MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

The Speaker has a number of rulings ready for presentation and is anxious to present them. As indicated yesterday, privately to some hon. members, we would begin that process today.

The Chair apologizes for the delay in ruling on a point of order raised by the Opposition House Leader on Wednesday, April 20. The point of order related to a withdrawal of comments the Premier made during Question Period, while the Premier did withdraw his comments when asked, but added a short commentary thereto. Under parliamentary traditions, when the Speaker requests a member to withdraw an unparliamentary comment, the member should do so forthwith and do so without commentary, or as we say in parliamentary language, unequivocally. The specific words used by the Premier were: despicable and cronies, in reference to some hon. members.

While the Speaker acknowledges that the point of order should have been raised immediately, the Speaker also notes that on the day in question there were several disruptions that may have prevented the Opposition Leader from raising his point of order in a timely manner. In the interest of consistency, the Speaker now asks the Premier to withdraw the unparliamentary words used on April 20, unequivocally.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I unequivocally withdraw those remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

The Speaker has other rulings which we hope to present later in the afternoon, probably just toward the end of the routine proceedings.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has member's statements today as follows: the hon. the Member for the District of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, the hon. the Member for the District of Burin-Placentia West, the hon. the Member for the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the hon. the Member for the District of Lake Melville, the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West, and the hon. the Member for the District of Port au Port.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Danielle Power of St. Alban's has recently been awarded $1,000 scholarship from the Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion. The President of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 53 of St. Alban's, Ms Christine Farrell, presented the award to Danielle on May 1.

This scholarship was awarded to Danielle in recognition of her academic achievement for the academic year 2003. Danielle studied at Mount Alison University in Sackville, New Brunswick where she received the honour of being a member of the Dean's list. Danielle is currently continuing her studies as a fourth year Political Science student at Memorial University and will graduate in December of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, today I must also acknowledge the contribution of the Royal Canadian Legion for their continued support as an organization that offers many services to Canadian veterans, and also makes a tremendous contribution to the youth of Canada. For example, the Legion offers this scholarship and bursary program to a child or grandchild of a member of the Royal Canadian Legion.

Danielle's parents, Jerome and Margaret Power of St. Alban's, are also to be congratulated for their dedication to the advancement of their daughter's education.

I wish Danielle best wishes for her continued educational studies and good luck with all future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair understands there is a matter of mis-communication between the Chair and the Member for Burin-Placentia West, he will be doing his statement on tomorrow.

The Chair recognizes the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to congratulate a young student in my district who has recently been recognized for her linguistic skills.

Mr. Speaker, Laura Riggs, a Level I student at Carbonear Collegiate is the 2005 provincial winner of the Concours D'art Oratoire sponsored by Canadian Parents for French.

Mr. Speaker, this competition was held Saturday, April 29, in Corner Brook and involved competitors from across the Island and from Labrador. Laura took first place in the Core French Level I section winning both a cash prize and a trip to St. Pierre. Laura is the daughter of Cheryl and Boyd Riggs of Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, this award recognizes Laura's commitment to her studies and everyone in the community is so very proud of her.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating Laura Riggs on winning this recent award and wishing her the very best as she continues her studies.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the importance which nurses play in providing health care in communities, hospitals and long-term care facilities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

In honour of National Nursing Week, I would like to recognize the work of nurses in our rural and northern communities, particularly in my District of Lake Melville and, indeed, throughout the Labrador region, Mr. Speaker.

With our vast geography, the nurses who staff the ten community clinics, two hospitals and long-term care facility throughout Labrador work in an expanded role, with a broad spectrum of health care duties ranging from health promotion and disease prevention to emergency trauma support, from midwifery to community health. In fact, many of the nursing stations along the coast only see a physician once every four to eight weeks.

Mr. Speaker, it is often the nurse practitioner or regional nurse who renders the specialized emergency care ordinarily performed by a physician in urban areas. Ultimately, our communities rely upon the care of those nurses to live healthy and productive lives. In speaking with nurses in my district, I recognize the effort they have put forth to ensure that patients, families and communities receive the care they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, these nurses work hard, on a grassroots level, to ensure the highest quality and safest patient care possible is delivered everyday. Our Province's nurses and, indeed, all nurses, deserve to be commended and celebrated for their compassion, their courage and their commitment -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

MR. HICKEY: - today and every day, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: There you are. It is a very precise world I live in.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 27, I, along with a large crowd, had the privilege to attend the first annual Premiers Athletic's Awards held at the Holiday Inn in St. John's. Presentations were made by the Premier and emceed by the Minister of Tourism.

I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, two of the awards went to athletes in my district. Joey Russell, who is a well known figure skater, received $1,500 to help offset costs. Stephanie Corbett of Wabush also received $1,500 for her skills in cross-country skiing.

Mr. Speaker, those awards will go a long way to help support our athletes as they pursue even greater accomplishments in the future. They are great ambassadors for our Province, and we wish them well in their future endeavours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to pay tribute to Debbie Hawco, who was named the Stephenville-Kippens Citizen of the Year for 2004 at the Stephenville awards banquet held on April 23.

Debbie was nominated by the Bay St. George Association for Community Living, where she has been a key person in that organization for many years. Last year, she received a national award for Inclusive Education from the Canadian Association for Community Living, and was one of ten people in Canada to receive the award.

She is an active member of the Stephenville Winter Carnival Committee and, as well, she played an important role in the launching of the first Relay for Life in Stephenville last year for the Canadian Cancer Society. This event was extremely successful, surpassing all expectations. She is also part of the Society for the Care and Protection of Animals, and she volunteers for many charitable activities at the Stephenville Middle School where she is a teacher.

Ms Hawco's victory was particularly moving because she was also the primary caregiver for her late sister, Diane, who passed away with cancer earlier this year.

On behalf of all members, I congratulate Debbie Hawco on her well-deserved award, and as well all other volunteers who were nominated for the award. They were: Denise Butt, Mel Dean, Bill Janes, Noreen Murphy, and Ada Shave.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is confusion resulting from the Minister of Natural Resources' comments in the House regarding the Abitibi situation. Last Wednesday, he took a tough stand and said that government will link new power developments on the Exploits River to a two-machine operation at the Grand Falls mill. Yesterday, we found out that government is negotiating with the company to develop power projects on the Exploits River while they have no such commitment from the company on a two-machine operation for Grand Falls.

I ask the minister: Will he clear up the confusion he has created? Will he tell this House, and the people of Central Newfoundland, which is it? Is he going to demand a commitment from the company, as he stated last Wednesday, or is he going to continue to negotiate with Abitibi while they make more plans to push workers out the door?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, our approach to the situation dealing with Abitibi's operational review has been consistent. Today, I met with the Mayor of Grand Falls-Windsor, the Mayor of Botwood, the Mayor of Bishop's Falls. Last week, I met with all the mayors affected in Stephenville. We have met with the union representatives in both communities. We have engaged an approach with stakeholders - all stakeholders, Mr. Speaker - to adopt a formal and common approach to ensure that the operations that exist in the Province right now today continue to exist, unlike the members opposite and the Leader of the Opposition, for example, when they shut down number six machine. Here is what he said in the Grand Falls Advertiser: I found out about the layoffs in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, our approach is simply this: We will leverage every and any opportunity to protect workers, to ensure that there is a viable operation or a viable pulp and paper industry in the Province, and to ensure - and the member knows, Mr. Speaker, she asked this government to ensure - that the commitments with respect to Bill 27 in 2010, which guarantee or demand a two-machine operation in Grand Falls-Windsor, that we would uphold that legislation. We have given that commitment to everybody in the Province and, unlike the member opposite - this is a very serious situation. We are adopting a common approach with the stakeholders. I ask her to jump on board with the government to ensure that happens.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is double-talking. He said in this House last week that he would not negotiate with Abitibi until he got a commitment from them. He reneged on that today.

Mr. Speaker, there have already been fifty-six layoffs at the Grand Falls mill. It is time for this minister to wake up. There are well-founded fears that the company intends to make even more layoffs if government lets them get away with it. The company, to this point, is implementing its restructuring plan without any interference from government, and government had this plan last fall.

My question to the Minister of Natural Resources is: Is this going to be yet another example of how your government caves into big business and allows them to use the resources of this Province without any obligation to the workers and rural communities? When are you going to back up your tough talk with action?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely incorrect to suggest that we have had some plan since last fall. Abitibi indicated to the people of the Province about their operational review. Their operational review was made known to government and we have reacted and responded to that, Mr. Speaker. We have been tough with the company. We didn't wait, like the Leader of the Opposition did in 1990, when he said in the Advertiser: I have no reason to second guess Abitibi Price's decision to close number 6 machine. We have been questioning their operational review, we have been questioning the decisions they have been taking, for one reason and one reason only, to ensure that the people who work with Abitibi in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, after this review is completed, can count on going back to work the next day. That is what this government has been talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, he is talking about history in 1988, this is 2005. I have a plan in my head that you had last fall from Abitibi and I will lay it on the Table so you can read it again.

My question now is to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I asked that minister yesterday to get involved and investigate the layoffs at Abitibi and ensure that all aspects of the newly minted five-year labour contract were upheld. The minister got up in her place and said her department would work within the Labour Standards Act. However, I must inform the minister that Abitibi is a unionized workforce and I would suggest that she work within the signed contract.

I ask the minister: Will she now turn her attention to providing adequate resources from her department to facilitate a speedy arbitration to handle the current grievances from laid off workers. Can you do that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday and I want to reiterate today, it is a very serious situation in Grand Falls-Windsor that is happening with Abitibi Consolidated. The Labour Relations Agency is a body that will help assist in any way when their services are needed. If the union in Grand Falls-Windsor with Abitibi seeks the services of the Labour Relations Agency, without any problem, without any bias, we will assist and we will deal with any issues that come to the attention of the Labour Relations Agency.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker, schools are considered to be the backbone of many rural communities. As of now, there is a plan in place in Central Newfoundland to close schools in places like Bishop's Falls, Leading Tickle, Charlottetown and Musgrave Harbour, a decision that is being challenged by parents and students alike. Many teaching positions will be slashed and many programs will be eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this government has no commitment to education in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and thus no commitment to the future of rural communities.

I ask the minister: Why isn't your government reinvested in our education system instead of forcing boards to implement more cuts?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In addressing the question from the member opposite, again, I say to the member that we have very, very great challenges as we try to deliver an education system to every nook and cranny of Newfoundland and Labrador. These challenges, we are certainly rising to meet; as the challenges were there on your plate when you were Minister of Education. You certainly know that we are facing challenges of declining populations, and we are resourcing as much as we can to address the needs that are out there.

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 might be facing challenges but the answer is simple, leave the teachers in the classrooms instead of firing them.

Mr. Speaker, the central board has announced a plan that will see schools in the more rural areas of that region - such as Musgrave Harbour and Eastport - closed. Surely, the members from Bonavista North and Terra Nova are opposed to this.

Does the minister support the plan or will he stand today and overrule the central board, like his colleague did with the Western health care board just a week ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, the school boards of this Province have a responsibility to look at the needs in their particular catchment zones, in their particular jurisdictions. The schools boards are working closely with the department, with this government, with the people to make sure that what decisions they are making are the right decisions to address, again, the needs of the people out there.

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 again, your government overruled a health care board, why can't you overrule a school board?

Mr. Speaker, in the past eighteen months this government has slashed 401 teachers from schools around this Province while government members applauded. Schools in rural areas, such as Petit Forte and Rushoon, have recently been told that they are losing teaching units this fall. Surely the Member from Bruin Placentia West is concerned about this, even though he refuses to meet with the parents of these children.

Will the minister now admit that the children in rural towns, like Rushoon and Petit Forte and many others, are not being offered the same quality of education as their counterparts in the large urban areas of this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, providing educational services to Newfoundland and Labrador is indeed a challenging situation. I would not mind, but this gentleman standing on the other side, he was Minister of Education, as two others who are over there. They know the challenges that they had to meet and they know what they had to do with regard to closing schools, with regard to taking teachers out of the system. You know full well the challenges we are going through. We are rising to it and we are making sure that the resourcing that we are doing is radically meeting the needs that are out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural renewal publicly stated there is overcapacity in the processing sector for crab. There are too many plants already and the government's new plan will enable the government to do something about it. Meanwhile, the Minister of Fisheries, also speaking on behalf of the same government, has just issued an extra licence for St. Anthony, putting even more capacity into the system.

So, I ask the Premier: Since two different ministers in the same government have done two different things, what is the government's policy? Are there too many plants already or not enough?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, and everybody knows, he was certainly part of a government that issued a significant number of crab licences during the late 1990s. He also knows he was also part of a government that committed a licence to St. Anthony. He was also part of a government, leader of a government, that refused, in 2002, to issue a licence in St. Anthony at the same time that they reactivated a licence in Twillingate and issued a new shrimp licence in Twillingate. So, those are all the facts.

What we are trying to do today in Newfoundland and Labrador, as a government, is to manage our way through a very difficult situation. We had a situation in St. Anthony where a court ordered us to reconsider the decision of the former Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. We did that. We issued the licence. The licence is there. What we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, right now, as we have been trying to do for the past year-and-a-half, is manage our way through a very difficult situation that the former government left the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we know is that this great, new government has been in there for eighteen months and they do not have a clue what they are doing with respect to the issue.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries rejected, outright, the proposal from the FFAW to end the crab impasse. Government MHAs last night and today are publicly saying that they have not seen this proposal and do not know the exact details.

I ask the Premier: Why did he and the minister not consult with their caucus about the proposal put forward by the FFAW yesterday?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect. Certainly, government members have a copy of it. They have seen the news release, of course, that was provided by the FFAW -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - and, in fact, they have also seen the response that government has sent back to the FFAW.

Whatever the Leader of the Opposition is talking about, and trying to play to the galleries, and trying to play politics here, nothing is further from the truth.

In addition, the minister was at a meeting late yesterday afternoon with some plant workers. Members of the FFAW were there. Mr. McCurdy was there. He had a meeting this morning, again, with another member of the FFAW. We are in constant contact with them. We are doing whatever we can to try and resolve this problem.

We are very, very concerned about rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We are very, very concerned about the plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have already indicated to the plant workers that we are there for them. We said that right from the start, as soon as this matter seemed to be in dispute. We said that we would stand up and be counted for them, and we still continue to do that, but people need to understand that what we are trying to do here is act in the best long-term interests of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and we are very proud to be doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you that the one person who would know about being far from the truth is the Premier, who does not remember that a promise is a promise.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries is quoted in today's The Telegram, in reference to the union's offer of yesterday - these are his words, "They..." - being the union - "...endorse the principles that we are trying to achieve.... They support regional balance. They support caps on corporate concentration, final-offer selection, collective bargaining...". They support those.

I ask the Premier: If your minister is saying that most, if not all, of the principles that your government is trying to achieve with your pilot project have been addressed by the proposal from the union yesterday, why are you and the minister not willing to try the system as they have outlined it for a year, end the impasse, and let the crab fishery get underway?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I did not read The Telegram today, but if they reported all of what I said out in the scrum yesterday they would have went on to say -

AN HON. MEMBER: The report (inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: That is exactly factual, what I said there. I did say that the FFAW support the principles of the policy that we are trying to advance, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue is a lot more animated in the House this year than he was this time last year when we were trying to find a deal for Arnold's Cove.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: The Member for Bellevue, when we were trying to find a resolution to the Arnold's Cove situation last year -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: - wasn't so quick to open his mouth to ask questions about what the government was doing in the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, yes, they support - we believe they support - the principles that we have outlined. What I also said is, the proposal that they had advanced, we do not see how we can operationalize it to achieve the policy objectives and the principles that both they and we support.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest that the Minister of Fisheries can just relax and answer the questions; he does not need to get upset.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier would note that in Saturday's edition of The Telegram his former trusted advisor - because I guess he does trust his advice any more - and touted ambassador to Ottawa, Mr. Rowe, stated that the Premier's approach is not working and that he should reconsider forcing a production quota system down the throats of fish harvesters, go back to square one, and keep his promise to consult with them.

I ask the Premier: Is he willing to listen today to his former close, valued advisor, Mr. Rowe, and consult with the fish harvesters, as he promised and what Mr. Rowe is now recommending that he go back and do? Keep a promise. A promise is a promise.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I respect freedom of the press, and I respect the opinions of any columnist who sees fit to write and express an opinion on anything that we are doing.

What we have done is, we have put in place, in the beginning, a pilot project, a two-year pilot project, which we said was an experimental project. What we have done since then is, we have taken that two-year project and cut it in half. We have cut it back to a one-year project which, in fact, is only three months.

What we have also said is, rather than just have government decide what is going to happen here, we will put an independent committee in place which will administer the pilot project while it is in place, manage it and oversee it. At the end of that process, we will have an independent chairman who will make a recommendation to this government.

We have taken the decision out of our hands. We have put it in the place and in the hands of an independent chair whose recommendation we will accept.

What happened yesterday was, we made another move forward. We appointed - suggested the appointment - of Richard Cashin, a person who is highly respected in the fishery in this Province, who is a former head of the union. We have basically taken the decision of government, placed it in the hands of a former head of the union, and we are saying we will abide by that decision. That is very fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the Premier might appreciate freedom of the press, we found out that he does not appreciate and respect freedom of expression. There is a member sitting just over here who knows all about that.

Mr. Speaker, the Mayors of Old Perlican, Bay de Verde and Hant's Harbour, in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde, have all stated publicly that this plan will be the ruination of rural communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, and they are calling on the government, through their member, to scrap this system for this year and go back to the consultation.

I ask the Premier: Does he respect the views of the mayors of our rural communities?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely! I hold the opinions of the mayors and the heads of municipalities around this Province in the highest esteem. We value their opinions. Nobody will support that more than the minister, who has met with probably a couple of hundred of the mayoralties around the Province. We do respect that and we do listen to it, but there are lots of opinion that come to us, as a government. For every opinion of a mayor that has come to us, there have been ten or twenty or forty other opinions from people who are affected by this, who basically are supporting the government's position.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible). It doesn't exist.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: For example, yesterday we had a letter sent to us from three very small fish plant owners who basically said that this system, as presented, will protect them and protect their workers on the Southern Shore. We are trying to protect the people who are on the bottom of the totem pole.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I understand if the mayor of Old Perlican, who has a major plant and a major operation in his community, speaks out on behalf of his community. There is a lot of pressure on people in the Province, so we do understand that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Premier and the government members, that the offices of the Official Opposition, our offices, have been flooded with e-mails and faxes from mayors, Progressive Conservative Party campaign workers, and concerns citizens from all over Newfoundland and Labrador begging MHAs to stand up against Raw Material Sharing system introduction by the government this year. Most of these e-mails and faxes were destined for government members and copied to us.

Will the Premier, once again, Mr. Speaker, today, reassure all his government members on his side that there will be no repercussions to any of them today if they stand up and speak for their constituents as they have been asked, and vote on behalf of their constituents and their communities later today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all a comment on the e-mails and faxes that have been received. We have been receiving them as well, and we have been receiving them from districts. I was kind enough to provide the Member for Twillingate & Fogo with a copy yesterday of a submission that was sent to me on behalf of people in his district.

MR. REID: You did not give me one.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Well, it was left to be sent over to you, but there was one. I will just tell you now, though, that is the case. There was one that was sent to us yesterday on behalf of the people in Twillingate & Fogo indicating concerns, of course, with the stand and your position. I share that information.

On the other point: Our caucus here and our government members are all free to vote as they wish, just as you were, of course, back in denominational education days, when a survey was done of your particular district and I think 58 per cent of the people voted against denominational education. What did you do? You voted for the government, so you voted against the people in your district, but (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is too bad that the Premier continually wants to live in the past. Mr. Speaker, let me point this out -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognized the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, maybe the nice, trained crowd opposite will laugh at this statement when they are reminded that in the Premier's own district, with respect to Voisey's Bay, Humber West was polled and 70 per cent of his constituents wanted him to vote for Voisey's Bay and he did not listen to them either, just like today.

Mr. Speaker, a final question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to get to his question.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a final question for the minister.

It is obvious to everyone who has followed this issue, that the government's plan is in place for one reason only, to satisfy the minister's desire to put both a crab licence and a crab quota into St. Anthony, in his own district. The minister, in doing this, has caused an economic crisis, paralyzed the crab fishery, all the benefit of a fish plant in his own district. The minister's personal credibility, the government's credibility, is gone.

I ask the minister: Why won't he do the honourable thing today, admit that he should accept responsibility for all this chaos, all this mess, just to go forward with a political motivation in his own district, resign, let the Premier off the hook so we can get back to a crab fishery instead of a political plan for his district?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I sat in the minister's chair for twelve months, I believe it was, and refused to issue a crab licence in St. Anthony. I never did consider issuing a crab licence in St. Anthony until I was ordered by the court to reconsider the patently unreasonable decision of the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. A court decision by three Supreme Court Justices, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Order, please!

Colleagues, the Speaker will have to recess the House if this continues.

Thank you very much.

The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe I might have touched a nerve over there this afternoon.

I will tell the Leader of the Opposition, and everybody who wants to listen, why we are doing this and I will accept responsibility for a lot of the chaos that is underway right now. We are doing it for the same reason that the people in Alaska are doing it.

As it is reported here in the Packet, "The plan was designed to protect the interests of several groups dependent on the fishery - harvesters, processors and communities." "She says - this lady, Ms Boone - in formulating the plan they want to ensure that plants have a foothold in the communities so those communities are not left high and dry if the processors are unable to compete in an open style bidding market."

Mr. Speaker, those are the reasons why we are trying to do this. We are trying to ensure that the demise of rural Newfoundland that was underway under their watch, is stopped under ours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Earlier this afternoon I met with nearly fifty women who are plant workers, fish harvesters and wives of fish harvesters. These women are saying that their lives are paralyzed, their futures and their family's futures are in jeopardy because they need to get working now in a fishery that respects them and their needs and their opinions, not one that is imposed on them by a government they think do not understand.

Now that we have a proposal from the FFAW and a counter-proposal from government released to the media, will the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries sit down face to face in a serious effort to work out the details of a solution that will get this crab fishery underway as soon as possible? Face to face, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was coming to the Assembly this afternoon I stopped and spoke with some of the women who were outside. Unfortunately, in the interest of time, we did not have a long time but we took what we could and we heard their concerns. I understand that they need to get working now and I understand that it affects their families. So, it is not lost on us, believe me; not by a long shot. That is why, as I stated earlier this afternoon, that right from the get-go in this dispute we came out and said that we would support the plant workers because they were the ones that we were really concerned were going to be affected the most and afflicted the most by this. Government is in the process of preparing a plan, the minister spoke to that just a couple of days ago. So we are very, very concerned about it.

From a perspective of face-to-face meetings, as I also indicated yesterday afternoon, if I am correct, the minister was meeting with plant workers. At that particular meeting there were senior officials of the FFAW who were there. He met with them less than twenty-four hours ago. This morning there was another official who met with him this morning, another senior member of the FFAW. That is less than six hours ago. We are meeting constantly. We are talking constantly. We are trying to find solutions and just recently -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. Because of time sequences, we have to keep our answers to within a minute.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the Premier should meet with these women and find out that they do not want make work because they are making decisions now to take their children out of post-secondary education, urging others to leave the Province to get work and worrying about how they, themselves, will survive.

Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to send letters back and forth and have tit-for-tats here and there but we do not need more letters flying back and forth and talking jellybeans to the media. Can we have a sit down face-to-face meeting with the Premier, with the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, with the FFAW and their leadership and talk about the realities of life and find a detailed solution? We have a three-page letter here and a three-page letter here. Can we sit down and come to a rational conclusion that is going to make this fishery work and get people back on the water and get this industry going? Can you do that instead of trying to play these media games?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only media games - this is a very serious matter. The only media games that have been played here have been played by the hon. member and the Member for Exploits when they sit together at their press conferences and they sing from the same hymn book and they get on with that. I mean if those are the media games, those are the media games.

Yesterday afternoon we came up with a solution that I felt quite certain that you would be quite comfortable with because as you and I know in a past life, you have the greatest respect for Mr. Richard Cashin. I do not know if that has changed but I certainly understood that you did. I also have the greatest respect for Mr. Cashin and on that basis alone we have passed over the decision on this particular matter to a person who I understand you have the greatest respect, that is the former head of the Fishermen's Union. I cannot see how you can personally object to having him make a recommendation to our government which we will follow unequivocally. Tell me if you have any issue with Mr. Cashin being there to make that decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that arose during Question Period. I think this is the appropriate time to raise it, right after Question Period.

Mr. Speaker, during Question Period in answer to a question, it is my contention that the Minister of Fisheries made an absolutely, totally false statement in this House where we are all committed by our offices to tell the truth. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that he should be asked to withdraw the false statement. Basically, he indicated that he issued a licence in St. Anthony because the court ordered him to do so. That is exactly what he said, you can check.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: That is exactly what he said. You can check. That is exactly what he said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition making a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If we could get the Premier just to stay quiet for a second and take the issue seriously we might get on with this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if I could finish the point, I am sure that your own checking of the tapes in Hansard will verify what the Minister of Fisheries said. He said, Mr. Speaker, that the court ordered him to issue a licence.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, if we could get the Premier just to pay attention for a minute.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: He is talking about reading decisions. He should listen to what is happening, because it also impacts on what he says.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition now to complete his point of order rather quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad the Premier is speaking from his chair because it is part of the point that I was about to make.

Three statements, Mr. Speaker, and I challenge the Minister of Justice to stand up and state that the court ordered a licence for St. Anthony; because, Mr. Speaker, here are three statements. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to consider whether or not the truth was told. There are three statements I will make and ask you to consider. In the court case itself, it said that the minister should reconsider the decision with respect to a licence for St. Anthony in line with government policy. The government policy, as stated in this House by the minister, is: There is overcapacity, the system needs rationalization, and new licences would only redistribute poverty.

Mr. Speaker, the minister and the Premier were just saying there was a reference to a decision being patently unreasonable, and what is happening in this House is that the Premier and the minister have been giving a patently erroneous interpretation of a decision.

I ask the Minister of Justice to stand up and state (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Responding to the point of order, the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order here. The minister has been consistent, not just today -

MR. BARRETT: You are the Speaker now, are you?

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Bellevue, I have a right to respond to the point of order and you are not going to interrupt me when I am about to respond to the your leader's point of order. It is as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is as simple as this: There is no point of order. This is a line of questioning that has been ongoing by the Leader of the Opposition for about seven days.

The minister has been quite clear, unequivocally clear, that three judges of the Court of Newfoundland and Labrador issued a directive to say to the minister and the government that they should reconsider a patently unreasonable decision.

All we have here, the only point that is going on here, is the point that the Leader of the Opposition wants to play to the galleries of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the only point, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members will know that points of order should not and cannot be used to continue debate or to extend Question Period; however, the Speaker will listen to the tape and review Hansard and come back tomorrow with a decision.

Before we continue, I wish to make a ruling or a commentary. During the exchanges in the House this afternoon, the Speaker clearly heard the Member for Twillingate & Fogo refer to a comment made by the Premier with the expression "another lie".

I ask him if he would withdraw that comment.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Premier said he sent me a petition yesterday. He did not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have had a lot of discussion about unequivocally withdrawing comments. We want to be consistent, and I ask the member if he would withdraw unequivocally and do it now.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw.

A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries stood today, as he has stood many times in this House and outside of this House in recent times, and categorically stated that I issued a crab licence to the Town of Twillingate when I was Minister of Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, I say nothing could be further from the truth. I repeat it: nothing could be further from the truth. The crab licence was issued to Twillingate fish plant in 1997, four years before I became the Minister of Fisheries.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, to stand and withdraw that statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member will know - and I am quoting from Marleau and Montpetit - that: A member may not direct remarks to the House or engage in debate by raising a matter under the guise of a point of order.

In this particular matter, while there may be disagreements between the Member for Twillingate & Fogo and other members of the House, including the Minister of Fisheries, this is a disagreement between two hon. members and we have to accept their words even if they are contradictory to each other.

MR. REID: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I have to say that the minister has been basically slandering me in public by putting forward ‘mistruths' to the public about something that I did, in an attempt to convince people that he should do something for his own district.

I say that I did not issue a crab licence to the Town of Twillingate. It was done four years before I became minister, Mr. Speaker. If that is not a point of privilege, you can call it what you like.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members will know that a point of privilege relates directly to whether or not the member's rights to participate in debate, to express himself as a duly-elected member, have been in any way abrogated or compromised.

In this particular case, the Chair does not find the Member for Twillingate's rights to participate - there may be a disagreement, but disagreements between two hon. members, as found in Beauchesne and other references, do not constitute a point of privilege.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I again rise on a point of privilege.

This has nothing to do with the ability to debate, or anything else. You said this is a disagreement between two members of the House. Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. To me, what I am saying is a fact, not a difference of opinion, and I wish that the minister would withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: As the members will know, it is quite clear in Beauchesne, in particular, where it says that a disagreement between hon. members as to the facts does not constitute a point of privilege. The House may have to accept two difference versions of the very same event, but it does not constitute a point of privilege.

That is what the authorities would say, and that is what the Chair would rule.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker would like to table the following document.

In compliance with the Public Tender Act, I am submitting herewith for tabling in the House of Assembly, the Report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for the month of April, 2005.

Notices of Motions.

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

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

In accordance with Standing Order 11, I do give notice today that the House meeting tomorrow not rise at 5:30 p.m., and furthermore give notice, according to Standing Order 11, that the House not rise at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Notices of Motion?

Answers to Questions for which notice has been given.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, in the House, I was asked by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair - it says, "...that patients of prostate cancer are being delayed for radiation treatment for up to six months. I ask the minister if he can tell me why there is such a delay..." I indicated I would follow up because I was not aware of that situation.

Subsequent to yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I called the cancer specialist who is the Director of Radiation Oncology, and he absolutely, categorically denied it. He said, it is not so. He informed me that the average wait time for prostate cancer -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have Hansard from yesterday, the question that was asked. I ask her to check it on the Table there, what the member asked. Then you should speak when you know what the question is. It is in print. I have a copy here, and it is there on the Table for everybody.

The specialist also said, the Director of Radiation Oncology indicated, the average wait time is four and sometimes up to eight weeks. That is the average across the country. He also indicated to me that there are certain areas in Ontario and BC where the wait time is three months. He indicates that he doesn't know where such knowledge came from.

I want to say to the House, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is unfair when the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair puts fear out among people who are suffering from cancer, who are sick, when she hasn't gotten the facts and found it to be true.

MR. SPEAKER: Further Answers to Question for which Notice has been Given?

Petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a petition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of fish harvesters, plant workers, and their families in the Province who again, as they have been for a couple of months now, are calling upon the government to do one very simple thing, keep a promise, the promise that was made in writing by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to the FFAW and its membership on April 21 last year, when they said: We are considering the resource management sharing plan outlined in the Dunne report, but we will take no action whatsoever until there is a full consultation with all stakeholders, every stakeholder, the plant workers, the union, harvesters, processors, and the government itself. That was the promise in writing made by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture on behalf of the Premier and the government.

The petitioners are asking for one thing. We are asking for the government to keep its promise. A promise is a promise. That is what everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador supported the Premier in doing, when we all asked the Prime Minister of the country to keep his promise about the Atlantic Accord.

It seems odd and strange, not only to me but to these petitioners, that they in their communities -ones I talked about today, Hant's Harbour and Old Perlican, communities in the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde, almost to a person. I believe to a person, supported the Premier when he asked to be backed in making sure that the Prime Minister of the country kept his word. Well, the Premier of the Province, through his minister, gave his word in writing to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they would not implement this system unless and until there was a full consultation with all the stakeholders. All they are asking, a very simple petition: Why would a Premier, why would a government not want to keep its promise? That is the part that is puzzling everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador today. What is it that is causing the Premier and the government to be stubborn and pigheaded about wanting to break a promise instead of wanting to keep a promise? It is not complicated, Mr. Speaker. It is not complicated, it is very simple. It is very straightforward.

Yesterday, I presented a petition on behalf of 1,100 constituents of the District of Bonavista North asking their member to stand up and say in this House exactly what they have said to him in person. We will see later today, in a free vote and a free debate, who stands up and says what on behalf of their constituents. There are 1,100 of them that we know who put their names in Bonavista North in just three days. It will be interesting to see whether the member says anything and how he votes later on today.

It is very straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of residents of Salmon Cove, Freshwater, Carbonear, Harbour Grace. So, from all over different regions of the Province there are people simply saying: Will the government, please, just keep its word? Take this off the table. Let's have the consultation that we were promised and then maybe something different can be tried next year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of my district regarding the government's proposed plan. The undersigned people have asked the government to consult before it acted. That was a promise that the government made. They haven't done that. They have refused to do it, consistently refused to do it and keep coming back with counteroffers to the union, to the fishers, to the fish plant workers making no sense, imposing what they wanted in the beginning. That is all that is happening here. A twist of this or a twist of that and the outcome is still the same. It seems as though the Premier wants to have absolute power here, total control over the fishery.

We are talking, Mr. Speaker, about people's lives. My phone is ringing constantly with hardship cases that are starting to come up, and I hate to talk about those hardship cases because we may be playing right into the Premier's hands and the government's hands. Because it seems as though, as the Member for Twillingate & Fogo has said, it is almost as though the plan here is to starve them, create hardships for them, force them into submission. It is terrible what is happening here, I say, terrible.

The lady I spoke to from Victoria is waiting, worrying about when she is going to get back to work to get her insulin. Major concerns, Mr. Speaker. Truck payments and car payments, mortgage payments, those things. It is inconceivable that we could be at such a point in our lives where we see so much stubbornness. There is so much stubbornness. There is such an unwillingness to co-operate and listen to the people. We have had people come to this House day in and day out asking for audiences with members.

Mr. Speaker, when the government of day, the PC Party and the Premier went door to door in this Province, they made so many promises that they would be different, that they would act and listen to the people and look after their best interests. What is wrong, Mr. Speaker? What is wrong with these people today that they cannot listen to the people of this Province and do what is right here?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier made a quest for power to be in control of this Province. He has it. There is a point where he can stop and be reasonable. I am sure it appears to a lot of people that he wants absolute power. Well, I heard a long, long time ago that absolute power breeds absolute corruption. I want that on record. I want that on record because history will show that the people of this Province, right now in this period of time in our history, are being treated unfairly.

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: The Member for Lake Melville, if you want to say something, get on your feet and say it, but while I have the wind in me and the power to stand -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: - I will speak for my people and not be bullied by you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

In addition, it being 3 o'clock on Wednesday, the Chair now calls the Orders of the Day. I do believe we are debating a resolution by the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

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

To begin with, as you stated, it is a private member's motion on the crab fishery. Just briefly, I want to read into the Hansard again what this private member's motion states. It says:

WHEREAS government has not met the conditions outlined in recommendation 9.12 of the Dunne report prior to implementing raw material sharing in the crab industry of this Province; and

WHEREAS in a letter to fish harvesters dated April 21, 2004, the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture promised consultations before raw material sharing would be implemented in this Province; and

WHEREAS the 2005 crab fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, valued at $500 million to the provincial economy, is in jeopardy;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on government to drop the raw material sharing system for this year and do the proper consultations with harvesters and processors before bringing this plan into action.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes, first of all, to touch on some of the comments that are in the Dunne report. To the Premier I say - like he said about the judgement that came down on an issue - this is in black and white as well.

With regards to the Dunne report, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture continuously are saying that they are implementing what Mr. Dunne had put forward in that report. Mr. Speaker, that report states very clearly that recommendation 9.12 , the production quotas, in order for that to come in they should have at least 75 per cent of the processors on side and would have consulted with the harvesters in this Province. To this date, Mr. Speaker, neither of those issues have been dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, the government, if they proceed with this plan, I say sincerely that this will be, what I would call, a legalized cartel; the same cartel that the now Premier asked a competition bureau just a few years ago to investigate.

In the Dunne report, as well, he stated very clearly that this report is not an attempt to bring into action any recommendations there. He said that would have to be done only when government and industry consulted. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, industry means more than processors.

Mr. Speaker, it also states in the report, and I have to quote, he said: There are no known examples of similar sharing systems in the processing sector of any of the worlds fishing industries. He goes on to outline six major concerns that he would have with it; changes, regional concentration of processing. He went on to say the processing employment losses if consolidation occurs; increased pressure for selective harvesting and misreporting; limiting the competition of raw material; placing another layer of regulations on the industry; and finally, he said, discontent with sharing formulas and transfer provisions.

Mr. Speaker, the positions of the harvesters and the plant workers in this Province are totally in the opposite direction of that put forward by the harvesters. The fishers of this Province, according to Mr. Dunne's report, state very clearly that they believe it is an attempt to drive down the prices and give control for the supply to the processors. Not only that; he went on to say that the fishers, when he met with them and consulted with them, he stated very clearly that the fishers will be told when to fish, where to fish, and who to sell to.

The plant workers were also concerned when they went on to say to him, when he met with them, this will lead to greater corporate concentration, fewer plants, and decreased competition for the catches.

I have to say that every plant worker and every harvester in this Province has a right to be concerned. Once processors get control by this plan, I can assure you - many plant workers today are crying out for the plants to open. I have to say that once this happens, if it should go ahead, we will not see the second shift in many plants around this Province because the harvesters will be told when to fish and the people will be brought in on a smaller scale. They may get a couple or three weeks work more per year, but, I am going to tell you, a lot of their members who were working in the plants with them last year will not be there this year.

We talk about consultation. The Dunne report stated very clearly that - and a letter went out from the minister on April 21, saying to the harvesters that he would consult with them before any implementation took place. That was one of the main recommendations in the Dunne report. The Premier of the day, in this major crisis, has yet to sit down face to face with the president or any members of the FFAW.

Mr. Speaker, the only consultation the harvesters got this year was in March, when the Minister of Fisheries went totally back on what he had stated in writing and just forced on them this plan of attack.

We hear the community leaders, we hear the youth, we hear former ministers of the government of the day, their colleagues in past Administrations, crying out to say: Look, this is not all that important that you have to force it down the people's throats this year. Sit back. Take your time. Let's look at it in another year, and get this industry on the road, Mr. Speaker.

The only two people I have heard really crying out and saying this is a wonderful plan, are the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries. Thousands of plant workers, thousands of harvesters, thousands of business people, and the population of this Province, are not singing the same tune. There are odd ones out there, yes, and I guess we would not be in a democratic society if we all agreed with the same thing.

I have even heard the minister, when he stood in his place in this House, many days he stood up and said: If that is what they want, we will take it off the table.

I believed that he would do that, but he cannot do it because the Premier just will not let him give into it.

We talk about the provincial economy, $500 million. If anyone opposite can look at me and say that there is not a problem in their district, they are not telling the truth, Mr. Speaker. I live in a district that is heavily dependent upon the fishery, but still we live close enough to St. John's that many people travel back and forth here to work and they can pick a dollar fairly easily; but, you take rural Newfoundland. It is not the same, and if the people are not hurting there, there is something wrong.

Mr. Speaker, $500 million, and the Premier, what does he do? He throws his hands up in the air and says: What can I do if the season does not open? What can I do if 5,000 people do not go to work? What can I do if they travel to Nova Scotia or Quebec and land their crab?

The answer is very simple, Mr. Speaker. All you have to do is take it off the table, sit down, listen and consult and, I am going to tell you, he will get his message as to what to do.

The economy, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to many businesses in my area. We get e-mails. As a matter of fact, I had petitions from them saying that their businesses are devastated this year: car salesmen, business in the supermarkets, building supplies, and the list goes on.

This government, when they took power, we know they had to make changes. They had to raise taxes and fees, they had to cut job positions, but the answer was, every time we brought it up: Well, now, boys, listen. We are in a state of financial problem here. We are doing this for our children and our grandchildren, and your children and your grandchildren.

Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more important to the children and grandchildren of this Province, and in particular in rural Newfoundland, than the fishing industry. Once Hibernia is gone, White Rose, Voisey's Bay, the fishery will be here, as it has been for 500-plus years.

Mr. Speaker, we come to this hon. House - forty-eight of us are elected - we come here to represent our people. We come here to vote on legislation, which we saw happen here yesterday, but what is before us today is not breaking our oath. It is not breaking any legislation or anything when we should be able to stand up and represent what our people want us to do.

I was appalled yesterday when the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde got to her feet and presented a petition - and I congratulate her for that - but made no comment on it, on how she felt, until she went out in the scrum. When she was asked: Why did you do this, and why are you leaning one way or the other? Well, she said, I had to be educated on the fishery issue.

Mr. Speaker, I say to her, in all respect, you took the wrong advice. You were educated by the Premier, and you did not listen to the knowledge of the people in your district when they told you what the issue was on the fishery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: I honestly believe, Mr. Speaker, she is probably going to vote for this today, with us, because she hasn't got her mind made up fully. I have a letter here that she sent to her constituent, and I quote. She says, "First, let me say that I did not say I was in total support of RMS." So, Mr. Speaker, there is a little bit of light on the other side, and I hope that shows through today.

I was with the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, with about 300 people in the audience, when they asked him to come in here and toe the line in their favour. Unfortunately, when he came to St. John's he got on the wrong end of the line, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Bonavista North used to say that he met with his people, and I know he did. He is a wonderful MHA, but how come he did not bring the proper message back when it had to be given members on this side, with 1,100 names on a petition, to be presented on behalf of his people, his plant workers, his fishers and all the rest?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few moments on a convention that was held in Gander, I think it was, back in 2003, when this lady, Joy Thorkelson, from the B.C. fishermen's union, met with the delegates for the FFAW-CAW seventh Constitutional Convention. The issue may not have been identical to ours, but her message on what we are dealing with today was loud and clear. She went on to say that this system has a devastating impact on harvesters and plant workers. She said, in B.C., four major companies have all the say. Harvesters, deckhands and plant workers have no say. She went on to say that it reduces employment and there is less economic spinoff for communities. Control of the fishery is bad for harvesters, plant workers and communities. She asked the delegates to fight the agenda and, Mr. Speaker, the people who attended that meeting listened. They are fighting so that corporate control will not take over.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. members opposite brought their messages back from their constituents to their caucus room - I really believe that - because I believe every individual here is an honourable individual; however, I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it fell on deaf ears. We all know that when we saw what happened to the hon. Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion - I will get an opportunity to finish up - I want to say that it is an honour and a pleasure to stand and present this motion today because there is nothing more important to rural Newfoundland, and then to go beyond rural Newfoundland - we have many members opposite and on this side of the House who probably do not live in rural communities, but I can tell you that the industry, whether it is cod or crab or whatever, affects each and every one of us.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, we are not asking to destroy raw material sharing for eternity. We are just asking that it be taken off the table for this year and do what Mr. Dunne asked, do what the minister suggested in his written response, that we will sit down with you, we will consult with you, before it is brought forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to put a certain perspective on the situation in our Province today. There are not too many people, I guess, in our Province happy that people are not working. I think that would be safe to say on both sides of this House, because the fishery is what built rural Newfoundland and what we want to sustain rural Newfoundland. The path that the fishery is going down today in our Province, rural Newfoundland is becoming depopulated and people are moving away. We have seen it in the last number of years, and in particular the last few years, that more and more of an industry is getting in the hands of less and less. Over 40 per cent of the crab produced in this Province is in the hands of four companies. At the rate it is going, the progression, in their hands will be sixty to seventy within the next three or four years.

Governments are elected to preserve the integrity of rural Newfoundland and to allow people to be able to maintain and work in the communities, as close as possible, in which they live. Mr. Speaker, when we look at the future, it is easy to make a decision to get us by the next turn and get us around the next turn in the road and we have a bigger problem down the road again. We have looked at this in great detail. We have looked at the future, what it could bring, what the map of rural Newfoundland will be in ten or fifteen years' time. I can tell you, on the path it is going, the map of rural Newfoundland will be a bleak part of our future.

We are looking at developing, in rural Newfoundland and around this Province, centres where we can build and sustain the economy, invest in enterprises and the economy - $35 million in economic initiatives this year in the Budget, to try to be able to sustain an economic base in parts of our Province that are becoming depopulated.

Mayors are telling us they have to increase taxes; they cannot maintain infrastructure. The government had to finance and bail out communities. The former government started the process, and I supported that process, whereby they had to refinance and lift the burden from these communities. My colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, continued that process, and we did last year, because we want to see a future.

What will happen in rural Newfoundland in the future? Four or five people will decide where rural Newfoundland is going to be. There will be no regard to adjacency. People in a region have a right to get work from a product that is brought ashore near their shores, whether it is in Labrador, the Northern Peninsula, the Avalon Peninsula, the South Coast, West Coast, or wherever it is; there is a right. We do not want to see four or five people draw the map for this Province in the future, and that is where it is going.

Mr. Speaker, that does create some problems for people who have a direct vested interest. I understand the concerns and emotions and the fears of the unknown for people who are looking at where we are heading. I have used an opportunity to try to put forth and answer a lot of these concerns in four meetings I had.

One of the public meetings had, I guess, 200 or 300 people - I do not know how many were there - a large number of people. In three other meetings I sat down with significant numbers of people and asked: What are the concerns, so that we can get this moving and get back on the right track?

One of the major concerns people had is - and they have a right, and it has been in the public airwaves - well, I can't decide who I can sell it to. Mr. Speaker, that is not factual. Any individual can decide to sell to whomever they wish. It has historically happened in this fishery, and it is incumbent upon a company not to refuse if you are dealing with somebody. That is a role of us, to ensure that a program is in place, that it is done properly and it does not jeopardize the harvesters out there who have established those long-standing relationships. We have a responsibility that they live up to the commitments as they have done in the past. That is important.

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I listened to your colleague very intently, I say to the Member for Bellevue, and I would like an opportunity to pass my comments.

Other questions - and it does have value. People have raised the concern: Well, what will happen if we go down this road? What about the future of my enterprise?

Many people in the fishery today are in their forties and fifties. It is difficult to get young people today, twenty and twenty-five year olds, go to work in a fish plant where they get $5,000 or $6,000 and $5,000 or $6,000 on unemployment. Young people do not want short-term work. They want a decent paying job, longer work. They want to be able to have some luxuries in life that other people have and they are not going to stay around and go into the fishery. In the next ten years you will not get somebody to work in a fish plant in this Province. You will not be able to find anybody because young people do not want to do it. You will looking at people retired from the workforce to go to work. That is what will start happening.

We have to look at the value of an enterprise. Yes, maybe there might be an effect on a value. A harvester now who may want to get out of the fishery and sell their enterprise, there may not be a company who would want to buy that enterprise. That may be so. If they do buy it, they will owe more of it, but there is an opportunity for another harvester out there who wants to take over, younger and move on and own an enterprise and be able to build a life around the industry based on that. Keep it out of the hands of a few.

Our proposal is looking at dealing with corporate concentration in the industry. That is one of the platforms that the Minister of Fisheries, when he talked about it - don't let this Province get into a few hands driven toward private interest and profit. Profit is important in business. It should be a part of business, but we cannot neglect the people all over this Province when we make decisions.

In Central Newfoundland, the pulp and paper industry; a $1.6 billion industry in the forestry industry. Look at the long term. Some of the things we have done is to preserve the integrity of Central Newfoundland and support the legislation of Western Newfoundland and other areas. We do not want people living in two or three centres in this Province and rural Newfoundland decimated.

Overall, another important consideration is: What price are they going to get? Are the harvesters going to be compromised now because of raw material sharing? Are they going to be able to get a fair price? Mr. Speaker, I, for one, will stand and say if the raw material sharing does not work and it compromises the opportunity for people to continue to get the best possible price they can, well, I am one, at the end of the trial period, who will not support that if it does not work and it compromises these people.

The price to market is important. The price you get is important. The price on the market is important. The better the price on the market - some things we cannot control. We cannot control the exchange on the dollar very much at all. We are usually at the beckoning call of the United States and China. Numerous international events are changing the value of our Canadian dollar. The higher up it goes, the stronger it gets, the more difficult it is to get a fair price. We cannot control that. We cannot control it. Sometimes we cannot control glut on the market and sometimes when there are high inventories. These are things that you try to work around and try to deal with in a marketing basis, but other things we can control. We can control an orderly harvesting and processing of species.

Alaska - the minister referred to it today - is moving forward a fishery of the future; bringing in, at the same time, individual quotas for fish harvesters because it is the right thing to do. Individual quotas, or processing of raw material sharing so their area will be able to survive and there will be a future in Alaska for the people there. They are moving hand in hand with that process.

We have responsibilities to all the people of our Province. We have responsibilities to plant workers, we have responsibilities to fish harvesters, we have responsibilities to the people who truck that product, we have responsibilities to people who work and live and want to stay in rural Newfoundland, and we have a responsibility to be able to do that and have rural Newfoundland with enough population to sustain reasonable economies in communities. If not, they will all die. We believe this is a process that is difficult in the short-term, but it will set the road in the future and make Newfoundland and Labrador still a Province of rural communities.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to add my few comments to this extremely important debate today and to be noted, a free vote today with respect to people being able to stand and say what is on their minds without any repercussions, and to vote on behalf of the people who voted for them to come here and speak up for them.

Mr. Speaker, let me just make these few comments. December, 2003, just a couple of months after the election, the government indicated, through the Minister of Fisheries, that they had accepted and adopted the Dunne report as the basis for their fishery policy into the future. They made that statement and the Dunne report had a recommendation about raw material sharing, which is in this motion, it was recommendation 9.12. It said it should be considered but it did not say just do it. It said it should be considered if it can meet two conditions, and the two conditions were that 75 per cent of the processors be in favour - which was the case a while ago, it is not anymore - and secondly, that there be no substantive objections from fish harvesters and the union that represents them.

Everybody has known from day one that there have been substantive, tremendously substantive, objections from fish harvesters. Still for all, the government, for some reason, mainly through the minister and the Premier, wants to stand up and say: We are following Mr. Dunne's recommendations. Well, they are doing the exact opposite of what Mr. Dunne said. Mr. Dunne said, make sure there are no objections. As a matter of fact, the second step in making sure there were no objections - and we have talked about it now for months, since March 3. A couple of months now we have been talking about this. The minister then, following up after December, in April of last year, over a year ago, wrote to the FFAW and said: We want to talk about the raw material sharing system that Mr. Dunne recommended and we will not implement any of it until we come and consult with you, because you might have some objections and we would like to talk to you about them. Then the next step is, fast forward to March of this year and an announcement by the minister that: We are proceeding with a raw material sharing system this year. We have not talked to anybody, we know the harvesters object, we think the processors agree, but we are doing it anyway, because we are the government and we were elected to make tough decisions.

I can say to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, who just concluded his remarks, and I listened intently: He talks about plants closing and communities being decimated. With respect to crab plants, the only way the communities that have a crab licence now can lose it is if the government of the day lets the current operator transfer the licence. They cannot do it by themselves. They cannot walk away from a community and take the licence unless the government agrees. The decimation that he talks about, the future that he predicted with only three or four communities left processing crab - the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is out today saying there are too many plants, there has to be rationalization, there is overcapacity. What she is saying is this government plans to close some plants. This government is going to let these people transfer these licences.

When the minister has been asked about it he said: No, no, I will not let them do it during the pilot project. How long is the pilot project now, folks? One year. So the licence is going to stay in your town for one year. What happens after that? They are going to be allowed to transfer them. As a matter of fact, this year in Englee where there is a licence and where the plant is not operable because it is not in a condition to operate, they are going to let them transfer the licence this year. He has not come right out and said it yet, but that is the plan. He is going to let them transfer the crab licence out of Englee this year over to New Ferolle, again all up in the district that he represents. What do we have? We have a promise in writing that was not kept.

I am glad, actually, that the minister talked about Alaska. Alaska has no bearing whatsoever on raw material sharing for plants. What Alaska is doing is bringing in individual quotas for fish harvesters because it is in Newfoundland and Labrador already. They have realized that the system that we have in this Province to catch crab is the right one. That is what Alaska is all about. Did he understand that? Did he know that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: No, it is not about plants. There is no plan in Alaska for plants and I defy the minister to find anywhere in any documentation where there has been an agreement in Alaska to have quota production systems in plants, because it is not there. I know, the way he operates, if it was there he would stand up now on a point of order and a point of privilege and he would waive it around and show it to me. He cannot show it to me because it is not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is in progress.

MR. GRIMES: Now he says it is in progress of being discussed.

Well, here is the issue, Mr. Speaker. Here is the whole point of my debate. Here is the whole point of my debate! If they had done what happened in Alaska with the fish harvesters - it has nothing to do with plants. They are talking about it for plants, he is right, because they are doing what this government promised. They are having a consultation and they had a consultation, by the way, just like the government here said they were going to have, with respect to the catching of the crab. Guess who was involved in the consultation? The government was involved, the harvesters themselves were involved, and the processors were even involved in that discussion. If they were going to catch it, they would want to know that there were processors around to actually process it. They had to have someone to sell it to.

The issue, as it was outlined clearly in The Telegram today, was they needed to something because it turned into a free-for-all. People actually died in Alaska, because the rules for catching King Crab, which are very valuable in the marketplace just like our crab is, was that the season opened, everybody had a licence, there was no quota, you could go get as much as you can the first day. Of course, what did fish harvesters do? They all went out the first day and they collided with each other in their boats, people got killed, and they said: This is not right. They said: We need a system. They looked around and they said: Where is a good system for how to catch crab? Guess where they found it? In Newfoundland and Labrador, because the harvesters have the quotas, the harvesters knows how much they can catch. That is the system they just put in, in Alaska.

I am glad he talked about Alaska. Guess who is monitoring it in Alaska? A joint committee, and on that joint committee, because they promised a discussion just like this government did, they had a discussion. They found a solution together, together and jointly and as a group, in the best interest of Alaskans. The harvesters, the processors, the rural communities, they found a solution together. It wasn't unilaterally imposed upon them by a government that stands up and says: We were elected to make tough decisions. We are going to tell you how to catch a crab in Alaska whether you like it or not, and we do not care if you lose a season or two. Too bad! We are going to tell you how to do it. There is a difference in approach.

I would say to the government here, if they would only live up to their own words, if they would only have the consultation, do you know the future that I foresee? I foresee the government, the union representatives, and the processors, through ASP, their association, in a tri-party group agreeing to how the processing will be done in future years, and monitoring - you won't need an independent outside panel with someone like Mr. Cashin. Just as an aside, why would people now be a little bit suspect about Mr. Cashin? The Premier thinks he is the answer to everything. Mr. Cashin happens to be on the government payroll today. He is the Chair of the so-called independent Fish Licensing Board working for the Minister of Fisheries. That is who he works for. He is independent all of the sudden. He works for the Minister of Fisheries. The government wants everyone to believe: Oh, but he used to be president of the union a long time ago. That being said, he will favour the union and everyone should trust him.

I will tell you how much the government trusted him and how much the minister himself trusted him. He set him up as the chair of an independent licensing board for new licenses. The first license that got issued was for crab for St. Anthony. Guess what Mr. Cashin was allowed to do about it? Nothing. The minister said: No, no, I am not going to let Mr. Cashin talk about St. Anthony. I am not going to let this independent board, that he set up by the way ten days before - he had an announcement: Mr. Cashin is chair of the board, Mr. Cashin and his group will make the decisions about licenses, so government is not going to make political decisions about licenses. He came out, ten days later -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: It is true. It is exactly what he said. He came out ten days later and the minister said: Mr. Cashin and his group are not going to have anything to do with this, because they are not ready to make the decisions yet. He said: I am going to do it because the court ordered me to do it.

MR. E. BYRNE: A nice story, but not true.

MR. GRIMES: It happens to be completely true. The minister will verify it tomorrow. The Justice Minister will verify it tomorrow. The Justice Minister himself, tomorrow, will stand in answer and question period to a direct question and acknowledge that the court never, ever ordered the Minister of Fisheries to give a license to St. Anthony. It did not happen, and the Government House Leader is acknowledging that is the truth.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, boy, he is not.

MR. GRIMES: Well, the Minister of Justice will acknowledge it tomorrow in this House, because he has to tell the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: If anybody here has to tell the truth, it is the Minister of Justice and he will tell it tomorrow.

Let me say this, Mr. Minister, in concluding: All the government has to do is live up to its own words, gain the respect of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. I have said this since the election eighteen months ago. People elect their governments, they want them to lead and they want them to succeed. We need our governments to succeed so that the Province can move forward, so that we an all advance and be better off tomorrow than we were yesterday. What do you have a government doing today? Going back on its own written word, insisting that they foist something upon people in rural communities that they do not want. The only reason that anybody can see as to why it is being forced on people is because the leader of the government has decided that is the way he wants to do it.

I would like for the Member for Trinity North to stand up and talk about the meetings he had, and how the people in his district talk about it. I would like for the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde to talk about it. I would like for the Member for Bonavista North to talk about it, because they have been at the meetings. We do not expect the ministers to have a free vote. The Premier did not commit to that yesterday, because the ministers have to back the government decision, but the rest could all speak freely. We will see who speaks today. We will see what they say, and the only request is simple: If the government lives to its word, you can have the same outcome for processing in Newfoundland and Labrador that they arrived at in harvesting in Alaska. You can have the government, the union, and the processors together. You will not need a so-called independent person like Mr. Cashin at all. They will agree, on a tri-party committee, to monitor it, and they can put a new system in place, but it needs to take the time to have the discussion that people were promised. A promise is a promise; that is what we all believe.

All I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that the government would just keep its word, talk to the union, get the season started, let the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and these rural communities go back to what they know how to do, fish for crab, process crab, provide for their families, keep their communities strong and help grow Newfoundland and Labrador into a better Province today than it was yesterday.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to have the opportunity to rise and speak on this very important, very critical, issue that is facing the Province.

I live in probably one of the greatest fishing districts in Newfoundland and Labrador. Over the past number of years that area has been one of the most successful, economically, in all of the Province. That can be attributed, Mr. Speaker, to a large extent, to all of the loyal fishers and the plant workers who live and work in the area. They were led, Mr. Speaker, by one of the most successful and respected business people in this Province, the late Mr. Boyd Way. The Skipper, as he was known to all of the people on the shore, started his company, Beothic Fish Processors Limited, back in 1967. Through his long work, long hours and dedication, he built it to be one of the greatest fish processing companies in our Province. It is being called by many people, Mr. Speaker, as a model for the industry. He did that through trust, through loyalty and respect, between himself, the fishers who fished for him, and the plant workers.

Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, there is no other company in this Province that has done more for their workers, for their fishers, in terms of overall fairness, in terms of workers' pay, prices and service to fishers, and having been a good corporate citizen in this Province. It has been said time and time again, by practically everyone on that shore, what is good for Beothic Fish is good for everyone who lives there. Mr. Speaker, that may be a unique situation, but that is just how it is.

It would appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that now some of these people, because of this issue, this raw material sharing issue, have turned their backs on that company. I would like to think, Mr. Speaker, that it is more because they have been misinformed and do not fully understand the full meaning and intent of this pilot project; but, Mr. Speaker, I am one who understands the issues. I do understand the concerns and I do understand the implications of having this pilot project implemented versus not having it implemented. It is because of this, Mr. Speaker, that I am one who will not be turning my back on that company over this issue.

I could easily play politics with this, Mr. Speaker, and back away from it, but the lives and the future of the people who live in that District of Bonavista North are more important to me than my political career.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, any time change is implemented, whether it is in the fishery or in any other industry, it is understandable that there will be objections in some form or other. This case, with respect to the new policy on raw material sharing in the crab fishery, is certainly no exception.

I remember several years ago, Mr. Speaker, when the federal government adopted a new policy for harvesting fish, for harvesting crab, when they brought in the system of IQs for fishers as opposed to what they had before, a competitive fishery. In 1995 they implemented, or tried a pilot project with some sectors and in some areas of the Province. In 1996 they put in a full pilot project for IQ systems right throughout the Province. In 1997, after a complete review of this process, they implemented IQs for fishermen.

Mr. Speaker, I remember then that fishermen were concerned at the time about having their rights taken away because the competitive fishery was taken away from them. They had concerns about competition for volume of crab. That would be gone. They would be losing a large part of their income was another concern that they had, and companies would take over and rule the day.

Mr. Speaker, looking back on it now, I do not think it turned our too badly overall. Fishers can plan their season based on IQs. They know at the beginning of the season now how much money they are going to make. It is much safer for them. They can schedule their trips now around the weather. They have the right to buy licences, to sell their licence, and to transfer their licence. Most importantly of all, Mr. Speaker, the quality of the raw material that they are bringing to their plants has improved immensely. I would say that if a survey were done now as to what fishers would prefer, an IQ fishery or a competitive fishery, I would say, without a doubt, that the conclusion would be obvious.

Now, Mr. Speaker, our government has put forward a new policy with respect to raw material sharing. Again, there are many concerns and I understand them fully. What was originally planned to be a two-year pilot project is now a one-year pilot project. A committee is being struck that is representative of all areas of the fishery, and is being led now by none other than the founder of the FFAW, Mr. Richard Cashin. They are going to very closely monitor this fishery throughout the season and, at the end of the season, a thorough review will be done involving everybody in the industry. Whatever decision is made by that committee, it has been said, and it was said earlier by the Premier, that it will be accepted by this government. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that there is a great deal of misunderstanding and confusion over the raw material sharing process, and that is very unfortunate.

I have heard fishers express concern with respect to corporate concentration. Well, Mr. Speaker, under the old system - and I want to correct our minister from earlier - four companies have more than 50 per cent control of the crab resource in this Province. What is interesting about that, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that three of these four companies are non-unionized companies for the most part, and two of these four have only been in the industry a relatively short time in comparison to the Beothic Fisheries and P. Janes who started this industry.

Mr. Speaker, we already have corporate concentration and it is getting worse under the old system. This concentration, as far as I am concerned, escalated greatly since five or six years ago when we brought in Final Offer Selection. It was only last year that the industry made a change to the formula for determining price, because prior to last year, the price that was set was just the minimum price and it left processors with extra money to pass around. Mr. Speaker, last year, I believe, under the system that was adopted, the formula that was used in determining price was fair and equal to every fisher in the Province. If that is what fishers want, an equal price for their product, then I would suggest that they demand nothing less than the formula that was used last year in determining their price.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, the Collective Bargaining Act is being strengthened to ensure proper negotiations take place between processors and the union. To further confirm this pricing system, Mr. Speaker, an independent accounting firm will be conducting bi-weekly audits of the processors. I know there is major distrust between fishers and the processing industry, and I fully understand where they are coming from. However, I would have to say, that there are still a number of good, reputable processors in this industry.

If you take a company like the Fogo Island Co-op, a company that is owned by the fishers themselves, why would they want to change the invoicing for what they receive for the price for their product? Over the years, Mr. Speaker, I have seen the selling prices on a regular basis of what the other companies are getting, and I can tell you now, that the actual average price received by pretty well all of the processors, there is very little difference, except for some companies that have a reputation for poor quality product. Based on the invoicing of four, five or six or those processors, it would be a really good indication of what the overall price is in the industry.

Mr. Speaker, this price to market system is similar to what has been used in the lump roe fishery for the past seven or eight years. The lump roe price is set at the beginning of the year and, at the end of the season, the books of two or three companies are audited, and based on that, the price is adjusted accordingly for the fishers. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this system has worked very well in the lump roe fishery. Some of the same companies whose books are being audited for that can be used for the crab fishery. Whatever system we have, we are going to have to put some trust, some degree of trust, in someone.

Mr. Speaker, this is a one-year pilot project, a project that is going to be monitored very closely by all parties. A major review will be conducted at the end, throughout the fall and before any conclusion and recommendation is made that the government will finally agree upon, whatever it is. I believe this to be a fair process, and, in the absence of any viable alternative to date, and in consideration of the time of the season where we are now, I believe that this project should be given a chance right now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

I say to the Member of Bonavista North, I, too, agree that Beothic Fisheries is a good company. I can also see why you stand today in this House and support production quotas, because as you said on the news media around the Province as of late, that you worked for that company for fifty years. I say to the member, though, that in speaking today he did not reference the 1,100 name petition that was brought to us yesterday from fish harvesters and plant workers in your district who are opposed to production quotas.

MR. HARDING: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: I object to the statements being made by the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. That is a number of times now that he has made issues concerning me and my involvement in the fishery. When I speak for that company, I speak for all the fisher people and all of the plant workers on that shore. If you go and talk to them at any time, you will find that is fact.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I remind members that they should not use a point of order to re-enter and engage in debate.

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to tell you today why I am opposed to the scheme that the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries are trying to force upon or starve the harvesters and the plant workers in this Province into agreeing with. Let me tell you what it means.

What the Premier is trying to do is take the entire crab quota for this Province, of roughly 100 million pounds - it is probably more like 110 million, but we will use 100 million pounds, for example - and give it to thirty-eight crab plants in this Province. What he is going to do with the production quotas he is saying to these thirty-eight plants: You can divvy up 100 million pounds of crab among you without having to compete on the head of the wharf for that crab. If the crab is landed, these individual plants will get their crab. No longer will they have to compete. No longer will they have to go on the head of a wharf. They know if it is landed it is theirs.

Let's talk about the thirty-eight plants, because in my estimation these thirty-eight crab plants are owned by fewer than twenty individuals in this Province. Think about that: twenty individuals owning thirty-eight plants that control 100 million pounds of crab. They were given a licence, a privilege in this Province, that none of us or no one in these galleries had the privilege to have. Believe me, it is valuable commodity, one that is bought and sold for large amounts of money. Now, of these thirty-eight plants, like I said, that are owned by fewer than twenty individuals in the Province - the Member for Bonavista North stood today and made a statement I was going to make. Four, in fact, processors in this Province control 50 per cent of the crab that is landed. That is 50 per cent of 100 million pounds or 50 per cent of a $500 million industry.

What you are doing, I say to the Premier and the members opposite, is legalizing a cartel, the same cartel that the Premier when he was in Opposition, the same cartel that the Minister of Fisheries when he was in Opposition, called in to the Competition Bureau of Canada to investigate, because he said they were colluding to limit the price they had to pay to fisherman. I say to the members opposite, what you are doing is legalizing a cartel and you will ensure that the prices to fishermen will be driven down because there is no doubt in my mind - and no one, and I say no one in this House today, no economist in this country today will stand and say that if you eliminate competition that the price paid to harvesters is going to go up. It is just not in the cards. It just will not happen, I say to the individuals opposite.

Now, how will this cartel or this production quota scheme affect fishermen and how will it affect plant workers? Well, let's start with the fishermen. If there is no competition at the head of the wharf, as I said, there is nowhere for the price to go only down. There is no way out of it. It has to go down. Why would a processor, for example, pay a fisherman more for his catch if he knows all he has to do is sit back in his office and the crab is going to come in and he is going to get his share of it? Think about that. Why would you bother to go out and say: Boy, I am going to give you more money for your crab even though you have to land it to me? I mean, who in their right mind would do it? I am not a processor but I know right now that if I could get a deal I would go for a deal. I go for a deal in everything I purchase, from my clothes to my house to my vehicles. I go for a deal on everything, that is human nature. Do not tell me that if you can get a better deal or force a price down to a fisherman that these processors are going to go along with that and say: That is alright boy, we are going to raise what we are going to give you this year because you are such a nice person.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the Minister of Fisheries say: Well, we have a way around that, to ensure that these individual harvesters are going to get a fair price. We are going to force these processors to open their books. We are going to examine their books. We are going to force them to open it so the fishermen in the Province will know what they are making and know what they can pay them. I asked the Minister of Fisheries two weeks ago in a committee meeting, not held in this House but held upstairs: How much crab was landed in Englee last year by a particular processor? Do you know what his answer was? I'm not telling you. As simple as that, not telling you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: That is what he said, in those words: Not telling you. That is what he said.

These processors, like I said, are the same ones that this Minister of Fisheries and the Premier basically called crooks. Three short years ago - I am not saying and I am sure that no one in this Province are going to say that processors or all processors are crooks, I will tell you that. There are many respectable individuals involved in the fish processing sector of this Province, and I know them. These are the same ones that the minister called crooks a few years ago, that he wants to open the books; that they are going to come forward now and open the books on.

People have a short memory, but I do not. Three years ago we all heard about the processor that was landing fish in Gaultois - illegal fish, I might add - fish that was not supposed to be caught, fish that people never had a quota for, that was bought by a processor, trucked to another plant and processed illegally. That individual was caught and charged by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa. These are the individuals we are going to say are going to open their books and give fishermen a fair price. That is what I say.

Processors themselves have said publicly on the airwaves in this Province, we - Mr. Clarke, the head of ASP, the association of fish processors, or processors in the Province, said publicly: We have a problem with opening our books to the government. Well, God help the fishermen, I say, because they certainly will never see their books. If they will not open them for government, or they have a problem with it, they are certainly not going to open their books to the poor harvester in this Province, I will guarantee you that. Besides getting a lower price for their product, I will guarantee you, that they will no longer get deals on ice and bait. They will be told when to fish and where to land it, and if they do not do it when they are told and land it where they are told to land it, then they will be forced to pay for their trucking because no longer will a processor be on the head of a wharf saying: Come on, boy, I will take your crab; while there is another one there saying: No, come with me and I will give you a few cents more and I will pay for the trucking, I will pay for the bait and I will pay for the ice. You can forget that. It is never going to happen again under this scheme. Never going to happen again.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the small boat fishermen that the minister says are all in favour of this. Well, I have not talked to any small boat fishermen. These are the ones who are supposed to be getting ripped off, according to the Member for Bonavista North. What will happen to Doyle Warren in Toogood Arm under this system who has 12,000 pounds of crab in an eighteen foot boat? What is going to happen to him when he lands at his wharf in Toogood Arm with 500 pounds of crab and he calls up and says: Come down? No longer are you going to see two processors on the head of that wharf. No longer are they going to send the truck down, I will guarantee you that. He will be told: You get your crab up here. If you are not, go somewhere else. But, guess what? He has nowhere else to go because he knows that no one else will buy his crab. What is going to happen to the price of his bait? What is going to happen to the price of his ice? We all know what will happen, Mr. Speaker.

Let's go to the plant workers, and there are some in the gallery here today. Let's talk about them. Anyone who has ever gone into a crab plant, anyone who knows anything about the crab fishery knows that the only reason there are two shifts in a plant is because of the way fish is landed and when it is landed. If the fishery were open today we are going to see fishermen leave the wharf, most of them at the same time. They are going to arrive back from the plant and we are going to have a lot of crab flowing. I will tell you, the first shift is not going to able to clean her up this evening. As a result, they are going to call the second shift in tonight. That is how these people survive. Well, when these processors can tell a fisherman when to fish and when to land it, you can say goodbye to that second shift; those hundreds of people who work on second shifts. I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, they are not going to see the inside of a plant anymore because they will no longer be required.

Let's talk about production quotas. I might add, transferable production quotas because this is the thing that galls me most about this program, transferable production quotas. What is going to happen to the small plants and the people who work in the small plants around this Province when this group, that the Member for Bonavista North was talking about today? He basically said they were a cartel. He said they are owned. It is corporate concentration. What is going to happen to the small plants now that their owner is given a production quota? What is going to happen to them? Before if he wanted to get out of the fishery, if he wanted to sell his plant, he sold his plant. It was not worth a lot. Do you know why? Because he had no quota attached to it. He sold the building. He did not sell the crab. Now, not only is he going to be able to sell the building, he is going to be able to sell the crab. So, he has his retirement package right there in his arse pocket. What have the plant workers got? They got absolutely nothing because if he sells his quota the plant will be closed, the quota will be transferred and many of these small communities will never see a crab plant again. This is what you are supporting.

The processors put this on the table for me in 2001. I say to the Member for St. Barbe, they said: Here is the plan. Here are the quotas for each of the individual plants; for shrimp that was, I say to the member, and you know what I am going to say. I looked down through the list of production quotas. They had it all done out. So-and-so was getting 10 million pounds, another fellow was getting 12 million and someone else was getting 5 million. Guess who was absent from the list? The Town of Twillingate with their shrimp plant and the Town of Black Duck Cove on the Northern Peninsula. I said: What about these people? Do you know what the answer is? They don't belong in the fishery. They don't belong in the fishery! We don't need these people. I said, no, I am not doing it, and I am saying no today. I say to the Member for St. Barbe, you know, because I guarantee you, buddy, Millie Dredge knew.

Mr. Speaker, why do they want to do it? That is the question. Why do they want to do it? The minister stands day after day and says, we have too many plants. Well, boy, with production quotas you can look after that pretty quickly, close them down and transfer their quota. All you have to do is look at Harbour Breton. FPI has, and have had for thirty years, the only production quotas in this Province. Harbour Breton owns, as far as I am concerned, part of those production quotas. FPI begs to differ. FPI took the quota from Harbour Breton and they transferred it. Guess what? We don't even know where they transferred it yet, if it was transferred to Marystown or to China, and we will never find out. Talk to the people of Harbour Breton about production quotas. That is what I say. Talk to them and ask them if they agreed to them when they are trying to fight today for their livelihood and trying to fight today to get part of that production quota back into their community.

Mr. Speaker, why are they doing it? I have no idea. I can only guess that this Premier has talked to some of these rich plant owners in this Province and he has told them: Yes, we will give you your production quotas. Yes, we will put you back to where you were 300 years ago, 200 years ago, 50 years ago, when the merchants controlled the fishery, when the merchants had production quotas because they owned each individual cove and harbour around this Province. They owned them. They didn't compete with each other when they stood in their mansions downtown, St. John's, with their cocktail parties at Christmas. They didn't have to, there was enough for all.

MADAM SPEAKER (S. Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time has expired.

MR. REID: Just a few minutes to clue, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a quick comment about the suggestion that the Premier made with Mr. Cashin going as the independent arbitrator on this committee. I have the greatest of respect for Mr. Cashin, but there were three reports done for government on production quotas. One was the Dunne report. Mr. Dunne said: Don't do production quotas unless it is negotiated with the union and the union is on side, the fish harvesters. David Vardy recommended production quotas but, he said, it should only occur if it was negotiated and put into a collective agreement with the union.

Richard Cashin recommended production quotas in 1996, with no caveats. He just recommended production quotas. He did not say that they had to be done with the support of the union. He did not say that they had to talk to the union. He just recommended production quotas, and that is my fear. An individual who is now employed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, a man who has recommended production quotas with no conditions attached, is now going to be the independent arbiter who is going to determine, at the end of three months, whether or not we get production quotas.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to say that we have a Premier who knows nothing about the history of the fishery. He wants us to revert to a time when you were told to: fish and be hungry, or don't fish and starve.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is an opportunity this afternoon - fifteen or sixteen minutes, I guess, is what we have, I think - to have a few comments on the raw material sharing system that we propose to implement in the crab fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot said about the raw material sharing system over the past two-and-a-half months, and certainly over the past five or six years. There has been a great deal of debate, some of it factual and some of it misrepresented.

Madam Speaker, there are a number of ways that the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador can be managed, and I have said that in the House on a number of occasions. It can be managed in a free market system where the highest bidder, the strongest company, the strongest fishermen, the strongest community, are the ones that survive at the end of the day - because we all know the Wal-Marts of the world, for example, are the strongest players in the retail sector, and what is happening to some of our small retailers. What is happening to some of our small communities who are in small proximity, in the retail sector, who are in close proximity to the Wal-Marts of Stephenville and Corner Brook and Grand Falls and Gander and St. John's and Mount Pearl and what have you? What is happening? Well, Madam Speaker, the exact same thing happens in all sectors of the economy if the free market is allowed to determine, at the end of the day, what happens.

That is one option, and in many respects it is a laudable option. It will result in strategically located plants. It will result in harvesters, at least for a period of time, achieving a higher than average, probably, price for their product; but what, Madam Speaker, happens at the end of the day when we are down to the point when there are only the Wal-Marts of the fishing industry left? What happens when there are three or four or five Wal-Marts that control the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador? What happens then? What happens then, in the absence of a very strong collective bargaining regime? - which is what we are trying to advance in this, an improvement to the collective bargaining regime. We are trying to do that. What happens to all of the communities that today have fish processing facilities? Yes, I have said that some will go. Of course some will go, especially if crab continues, the resource continues, to decline, as is projected. We have lost probably about 10,000 tons or more, in the past four or five or six years, from the total harvest.

Madam Speaker, those are facts, those are the realities. That is one option; or, we can take a very regulated approach to the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. I was outside for a little while and heard the hon. Member for Port de Grave speaking. I don't think anybody in this House and anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador disagrees with how we want the fishery to look at the end of the day. I think everybody wants to preserve rural communities. I think everybody wants to see processing capacity in regions of the Province. I think everybody respects the principle of adjacency and historical attachment and regional balance and controls on corporate concentration. So, this is not a disagreement about that, I do not believe. It might be a disagreement, and a fundamental one, about how we achieve those ends, but that is a separate issue.

I listened - I go back to the Member for Port de Grave - and he referenced a lady from British Columbia, and I remember her name. I jotted it down. I had a spell thinking about it, I am not good on names, but I remember her. She spoke, and I did not hear her speech but I heard of it and I was given a video tape. She is with the B.C. fishermen's union and CAW, and her name was Joy Thorkelson, if I am not mistaken. I might have the pronunciation wrong, and I might have the spelling wrong, but it is something like that.

What did she talk about? She talked about corporate control of the fishing industry. What was the basis for the corporate control and the consolidation and the erosion of communities' ability to hang on in the fishery on the West Coast of this country? What was the basis for it? It was individual quotas, enterprise allocations, and unchecked consolidation of that, where people who have, in some cases, no attachment whatsoever to the fishing industry, in some cases people who are in the fishing industry continue to buy up quota, buy out fishing enterprises, consolidate it on a smaller number of boats, continue down that road to the point where some people who do not ever see the ocean - or, if they do, it is from a very large yacht or from a cruise ship - own and control a vast amount of quota on the West Coast of this country.

That, Madam Speaker, is the road that we have been on for a number of years in Newfoundland and Labrador, and everybody in the fishing industry knows it. Everybody looks around and they see how processors are circumventing the fleet separation policy. They see how processors are circumventing the owner-operator policy. They see how there is a growing consolidation of ownership in the industry, both at the harvesting level and the processing level.

Madam Speaker, what we have proposed here is something to try and stop that, because we have no control over the harvesting sector. We have no control -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: I sat here and listened, and I was outside and listened when I could. I did not open my mouth when some people were saying something that I disagreed with, and I would expect the same courtesy from people on the other side of the House.

What we are trying to do is stop that, because we have no control over that. The federal government are not exercising their responsibility, unfortunately, in these trust agreements. We are on a road where three, four or five processors in this Province will, at the end of the day, have control over the industry. What are we trying to do? We are trying to do the exact same thing that the people in Alaska - I referenced some of this earlier today. We might be stupid, but there is somebody in Alaska just as stupid as us, I would suggest, in that great bastion, in that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TAYLOR: As I said, I listened carefully to what other people had to say. We do not get very much of an opportunity to lay out exactly what it is we are trying to achieve here, and how we are trying to achieve it, so I would appreciate if people would just listen to what we are trying to say. If they choose to disagree after the fact, that is fine.

Madam Speaker, what are we trying to do? In Alaska, in that great bastion of free enterprise, the United State of America, what are they doing? An allocation system on fishing and processing quota that recognizes that both are economic partners in the fishery; a binding arbitration program to be used in the event of a failed price negotiation. Sound familiar? I believe we proposed that on March 2. A strengthened dispute resolution mechanism: That is what we said. Binding arbitration, final offer selection, what everybody wants supposedly: We said we will do it. We will amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to put it back in there, and as a matter of fact, we will strengthen it so that at no future date - if the processors do like they did last year where they refused to bargain, that they will not be able to refuse and hold up the season, that the fisherman's union can go to the department of labour, to the labour agency, and say: We want a mediator at this point. Several days later they can go back and say, we want an arbitrator, and several days later the price gets set. The processors never have to show up to the table and they never have to agree, but they have to abide by it because it is the law at the end of the day. That is what we propose, just like they proposed in Alaska.

Ownership limits on fishing and processing quota to prevent excessive consolidation: Well, we do not have any control over the harvesting sector, but we do have control over the processing sector. We said, on March 2, that if the pilot project ever became a permanent arrangement, we would be prepared to cap, we would be prepared to put restrictions, on concentration of ownership in this industry, limits on control, so that no processor or a group of processors can gain control of the industry, and prevent what is happening in our industry today. If a processor is stopped from gathering up more control of the industry, why would that processor continue to try and consolidate ownership of the harvesting arm of the industry under their umbrella company?

I have heard some people over the last few days say: Well, that is going to devalue our fishing enterprises. Yes, it might to some extent, but we have to ask ourselves: Do we want the harvesting sector of our industry to be controlled by harvesters, or do we want the harvesting sector of our industry to be controlled by processors? Because that is a fundamental question that needs to be answered. If people want the harvesting sector to be able to sell to the highest bidder, when they get ready to retire and sell out their enterprise and sell out their boat and sell out their licence, then, yes, we should allow the processing sector to buy it because they are the ones with the big bucks. If we want fisherman x, when he or she departs the industry, to sell that enterprise to somebody else who is a harvester, then we have to put controls on the processing sector to stop it. The federal government have not done it. We have a responsibility to the extent that we can do it. I believe the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, or whoever it is, has an obligation to the people of this Province and the fishing industry to stop that from happening. We cannot allow that to happen by abdication of our responsibility.

What else does it say in Alaska? Regional landing requirements that direct fishermen - direct fishermen, we are not even telling them. We are not directing fishermen where to sell their product. They sell their product where they like. We are saying that a minimum of 75 per cent must be processed in a region. What are they saying here? Regional landing requirements that direct fishermen to land 90 per cent of their catch in broad geographic regions according to historic deliveries as a means for maintaining some equilibrium between regional economies in Western Alaska. Boy, you would almost say that we wrote that.

A guaranteed right for communities to purchase - this is an issue that would have to be dealt with which is why we said there are no transfers during the pilot project in order to protect rural communities. We said: If there should come a time when transfers are allowed these are the types of issues that should be looked at. Should we have, as it says here in Alaska, a guaranteed right for communities to purchase fishing or processing quota? Should we have a right of first refusal for communities to purchase processing quota that might otherwise leave town? Those are issues that we can deal with on a go forward basis, if we sat down, if we agreed that we do a pilot project to try and stabilize the industry in the short term, and we take the opportunity to try and deal with these fundamental problems in the long-term. That is what we are trying to do, Madam Speaker.

If anybody thinks that rural Newfoundland and Labrador is going to survive without some attachment of fish to a region, it is not going to happen. The tourism industry, yes, it is growing, it is doing some things in some areas. Mining will do some things in other areas and forestry in some other areas, but for the vast majority of outport Newfoundland and Labrador if there is not some way of ensuring some production of fish in that region, it is not going to happen. That is what we are trying to do.

We believe we know where the crab resource is going. It is going to diminish further. We hope it does not go too far. We hope that there is some recruitment that comes along. We can only hope for that and we have to plan for the worst case scenario. If the worst case scenario does not come about, great, we are further ahead of the game.

If we were to look around, just look around this Province, look at the South Coast of Labrador. Why is the South Coast of Labrador one of the more better off - not by any stretch, now, affluent - but it is better off than the vast majority of rural areas, outport Newfoundland and Labrador. Why? I will tell you why. Because all crab in 2J has a conditional licence in this Province, all crab in 2 J. It does not say it has to be processed in 2J, so that nobody else in the Province can touch it. All crab off 2J, all crab adjacent to the South East Coast of Labrador, gets processed in Labrador. They have, essentially, a plant production quota system up there, a raw material sharing system up there, restrictions on where the fish go. If we do not have something similar to that in other areas, then the drain - why is the Southwest Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in such a mess. What is there such a lack of processing capability on the Southwest Coast? Because there is nothing tied to that area. Why is the Connaigre Peninsula in a mess?

I heard what the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune said. I heard what the Member for Twillingate & Fogo said a few minutes ago, about Harbour Breton and how FPI decided to close down their operations and move their production out of there. We have no ability to control it. What we are trying to do here is develop a system that gives us the ability to control it, to ensure that places like the Connaigre Peninsula have a strong processing regime, a strong processing facility, at least one. God knows, they deserve at least one on the Connaigre Peninsula. Maybe they should have at least three or four, but they deserve at least one. As we stand here today, they do not have even one. I do not see the Connaigre Peninsula much differently than I saw the Northern Peninsula on the Southeast Coast of Labrador.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture that his speaking time has expired. up.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Madam Speaker. If I could have thirty or forty seconds to clue up.

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have time to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Madam Speaker, that is what this is about. It is about trying to find a balance between the needs of fishermen and their legitimate desires, the needs of plants workers and their legitimate desires, the needs of processors and their legitimate desires, and the needs of communities and regions and their legitimate desires. That is what this is about. It is about trying to find that balance and that balance has not existed ever in our history. Sometime is was out of balance for the large merchants, as people said, on Water Street. Sometimes it is out of balance in another way.

Right now, in spite of what people might think today, we are on a road where the processing sector of this Province will, in the absence of checks and balances like we are trying to put forward here today, the processing sector of this Province will continue to consolidate and will continue to have greater control over the harvesting sector. Then, I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, there will be absolutely no competition on the head of the wharf if we let this go its natural course, which is what it is on right now. When the Walmarts of the world take over the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, I can guarantee you the fishermen will not have the competition that they so long for today. They do need a strong Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act and that is why we are proposing to do this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It has been a very interesting afternoon, I have sat and listened, I think, to every word that everybody has said, because it is important. What you have, of course, is we have forty-eight people here and you probably would have forty-eight different opinions as to what it is the final solution for.

I was listening very attentively to the Member for Bonavista North when he said he would stand behind the processor in his area - I think it is Beothic fishery. It very well could be a good company but, I can tell you one thing, as a Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, I will never stand behind Fishery Products International. I will stand behind the people which particular company right now has no concern for; contempt for the people of that community. That is what it is about. I will tell you the whole principle here - it is not a matter, Madam Speaker, of a one-year pilot project or a two-year pilot project. It is a matter of principle. That is what this is about. It is a matter of principle. Because, as I said one day in the House before, I am probably a lot older than many people here and I came from a very small community on the South Coast. I can remember being in the stage with my mom, only a small boy, and I can see my grandfather on my mom's side, fourteen of them in the family, delivering fish to the fish merchant. What you have here, this particular test case is one-sided. You have the processors having the total say. You do not have the harvesters consulted to see if they agree with what is here. That is the problem. I mean, it has been there for two or three months. We have said it here everyday. You have, somehow, to find an agreement between all parties, just as we said about Alaska here.

Just let me talk about concentration. Nobody knows concentration any better in the groundfish industry than FPI, as the minister just said. They do have quotas and they have transferrable quotas. I will tell you what they did to Harbour Breton back last fall - and I was to every meeting that the council and the committee had in St. John's down in their boardroom. I was there. When they decided to leave in November, I will tell you what they did, a corporate company, that the people, the fish harvesters, the fish plant workers out there in the Province know all about, they said to the people of Harbour Breton: We are out of here.

Last night, I went last night after supper - I want to thank the Government House Leader for giving me some time to go with a group from Harbour Breton down to the Baine Johnston Building. They would not meet the people from Harbour Breton yesterday when they were over at the building. They would not do it. They went to the farthest place they could find down at Baine Johnston, down at the East End of Water Street, and met with us last night. I looked across the table at Derrick Rowe, the CEO of Fishery Products International, I looked at him and I said: You owe the people of Harbour Breton one. Do not tell me that people from Harbour Breton, who have worked twenty-five, thirty and forty years in the plant, you will say to them, a handshake and nothing else. You go to the government, to the Department of Labour Standards and whatever, and says: We do not owe Harbour Breton a proper layoff. Why not? Because the plant - looked at by Occupational Health and Safety, says it is not conducive for people to work. It is not safe. I said to Derrick, was it Rick Stewart, a young fellow twenty-five or thirty with a young family in Harbour Breton? Was it Cliff Jackman? Was it John George? Was it Eric Day who allowed the plant to find itself in that condition?

I remember, I was in Cabinet as a Member of the Resource Committee of Cabinet, when they came to us and sat around the table when they ousted Vic Young. They said to us: We have a plan. We have a plan to grow the company. You have nothing to fear in Harbour Breton. You have nothing to fear in Fortune. You have nothing to fear in Marystown. We are going to grow the company. They are going to be strong. Guess what? What has Derrick Rowe done? I am telling you, I do not have any shares in FPI, but I will tell you what. If I was going to put shares in a company I would not put it in FPI. They have been a dismal failure. They have left the people high and dry.

In Nova Scotia, when they laid off people - one of them a former resident of Harbour Breton - they gave them a severance pay of $30,000. Not in Harbour Breton! You have human misery in Harbour Breton.

I heard John George describe it to Derrick Rowe last night. He said it is like a tsunami but it is not a physical one, it is a financial one. You can travel around the community and you do not see it. Television cameras can come in, it is like it is here, but if you were inside of the individuals - people who were here yesterday from Harbour Breton they sat in the galleries and they left peacefully. They are like a broken people. They have been used by FPI. There is no compassion. There is no feeling for them whatsoever. That is a company, a flagship company and they have control of the groundfish industry, probably all of it. You are telling me - my wife's family are fisherpeople and last fall before Christmas getting a little bit of quota up off Pass Island, the four of them almost drowned and everybody in the community said they will never make it down. These are not the large harvesters. They are out there trying to survive, and it really irritates me when I hear people on Open Line from the urban areas saying the big wealthy people, big pickups. What is wrong with a fisherman having a pickup? Oliver Langdon can buy one, why can't they? That is what it is about.

I will tell you the other thing, that the people who are fish plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, do you know what their problem is? I can remember when I went teaching the first year back in 1963, I got $92 a month. I can remember, as a boy, when the people in Seal Cove were fishing for five cents a pound and the union came along, and they brought the standard of living up. I know it because the boys from Seal Cove were involved with the IWA strike, and my grandfather and the boys, they ate beans in the morning and beans at dinnertime and beans at supper. They had a union and they brought their standard of living up and, as a result of it, they were able to buy things, not luxuries, the necessities of life. This is what this is about and this is why the fishermen, the harvesters, the older people, in particular, know what it is to see a concentration into the hands of, what they call, the fish merchants. They want a say in it and they should have a say in it, and the union should have a say in it. It elevated the standard of life.

I remember when I was a young fellow coming to university, there were not many of us coming, but I tell you what is happening in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today, there are more people out there who are educated than we think and they see what is going on. They know what is going on. They are the silent majority but do not ever think that they don't know. They can attest to the same fact that I am talking about. They see it as a sense where they need to have an input, and an input they must have. If it means keeping it off for a year, than so be it. Come back in the fall of the year, next year, and be able to bring everybody together and be able to work with it.

I know about Final Offer Selection. I wasn't in the Cabinet. I remember when the crew went down to, I think it was Mary Queen of Peace, when Minister Efford was there and he was lucky he got out alive because the fishermen were irritated. We brought in the Final Offer Selection, and do you know what? That worked, and it would work today. But do you know why it did not work? The processors opted out of it. They opted out of it. They did not want a situation where, at the end of the day, there were going to be two prices on the table and the mediator would not look at the two and put in the average. He says: You go back, you sharpen your pencil, and I will take one or the other.

They did not want it, and that is the situation that the harvesters were in. They saw themselves, in the last number of years, where they were able to get ahead and make some progress. I don't know all about the fishery, I really don't, but one thing I do know: I know people who are in it, because they are the people who are dear to me.

The human misery, I said to Derek Rowe - I must go back to that - I said to him last night: You don't understand, do you? A family in Harbour Breton - and all of us have kids, or had kids; mine are grown up - with kids fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen years of age, and they go to school in the morning, and when the student goes there is Internet in the House. Internet is not a luxury; it is an educational tool where the kids can work. Also, when they go in the morning there is cable in the House and when they come back at night there is none of it.

Just think about it, the psychological strain. That is what you have, the psychological strain of all this. I am telling you - and I do not have to tell you, because that would be condescending and I do not want to do that; I just express my views like everybody else in the House - there are going to be a lot of Harbour Bretons this year.

If there is an agreement tomorrow, there will be a lot of Harbour Bretons this year because the plant workers will not get enough hours to be able to qualify at this stage of the game. The government will do like we did when we were ministers; we had to have make-work projects, $6.25 an hour. It was no different when we were there, but it is not a way of life, $6.25 an hour, $98 every two weeks. You cannot pay the phone bill on unemployment insurance. Pay a mortgage? Pay a car payment? I was talking to one of the guys from Harbour Breton last week and he said: I have three cars in my garage over the weekend because the people have passed them back to the companies because they cannot pay it any more.

That is what I have. That is the human misery, and it is being created by a company like FPI. They have no feeling. It is like a piece of cloth - and I have used it before, and probably some of you are tired of hearing it, but I must use it again - it is like a pressing cloth. It is usually white when you start out, and when you press the iron on it you see the steam coming out. I saw my grandmother at it for many years, and after years and years and years of use what happened to it? It became brown, and you could take the piece of cloth and it could come apart. There was no feeling in it, there was no fibre to it. You know what? That is just like the big company that we are dealing with in Harbour Breton: FPI. They have no feeling.

I really think - it is just my opinion, and it is not to be adversarial because I do not think it is a day to be adversarial, but it is a day to express your views - that the FPI Act, if it is not strong enough, it could have been made strong enough in the House of Assembly to say to FPI: If you do not want to go back in Harbour Breton, your quota is going to remain in Harbour Breton.

That could have happened, in my opinion. Probably I am totally wrong. That could have happened, and you would have a Peninsula like the Connaigre Peninsula where people, 350 of them, would be working. Probably I am wrong, but that is the situation we have. Do you know what? As I stand here today - and I am an eternal optimist. The boys in the caucus know that. I am always trying to find the bright side of things when things are dull, but, I tell you, the people of Harbour Breton have a hard road to haul. I hope at the end of the day there is success for them, but if you are going to have a situation where companies like FPI are going to run roughshod over people then we have major problems - major, major problems.

We met with the IAS Committee from Harbour Breton to talk about FPI. Do you know what we wanted from them? We wanted their historical records over the years that they produced fish in Harbour Breton, because the IAS Committee is preparing a record of all these things so that we can make our case to government at the end of the day to see if we can get a groundfish quota for Harbour Breton. Guess what? Do you know what they refused to do? They refused to give it to us. They refused to give it to us! They would not give it to us. Not to me, they would not give it to David Vardy and the guys. What is wrong with giving it to us? Do you know what they said? If we do that then we know you are going to be building a case against us because you are going to be looking for a quota in Harbour Breton.

These are the people who moved into Harbour Breton, after restructuring, for $1. They are moving out of there today and leaving 2,000 people stranded. That is what is happening. This is what is happening in the industry. We have to put a human face on it. If we put a human face on it, then what it means for us at the end of the day is, we have to make sure - has Oliver Langdon done everything perfect? Absolutely not! Hindsight is always 20-20, but there is one thing that we must do, all of us - and it is not a condemnation or imputing motives on anybody; that is not what it is all about at all, but one thing we have to do - we have to make sure that the people who most affected in all of this here, the harvesters, have a voice through their union.

Their union is there, in a sense, to improve the quality of life that they have been used to. I have had it much better than my dad, and my dad had it better than my grandfather, and my kids, hopefully, will have it better than me. Do you know why? I will tell you why: because all of us here - I am not just talking about me, as an individual - we made sure that we listened, that we consulted, that we got good advice. At the end of the day, when we made decisions, we looked at all obstacles. When we included everybody, then at the end of the day the decision was much better by being inclusive rather than exclusive.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time has elapsed, but I just wanted to say that there is a lot here at stake. As I said, the people I represent know exactly what misery is all about

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to acknowledge the comments made by my colleague opposite, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, because I do not think anybody in this House could have personalized more the plight that has been found by many communities in Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of a mismanaged fishery. As I listened to him, I could not help but think, what would happen? What would people be saying in three and five and six and seven years from now if we were not taking this issue seriously today, if we were not coming to grips with some of the significant issues facing the crab fishery in this Province today, as identified by my colleague the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, who quite eloquently and quite accurately talked about the proposal before us today, the raw material sharing system together with - because some of the things that he talked about are not, in and of themselves, inherent in a raw material sharing system but they are additional initiatives that this government is talking about with respect to strengthening the collective bargaining process, dealing with corporate concentration, all of the key elements of an overall strategy, whereas raw material sharing becomes a component of it.

I think the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune is able to personalize it because he today is dealing with an issue in his district that all of us have tremendous feeling for. When we talk about it and when some of the people who have been critics of our government's initiative, some members opposite, some people in the general public - and as I listened particularly to the Open Line shows and the news media reports in recent weeks - I heard a lot of people talking about this issue as if they are an expert on it. They are very quick to acknowledge that they may not understand at all, but they are very quick, though, to condemn government for what we are doing. I say, Mr. Speaker, that concerns me, because people are quick to jump and people are quite to condemn. They have done something - it is very unfortunate actually, and I am able to say this because I am an MHA representing a rural district. I have always lived in a rural district and I represent rural people, so I understand what I am talking about. It is very unfortunate that people have made this issue a rural versus an urban issue, because it is not, not at all. This is about a major resource for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a resource that is owned by all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we need to ensure that this resource is managed in a fashion, to the benefit of the entire Province. That is what this initiative does, I say, Mr. Speaker. This initiative does just that. When we talk about a raw material sharing system, it is for the benefit of an entire province.

People have been critical of our focus on rural Newfoundland. I look across the House and I see my colleague there for the District of Bellevue, and he, too, will remember full well our government's initiative last year. One of the first major expenditures this government made was to spend $3.5 million to ensure that we protected a fishing quota for the community and the plant in Arnold's Cove and for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the kind of commitment we have made to rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the kind of commitment we have made to the fishing industry in this Province, I say.

We heard my colleague, the Member for The Straits &White Bay North, the Minister of Fisheries, make a commitment today in this House, and yesterday in this House, last week in this House, that we have that same commitment to ensure that we assist the Community of Harbour Breton keep the quota they have in that community. Again, a commitment by this government, an issue with respect to the fishery and for rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what this government is about, Mr. Speaker and we have put our money where our mouth is. In fact, we have $3.5 million worth where our mouth is in the plant in Arnold's Cove. That is the kind of commitment we have to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk a whole lot about the system itself, because I believe the Minister of Fisheries has done an admirable job in very clearly, very succinctly, outlining the benefits of this new system, and, in fact, the overall strategy to deal with the crab fishery and the processing sector. There are a couple of points I do what to make before I deal specifically with the Member for Port de Grave and his actual motion.

A number of references have been made to the recommendation in the Dunne report, but I just want to read a couple of sentences that have always been omitted as people have made reference to the recommendation. It says: The concept of individual raw material shares for processing licence holders has been around the provincial processing industry since 1996, and during the commission's consultation, no other serious alternative to this approach was put forward other than weekly caps on individual plant production and vessel landings. This approach might solve some of the operational instability in the industry but would not remove any of the underlying causes of it. The processing sector does display much the same irrational and destructive behaviour as did the harvesting sector under a competitive fishery. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to add those few sentences before we start talking about the recommendation, because I think that capsulizes the observation made about this industry that we are in.

I do want to go back to the motion, though. I just want to read the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, because this is important: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on the Government to drop the raw material sharing system for this year; this year. In fact, the Member for Port de Grave said, if I got his quote correct, he said, as he was speaking today: We are not asking to destroy it for eternity. We have not heard the members opposite - although we did hear a couple, but not the member who has introduced this motion. He has not said that this system is wrong. What he said is he wanted to do it another year.

Let me ask this question. You have two options before you now. You have the member opposite saying, on one hand, pull it -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Can you give me a moment, I say to the Member for Bellevue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: You have two options before you today. You have, on one hand, someone saying, take it off the table and we will evaluate it the fall when the fishery closes. We will sit around a boardroom table and we will do a hypothetical, we will do a theoretical, analysis of what might happen and what might not happen and we will introduce suggestions about well, if we do this, what might this do and what might be the reaction. That is what a boardroom tabletop exercise is all about. Do we do that, as the member is suggesting, or do we do as the minister suggested? Let's take this season, this season today where we are right now until the end of July? Let's take this season and, in a real-life situation as the fishery is in process, as it unfolds, you experience it day for day. It is not hypothetical anymore. Let's take that situation and let's put in place an independent group of people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: Can I just have a moment to conclude, Mr. Speaker? I just want to make one final comment.

MR. SPEAKER: It being 4:45 p.m., does the House give leave to the Member for Trinity North to make some concluding comments?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. WISEMAN: Very quickly. Thank you for leave.

Can we, in fact, do as the minister suggests? Let's have a real-life exercise where we make a comparison, have an independent credible person with the authority and the mandate to evaluate and recommend. There is a commitment that those recommendations will be implemented, Mr. Speaker. That is the choice before us today which is the most logical I say.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do understand there is agreement reached on both sides that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi would make some comments now, and after that the Member for Port de Grave. If that means we go a little bit beyond the hour of five, then that is acceptable as well. I do not know the time sequences here, we will see how it goes and the Chair will ask leave at that point.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have listened quite carefully to all hon. members this afternoon on this extremely important issue as it affects so many communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, so many families. In fact, when we listened to the speeches, such as those from the Member for Fortune Bay- Cape la Hune, it is pretty obvious that this is a very fundamental debate that we are having here today, as to the relationship between the fish merchants, or the fish processors they are known as today, and the harvesters and plant workers who are the ordinary people in the industry.

I met today, Mr. Speaker, with a group of about fifty women who are harvesters, who are plant workers, who are spouses of harvesters, who know what it is like, Mr. Speaker, to live on wages such as $15,000 a year. On the one hand, we have a group like that and on the other hand, we have people who are, in some cases, controlling significant proportions of 110 million pounds of crab in a $500 million industry. What this is about, Mr. Speaker, is the relationship.

There are two things, two major issues that are on the table here today. One is the proposal that the Minister of Fisheries has and the other one is a method of consultation and involvement of the people, the ones who are doing the work, who are creating that wealth, who are catching that crab, who are processing that crab, who are making the industry possible. Because without them, Mr. Speaker, there would be no industry and there are thousands and thousands and thousands of them and only thirty-eight processors.

What we see being proposed here by the Minister of Fisheries and by this government is to take this 110 million pounds of crab and pass it out and divide it up amongst thirty-eight people and say: Here is our share. Here is your share.

You can talk about jellybeans all you want, but if you pass them around, Mr. Speaker, if you pass them around-

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - the jellybeans go the people who you give them to. You do not have to pay any extra for me them because you have them. They are being given to you, they are allocated by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

He criticized enterprise allocation as a problem in the groundfish industry. Well, he is doing the very same thing on the processing level by passing around this production quota, the ability to process, to a number of processors who do not have to compete for it. It is not a difference between competition versus some other form of sharing. If the wealth was being shared properly, Mr. Speaker, we would not have a problem.

The concern, and a very legitimate concern, of fish harvesters and others is that the control will be lost and passed over to these processors. I have yet to hear how this minister plans to prevent that from happening. He said today earlier about the concerns that he had about the fact that the proposal of the fisherman's union - he does not understand there are operational difficulties. We do not know how they are going to do it. Mr. Speaker, the minister has yet to define to the fisherman's union or to the fish harvesters how his plan proposes to work. We have not seen any legislation, or even drafted legislation, on how he proposes to change the Collective Bargaining Act to ensure that the person who the Member for Twillingate & Fogo talked about, who lives in Toogood Arm is going to get the processor to come and get his crab, and while he is at it, to buy his lumpfish too and agree to look after his bait at a reasonable price. How is all of that going to happen, Mr. Speaker, without some competition going on on the wharf? He has yet to explain that because we do not think, the fisherman's union and the people who are involved in this business do not think, that there is a solution at this point.

They have a proposal that they want to sit down and talk about. The minister has a proposal and they have a proposal. There are a lot of similarities. The minister was praising the similarities in the newspaper today and yesterday. The goals are very similar. The absent piece is the kind of consultation and face-to-face negotiation, hammering out an arrangement, that is satisfactory to people.

We talk about consultation: I have in front of me a copy of the Dunne report. The Dunne report talked about consultation, but the Dunne report engaged in consultation. In fact, in the appendix to the Dunne report there are two, three or four pages listing the consultations that took place: Fifty-six meetings, Mr. Speaker, with fish harvesters, with the fishermen's union, with individual operators of plants, with town councils, with the minister himself, with plant workers in Stephenville, with harvesters in Marystown. There is a list at the end of plant workers and harvesters attending meetings with the Commission, who came from almost 100 communities. Then they list one after the other, the communities. That is the kind of consultation that Eric Dunne had, as Commissioner for this fish processing policy review. He is the one who said, after this massive consultation, that there are some comparisons being made between individual quotas in the harvesting sector and those comparisons may, indeed, be valid. Whether the claim to improve the efficiency results will be similar, it really an unknown. He says: The concept is new and untried because it has not be implemented in any fish processing industry to this time.

The Premier admitted today - we were talking about an experiment and, in fact, Mr. Dunne suggests an experiment. He says again on page 148: "...the claimed benefits of individual raw material shares in fish processing have not been observed anywhere because no such model has yet been used. He goes on to say, and quite rightly, "... it is worth trying on a cautious trial basis to determine which of the claimed beneficial results will occur. He says then, that should only be done if three-quarters of the active processing licence holders involved agree to such an arrangement, and they can satisfy the minister that there are, or will be, no substantive and reasonable objections from plant workers and harvesters.

What do we have today, Mr. Speaker? Day after day, well, since March 3, we have protests, we have objections, and none of these objections have been answered other than the minister in saying: We have to do what we think is right. Well, it is not good enough to think that something is right, when the livelihoods of thousands and thousands of families in this Province are at stake. They have to be consulted, they have to be convinced, they have to be listened to. That is what is missing here.

When I talked to these women today, they were begging, Mr. Speaker. They would like to have a meeting face to face with the Premier, to tell him how they feel as plant workers, as harvesters, as family members, that their very lives are in the hands of the people opposite here today. They believe, quite strongly, that this government does not understand on a day-to-day level how the fishery actually works. I know the minister has been in a boat, but they are looking at a big picture thinking that by allocating these resources, you can solve all the problems of the relationship between fish harvesters and the plants owners and processors and that is not going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, what is missing here is consultation and respect for the very people who do the work that make this all possible. There are proposals around, whether you want to call them olive branches or whether you want to call them attempts to solve the problem. I do not have any objection to the involvement of a man with the kind of experience, the knowledge, and the respect that Richard Cashin has in the fishery, but it has to be part of a plan that is worked out in detail face to face with the minister, with the Premier, and with the people who represent the fish harvesters, the people he worked with on an ongoing basis, who know, and, for the last twenty-five or thirty years, have been negotiating very tough deals, very tough circumstances, and making things work one way or another for the benefit and improvement of a lot of the fisher people in the Province and a lot of the plant workers. This should go on. It should not be cut off by saying: This is our way. It is the only way it is going to work and we are going to do it.

So, I encourage them all, Mr. Speaker, to look at the proposal that has been put on the table, sit down and work out the details and come to a solution that they can live with. One that the industry can live with, one that government can live with and one that is going to be respectful of the needs and desires of the people of the Province who work in this important industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave, to make some concluding comments.

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

I want to thank all hon. members on both sides of the House for taking part in the debate today, but I do have to touch on a comment that was made by the Member for Trinity North. I have to say to the hon. member, what we are saying here is about doing it right. The stakeholders in this Province do not want what has been asked of them by the Minister of Fisheries and this government. All we are saying is to take it off the table, do it right, consult with all stakeholders before we proceed with this plan.

Mr. Speaker, as I listened here today, I am sure time did not allow everybody to stand in their place and speak on this issue. I want to say to all hon. members, and in particular, I want to recognize some members: the Member for Bonavista North, St. Barbe, Windsor-Springdale, Bonavista South, Burin-Placentia West, Trinity-Bay de Verde, Trinity North, Terra Nova, Port au Port, and Conception Bay South. Also, some hon. members who are members for Baie Verte, Cape St. Francis, Harbour Main-Whitbourne, St. John's South, Ferryland, and Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, we are standing here today. We have a free vote on this side. I heard the Premier, I am glad to say, that he said it is a free vote on his side of the House. It is not difficult to stand up for your constituents. When I sat on the government side and an issue came up about a transfer or a licence for St. Anthony, I stood with my constituents and went to the government of that day. It was not against the people of St. Anthony, it was against produce being taken out of our area and possibly going there to open that plant. I want to say that I represented my people at that time because they were kind enough to say yes to me at one time with their vote.

Mr. Speaker, this plan does not have to be brought on like it is today. All we are asking and all the people of the Province are asking is that it be taken off the table and consult with the stakeholders. I want to say this, we have put a human face to this. When Question Period is over, when all the petitions have been presented, when the debates are adjourned, when the House of Assembly is closed, when the TV cameras are turned off and members opposite and on this side, we go back to our homes and we say another day over in the crab dispute. But, Mr. Speaker, the pain and anguish of the plant workers and the fish harvesters lives on. They are hurting financially and emotionally. I ask all of us to put a human face to this. Let's think about all the calls we received, and I am so proud to see the Premier here today with that wonderful smile on his face, mocking again like he always does. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for the man to come to his senses on this issue. It is a crisis, Mr. Speaker, a crisis. He had so much concern about it, he took a trip to Houston.

MR. HEDDERSON: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I thank all members for their co-operation this afternoon and I ask them if we can conclude the debate in the same sense of respect and dignity that we have carried on all afternoon.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: I say to the hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, no problem, but when you are mocked you have to do something, Mr. Speaker.

I ask all hon. members in this House to think about the phone calls they had. The e-mails they received. The petitions that were presented on their behalf by others, and I say, Mr. Speaker, think about the children and the municipal leaders. Think about the children who are out there today waiting on medication. Think about those who are pleading, we are losing this. We do not have EI coming in. We are on the verge of losing our homes and so on.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier directly, think about the time you went to Coley's Point Primary and met with the Grade 4 students and said to them: Vote for me and my party and your daddy will not have to go away.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: I say, Mr. Premier, at that time those daddies that you were talking about, they were fishers today and some of them have to leave the Province, not just to go away fishing.

Last Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, we stood in this House and honoured the veterans of this country who fought for freedom and our democratic right, and today we have that opportunity to stand freely here to vote. I challenge all members on both sides of this House to do the right thing, to stand and recognize our people who are pleading with you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is there agreement that the clock will stop so we can continue with the vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreement has been reached.

Are we ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion put forward by the Member for Port de Grave?

All those in favour of the motion, please say ‘aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair believes that the nays have it.

Division has been called.

MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

Are the Whips ready?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ready.

MR. SPEAKER: Those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Butler; Mr. Barrett; Mr. Langdon; Ms Thistle; Mr. Reid; Mr. Sweeney; Ms Foote; Mr. Joyce; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins; Mr. Manning.

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams; Mr. Edward Byrne; Mr. Rideout; Ms Dunderdale; Mr. Taylor; Mr. Marshall -

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Hedderson -

[Disturbance in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In this stage in the afternoon, the Speaker does not want to have to clear the gallery; however, if we have to, we shall.

Continue with the vote.

CLERK: Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Fitzgerald; Ms Sheila Osborne; Mr. O'Brien; Ms Burke; Mr. Tom Osborne; Ms Whalen; Mr. Jim Hodder; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. French; Mr. Harding; Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter; Mr. Jackman; Ms Johnson; Mr. Ridgley; Mr. Skinner; Mr. Oram; Ms Elizabeth Marshall.

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, there are thirteen ayes and twenty-eight nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.

This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.