his contribution is most fondly remembered. The people of Corner Brook feel privileged to have known him and to have been touched by the work of one of their city's most impressive statesmen. Dr. Murphy will be dearly missed, as he was the kind of citizen that we should all aspire to be.

On behalf of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Mr. Speaker, everywhere, and the people of Humber West and Corner Brook in particular, I convey my sincere and heartfelt condolences to his family, his friends and to all who knew him, as together we collectively mourn the passing of a great individual.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If I could ask leave to join with the comments made by the Premier in that member's statement. I, too, have had the great privilege in the past of having known, worked with, and met with Dr. Noel Murphy on several occasions over the years. I must say, I believe the people of the Province who did know him would concur with every single word that the Premier just said with respect to Dr. Noel Murphy. A truly outstanding resident in terms of his contribution in the Province generally, more particularly and specifically in the West Coast and in the Corner Brook area in the last number of years. Also well known to people in this part of the Province, of course, and in this Legislature for the time that he spent here in public service for Newfoundland and Labrador. A truly outstanding person in the Province who will be missed and I would ask that you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us, take the Premier's statement and turn it into an expression of condolences on behalf of all of the Members of the House of Assembly to the Murphy family.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Similarly, I would like to ask leave, considering the individual involved is a former member of this House and a truly great citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador, to offer my confirmation of the words spoken by the Premier in praise of Dr. Murphy and his contribution.

 

I have known Dr. Murphy for many years. In fact, the association with my family goes back many, many decades, as Dr. Murphy and my father were friends in their youth, and Dr. Murphy has always remembered that and been very kind in his memories of those days, and, since then, has made a terrific contribution not only to the West Coast but to the medical profession, to Corner Brook, to radio, and to the Province in general. He is certainly a fine citizen of Newfoundland and Labrador, whose record stands really as an inspiration to people as to what can be done by one individual contributing to a Province such as Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to honour an exceptional talent from the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace, who last month won an East Coast Music Award for Jazz Record of the year.

Thirty-two year old Duane Andrews won this award in a genre of music which requires a special gift and lots of hard work. His talent certainly adds to the array of Newfoundland music. Not only is Mr. Andrews an accomplished musician, he is also a producer. He produced his first debut album and has also worked with other local distinguished artists, some of whom have received awards and nominations themselves.

I am certain this will not be the last we will hear from Duane Andrews, who obviously has the drive and determination required to accomplish great things. I wish him the best of luck on his many projects, especially working with the Newfoundland and Labrador Composers' Guild.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all members to join me in congratulating Mr. Andrews on his accomplishments.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank you for leave today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a special Newfoundlander and Labradorian. This past Saturday, local sports legend Dick Power passed away in Ottawa after a lengthy battle with brain cancer. He was forty-six years old.

I had the pleasure of knowing him both on and off the basketball courts, and I can tell you it was better to be playing with him than against him. He was a well-renowned provincial athlete, noted for his class and talent, a quiet star who excelled in every sport he played. He was an integral part of the Holy Cross soccer team that won a national gold medal in 1988, a silver in 1989, and a bronze in 1981. He was a member of two National Ball Hockey Championships and a member of the National Ball Hockey Hall of Fame.

I read a quote in Sunday's Telegram from his former coach, Brian Murphy, that described the type of competitor and the person that Dick was, and I quote: Dick was a player you always expected to be good, and he was good.

He was also great in everyday life. He had an incredible sense of humour and he was thoughtful of others. It was his nature to want to make other people happy. His decision to be an organ donor certainly reflected that. For many years he passed on his vast knowledge as a school teacher, while providing guidance and passing on his love of this sport through coaching. I have often heard a good mutual friend of his, a MUN basketball great, John Devereaux, speak of the profound influence Dick Power had on him, on and off the court, during Dick's tenure at Stella Maris School in Trepassey.

Dick Power loved and was loved. His wife, Cynthia, shares his passion for sport, love of people and love of life. Together they lived in Ottawa, where they were both very active but continued to be very aware of everything that was happening here at home.

His loving mother, Marie, was very proud of her son. His five sisters - Ros, Maureen, Toni, Donna and Shelly - and his brother Charlie, along with nieces and nephews, and especially his cousin Shawn, simply adored him. He had close relationships with his extended family, especially his brother-in-law, the Premier, who shared a competitive nature and love for sports on many, many occasions.

Dick Power successfully battled brain cancer for five years; however, last Saturday he finally lost that battle. Throughout his illness he continued to be a tough competitor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask members of this House today to join me in honouring this great sports legend, this brilliant educator, an exceptional Newfoundlander and Labradorian. He will be sadly missed.

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to inform this hon. House that 2005 marks the 300th anniversary of Spaniard's Bay.

This year, the residents of Spaniard's Bay will celebrate their rich heritage and make every effort to preserve it. To commemorate this milestone, the residents have compiled stories, pictures and items of interest in a book entitled, The Spaniard's Bay 300 Years of Memories, which was released last fall. The book has been a huge success.

The residents of Spaniard's Bay take great pride in reviving the cultural aspects of their community. They have developed the Environmental Committee and the Spaniard's Bay Tri Centennial Committee to help in their efforts. This year they are planning come home year celebrations to be held in the summer. The year 2005 also marks the fortieth anniversary of the town's incorporation in 1965. As well, the Royal Canadian Legion this year will host the sixtieth anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic Parade

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in congratulating the residents of Spaniard's Bay on all their efforts to preserve the heritage of their community. I wish them success in all events that will take place throughout this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago the Scott Tournament of Hearts was held in St. John's, and I rise today to pay tribute to all those who played a part in organizing and hosting this marvelous event. The best female curlers in the country, and fans of curling, were in our capital city for more than a week, and anyone who went to Mile One or to the Convention Centre or who saw the media reports had to feel a sense of pride at the absolutely first-class fashion in which everything was done.

Mr. Speaker, this superb event was the culmination of the tremendous voluntary effort of Chairman Don Nickerson, his committee, and more than 600 volunteers, some of whom have worked tirelessly and unselfishly since the Scott was awarded to St. John's in August, 2003. Mr. Nickerson and his committee realized that they could not set attendance records or make any great fortune on this event, so they set as their goal to demonstrate the legendary hospitality of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Scott Tournament of Hearts was terrific for the economy of St. John's, but perhaps more valuable is the fact that the host committee set a record for the best hospitality ever seen at any Scott Tournament.

I ask all members of the House to join with me in congratulating all the volunteers for their magnificent effort.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Grand Bank Heritage Society on moving their Mariner's Memorial initiative to another level. Initially the Memorial was intended to be a memorial to lost seamen who sailed from Grand Bank. However, in consultation with sculptor, Luben Boykov, and landscape architect, Fred Hann, the Mariners Memorial Committee approved a motion to expand it to include the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

A statue of a life-size bronze female figure will be the centre of the exhibit and extol the virtues and strength of character of thousands of Newfoundland women who had to endure the loss of their loved ones. The statue will stand prominently in a memorial garden containing a symbolic shoreline of beach rocks defining a water channel containing the names of mariners lost at sea. Names of persons lost as sea from any area of the Province will be able to be included in the water channel. Family members, groups or organizations, by submission, can have the names placed in the water for a small fee to assist in the maintenance of the plaques.

Presently, there is no memorial to lost seamen anywhere in this Province, even though there have been attempts to put such a structure in place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the Grand Bank Heritage Society and wish them every success.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to provide an update to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador on the status of discussions between our government and Abitibi Consolidated on the future of its operations in Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor.

Government is very concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the future of both of these paper mills and the impact that any change in their operations would have on its employees, the communities in which they live, and indeed the entire regions which view these mills, rightfully so, as the drivers of their regional economies. Generally, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned for the pulp and paper industry in this Province on a go-forward basis.

It was very early in our mandate that we understood very clearly that we had to engage Abitibi to try to resolve some of the issues facing the company. At that time, our understanding from the company that their exclusive focus and only focus was for concern about the Stephenville mill due to rising energy costs and, apparently at the time, lack of a dedicated on-island wood supply.

Initially, this government established a ministerial working group with included myself, as Minister Responsible for Natural Resources, and my colleague the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. This working group was supported by senior government officials, including the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, the Chief Executive Officer of the Forestry Services of Newfoundland and Labrador, of my department, and the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

Our task was simple; it was to seek solutions, long-term solutions, to the issues facing Abitibi's mill in Stephenville, Mr. Speaker.

While these discussions were ongoing - as a sign of good faith - government directed Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to renew its contract - known as the Interruptible B contract - with Abitibi. This contract paid $1.3 million to Abitibi in 2004, during the winter months, the peak times when energy would be used, should Hydro require Abitibi to slow down its Stephenville operations to lessen the demand on the provincial electricity grid during peak months during the winter season. As it happened, Hydro did not have to interrupt the power to Stephenville mill; yet, Abitibi were able to retain that $1.3 million in 2004.

On December 15, 2004, Abitibi informed government that unless we could provide some assistance with cost, immediately on the energy side, the company would begin to announce a shutdown in January 2005 and the permanent closure of its Stephenville mill.

Based on that information, and where our discussions were at the time, which had not concluded, I arranged to meet with the President of Abitibi-Consolidated, Mr. John Weaver, and some of his senior executive, on December 21, 2004. During that meeting, I clearly outlined for Mr. Weaver and his senior vice-presidents that it was our intention and we wanted Abitibi to maintain all of its current operations in the Province.

I also made it clear, Mr. Speaker - because, during the course of these discussions over the last year, Abitibi had asked for priority access to Labrador wood. I want to be very clear on this point, because we have been consistent on it, I made it clear to the President and CEO of Abitibi at that time, that priority or absolute access for Abitibi to the wood supply in Labrador was something that this government was not prepared to discuss or even consider. Should Abitibi, I told them, want to access wood in Labrador, then they needed to build their own partnerships with people in Labrador and key stakeholders in the forestry industry to achieve that objective.

However, I believed at that time, there remained an opportunity, as I do today, for us to continue discussions with the company. Again, as a sign of good faith, this government agreed to a request from the company to provide a contribution towards its energy cost of $1 million, which offset the power rate increase for a period of sixty days, provided that the company would provide us with access to all of their data, designs, estimates and information related to potential hydro developments on the Exploits River.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I have a letter here that shows that you wanted to give them all Labrador wood, and whenever you want to discuss that, I will discuss that with you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: And all priority rights for the remainder of island wood, I may add to that, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

Just over a month following that meeting, we were advised that Abitibi was undertaking internal operational reviews of four of its mills within its empire, including two in this Province: Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be unequivocally clear. That was the first indication, over a month ago, that this government had that Abitibi was also putting its operations in Grand Falls-Windsor through a formal review.

Since that announcement by Abitibi, there has been much speculation about what this company plans for its Newfoundland and Labrador operations - much of which has been provided by the company itself. It is from the company that the employees of the Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor mills and the people of this Province have learned of several options under consideration by the company. According to the union these options include: one, continue to run the mills in Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor but find ways to cut costs; secondly, close the Stephenville mill; three, close Number 7 machine in Grand Falls-Windsor and maintain Number 3 machine in Grand Falls-Windsor.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, those options have caused much anxiety among the people whose livelihood is dependent on Abitibi maintaining all of its operations here; from the people working in the mill, to those harvesting wood, to the business that supplies goods and services, to the corner stores, the restaurants, hotels - and the list goes on, obviously.

Mr. Speaker, within the past week I have had the opportunity to meet with the unions which represent the mill workers for both the Stephenville and Grand Falls-Windsor mills. As well, in the coming days, I plan to meet with representatives in the municipalities in these two regions. I spoke to Mayor Walwin Blackmore, for example, last night.

While there has been much speculation of what Abitibi intends to do, I want to take this opportunity to quite clearly indicate to the employees, their unions, to the people of Grand Falls-Windsor and Stephenville, this government's position on a couple of key issues.

First of all - and this is to dispel any speculation whatsoever, Mr. Speaker - this government does not have any intention whatsoever of amending Bill 27, which is a piece of legislation that provides Abitibi with its timber licences until 2010 with the condition that it retain the operation of two papermaking machines in Grand Falls-Windsor and maintain annual production levels at substantially the same levels as those in the proceeding three years of the 2002 agreement. Period, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, our discussions with Abitibi are ongoing with regard to addressing the challenge of energy costs at the Stephenville mill. We will continue to explore all possible solutions to these challenges. Our objective is to reach an agreement that will assist Abitibi yet not put any extra burden on the ratepayers, including residential or industrial customers in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, as you can appreciate, this government does not want to see any downgrading of Abitibi operations in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to assure Abitibi's employees in this Province, the unions that represent them, the people of Grand Falls-Windsor, the people of Stephenville, the residents of the surrounding communities, and all of Newfoundland and Labrador, that this government is committed to looking at any and all options, and is prepared to do what is reasonable to see the future of these operations continue as they are and actually enhanced.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy. Actually, I was kind of astounded by the release the minister put out because on February 15 when I put out a press release asking the government not to do anything that is going to affect the mill in Corner Brook, the minister publicly said that they would never do it, but the deal was already done; $1 million to a company that has an $8 billion asset, and a secret deal we were giving a million dollars.

I say to the minister, you should always be on the West Coast because you can always learn something new. During the election, the Premier's commitment to Stephenville: you have my commitment. One of the commitments by the vice-president the Premier gave: Develop a framework for a long-term forest management program, including the development of Labrador for the benefit of our community.

That is the commitment that your Premier made during the election. During the election they had all the answers for the mill, and here we see now that the minister and this government go out and give $1 million to Abitibi - talk about giveaways - with no guarantees. Two weeks later, they turn around and say: Okay, if you are not going to go ahead and give us more, we are going to close down the mill. So, here we get $1 million. I was wondering, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: - how come the Member for Humber East and the Premier - when I said something, they should give nothing, they should give nothing whatsoever if it is going to affect the mill in Corner Brook. There wasn't a word said. The minister was on the radio saying that it would never happen, and here we find out there is $1 million behind the cloak of darkness given to the mill. Why didn't you make it public?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, they were in an election. They had all the answers and it was going to be done. The Premier said during the election it will be done immediately, the answers for the mill in Stephenville. We see the answers, give them $1 million for sixty days grace, which is $6 million a year; which is going to affect the other operation in Corner Brook. One million for two months, that is $6 million a year under the cloak of darkness, and we talk about giveaways. You are talking about giveaways that - why wasn't this made public? Why wasn't this made public when the money was first given? Why wasn't it made public?

I say, Mr. Speaker, to the members opposite, you had all the answers, you made all the promises, you made all the commitments but here we see once again - and when you stand on this side of the House you are talking about never giving any giveaways to a multi-billion dollar company and here we are giving $1 million to an $8 billion asset company; $1 million. Then we turn around and there are things in this Province we cannot do. Why didn't you make the announcement public? Because you did not want the people to know, but it was eventually going to come out and you were blackmailed. You were blackmailed.

Mr. Speaker, I say if you are going to do things, I say to the government opposite, do it up front, do it so the people can understand it. For the people up in Corner Brook, I say to the Minister of Justice and the Premier, who should defend the interests of the people in Corner Brook because I can guarantee you, Kruger will be adversely affected if the blackmail continues here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for updating the House on this issue that is vital to the whole Province and especially the areas that are affected by both the mills run by Abitibi Consolidated.

I have a real concern that I want to put to the House, that what we are dealing with here is a company that is analyzing its own operations. As we know, modern day companies in this world drive to not necessarily make a profit but every year to increase their profit and make more profit, to make more paper with less people and run their machines faster. We have to be ever mindful in this Province, in particular, because there is a lot of history associated with the paper industry, going back to 1905 with the Grand Falls mill. For many, many years concerns were expressed in this Province, when government tried to take control and get some sort of revenue from these operations, that the original concessions and things that were laid out in the beginning were very advantageous to the companies. Are we having an analysis by these companies based on those concessions or are we comparing them operating costs versus operating costs? Are we really looking for profits where the profits are not to be found?

I think, if the minister has gone so far as to expect the company to provide all the data required about hydro maybe they should be asked to open their books to this government, if they are looking for concessions, so that this government and the people of this Province actually know what is going on here, because a full analysis of these operations is really required to make a proper decision.

I appreciate that the minister has committed to maintaining Bill 27. I think it is a very important piece of legislation that was agreed to by all parties in this House. That is very important to the integrity of the Grand Falls operation obviously, in particular, but we also have to see what can be done to maintain the Stephenville operation as well, knowing that property, when it was purchased by Abitibi Consolidated didn't have allocated to it a specific wood supply. That is a very different sort of problem that has to be addressed. I believe we have to find ways to keep that mill going if we can. They have been running it on some wood from the Province, they have been running it on imported wood, and they are trying to rationalize the operation. If it is at all possible for this government to do something that would be beneficial to the continued operation of all these mills, then we should try and find ways of doing that.

I urge the minister to keep all parties and the House informed as to what efforts can be made to do that. I have a sneaking suspicion that we have a manufactured crisis here on behalf of the company and that we should be mindful of that when dealing with them in terms of - forestry ought not to be managed through crisis management and we ought to make sure we have all the knowledge available to us before any decisions are made that could be vital to the future of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This being Wednesday, and given the constraints of Standing Order 63.(7), it calls for the House to go to Oral Questions at 2:30 p.m. I do understand there are some other ministerial statements. Do we have agreement to proceed, or will we now go to Oral Questions?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I hear that we have agreement to continue with ministerial statements.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it will be a year tomorrow that government announced a one-year freeze on auto insurance rates. I rise today to update the House on what happens now that the freeze is about to expire.

On March 17, 2004, we announced a comprehensive plan for reforming auto insurance in this Province. Our first step was to freeze auto insurance rates and to legislate a starting package of reforms based on savings that were confirmed by an independent actuary.

Mr. Speaker, the rate freeze was put in place to protect consumers from rising premiums until we could legislate our reforms and go through a public review process to determine the future direction of insurance in this Province.

On August 1, consumers received an average overall reduction of 15 per cent on their insurance premiums when Bill 30 was proclaimed into law. These reforms results in consumers being treated more fairly by insurance companies through the introduction of new underwriting guidelines.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, a company can no longer set rates or refuse coverage based on accidents that are not the individual's fault, minor damages when no claim is paid, and lapse in coverage, just to highlight a few of the benefits.

Since the passage of Bill 30, the Public Utilities Board has held public sessions around the Province. We also appointed a consumer advocate to represent consumers during the review process. Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board has now wrapped up the auto insurance portion of its review process and we expect a report at the end of the month.

The department also committed to reviewing, and consulting on, the process by which rates are set. I want to inform the House today that this review is now complete and we are prepared to move forward with a new rate-setting process to ensure that every rate increase is justified.

Mr. Speaker, we will be bringing forward legislation this session to allow for a rate-setting process that requires insurance companies to file individually and justify any rate increases. This process will replace the current system of setting maximum and minimum benchmarks, which was unique in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we believe consumers are better served by requiring individual companies to produce numbers that support why they are seeking a rate increase. As well, the elimination of the minimum benchmark will also increase competition by permitting companies to charge rates below the minimum benchmark.

Mr. Speaker, we will update the House on any additional legislation that we may bring forward in relation to auto insurance once we receive and review the report from the Public Utilities Board.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. Actually, Mr. Speaker, I find it quite surprising that the minister stands today to talk about what her government has done with insurance reform in this Province. If, when they came to power a year and a half ago, they had implemented the reforms they promised back during their great election, the Blue Book campaign, we would not be talking about insurance rates here today, and consumers would have received a 20 per cent or 30 per cent reduction in their rates. Instead, Mr. Speaker, government continues to delay and deceive the public about their intentions to reform the industry. It is likely that one or more companies will file for increases in the very near future, after the freeze ends this week, all because of this government's inability to deal with this particular situation. They just have not been able to get their act together, Mr. Speaker. The industry is still in chaos.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the Premier, just give me an opportunity to respond to the minister, now Premier. I know you are all excited.

Mr. Speaker, the industry is still in chaos. Until the government moves forward with plans to implement a meaningful cap on rates, and deal with the profits in the insurance industry, consumers will not be well served by this government. It is becoming more and more evident about the consumers and the ordinary person in this Province, about the way they are being treated.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, many people in this Province say that government is more interested in serving the needs of the insurance industry and serving the needs of the legal community to protect their profits, rather than protecting the purses of the consumer.

I say to the minister, stop continuing to promote this charade that your government has put together over there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave, to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to respond to the minister's ministerial statement. I would like to say to the minister that something has to be done in this Province to set the insurance industry so that it works for the people of the Province. We have heard records of insurance companies making, what I would refer to as, obscene profits during the last couple of years that totaled billions of dollars that goes into their pockets.

I differ from the Official Opposition on this, as I do with the sitting government, what we need in this Province is a public insurance plan; one that provides fair insurance policies at a fair cost to residents of this Province, one that is affordable, one that does not discriminate and one whose money and profits stays in the Province to be used for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, too many young people today that I know, and everyone of us in this House knows of young people who have to park their vehicles because the cost for insurance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: Just by leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: Too many young people, Mr. Speaker, have parked their vehicles simply because they cannot afford the cost of insurance, which they are paying more for than they are per month for the vehicle that they have purchased. That is an unfortunate situation and one that this government should be working towards correcting.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to inform the House that the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board announced earlier today details of the 2005 Call for Bids in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area. This Call for Bids consists of seven parcels of land. Three of the parcels are located in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin and four are located offshore Western Newfoundland and Labrador.

Government's optimism remains buoyed by the fact that petroleum companies continue to see potential for more discoveries - particularly when we see in view recently Shell Canada purchasing a buy in of 20 per cent in exploration in the Orphan Basin - but discoveries in the prolific Jeanne d'Arc Basin, a basin which is home to two producing projects: Hibernia and Terra Nova, home to White Rose, which is scheduled to come on stream later this year or early next, and home to Hebron-Ben Nevis which we remain optimistic will be our fourth major development sometime in the near future. This Call for Bids follows on the heels of our record land sale in the fall of 2003 and encouraging results in 2004.

I am particularly pleased to note the Call for Bids includes four parcels of land offshore Western Newfoundland. This is further evidence that our oil industry is active on several fronts, any of which could bring the next big discovery. In addition, companies operating onshore Western Newfoundland have also indicated plans for both drilling and seismic programs during 2005.

Mr. Speaker, currently companies have commitments over $1 billion for exploration work offshore Newfoundland and Labrador. I am encouraged by the resurgence of interest in the past couple of years. I am particularly encouraged by our high level of seismic activity with areas like the Orphan, Laurentian Basins and offshore Labrador leading the way.

I am optimistic that these areas will be our next frontier and I look forward, on behalf of government, to the further success through the drill bit in the Jeanne d'Arc and South Whale Basins.

Mr. Speaker, this is truer today than any other time in our history as success in our offshore will absolutely translate into success for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Our new Accord, our new found oil and gas revenues, and our renewed pride give us reason for optimism for the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, and in particular this industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. It is indeed very good to see the interest continuing in our offshore. We cannot overstate the benefits of this industry to our Province, not only in the production end, of course, when you actually see the stuff being pumped out, but the actual exploration that takes place and the construction that takes place if you happen to be lucky enough to strike a good one. It is all very beneficial and needed to this Province.

I am somewhat concerned about the level of interest - seven parcels. I notice none of the seven parcels this year include anything in the Laurentian Sub-basin or the Orphan Basin or the South Whale Basin, as far as exploration this year. We know we had a lot of activity there last year, I say to the minister. I do not know if it is all done or not. I guess it is up to the companies, depending on the seismic findings, whether it is done or not, but usually government puts up the parcels for bidding depending upon the level of interest that companies show. The fact that there are no parcels from these three basins would indicate that there is a low level of interest at this time in these three particular areas, but it is very good to see, overall, that we have had the East Coast actually explored and developed. We won the case on the Laurentian Sub-basin. We have had seismic work there last year and now the West Coast is very good to see, and talks of Labrador. So, it is indeed good.

I just say to the minister, we need to continue to do all we can to encourage these companies to keep up the level of activity that is there and, in fact, spark more activity. That includes things -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired. Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that includes keeping a high level of activity at trade shows, for example, where I do believe there are good returns for the dollars invested. If you can spark either one of these companies to come here with an interest in our offshore, it will be money well spent.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly encouraging to see continued interest in the exploration of the offshore of this Province, particularly as compared to our neighbouring province. I hope that we will see a lot of interest in these bids now on offer by the C-NOPB.

I would also urge the government to start considering, very early, what kind of royalty regime we have, on the success of our maintaining of our offshore oil and gas revenues through the new Accord. We should also start now looking at what revenues this Province actually gets on the oil that is discovered and produced off our Province as compared to other royalty regimes around the world.

We want, ourselves, in this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: The people of this Province must be the principal beneficiaries of our offshore oil and gas, and we have to make sure that the oil companies are not getting more than their share so that we, in fact, are going to benefit to the maximum extent possible from our offshore resources.

MR. SPEAKER: Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have been very supportive of the provincial government's attempt to negotiate a new revenue sharing agreement with the federal government, and since the agreement has been reached on January 28 we have requested a briefing from the Minister of Finance three different times on the exact technical issues of the agreement, the first request actually being in writing on February 2. We have yet to receive a response one way or the other.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: Is he going to honour our request for a full briefing on the details of the new revenue sharing agreement and, if so, when might we expect that briefing to occur?

It is obvious, after what we heard about Stephenville today, that details are somewhat important. We would like to know what they are.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The request did come in, in early February, and within a few day after that, actually, on February 14, on Valentine's Day, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, we released the full details to the public of this Province. He was invited. He got a copy there, and I believe I saw him down there at that function. All the details are there. They are laid out. They are laid out in print.

The federal legislation is now being drafted and has to be tabled in the House of Commons of this country so that everybody can see the exact specific details of that legislation there. If he wants it at any time, I am only too delighted to sit down and have my officials - or I can explain to him any of the details of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Many uncertainties still exist regarding this new revenue sharing agreement. On the eve of the ceremonial signing between the Minister of Finance, provincially and federally, correspondence showed that key elements of the new arrangements were still actually being worked out two days before.

I ask the Minister of Finance: Have all the negotiations now concluded on all of the issues, and when - does he know when the legislation is expected to be tabled in the House of Commons in Ottawa for approval?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am delighted that we did strike a great deal, and we signed and agreed on that in Ottawa on January 28, and not an iota has changed, or any details to be worked out. If it is wording and things of that nature - absolutely content with what we signed on the twenty-eighth, absolutely the same as you saw on February 14.

The question, when it is going to be tabled in the House of Commons, you should ask your colleague, the Government House Leader in Ottawa, because we would love to see it tabled and dealt with right away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Finance, again: Is he saying definitively that the documents that I and others received at the ceremony on February 14, that they are the only references, that any information that anybody wants, all of the detail is in that document, nothing else exists; that is the only document that gives any information with respect to this revenue sharing agreement? Is that a fact?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, that is the document. The next document you will see will be the legislation that is tabled in the House of Commons. Then you will see how the federal government puts in the legislation. We are very eager to see that, and the exact wording, and that comes to the House to make sure it agrees with exactly what was signed on January 28, exactly what was put out to the public on February 14, and we certainly hope it reflects it.

When we see the legislation in its final form we will know that and we will render an opinion on that, but we have every single reason to believe that will reflect exactly what we have signed there. It is not open to interpretation. The federal officials agree with the interpretation. We agree with the same interpretation. The people we have dealt with agree with the interpretation. If the Leader of the Opposition has a question about any aspect that he would like clarified, ask the question and we will answer it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I greatly appreciate the invitation, and intend to do so.

Mr. Speaker, last June, two days after the phone call from the Prime Minister, the Premier of this Province stood in the House and said: The commitment that I received is worth $700 million over the next four years. It is in Hansard. It was said right here in this Legislature.

I ask the Minister of Finance: On what basis was the $700 million calculated, and specifically, what estimate was used at that point in time for the price of a barrel of oil to arrive at a $700 million value?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I refer to an article that appeared and the hon. Leader of the Opposition was quoted. He was talking about the $700 million. He said: Ottawa's offer to the Province is pretty much exactly what Williams claimed Newfoundland would get in June, some $700 million over four years, double the $1.4 billion over eight years. What is it that our Premier now is in a rant about, turning down $1.4 billion over eight years? Well, we have $2 billion in cash.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: That wasn't even part of the original deal. We came up with $2 billion in cash, plus we will get the benefit of the interest on that which could possibly be another $750 million. That is $2.75 billion. That $2 billion, depending on where equalization is and the price of oil, could be $2.6 plus the $750 million. It could also go as high was $3.9 if we stay under the equalization line. The $700 million that you would have been prepared to take, the $1.4 billion that you told us to take, has more than doubled and may even triple before it is all over. That is your position.

The other thing is, despite your claim -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to conclude his answer quickly now.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you.

Despite your claim to undying support throughout this, I would quote you. November 3, 2004: From day one we have stated that the Premier has bungled this file. We will let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador decide that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take the Minister of Finance up again on his offer to answer any question. The question was this one - and that was not my position, Mr. Speaker. It was the Premier himself who said: It is worth $700 million over four years. Let me ask the question again: When the Premier stood in this House, not me, and said, it is worth $700 million in four years, what assumption was being used - because the provincial government provided all the figures in this negotiation - what assumption was being used at that point in time with respect to the price of a barrel of oil, for the Premier to stand up and brag that it was going to be worth $700 million in four years? A direct question.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, assumptions are based on a variety of things. They are based not only on the price of oil; they are also based on the value of the Canadian dollar. The stronger the Canadian dollar, the less favourable it is for us; the weaker the dollar, the more favourable.

We did numerous scenarios at numerous price ranges. We did numerous scenarios at various Canadian dollars. We provided all the data to the federal government, that they pontificated out there what the amounts would be in the public. It came from our department with numerous scenarios. We gave dozens of scenarios out there with all different sets of situations. You can pick out whatever one you want and go back, in retrospect, and say, at this price it is a certain amount, at this dollar it is a certain amount. It changes every day, and as negotiations went on we saw that with the increasing price of oil it was more advantageous to us, and if it stays higher it is more advantageous again. The $2 billion would be a floor. It might be one half of what the Premier referred to, of what we may actually get on this deal over and above our own entitlements.

Not only that, I might add, we added -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have added. We have not only used this assumption, but since that time we have added another year to the current Atlantic Accord to increase the agreement that was already there to extend it out for a full eight years. So, there are numerous other incremental benefits we got, and hopefully it stays up. The Leader of the Opposition might have to suffer through the agony of another $2 billion on top of the $ 2 billion we got. Hopefully he will be able to deal with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know they are having difficulty answering a direction question, but it is an important direct question. Mr. Speaker, it leads to this question: The Minister of Finance said there were a number of scenarios that were proposed. I asked a direct question. Which scenario was the Premier talking about when he concluded definitively that it was going to be worth $700 million in four years? Which one of those scenarios? Because the next question, Mr. Speaker, is this: What scenario was used - because it was different one - on January 28, when the values changed? What scenario was used on January 28, compared to the scenario that was used on June 7? Would the minister like to describe which scenario was used each time, and how it changed?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We said from day one that we wanted 100 per cent of offshore revenues that were going to accrue to our Province without being subject to clawback under equalization while we are an equalization-receiving Province. Regardless of what that meant, we wanted 100 per cent. Whether the price went up or went down, it did not make any difference; we wanted 100 per cent. We argued that. We were not prepared in October - it was laid on the table at a meeting in Ottawa when I attended there. They wanted to offer us a lump sum for eight years, $1.4 billion, and we would not take it. That is when the Natural Resources Minister came down and told the people we were leaving $1.4 billion on the table; we had to deal with it. We wanted 100 per cent. If that is $2 billion or $1.5 billion or $5 billion or $10 billion, we wanted what is rightfully ours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: We were not going to enter into another Upper Churchill, where there is no escalator, and jeopardize the future of the people in this Province. We made sure we covered that, and that is in that agreement there whether the Leader of the Opposition likes it or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I can tell him, with my reading of the information from February 14, if that is the only documentation that occurs, that what he just described is not on those two pages that were signed here in Newfoundland on February 14.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask this question, because he does not want to answer direct questions but we are going to ask direct questions because the people deserve and need to know. The Premier has indicated that he actually signed and secured a sixteen-year deal; yet the second eight years, as everybody does know, is subject to several different conditions. It is very much a maybe.

Mr. Speaker, the $2 billion floor is a good protection against prices drastically decreasing, but what provision is there? Because it is certainly not in any documentation that I have seen so far. What provision is there in any concrete form to protect future revenues if the price of oil remains high like it is today, at $55 a barrel? That is why I asked: What was the estimate used in June for the price of a barrel of oil?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: What estimate was used in January? What estimate is going to be used throughout the process to calculate our entitlement?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If someone has a crystal ball they cannot predict definitively into the future. Equalization is changing in 2006-2007. One of the things to protect our future, we wanted a guarantee that if the federal government changes equalization in the future, we do not want to be compromised on the 100 per cent principle. Therefore, we got a condition in this agreement that an independent audit would be done to determine and adhere to that 100 per cent principle. That guarantees it in the future. Beyond the eight years, the federal government was not prepared to give, basically, anything beyond the eight years. We were successful in negotiating beyond the eight years, that if we are off equalization in those two years we could be in jeopardy, so we built in - and we had a tough fight to get this. We went right to the limit to ensure that if we are an equalization receiving Province in 2010 and 2011, or 2011 and 2012, and our per capita debt servicing costs are not lower than at least four other provinces in this country - that has never happened, we are double now the next province - than we will get this for the next eight years. That is the best possible date we could secure. One that we never thought -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is justifying the implementation of production quotas for crab processors by saying it was recommended in the Dunne report. In actual fact, Mr. Dunne states in that report, and I quote: The proposal for Individual Raw Material Shares - which is a production quota - should only proceed when processors can satisfy the minister that there are, or will be, no substantive and reasonable objections from plant workers and harvesters.

I ask the minister, why is he dictating production quotas when harvesters and plant workers obviously have substantive and reasonable objections to them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding to implement raw material shares in the crab fishery in 2005, and we are doing it on the basis of a number of factors that we see in the industry right now and in the marketplace. We see an industry that is under jeopardy as a result of substantial inventories that are being carried in the U.S. market. We see an industry that is jeopardized as a result of a higher Canadian dollar than we have seen in quite a number of years; a dollar that has taken $60 million to $70 million out of the crab fishery over the past two years. We see a resource that is in potential decline. We see a number of factors like that, that lead to volatility and instability in the industry, and we are acting on a number of reports that were commissioned by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo when he was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in this Province. Two reports, one by Mr. Vardy and one by Mr. Dunne. The one by Mr. Vardy when the Member for Twillingate & Fogo was minister. One by Mr. Dunne when the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and one by Mr. David Jones, who was commissioned by the Minister of Labour in the previous Administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious that the minister quotes or misquotes Eric Dunne when it is convenient for him to do so, when he wants to fool the people in the Province into believing that what he did last week was recommended by Mr. Dunne; which is not true.

Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech last year this same government said it would consult before it acts and be inclusive when it consults. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, why didn't you consult with the vast majority of individuals in the fishing industry, the plant workers and the harvesters around this Province, before you sided with the crab processors in this Province and implemented or dictated production quotas upon them?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on this matter there were extensive consultations and extensive discussions over the course of about three to four months last winter and spring as it related to both shrimp and crab. We implemented a raw material sharing system in shrimp last summer, as everybody in the Province knows. It went reasonably well. We know there are problems there that have to be addressed. We are working to try to address those. We know that there are concerns by many people in the industry about a raw material sharing system for crab and we are prepared to sit down and discuss with all people in the industry how we might best address those concerns.

Mr. Speaker, given the volatility of the market and the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, we believe that this is the best option to go forward, and we did not do it like the previous Administration did in 2001. Maybe he might want to tell the House where he was in late September 2001 when the Premier of the day, the Leader of the Opposition today, ordered the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to sign an authorization, an order on plant production quotas in the shrimp fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister talks about consulting with industry participants after he has his decision made. It is obvious that he has consulted with the processors but he has not consulted with the members of the FFAW.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. The Chair has recognized the Member for Twillingate & Fogo and I ask all members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two years ago this minister and his leader, the now Premier, said they had enough evidence. They asked the Competition Bureau of Canada to investigate what they called a cartel in the fish processing sector in this Province. They indicated, at that time, that they felt processors were colluding to limit competition in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister why is he now turning his back upon a union that he was once so proud to be a part of and jump into bed and legalize a cartel, something he asked the Competition Bureau to investigate just two years ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just a factual correction there. It wasn't two years ago when we asked the Competition Bureau to look at this matter, it was just about four years ago. I believe at the time the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the member today for Twillingate & Fogo, said that he saw no evidence of anti-competitive behaviour in the industry and didn't know why we were running off to the Competition Bureau to ask to have it investigate. Today he stands here and says that there wasn't anti-competitive behaviour and asks why we are doing what we are doing.

Mr. Speaker, we plan, in the introduction of plant production quotas or raw material shares or production caps, whatever you want to term it, based on reports that were commissioned by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo when he was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and his colleagues on the other side of the House, in four separate reports, we are planning on dealing with the issue of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to strengthen that act so that harvesters can have better access and better tools to deal with the setting of prices at the spring of the year. We are also ordering a disclosure of sales invoices by the processing sector to an independent auditing firm, Mr. Speaker. (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister just said that he believed at that time there was a cartel and he gave every indication that he thinks there is still one today.

I ask the minister: If that is the case, why are you establishing a cartel under legislation? Is it because you don't want to deal with it and this is the best way that you can hide and run from your duties?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, there is nobody on this side of the House hiding from issues like a previous Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture did. There is nobody on this side of the House who is prepared to commission reports and then let them sit and collect dust, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to do something to stabilize the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. I admit what we are doing may not be perfect, but it is worth a try.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: As for the issue as it related to the cartel, or alleged anti-competitive behaviour, we, Mr. Speaker, once again took action and asked for it to be investigated, and it was investigated. The Competition Bureau, rightly or wrongly, said that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed any further. Mr. Speaker, what we are proposing to do now is to deal with the issue as it relates to potential anti-competitive behaviour. We are planning on formalizing a process of sharing in the industry that everybody knows about as opposed to something that may have happened in the past under their watch that nobody could prove was taking place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

How can this minister claim that his program of giving raw material shares to crab processors is in keeping with the recommendations of the Dunne Commission when Mr. Dunne clearly states that even a pilot project should not proceed in the face of substantive and reasonable objection from plant workers and harvesters?

Will the minister not acknowledge the overwhelming objections from harvesters and plant workers in their union and go back to the drawing board on this issue? Doesn't he know that this system will not work without the co-operation of the fishermen's union, the harvesters and the plant workers to make it work?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that we cannot force fishermen to fish, we acknowledge that we cannot force processors to process, and we cannot force plant workers to go inside processing facilities if none of them want to. That we understand. We also understand that Mr. Dunne said they should not proceed if there were substantive and reasonable objections to it. That is why we have proposed to address the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to mandate a dispute resolution mechanism that will bind both parties in the industry, at the end of the day, if they fail to negotiate. We also propose to order processing companies to disclose actual sales invoices to an independent auditing firm so that the people in the industry know what the actual price for crab is, as opposed to what is being reported, as it was in the past.

Mr. Speaker, from the plant workers perspective, concerns about corporate concentration and transfer ability of sharing is an issue that we take seriously, which is why we have proposed a two-year moratorium on transferability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

According to the Dunne Commission report, this system of production quotas has never been put in place in any fishery in the world, and the benefits are unproven and uncertain. Why is the minister proceeding, in the face of an almost certain shutdown of the crab fishery this year, to achieve an untried and unproven system that only the crab processors want, and they want it because it will give them control over the industry and overwhelmingly transfer the bargaining power away from the workers, the fishermen, the harvesters and the plant workers, and pass it over to the plant owners? Why is the minister doing that without the proper consultation, without working out the details before it happens?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the concept of raw material shares has been reviewed and reported on and recommended by the Fishing Industry Renewal Board back in 1996, the Vardy report of 2001, the Jones report of 2003, and the Dunne report of 2003, to name just four.

Mr. Speaker, there were also issues related to corporate concentration that were raised by the Dean report, I think it was, back in 2002, when the previous Administration were in government. We are trying to deal with those, Mr. Speaker.

As for the suggestion that this has not been tried anywhere in the world, there is one place in Alaska, in the Alaskan crab fishery, where this concept is being introduced as part of an IQ system that is being introduced for the harvesters. At the same time, and appropriately so, I believe, the sharing system is being implemented in the processing sector.

Mr. Speaker, had this been dealt with back in 1996, probably when it should have been, it would have been introduced as part of the IQ system that was done for fishermen and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, won't the minister acknowledge that the result of this IQ system, and the transferability that will eventually come, will be more concentration in the fishery and less individual control by harvesters over their future?

Why is the minister pursuing this reckless course of action that he knows is almost certain to lead to the shutdown of the crab fishery this year?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, shutdowns in the fishery are not an uncommon occurrence in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have seen it many, many times over the years. In just about every season for the past five or six, there have been shutdowns in either shrimp or crab for a variety of reasons. We do not suggest that what we are proposing to do is going to fix that problem, but we do know, based on reports from the market, and certainly I heard it in Boston this past week, that two major buyers, major promoters of Newfoundland and Labrador crab, are considering delisting Newfoundland and Labrador crab because of issues related to quality and inconsistency of supply.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the things that Dunne reported on, that Vardy reported on, that Jones reported on, as a measure to stabilize and protect ourselves against issues like this in the market. We are prepared to do it, Mr. Speaker. Is it reckless? No, it is not reckless. It is reckless to handle the fishery the way the previous Administration did, which is to take an approach to it and just keep it on life support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Last month, I sent out a press release urging this government not to give any special considerations or special deals to Abitibi-Consolidated that would adversely affect the mill in Corner Brook. The minister said that there was no consideration for any special arrangement, and anything that would be done would be done for all mills. Now we see a million dollar secret deal given to Abitibi for sixty days, with no guarantees. How can the minister justify giving Abitibi a $1 million grant, with no guarantees, while the company continues to re-evaluate their operations in Grand Falls-Windsor and Stephenville?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify, first of all, secret deal. Now, here is what would have been a secret deal. A secret deal would have been what we found out on the front page of The Telegram today, when you send a letter to a shipping company telling them they have a contract and you phone back half an hour later asking them to rip it up, and then the court has to decide. That is a bit of a secret deal. It is not a secret when the government responsible releases the information for everybody to see, which is exactly what we did today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker, that what we are interested in is protecting every mill worker no matter where they live in the Province; no matter where they live or where they reside.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier and I had the luxury, had the absolute luxury, to meet with, for example, Mr. Kruger recently, and his operations in Corner Brook, and what we said to Abitibi and what we said to Kruger are exactly the same thing: that each mill has its own particular peculiar circumstances that they may need help in. Kruger has it as well, and we will deal with them up front and honestly, but what we will not do, Mr. Speaker, is ask one mill to subsidize another one, and that is a principle we will not compromise because it is not fair to them and it is not fair to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for a very brief supplementary and a very brief answer.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

MR. JOYCE: A million dollars is a pretty good subsidy, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, the government has stated they have no intentions of amending Bill 27. Will the minister commit to live up to the spirit and intent of this legislation and not allow access to the wood supply on Crown lands if Abitibi does not maintain a two-machine operation in Grand Falls-Windsor?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me let the Member for Bay of Islands in on a secret. I just gave a Ministerial Statement, whether you were listening or not, that we will not amend Bill 27, which means that we will demand a two-machine operation in Grand Falls, which is exactly what the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the unions, and the people in Central Newfoundland asked for yesterday, and we gave it to them today, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, with respect to the direction of the flow of wood, I believe was the second part of your question, why don't you ask your own leader who, in August of 2007, talked about how he had a deal - August 2003, sorry, August 7, 2003 - who wrote John Weaver, the President of Abitibi, to say that we had a deal (inaudible) direction of the flow of wood?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Ask him. He will give you his answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated to Oral Questions has expired.

I will ask direction from the House. Is it the wish of the House to continue with routine proceedings, or do you wish to now go to the Orders of the Day and the private member's motion?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, we have Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

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

I want to just give an interim report on the Standing Committee dealing with the House Standing Orders. We have met over - a couple of times between when the House closed and now today when the House opened. What I would like to do on behalf of the Committee, with representatives, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, my colleague the Opposition House Leader, and some colleagues on this side as well, just to give an interim report.

I would like to move: One, that the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly be amended by the insertion immediately after Standing Order 2(2) of the following: (1.1) Following a General Election the Members shall elect a Speaker immediately after the administration of the oath or affirmation of office.

Two, that Standing Order 7(1) be revoked and the following substituted: The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order. No debate shall be permitted on any such decision and no such decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House. In explaining a point of order or practice, the Speaker shall state the Standing Order or authority applicable to the case.

Three, that Standing Order 24(1) be amended by the insertion immediately after (d) the following: (d.1) Tabling of documents.

Four - this is an interesting one, Mr. Speaker - that Standing Order 46(4) be revoked and the following substituted: 46(4) The Member speaking immediately in reply to the Minister of Finance in giving the Budget Speech shall be limited to twice the amount of time used by the Minister or three hours, whichever is greater.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I must say, Mr. Speaker, it came at some -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Five, that the following be added immediately after Standing Order 60(3): 60.1 A motion that the Speaker leave the Chair for the House for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole House shall be decided without debate or amendment.

Six, that the Standing Order 74(1) be amended by the insertion, immediately after the words and figures "Standing Order 72.", of the following, and I quote: "Such motion shall be decided without debate or amendment."

Seven, that Standing Orders 119-128 be revoked subject to the enactment of legislation - which is being put forward in the name of the Opposition House Leader, myself when we get to the legislative part of this session.

Eight, that Practice Recommendation 1(1)(a) be amended by the insertion immediately after the word "break" of the following: "from the end of the sitting day on Maundy Thursday".

Nine, the traditional parliamentary rule of Anticipation no longer apply in the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Ten, and that the Clerk of the House of Assembly be authorized to renumber and reprint the Standing Orders making all necessary adjustments and revisions in order to carry out the spirit and intent of the above noted changes to the Standing Orders.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that this is an interim report, that the committee is continuing to work on other changes. My sense is that when we come back in the fall we will have the full body of our work completed. We continue to talk, and we discussed a number of issues relating to when the House should open, how long it will open, introducing a sort of a more friendly practice, maybe opening earlier, closing earlier. Those decisions have not been made and we hope to achieve those through consensus, and we are working towards that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Are we ready for the resolution?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was not aware that we were going to vote on this right away. I just want to say a few words as a participant in this committee. What the committee is working on is very important to the future of, not only this House but future Houses. We have a number of matters that have yet to be finalized. The interim report, as the Government House Leader has said, covers a number of things that there was a fairly immediate consensus on.

I have to say, I was one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the changes being made to the Budget Debate. Having been here for nearly fifteen years now and having listened or not listened, as the case may be, to numerous lengthy speeches, including some by Your Honour, as well as the current Minister of Finance, the current Opposition House Leader. So, I probably have heard, perhaps not as many as the Member for Lewisporte going back over the years, but it seemed to have gotten into a competition from one year to the next, almost like the Guinness Book of World Records of the House of Assembly, who could speak the longest and be the most boring and deter the most people from watching it on TV as time went on. I think it is a practice that really ought to be changed. I want to recognize that the committee has been working very co-operatively on issues such as this, despite the fact that, even in this instance, it will limit the debate in the coming session of the House as we enter into the Budget Debate.

I look forward to a continuing success with this committee and see if we can achieve some significant reforms to the Standing Orders of the House so that private members can participate more fully and that all members of the House can have a more effective system for the views of elected representatives to be heard and to be effective in bringing about a change in the House of Assembly.

So, I support these recommendations and look forward to an opportunity for this committee to meet further over the next while and come up with further recommendations that will be beneficial to this House and future Houses.

MR. SPEAKER: Are we ready for the motion put forward by the Government House Leader?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

I wish to advise members that the appropriate modification has been made to the booklet that we have on Standing Orders and that will be distributed to members within the next several days.

Further Reports by Standing and Select Committees?

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Section 28 (4) (e) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one special warrant relating to the 2004-2005 fiscal year.

MR. SPEAKER: As Speaker of the House of Assembly, pursuant to Section 39 of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, 1997, I hereby table the annual report of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Police Complaints Commission for the period April 1 2003 to March 31 2004.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty, Bill 2; and further I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions for granting of supply to Her Majesty, Bill 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion? Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given? Petitions?

Petitions

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to give notice of a petition. It is containing 127 names. It was sent to me by the Chair of CAW Local 597 of the Women's Committee. It is concerning the decision, or maybe not full decision, by the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to look at closing out the Committee Against Violence office located at 5 Hardy Avenue in Grand Falls-Windsor.

When I heard of this possibility, I met with the central co-ordinator and I could not believe what I was hearing, because for the past seven years that particular office has received funding from various government sources and has been able to stay open. I couldn't believe that a minister who is in charge of the Status of Women would be looking at cutting off funding for this organization that plays such a vital role in our community. It has a volunteer base that works with the central committee, and they look after violence prevention services right from Eastport to Westport. Every volunteer agency that is in the central region is connected to the Committee Against Violence. We have RCMP, mental health, food bank, public health nursing, child youth mental health services, the hospital - you name them - they are all involved.

Do you know that the central co-ordinator, Ms Lorraine Hearn, I knew her when she started to operate this organization. Prior to getting government funding seven years ago, she actually had her own telephone number listed, as public information, for anyone who was in need of protection from violence, or any of those victim services. She allowed her own telephone number to be used as a contact point, and she herself would try and assist people who needed help with any of these issues.

Let's face it, government should not expect people to operate a victim violence centre in their own home, seven years later. There is no way that an individual should take on that responsibility.

With the $2 billion windfall that this government has received from the Atlantic Accord, anything to deal with social issues, health care issue, educational issues, all of those vital services should not be axed.

I would like to say to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment: Rethink your decision. Do not jump ship when so many people are depending on you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: If I could just have a few seconds?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS THISTLE: When 127 people commit to put their names on a petition like this, there is a lot of meaning that goes behind it. On top of that 127 names, I have a stack of individuals who wrote me personally on this matter. I know things are moving quickly today, there is a lot of business to be done our first day back, but hopefully tomorrow I will be able to pick up this issue again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

 

Private Members' Day

 

MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is moving a private member's resolution.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise today to put forward a motion. It concerns the production quotas within the crab processing sector of our Province, that the minister outlined last week in a press conference. I want to put this motion forward, and what I will be asking at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister delay this decision, this edict that he passed upon the harvesters and the plant workers of the Province last week. I will be asking him, at the end of the day, if he would postpone this imposition of production quotas until it is agreed upon by the FFAW and the processors, and not just by the processors in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, what the minister did last week is, he said that when the House opens - which it opened yesterday - some time in the next couple of weeks we will be asked, in this House, to pass a piece of legislation that will have, I believe, more far-reaching effects on the fishing industry of our Province than any other piece of legislation that has ever been passed in this House of Assembly since 1949.

Mr. Speaker, I also believe that it will change the way the fishing industry of our Province is run, or has been run, forever. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the legislation pertaining to production quotas for crab, whereas the minister refers to them as raw material sharing.

In the short period of time that I am allotted, I will give you the reasons I think the minister is presenting or imposing this upon the harvesters and plant workers of the Province, and why I am adamantly opposed to production quotas, as I am sure many people in this House are today.

Mr. Speaker, under this scheme, for the first time in the history of the Province, the minister will allocate a portion of the total amount of crab that is landed by harvesters in this Province to individual plant owners or individual plants. Mr. Speaker, that has never been done before in history.

As we all know, up until now, a fisherman or a harvester went out and he caught his crab, and prior to doing that a price was negotiated with the union and the processors in this Province, but it was usually a minimum price, and once the fishery started then a fisherman basically went to whichever processor in the Province offered him the most for his catch. In fact, Mr. Speaker, this is the way it has been going on for quite some time. I cannot say it is the way it has always happened because, as we know, in the fish merchants days prices were never negotiated and fishermen probably did not find out what they were being paid for fish until the end of the season, when they were rudely surprised and rudely awakened to find out that they were not being paid very much.

Mr. Speaker, what the minister, by bringing in this piece of legislation, will do, is eliminate all competition among processors in this Province, and therefore a fisherman will be forced to sell his catch probably for far less than he has been receiving for it in past years. Now, you might want to say why the minister is doing this. For his own reasons, he said, he is doing it to create stability in the industry and because it was recommended by Mr. Eric Dunne in the Dunne report.

Well, let me just address the second part of that first, where he says he is doing this because of what Eric Dunne recommended in the Dunne report. Mr. Speaker, the minister, in the past few months, has blamed a lot of things on Eric Dunne, and twisted Mr. Dunne's words a number of times for his own purposes. One was last year when he talked about setting up a licencing board. Eric Dunne recommended an arm's-length licencing board for the issuance of processing licences in the Province, and what the minister set up basically was another level of bureaucracy whereby he still controls the licencing of fish plants.

Mr. Speaker, to quote directly from Mr. Dunne, what Mr. Dunne actually recommended in his report was, he said that we should look at the proposal for individual raw material shares or production quotas only when - and it is on page 149 in Recommendation 9.12 of the Dunne report - he said that raw material shares should only proceed when processors can satisfy the minister that there will be no substantive and reasonable objections by plant workers and harvesters.

Well, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, since the minister unilaterally went out and announced he was going to have production quotas just one week ago, we found that harvesters and plant workers from all around this Province are adamantly opposed to production quotas for crab, and the reason they are opposed to it is, they believe it will put more power, more control, back into the hands of processors than we have witnessed in the last fifty, sixty or 100 years.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about stability - when the minister talks about stability - this will create stability. Already he is not doing what Mr. Dunne suggested he should do, listen to the harvesters and plant workers before he implements this. He did not do this. Now he is talking about creating stability in the industry, and he says he is going to do this by dictating or imposing production quotas upon harvesters.

I would like to know how he is going to create stability when 99 per cent of the harvesters in this Province are adamantly opposed to production quotas. I don't know how he is going to create stability. What he will do, Mr. Speaker, is eliminate competition. If we can remember in the history of our Province, wealthy fish merchants usually dictated to fishermen when they fish, what they fish for, and for how much they were going to fish for.

Mr. Speaker, once we eliminate competition from and among processors in this Province what we will end up with is what today's minister and the Premier called a few years ago, a cartel in the fishing industry. What that means, a cartel is a group of people who collude to limit competition. Mr. Speaker, if you limit competition in the processing sector so that one processor is not competing with another on the head of a wharf for the fish that a fisherman is landing in this Province, all that is going to happen is that fisherman or that harvester is going to be offered far less for his catch than he had been used to in the last ten or fifteen years.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge any economist in this country to tell me that I am wrong or to prove to me that I am wrong, because anytime you eliminate competition there are only two things that can happen. If you are selling something and there is no competition, then you can ask what you want for that. Mr. Speaker, if you are buying something and no competition, you will definitely drive the price down. All you have to do is look at what happened in the airline industry in this country when you talk about lack of competition. Jetsgo went out of business on Thursday or Friday of last week and already we see the ticket prices on airlines going up in this Province. The same thing will happen in the fishing industry this year, only it will happen in reverse.

When processors in this Province are no longer competing on the heads of wharfs for the catches of fishermen and harvesters in this Province, Mr. Speaker, I will guarantee you that the price for fishermen will go down. Not only will the price go down, Mr. Speaker, but other things will happen to those fishermen. For example, many fishermen in the Province receive bait at a discount from processors because they wanted their crab badly. They also received ice from processors because they wanted their crab badly. Mr. Speaker, they had other arrangements with processors because these processors needed these fishermen because they wanted them to land their crab there. Now, if you eliminate the competition among these processors and each individual processor is guaranteed - as he is going to be under this scheme - a certain amount of crab each year, then it only goes without saying that these fishermen will not get their ice, the price for bait will go up, other things will go up and the price that they are going to be offered for crab will go down.

Mr. Speaker, the minister also talks about the need for change in this industry. Why do we need change in an industry? The minister says we need change because we need stability; that each year the fishery is interrupted because of shutdowns, because harvesters and plant owners cannot come to an agreement on the price. Well, I say in the six or seven years that we had Final Offer Selection mechanism in the fishing industry, the industry worked fairly well. I look at the Member for Bonavista North down there who worked with a processor in that area and he knows that it worked pretty well.

These processors came to me in 2002 and asked me for production quotas for crab, and I said: No, I will not give you production quotas for crab unless it was negotiated between the FFAW and the processors. I will not unilaterally say yes, I am giving you the processors. The reason that they said - they told me at the time - they wanted production quotas is because harvesters were making too much money off their product. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing, that I am one who believes that fishermen, harvesters in this Province should be the primary beneficiaries of the fishing industries, not the wealthy fish merchants in this Province. So, he is saying that he is going to add stability by doing this.

When I told these processors back in 2002 that they were not getting production quotas for crab, they told me: If you do not give it to us, we are backing out of Final Offer Selection. We are backing out of the mechanism now of how we used the set price for the last six or seven years and that we will force you, Mr. Minister, to give us production quotas. Well, I told them then and I will tell them now, I will not do it. I told them that then, and if it was my decision today I would tell them again: I will not do it. I will not force harvesters in this Province to live on their production quotas where they are going to get the shaft by fish merchants in this Province and they are going to force them to go back to conditions that they had 100 years ago, when they fished all summer and were told in the fall of the year that they did not have any money, when they did see money. Because many fishermen in this Province never saw a cent, never saw a cent. That is where this government wants us to go back to today.

Now, after you bring in these production quotas he says it is good for plant workers, it is good for processors, it is good for plant workers in the Province. Well, let me ask you this. If, for example, a processor knows that he is going to have 10 million pounds of crab next year, or 15 million or 20 million or 5 million, that might be fine for him, but, Mr. Speaker, once he gets that and he can schedule his fishermen so that they can come in when he wants them to come in, I ask this question, and maybe the Member for Bonavista North who worked for a fish processing company can tell me, once that processor knows he has his quota for the year, once he knows he can schedule his fishermen to arrive at that plant whenever he wants them to - I want to ask the Member for Bonavista North - will that processor still employ the same number of people as he has in the past? I can answer it for him as well, Mr. Speaker. The answer is no.

The reason why most plants in this Province have two shifts is because fishermen decide when they go to fish and they decide when they are going to land it. As a result of that, a lot of crab comes in, in a short period of time. As a result of this, Mr. Speaker, if the plant owners can schedule fishermen, they will have no reason whatsoever to have a second shift in a plant, because they can stagger the boats so that they come in in an orderly fashion, and you can eliminate half the plant workers they currently have in these production facilities.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that really and truly frightens me about production quotas, the thing that I couldn't agree to when I was minister and I wouldn't agree to today, is the transfer ability of production quotas. Mr. Speaker, I have two crab processing facilities in my district. If, for example, one of them wants to sell out next year, now that he has a commodity that is worth something to sell - because prior to this piece of legislation going through the House he has his license and he has his plant, and that license stayed with the community, it stayed with the plant in the community. What the minister is doing now, attaching to the license and the plant, he is also attaching a production quota, something of great value to these processors.

For example, if one of those smaller processors in my district, or any other district in the Province, wanted or determined that he was going to sell his quota - right now he has something valuable to sell - it would be snapped up like that. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? The quota would be transferred and the license and that plant would no longer exist in those communities. What really frightens me, Mr. Speaker, is that is where I see the fishing industry going if this government is permitted to go ahead with what they are proposing in this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this piece of legislation, because, number one, it will eliminate competition and it will drive the price down that is going to be offered to our fishermen and our harvesters around the Province. I think that most people with a grain of sense would realize that is true. When you don't have to compete for something, you don't have to offer as much for it.

The other thing, it will not lend stability to plant workers in this Province because, for one thing, I think that their numbers will be reduced dramatically when the processors have complete control over the quota, when it will be caught, at what time it will be caught, when it will be landed, and when it will be processed, because they will not need the workers that they have now to take care of peak times.

Mr. Speaker, the transferable quotas that these plants will have, and the value attached to them, what I think you will see in the very near future is that you are going to see a lot of individual small plants being sold off to the bigger ones, and you are going to see a lot of consolidation in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, all I can say is this: If people want to see how production quotas look, and how production quotas work, all you have to do is look at FPI. FPI has had production quotas; they have had their own quotas since 1979. They have had their own quotas since they established themselves, and their quotas were distributed among a number of plants in the Province, and in their quest to show more and more profits year over year over year, what have they done? They have taken their quotas from towns like Harbour Breton, they have taken their quotas from towns like Fortune, they have moved them into other towns, and what has happened to the people, and what is going to happen to the communities in which these quotas previously existed? I say, Mr. Speaker, they are in for a very bleak future, and I warn any plant worker or anyone who lives in a community with a crab processing facility to be very wary of signing on to what the Minister of Fisheries is asking you for in this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate what I want the government to do again before I sit down, and what it is: BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls upon government to only impose production quotas if it is agreed upon by the FFAW and the processors as recommended - I might say - in the Dunne report.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to pass a few comments on the issue of the day and the issue of the month and the issue of next month, too, I dare say: raw material sharing in the crab fishery.

Mr. Speaker, let's go back a little ways in time. We do not have to go a long ways, but we will go back a little ways. It has been widely acknowledged by most people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, most people in the fishing industry, and I suspect most people in this House of Assembly, that there are considerable structural problems in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not just me saying that. There have been a number of people, and a number of people who sat in the chair of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture over the past number of years, who I suspect must have recognized it; because, had they not recognized it, why then did they spend so much of the taxpayers' money commissioning people and groups to travel throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and to travel throughout the world, to look at fishing industries and to provide reports to government on what should be done?

Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do here today is deal with about $2 million worth of paper right here that the previous Administration commissioned to be studied and reported on over a period spanning from this report on the Special Panel on Corporate Concentration in the Fishing Industry - Les Dean, chair; Harold Wareham, panel member; and Sam Walters, panel member, September 5, 2001 - we are pleased to present our report. That was the mandate that was given to them on September 5, 2001; the report was received on the fifteenth day of November 2001.

September 2002, Mr. David Vardy as chair, Mr. Ross Peters as panel member, and Brian Delaney as panel member and director of research, were asked to review the Newfoundland and Labrador cooked and peeled shrimp industry. Mr. Speaker, that was announced on December 10, 2001. The mandate was, the report was delivered to government on March 31, 2002; nothing done with that by the previous Administration.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have this one here, A Review Of The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, A Framework for Stability, it is called, delivered on October 3, 2003. Well, we would not expect them to do much with that; it was only eighteen days before the election. Nevertheless, they commissioned Mr. David Jones, the previous Administration did, to conduct a review of the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, so we got that report.

Mr. Speaker, back in the midst of a shutdown in the summer of 2003 - I do not know if I will find the letter here or not, but anyway - the bottom line was, some time in July or August, I think it was - in August, I think it was - Mr. Eric Dunne was commissioned by the previous Administration to conduct a review of fish processing policies for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That report was delivered to me on the fourteenth or fifteenth of December, I believe it was, 2003.

Now, every one of those reports - and there have been others, I am sure, that have looked at different aspects of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry, but every one of those in particular - looked at issues related to corporate concentration, consolidation of ownership, whichever way you want to spin it, looked at issues as it related to instability in the industry, raw material sharing, issues related to stabilization for plant workers, looked at issues related to the quality of the product that was being put out by our industry, what were the various factors that impacted the quality that was being put out by industry, why were we having shutdowns from time to time, and reviewed the whole situation, Mr. Speaker, and reported back to government. Three out of the four recommended that there be a raw material sharing system put in place in the fishery. The other one was not asked to look at that type of thing, it was looking at corporate concentration and suggested that there be limits put on corporate concentration in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, why did we roll out two weeks ago? We rolled out a system of raw material shares in the crab sector. Mr. Speaker, it is being portrayed by the Opposition and by the fearmongers throughout the Province that what we are doing is capitulating to the processing sector. Well, Mr. Speaker, let's set the facts straight as to what the processing sector was looking for: Transferability, immediately, they set the shares, no requirement for disclosure of sales invoices. They did not propose any changes to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, to have a mediation, arbitration process put in place. They wanted shares based on buy, not on production. They are not advocating that there be limits on corporate concentration. They are not advocating that there be limits on control of ownership. For the record, Mr. Speaker, under the old system, under the system -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Well, you talk to some of the ones on the deck of the boats, and you talk to some of the ones out in Fogo, and you might find that there are some people who actually want to give this a try, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. Maybe he should check with a lot of people in Fogo and find out what they think. He might find out, if he checked with the chair of the Fogo Island Co-op, who happens to be, I do not know, a fifty-five foot boat owner, if I am not mistaken, I forget the exact size of his boat now, Mr. Glen Best, if you check with him, he was on - I am not going to say anything that he did not say publicly - he certainly was in the media saying that he supported this and thought that we should go forward with it.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Member for Twillingate & Fogo might want to consult with a few more of his constituents. Maybe he might want to check -

MR. REID: You might want to consult with Mr. Cassell in your own district.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, I might want to check with Mr. Cassell in my own district. I am very familiar with Mr. Cassell's view on this, very familiar with it. I also know what Hedley Richards' view is on this issue, and Norm Cull, and Mike Symonds, and Harry Hopkins, and I can go on with a list your arm long, if you want me to keep listing off names. There are people in this industry, reputable people, who are not rogues, Mr. Speaker, as some people might suggest that they are, who do support this concept and who do think that we should give this a try.

Mr. Speaker, just because there are some people opposed to it, that doesn't mean that everybody is opposed it. Are there people who have legitimate concerns? Yes, there are people who have legitimate concerns, and we are willing to try and work with the people to deal with those legitimate concerns.

Where, Mr. Speaker, was the previous administration? Why is it today, that the previous administration, the Official Opposition, are suggesting that what we are proposing here now is going to allow the industry to end up in the hands of four or five companies? We have already said that we are prepared to implement, before this becomes a permanent arrangement, if it becomes a permanent arrangement, a cap on ownership, a limit on ownership, of this industry. I didn't see the previous administration propose that. I didn't hear tell of it.

On their watch, Mr. Speaker, four companies currently control over 50 per cent of the industry. Four companies currently buy, process and market more than 50 per cent of the crab that is caught in Newfoundland and Labrador. They didn't do anything about that, if there is anything wrong with it. They seem to think there is something wrong with it, so why didn't they do something about it? We are proposing to do something about it. We are proposing that there be a cap put on how much an individual company can own. If we left it alone, Mr. Speaker, while they are fearmongering as to what might happen under this concept, under this system, while they are suggesting that some processors might actually buy up ownership of this industry - it has been going on under their noses for years. Sure, we all know that fish companies out there have been buying boats and licenses hand over fist. We have all heard the stories of this past winter, where $2 million, $2.5 million and $3 million has been planked down on the barrelhead by processors to buy boats and licenses and send the fishermen who owned them off, and whatever happens to the crew happens to them. They did that. They were prepared to let that continue. We are not prepared to let it continue, Mr. Speaker.

Does anybody know? Did anybody in the Opposition consult with crew members in the fishing industry? Did anybody actually just check to see who out there is getting 6 per cent and are they getting 6 per cent of what? There are men and women on the decks of boats in Newfoundland and Labrador who sign on for 6 per cent. They don't get 6 per cent of the gross, I can guarantee you. They get 6 per cent of the negotiated price which we all know, in most fisheries or in a lot of fisheries, is substantially less than the gross. We all know about the under-the-table money. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get the money on top of the table, so everybody in the industry shares in it fairly. That is what we are trying to do. That is what this is about, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: There are crew members in this fishery today who are fishing for 2.5 per cent of whatever the skipper or the owner tells them they get, not 2.5 per cent of what actually is in the kitty, 2.5 per cent of what they are told is in the kitty; 2.5 per cent, Mr. Speaker! Men and women who are on the decks of boats that are grossing $1 million that between the works of them are getting less than 10 per cent of the catch. Mr. Speaker, that is shameful. That issue needs to be dealt with and we are trying to deal with it to the extent that we are able to deal with it through amendments to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to try and get the real price on the table so that everybody knows what the price is.

There are people out there, men on the decks of boats who are getting paid $10,500 because that is what they need in order to qualify for top unemployment. They are getting paid that and then get paid $500 a week after that. That is the kind of stuff that is going on in our industry. Nobody wants to talk about it but that is what is going on because we have all, over the past number of years, abdicated our responsibility to try and deal with it. That is an issue and a problem that is no one person - it is not just government's responsibility, it is not just the industry's responsibility, it is not just the union's responsibility. It is the responsibility of society to try and deal with those types of matters. To the extent that we can deal with it, we are going to try and deal with it in this. That is one part of it. That is why we done the things that we have done over the past year.

I heard the Member for Twillingate & Fogo talking about plants closing. Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that if quotas are cut, plants will probably close. That is a foregone conclusion. There is nothing we can do to prevent that. However, under the old system any company in this Province today could close down whatever facilities they want.

FPI for example; let's talk about FPI. We all know what happened in Harbour Breton last year; legitimate concerns, big problems, big problem for government, big problem for the member for the area, big problem for the people in Harbour Breton. It is something that we hope we can find a solution to, and we are going to work with the people of the area and all involved to try to find a solution. Well, let's take the situation in Harbour Breton. In the absence of a raw material sharing system, in the absence of an open and accountable and a transparent process with a licensing board that we have instituted, in the absence of raw material thresholds and regionalization and all of that; in the absence of all of that, we have what we had last year. What could happen? I am not fearmongering. I am just stating a fact.

There is nothing that requires, and there is no authority for us to require, that FPI maintain its Bonavista operation. Why wouldn't FPI? Maybe FPI would, under the old situation, shut down Bonavista and process whatever crab they could get in Triton. What would happen then? Well, I suspect we would have the Member for Bonavista South screaming a little bit. We have the honourable crowd on the other side, the Official Opposition, crying out to the minister, crying out to the Premier: What are you going to do? What are you going to do to force FPI to do something to keep Bonavista open? Well, Mr, Speaker, under what we are proposing here Bonavista has to stay open for at least the next two years, and before FPI can make a decision on closing Bonavista - which I cannot see them being able to make the case, but anyway. Before FPI can make the case to close down Bonavista and take the production associated with that to another community - like Triton, for example - they would have to, two weeks before they make their application, advertise their intent publicly in two papers, one being a regional paper.

Number two, it would have to go before the licencing board. The licencing board would have to consider their request against the criteria that we laid out about a month ago, which considers regional balance, adjacency, historical dependence, a whole list of issues that have to be considered and a whole list of tests that FPI would have to make before they haul their production and their licences associated with Bonavista out of the town. Then that consideration which would be given to that by the board would be recommended in a public way to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and then the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture would have to make the decision.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that FPI, or any company, would be very hard pressed to haul their production out of a town like Bonavista. Mr. Speaker, yes, there are concerns. We understand that, but the alternative to trying to manage rationalization, to manage stability, to impose stability, to deal with the market problems that we have, the alternative to trying to deal with that is the chaotic nature of the industry and the lack of management ability that we saw in the past. That is something that we do not accept. We do not believe it is a prudent and a proper approach. We think that a different approach has to be taken. This represents, based on the combination of what we announced over the past couple of weeks - as I said, $2 million worth of studies commissioned by the previous Administration. I say it is upwards to $2 million anyway, commissioned by the previous Administration. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker - we are not hiding from our responsibilities, we are not hiding from the controversial nature of this matter - we are trying to deal with it to the extent of our ability and with the long-term best interest of the industry and the Province at heart. That is what we are committed to. We are not committed to short-term political gain. If we were committed to short-term political gain we would have thrown our hands up and said there is nothing we can do with it, just like the previous Administration did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to speak today to the private member's motion on what I call a crisis in the crab fishery if, in fact, the minister proceeds to implement the decision that he has made.

Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the minister go on for about fifteen minutes talking about anyone who is opposed to his decision as being fearmongers. I guess he would include in that anyone who is involved in the union; it would be the harvesters, the plant workers. In addition, he went on to talk about the rogues, and I assume that he is referring to the harvesters because he talked about how they are making all of this money and not giving the crew a right percentage of the take. I am not sure if he is suggesting that what he is proposing will assure that every crew member who is working with a harvester would in fact get a raise.

But, Mr. Speaker, having said that, I have to say that I find it ironic that the minister can stand and talk about some being opposed. So I would assume that the in excess of 1,000 people who gathered out in front of Confederation Building last week to voice their objection to his decision is what he would consider to be some. I think anybody who would look at the industry would have to consider that to be a significant number when the people had to come from throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today is a decision that is going to be detrimental to rural Newfoundland and Labrador in particular. Contrary to what the minister says when he talks about making the industry more stable, I think we are going to see quite the opposite because what we have seen happening today as a result of his decision is that we see harvesters out there today saying: Why bother? Why bother if what this government is proposing to do is going to put us back 100 years or more? - because that is exactly what they see happening. They remember the days of the fish merchants when they had to bow to the fish merchant and take - come in and bow down to the fish merchant and take whatever they had to offer, instead of being in a position on an equal footing and being able to negotiate.

Mr. Speaker, the irony in all of this, of course, is that the minister points to the Dunne report and takes the Dunne report and suggests that its recommending something other than what it is. If it is recommending product quotas for crab or, as the minister says, raw material sharing, then, Mr. Speaker, the problem we have with that is that Mr. Dunne goes on to say: but this must only come about as a result of consultation with all of the stakeholders. Now, if Mr. Dunne saw the need and recognizes how important it was to include all of the stakeholders in terms of coming to a decision like this, than why is it that the minister and the government do not recognize that? Why is it that the minister fails to take into account the views of the hundreds of people out there, the thousands of people out there, the harvesters in particular, and the plant workers who are having real difficulty with what he is proposing? Why is it that the processors and the minister are right and all these other people are wrong? Mr. Speaker, I believe that the minister is taking advantage of his position. He is trying to do something that a lot of people don't believe is the right thing to do for this Province.

When you look at rural Newfoundland and Labrador, the last thing we need in this Province right now is chaos in the fishing industry. When you look at communities that survive because a plant has a crab quota, what is going to happen if the harvesters don't fish, if they see no point in going out and fishing? You know what is going to happen. We are going to have all of these plant workers who rely on those harvesters who make it possible for those plant workers to have jobs, they are not going to have any employment. We are going to find that these plants are not going to be operating and the processors who want to go this route, along with the minister's blessing, are going to find that they are not going to have anything to process.

Why not go the consultation route? Why not do as Mr. Dunne suggested, and make it an industry that we come together and make decisions on? That is what we have been trying to do. That is what previous administrations have tried to do. Yes, of course, there have been difficulties from time to time. There always are when you are trying to negotiate prices in the fishing industry. At the end of the day it is what free enterprise is about, it is about negotiation, it is about understanding that there are different positions and, at the end of the day, we all come together and do what is in the best interest of the industry as a whole and not just one stakeholder in that industry.

Unfortunately, it tells me that what the minister has done here, I would have to say even the Premier must have questioned the decision. Because if any of you have been following the news lately and looking at some of the announcements that have been made, when this particular one was made, when the minister had a news conference, he was at it alone. The Premier wasn't by his side. If you look at some of the good news announcements that have happened in the last little while, who has been making the announcement? The Premier has been making the announcement, and sitting beside him has been the minister responsible. The fact that the Premier stayed away from this particular news conference begs the question, why. Why wasn't he there on the front line touting this as the way to go?

Clearly, I would suggest, even if the minister had consulted with some of his own colleagues, some of the colleagues who represent fishing districts, I think he would have found out that they have issues with this. I know, from a meeting that was held in Marystown, that the Member for Burin-Placentia West expressed concerns about this decision. I would suggest that all is not well on the government side in terms of this decision that the minister has taken, and is determined, it would appear from what he has said today, to go through with, even though there is a fair amount of objection out there. Those views have been expressed by people who make it possible for us to have a fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, the very people who harvest the resource and the very people who actually process it, who work in the plants. Aren't these the primary stakeholders in this industry? Yet, the minister is ignoring what they are saying, could not care less.

You know, plant workers and harvesters play such an important role. When Mr. Dunne talked about the views of the plant workers and the harvesters, he said most plant workers who met with the commission expressed grave doubts about the merits of such a system, and the motives of processors in seeking them. The most common view was that this was an attempt by companies to concentrate control in the industry, to reduce the numbers of plants and jobs and to create an asset that many operators would immediately sell off.

The minister mentioned, you know, well, with quotas, there is always a reduction in quotas. There is always a possibility that a plant will close. Well, I do not know what world you are living in, Minister, but I can tell you that if you live in Fortune, where there is a possibility, a very real possibility, that the plant will close, and if you live in Harbour Breton where the plant has closed, it is having a very detrimental effect on those two rural communities. These people who live and work in those communities really are fearful of what the future holds, whether or not they are going to be able to continue to live and work in the communities that they have lived in, grown up in and worked in all their lives. So you do not just very cavalierly say, well, you know, with a reduction in quotas, it could, you might see a plant closing; it is a very real possibility. I think that if a government is committed to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, they do everything possible to try and ensure that does not happen, instead of aiding and abetting it by introducing a program like the minister is doing in the raw material sharing which will probably ensure that we will see plant closures.

I am going to be meeting this Friday with people in my district who have expressed some very serious concerns about what the minister has proposed. As I talked with them, I could hear in their voice the frustration, the fact that the minister does not even consider their views to be worthy enough to take into account when he is making such a significant decision, a decision of this magnitude that is going to impact on their lives. Their very livelihoods are at stake, and we have a government that is saying: You don't count. Sorry, what you have to say does not matter.

When I heard some of the people speak at the rally last week they used some words to refer to the minister that would be unparliamentary for me to use, but I can tell you they are feeling betrayed. They are feeling that we have a Minister of Fisheries who was elected to represent their interests and he is doing something completely opposite. He is taking the point of view of a few against the views of the majority, and coming to a decision that is going to have a detrimental effect throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the Member for Fogo & Twillingate, I, too, am asking the minister to do what Mr. Dunne has recommended and have a true consultation process with all of the stakeholders, and then come to a decision based on the input of all who are being impacted.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to speak to the motion as put forward by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. I speak today more out of concern for the fishers of the Province, the plant workers of the Province, and some of the processors. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I have to speak strongly in favour of the decision of this government in implementing a new two-year pilot project in our Province's crab processing sector.

I speak in favour of the decision because I believe it is being done for all the right reasons. I believe it is being done to bring stability to an industry that has been very unstable over the years. I believe it is being done to bring fairness and equality to the majority in the industry, as opposed to a system based on greed and selfishness by the minority.

Mr. Speaker, I was born and raised in the community of Greenspond, a community that has successfully survived on the fishery for years, a community that has produced hundreds of captains and hard-working fisherpeople over its long history, a community that I will always be proud to call home. It is a community that, if I thought for one minute that what I was doing today would be detrimental to its existence, I would sit down and leave this House right away; but I am going to continue speaking because I firmly believe that without the intervention of government in this year's crab fishery, I can envision an industry that will destroy itself in a matter of a few months.

 

The fallout from this disaster would destroy communities like Greenspond, like New-Wes-Valley, like Lumsden and Musgrave Harbour and hundreds of other outports in rural Newfoundland. It had become obvious to me, Mr. Speaker, that leading up to this the two principal parties in the negotiations, the processors and the fishers, had no desire to get this crab fishery going on time. Just one month before the fishery should begin, no one had even sat down and talked about how it should proceed. Someone had to take the lead, Mr. Speaker. Someone had to take charge, and it was incumbent upon government to take that leadership role.

Mr. Speaker, the crab industry in this Province is faced with more negative factors than it has ever been before at any one time. I am saying these words because of my past experience in the industry. For anyone to say anything different, Mr. Speaker, or just want to ignore that reality, they have no understanding whatsoever of the implications that might happen.

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate some of the factors, the negative factors, that have been expressed earlier on. We have the high Canadian dollar. We have the softening of crab prices in the U.S. market. Last year, where they were getting $4.45 a pound, that is down to $3.45 a pound now, and a lot of that crab is still not moving at that low price.

We have had a very successful crab fishery in Alaska where this year, back in February, they caught their full twenty-eight million pounds of crab in just five fishing days. We have had an increase in quota in the New Brunswick crab fishery. We have a high inventory of last year's production still not sold in the U.S. What makes that even worse, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that a lot of that crab is of the worst kind of quality.

To give you an example of the mentality of some of those fishers and producers who are putting fish into the market, the fact that the last two or three years they have been doing a two-pound specialty pack, a pack that should be of prime quality crab. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? A lot of those processors have put the worst kind of quality into that special pack, and a lot of that is still left on the market not sold.

We also have the possibly of a reduction in quota this year, especially in area 3K; and, to top it all off now, just a few days ago we heard that there could be a boycott of Newfoundland fish products going into the U.S. market by the animal rights groups, and we should not underestimate what effect, what negative impact, that will have upon our crab fishery.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen years in the crab fishery when we have had only half as many negative factors against it as we have today, and I have seen where we have faced some major problems as a result of it. The last thing that we want in the crab industry this year is a late start in the fishery again, because we cannot afford, none of us, not a processor out there can afford, to lose any of our market share in United States, especially because of the critical circumstance that exists there now.

I just made reference to the fact that we have somewhere around ten million pounds of crab still not sold in the U.S. market, and that is not the worst. The worst of that is that it is of the poorest kind of quality; the poorest kind of quality because of the softshell that was brought in last summer and because of the fall fishery that we had last fall. With so much softshell being taken from the water last year, we were not only destroying our market in the States, we were also destroying the resource, the resource that our sons and daughters will be dependent on for years to come.

As long as we have fishers with the mentality to land crab of that quality, and as long as we have processors willing to buy and process and market that crab, we are facing serious problems. The whole system of purchasing was a major contributor to this poor quality crab product. If processors were not prepared to buy these poor quality crab from some of their fishers they faced the threat of those fishers leaving them and going with someone else, because there was always someone else prepared to buy whatever quality, no matter what.

Under this new raw materials sharing program, Mr. Speaker, I cannot see that happening, because it will give the processors more control over the type of product that they will have coming to their plants. I have seen situations, Mr. Speaker, where fishermen have left processors because they were forced to take ice to better quality their crab. Can you imagine that? Some other processor out there taking a fisherman who refused to take out ice? That has been going on over the years.

The same thing with the fall fishery, Mr. Speaker, that we had last year. The fall fishery, as far as I am concerned, should never occur. After these crab moult soft shell in July and August, it takes between six and seven months to have their legs and claws fully replenished with meat. While the shell may begin to harden - some of the fishermen will say in late September and October the crab shell is getting hard again - I can tell you that it is six or seven months before that crab is fully recovered. That is some of the product that people in the US, the customers in the States, are buying today. Can you imagine when they pay $4.50 a pound for something and they open it up and it is pretty well just full of water with no meat content whatsoever. We have once again, Mr. Speaker, tarnished the image in the marketplace of our product, and it is not going to be easy to recover that image under any circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I heard Mr. McCurdy, the union leader, last week. He didn't see too many problems with the crab fishery over the past five or six years, since they have had the final offer pricing solution. He didn't see many problems with it at all. In fact, he was offering this as an alternative to the raw material sharing process. Mr. Speaker, the Member from Twillingate & Fogo mentioned it, saying that it was a wonderful thing, this final offer selection. It was a wonderful thing, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that it got the fishery started on time, but I can tell you it was not a wonderful thing when it come to being fair to every one of the fisherman that landed crab in this Province. It was very unfair, in fact, because most of those fishers received the minimum price that was negotiated, whereas a minority received the fifteen cents, or twenty cents, or forty cents or seventy-eight cents per pound that was always floating around out there. Mr. McCurdy and the people in the union are quite aware that has been going on. I cannot believe that the leader to the FFAW would support such a concept again.

That price differential in favour of a few was the major shortcoming, in my view, of the final offer selection process. As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, a pound of crab coming from a less than thirty-five foot vessel should be just as important and should demand the same price as the pound of crab coming from a sixty-five footer. Every crab fisher person in this Province is in this industry to try to make a living, because without crab there is not much left for them. The $70,000, or $80,000, or $120,000 that the under thirty-five foot vessel owner has put into this enterprise is just as much risk to him as the $1 million or so is to the fisher who has invested in the sixty-five footer.

Another point with respect to that, Mr. speaker, the quality of crab that has been brought in by those smaller boats. The quality of their crab has been much better in a lot of cases than what has been lying around in larger boats for forty-eight and sixty hours sometimes.

Mr. Speaker, another point with respect to that, in comparing the two, is that the 10,000 pound or 14,000 pound quota of the small boat, a couple of dozen of those small boats - and there is over 3,000 of these fishers in the Province. The product coming in from a couple of dozen of these boats creates just much work in the fish plant as the amount coming from one crab boat with 260,000 pounds or 280,000 pounds. These couple of dozen smaller boats, too, Mr. Speaker, are creating about fifty or sixty jobs on the water, creating a livelihood for fifty or sixty people, as opposed to the one large vessel that is creating just six or seven or eight jobs.

The question I have to ask, Mr. Speaker: Why shouldn't all of these fishers, every one of them, receive a fair and equal price? That is the key to all of this, a fair and equal price for every crab fisherperson in this Province.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, under the sort of revised Final Offer Selection price process where they threw in the twenty-five or thirty cents that was always floating around, they threw that money into the formula that decided the final price, and that price ended up to be something that was fairer to every fisherperson in the Province. It was a price that pretty well everyone received and no one, or very few, received any extra this year. The reason for that was that it was set too close, so close to the maximum, that no processor could really offer any more.

Is there anything wrong with that, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. Is there anything wrong with every fishermen out in this Province getting a fair and equal price, or do you want to go back to where a handful receives much more than the majority? Is that the kind system that he is looking at?

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is much more security to fishermen in this Province when they accept this pricing offer that was given to them last year, and I did not hear anyone contradict what was set last year. As far as I am concerned, and from the fishers who I have talked to, everybody was quite pleased with the price.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Bonavista North that his time has lapsed.

MR. HARDING: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Just a minute to clue up.

MR. HARDING: Okay, Mr. Speaker.

I want to make reference to the plant workers, if I could, and where they fit into this scenario. Under the old system, the plant workers were a forgotten breed during price negotiations. They were left out of the picture altogether. They had no idea what amount of crab was going to be coming to their employer in the present year, until the fishery had started and the fisherpeople started fishing. Under this new system, they will have the assurance that their plant will process at least 90 per cent of the average of the last three years. Mr. Speaker, there is also provision there that they could receive up to 105 per cent of their average over the last three years. That is dependent on several factors, and one of these is historic attachment. I can certainly say to the people that work in the plant in my district, in Bonavista North, that there is no other plant in this Province that has more historic attachment to the crab fishery then the people in that plant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the member that his leave has been withdrawn.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I did have a few more things to say but I understand your decision has been made.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, this debate is extremely important because it really is a turning point, or suggested turning point up until now, by this government in how fisheries are going to be managed within the Province. I just listened with interest to what the previous speaker talked about in terms of the effect of this new system. One of the things that he did say is really the problem and really the point. He says, you know, this new system will give the processors more control over the product that is coming into their plant. That is the essence of this, Mr. Speaker.

He complained about the fact that small producers of crab bring in better quality crab to the plants. He complained about that, and they do not get a good price. Well, who is paying them the price? Who is paying them the price? If the processor wants to pay a premium for good quality crab from the small producers then it certainly open for them to do so. They pay a premium to get their hands on crab from a big producer. Why won't they pay a premium to get good quality crab if that is what they are really all about?

Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on the fishery but I am prepared to listen to a man with the kind of experience that Eric Dunne has, when he wrote his report, the so-called Dunne report, in December 2003, a little over a year ago. When he talked about the problem in the crab industry here is what he said in terms of what the processors were doing. He talked about the irrational and destructive behavior of the crab industry on the processor's side, saying that in the processing sector, "...results in excessive capital investment, chaotic operating seasons, extreme and irrational competitive activity that eventually threatens the overall economic base of the industry. This becomes even more acute when one species is very lucrative compared to others such as is now the case with crab."

Now that is the problem identified by Mr. Dunne, and the solution that this government has come up with is to give those people, who caused all the problems, total control over the future of the fishery. They are the ones, by the way, who came to government and said: We are in favour of this. We want to have control over this resource because we are incapable, obviously, of running the industry under a competitive basis. What they said was: You give us control. They are in favour of it. The harvesters are opposed to it. The plant workers were opposed to it because they knew that this would totally upset the balance between the ordinary folks; the fishers and the harvesters and the plant workers, the balance between them and the owners of the processing plants.

Just as the processors will have control over the harvesters being in a position to determine when the product will be delivered, what quality of the product they will only take, when it will come forward, they will also have control over the operations of the plants. They do now, but they are forced to take the product when it is available. If they had control over the delivery system, what you will see is less work, less hours and eventually consolidation in the industry whereby small plants will close. Their quota or their share - you can call it a share if you want but it is really a production quota - that will eventually be transferred and consolidated and jobs will be lost in this industry with no control whatsoever by the bargaining agent, the Fishermen, Food And Allied Workers Union. The reason that is the case, Mr. Speaker, is because what this minister seems to think that he is capable of doing is what the processors themselves are totally incapable of doing and what the collective bargaining process has not been able to do thus far, because one side, the processors, are saying: We are not going to bargain. We are not going to meet. We are not going to talk about it, just give us access to the crab. And the government said: Yes, here is the crab. Now, we will argue over prices. Well prices are not everything, Mr. Speaker, dignity is important, too.

The minister said today in the House that he cannot tell fishermen to fish, that he cannot make fishermen fish, he cannot make harvesters fish, he cannot make plant workers work, and he cannot make processors buy fish. Well, can he make a whole new arrangement for the financing and operation of boats? Because that, right now, is part of the arrangements between harvesters and plant operators. The financing of an operation, the supply of food, the supply of fuel, the cash flow that goes on between harvesters and plant owners, that is all a part of it. Is he going to say to a fish processor who has to go down to a small community in White Bay: Not only are you going to buy the crab from this small boat fishermen but you are going to buy his other catch, too. You are going to buy whatever other species he has. But when he has control over the resource, all he has to do is say: No, I am only buying crab and I am only buying good quality crab and I am only paying this much for it because that price has been settled. Though price is not everything, control is.

What will be happening as a result of this plan, if it gets to be implemented at all, is that the relationship between the harvesters and the plant processors will be changed forever, as long as that process is into effect. And the change will not be progress. It will be back to the days when the fish merchant called the shots 100 years ago, or even fifty years ago. That is what the processors want. That is the system that they would love to have. They are doing pretty good in the current system. They are over in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P.E.I. buying up fish plants and fish processing operations. They are flying around in helicopters. It is not the small boat operator, even the big boat operator flying around in helicopters. They are coming from somewhere. They are paying for them somehow, Mr. Speaker, and they are paying for them, obviously, out of the profit that they are making in this system that they are saying does not work.

Well, you know what the real problem is in the crab fishery from the point of view of the fish processors, they are paying a lot more for crab than they did ten years ago. In fact, they are paying a bigger percentage of the market value of the crab now than they did ten years ago and they would like to get back to where they were ten years ago where they were paying a fraction of the actual value of the crab. That is what they would like and if somebody sets that price, they will live with that price. They will live with that price but they will still have other methods of controlling the system. In this case not only will they control delivery of product to the plant, they will control the method of production in that plant and you will see one shift instead of two. You will see shorter hours instead of longer. You will see fewer people working and you will see the bargaining power of the fishermen's union go right down the drain. The bargaining power of the fishermen's union, whether it comes to plant workers or whether it comes to harvesters, will go right down the drain.

This minister is not going to fix that by making changes to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. The act is not capable of ensuring that the bargaining power between one side and the other is equal. You cannot have a situation where people, as the minister says, are going to be forced to go to work, forced to fish because that is just not going to happen. If the minister really wants to solve the problems in the fishing industry he has to go through the process of sitting down and talking to the participants, listening to what they have to say and facing the fact and facing the reality that this industry does need to have solutions to its problems. He is not capable of solving those problems. He is not capable of solving those problems, particularly if he is only going to take the solution offered by one side, without the co-operation of the other and without conditions being laid out to be demanded. Now, I am not saying that a system cannot work where there is some management of the resource and some management in the processing sector, but that system cannot be set up by this minister and this government dictating that the choice of the processor is the one that is going to be implemented over the substantial and reasonable objections of the harvesters and the people who have to work in those plants.

Mr. Speaker, to turn control - as the Member for Bonavista North - over to the processors is to turn the clock back fifty years or 100 years, and it should not be allowed to happen. The benefits, even Mr. Dunne - it says we do not even know what the benefits are. It is not even clear what the benefits would be or that they would work. He said clearly in his report that we do not know because the concept is new and untried because it has not been implemented in any fishing industry to this time. That was December of 2003. Now the minister said today: Well, they have tried it in Alaska. Well they may have tried it in Alaska, but we do not know whether it worked, do we? We do not know what he effect of it was. There is no guarantee that whatever happened in Alaska, and we do not even know what that was, could happen here.

The benefits are uncertain, but one thing is certain, that there is going to continue to be absolute chaos in this industry as long as nobody is able to convince the harvesters and the processors and their organization that this is an effective system for them, that it was going to work for them as well as for the industry. We cannot have an industry that is only going to benefit the processors. If that is going to be the industry, then it is not going to work and there will be no industry because the whole purpose of having a viable fishing industry is to support communities, to support workers, and to support the Province. If all we are doing is giving overwhelming power to the processors, then what we are doing is kowtowing to a very few. We are only talking about almost a literal handful of people who control the power, and if they don't control it all now, give them five or six years with this system and they will have total control over the industry. You will have the same kind of arrogance that you now have from FPI when they decide where they are going to operate, when they are going to operate, how long they are going to operate, and how many people they are going to employ. The plant workers who today might be happy with their current employer will find themselves in a situation where the competition is so fierce that the same rules will be applying to them and they will have to put up with the same kind of negatives that we have seen in Harbour Breton and that we have seen in Fortune, with no power in the hands of the workers and all power in the hands of the company.

I am opposed to it, Mr. Speaker. We must stop this in its tracks right now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that -

MR. SPEAKER: If the member speaks now, he will close debate.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, when this current Minister of Fisheries and the Premier sat in Opposition, they asked the Competition Bureau of Canada to come in and investigate what they perceived to be a cartel in the fish processing sector of the fishing industry in our Province. They did that because they believed they had enough evidence to suggest that their was a cartel in the industry and that there was an attempt made by processors, some processors - he said they were colluding. Those were the words that the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries used. They were colluding to eliminate or to try to eliminate competition in the processing sector of the Province with the end result being lower prices paid to fishermen.

Mr. Speaker, what this piece of legislation will do, when the minister puts it before this House and passes it in a couple of weeks - and they will pass it because they have thirty-four members on that side of the floor and we only have fourteen on this side of the floor. What the government will be doing, Mr. Speaker, is legitimizing or legalizing a cartel, and with that they will not be limiting competition amongst processors, they will be eliminating competition amongst processors. Mr. Speaker, as a result of that, there is no doubt in my mind or anybody's mind in this Province, if they want to look at it rationally, that the price paid to fishermen for their catch will undoubtedly go down.

Mr. Speaker, the minister believes that these same plant owners that he accused of colluding to form a cartel a couple of short years ago will now negotiate, sit at the table and negotiate fairly with harvesters in this Province so that harvesters will be guaranteed a fair price for their catch.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what has happened to the minister and what has happened to the Premier in a few short years, when they have gone from accusing individuals out there in the processing sector of being involved in a cartel and colluding to limit prices and competition, what has happened to him in the two short years to now. What they are basically going to do is pass over the crab fishery to these same processors, Mr. Speaker. He says he believes that these processors will negotiate a fair price to fishermen or harvesters, and he says he is going to do that by forcing these same processors to open up their books.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who has ever been involved in the fishery of this Province knows that is not likely to happen. Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in it to some degree since 1989, and I do not understand how one day a Fisheries Minister can say there is a cartel and they are colluding to limit prices that is paid to fishermen, and the next day all of that is going to disappear and he is going to trust them, or force them to open their books so that a fair price will be negotiated with fishermen.

Mr. Speaker, I just do not understand how that is going to happen. These are the same individuals, I might add, who will stand in front of a camera, or stand in a negotiating meeting with the FFAW, and say, we cannot afford to pay one cent more to a fisherman this year for a pound of crab - and five minutes later walk out through the door and offer another fisherman forty cents for that same pound of crab, Mr. Speaker.

He talks about bringing stability into the fish processing sector when, who has created the instability? Who has created the instability? When fishermen sit down and negotiate in good faith every year with the processors of this Province, and they agree to the price, who are the ones that walk through the door and create the instability in the fish processing sector? It is the processors, I say, Mr. Speaker, and not the harvesters in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on some of the comments that were made by members opposite this afternoon, and the one that I found the strangest and the silliest came from the Minister of Fisheries himself, when he talked about how stability will be gained in the processing sector by having production quotas. He mentioned, Mr. Speaker, a plant in your own district, the crab plant in Bonavista, when he said we can guarantee that if production quotas come in this year that the people in Bonavista are going to be guaranteed work in the crab plant for at least two years. Now, he said they are going to be guaranteed processing jobs for at least two years. Well, I say to that same minister, FPI had their production quotas because they own their own quotas as they existed in the water. This minister could not guarantee work for the people in Harbour Breton. In fact, he did nothing about it, and today we have 350 people who are unemployed in Harbour Breton. He cannot guarantee work in the plant in Fortune where, in the next year or two, they are most likely going to be faced with the closure of that plant. So, if by having production quotas you can guarantee work in certain plants around the Province, I ask the minister: Why didn't he force FPI to use their production quotas to guarantee work in Harbour Breton for the next two years? He did not, and he will not be able to do it under this piece of legislation if it is forced to go through this House, as undoubtably the Premier and the minister have their minds made up, and they have talked to their processing buddies and this will happen in this sitting of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bonavista North, who, I might add, proudly says that he worked for a crab processor - and I might add a decent crab processor in this Province, well-known and well-respected - he says he worked for a crab processor all of his life, and he talked about poor markets this year, a high Canadian dollar. He talked about the competition from Alaska, and he talked about quality. All of these issues are something that we are being faced with, and as a result we have to implement production quotas.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that every year since the fishery existed in this Province we were faced with these same issues. Every year we are faced with fluctuations in the Canadian dollar. Every year we are faced with competition from outside sources. Every year we are faced with quality problems. I ask the Member for Bonavista North: Why is it that to remedy this problem they have to capitulate to the processor? Why is it that the fishermen are asked to take the hit on this? Why is it that the fishermen are asked to take a lower price for their crab to create stability in the fishing industry, when we already know that the processors were the ones who created the instability so that they could get these production quotas so that they could make more money off the backs of fishermen in this Province?

Mr. Speaker, to say that all of this can be remedied by creating a cartel and limiting competition and making fishermen suffer, this is going to be the answer to it, I ask the Member for Bonavista North: What are the processors willing to put on the table to create stability in this industry? I asked the member opposite: How many years have the crab processors in this Province shown decent profits? How many years were they asked to suffer the pain for the greater good of all, as they are asking fishermen to do today, Mr. Speaker?

I can tell you, that in 1989, when I came to work here as an executive assistant to the then Minister of Fisheries, Walter Carter, there were nineteen crab processing licences in this Province; nineteen. Every time there was an application made for another processing licence in this Province, those nineteen processors who held licences came to the minister and said: Minister, if you issue one more licence, we are going to go bankrupt because we cannot issue another licence. If you do, we are going to go bankrupt. There is not enough crab going around. There is not enough crab to keep our workers working forty hours a week.

Mr. Speaker, that was in 1989. From that point until today, the licences have gone from nineteen to thirty-eight, and how many of them have gone bankrupt, I ask the Member for Bonavista North and I ask the Fisheries Minister. How many of these plants have gone bankrupt? The answer to that is, not one. Not one of those crab processors have gone bankrupt. If you want to look at it, those plants have shown profits and greater profits every year in the last fifteen years that I was involved in the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, you do not see processors having to sell off their plants. You do not see processors asking to take the hit this year to remedy some of the problems that exist in the industry and some of the problems that exist in the marketplace. Every time there is a problem in the marketplace in this Province, every time there is competition from an outside source, who is asked to pay the price? Not the processors, as my hon. colleague from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said, not the processors, some of whom fly around this Province in their helicopters. They are not being asked to cut down on the fuel that they are burning in their helicopters. Who is being asked to take the fall, Mr. Speaker? I will take you who is being asked to take the fall, who has been asked to tighten their belts. It has been the plant workers like those in Harbour Breton, like the man who called me with thirty-seven years in a plant and was told to go home, your services are no longer required, because we want to increase profits to shareholders. They are the ones who took the hit, and the ones who will take the hit under this are the harvesters in this Province, whose grandfathers were subjects of the merchants, the fish merchants, not only in the bays in which they lived but the rich St. John's fish merchants. That is who is going to take the hit under this.

Mr. Speaker, with this piece of legislation that this government is going to put forward here in the next couple of weeks, we are going to drive this industry, the plant workers and the fishermen, the backbone of the industry, those who should benefit from the fishing industry of the Province. I believe they should be primary beneficiaries of the fishery, not the processors who live in big houses and fly and drive expensive vehicles; not the processors. I believe it is the workers, the fishermen, who put their lives on the line bringing in those catches. He is going to remedy it all by saying, we are going to grant production quotas, we are going to give stability to the industry, but we are going to ask the harvesters and the plant workers to take the hit so that the rich become richer.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you: Haven't we always heard this, that a Tory government is a big business government? Well, there is one prime example. I am very surprised today that members oppose, who represent fishermen and plant workers around this Province, have not stood with this individuals because these are the individuals who sent them to this House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, all I am asking in this private member's motion today is for the minister to reconsider and do one thing, and that one thing is recommended in the Dunne report, which he is so proudly and so apt to quote from when it is convenient for him. I am asking the minister today to live up to what Mr. Dunne said in his report, on page 149 under section 9.12, and that is: Only implement production quotas if it is agreed to by the FFAW and the processors.

Mr. Speaker, if he is so certain that this will bring stability to the industry, if he is so certain that this will correct all the ills in the fishing industry, and if he is so certain that it is the right thing, why doesn't he present it to the FFAW, why doesn't he withdraw this piece of legislation until the FFAW has had a chance to examine it and until the FFAW agrees to support it? Until that time, I suggest that the minister withdraw the piece of legislation and that we wait until there is an agreement between the harvesters and the processors and the plant workers in this Province, that this is the right thing to do.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution as put forward by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, please say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

MR. SPEAKER: Against.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair declares the resolution defeated.

On motion, resolution defeated.

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

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

I do now move the House adjourn and report back tomorrow at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that this House now adjourn until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow being Thursday.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

This House now stands adjourn until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow being Thursday.