MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

This afternoon we would like to welcome to the Chamber some students from O'Donel High School in Mount Pearl, in the District of Mount Pearl. These are sixteen French Immersion students, and they are also part of a history class. We welcome their teachers: Mrs. Suzette Fury and Ms Christina Randell-Flemming. Welcome to our Chamber. We are honoured to have you as our guests this afternoon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have Members' Statements as follows: the hon. the Member for Port de Grave; the hon. the Member for Lake Melville; the hon. the Member for Grand Bank; the hon. the Member for Humber Valley; the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains; and the hon. the Member for Topsail.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Today I rise to congratulate an incredibly bright and talented young lady from Tilton, in the District of Port de Grave. Six year old Cassidy Mercer has recently published a children's novel entitled, Mrs. Reed and the Magic Wand in Polka-Dot Land.

I was honoured, Mr. Speaker, to join 100 enthusiastic supporters as Cassidy officially launched her book in Spaniard's Bay. In Cassidy's words, "I got my idea in my imagination." Her book tells the story of how Mrs. Reed found a magic wand while looking for a book, and then agreed to take her pupils to Polka-Dot Land when their school work was finished.

Cassidy's cousin, Darrell Peddle, an engineer by profession, did the colour illustrations for the book. Darrell, and family friend Evelyn Haley, a retired director for Carlton Cards, did the editing. The layout was done by Fred Clarke of Pro Image Printing, the Bay Roberts Company responsible for printing the book.

Cassidy, supported by her grandmother Yvonne Saunders, has plans to publish more children's books in the near future and I am already looking forward to her next story.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members to keep their eyes on Cassidy Mercer as she emerges as one of Newfoundland and Labrador's promising young writers. This is a copy of her book. [Holds up book to show members.]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like today to inform this hon. House that in the summer of 2005, the Labrador Heritage Society will be hosting celebrations in North West River and the Upper Lake Melville area.

June of 2005 will be 100 years since Mina Hubbard departed North West River and travelled by canoe across the interior of Labrador arriving at George River, Ungava Bay, in late August that same year.

The 1905 journey was a significant accomplishment because Mina was a lady from Southern Canada at the time living in the United States, and women in that era were not encouraged to try such adventures. Also, Mina Hubbard, while on the journey, plotted the first accurate mapping of the interior of Labrador.

Celebrations will begin 100 years to the day after the original journey began, starting June 26, 2005, running until August 27, 2005; 100 years to the day after Mina arrived at George River, Ungava Bay.

Our celebration also includes recognizing the other successful journey completed that same year from North West River to George River, headed up by Dillan Wallace.

A special feature of the celebration is the local flavour -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HICKEY: Just one minute, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HICKEY: A special feature of the celebration is the local flavor, as one of Mina's guides was Gilbert Blake, a local trapper. His family members still live in the area and will be front and center at the celebrations, along with decedents of Mina Hubbard and Dillan Wallace, who will also be travelling to Northwest River for the ceremonial.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour a young man from my district who was recently recognized by a national organization for his work as a youth leader.

Corey Parsons of Fortune received the Young Leaders in Rural Canada Award at the 2004 National Rural Conference in Red Deer, Alberta, held October 21 to October 23.

The award was introduced last year to honour the community development work of rural youth between the ages of eighteen and twenty-nine in each of three categories: innovation, leadership and partnerships. Corey's award was in the leadership category. The presenter spoke of Corey as a young man who encompasses the spirit of leadership in his hometown of Fortune.

His efforts in Fortune have led to over three-quarters of a million dollars being infused into the local economy. Mr. Speaker, this is no small achievement, especially in a rural community.

Some of Mr. Parsons' other achievements include spearheading workshops and public meetings on topics ranging from seniors issues to vandalism, and improving the quality of life in the community by his involvement in winter carnivals, summer festivals, waterfront festivals and fall exhibitions.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me in honouring and congratulating one of rural Newfoundland and Labrador's most dynamic young leaders, Corey Parsons.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a remarkable gentleman, Mr. Ralph Ball Senior of Deer Lake who passed away last week at the tender age of eighty-three.

Ralph was a highly respected man throughout the Town of Deer Lake, best known first for his undying love for the Montreal Canadians, and secondly, for his trade as a blacksmith. He became a blacksmith at the early age of seventeen and worked and owned the Deer Lake Forge for forty years until his retirement in 1986. Retirement could not keep Ralph away from the trade he so dearly loved. He still managed to spend most of his time at the shop after his retirement and he actually worked up to March 5 of last year.

Towards the end of his career the hammer and anvil began to give way to welding and new technologies. However, Ralph still prospered and his son Ralph Junior still carries on the tradition today.

Ralph has a very large, loving family; four sons and three daughters, two of whom are here in the gallery today, Randell and Valda; and fourteen grandchildren who absolutely adore him. He will be greatly missed. Like the trade that he mastered, Mr. Ralph Ball Senior and the Deer Lake Forge will remain a large part of the history of the Town of Deer Lake.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members to pay tribute to my dear Uncle Ralph and extend heartfelt sympathies to the Ball family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The twenty-ninth annual Labrador Creative Arts Festival has just been completed in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It was first started by Mr. Tim Borlase who believed that all the children in Labrador should be brought together to show their skills.

Mr. Speaker, plays and skits are usually written by the students themselves. They could take place in the form of modern technology or go back to the old days of the fishing boats and the trap line.

Students from all over Labrador come into Happy Valley-Goose Bay and perform their plays. Mr. Speaker, there are no winners because all of these students are winners, but most important of all, it gives the students from the most rural communities in Labrador a chance to come together and show the people in the Upper Lake Melville area exactly the kind of talent they have.

It is people like Mr. Borlase who has been there for many, many years and who has promoted young children in Labrador. Mr. Borlase, I understand, is on the verge of not taking part in future years but, certainly, on behalf of all of the students in Labrador, I want to thank him for the tremendous job that he has done, and just as important to the students, for the wonderful job that they do in showing their talent to the rest of Labrador.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I am very proud to recognize a very special individual from my district who recently received national recognition for his athletic achievements.

Nominees from every province and territory vied for the top honour that Special Olympics Canada bestows upon its male athletes. The list of nominees was reduced to three finalists with the winner being selected from votes cast by Special Olympics programs in each province. Special Olympics Newfoundland and Labrador recently announced that its very own Andrew Ash was named National Male Athlete of the Year 2004.

Andrew is a resident of Paradise, and has been involved in Special Olympics for the past eight years. As an athlete, he participates in snowshoeing, athletics, swimming, floor hockey and bowling. Although Andrew was primarily a swimmer, he has now focused his training on snowshoeing. At the 2003 Provincial Winter Games, he won two gold medals and one silver medal, and then competed at the 2004 National Winter Games earning again two gold medals and one silver medal.

More importantly, Andrew significantly improved his personal best at the 2004 Games in each of these events, such as the 400 metre where he improved his time by over one minute. Andrew then achieved one his lifetime goals when he was named to the Special Olympics Committee National Team Training Squad and is preparing to represent Canada at the 2005 World Winter Games in Nagano, Japan.

To add to Andrew's list of accomplishments, over the last year the generic sport community in Newfoundland and Labrador recognized him when the Mount Pearl Sport Alliance named him Athlete of the Month in March. This was the first time that a Special Olympian has been recognized by this organization. To his team mates and competitors he is a great motivator and role model, to his coaches he is the perfect student. Andrew strives to achieve his best and Special Olympics is definitely a part of who he is.

I ask all members of the House to join me today in congratulating Andrew Ash for his outstanding athletic achievement.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to inform the House of Assembly today the results of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board's Call for Bids that closed on November 17. A total of $71.1 million in work commitment bids were received for five parcels in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin area in the 2004 Call for Bids. Two of the five parcels went to Husky Oil Operations Ltd., one to Petro-Canada and Husky, one to Petro-Canada and Norsk Hydro and one to the consortium of partners in the Hibernia Field.

The Jeanne d'Arc Basin is home to our two producing projects, Terra Nova and Hibernia, as well as the White Rose development, which is expected to go into production early next year, and also to the Hebron BenNevis discovery. This land sale shows there is plenty of life left in our most explored basin. The area of petroleum potential in our offshore is vast and the amount of drilling that has occurred is still very low. Therefore, there is plenty of room remaining and remaining opportunity for the existing players and even new players who are interested.

During the past five years the industry has committed to spending in excess of $1 billion alone in the offshore area in exploration. This includes the 2003 land sale when $673 million was committed in the Orphan Basin. The area offered in this year's Call for Bids was only one-eighth of the area on which bids were received last year and, therefore, there was not the same amount of expectation the most recent bid which would match last year's record sale.

Mr. Speaker, there is exploration proceeding on several fronts and during the past year seismic work occurred in the Orphan Basin, the Laurentian Basin and offshore Labrador. The level of exploration that is occurring bodes well for the future of this industry.

It is exploration, Mr. Speaker, as one person in the industry described to me, is the milk that really drives the industry that is needed to ensure the long-term viability of our petroleum sector. We will continue to work co-operatively with companies, groups and individuals toward advancing our offshore industry and we wish them great success in their exploration efforts.

We also welcome new players to come to Newfoundland and Labrador as part of our emerging industry in the oil and gas sector, recently such as BHP who has done a farm-in with Conoco Phillips for natural gas seismic work on the Laurentian and Sub-Laurentian Basin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My thanks to the minister for providing me with an advanced copy of his announcement. It is, indeed, good news to see that we have continued interest in our offshore, because with the new interest, of course, comes new opportunities, an opportunity for new discoveries. With new discoveries, hopefully, will come new developments, and places in rural Newfoundland such as Marystown and the Burin Peninsula and the capital city region certainly benefit from having developments.

I guess the only thing, from a negative point of view, we would comment on, is the former Opposition, now government, had often stressed the fact that they would have a new plan for the offshore, there would be new plans and new approaches taken; but, so far into year two we have not seen any new plans yet. I guess it will be stay tuned, as they always say when we ask something about: Where is the plan? It is always, stay tuned.

So far, we have seen scale backs in trade shows, which is also important, of course, in advancing our offshore opportunities to other players. We have to let people know we have it. Instead, we have seen some back-scaling when it comes to shows. We have seen some senior people in our department leave this year, people who were instrumental in the department, I would suggest, in having people take interest in our offshore, and we cannot have that. We cannot be losing well-skilled people.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: On another positive note, I hope, as well, the discussions that are ongoing today are successful and then the offshore that we are talking about here, of course, will be as beneficial to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as it ought to be.

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.

Indeed it is encouraging to see further exploration development activity, particularly in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin. It is also interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the players here, as part of parcel number five, is the Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation, with 8.5 per cent of the Hibernia partnership, and they are part of the consortium that has bid to do further exploration. So, Mr. Speaker, not only do we have the Government of Canada participating as people who take 8.5 per cent of Hibernia home with them every day; they are now into exploring our offshore, and it is time, Mr. Speaker, that this government demand that the new Minister of Energy in Ottawa, who happens to be from this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is time this government demand that the new Minister of Energy in Ottawa, Mr. Efford, insist that the Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation, which by the way is headquartered in Calgary and operates out of Calgary, move here to Newfoundland and Labrador as a first step in the transfer -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - of the Canada Hibernia Holding Corporation, the 8.5 per cent of Hibernia to Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: I would like to continue on with some positive notes on both sides of the House again today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this hon. House to inform my colleagues about the continued recognition and accomplishments of the Province's artists. As you are aware, Newfoundland and Labrador boasts some of the country's most talented and creative people; individuals who have made their mark in all genres of the arts.

Today, I would like to acknowledge three of those individuals who recently were nominated for major national awards, all in the field of theatre. These artists are: Jillian Keiley, Lois Brown and Robert Chafe.

Mr. Speaker, theatre directors Jillian Keiley and Lois Brown were two of the five finalists short-listed for the prestigious Siminovitch Prize in Theatre for 2004. Fifty-nine of the country's top directors were nominated for this aware, the largest prize in Canadian theater. Selections were based on the artist's sense of originality, use of experimentation and overall creativity.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that Jillian Keiley won this prestigious award of $100,000.

Ms Keiley is the founding Artistic Director of Artistic Fraud of Newfoundland, the winner of the Canada Council's 1997 John Hirsch Prize, and the 1996 Newfoundland and Labrador Arts Council's Emerging Artist of the Year. Last year, Ms Keiley directed the Canadian tours of Jack Five Oh for Sheila's Brush and Tempting Providence for Theater Newfoundland and Labrador, both of which are currently playing in destinations all around the world. Despite all of these commitments, she still finds time to teach at both Memorial University and the National Theatre School of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this is a significant accomplishment for Jillian Keiley and for theatre in Newfoundland and Labrador. In her acceptance speech in Toronto last month, Ms Keiley acknowledged mentors along the way who helped her achieve her success. One of those mentors was fellow nominee Lois Brown who gave Ms Keiley her first paid job at the Resource Centre for the Arts, the Province's most significant incubator for theatre.

During the same week, Ms Keiley's partner in Artistic Fraud, Robert Chafe, was short-listed for the prestigious Governor General's Literary Awards for his two plays, Butler's Marsh and Tempting Providence.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask hon. members to join me in congratulating Ms Keiley, Ms Brown and Mr. Chafe on receiving this national recognition. I know we will continue to see great things in the future from these individuals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Minister for an advanced copy of his statement today, and I can assure you there are going to be positive statements from this side. We have to recognize these three individuals.

From a person who competed many times, the thing that is most notable is that there were fifty-nine finalists. Out of the top five finalists there were two Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. That is an accomplishment in itself. Then, to have a Newfoundlander and Labradorian win this award, it again bodes well for theatre for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The people on this side would like to congratulate the three individuals who were all nominated. We would also like to thank them for promoting Newfoundland and Labrador, the theatre of Newfoundland and Labrador. This kind of promotion will bode well for all theatre, all of the arts in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we wish them continued luck, continued success, and continued promotion of the arts and theatre in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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.

I am happy to join in recognizing the achievements of Jillian Keiley, Lois Brown and Robert Chafe. It is part of an ongoing recognition on the national level of the value and talent in this Province on the theatrical level.

These three individuals, it is very good to see that these are all relatively newcomers to the artistic scene, although Lois Brown has been teaching for a number of years, but Jillian Keiley and Robert Chafe, one got the Emerging Artist of the Year Award a couple of years ago but they have been - in particular Jillian Keiley, with the award, the Siminovitch Prize, has been recognized nationally, has received other awards as well, and is an extremely creative individual with a lot of originality, and has been recognized by theatre departments and academic departments.

By leave, Mr. Speaker? I think I am about to expire my time. If I may have another couple of moments?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I got that sensation, Mr. Speaker, that I was about to run out of time.

Mr. Speaker, it is part of a tradition of national excellence being recognized in this Province, and it is certainly deserving in all three of these individual cases. It speaks well, Mr. Speaker, of the need for this Province to give, and continue to give, support for theatre programs both in Sir Wilfred Grenfell in Corner Brook, support for the LSPU Hall, which is a crucible of artistic development for many people in this Province, and places like Theatre Newfoundland and Labrador and the Stephenville Festival. These reap rewards not only to our young people, who are getting national recognition like this, but also in terms of preserving and expanding our cultural values, and it also helps with the tourism industry because many people want to see the kind of theatre that is being produced in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question today, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Yesterday, in this House and in the media, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture stood in his place and became the official apologist and spokesperson for FPI with regard to the closure of the fish plant in Harbour Breton. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has decided to support and defend the company's decision to close the plant, instead of standing up for the people of Harbour Breton.

Mr. Speaker, a question. If the minister read the FPI Act, he would realize that it states that decisions of this magnitude, closing a plant and shutting down a community, cannot be made without the permission of the government. Will the minister confirm that he has, in fact, already given his approval to FPI to close the plant in Harbour Breton?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously, when the Leader of the Opposition sat in government, he not only did not have enough interest to ask FPI questions; he did not have enough interest to ask the Justice Department questions, and he did not have enough interest to look at the Fisheries Restructuring Act and the FPI Act.

The FPI Act says nothing, Mr. Speaker, about the closure of plants. As a matter of fact, it says that the relevant sections in the Fisheries Restructuring Act that apply to plant closures, plant mergers, mechanization or trawler transfers resulting in a significant permanent change in employment in excess of 100 people or one-half of the workforce, as the case may be, associated with any single plant closure, any single plant location, would be the subject of approval of both governments.

He is right, that is in the Fisheries Restructuring Act. He is wrong; it is not in the Fishery Products International Act.

When Fishery Products was privatized in 1987, Mr. Speaker, there was clause - and I can read that, if you want to give me the time - it says, "the continued application of a number..." -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister has about one minute to answer. I would ask him if he could conclude his answer now rather quickly.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it says in Schedule A - I will leave it at that, Schedule A; the Leader of the Opposition can check the wording himself - that those sections do not apply to the Fishery Products International Act. There is no requirement to inform government, and there is no obligation for government to stop it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see again that he continues to defend FPI today rather than stand up for the people of Harbour Breton. Section 2(1) of the Fishery Products International Act, if the minister would take the time to read it, clearly states that the company cannot make decisions which create undue disruption to the historical pattern of harvesting and processing in the Province. It also states that maximum employment stability and productivity through employee participation in the company must take place. It effectively makes the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture the Chairman of the Board and the CEO for decisions such as closing a plant and destroying and killing a community.

I ask the minister: Will he now, in his role as the effective Chairman and CEO for purposes of decisions of this magnitude, ensure that the company lives up to its responsibilities to the people of the community of Harbour Breton?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and the people of Harbour Breton and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we will do what is in our power to hold FPI to their responsibilities in Harbour Breton and in this Province. That, Mr. Speaker, is part of the process that we are into.

As I said yesterday, and I have said time and again since yesterday, we have engaged in a process with the company, the union and the community and the local MHA. We have had numerous discussions on this matter as late as this morning, as late as two minutes before I walked into this House, with those individuals and, Mr. Speaker, we will continue that.

There is a working group meeting that is going to take place on Thursday to see if we can find a solution for Harbour Breton. The previous Administration could not find a solution for Arnold's Cove; we found a solution. The previous Administration could not find a solution for the aquaculture industry; we found one. We will work on this one and if a solution can be found we will find it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, the minister can defend FPI all he wants. The fact of the matter is, if he would read the relevant sections of the FPI Act, the changes that he was part of the all-party committee to make in putting it in the new legislation, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: That is a public company, with the person who is in ultimate control over the company for purposes of decisions like closing a plant is the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I ask the minister again, Mr. Speaker: Why is it that he is willing to stand in this Legislature today and give up the control that he has and go back to having some discussions and meetings, instead of telling the company that he will act as the Chairman and CEO for purposes of this decision and make them do the right thing that they are obligated to do under the act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know that it took three years for him to finally get interested in FPI and finally start asking some questions. Unfortunately, when he was the Premier of the Province he had not enough interest to ask any questions about FPI. He said: I thank them for their information. I thank them for dropping by to visit me and they were on their way. That is what he said, if I remember correctly.

We are asking questions. We have been engaged in discussions with FPI since last April on a variety of issues related to the company, related to their groundfish operations and their shellfish operations. We are going to continue those discussions. We are working with the people of Harbour Breton and the Fishermen's Union to try and find a solution here. As I said, if we can find one we will do something. If we cannot, we will not. That is it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can understand now how the people of Harbour Breton and other communities must feel in terms of a minister wanting to give away the authority that he has and go back to having some discussions, because that is the way he prefers to handle this circumstance.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has set a precedent for issues with respect to FPI by saying there will be a free vote in the House. I ask the minister: Will he give a commitment that there will be a free vote in this Legislature with respect to whether or not the minister and the government allows the FPI plant to close or not? Because the buck stops right there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has indicated that should there be revisions to the FPI act contemplated by this government the appropriate legislation will be brought before the House, all people will be able to see what is proposed and all members of this House will be open to vote as they see fit on that legislation as it relates to the income trust transaction that was proposed by FPI. That is what we are prepared to do. If there is legislation to come forward, we will bring it forward.

As for Harbour Breton, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition - okay, we will. We will insist that FPI continue to operate Harbour Breton. As he may know, there was a clause here that it be the responsibility of the government to fund that transaction. If that is the case, we will let him know how much it costs and then we will have a free vote, and the people of the Province can decide.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to try and find a solution for Harbour Breton, just as we found one for Arnold's Cove. Maybe you should talk to the member for Arnold's Cove and see which government handled the Arnold's Cove situation better - us or them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are also for the Minister of Fisheries, but I would like to let him know that FPI was and still remains a profitable company and it does not need the assistance of this government to reopen and keep that plant in Harbour Breton alive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on January 14, 2002, this current Minister of Fisheries issued a press release stating that he gave the mayors of Fortune, Harbour Breton and Marystown a commitment which stated, and I quote from his press release, "The only way we..." - meaning the Tory Party - "...would accept layoffs is if the union and the employer..." - FPI - "...mutually agreed to them through negotiations and the collective bargaining process."

I ask the minister, quite simply - because I have not heard an answer from him yet, Mr. Speaker - I ask him quite simply, does he and his government intend to honour that commitment and that promise?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you know, consistency is a wonderful thing, and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo has been consistent right on through. All he knows how to do with fisheries matters is play politics with them. That is all he knows how to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: That is the reason the department was left in such a mess after the two years he was there.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask him, where was he when FPI walked away from Twillingate? Where was he when they walked away from Bide Arm and Englee and Fermeuse and Grand Bank and Gaultois and Great Harbour Deep and Port aux Basques? Where were you then? Where was your government then, through the 1990s? Where were you? How come you did not make them then? Because you could not force them to continue to operate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you, Mr. Minister, where I was not. I was not the Minister of Fisheries. I was not the Minister of Fisheries when they closed Twillingate, but when others tried to close it they were not successful. Last year, or two years ago, when they tried to lay people off in Harbour Breton, Marystown and Fortune, when I was the Minister of Fisheries, they did not do that either!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member if he would get to his question.

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The announcement this weekend of the permanent closure of the Harbour Breton fish plant is a very serious issue, but one that could also have serious ramifications for other communities in this Province that have plants that are operated by FPI.

I ask the minister again, quite simply - and he does not have to get on with his rhetoric. I ask him quite simply, because of the seriousness of this issue - and I see a former Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Lewisporte, who laughs at this today, who is laughing at the people of Harbour Breton, who is laughing at the other communities that have plants - I ask him one question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member asking the question that this is the second time I have had to interrupt to ask him to finish his question. Do it quickly, in about five seconds.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Will he appoint an all-party committee to study the restructuring program that FPI has put forward, as well as the closure of the Harbour Breton plant?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. The member is obviously not listening. We have engaged in a process with the company, with the union, with the member for the area, and with the community. We have had meetings with all of those individuals and all of those groups. We are going to continue that, to try and find a solution. That is what we are going to do, and that is what we are going to stick to until we exhaust all options. Hopefully, before we exhaust all options, we will find a viable option. That is the situation. That is what we committed to and that is what we are going to stick to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, he was also engaged in the process last week and neither he nor the union nor the people of Harbour Breton knew that they were going to close the plant until they heard about it in the news over the weekend.

Mr. Speaker, again this minister has not answered the question. We have asked him seven or eight or ten questions here in the last two days. Maybe he cannot speak without the Premier's permission, or maybe he has to call his friends at FPI to ask if he is permitted to do it.

I ask him one simple question: Will you put FPI on notice right here in this House this afternoon that the quotas attached to Harbour Breton will remain in that town if the plant closes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You know, for a former provincial Minister of Fisheries to ask a question like that, it is no wonder that the department did not get anything done. No wonder that he did not do anything from a policy perspective when he was there. There is no wonder, Mr. Speaker. There is no wonder. There is no wonder there were so many issues that were left not being dealt with.

He should know, as a provincial Minister of Fisheries, that the authority as it relates to allocations rests with the federal minister. Now, that is the fact of the matter here.

Stop playing politics with the matter. Stop trying to score cheap political points, and deal straightforwardly and factually with the people of the Province and the people of Harbour Breton.

The people of Harbour Breton are in a serious situation. The people of Harbour Breton are in a desperate situation. We are taking it seriously and we are going to work with them, just as we did with the Member for Bellevue's community of Arnold's Cove. We worked with them, we found a solution, and we are going to work with the people of Harbour Breton, FPI and the Fishermen's Union to find a solution there if it is able to be found.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will be asking the minister some questions today about FPI and the future of Harbour Breton as well.

One of the concerns I have is the so-called independent engineering study of the building. Something is just not right about it, and yesterday afternoon a spokesman for the company, Russ Carrigan, in conversion on a Fisherman's Broadcast with John Murphy, was asked this question: Let me ask you, if you had fish to process in the building, could it be used? His comment was: Given the results of the engineering report that we had, the plant would have to be modified to be made safe again for a food operation.

The question was put again: But I guess I am asking you, do you know, can the building be fixed or is a new one required? The answer from the person who was speaking for the company said: I would not be able to answer that.

My question to the minister is this: Will the minister commit to funding an independent engineering study of the building and make the findings available to the public?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

You see the difference in questions when you get them from a person who takes the situation seriously.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I can say this, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the member an answer on whether we would or we would not right now. I will take that under advisement, but I can tell him this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Why don't you just sit down and listen, boys? Just cool your heels a little bit and maybe you will learn something -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - about how you should handle the situation, unlike what you did before. When the parade formed, you said: There go my people; I must get out in front of them.

Mr. Speaker, as I was going to say, I have already asked the Minister of Government Services to have occupational health and safety go into Harbour Breton to conduct a review of the facility and provide us with a report on that. That is already in the works, Mr. Speaker. I cannot tell the House today when that will happen, but the request has been made from my office to the minister's office and when that information becomes available I will give it.

As for the other question, I will take it under advisement, Mr. Speaker, and report back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We need such an independent study to determine what work needs to be done to reopen the plant. Will the minister, again, commit to using such a study as a starting point to see what investments need to be made to reopen the plant rather than having FPI give the excuse to close it? Will he use the power he has, under the act, to see that FPI makes investments that are made and the plant is reopened?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member has alluded to, trying to find a way forward in Harbour Breton is - one of the fundamental pieces to finding that way forward is knowing absolutely what the status of the facility is. That, as I have just indicated in my previous answer, we are committed to trying to find that out. Maybe we will - maybe we will not, I do not know - fund an engineering study on the facility. No matter what happens down there, there has to be a facility to process fish in if there is going to be fish produced in that community. So, as I said, we will look at that suggestion and try and work with the community to find a way forward there.

Mr. Speaker, let none of us be under any illusion about the problems in groundfish worldwide. I undertook it myself in the last little while to find out what the situation was with groundfish, not here in this Province. Let's forget what is happening with FPI and groundfish here in this Province and look at Norway, where, right now, Mr. Speaker, the number of processing plants -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to finish the answer quickly.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was trying to say, there is a serious problem with groundfish production worldwide. There is a serious problem with the profitability of it and that, Mr. Speaker, affects us just as well as it affects everybody else in the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has asked the people of this Province, and rightly so, to stand with him as he fights for our rightful share of the offshore resources. The Premier and the minister should now be willing to stand with the people of Harbour Breton in their time of need and they are in need.

Again, I will ask the minister: Will this government use the power they have in the legislation to have FPI make the necessary investments and begin processing again in Harbour Breton?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition has got to give up the tripe and the foolishness that he is getting on with, Mr. Speaker, and stop playing cheap politics with the lives of the people of Harbour Breton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that is what he did three years ago when it all broke loose and that is what he is doing again now.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the minister with the level of noise in the Chamber. I ask members for their indulgences, and the Chair recognizes the minister again.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, we will use what authority we have to find a solution in Harbour Breton, as we will use whatever authority we have to find a solution in the fishing industry generally.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this. I hear lots of racket now, but where was the Leader of the Opposition and everybody else? I do not hear them talking about Englee, finding a solution in Englee. I did not hear the Member for Twillingate & Fogo -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: It is the same thing. It is the same thing, yes. We have lots of authority. We will order everybody to operate plants. Don't be so foolish!

Mr. Speaker, there is a serious problem in this industry, and a large part of it is as a result of the way that they handled government when they were here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Government House Leader in his capacity as Minister of Natural Resources. At Terra Nova, on Monday morning, we had an oil spill that was equivalent to two times the total amount of oil spilled on the Grand Banks since 1997 in over 160 spills.

Mr. Speaker, what is very concerning about this is that it was only detected by some visual noticing of oil going into the Grand Banks. What if there was fog and there was nobody noticing it visually? What I want to know is what confidence does this minister have, and can the public have, in the kind of monitoring system that apparently requires someone to see oil going into the ocean rather than have some alarm go off? What kind of confidence does he have in the monitoring system and in the reporting system?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First of all, let me be very clear with the member. The spill did not occur on Monday morning. It occurred at 3:17 on Sunday morning. At 4:10 a.m. production was stopped and suspended. So within less than an hour production was suspended. So, I do have some confidence in the system.

We were informed, as government, early Sunday morning about what had occurred. I guess the member read the paper, like most other people read the paper today, in terms of the discussion that took place on how oil spills are discovered. The early information is that it was a mechanical spill, in terms of the water separation and the mechanical misfunction that took place. We do not know that for sure yet.

Right away on Sunday night after production was suspended - which means there is no oil being produced right now - the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum did exactly what it was supposed to do. It sent out its lead investigators - two of them by the way - and an investigation began early on Monday morning. On top of that, the Canadian Coast Guard went out. I believe Marine associated organizations are out in terms of impacts upon saltwater sea birds, impacts on mammals. That investigation is going on right now.

I can say this to the House and to the people of the Province with absolute certainty, that before any production is resumed with respect to this spill that we will be briefed as a government and the C-NOPB will do exactly what they are supposed to do to find out what happened, what caused it, and if there is no level of competence with respect to if it can be fixed, then there will not be any production. That is what it means to take care of the environment when a spill like this occurs, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

The people of this Province know that regardless of the outcome of the talks being held today that 100 per cent of this oil will end up in Newfoundland and Labrador waters, and that is why we are all concerned about it.

Mr. Speaker, if Irving Oil spilled a number of gallons of oil trying to load a tanker or unload a tanker in St. John's Harbour, or any other place in the Province, there would be significant fines placed on them as a deterrent to make sure they prevent this from happening in the future.

Mr. Speaker, what can this government point to in terms of regulations or enforcement that would equally provide a deterrent to Terra Nova or any other operator in the offshore, that regardless of fault that the strict liability of the law would ensure that they would be prosecuted and give them a deterrent so that they would have a incentive to have proper monitoring systems in place - electronic monitoring, not visual monitoring - so that this does not happen again?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Let there be no doubt by anybody who has taken an interest in this - and I suspect there are many in the Province. I know the member seems to be agitated and angry by it, only unequaled by my anger and agitation by what occurred, and this government's absolute anger and agitation by what has occurred. But I will say this to the member, before we decide to act as judge, jury and hang person in this Province, the only thing that I am going to point to is when the investigation is complete and the investigative report is on our desk, then we will take whatever action is necessary against this or any other company who wants to destroy the environment off Newfoundland and Labrador's coast.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice, unlike his colleague the Minister of Fisheries who has taken a defeatist attitude with regard to the Harbour Breton situation. I would point out, by the way, that Arnold's Cove is quite different. It is a private creation in the fishing industry, whereas FPI was a creation of this Legislature, exists because of this Legislature, and will continue to be controlled by this Legislature if they have the backbone to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: My question of the Minister of Justice is: Minister, have you personally, and your department, been engaged to advise the Minister of Fisheries as to how, not if, but how the FPI Act can be used to prevent FPI from closing the plant in Harbour Breton?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Officials in the Department of Justice became engaged today in formulating a structure to the Province's response to the announcement by FPI. Departmental officials will review the legal position of the government under the relevant legislation and legal advice will be provided to the minister, to assist the minister in his discussions with the company and with the citizens of Harbour Breton.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it cannot be serious what I just heard from the Minister of Justice, that he today, and his department, have been engaged as of today in dealing with the issue of Harbour Breton which has been public knowledge in this Province and probably the biggest millstone that the people of Harbour Breton have ever had to face in their existence and you just get engaged today. You told us once in this House a few months ago to stay tuned. When, minister, are you going to tune in?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I say to the minister, have you got any idea right now that you can tell us what you are prepared to recommend, as the Minister of Justice, if, as your colleague says - which I disagree with - that the act is not strong enough? What are you prepared to recommend to put the sufficient teeth into the FPI Act so that your minister can have enough backbone to do what needs to be done?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, officials in the Department of Justice are continually giving advice to all government departments in dealing with the matters that come before them, including the Department of Fisheries. Interestingly, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has announced that there will be a free vote in this House of Assembly concerning the income trust program that is proposed by Fisheries Products International. That is what the real issue is here, whether that transaction is in the best interest of the people of this Province and that will be decided here. It is not a question of legal opinions. It is a question of what this House will have the fortitude to do by passing legislation which it has a legal authority to do. That is the real issue here, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have about forty-five seconds, a short question and an equally short answer.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Conservation. The fact that a major oil spill took place in Terra Nova, I want to ask him a question: Does he think that the right procedure is being followed in the offshore?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, for a very short response.

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

Let me be very clear with the member. Were the right procedures followed? At 3:17 a.m. a spill occurred. In less than an hour production was shutdown, suspended. Immediately, that day two investigators went out who have not concluded their investigation. As soon as that investigation is complete and the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board is informed, and both levels of government, both federally and ourselves provincially are informed, we will be in a position to be able to answer those questions. But, I am not going to do what most people would, or what the member seems to be asking us to do. I am not going to prejudge what is going to come out of that investigation. We are going to do it properly and professionally. We will wait to see what happens and whatever action needs to be taken to ensure that this does not occur again, I can assure the member and anybody else, that action will be taken.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for oral questions has expired.

Presenting reports by Standing and Select Committees.

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the 2003 Annual Report of the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of reports?

The Speaker would like to table the following reports: the Annual Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on Election Finances for the period January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003, and the Report of the Chief Electoral Office on Election Finances of the October 21, 2003 General Election.

I note in doing so that these reports be posted on the Electoral Office Web site as of this afternoon and will be available on CD-ROM in about two weeks' time for members who might be interested.

Notices of Motion?

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Motorized Snow Vehicles And All Terrain Vehicles Act," Bill 45.

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Forestry Act," Bill 46.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given?

MR. PARSONS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: I just wondered if this was the appropriate section to do it under. I raised a question back on our last day of June. We had posed a couple of dozen questions in writing in the House here in the last session to various ministers. We have received some of the answers and some of the ministers on June 8 actually gave me an undertaking that they would provide the answers to the questions that were on the Order Paper when we left in June. I just notice we still have a dozen or so outstanding.

In the interest of the openness and accountability and transparency that is going to be a hallmark of this session, we are just wondering if, under this section in the days to come, that we might, in fact, have some details provided to those questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Previous rulings of Speakers have indicated that while all members are free to place their questions on the Order Paper , and they will be printed on the day following their submission to the Clerk, and they are printed once, there is no obligation on behalf of the members of the executive or the government side to respond to such questions at all, no more than they have to respond to any other questions that might be asked in the House. While it is an interesting point, it certainly is not a point of order.

Petitions?

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: I rise again today to present a petition on behalf of the students in Labrador. Mr. Speaker, as I gave in the ministerial statement, the twenty-ninth annual Labrador Creative Arts Festival has just come to a close. The sad part for the students in Labrador, Mr. Speaker, is that they didn't have an auditorium in which to go and do what they do best, to get together with their friends in Labrador and do their plays and their skits.

Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the government which made a commitment to the children in Labrador and we committed $2.4 million to build an auditorium. The town council and members of Happy Valley-Goose Bay had $300,000 from the federal government plus over $20,000 of their own money. Mr. Speaker, this government, unfortunately, withdrew that money and put it on hold.

Mr. Speaker, the construction season we have in Labrador is very short and the materials need to be ordered. Even if the government did come out now, I doubt that the auditorium would be ready for next year. The sad part: I spoke with some of the student there this afternoon in the airport. They were heading back home again, and they were very disappointed there was no commitment from this government to grant them their wish of an auditorium to service of all the children in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when this government here talks of making a commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, then I can say to them that our students in Labrador, many who live in the most remote areas of this Province, are being denied a part -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ANDERSEN: - or a building that students on the Island....

I can understand, Mr. Speaker, why these people over there on the other side can laugh and joke about things, but I can tell you it is no laughing matter to the students in Labrador. The frustration that they feel about this government is evident, that this government here put on hold the auditorium when children on the Island portion of the Province, and rightly so, enjoy an auditorium where they can go and hold their creative arts festivals, but not in Labrador, and that is the sad part - a government that made a commitment to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The students who live in the most remote parts of this Province are being denied by this government, $2.4 million. That, in itself, is a shame.

Mr. Speaker, every day while this House sits, I will stand in my place and present a petition on their behalf because I believe - and this government over there has said it - that every child in Newfoundland and Labrador deserves an equal chance.

Unfortunately, for those who attended the arts festival in the Upper Lake Melville area, this government is not giving them an equal chance. I think that is a sad day for the students in Labrador and it does not hold very well with all the people who live in Labrador.

I am sure that the Premier and his government heard of how the people in Labrador over the years have felt that they did not receive a fair share of monies and infrastructure. I can tell you, I was part of a government that put new schools on the Coast of Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

MR. ANDERSEN: I am sure that the children in Labrador, as well, acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition from the people of my District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and it has to do with government's decision in the past year to relocate marine services from Cartwright to Lewisporte; primarily, the Sir Robert Bond.

The people in my district have seen in the past season, with the restructuring of that marine service, a loss in business revenue of more than 40 per cent over the summer months, and in the tourism industry alone the statistics have dropped by about 40 per cent this past year.

Mr. Speaker, just recently I met with the tourism operators in my district. As well, the Minister of Tourism, when he was visiting the area, met with a number of the tourism operators, and they explained quite clearly that the 40 per cent reduction in business this year was attributed to a number of factors but the primary reason was because of government's decision to relocate the Sir Robert Bond from Cartwright to Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, because of that, the people in Happy Valley-Goose Bay also lost a very dependable, reliable service of three trips a week that were operating in and out of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Last summer, Mr. Speaker, I received calls from residents in the Lake Melville area who explained to me that when they were trying to get reservations on the boat they had great difficulty and they had to wait for extended periods of time before they could get reservations, and when they did they could not get accommodations.

I remember one woman from Happy Valley-Goose Bay who called me, who was travelling with her two children and had to put her children to sleep in the bar on board the boat because there was no other place to accommodate her and her children on this trip.

This has not only caused a decrease of business in the Southern Labrador area but it has also caused a great deal of difficulty for travellers in Labrador who are depending upon that vital ferry service to operate between Cartwright and Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that this decision was made, because the decision to move the Sir Robert Bond to Lewisporte by the Minister of Transportation and Works and the Member for Lewisporte was done so and paid for out of the Labrador Transportation Fund. Mr. Speaker, that is a fund that is administered for and on behalf of the people of Labrador. Right now, the people who are making decisions on that fund are the Minister of Transportation and Works and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. There is no Deputy Minister of Labrador Affairs, only an acting minister right now, who would be partial to what happens with regard to that revenue.

Mr. Speaker, they are using the money to pay for their own political commitments that they made during the election. That was obvious, because the minister and the Member for Lewisporte made the commitment during the election, became the minister, used the money out of the Labrador Fund to fulfill the commitment that he made to the people, and left people in my district with no service or little service last year, that caused tremendous hardship to their businesses and a loss of revenue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

Further petitions?

Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Motion 1, that the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999, Bill 37, now be read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 37)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999," carried. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act, 1999. (Bill 37)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 37 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 4, to move that the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources, myself, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine. (Bill 34)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources to introduce a bill, "An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine," carried. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.,

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Revise The Law About Veterinary Medicine. (Bill 34)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time? On tomorrow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 5, that the Minister of Health and Community Services ask leave to introduce a bill, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994. (Bill 35)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994," carried. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: The Pharmaceutical Association Act, 1994. (Bill 35)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 35 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 7, that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board. (Bill 36)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs to introduce a bill, "An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board," carried. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board. (Bill 36)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 36 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 9, the hon. the Minister of Education to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act. (Bill 42)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Education shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act," carried. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that said bill be read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: The College Act, 1996 And The Memorial University Act. (Bill 42)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. E. BYRNE: On tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 42 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Motion 10, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. (Bill 38)

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment shall have leave to introduce said bill?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act." (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a first time. Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a first time?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against?

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Labour Standards Act. (Bill 38)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a first time. When shall the said bill be read a second time, on tomorrow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, Bill 38 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

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

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

Order 3, second reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, be now read a second time.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act." (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take some time today to speak to the amendment to the Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act that we are putting before the House.

There was a five-year strategic plan to revamp services down at the Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Commission. From that report there were a number of issues that were addressed that needed to be resolved. One thing that became very apparent when the task force did their report in 2001 was that the Commission found themselves to be in some very serious financial difficulties. Over the past three years and continuing on into future years it is going to be very important that we address the fiscal realities of the Commission. We have made some gains and we have been addressing the unfunded liability down at the Commission. In doing so, we also need to make sure that we are progressive in other areas and that different aspects of the legislation meet with the progression that is happening with the fiscal realities.

One thing that came to light when I took on the duties of Human Resources, Labour and Employment in late February, was when the labour component was added to this particular portfolio with it came the Labour Relations Agency that was newly developed and also came the responsibility for the Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Commission. It was when I took responsibility for the Commission that I realized how many difficulties people and stakeholder groups were facing with the Commission. I have had representation made to me on a number of occasions from individuals who have frustrations with the Commission and with stakeholder groups who seem to feel there are some issues down at the Commission. One of the major issues that I have been asked to look at, and that I have been aware of, involved the employers. The employers feel, and they acknowledge, that they are paying the highest rates in Atlantic Canada and they are also concerned that at some point it is making the Province less competitive as a place to come and do business.

What we are trying to introduce and do with the Commission, at this time, with this amendment to the legislation is to bring in a new employer financial incentive program. This new incentive program, as you will probably hear, is often referred as PRIME. PRIME is an acronym that stands for Prevention Return to Work Insurance Management for Employees and Employers. It brings an element of fairness to the way that assessment rates are assigned to various employers.

One thing that is noted, for sure, is that employers have not been pleased and did not feel that the comparison to industry performance was a way that their rates for compensation should be calculated. What that means, in essence, is that for any industry there is a base rate and all the Commission rates, that the employers pay, are based on that industry. What has been frustrating with that particular concept is the fact that some businesses or some employers do quite well in the area of occupational health and safety and they feel they are being penalized because they have to go on the base rate that has been established for that particular industry.

What this new incentive program is going to address, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be some annual performance targets. So there will, in essence, be a target set out for an employer and how an employer performs based on that target will determine whether or not, at the end of the year, the employer is eligible for a refund or pays a penalty. The base rate is set, it is varied and that the industries will then pay their rates based on that rate but their individual performances will be recognized. What this new system will do, it will not only calculate the assessment refunds but it will also give the Commission the jurisdiction to lobby financial penalties for industries that fall far outside what is recommended as a base rate for that industry and what their rates are based on. I think that is a real progressive step because, in essence, it puts the accountability back to the employer that they have to have appropriate occupational health and safety standards set up in their particular industry.

The emphasis of this particular amendment to the legislation puts the accountability back to the employer for their practices in the area of occupational health and safety. One thing that is interesting to note is that it also involves an early and safe return to work. So, although this amendment usually goes to the employers and it is employer-focused, when employees have a safer workplace, and health and safety becomes more of a priority, employees also have the benefit of this type of an amendment.

This new PRIME program, as I said, will financially reward employers if they meet certain standards. The whole basis of this new program known as PRIME will introduce what is known as part one and part two of an assessment phase. Part one will be based on the fact that employers meet various standards that are based in the occupational health and safety legislation. They will be required to demonstrate that they meet these requirements. Now, the argument can be the occupational health and safety legislation is in law anyway so why are we financially rewarding an employer for following the law? What in essence we are doing is providing an incentive and we are going to be doing audits. There will be checks and balances in place to ensure that the legislation is being followed. That, in essence, should improve health and safety in the workplace and provide safer workplaces for the employees.

If a company meets the requirements of part one, they are then eligible for a refund under part two. Part two will provide the industry-based rate. So, the rates that the employers are going to pay in will be based on that industry-based rate. If they fall within the range, they have met their goals. If they fall far below the range - so if they expect, for instance, that their anticipated cost could be between $50,000 and $100,000 and they are a large employer and they fall below the threshold, the bottom part of the average, they will be entitled to a refund under this new act.

What will also happen, if they go outside the range, so their costs with regard to occupational health and safety and workplace safety go above the limits of the range that is set out for that particular industry, they will be subject to a penalty.

The other thing that this gets at as well, it allows the Commission the ability to address persistent high injury rates and costs. So, this is not meant to cause penalties and undue hardship for industry or employers that have trends of safety but for some reason or another have increased costs in a particular year. This should help with industries and with employers who have consistent and persistent problems with occupational health and safety and they are basically deemed as not living up to the safety requirements that are set out in occupational health and safety standards.

In essence, what we are doing is we are promoting healthier and safer workplaces for the employees. We should also see from this change that we should have better return to work, early and safe return to work practices from the employers. That will be part of the part one process that they have to go through in order to get the first initial refund to move into part two. In order for the Commission to bring in these changes, a legislative change is necessary and therefore we have to bring it to the House of Assembly.

The other thing to note in this, this is not going to cause sweeping changes tomorrow for employers. In essence, what we are doing is there will be a two-year phase-in of the program. So, in the year 2005, the part one assessments will lead into the refund and the part two in 2006. The refund that is attached to part one, that monitors the compliance with the occupational health and safety regulations, can see employers getting a 5 per cent refund of their total assessments. To some employers who pay exuberant rates to the Commission, this could mean substantial money for that employer.

What they must do in order to progress from part one into part two is establish an injury reporting system and have an early and safe return to work program. Now, there are going to be other policy measures within there for the employers to follow, but in basis that is the essence of what they are going to have to meet in order to meet the requirements of part one to this program.

If they pass the part one and get the 5 per cent refund, they will then be eligible to go into part two for possibly more refunds, based on the system, if they go below the threshold that is set out as the industry base.

PRIME incentives and this employer incentive program, this financial program, will be available to more employers than the present incentive program. Basically, the present incentive program hits about 5,500 employers but this new program should be available to approximately 13,000 employers in this Province.

Some of the highlights of this legislation that I think make it progressive and necessary is that employers will be more accountable for what is happening in their workplace. Mr. Speaker, we can probably all think of a situation and know individuals who were either seriously injured or killed at the workplace, and there is no excuse for that. When we set this up and we have occupational health and safety legislation, this is another check and balance in place to ensure that employers are co-operating with what is set out for them in law.

For employers who practice safety on a consistent basis but for some reason have an accident or somebody gets injured, or whatever could happen to increase their cost for a particular year, this program should be able to account for that without necessarily driving up their rates to standards that they cannot meet. As I have said before, this program was brought in to address the extreme or persistent behaviour of unsafe practices.

What else is important, as I had mentioned, is that the refund and the charges under this new program will be determined by comparing individual employer experiences to individual set performance targets, so every employer will have a predetermined requirement or performance target that they have to meet. This is a breakaway from the system we are using now where all of the employers in a certain industry are based on the industry performance. This will allow employers in industries, where there may be higher rates because some industries or some employers do not follow the set guidelines, it will allow them to receive the incentives or the rewards based on their own individual performance if they fall short of their performance targets which are set out for that particular industry. There will be an emphasis on compliance. There will be an emphasis on early return to work for our employees.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to note that with a large number of groups and individuals expressing concerns about the Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Commission, when this program of PRIME was first introduced and we were in discussion about whether or not we felt this was the way to move we wanted some assurance that this was what employers wanted in the community. We held a meeting with some of the stakeholder groups, a number of the ministers, and we talked about he particular program. At that point in time, I felt there was support for this particular initiative and that is when we decided to continue to move it through the process.

As late as this morning, Mr. Speaker, I happened to have a meeting with Marilyn Tucker of the Employers' Council and some representatives of that executive. I know that the Employers' Council - and I spoke to a conference they had last week which was based around this particular program - were very anxious to see this legislation passed. They are very supportive of it. They have been working with the Commission to refine the policies so that employers will be able to follow the policy and will be able to meet what is required of them under this new legislation. They feel that this a move in the right direction, to address occupational health and safety and be able to address and reward employers who fall below the performance standards and who are out there and who are practicing appropriate occupational health and safety standards.

In summary, I would like to say that I feel this is a move in the right direction for occupational health and safety. It is an initiative that will reward employers who follow the legislation. It is not necessarily a change that affects employees, however, any employees who work in workplaces that have enhanced occupational health and safety standards will benefit from that program. It closely links - this change, this amendment that we are looking at - to the occupational health and safety legislation which is governed under Government Services. In essence, what it does, it promotes a healthier and safer workforce for the employees of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the employers of this Province have asked for changes. They feel that their rates have not been competitive. They feel that they have high rates based on industry performance and that there has been no recognition of any individual industry initiatives to address occupational health and safety. This program, I feel, will allow employers to be rewarded if they are in an industry that has a high rate of accidents and injury. If they have exceptional performance, and they fall below the target standards, they will be rewarded under this system for their performance.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a necessary change at this time. As the Commission is addressing some issues down there, it is trying to address the unfunded liability, but in doing that we also have to recognize that the stakeholder groups, whether it is the injured workers or the employers, or other stakeholders who have issues with the Commission, that their issues are also being heard so that as we deal with the fiscal realities, we are also dealing with the other issues as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few comments about Bill 33. What the minister is doing here today, I guess, is the result of many years of work. As we all recall, the Workplace Health and Safety Commission, over the last number of years, has gone through some difficult times in terms of being able to manage the affairs that is going on in the Province with this organization. The board has given tremendous leadership in this particular area.

As a matter of fact, when we were in government we had a Department of Labour solely responsible for occupational health and safety and labour issues. It was a focal point for workers within this Province, but we all know that when this government came on the scene a year or so ago it decided to span the Department of Labour and put it into various other departments, which made it a very fragmented approach to labour relations and occupational health and safety.

Over the last number of years it is interesting to note that this Province was leading the country, I guess, in terms of innovation and in terms of occupational health and safety. We have done tremendous work within this Province and I think we have a pretty good system to make sure that we monitor the situation within this Province. I guess it is rightly so that employers who have a good occupational health and safety regime would get a break in their compensation charges. I think all of us who have insurance policies and who have car insurance policies are always rewarded if we have a good driving record and we do things in a safe way. For the employers out there who make sure that they have safe workplaces, rightly so should get compensated and pay a lesser fee. It is also interesting to note that because of the work that has taken place over the last number of years there has been a basic rate decrease in the charge to employers for workers' compensation.

I guess one of the disturbing things from an employee point of view is that still the salary cap for compensation is only at roughly around $46,000 a year, and 80 per cent of net indicates that it is only about $33,000. As you are well aware, a lot of the people who work in our heavy industries, in terms of the mining industry, the offshore, the North Atlantic Refinery and various other workforces around this Province, their salaries are quite a bit higher than what this is.

MS BURKE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised.

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point about the maximum compensable earnings that a worker is entitled to here in the Province. Since 1984, the maximum compensable earnings have been frozen at $45,500 for workers. Last year the commission made a strong case that they did not want that to increase. However, this year, Mr. Speaker, according to the regulations it will be increased based on the CPI which was 1.7 per cent. Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of this government that the maximum compensable earnings which were frozen for the last twenty years will continue to increase as per the regulations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the minister speaking to a point of order or wishing to resume debate? The Chair rules that there is no point of order and calls for the resumption of debate.

MR. BARRETT: I was making a point that there are various reasons why the figure is that. What I am saying is, it is still not enough. Some of the industries that we have people working in, you know, it was only the other day I met with a man who had a serious injury, a fall in Bull Arm. The torture that this particular individual has gone through over the last number of years, and the amount of money that these people make and what they get when they are on workers' compensation - the injury is not the worker's fault. In most cases it is because there was some problem with the workforce, the workplace where the worker became injured, and now is getting a substantially lower benefit. We all know that if somebody is used to making $60,000 or $70,000 a year for an extended period of time - and all of us, in our lifetime, spend whatever we make. If you get injured and all of a sudden you wake up one morning and instead of making $70,000 a year you are making $25,000 a year - what I am indicating here is that we should have a higher threshold for people.

Yes, it may mean that the employer will have to pay higher compensation but I think in the end the system is set up for the injured worker and that is the prime person that should get benefits from this particular organization.

I am not being critical of the minister. I am not being critical of the government. All I am saying is that we have to make sure that when we bring in these kinds of things that the worker is taken into consideration.

I guess the other question I have to ask on this particular thing is: How will the employees be affected and will there be a reduction in the services and benefits? The minister did not indicate, if we implement this particular system, would there be any reduction in the service to the employees. If there is less money coming in, if the rates are up and there is less money coming into the organization, will there be any reduction in the service and benefits to employees?

The other thing, I guess, in terms of monitoring, it was indicated that the Commission would put out a very extensive public relations campaign. So, what is the budget and how much money is the Commission going to spend on this public relations campaign that they are going to put on for this particular piece of legislation?

I think it is very, very important that they use restraint. If they have to use restraint to freeze the level of compensation for the employees, then I think they should also be very frugal in their approach to the whole public relations campaign.

Today, I support this piece of legislation and encourage it so that we make sure that all of us work together to make sure that we have a good workplace compensation commission in this Province, because the reason that the Commission is there is to protect the people. It was put there in the first place to protect the injured workers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make a few comments on the amendment to the legislation. I would like to say to the minister that this is probably a right move to help employers who are actively bringing in new changes in the workplace to make the workplace a healthier and safer place to be, and I certainly would support anything that leads to that. I have seen enough tragedy in my lifetime, in injuries that people received at work, to know full well the benefits of having a safe workplace.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we had occupational health and safety within the union that I belonged to. We had the longest strike in Canadian history on the issue of occupational health and safety, a strike that took place in Baie Verte in 1978.

In 1977, Mr. Speaker, while I was working in the mine in Labrador City, we had a two-week wildcat strike after having three fatalities in nine days. We had people go to jail for that, Mr. Speaker, and we had people fired for that, for taking part in an illegal work stoppage, but the bottom line is that good things did come out of the work stoppage. People paid the ultimate price, and other people paid prices as well, but the end result was that changes came that would benefit all workers who follow in the footsteps of those who died. I might add, Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the right to refuse unsafe and unhealthy work was driven by these two strikes in particular in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I sort of take exception in some respects with some of the wording that the minister used when she was introducing the amendment, in terms of rewarding employers who follow regulations. I am not sure if that is an appropriate way to put things, because people should not be rewarded for following the law; they should be penalized if they break it. To tell people that we will let you benefit if you follow the law, I do not think that is an appropriate way of putting things.

I do have some concerns, though, I say to the minister. The minister spoke about audits to be done on individual workplaces. I want to ask the minister if she would respond to: Who will do these audits? What is the staffing levels in her department that will carry out this work? How are the current employees going to be able to tackle all of the employers in the Province to make sure that they are, indeed, in compliance with the laws and regulations that govern occupational health and safety.

Not that long ago, Mr. Speaker, I raised here in the House a question of the Department of Labour and how they control the number of employers in this Province, if they knew how many exactly had joint occupational health and safety committees that they are required to have by law. The answer was not given. The answer was not given because the minister of the day did not know. We also talked about the safety reports that are conducted, audits if you will, by law in every workplace in this Province, supposedly. They did not have the information on how many reports that they got in each month. These are mandatory things that are supposed to happen, that is law that they do happen, but they are not happening in our Province today. So, I ask the minister how she proposes to make sure that all these workplaces are audited to the degree that she seems to be comfortable with when, indeed, the manpower shortage, the number of people who are allocated in her department to enforce such things is way below the numbers that will be required to do the job. So, we do have some concerns about that.

We talk about accountability in the workplace. That is a big issue that a lot of people in workplaces throughout this Province are concerned about, from the aspect of proper reporting, proper information going to the workplace commission when accidents take place, whether or not the forms are being filled out and sent in as required, and I know cases. I have been involved with workers' compensation enough to know that in many cases people have accidents at work, people have injuries, people have near misses that are not reported, that are not documented, that are not forwarded to the Commission and this creates problems, especially when an employee has a reoccurrence of an injury that happened some time in the past. So, all of these things need to be worked on, but the only way they can be done is having more people in the minister's department who are going to assume that responsibility.

The previous speaker on this issue, Mr. Speaker, talked about the salary difference that people make compared to what they get when they are off on workers' compensation. I say that the cap that was there for twenty years, the 45-5, was inadequate for a lot of workers in this Province. Particularly, as the previous speaker noted, people who are involved in heavy industry, such as mining, at the oil refinery, the paper industry and others in this Province. That certainly does not fit within the income levels that they were used to prior to being injured. It is a far cry from it many times. By increasing it by a mere $1,500 or so still does not adequately address the problems, even if there will be incremental increases going into the future.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing I think government should be concerned about, and there should be legislation covering, is when workers are off work and on workers' compensation they are getting, sometimes, 80 per cent of a much less figure than they were used to making when they were working. Equally as important, there is no legislation requiring employers in this Province to provide the benefits that go along with people's wages once they are off on workers' compensation. For example, a worker gets injured and gets substantially lower income than they would if they were not injured. Supposing they had a dental plan which they were covered under while they were working, in many cases, guess what happens? When the person gets injured at work, through a no-fault insurance program that workers' compensation is, because workers gave up their right to sue many, many years ago to have workers' compensation coverage. The employers get a good deal out of this because regardless of how high the premiums may go it probably would not equate into one successful lawsuit that may be lodged against them. They are getting a good deal under a workers' compensation system as well.

Mr. Speaker, when people get hurt on the job and find out they are no longer covered under a dental plan because they are not actively at work, then that is wrong. That is an injustice against people who are injured under a no-fault insurance system. When people find out they are no longer covered for eye care and they have to buy a pair of glasses or lenses, when they have to purchase that from their pocket, from their pay at a reduced level already, then that creates further economic hardship for workers and their families. There are a lot of things, Mr. Speaker, that are needed to be changed under the Workers' Compensation Commission in the way they do things. The employers are getting a good deal on the premiums that they are now paying because, as I said, one successful lawsuit against employers would add up to much more money than the total combined premiums that they have to pay to the Workers' Compensation Commission for coverage.

Mr. Speaker, there are areas that need to be worked on, still need to be worked on. One is raising the cap so that people get 80 per cent of their net pre-injury earnings, not some magical figure that is put out there as a cap. People should receive - it should be legislated that people will not lose benefits that they negotiated with their employer. They will not lose these benefits if they happen to be involved in an industrial accident and it causes them to take time off work and while they are on compensation. It should be mandatory, Mr. Speaker, that these benefits still be provided by the employer.

Mr. Speaker, while I acknowledge the minister is bringing this amendment forward, it will be a step, I think, in the right direction. Many employers are good employers who have spent a lot of money investing into health and safety programs, safe work practices and safer workplaces. They should be acknowledged. They should not be lumped into an industry standard where other employers may not be as proactive as they are in terms of reaching health and safety targets and figures and creating a safer workplace.

There is a two-sword approach on this, I guess. One is not whether - there is a question of whether or not employers should be rewarded for making the workplace safer and having these programs, versus whether or not employers who do not should pay more. It is sort of six of one and half-a-dozen of the other approach, but I do not see anything wrong with what the minister is proposing here. As I said, I think it is a step in the right direction and we will certainly support any initiatives by this minister or any minister that makes life better for the working people of this Province.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say a few words on this legislation. My colleague from Labrador West, who has a tremendous amount of experience in the industrial workforce and with unions and representation of workers, has a great deal of knowledge about the technicalities of how the system works and the problems with the benefits that have been given to workers and the deficiencies of that system.

I just wanted to talk a little bit about some of the things that have happened here in this Legislature in the last period of time, that I have been here, when we have been dealing with the five year reviews. Every five years there is a review of the worker's compensation legislation as required by the act and we have seen some pretty significant things happening over the last number of years in these issues. I want to put what the minister is suggesting today into that context. It certainly doesn't hurt to say that workers' compensation legislation is extremely important to working people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It results from a legal circumstance that required reform going back nearly a century ago when workers could not effectively get any compensation for workplace injuries, because of what the courts had done by way of raising barriers to compensation, making it very difficult to get compensation even in the event of pretty clear negligence by an employer in terms of an unsafe workplace. I will not go into the details of that, but as a result of a whole series of studies something came about which was called the great compromise, that the workers would lose the right to sue an employer even for negligence in the workplace in return for a guarantee of compensation that would make sure that they were able to replace their income and were not going to suffer a total loss of livelihood, and in some cases losing their homes, losing their families, losing their livelihood, as a result of workplace injury without some form of compensation.

Mr. Speaker, there was a circumstance in this Province when we had a higher level, a more comprehensive level, of workers' compensation that got changed, and it got changed in this Legislature because of something called unfunded liability. What the previous government did was take back and lower the level of compensation in order to solve the problem of unfunded liability.

That was very, very strongly opposed by me and our Party in this Legislature, because it destroyed the balance and the compromise that had been reached. What we had talked about at that time, Mr. Speaker, was the very type of system that is now being brought into legislation: that the reason there was such a high level of unfunded liability was because there were so many accidents because the level of safety, or lack of safety, in the workforce was so high that workers were experiencing accidents without the kind of safety enforcement that was necessary, with unsafe practices. In fact, the assessments were not covering the costs because there were so many accidents.

What we said was, instead of lowering the benefits to workers, what government should be doing is increasing the level of safety in the workplace so that workers did not get injured in the first place. It was injured workers whose costs of benefits was driving the system up because there were too many people being injured.

Now we have seen workplace injuries go down. One of the things that was happening at the time - and I remember raising, for example, the case of the City of St. John's. The City of St. John's introduced a workplace safety program involving education, involving committees, involving a tremendous amount of work. I do not know if the Member for St. John's Centre was there at the time, but I remember being very proud to see what the City of St. John's did in reducing the number of workplace injuries. I think they cut them in half. I think they cut in half the number of workplace injuries by introducing a program, a fairly vigorous program, of safety education, safety monitoring, safety committees, and taking safety seriously. As a result, of course, the cost of workers' compensation, the workers' compensation costs incurred by people working for the City of St. John's, or by the City of St. John's as a employer, went down by almost 50 per cent, but the assessment did not change. The assessment did not change. So, while it was very laudable to see what an employer, like the City of St. John's in this particular instance, had done, it did not affect their cost for workers' compensation even though they had saved a lot of employees injury and possibility death, they had saved the system a tremendous amount of money but they were still paying exactly the same premium or assessment as somebody who was ignoring the safety rules, not getting caught, and ending up having their workers injured.

Mr. Speaker, that was one of the problems with the system that we had before, and that is one of the problems with this particular type of legislation, this particular type of scheme that we are talking about here, which would allow the Commission to look at the employer's record, the risk, the cost or injury experience, as one of the factors in setting the assessment rate to be paid by that employer. That is a very positive step because it will provide some incentive. I will not use the word reward, but it will actually show that, by behaving in a more progressive way, in a more safe manner, by insisting on safety, by doing the job properly and insisting on safety precautions, that less people will be injured and, of course, the system would have to pay out less in benefits; but, more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we will have safer workplaces, we will have fewer injuries, we will have fewer people in need of workers' compensation benefits. That is the goal, I think, that we should all be striving for.

The point that I think needs to be make is, one of the areas that has amongst the highest levels of workplace injuries is the construction industry, and there are reasons for that. There are a lot of people in the construction industry who come and go, who are not necessarily set up properly. They do jobs, they engage in activities, and they may be able to undercut other people who are doing the job properly. You could have an employer in the construction industry who comes in and offers to do a job, undercuts, underbids somebody else, or even without bidding, without tenders, can do the jobs cheaply because they are not set up with all the requirements of incorporation perhaps or workers' compensation, registration and all of those things. Yet, when they have access, the workers' compensation system has to pay the price.

One of things you often hear from the construction trade unions, Mr. Speaker, the Building Trades Council, is that unionized workplaces are safer than non-unionized workplaces. I believe that is true, Mr. Speaker, and I think experience has shown that, that in the unionized construction industry you have trained, experienced workers who understand, as my colleague from Labrador West says, the right to refuse unsafe work for one. They understand how to do the job properly, they have better training, and they have more knowledge of safe practices and how to do the job and more experience, and they can do a job in a safer manner.

What happens, Mr. Speaker? You have a competition between unionized workforces and non-unionized workforces. If you are going to run a job with less safety precautions, with less safety training, with less of these types of protections for workers and for the system, then you can probably bid the job cheaper. If you are going to take shortcuts on safety, if you are going to take shortcuts on equipment, if you are going to hire people who have less training because perhaps you can get them cheaper, and you can undercut somebody else on a public tendering job or some other job, you might get the job. The unionized employer who is doing the job according to the books, according to the rules, according to a union contract, according to safety procedures, according to the rights of workers, they end up losing the job to somebody who is taking shortcuts and doesn't put the same amount of activity protection into the workplace.

What this legislation will do is assist to level the playing field a little bit, Mr. Speaker, because workers' compensation costs for people running unsafe workplaces should end up being higher than for those who are running a proper job, who are running a safe workplace with trained workers in the construction industry. At least, Mr. Speaker, the unionized workforce and the unionized employers will have a better opportunity to participate in the jobs that are available.

I think this is a very important point, and it is a point that is made sometimes by the building trades council but it is not well known to the public that this is the fact and this is the case.

These are two reasons why I think that this bill, in principle, is a very good one. We have to restore the balance in workers' compensation. I do not think that we have achieved that yet. That is why we have so many people complaining about workers' compensation in many ways, because they are not getting a proper level of benefits, that these benefits should be restored. We do not want to see injured workers paying the price of unsafe workplaces because the lack of safety has driven the cost of workers' compensation so high that we have a high level of unfunded liability.

This is a system, Mr. Speaker, that the workers have to benefit from and the employers have to pay. Quite often you hear that, well, the employers are paying the total cost of workers' compensation. Well, so they should. So they should, because it is a system that is put in place to protect workers that the employer would otherwise be liable for a lawsuit by a worker who is injured on the job. So, we recognize that the cost of the employer doing business includes the cost of paying the damages and paying the compensation through the system of workers' compensation when an employee is injured on the job.

If an employer can run a safer job site, if an employer can, by training, by adhering to the regulations, by complying with proper audits, proper rules and proper regulations, run a safer workplace and thereby reduce the consequences that are inherent in any job situation - there are always some risks; there are always going to be some accidents, but - if they can reduce that appreciably, then a reduction in assessments that goes along with that, I think, is appropriate.

Now, there may well be some fine tuning required by the workers' compensation commission to make sure that the system adequately provides some incentive for greater safety and at the same time provides - I guess my colleague from Labrador West was referring to the carrot and the stick approach. There is a little bit of a carrot and a little bit of a stick, and it is up to the workers' compensation commission to get the balance right, and we certainly hope that they do, Mr. Speaker. I believe that this legislation will serve to allow that to happen. Therefore, for these reasons, the NDP in this House support this approach. As was said, it is a step in the right direction. We hope that it works, and we hope that one of the results of it will be safer workplaces in Newfoundland and Labrador and fewer people injured or killed on the job, because that is something that we do not have a great record for in this Province. We have a tremendous number of people who are injured on the job. We have had industrial diseases that have gone uncompensated. We are still seeing people fight for recognition in Baie Verte, for example, as a result of asbestos mining and the results of what has happened there. This is something that we need swift action on. I know that certain steps have been taken. These are baby steps towards a proper solution, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly has started so we have to see that happen.

What we really want to have is a situation where the number of accidents, the number of consequences of workplace safety are kept to a minimum. When we start talking about that, Mr. Speaker, we should also talk about issues of workplace safety that may come before this House this fall - I hope they do, Mr. Speaker - in terms of people working in bars. What about people working in bars being subjected to toxic second-hand smoke? I know if the workers of IOC in Labrador City were subjected to the kind of toxic fumes that are present in every single bar in this Province, this Legislature would act, Mr. Speaker. Yet, we see each and every day workers who go to work in bars in this Province who are subjected to second-hand smoke, who have rates of lung cancer higher - I have seen some advertisements saying two and three times higher - than the general average because they are working in bars.

We have to recognize that this is a workplace health and safety issue, that is something that must be addressed. We cannot allow the supposed interest of bar owners and the so-called entertainment industry to trump workplace health and safety. Profits in industry never trumped workplace health and safety when the truth was known, and there is no need and no reason why it should not trump workplace health and safety when it comes to the operation of bars in this Province, or restaurants or other places of public employment.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that this minister, and if it is not this minister, as the minister responsible for workplace compensation, if it is the Minister of Health - I see the Minister of Health paying close attention over there. I am going to be calling on the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, as a person responsible for public health in this Province, to urge the minister responsible for this to ensure that the workers who work in bars, lounges and restaurants in this Province are not subjected to second-hand smoke because it is a health issue. It is a public health issue. It is a workplace safety issue. Perhaps the minister, when she clues up debate at second reading, will announce to this House that her government intends to take action on this issue in this session of the House of Assembly because it is an issue whose time has come, Mr. Speaker. We have it recognized by the City of St. John's. We have it recognized by a number of other municipalities, by the City of Mount Pearl, by the whole country of Ireland, by provinces like Manitoba and other provinces. It is time that the workers and the public in Newfoundland and Labrador have the same level of protection when they go to bars and lounges as they have in other places. So, perhaps the minister, when she closes debate at second reading on this issue, can address this very important point that relates to public health, that relates to occupational health and safety and relates to workers' compensation. Perhaps she can address that when she closes debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further debate?

If the hon. minister speaks now she will close debate.

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge and thank the hon. members for their input into this debate today on the proposed changes to the Workplace Health and Safety Compensation Commission, and in doing so I would like to close debate.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend the Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been read a second time. When shall the said bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House? Now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently, by leave. (Bill 33)

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House to consider Bill 33, a bill which we just concluded in second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole House on a said bill, Bill 33.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on said bill, Bill 33?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 33. Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few more words about the issue that I just raised. It has relevance to this act in the following way. This is an act that is designed to provide incentives to have safer workplaces. One of the ways that the government can provide safer workplaces in this Province is to go further than just to say that the Commission, where it deems it appropriate, establish a program to deal with the rates, modify the rates of assessment for workers' compensation. They can look further to some of things that happen in workplaces, and I want to refer to the workplaces that are workplaces of a lot of people. They are also public gathering places, commercial establishments, where the workers are exposed to second-hand smoke. These are the staff who work in the bars and lounges and restaurants in the Province. We have seen a level of concern being raised about this by municipalities, such as the City of St. John's, such as the City of Mount Pearl, such as other members of the Federation of Municipalities raising this as a public issue and really asking the Province to act, because they do not feel that - although it may be within their purview, they think that it should be done on a province-wide basis.

I really think, Mr. Speaker, that we have to ask ourselves, on both sides of this House, whether or not we can continue to allow workers to be exposed to toxic second-hand smoke. I think the evidence is in. There is no more doubt about this, although I know the lobbyists have been active. I was just reading, actually, in a report issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, how much the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council Inc. gave to various members opposite. I do not know why they only gave them to members opposite, but there were amounts as high as $1,000 given to various members opposite to support their election campaign. I think $1,000; $1,000; $1,000; $500; $500; $500. Three thousand or $4,000 were given to members opposite by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council for their election campaigns. I do not know why, but they have been lobbying this government for - not this government, but they have been lobbying previous governments on issues related to tobacco, tobacco advertising and legislation.

Mr. Chair, I think it is time that we took this issue by the horn - took the bull by the horns, as it were - and started looking at what can be done to protect workers who happen to work in a bar or a lounge, because they are exposed to second-hand smoke. By recent statistics we are told that they have two and three times the rate of lung cancer after working in bars. We think that this is something that needs to be addressed, and this fall perhaps is the time to do. I think there seems to be something gelling about this amongst municipalities, the city council, Mount Pearl council and others, and I think it is time for this government to act.

Whether it is the minister responsible for workers' compensation who will deal with this, or the Minister of Health, whose purview is public health, workers' compensation, occupational health and safety, it is a real issue and it is something that we would like to see addressed. I know it may not be - it is relevant to this bill because it is a bill about: What are we doing to reduce workplace injuries, workplace industrial diseases and workplace disease? I think it is time that something was done to improve this, so I just wanted to put that out to hon. members and ask for their comments as to whether they agree that now is the time to take action on this important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Technically, I suppose, in Committee of the Whole we are supposed to deal exclusively with what the clause is about. Just for the record, I think the member may have made a bit of a leap in trying to raise another issue that I think you could say is a bit of a stretch. However, having said that, I did not rise on that point of order simply because the issue that he raised is important.

Before I deal with it, I do want to say, for the record, he has made a notion that there was a contribution made from the Canadian Tobacco Industry, I believe you said. I do want to say, for the record, I hope that you were not trying to make the link that, because of a contribution to a certain party or - if it was to here, I do not know; I have not seen the reference - I hope you are not trying to make the link that this government would not do anything with respect to smoking regulations in the Province because some group made a $3,000 contribution. We would, I think -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I just want to say that for the record. I do not know if you did or if you attempted to, but, for the record, I do want to say that if that attempt was made, obviously we would take serious exception to that. That imputes motives. It goes to a point of view on a decision, or the lack of one. Frankly, if that is what you were trying to do, I take very serious exception to that on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me say this to the issue: It is a huge public health issue. It is one that is before the government now. The Minister of Health and Community Services is dealing with that, and when he is prepared to bring forward or to deal with government's view of the issue then it will come before the people of the Province when it is ready.

I appreciate the member and other members who may bring forward issues from time to time, but we cannot bring forward everything and lay it all on the table today. There is just not enough time. Government does not work like that, nor do we have the time to do it, but I do want to say to the member, in a very sincere way, that this is an issue that is before the Department of Health and Community Services. It is an issue that the minister is dealing with and plans to deal with, and it is an issue that, at the appropriate time, he will bring forward our responses to it.

I do not want the impression to be left, one, that we are not dealing with it, because that would not be true; secondly, the impression be left that because somebody made a contribution to us that we have decided not to make a decision. That is a pretty serious accusation, whether it was made directly or indirectly, or to try to leave an impression. It is still very serious, in my mind. Again, I want to say that I would take exception to that on behalf of the government in the most serious of ways.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will sit down.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

He referred to a point of order. I do not know if it was a point of order or not, but since we are in debate I will address the issue.

What I said, just to clarify the record in case it was not clear before, is that I know that the tobacco industry spends time lobbying governments. They lobbied the previous government. I am presuming they are lobbying this government as well.

MR. E. BYRNE: They are lobbying members.

MR. HARRIS: They are lobbying individual members, I presume, as well. I do not know. I only got this today, so I was looking through it. I just said it seemed to me that, in addition to whatever lobbying is going on, what I see here are seven specific contributions by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council to campaigns of members opposite. Whether that it part of their lobbying effort or not, I don't know. I didn't impute any motives to anybody as to what they are doing. I do notice, however, that there doesn't seem to be any contributions from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturing Council Inc. to anybody else other than members opposite whose campaigns were supported. I didn't impute motives to anybody, nor will I, Mr. Speaker, unless I have reason to. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we do have a situation where intense lobbying may well be going on, and I guess we are going to be dealing with that when lobbying legislation comes before the House.

I will fully expect, Mr. Speaker, that this issue, having been raised in the public domain for the last number of years - we had a committee on the floor of this House a few years ago when legislation was before the House in terms of how far we were prepared to go to ban smoking in public buildings. At that time we took the position, and continue to take the position, that we should go further and protect workers - because this is what we are talking about here in this legislation - from toxic substances, and second-hand smoke qualifies, Mr. Speaker.

What I said in my speech was that if the kind of toxicity that is in second-hand smoke were found in an industrial setting this Legislature would be acting. I am merely stating the position, as forcefully as I can, that it is very important that we take this up, that this House take this up, this fall. Whether it is the Minister responsible for Occupational Health and Safety or whether it is the Minister of Health and Community Services - it doesn't matter to me who takes it up, but I do expect, Mr. Speaker, that there should be something done this fall, because we do have provincial laws, the Smoke Free Environment Act, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which relate to this issue. It is related to workers' compensation because we do have, with respect to occupational health and safety, safety provisions that are required to maintain a safe workplace for people. For some reason, Mr. Speaker, bars, restaurants and lounges have been exempted from the kind of toxic substances that would, in other industrial settings, be banned. Something should be done by this Legislature to do something about that.

The Government House Leader seemed to think that I was suggesting that somehow, because somebody gave them money for their campaign, they were not going to do something. I would think just the opposite, Mr. Chairman, that any self-respecting Member of the House of Assembly would be inclined to look even more closely at the need for legislation if, indeed, they would otherwise be left open to somebody making that kind of accusation.

I have not made that accusation, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the minister, in his comments, has not led people to suggest that I have made the accusation. If anyone has made it, the minister may have brought the suggestion out himself. What I have suggested, Mr. Chairman, is that there are people, there are companies, who are trying to influence government in one way or another. Maybe this is a way that they tried to influence them. I do not know, Mr. Chairman. I do not know, but I do know only what I see written in a report from the Chief Electoral Officer today saying the facts. These are the facts. What these facts mean, that I do not know, Mr. Chairman. I fully expect that this government will take this issue on its merits and deal with it.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, that for the public good and for the health and safety of workers who work in the lounge, restaurant and entertainment industry, that they do the right thing and follow the request of various municipalities, follow the example of the Government of Ireland, follow the example of provinces like Manitoba, like the City of Ottawa, like the City of New York and other places, and ban smoking in lounges, bars and restaurants.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 1 carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.`

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clause 2 carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause in carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 33 is carried.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South and Deputy Speaker.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, and have directed me to report Bill 33, An Act to Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, carried without amendment, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed him to report Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, carried without amendment.

When shall the report be received?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the said bill be read a third time?

MR. E. BYRNE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, by agreement, I move that we move towards third reading of Bill 33.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the said bill be now read a third time.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 33, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety and Compensation Act. (Bill 33)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill is now read a third time and it is ordered that the said bill do pass and it's title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workplace Health, Safety And Compensation Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. ( Bill 33)

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

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

Again by leave, in discussing with my colleagues, the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I move that we now move to second reading of Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board, be now read a second time.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy today to be able to speak to Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board.

Mr. Speaker, when we took over government on November 6 last year, it was basically on the eve of receiving a report that was commissioned by the previous Administration, in which they asked Mr. Eric Dunne to conduct a review of fish processing licence policy in the Province and to provide recommendations on how to overhaul the Fish Inspection Act, whether the Fish Inspection Act should be overhauled or not, to look at the industry in its current capacity, to look at how it has been governed over the past number of years, and basically to make recommendations on how the situation could be improved to deal with the volatility that we have seen in the industry over the past number of years, to deal with the issue of the issuance of licences, and to make the applicable recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, we received that report, the Dunne Commission Report, around December 15, I believe it was, last year. We reviewed it for about six weeks, and on February 4 we released publicly the report and released our intentions as it related to the recommendations in that report.

Mr. Speaker, one of the cornerstones, if not the cornerstone, of the report that was done by Mr. Dunne was the establishment of the Fish Processing Licensing Board. It was recognized by Mr. Dunne and by the vast majority, if not all of the people who participated in the public consultations that he held over the course of a couple of months in I believe, it was fifty different communities - several hundred people came out and participated. People in the fishing industry, from the harvesting and processing sectors, people from the general public, people who had either a direct or indirect interest in the fishing industry came forward, and if there was one thing that they were unanimous on, in their recommendations to Mr. Dunne, was that there be some type of a process put in place to make the issue of licensing and the issuance of licensing more transparent, to make the system more accountable, to ensure that decisions are made for the right reasons, that everybody has a fair and open process to access. Basically, Mr. Speaker, for lack of a better way of putting it, to take the politics out of the issuance of fish processing licences.

Mr. Speaker, we took that recommendation very seriously. I think when everybody here in this House, whether they are with government, with the Official Opposition, or with the New Democratic Party, when they have the opportunity to review this bill that we have before the House today and review the situation that brought us to where we are in our industry today and brought us to the situation where Mr. Dunne provided his report that most people, if not all people, will agree that this is a very worthwhile initiative. This takes the politics out of the issue. It is a fish licence, and not only - Mr. Speaker, I should qualify that to some extent because it is not really fair to say - by saying that you almost imply that all licences were issued because of political reasons, and that is not the truth. I know from spending about twelve months and two weeks and so many hours - not that anybody is counting - down in the minister's chair, that sometimes you just get tired of saying no. Now, that is the fact of the matter.

I appreciate the situation that a lot of previous ministers found themselves in, where time and time and time again the same people and the same communities and the same companies just keep coming and looking for the same thing that you said no to for all the right reasons the first time; you said no to for all the right reasons the second time; you said no for all the right reasons the third time, but finally you just get worn down and you just say to somebody in the department: boys, find a way of fixing this. Find a way of dealing with this so that we do not have the continue to deal with this going forward.

Mr. Speaker, therein lies the problem. Everybody who sits in the minister's chair has been and will continue to be just human. Sooner or later just saying no gets to wear pretty thin on you. So, yes, there were probably some licences in the past that were issued for all the wrong reasons and politics being one of them, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of them were just issued with the best of intentions because people just got tired of saying no in some cases.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is one part of it. There is also the need for an orderly process so that just the person who shouts the loudest and shouts the longest is not the one who gets the licence. It is that every person who comes forward and every community that comes forward looking for a licence has the same opportunity and given the same fair hearing and has the same process to go through. That, Mr. Speaker, is what the establishment of the Fish Processing Licensing Board is all about.

Mr. Dunne recommended that we establish an arm's-length body that ultimately made a recommendation to the minister on the issue and says that transferability, and what have you, all matters related to licensing in the Province. That, Mr. Speaker, is what this bill, Bill 36, is all about. We want to restore a sense of accountability to the processing licensing system. We want to restore accountability, or develop accountability in the system to make sure that no matter who the minister is going forward, that they are accountable for their actions. Everybody, once the minister makes a decision, will be able to look on that decision and look at the test that had to be applied in making that decision. They will know that when community X came forward looking for a processing licence and community Y came forward at the same time looking for a similar licence, if it got issued to community X it was because criteria 1, criteria 2, criteria 3 and criteria 4 were met in community X but they were not met in community Y. It is not rejected because of some political reasons or the fact that community X shouted longer and louder than the other community. Those are the reasons why we are bringing forward this legislation today.

It is my view, Mr. Speaker, this is a very progressive piece of legislation. I think it certainly fits in with government's agenda coming from our election campaign of last year, in the fall of 2003, where we said that we wanted to restore accountability to government, that we wanted to make the system of government more open and more transparent, and that, Mr. Speaker, is what this bill is about today.

Going forward, after we hopefully pass this bill in this sitting of the House, once we move into 2005 there will be a five-person board established, and that five-person board will consider all matters as it relates to licensing in the Province. If whatever community decides that they want a licence for a given species, they will make that known publicly. There will be a requirement to advertise that they have made a submission, that they are about to make a submission to the licensing board seeking a licence. That will be a public process. It will be publicly known that this action has been initiated by a community, a company or an individual; that it will be referred to the licensing board. The licensing board will consider the matter. They will consider issues like resources thresholds; they will consider matters such as regional balance; they will consider matters such as corporate concentration; they will consider matters such as adjacency to the resource, and a substantial list of issues like this that the licensing board will have to consider.

The five-person board will be made up of people who are independent of but knowledgeable of the industry. There will be a requirement that anybody who sits on this board cannot have participated in the harvesting or processing sectors of the industry for a minimum of five years prior to moving into a position on the board. That, Mr. Speaker, is to make sure that it is not only - as the saying goes, that justice is done but justice is seen to be done. We want to ensure that people truly look on the individuals who go on this board as being independent of the various parties involved in the fishing industry.

Mr. Speaker, once the matter has been considered the board will make a decision and then they will forward a recommendation on to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, whoever that person might be. That will be a public process. The minister will still retain the discretion to accept that recommendation or reject that recommendation. It is very similar to the process that is employed by the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council in providing advice to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. That process, while there have been some problems with it over the years - I can speak from experience in the six years of sitting there - that by and large, I would say, like Ivory soup now, 99.44 per cent of the time the recommendations of the board were accepted by the minister. Certainly, we would hope and anticipate that in going forward with this licensing board, the vast majority, if not all, of the recommendations that were made by the board will be accepted by the minister. No matter what happens, no matter what decision is taken, it will be known publicly what the process was, what the decision and the recommendation of the board was, and what the decision of the minister will be.

That, Mr. Speaker, is sort of a bit of a picture of how the board would operate. As I said, there have been substantial problems with licensing over the years and that has led, in large part, to the situation that we see in the Province today. It is widely known - I know from speaking with previous ministers when they were sitting on this side of the House, they were in a similar conundrum, I suppose, as I find myself in from day to day.

The bottom line is, while there is significant over-capacity in the processing sector in Newfoundland and Labrador today - and that is undeniable. It is basically accepted by everybody. While there is significant over-capacity in shrimp and crab and whatever, there are still people who are coming to our office on Strawberry Marsh Road looking for more shrimp licences and more crab licences and what have you. Just because there is over-capacity widely accepted in the industry and in the general public, that still does not stop people from coming forward and looking for more licences. As I said, the problems that I suspect previous ministers have found themselves in, is: How do you continue to say no, and how do you make a right decision, even when you say yes? How do you make the decision that will be looked upon by the general public as being fair and open when there is no clear policy for the issuance of licences? The last thing certainly that I want to do is, if I was to issue a licence, that it could not be shown on the face of the decision that it was a reasonable decision. That has happened in the past. As long as we continue to leave this solely to the minister, without any strict and clear policy guidelines by which to measure proposals for new licences, no matter if you make the right decision or not, it will always be looked upon by people in the general public, it will always be looked upon as though you are either being political, or you did it because it was your district, or you did it because it was buddy-buddy, or you are in somebody's pocket, or whatever. Those types of accusations get made on a daily basis, and in a lot of cases they are not true. In a lot of cases, ministers made the decisions for the right reasons, but the perception becomes the reality. In a lot of cases, ministers had little choice but to do what they did.

As I said, it is a lot easier to say yes to people than it is to say no. It is a lot easier to avoid the facts. It is a lot easier to avoid the frank discussion that needs to happen in some cases, and pass off the discussion by either issuing licences for the wrong reasons, or in some cases by saying no for the wrong reasons.

Madam Speaker, as I said, this licencing board - I have basically told what the board will do, and how it came about. I think this will be greeted as a very positive announcement, as a very positive piece of legislation, and the establishment of the board will be seen as a very positive move by plant workers, fishermen, the processing sector and the harvesting sector, the union and what have you, and communities in general. The general public in Newfoundland and Labrador, I think, have come to the realization that our actions of the past have, in large part, contributed to the situation that we find our industry in today.

There is no doubt that the significant collapse that we have had in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador in the late 1980s and early 1990s was as a result of mismanagement of the fishery by the feds. It was also contributed to by overfishing by foreign fleets and what have you. There are a whole variety of issues that contributed, a whole variety of circumstances that contributed, to the demise of the groundfish industry, but we must also recognize that some of the responsibility lies with the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. A substantial amount of the blame lies with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is not enough to always point the finger at Ottawa for their mismanagement. It is not enough to point the finger at the foreigners or to point the finger at seals and what have you. We have to recognize that there are things, substantial issues in the fishing industry, that are under our control, and there is not one fish processing licence that is issued in this Province that was issued by Ottawa, that was issued by foreigners, or is issued by seals. They were all issued by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for Newfoundland and Labrador. That, Madam Speaker, is the reason why we brought this forward here today.

We have a very serious situation in our processing sector. Anybody who denies that is living in a fool's paradise. There are substantial issues that we need to address, but one of the first and foremost things that we must address is to make sure that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, whether they are in the fishing industry or outside, know that whatever is done with licensing in this Province, whether there is a licence issued today or a licence denied tomorrow, that it is done in a fair and open and transparent way, that there is a group of people who are independent of the industry, that there is a group of people who are knowledgeable of the industry, who are removed from the industry, who have had the opportunity to apply a fair test to the request that is made, to look upon what is being requested in a fair and objective manner and, again, without any fear of repercussions, to make a recommendation to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture in a public way as to what should happen as it relates to that request. That, Madam Speaker, is what this is all about and, as I said, it will represent, I believe, a very substantial step forward as it relates to fish processing licensing in this Province.

Just compare the situation in processing licences. I have been in the office as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture for a year. I could have issued 100 crab licences and 100 shrimp licences if I wanted to, in that period of time. At the same time -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) John Efford, you might have.

MR. TAYLOR: If I were like some prior ministers I might have, says my colleague.

At the same time if a person wanted, today, in this town, to establish a bar, to open a lounge on Topsail Road or on George Street, where God knows there are enough bars, if somebody wanted to open a bar on George Street they would have to apply to the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, there would have to be a public advertisement of it, there would have to be a process that would have to be gone through, and there would be a decision made. If somebody wants to open a bar in Gunners Cove tonight, they can't just go and do it. They can't run off to the minister and say, can I have a bar license. Yes, boy, here is your bar license, go on. If they wanted a crab license in Gunners Cove tonight, as it stands right now, until we pass this legislation - you know, if Wilburn Hill wants to dodge in here tonight and ask me for a crab license, if I was so inclined I could issue the license.

Now, there is something fundamentally wrong with that situation. I would have to defend it but it wouldn't matter if my defense was laudable or not. It wouldn't matter if my defense was sound. At the end of the day the minister has the ultimate discretion and there is no recourse for anybody essentially. There is no obligation on the part of government or the minister to make sure that this is done in an open and transparent and fair way. There is none whatsoever. A minister has the discretion to issue or not issue at any time.

Madam Speaker, that is why it is so important, I think, to bring forward this legislation today and, before we conclude in this sitting, that we pass this legislation and give government the authority to establish an independent arm's-length objective fish processing licensing board, so that anybody going forward, in 2005 and beyond, who wants to access a license, to move a license, or whatever, will be able to go before that board and make their case. It will be known to the general public that they are doing it, the general public will have an opportunity to make their views known, and at the end of the day that independent board will make a recommendation to the minister, the minister will make a decision and that decision will be stacked up against the recommendation of the board that will be operating with an objective set of criteria, not a subjective set of criteria, not a political lens that they looking through. They will be looking through it purely from the perspective of criteria that deals with regional balance, resource thresholds, access and adjacency to a resource, those types of things.

Madam Speaker, I think I have talked long enough on this. Anybody who wants any more detail I am sure they can find it in Eric Dunne's report.

MR. GRIMES: Too long.

MR. TAYLOR: I didn't talk too long, now. The Leader of the Opposition says I talked too long. I don't know. He asked questions too long today, there is no doubt about that.

Madam Speaker, I will conclude by asking all members, when they consider this piece of legislation consider the past, ask if that has served us well and then put it up against this. I think that at the end of the day people will have to reach the conclusion that an independent fish processing licensing board is really the only way to go, or the only way when you consider those two options.

On that note, Madam Speaker, I will take my seat and move second reading.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a pleasure to rise. Again, I will not take a long time to make some comments here at second reading with respect to Bill 36. I know there are other speakers from our side who would like to speak at second reading of this particular bill.

I listened very intently to what the Minister of Fisheries and Aquiculture said. I also read closely, particularly the explanatory note, because I think he spent a fair bit of time saying that this bill, Bill 36, is actually here because it reflects what the Dunne committee recommended. If, in fact, that was the case, Madam Speaker, we would be voting for it. The fact of the matter is, though, it does not do what the Dunne committee recommended.

He used the right words, but the bill does not give the substance to it because I have read the Dunne committee report on a number occasions actually, unlike the current minister. When the Dunne Commission, when the group was put together, he called it a waste of time. He called it an absolute waste of time as the fisheries critic. Now, I am glad to see that he is acting on some of the recommendations, but he is not acting on this one. I will just take a few minutes, Madam Speaker, to explain why.

The board that is being created by this piece of legislation is not the arm's-length, independent board that the Dunne Commission reported and recommended, because in the report, and in all of the representations that were made at the hearings, it said that the final decision should rest with the board, that the authority of the minister should be delegated to the board, and that, in fact, the issuance of a license, if it was going to happen, would come from the board, with the board's authority, not from the minister with a minister's signature on it.

What this government has done in this particular bill, Madam Speaker, is to put in place, instead, another level of bureaucracy, an appointed board, five members, who are going to cost money. They are going to have a Secretariat, going to charge some fees, $1,000 I think is recommended here. It was certainly recommended by the Dunne commission. One thousand dollars and you can put in an application, then they assess the application but they do not get to make the final decision. Everybody who recommended, because if you read the report on pages 146 and 147 it points out clearly, as Mr. Dunne went around - and I know him very well, he has a long history in the fishing industry. That is why he was selected. He is very knowledgeable. It said that the whole notion of it was that, "Support for such arrangements has been lukewarm, at best, in the past; and the current groundswell of support is new." The groundswell of support that he was talking about was for the minister to have no role in issuing the licence, but for the minister to set the criteria that the minister just talked about, adjacency, availability of resource, regional considerations, all of those.

The issue was raised as to whether or not the minister would be losing authority. Mr. Dunne even addressed it. He said, "This arrangement does not diminish the power of the minister....." because he still gets to set the criteria. The government and the minister set the criteria, but it says he delegates, ".... he simply delegates the decision making function to the arm's-length independent board...." If that is what this piece of legislation did, we would be supporting it 100 per cent. It does everything that the Commissioner and the report suggested except it leaves the final decision right back where it started, back with the minister. What the minister is saying is, okay, if I for some reason, as the minister, make a different decision then the board recommends then that is okay because the people get to see my decision and they get to see the recommendation even though it is different. That is not what Mr. Dunne recommended, Madam Speaker, that is not even close to what the Dunne Commission recommended.

I can tell again, as we have in some cases, Madam Speaker, by the look of some of the faces opposite, that it is the first time they have heard that explained because they believed in whatever briefings they have had or not had with respect to this issue. They believed what they were told. They believed that what is in this piece of legislation is what Mr. Dunne recommended, but it is not what Mr. Dunne recommended, because the final authority when this bill is passed, if they pass it as it is, will still rest with the minister. The only thing we would have accomplished is to take more time.

There is already a full staff, by the way, that can advise the minister. The minister can consult with whoever he or she wants right now as to making a decision. That is already all in place. So now we are going to formulaize the board, going to give them a secretariate, going to set up a structure, going to force everybody to go through the structure. Then, does the board decide whether you get a licence or not? No, sir, the board does not decide whether you get a licence or not.

What Mr. Dunne said in his report on pages 146 and 147 is that the new groundswell of support from all the presenters, including the union, including the association of fish plant operators and owners - I do not know what they new name is. They used to be FANL, but they ended up with a new name. All of that group, they all went there and they were united, and they said: Yes, let's take the minister out of the decision. Arm's-length and independent people should make the decision. It did not say, make a recommendation back to the minister. It said: They should make the decision. It is a very clear and very important distinction. It is a very subtle change by this government, Madam Speaker, that wants everyone to believe that they are now going through this independent approach when, in fact, it is all a scam and it is all a sham. All it is, is a process that then leaves the minister with the exact same authority that the minister has today, to make the final decision by himself or by herself.

The recommendation today comes to the minister from officials in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. As a result of this, the only thing that will change is you will have a very expensive time-consuming board that will make the recommendation to the minister instead of the officials that are already there and already paid to do it, and already have expertise in the industry. That is why they are working in the department in the first instance.

I am very saddened, Madam Speaker, to see this pretense at a reform. The government would say: Oh, we have done a great reform in licencing. Licencing - no such thing exists in this bill. Rather than move ahead, rather than do something bold, rather than do something that was asked of the government by all the players in the industry, a new groundswell of support, we have the same old process with a new bureaucratic system to go through, but the buck stops with the minister. The whole intent was to say, the buck should stop with an independent arm's-length board of knowledgeable people, and that is not what this bill does. It is nowhere close to what this bill does. In the context of today's debate about FPI and Harbour Breton, what we see is this: We have a Minister of the Crown, a Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who, under the FPI Act, has the authority to deny one company - not any fishing company, but one only - has the authority to deny Fishery Products International the right to make a decision that disrupts the traditional processing operations in the Province. He has the right to turn it down, and he is in the House saying: I don't want to do it. I am not going to exercise the authority that I have.

He is trying to claim he does not have the authority. He is trying to wash his hands of it. It is an authority specifically given to the minister by the changes that were made here as a result of the all-party committee just a couple of years ago, and he does not want to do it. That is an authority that he is given, a brand new authority, and he is saying: I don't have it; I don't want it. I don't want to have that authority; I would rather talk to somebody. I don't want to exercise the authority that I have.

Here you have a recommendation from the Dunne Commission saying: you have the authority today to issue the licence; we recommend that you delegate that authority to a board and not do it yourself.

What is he doing? He is pretending to delegate, but he is saying in the final analysis: I am going to keep that authority because I want to have control over the licences.

The government, through the minister, will still have the last say with respect to these licences, Madam Speaker. That is not the spirit of the Dunne Commission. It is not the intent of the Dunne Commission. It is not the spirit of the recommendation. It is not the intent of the recommendation, and it is very misleading to this House and to the people of the Province to suggest that this piece of legislation effects real reform with respect to licensing when all it does instead is put in a new level of bureaucracy, a new time-consuming, costly approach, and still leave the final say with the minister.

So I would say on that basis you can rest assured, I think, that this caucus will vote against the bill as it is currently written. In the Committee stage, Madam Speaker, we will recommend some changes. We will recommend some amendments to the bill so that it can give the real spirit and intent, and the minister, when he stands up and says: I am implementing the Dunne Commission - could actually implement the Dunne Commission.

There are probably two, if not three, very simple, straightforward amendments that we will debate and present at the Committee stage so that this will actually reflect what the minister said it did, because the speech he made today, and the document we have in front of each of us, are as different as night and day. They are as different as chalk and cheese. They do not match.

I am surprised and disappointed that the minister and the government would bring forward this bill, which leaves the final licensing authority in the hands of the minister and suggests that it is a change that reflects the spirit and intent of the Dunne Commission, because nothing could be further from the truth.

I will not belabour that any further. I believe I have made the point adequately, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to make those remarks at second reading, and appreciate the attention of the members of the House.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to take the opportunity to respond, I guess, to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition.

There is a change that is being suggested, and a real change that is being made in this legislation. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, he said that before the recommendation was made by the public service to the minister, through the department, a recommendation on where a licence should be or where it should not be. Now, the Leader of the Opposition would know - and, if he does not, he ought to know; he has been around in this House and in government for most of his political career - there are other boards in operation in this Province on different issues that are operating right now very similar to what is being recommended right here. One of them, for example, is in the Division of Agrifoods, associated with the Department of Agriculture, the St. John's urban regional appeal board.

That board deals with a variety of requests from people within the Northeast Avalon, requests dealing with land that has been tied up within the land freeze. How does the process work? It works this way: There is a public hearing, or there is a hearing process where the board, or this appeal board, looks at the issue that has come before them. The criteria is very clear for that board. It is the legislation that it operates under.

The legislation is very descriptive in terms of what the board can or cannot do. The board can exercise its judgement and its recommendations to the minister of the day, whomever that may be, and then a decision is taken. Ninety-five per cent of the cases, 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the recommendations coming from that appeal process, which is arm's-length and independent from government, are always followed. Always. It is almost a matter of course, to be honest with you, because it would have to be something extraordinary or something -

MR. REID: That's a crock!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Twillingate, it is not a crock, and that is not the type of language that I think we should use in here. The fact of the matter is I am describing a process that you were, at one time, an executive assistant to the department.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) quote me. I did not use the word.

MR. E. BYRNE: You did so, and you know you did. You can stop smiling and laughing about it because you did use it.

I say to the Member for Twillingate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Madam Speaker, I say to the Member for Twillingate: What am I talking about? He was an executive assistant to a former minister who is responsible for it. He knows all about what I am talking about. He should know because I know he knows.

In 90 per cent of the appeals that come before that board, that are recommended to go to the minister, are normally automatic but there are always extraordinary situations that the designers or implementors of a piece of legislation, or the legislation itself, does not deal with. So, to say that we are setting up another level of bureaucracy, that this is not going to be open, that the minister is going to conduct or do business the way that - see, they are thinking that we are doing it the way they used to all the time. They haven't made that switch. That is the difference, they haven't made the switch.

We are not going to operate like the former Fisheries Minister did - who is now the Federal Natural Resource Minister - when it came to licences. No, we are not going at that. That is why this board is going in place. It is why it is going in place, so there will be a process that people can see based upon the criteria that goes forward. Now, if we want to take it upon ourselves at some point to break our own laws or legislation, then I would suggest and submit to the House that we will pay the price for it. But, at the same time, it allows for a situation that may occur and normally does in these processes that is extraordinary. The committee, themselves, may recommend that we cannot recommend to do this but we suggest the minister look at something else because that has happened in other appeal board processes. They have the same structure in terms of making a decision and recommending that decision be signed off by the minister. The difference is that there are things that we can do here with the best of spirit and intentions but I think we always need to understand that there are situations that may arise in which we have to deal with. I can see it now.

Let's say we pass these amendments or amendments they might suggest. Let's say, for argument's sake, they will. Next week or next year I bet you dollars to donuts the same member will be up saying: Why didn't you give a licence to that community? Why didn't you give a licence to that particular group? I have seen it before. I have seen you argue from both sides and every side of the floor, depending on where you stand and where you are sitting, I can tell you that. All we are trying to do is provide for a process by where a group, independently, who will be seen as independent, who have a set of criteria by which they make their decisions by and we are allowing ourselves an opportunity for an extraordinary situation that may present itself, that has in other situations, to respond to and that is the fact of the matter.

I am just giving an example, I say, Madam Speaker. I am giving an example of how another board in another department in government operates very similarly where in 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the cases that are presented are automatically followed, but there are conditions that we may not even foresee today that government may need to respond to; even respond to on the suggestion of members opposite. That is what we are trying to do in a very up-front, forthright way. If the members opposite have a problem with that, Madam Speaker, fair enough, that is their right. That is their right to have a problem with that. They will have an opportunity through the legislative process here to make their amendments, to make their recommendations, to have them voted upon for us to say - all of us, the forty-eight of us - aye or nay to, but in the end of the process the will of the House will prevail.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise today to speak to Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board. I, like the leader of our Party, at the end of the day will not be voting for this bill, but I will submit an amendment that will, I think, give teeth to what Mr. Dunne recommended in the Dunne report that the minister has been quoting for quite some time.

I have known Mr. Eric Dunne for quite some time. He is a very honourable gentleman and a very knowledgeable gentleman in the fishing industry. In fact, he was the Regional Director of DFO, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans here in the Province for some twenty or thirty years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Director General.

MR. REID: Director General of that. In my position as Minister of Fisheries, and even prior to that when I was executive assistant to the Minister of Fisheries, I had the occasion to meet and talk to Mr. Dunne on numerous occasions.

The thing I find ironic about the current minister is that when he sat over here in Opposition and when my colleague, the Member for Cartwright- L'Anse au Clair was the Minister of Fisheries, announced that she was going to establish a committee to look at licensing in the Province and that she was going to appoint Mr. Eric Dunne to head up that commission, the current day minister laughed at it and said it was total waste of time and money. All of a sudden when he took the government, just shortly after the Dunne report was submitted, all of a sudden he is using it as the Bible.

I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Dunne and I would support the recommendations made by Mr. Dunne if that is what the minister, the current minister, is proposing that we do today, but that is not what he is proposing; and, contrary to what the Government House Leader just said, that they are going along with an independent licensing board, that is so far from the truth that it is almost absolutely funny. What the minister is, in fact, doing, is setting up a board which he will pick himself and that board will give a recommendation to him as to whether an individual or a company should get a licence or lose a licence. Then, at the end of the day, the minister will be making the decision as to whether he will do that or not.

Madam Speaker, just to clear the record on this, and maybe if the Government House Leader would listen then he would realize that what he was just talking about is not completely and absolutely the truth.

On page 146 of the Dunne Report, under Recommendation 9.10, it says - here is what Mr. Dunne says, and I suggest that the Minister of Fisheries might learn something if he would listen - "I recommend strongly: That the Department establish an arms-length board to administer decisions on all licensing proposals or requests made to the government." An arm's-length board to administer decisions on all licensing.

Here is what the minister put before the House today, on the last page, page 8 of the new bill that he is putting before the House today, Bill 36. The last page, page 8, clause 11 says, "The minister shall consider a recommendation of the board made to him or her under paragraph 10(2)(c) and shall, following his or her decision with respect to the application, release both the recommendation of the board and his or her decision...".

Madam Speaker, those two recommendations, the one that Mr. Dunne made in his report and the one that the minister is presenting to this House today, saying they are one and the same thing could not be any further from the truth. Mr. Dunne asked for an arm's-length board that would make the decision, and the decision that they make, that the board would make, would be final. What the minister is saying is: We will set up a board to give me advice but I do not have to take it. I can, or I do not have to take it.

There is quite a difference, I say to the Government House Leader, and I think he understands; he is nodding. There is quite a difference in what Mr. Dunne is recommending and what the minister is actually recommending that we pass today.

I tell the minister right now, and I tell the Government House Leader, I cannot vote for that because I think what they are trying to do is mislead the people of the Province. They are trying to give a false impression that they are carrying through with the recommendation that Mr. Dunne made. If Mr. Dunne were standing in this House of Assembly here today - and we have the power, I guess, to ask him to stand before this House, maybe that is what we should do, and ask him the question: Is what you recommended what the minister is recommending we vote for today in this House of Assembly? The man would have to stand in all truthfulness and say: No, it is not what I am recommending.

What Mr. Dunne again - and I repeat, because like our leader said today, those opposite, when he explained that a few minutes ago, a few lights came on in the heads of those opposite because this is the first time that they heard this, because they either do not pay attention to what is going on around them or they are not told. I sort of think that the latter is more true, that they are not told. In fact, I doubt very much if the Government House Leader really realized, when he was up saying that what our leader was saying was not true, I doubt very much if he actually read the Dunne Report and read the recommendation. I will read it for him again. It says that the department establish an arm's-length board to administer decisions on all licensing proposals or requests.

So, if an arm's-length board is going to administer the licensing of the department, why do they have to come back and make a recommendation to the minister, that the minister can dismiss or the minister can accept?

I ask the minister, he has over there now approximately a $9 million to $10 million budget, and 90 per cent of that budget is spent on staff. I know; I occupied that department, and so did my colleague from Cartwright. Ninety per cent of the money that is spent in the Department of Fisheries is spent on salaries, and the salaries are paid to individuals who make recommendations to the minister, who are professionals in their fields, who have been working in the department for quite some years, and who advise the minister of a decision that he or she should make.

Believe me, Madam Speaker, I was given advice by my staff when I was in the Department of Fisheries. Sometimes I followed it and sometimes I did not. The fact of the matter is, I do not understand why the minister wants to go out today and spend another pile of money on a board that he is calling independent when it is not independent, and that board will not have any more authority than the employees he has sitting in his office today.

They talk about the tough economic times, and they talk about the fiscal mismanagement of the previous government, and the debt. I ask the minister and I ask the House Leader: Why are they out there wasting money on a board that will only advise the minister, when he has a staff who do the same thing at a cost of $9 million to $10 million a year?

That is the crux of the matter. Why does he want to bring in a board that he says is arm's-length when it is not, when all they are going to do is make a recommendation, and if the minister wants to be political, like he says everybody else is, he can dismiss the recommendation of the board and give a licence to one of his friends, as he was saying today he blamed others for doing. Madam Speaker, I have total respect for Mr. Dunne but I cannot support the recommendation made by the minister because the recommendation made by the minister is not what Mr. Dunne recommended, and far from it. I would have no problem voting for it if that were the case.

The minister also spoke, when he got up here a little while ago, about the frivolous way in which the previous administration issued licences and the number of licences that were there when he took the reins of the department. Well, let me tell you something, Madam Speaker, when I was Minister of Fisheries I did a little research on who gave out all the fish processing licences in this Province, and let me tell you something, from the time that the late J.R. Smallwood formed the government in 1949 until he left the government in 1972, the time that the Liberals governed this Province, from 1949 until 1972, there were approximately forty-five licences in this Province. In fact, the day that the Liberals lost the government to the Tories back in 1972 there were forty-five fish processing licences in the Province. When the Tory Government lost the government in 1989, there were 250 processing licences. Then, the minister today has the audacity to look across here and say that the government opposite issued all the licences. Well, guess what, I say to the minister? There are far fewer licences in the Province today than there were when we took the government from the Tories in 1989. If you want to talk about issuing licences in a frivolous way I suggest to the minister that he talk to his predecessor, his colleague who sits next to him in the chair, the former Tory Cabinet Minister for Fisheries. That is who I would suggest that he talk to and those who preceded him, not to us because we did not frivolously give out the licences. I will tell you one thing, that while I was minister for a period of two and a half years I did not issue one crab licence in this Province. I did not, and I quote again, issue one crab licence in this Province; not one.

He talked yesterday about me issuing a shrimp licence to the Town of Twillingate. I did not issue the licence to the Town of Twillingate. My predecessor issued the licence to the Town of Twillingate. We reactivated that licence. He talked about the frivolous way in which we tossed out licences, but yet he looked at me yesterday and condemned me for not giving a crab licence to the Town of St. Anthony, and he bragged about a Court of Appeal overruling the decision that I made. Well, I made a decision based on the best advice from the officials, not only in the Department of Fisheries who the minister still has working for him today but also from the officials in the Department of Justice. They recommended to me, Madam Speaker, that I not issue. It wasn't Gerry Reid, the Minister of Fisheries, who did not want to give the crab licence to the Town of St. Anthony. The officials in the department and the officials in the Department of Justice recommended that I not give it and I didn't do it. Then, of course, the company in St. Anthony sued the government, took us to court. I appeared in court, and at the time I went before Justice Derek Green, when the company in St. Anthony took me to court, and in Mr. Green's ruling - the current minister might laugh at the decision that I made, but Judge Green upheld the decision that I made and said it was the right one.

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Yes, well that is fine. I am not a lawyer and I am not a judge but you, obviously, are above all of them, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. You are above all of them. What you are also saying today is that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: You are also laughing at the decision that a respected judge in this Province made when he upheld the decision that I made. If that is - pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Even Justice Green is a joke in the eyes of the Minister of Fisheries, that he is over there mocking and laughing today and saying that he shouldn't have made it.

Madam Speaker, the point that I am trying to make is, I think that either the current minister does not know what he is talking about or does not know what he is doing or he is trying to hoodwink not only this House, because he has already hoodwinked his own colleagues, but he is trying to hoodwink the public of this Province to believe that he is following the recommendation of Mr. Dunne in the report that he wrote for the previous Minister of Fisheries, the Member for Cartwright, a couple of years ago.

What Mr. Dunn is saying is that we should establish an arm's-length board to govern the licensing of fish plants in this Province, and what the minister is proposing today is that he set up a puppet committee, probably composed of Tory hacks, so that he could pass over the decision making to them and tell them: Now, listen, you review this request for a licence but at the end of the day, when you bring your recommendation to me, I will dismiss it or I will accept it depending on the mood that I am in or depending on whether or not, as he says, they are friends of mine or it is because it is in a town that I represent like St. Anthony.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support that. I cannot support the recommendation that the minister is making here today and I do not think that anyone who reads the Dunne report - and I am sure it is on the government website. The Dunne Report is on the government website. I am also convinced that the minister's bill that he has before the House today is on the government website. I suggest that they pull down and look at recommendation -

MR. TAYLOR: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: The minister can yap like a crackie over there all he wants. He is good at that, but when he is asked to do something, like he was asked in this House this week, to interfere and do something for the people of Harbour Breton, what did he do? He is a crackie all right, he ran off with his tail between his legs. That is what he did. He is a crackie all right, he ran off with his tail between his legs and became a spokesman for FPI. In fact, I was astounded yesterday afternoon to listen to the spokesman for FPI.

MR. TAYLOR: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the member for The Straits & White Bay North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I have sat here for the last ten or fifteen minutes, however long the member has been talking, and listened to him impute motives on me about trying to hoodwink people. I don't sense that is parliamentary language, first of all, and secondly, Madam Speaker, just for the record, when we were asked to do something in Arnold's Cove we got a solution for the people of Arnold's Cove.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: When we were asked to look at the aquaculture industry on the South Coast we found a solution.

Now, Madam Speaker, we are going to work with the people of Harbour Breton to the best of our ability to see if we can find a solution. Maybe we will, maybe we won't. Madam Speaker, those two files were with the previous administration for two years, at least two years. They were there long before that on aquaculture, but they were there for two years on Arnold's Cove and they did absolutely nothing with it. The Member for Bellevue is very happy today that we found a solution in Arnold's Cove, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Exactly, Madam Speaker, and there is never a point of order. All he is trying to do again today is he wants to steal the bit of time that I am permitted to speak to this bill.

Madam Speaker, I suggest to the minister, and I suggest to him in all sincerity, that he go back to his officials in the department and they will tell him that the statement he just made is completely and utterly false, the statement that he just made when he said that the Arnold's Cove issue was on the books with the previous government for the last two years, and we wouldn't do anything about it. Again, you can talk to Mr. Bruce Wareham, as I did not numerous occasions, about the Arnold's Cove fish plant. I said to him on numerous occasions, as did my colleague, the Member for Bellevue, as did my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and I stated time and time again -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is extremely difficult to hear the hon. member over the noise. Would you please keep the noise down?

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I appreciate what you are trying to do and to bring some order into this House because, obviously, these people have no respect for you or the rules and regulations of this House.

Madam Speaker, what I am saying is I spoke to Bruce Wareham, the owner of Arnold's Cove fish plant today, on numerous occasions and he said to me: Mr. Reid, when we need your help we will come and seek it, but until that time don't do anything. That is exactly what we did. I waited for Mr. Wareham to come forward. In fact, I even met him after you became minister and asked him the same thing: Is there anything we can do to help? He said: Mr. Reid, when we need your help we will come forward with it. So I suggest to the minister, rather than being the crackie that he is, to go back to the officials in his department and ask them for the facts, not to get up here and talk about what he thinks are the facts, because obviously he does not know the facts.

To get back to the Minister of Fisheries and all he is going to do. We appreciate what you have done for Arnold's' Cove but you cannot just stand on what you have done for Arnold's Cove and forget everybody else in the Province. What about the people of Harbour Breton today? What you did for Arnold's Cove is not going to feed them. That is not going to stop the men and the women of Harbour Breton from having to pack their U-Hauls that you used to wax so elegantly about when you were in the Opposition and move from Harbour Breton to someplace in Southern Ontario.

Madam Speaker, I would not allow FPI - this Party over here would not have allowed FPI to have done it, I will guarantee you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I say to you, you have the gumption to stand up to FPI and protect the workers of that organization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I thank you for trying to keep order from that crowd opposite.

Madam Speaker, to get back to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

To get back to the issue at hand here today, Madam Speaker, I cannot support the bill that the Minister of Fisheries is putting forth here today where he is says he is honouring the recommendation presented to him in the Dunne Report, when, in actual fact, he is doing no such thing and then expecting us, thinking individuals on this side, to say yes, you are doing the right thing, simply because the crowd opposite thinks he is doing the right thing without ever having read the Dunne Report or without ever having read the bill.

I challenge anybody to take the Dunne Report and look up under recommendation 9.1.1 - I think is the number of the recommendation - and then look at article 11 on page 6 of the bill that he is presenting today and tell me what the minister is doing. If you can honestly say that the minister is doing what Mr. Dunne recommended that he do and you can convince me, or even yourselves, then I suggest that you vote for it, but you cannot do it. All you can do is bawl and shout and follow the lead of the minister who has done absolutely nothing about anything in this Province and now he is trying to hoodwink the people of the Province into believing that he is setting up an arm's-length board when, in fact, there is nothing further from the truth. We will make an amendment to this bill that will make it an arm's-length board, and I will tell you what will happen, Madam Speaker, Mr. Minister over there, and all of his colleagues, will vote against it. In actual fact, they will be voting against the recommendation of the Dunne Report.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will sit down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to speak on this bill currently before the House, at second reading, on whether or not there should be established a Fish Processing Licensing Board.

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I agree with the principle of having an independent, arm's-length board to administer decisions on all licensing proposals or requests made to the government. That is the wording in the Dunne Commission and Report. I guess there is lots of room for debate as to whether or not the minister should have any say in it or not. Mr. Dunne seemed to think that the minister would retain lots of power, even if the board were to actually make the decisions.

I want to just talk a little bit about the whole notion of what has been happening in this Province over the last number of years with respect to the granting of fish processing licences. It has been extremely controversial. It has been extremely controversial with respect to crab and shrimp licences in particular in the last number of years. It has been subject to accusations of political patronage. In fact, there are even suggestions going around that people were giving money to candidates for leadership of parties in relation to fish processing licences. I have heard that suggestion and I will say it here in the House. I will not say it outside because you could be subject to liable and defamation actions but I have heard that said in this Province. I say that advisedly here in this House because I want to indicate to hon. members how seriously the issue of the granting of fish licences and the politicization of fish licences and granting thereof has come in this Province.

So, there really is a need to have some objective arm's-length approach to this so that it can be depoliticized as much as possible. When I look at this legislation I see some elements of that, and it is a process thing. I know the Minister of Fisheries likes to use the word process. It is one of his favourite words, not in the fish processing sense but in the process of the way decisions happen and the way things get done. So, the process that is being established here is extremely important. One of my first questions was: Well, if the board is going make these decisions then there has to be some criteria, and when I look at their criteria, on what basis, for example, will a board decide in this case to recommend yes or no?

It says, "...according to the Fish Processing Policy Framework or the other policy guidelines, criteria or directions given to it by the minister." Now, Madam Speaker, if we are leaving it to the minister to give directions to the board, are we not back in the same boat as we were before? Are we not back in the same circumstances where the minister effectively controls the process, effectively controls the decision making? If we are only making recommendations, again, ultimately the minister has the final say and the final control.

A third method of control is in the appointment of the board. We have appointments for a period of four years and the only guidelines that I can see with respect to the appointment of the board is that they not have any direct involvement in the fishing industry as a processor or fish harvester for the period of, I think it is four years or five years prior to their becoming appointed to the board. Again, all five members of the board appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, they serve at pleasure. Now, that is a fancy legal word, but what it means is that the minister can get rid of somebody if they want to replace them. They do not serve during good behaviour. That is another fancy legal term, to say that if you are there during good behaviour you could only be removed if you behave badly, if you do not do your job, if there is some reason why you should be removed, but they serve during pleasure.

So, if a new government gets elected - it is a four-year term. Supposing we do get a four-year term limit put in place so that there is an election every four years; let's say this legislation passes and next year the minister appoints five people. Well, if there is a new government in four years they can get rid of all five people and put another five people in there because these people, although they have a four-year term, serve at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. What that means is that they can be replaced by the will of the government.

These are not hallmarks of independence. These are hallmarks of dependence upon the will and the pleasure of the government and the minister involved. To me, Madam Speaker, this board that is being proposed here lacks the kind of independence that you would find in the Public Utilities Board. The Public Utilities Board appointments are not at pleasure. They are appointed for a term. They are appointed during good behaviour. They cannot fire them. Look at what happened when the previous government got rid of Andy Wells. He sued the government and got a judgement of $600,000 or $700,000 because the government could not effectively fire him.

What that means, Madam Speaker, is that we have proposed here a board that is not independent. It may be arm's-length, it may be making recommendations, but the minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet appoint all of the people involved, can give them directions. I do not know how specific you can be, but it seem to me that this is really just a process leading to a final decision of the minister. I do not think it meets the test of independence that was apparently assumed by Eric Dunne when he made this, and it was assumed by me, I have to say, whenever the minister and the government talked about establishing an independent board to decide these matters.

They are important decisions that affect the lifeblood of a community. We have seen the debates in this House when the applications were made to transfer licences from one community to another. We have seen extreme difficulties, of course, in this Province when quotas were transferred from this Province to Nova Scotia by the Barry Group, for example. We have seen a lot of hardship when plants closed down because decisions of government are made in one way or another.

There was an argument made a number of years ago by Cabot Martin, I remember, that fish quotas should be handled by some independent board like the Public Utilities Board, so that people should have to come and argue before a board as to why they should be entitled to a certain amount of quota, what they were going to do with it, how many jobs they were going to create, what kind of secondary processing was going to take place in this Province, and to justify why they should have access to a certain quota.

Similarly, Madam Speaker, I think the intention here is that some objective criteria be laid out as to when and what thresholds might be required in order to establish a licence for a new species. Perhaps there ought to be some other authority given to an independent board. When licences are unused for a period of time - once they are re-engaged licences - because that has become a big issue in a number of places, where someone has a licence, they have not used it for a number of years and they are hoping to reactivate it.

There is plenty of work for the minister, according to the Dunne Report, in dealing with renewals, in dealing with policy development, in dealing with the monitoring of the terms and conditions of a licence, the actual granting of a licence. That decision, which is really not necessarily a management of the fishery decision but often becomes an economic development decision, that should be done by objective criteria, because one of the things - and I do not know if the minister has said this or not. He sort of hinted around at it. One of the things that happens when a minister is responsible and has the ultimate authority is that ultimately you have to either say yes or no. It is a lot harder to say no than it is to say yes, when a community, whether it is in your own district or another district, comes with a proposal, or an operator comes with a proposal: We want a licence to operate this species. We have this level of investment that we are prepared to make.

Most people in the community, obviously, are coming and saying: Why not? We need the jobs. Why not? We need access to this resource. We need access to be able to process fish here. We have a mishmash right now, Mr. Speaker, we have a mishmash of licences, authorities, historic rights, claims of, you know, species being trucked past our community to some other place. All of this going on makes for a total political turmoil and a great difficulty of decision making by government.

One of the things that Mr. Dunne did find and report was that there seemed to be a consensus around the issue of depoliticizing the decision making. For many years, he said, most players in the industry were lukewarm to the idea of having an independent arm's-length board. I presume that was because they felt that they could get a decision made, they could lobby the government and they could get a decision made. I think, what seems to have happened, Madam Speaker, is that so many decisions were made, so many consequences of watering down the processing capacity, so that very few communities were getting a sufficient amount of work to justify the support of a plant. Really what we were doing was spreading around inadequate work, inadequate processing that there seems to be now a consensus developed around it.

If this is an opportunity now to act, Madam Speaker, because there is a consensus out there, well, let's do it right and let's ensure that whatever board is created is truly independent, and let's not give too much power to a minister or to a Cabinet to set directions. Yes, we could have broad criteria, yes, we could have a policy that is open and transparent - and we like that word, we hear that word a lot lately - but, at the same time, we really should not have a situation where the minister can give directions to the board in a narrow sense that directions could be.

I am not sure whether the total decision making should be left to the board. I have to give that some thought. We are talking about principle here. I would have to give that some thought, but if it is going to be truly arm's-length, then perhaps the ultimate decision should be made by this board and not by the minister. If not, there should be some very, very strict occasions on which the minister might be allowed to overrule the board. There may be some test. There maybe should be something in there to say, well, that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or somebody can overrule the board. If you want to leave the ultimate power in the hands of the government, then perhaps you could do that, but there should be some specific criteria or reason why a board could be overruled in a particular instance, some overriding reason that would dictate that if the criteria, a policy decision that is made by the board, if that is for some reason totally inadequate - and I am grasping here for some rationale - but if you truly want an independent arm's-length board you should let the board make the decision. If for some reason, government wants to say that - not only this government, but any government to follow because they were not here a year-and-one-half ago, and after the next election they may not be here again. When governments are in power they have to make rules that not only work for them but will work for someone else who might obtain power in the next election. Perhaps, we should think about this one a fair bit.

I know the principle is agreed to by all sides, that there should be some arm's-length decision making, I think, by a truly independent board. To have individuals serve at pleasure means you can get rid of them or another government can rid of them whether they are good or bad people. We should do some work on making that board truly independent and tightening up the criteria by which the minister can interfere by way of giving directions, or which the minister or Cabinet can overrule a recommendation or a decision of a board. Maybe we should think about that one a fair bit before we go any further.

I think the principle is a good one. We support the principle of having an independent processing licensing board. It is something that has been highly politicized, open to abuse, open to government responding to a particular crisis by granting a fishing license and ultimately ending up in a situation where we have far too much processing capacity, not enough work in many, many fish plants to support an economy. You cannot expect - let me talk about the viability of rural Newfoundland - you cannot expect people to stay and be labour for a fish plant for ten weeks of a year. You have to have a processing industry that can actually support and make viable a fishing community.

We can all talk about how we want every single community in this Province to thrive and survive, but if we have a fish processing capacity in every community, over investment of capital that cannot pay its own way, and very little work, you are not really going to have a viable community. You are not going to have a viable community if it depends on minimum wage or very low wages for a very little part of the year to support an EI existence. That is not going to make a community viable.

A lot of this will have to come out, I suppose, in the criteria, in the policy framework, and all of these things that should be laid out for a board to take into consideration; no question about that. If you establish that criteria carefully and you have people in your department who have been working on this issue for many, many years - I suspect that the people who know more about the shenanigans that may have gone on in fish processing licences over the last fifteen or twenty years, or however long you wanted to look at, would be the people in the department who have been administering this policy. I have some confidence that they could come forward with a set of recommendations, in terms of a policy framework or guidelines or criteria, that would make sense for this Province and make sense for the industry, that we could have some confidence in. If we are going to do that, if we are going to do this, it is my submission that we should do this right and do it properly, make the board a little bit more independent than we are talking about here, have some method of ensuring that they have some independence and integrity.

As it stands right now, Madam Speaker, and I will use an extreme example - if we have a board, and if that board is making recommendations that the minister does not like, we could have a few people removed and replaced with other people, because they serve at pleasure. That is what the act says, that is what the legislation says: at pleasure. Well, if you do not please me I will replace you with somebody who is going to please me. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? That means it is open to abuse, it is open to manipulation, it is open to problems.

In the judicial system, and this is not the judicial body, but I mean we are even to the point where the Minister of Justice cannot transfer a judge, cannot transfer a Provincial Court Judge, because that would be a method of showing disapproval: if you do not make the kind of decisions that we like we will send you some place that you do not want to be. That flies in the face of the independence of the judiciary, just as one example. If we are saying that this board is going to be serving at pleasure, you have a four-year term but you serve at pleasure, that means the minister or the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council can remove people and say, well, we need some fresh faces, any kind of excuse at all - we need some fresh faces. I was looking at the fresh face of the Minister of Justice as I was saying that, a new face, and the Minister of Justice understands what serving at pleasure means. That means that they can be removed if they do not please the government. There is something wrong with that, Mr. Speaker, it is not independent, and these are the kinds of things that we would like to see some further debate on and some amendments to this legislation as it goes through the process if we are really going to achieve an independent Fish Processing Licensing Board for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to rise and have a few comments with regard to Bill 36, An Act To Establish The Fish Processing Licensing Board.

Mr. Speaker, I think people have already heard where we are going with this, in terms of the Opposition, from my critic, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, and also from the Leader of the Opposition today.

We were somewhat surprised when we did get the bill and have a look at it, because we were led to believe, and understood, that this board would indeed be arm's-length from government, and that they would have the ability to be able to look at the policies that have been set by government and to carry forward on the licensing as it relates to that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at all.

According to the legislation that we have here today under Bill 36, it says that the minister shall consider a recommendation of the board that is made to him or her and, following this decision with respect to the application, the minister will then release the recommendation of the board to the public, as well as his or her decision.

Mr. Speaker, basically what this is, it is definitely not the recommendation that was made in the Dunne Report. As we know, when the Dunne Report was established, it was established to review fish processing policies in the Province, and it was established as a result of a number, I guess, of protests, a number of issues that were raised with regard to the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, and primarily this report was commissioned -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask members if we could have more quietness in the Chamber. We are having difficulty hearing the hon. member, and I do want to be able to listen to all hon. members when they make their presentations.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that, because I know I am very soft-spoken when I am on my feet in the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS JONES: I appreciate the fact that I can be heard without having to strain my voice in any way to be able to do that.

Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Dunne was commissioned to look at the fish processing policies in this Province, it was done out of a great urgency and a great need within the processing sector to streamline a number of things that were happening.

Mr. Speaker, I think back to the debate that was occurring with regard to the regional balance of processing facilities and licensing within the Province, and the whole issue around raw materials sharing throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and the impact that was having in rural communities and many of our fish plants. It was also to look at what the price mechanisms would be within the industry, and look at how we could have more secondary processing or get more out of the resource that was being landed in our Province. One of the other things as well was to look at the licensing policy and how licences were being issued.

Mr. Dunne, in his wisdom, and after great consultation with people all throughout the Province, Mr. Speaker, made this recommendation. That is, that the department would establish an arm's-length board to administer decisions on all licensing proposals or requests that would be made to the government.

Mr. Speaker, he says that basically what this means is that the minister would simply delegate the decision-making function to an arm's-length board that makes licensing decisions against a policy criteria and guidelines that are established within the department.

What this bill is asking is not that, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it is something completely different. This bill is asking, as I see it, for another level of bureaucracy to be set up in the Province to advise the minister. This board, Mr. Speaker, would look at an application for a licence. They would made a recommendation to the minister, if they think the licence should be issued or not, and the minister would then make the final decision and make that announcement to the public.

That is not what the Dunne Report looked at, that is not what the industry had been asking for, and that was not the recommendation that had come out of the public consultations when they travelled around.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I was really surprised when I saw Bill 36, because this is an Administration that have prided themselves in the past twelve months on cutting boards in this Province, in reducing the size of bureaucracy through layoffs, through attrition, through downsizing of boards by amalgamating different boards within the health care sector, within the education sector and so on, but at the same time, Mr. Speaker, they see the need now to create an advisory board on licensing to advise and recommend to the minister, that will have absolutely no autonomy in decision making, that will be not necessarily at arm's-length and will not provide the final decision as to how the future industry in fishery licensing will be shaped in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is a level of bureaucracy to advise the minister, and at the same time the minister has a full staff of individuals in the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture to advise him on a daily basis. I know that, Mr. Speaker, from being there as the minister myself. They are very capable individuals, and $10 million of the taxpayers' money is going today to run that department, and to be able to provide human resources and expertise within the department to recommend to the minister on a regular basis the procedure, the policy, to interpret the policy, to write the policy, and to establish whatever guidelines necessary around licensing in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, although the minister is saying that this is an arm's-length process, that it is depoliticizing, I guess, the route for which licensing might have been handled in the past, in actual fact it really isn't, and the minister will still have the final say, the final control, to either issue a licence, not issue a licence, revoke a licence, reactivate a licence, transfer it, not transfer it, or so on. So that really does not change anything at all.

You know, when this was brought in, I think it was done to make it basically look like there has been some action with regard to the Dunne Report - and there are a number of very good recommendations in this report. I have to say that Mr. Dunne was very thorough in his process, in his consultation and in his research and, as a result of it, has made some very good recommendations that can go a long way to stabilizing the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think that if you are going to accept the recommendations in this report, and follow them in hopes of accomplishing that, you have to be accurate in what the author is recommending. In this case, Bill 36 does not reflect the accuracy of that particular recommendation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of issues, I know, going on in the Province today with regard to fisheries and with regard to licensing. We talked about Harbour Breton today, and what is happening with regard to FPI, and I think the minister has the power right now, under legislation, to be able to act on the situation in Harbour Breton and to be able to act in the best interests of the people who are in that area and employed by that company. I think that, when you have legislation in the House of Assembly that gives you that power and that control to be able to act, you need to take that responsibility seriously.

It is very ironic that today we are discussing another bill as it relates to the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, in the House of Assembly, that is going to not relinquish power but to set up a bureaucracy to advise the minister where he maintains the power over licensing; but it is no good to have that responsibility and that authority if you are not going to use it, and I think that is a lot of what this debate is about today as well.

Mr. Speaker, I do not see this board being established with regard to licensing being accountable to people. I think the only true accountability will come with that, that the public holds to the government and to the minister. I think that really what this board is, it is just being set up as an advisory committee. They are not being given any real autonomy, any real responsibility. They will not have any extreme accountability to the public, because the final decision still rests with the minister. He will be the person who will either accept or reject the recommendations as they are put forward. Really, it is just another level of bureaucracy that the taxpayers will pay for that has little or no control.

As I said before, it is very ironic coming from the government opposite when they have been so proactive, Mr. Speaker, in cutting boards in this Province and amalgamating boards in this Province all under the auspices of reducing costs and maintaining good financial standings and bringing down the budget in a level that they can control. In order to do that they cut boards, they reduced bureaucracy and now they are looking at establishing another level of a board that will have no autonomy, no control, no accountability to people and will basically just be an advisory committee that will assess an application for a licence. Look at it, look at the area, look at the company, make a recommendation to the minister, and at the end of the day he will have the final say and the Cabinet will have the final say in exactly what happens.

I think there is still a long way to go before this is actually an arm's-length board. It is a long way from the recommendations that Mr. Dunne made when he looked at the licensing review in the Province and it is certainly a long way I know from what the unions have wanted. I remember Mr. McCurdy, when I was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, raising the issue with regard to an arm's-length board. Their vision at that time certainly would not be that the minister would have the final say and final control. The union's philosophy at that time was that it would be completely arm's-length and they would follow the policy and the regulations that were outlined by the act. They would make the decisions based on that and their decisions would be the final decisions.

So, it is certainly not what I have heard the unions asking for in the past. It is certainly not what has come out of the report by Mr. Eric Dunne and it is not the recommendation that came from the wide consultations which were held around the Province over the period of time in 2003 when people asked for an arm's-length board. They certainly did not ask that it be a board to advise the minister. They asked that it would be a board which would accept the full responsibility as it related to decisions regarding fish licences in this Province. In essence, that is what I thought Bill 36 would be about. It is not, Mr. Speaker, and I am disappointed to see that.

Seeing that it is 5:26 p.m. I will take my seat now, Mr. Speaker, as it is getting near the end of the day. I am sure there are a couple of other pieces of business that needs to be taken care of before we leave. I will adjourn debate now.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the debate be adjourned for the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I think tomorrow is Private Members' Day, so I do now move the adjournment of the House - I probably already did it. I believe we are debating tomorrow the private member's resolution put forward by the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, if I am not mistaken, and we look forward to that.

I believe it is 2:00 p.m. tomorrow on Wednesday, November 24, that we resume.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this House now adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m., it being Private Members' Day tomorrow, Wednesday, November 24.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.

The motion is carried.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, November 24, at 2:00 in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.