May 21, 2008               HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLVI   No. 30


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today we will hear the following private members' statements: the hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West; the hon. the Member for the District of Bellevue; and, the hon. the Member for the District of Bay of Islands.

The hon. the Member for the District of Labrador West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the Grade 8 students from Labrador West, as well as students from Churchill Falls, for their participation in the historic affairs program held at Menihek High School in Labrador City on May 1. The students' projects were related to aspects of our Canadian history and consisted of three elements: a display, a written presentation, and an interview with a panel of judges.

The work involved with researching and presenting these projects was a great learning experience for the students as they incorporated cross curricular elements of social sciences, humanities, literature and fine arts. Hands-on learning was demonstrated along with filling requirements for critical thinking and research skills. Participants engaged in intergenerational dialogue and gained a greater sense of their historical roots and citizenship.

Awards were presented in a number of categories. The Laurier LaPierre award for research and presentation on a Canadian cultural theme was presented to three students: Shannon Lilly, Amanda Piercey and Julia Johnson. The Hudson's Bay Company explorer's award for outstanding achievement in the field of exploration went to Conner Kent. The Canadian Veterans award was given to Sam Vardy for his presentation honouring veterans. Megan Harrington and Chelsea Collier won the RBC Aboriginal Heritage award. The historical places award for a project focusing on buildings and architecture was presented to Aleasha Conners. Emily Bunnell of Churchill Falls took home the Margaret and Wallace McCain heritage award.

The award for the overall best project went to Alexandra Penney for her presentation on fiddle music in Cape Breton. Her ancestors were musicians from Cape Breton who travelled and played under the Gaelic name Scumalash. She will be attending the National Historica Fair in Victoria, British Columbia in July, where she will participate at a history camp with 164 other student delegates from across the country and showcase her project at the National Fair Exhibition.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating all of the Grade 8 participants, their teachers, the judges, and the organizing committee for making this year's Heritage Fair such a successful event.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PEACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me a great pleasure to stand here today, in this hon. House, and tell you of my travels this past weekend. I was invited to travel to the smallest community within the great District of Bellevue, the community of Monkstown, where the Salvation Army Corps of Monkstown was celebrating their 108 anniversary.

At this celebration, the organizers sold 144 cold plates and held a hymn sing, where they raised over $4,000. This community played host to people from all over this great Island. The community normally is a home to twenty-nine people, but this weekend around 100 people found lodgings within the community. What a great model these organizers are to others who volunteer their time to organizations throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

The community of Monkstown is located on the Burin Peninsula, and last fall contained thirty-two residents, but now only twenty-nine reside in Monkstown today. Out-migration has caused this community, like many others on this great Island, to shrivel. Monkstown is a rural community embedded by a beautiful rugged coastline of Placentia Bay and, with its twenty-three kilometre dirt road, this community and area is an ideal tourist location and does not deter tourists at any time of the year.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this great hon. House join me in extending the Salvation Army Corps of Monkstown a magnificent 108 anniversary, with best wishes on many more years to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LODER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this great House today to recognize St. Peter's Academy of Benoit's Cove and, in particular, to Ms Harbin's class of Grade 6 and some Grade 7 students.

Mr. Speaker, Ms Harbin took on the responsibility of fundraising over $24,000 to cover the cost of taking twelve students to the NASA Space Camp in Alabama.

The students left on April 24 and returned on April 29. St. Peter's were the only students from Canada and gained many friends, meeting other students belonging to all parts of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, St. Peter's Academy won the Most Outstanding Team Award out of the thirteen classes in attendance.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all hon. members here today to show our appreciation to Ms Harbin, her students and all the volunteers who made this experience come true and to thank them all for being such great ambassadors for this great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to inform hon. members of this government's ongoing efforts to improve and enhance our transportation infrastructure through our Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador, particularly as it pertains to our Labrador Winter Trails system.

For the remote communities on the north and south coasts, these groomed trails are a vital transportation link. In Budget 2008, we were very pleased to provide an additional $200,000 in funding under the Labrador Grooming Subsidy to enhance the winter trails on the north coast, as well as an additional $275,000 to purchase a groomer for the community of Postville.

Mr. Speaker, the Northern Strategic Plan for Labrador continues to demonstrate that by working together, citizens, government, and communities can achieve positive change. While we work further to invest, improve, and enhance transportation in Labrador, this government also recognizes that this effort must occur with significant consultation. We are keenly aware of the importance of consultation and the need to always consider the perspectives of Labradorians.

I am pleased to inform hon. members that officials from the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs will soon be holding consultations with stakeholder groups to best determine how we can improve the Labrador Winter Trails system. I can make every assurance that this government welcomes all feedback and will explore every option presented for the future development of this essential part of our transportation network.

Mr. Speaker, this government remains firmly committed to improving Labrador's infrastructure on many fronts, including the Labrador Winter Trails system, the coastal ferry service, and our roads. I am extremely pleased to note that we are continuing the make very significant improvements to our transportation network. For example, some $66.5 million is being invested to continue progress on the Trans-Labrador Highway and to improve local roads. This includes $45 million in cost-shared funding for widening and hard-surfacing Phase I of the Trans-Labrador Highway, and $17 million, Mr. Speaker, for the construction of Phase III.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a former premier in this Province once said that if you want a message to be heard you should at least repeat it three times, I think it was Premier Smallwood. I think the Member for Labrador, or the Minister of Labrador Affairs has adopted that philosophy because we must have heard this announcement at least three times by now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. He has very little in his department to announce on any given day. I went through the Estimates this morning and was astonished to find out that the Department of Labrador Affairs manages about two files in Labrador. One to do with the Labrador Winter Trails he is announcing today and the other one to do with the air and food lift subsidization for Labrador communities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in a department that manages and administers the projects of only two programs there is a budget of nearly $800,000 to $900,000 in the minister's salary and his support staff to be able to do that. Look at it in the context of this, Mr. Speaker, the full department spends less than $2.5 million in any fiscal year. So, maybe what the minister should be doing is announcing the $800,000 or $900,000 that he is using up there to administer these programs when they could be administered and are being administered within the bureaucracy right now, and invest that into something substantial into Labrador.

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

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

I thank the minister for the advanced copy of his statement.

There is nothing new in this statement, not anything that we do not already know. For example, we did know about the grooming and the money that was going into that. We certainly know about the widening and hard surfacing of Phase I of the TLH because it is less than what the people in Labrador West, for sure, were hoping for. We know that it is going to take a few years before they have their road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

MR. HICKEY: Get your facts straight.

MS MICHAEL: I have my facts straight, Mr. Minister. I have my facts very straight. Twenty kilometres will be done this year of that road and there is a lot more than twenty kilometres that needs to be done.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Further Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Fisheries and the Government House Leader resigned, as we know. It was in the public airways. He stated that it was due to interference by the Premier's office regarding roadwork in his district. When such a senior minister, Premier, resigns in this Province it is always a significant matter of public importance.

I ask the Premier, today, Mr. Speaker, to provide the House with an explanation as to what happened to bring about this resignation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I did not hear the hon. member speak today, so I do not know whether he used the term interference. I would be very surprised if he actually said that.

The situation was this. We have allotted, through the department, about $73 million for roadwork. The total roadwork allotment for the entire Province is $183 million, if I remember correctly. Our job then is to distribute that $73 million among forty-eight districts and, as we all know, some of the districts are in St. John's, some in Corner Brook, require certainly less money. So it is our job to try and equitably distribute that money around the Province in a fair and proper formula. Now, I actually get involved in that process and I look at it - and Stephen Dinn in my office actually also gets involved in the process, together with the minister and her officials to make sure it has been properly allocated. As you know, one thing that was brought to my attention this year, there had not been an allocation for your own district, and $1.5 million was allocated to your district and over $1 million to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, and over $1 million to the Member for Port de Grave. I understand Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi does not require any roadwork. So we are trying to be very, very fair in our allocation.

The other thing we use, and may I have so many ways in which -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer, the Premier, or else ask for leave.

Does the hon. Premier have leave?

PREMIER WILLIAMS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Premier by leave.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The other thing we look at is the amount that has been given to districts over the last seven years; since the turn of the century, basically, since 2000. We look at what the cumulative total is that has been allocated to each district. Some districts have more than others and have gotten more than others over the years. The district that had the most money allocated for roadwork was Bay de Verde - Baie Verte, I am sorry - which had, in fact, over $20 million had been allocated. So, therefore, as part of our method and the formula for allocating money, it was indicated that that money should not be as much this year because it would in fact put them way ahead of other districts. It was conveyed to the minister at the time, the Deputy Premier, that in fact he was going to be allocated $2.5 million. That decision, of course, was made in conjunction with the minister and with my office. After that, the minister came back to my office and indicated that he felt he needed more for his district - a reasonable request, as all other hon. members make from time to time. He was told there was not any other money available, it had all been allocated.

Then, while I was in Houston at the Oil and Gas Conference with meetings with Chevron and Exxon Mobil and others, the Deputy Premier went to the Minister of Transportation and indicated that he wanted another million dollars. The minister indicated that that was not possible. I cannot give this verbatim. You will have to ask the minister directly because I was not in that meeting, but the Deputy Premier at that particular point in time threatened that if he was not given the extra million dollars he was going to resign.

So, from our perspective as a government, and my perspective as a Premier, I am not going to allow anyone in this government at all, under any circumstances to come in and try and strong arm a minister in order to get more funds when that person knows the process, knows the procedure, knows exactly how it is done and is basically, while I am not in the Province, using some form of intimidation. I do not mean in a crass manner, but using his position as the Deputy Premier in order to get more funds. That is not acceptable. In fact, when money is taken out of that pot and more money is allocated to the person in question's pot that means there is less available for everybody else in every other district in the Province. That means that he is, in effect, picking the pockets of other members. I am not going to stand for that. I am not going to allow it.

He indicated that if that was not acceptable, and in fact he indicated to my chief of staff, that if he was not allowed to keep the extra million dollars then in fact he would resign, and I graciously accepted his resignation.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As well, in the press conference this morning when the Deputy Premier tabled his resignation, he also said that there was no face-to-face discussion between himself and the Premier.

I would like to ask the Premier today: Why was there no discussions between him and the former Deputy Premier around this issue to try and sort it out?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: From my perspective, the facts were very, very clear. The Deputy Premier met with my chief of staff. My chief of staff informed him that this extra million dollars would not be available, because in fact the funds - if there is any kind of surplus of funds we have to use it for some extras, if there happens to be overruns in some of the districts.

I also, yesterday, had a situation where I had an MHA come to my office and basically made a plea to me to provide some extra funds for roadwork, due to the fact that children were being rerouted in buses over a particular road on the understanding that this particular road was going to be fixed, for want of a better term, and it was going to be paved. There was no money available for that particular road. So I indicated to the MHA at that particular time that we would attempt to find that money. There was no money available within the pot because basically it had been all used up at Transportation and Works. This money had been improperly obtained by the Deputy Premier from the Minister of Transportation and Works, so we will be using that money for bus safety for children.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My next question, as well, is for the Premier.

I would like to ask if there were any other issues that contributed to this resignation; because this individual was a senior Cabinet minister within government, held various portfolios, and I am wondering if there were any other issues outside of this that would have contributed to the resignation today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: There was another side issue which is not directly related to this, but the primary issue, basically, was the situation with regard to the roads. That is where, as I said before, the Deputy Premier knew the rules. He was a former Minister of Transportation. He knew that the Premier's office had to basically sign off on it, was told by the Premier's office that they were not going to approve it, was told again that they were not going to approve it, and then he decided that he would resign.

There was no forced resignation. He offered his resignation and, as I said before, I respect that.

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the Premier would like to share with us what the side issue might have been, and if it had anything to do with differences of opinion inside of government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are always issues between hon. members, and especially in Cabinet. We have good healthy debate. I think we have actually been commended for the debate that we have in Cabinet. Contrary to popular opinion, we are very democratic in our deliberations in Cabinet. There are lengthy discussions that sometimes drag on in Cabinet and there is good healthy debate.

From our perspective, from time to time any of my ministers can have a disagreement with me on any issue and we work it out and we ultimately reach consensus. Nothing gets railroaded; nothing gets driven home. It is a matter of everybody reaching consensus, and if we do not reach consensus we move on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess we will have to wait and see what the other issues may have been.

My next question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works.

On Thursday past, the minister issued an announcement of $3.5 million in roadwork for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale and it was issued in conjunction with the member for the area.

I have to ask the minister today: Why would you have committed to give the $3.5 million to Baie Verte-Springdale District for roadwork, as you publicly announced, and then retract on it later?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your question.

Yes, I did put out a press release; but, in sober thought and in hindsight, I should not have committed that extra million to the district.

I felt that I was strong-armed and pressured to come up with that million dollars. So, in retrospect, I did run it by the Premier because my gut feeling said that I should not have done that, and I accept the full responsibility of that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister: Is it true that she was strong-armed by the Premier's office to actually renege on the commitment and to cancel the $3.5 million announcement in funding?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: I have never been strong-armed by the Premier's office at any time in the last five years. I have made my decisions, but this decision - my gut told me that I did the wrong decision. I consulted with the Premier's office, and I take full responsibility for the decision that I made.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought I had just heard the Premier say, in answer to a previous question, that he had asked you to cancel the funding. I guess I just want to confirm that was indeed the case and, Minister, that you were contacted by the Premier's office and asked not to approve the $1 million in extra funding for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I was informed by the hon. minister that while I was in Houston the Deputy Premier basically contacted her and indicated that if he was not given the extra million dollars for his district he would resign.

Now, if the strong-arming occurred, the strong-arming occurred with that hon. gentleman. He has been around politics for thirty years. He is very experienced. He is very good at what he does from a political perspective; however, he used his position of influence to strong-arm one of my ministers.

Now, first of all, I am not going to stand for that when it comes to strong-arming other ministers; and, secondly, I am not going to take money out of all the pockets of (inaudible) members here that all want roadwork done and have huge demands for roadwork, and that includes you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: Is there often interference in her department by the Premier or the Premier's office when it comes to approving funds for districts for roadwork in the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, there has never, ever, been any interference with the department through the Premier's office.

I would tell my hon. colleague that there is lots of consultation that takes place back and forth from the Premier's office to the department, but there has never been anything out of the ordinary in our department. We have always consulted, when need be, and the Premier has been there, but I think it should be said that there is a message here that everybody is treated equally, MHAs, in this House.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The next questions I have are actually for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, but I guess when the minister resigned he would have dropped his briefing book on someone's desk on the way out, so I will ask the questions anyway.

We have learned of significant bycatches of invasive species of green crab in the Placentia Bay area. It has been in the media repetitively in the last number of weeks. We have also heard reports of other unusual fish species that have been found in waters around the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a link drawn in discussions around this issue with increased vessel traffic in Placentia Bay, and speculation that the green crab may have migrated with ballast water from oil tankers.

I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: What research has been done in your department to ensure –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose her question.

MS JONES: What research has been done in the department on this issue of ballast water from oil tankers and the appearance of green crab in the Placentia Bay area, and the –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition would well know, since she was the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture at one time, the issue of management of the fishing industry, once you go below the high-water mark, it is purely the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the issue of invasive alien species in the waters of Canada has been an issue that probably was discussed when she was the Minister of Fisheries, around federal-provincial-territorial meetings. I know it was when I was there. It is an issue of major concern to fisheries departments throughout Canada. It is an issue, Mr. Speaker, in the Great Lakes, it is an issue on the Atlantic Coast, and it is an issue on the Pacific Coast.

Mr. Speaker, our government is very concerned about it; the Department of Environment has made representation to the federal government. As the Minister of Fisheries, when I was down across the road, we certainly made representation to the federal government, and it is why, in part, we have invested in SmartBay, Mr. Speaker, so that we can adequately monitor what is going on –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: – in Placentia Bay, in order to prevent this type of thing from happening in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In high-water mark or not, I say to the hon. member, it was in the last election when your government went out and talked about establishing fisheries research vessels in the Province, and facilities in that particular area. So I would like to ask you where that is on the radar right now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you that it is a lot closer on the radar than it was when she was Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we at least have made a commitment to investing in research from a fisheries perspective, and our government is committed to research and development, as was evidenced by the announcement that we made of $5 million at Memorial University last week, as was evidenced in our recent budget of $4.175 million for research on oceans, Mr. Speaker, and our ocean sector strategy.

Mr. Speaker, we are very committed to ensuring that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the decision-makers in Newfoundland and Labrador have the appropriate information to make sure that our ocean environment is preserved and our fishing industry is preserved on a go-forward basis, with or without the help of the federal government, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe soon we will see something on the research vessels that you committed to.

My next question is for the Minister of Natural Resources, because the European green crab is only one symptom of the environmental conflicts that are occurring in the Placentia Bay area. Most recently, the federal and provincial governments both gave approval under the environmental regulations for a new oil refinery to be constructed.

I ask the minister: What is the current status of the Newfoundland and Labrador oil refinery corporation's plan to construct the 300,000 barrel-a-day refinery in the Placentia Bay area?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The refinery has passed through its environmental impact study and has been approved on that piece.

My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that they have hit some roadblocks in terms of their financing given the circumstances that are occurring in the United States with the subprime rate and so on. So, we are very supportive of this project but we are in a position where we have to wait and see if they are able to get the kind of investment that is going to be required to complete the project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because the environmental impact was completed without any investor present at the table, I have to ask: Is government concerned that a new investor that might come in, because they did not have a seat at the table, if they will be willing to comply with the pollution and prevention policies that have now been outlined in that environmental statement?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine that somebody who is prepared to make significant investment in any kind of project in this Province would do the due diligence and know what is required of them in terms of conducting business in this Province.

As far as we are concerned, as a government, only the highest standards regarding protection of the environment will guide the operation of any kind of a project within this Province, whether it is the new oil refinery or any other business here in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Also, a federally-commissioned Environmental Oil Spill Risk Assessment Project looked at high-risk spills across Canada and this particular area was one of the areas considered to be of higher risk. I ask if government is committed to developing a comprehensive environmental protection strategy for this particular area of the Province - that means Placentia Bay - within its entirety.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are very committed to the environment and ensuring that any project that goes forward is done so in an environmentally sound manner, in order to protect sustainable development for future generations. We work very closely with the federal government. We work on SmartBay projects. We have a very intense environmental assessment process, one that is recognized throughout the country in terms of timelines and how open it is to the public.

I can assure the hon. member opposite that environment is an utmost concern for us and we will continue to work with groups in the Placentia area and the federal government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also know that the new nickel plant that is planning to be constructed in Long Harbour is being considered now by Vale Inco, and we also know that they are looking at the type of technology that would be used.

I ask the minister today if she can confirm that the hydromet technology is working and that will be the preferred option.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Vale Inco will make a decision and a public announcement very soon in terms of which technology will be used in the operation in Long Harbour.

I can tell you that, in terms of the work that is being done, the work on the hydromet is very, very encouraging.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we are aware as well of the environmental process that has been ongoing in Long Harbour in relation to this facility.

I ask the minister if she has any indication right now when that process will be completed, and if all the environmental concerns have been addressed to date in that plan.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, that company submitted their Environmental Impact Statement some time ago, and at that point it certainly was rejected because there were a lot of deficiencies in that report.

As I said, our utmost concern is the environment so we felt that we would want another Environmental Impact Statement submitted for our review. The company has done that and now it is in the public process in terms of public input.

We certainly welcome input from the members opposite and any members of the public, and we will review that and ensure at the end of the day that all environmental considerations are met.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The use of the hydromet technology, if that is what they choose to go with, will require the use of tailings ponds in that area. We just witnessed recently in Alberta from the media, that because proper protocols were not put in place that there was a danger to wildlife populations in that area when they came in contact with toxins.

I ask the minister: What requirements and protocols have been built into this environmental assessment piece to ensure that those wildlife are protected from toxins in that particular area?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, the environmental assessment process does exactly just that. We look at all of the potential negative implications or possible impacts on wildlife on all of the surrounding area, and certainly all of those issues will be addressed. Certainly, before any issues, before any permits or any go ahead is given, all of those would be addressed in the environmental assessment process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We realize that there have been very specific evaluations and EIS done on both of these projects, the oil refinery and the hydromet, but local people in the area have raised concerns with us. In fact, there are over 500 fishing enterprises in that area and they are concerned about everything from tanker traffic to these particular projects. They have been asking if government would consider a larger environmental assessment that would evaluate the cumulative impacts on the environment in the entire region as a result of compounding industry. Would the minister consider that?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, one of the deficiencies that was evident in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Voisey's Bay project was the fact that the cumulative effects piece was not sufficient in our case and it was not satisfactory. So, that is one of the things that we have asked the company to go back and do. They have submitted a new cumulative effects plan and that is currently being viewed by the public, commented on by the public, and certainly my staff and myself will also review that before any decisions are made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the T'Railway system in this Province was closed down after a federal report indicated to the Minister of Environment that problems existed there. The minister had no alternative source of information to draw on since the department had no system of regular inspections.

Given this lack of proper procedure in place for the T'Railways, I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: Are regular inspections done of bridges and overpasses on road systems in this Province? If so, will the minister make these reports available to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, our bridges are inspected every two years. Just recently, if you remember, we had the federal government close down the bridges, and Transportation and Works worked all one weekend and inspected all of the bridges here in the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the inaccessibility of the provincial ferry system for people in wheelchairs has been discussed in the media. Also, when an inspection was done of the Marine Atlantic a number of problems were identified in the ferry system that falls under federal jurisdiction.

Can the minister tell this House what kind of regular inspections of the provincial ferry systems are conducted, and will the results of those safety inspections be made available to the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I cannot speak for Marine but I can speak for the provincial ferries, that we do have - in fact, we are now implementing new safety measures on our ferries. Just recently, it was in the news, where we have asked people to get out of their cars now and go to the cabin. That is one of the safety measures that we have had. The other thing that we are doing, too, is that we are going to be building new ferries that will have accessibility for handicapped people on those ferries, with the new design.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a follow-up to the first two previous questions; if you have information available, I was wondering if the minister would make it available, those reports?

Mr. Speaker, we hear so much those days with regards to problems within our hospitals and schools, which leads me to the next question about other public buildings and facilities in the Province.

I ask the Minister of Transportation and Works: Have inspections been done on other public buildings and facilities, and will she make those reports available once the inspections - if they are not done now, when they are done - available to the public?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we do inspect our buildings. In fact, this year in the Budget we have invested a significant amount of money to have maintenance done on all of our public buildings here throughout the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, until today, I would have thought that it was the right of any MHA to go to a minister and advocate on behalf of their district for constituents, for schools, for projects. All MHAs do that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification from the Premier whether it is true or not that MHA requests to ministers must now be approved by him?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Not at all, Mr. Speaker.

There she goes again, playing the same old politics again.

There is a procedure in place. You would not understand this, because it is not part of your background and your experience, but you would not understand that there is a budget process that has to take place. We go through that process and we allocate a pool of money. Then we go further in that and we define how that money is basically allocated. Then that is it, it is done, and then we finally advise the members. They sign off on that; they accept it.

Nobody is happy with it. There is nobody happy with their allocation for roads, but that is the way it is. We put as much money into it as we can. At one point, the past Liberal government put $6 million into roads. We put $183 million into roads.

I have a role to play, through my office, to make sure that the money is fairly allocated to everybody in the room, and that is exactly what we will do. As for someone having to come up and get my approval, if you want to drop up for a chat about your district, you are more than welcome to drop up some time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I actually have offered a number of times, in about three different letters to the Premier, how happy I would be to sit down and talk with him, but he has never invited me up before. Now you have it. Now you are going to get it. Now I will be up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With regard to budgets, I think I understand the budget process very well. One thing I do know is that ministers do have discretion within their budgets.

In the Estimates process, both this year and last year, I asked questions about discretionary money and what criteria are there, and I know there is discretionary money. I would have thought that the Premier's consent was not needed if a decision made by minister fell within the mandate of the minister and within the departmental budget.

Mr. Speaker, could the Premier please tell the House and the public, what is the criterion that he uses to insert himself in departmental decision-making?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The criteria is quite simply: when the House Leader, the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Fisheries, the former Attorney General, goes to a minister and strong-arms that minister with a request that if he does not get his money he is going to walk and he is going to resign, it is on that basis that I intervene in order to protect the public purse for all the other people here who need some of that money, which includes you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I am rather confused because the Premier has said that he gets hundreds and thousands of pieces of mail –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: He has told us that he gets hundreds and thousands of pieces of mail and requests through his office and that he does not have the time to micromanage.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Premier again to tell this House what has changed his opinion since he made those statements about micromanaging departments.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member has ever managed in her life, but I can tell you that $183 million, to me, is a lot of money and needs to be managed very carefully, and I do not consider it to be micromanagement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, the Resource Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments: the Department of Business; the Department of Environment and Conservation; the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the Department of Innovation, Trade & Rural Development; the Department of Natural Resources; and, the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

I would like to recognize the other members on the Committee: the Vice-Chair, the Member for Burgeo & La Poile; the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame; the Member for the District of Port de Grave; the Member for the District of Labrador West; and, the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the Resource Committee be concurred by the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further presenting reports by standing or select committees.

The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Social Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report that they have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of: the Department of Education; the Department of Health and Community Services; the Department of Justice; the Department of Municipal Affairs; the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment; and, the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

I would like to recognize the members of the Committee: the Vice-Chair, the Member for Port de Grave; the Member for Grand Bank; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for Burgeo & La Poile; the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's; the Member for Port au Port; and, the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor-Buchans.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be concurred by the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further reports by standing and select committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in response to a question from the Opposition House Leader regarding an employment agreement between the Province and Dr. John Fitzgerald, the provincial representative in Ottawa. I have that to table, and I would put it on the Table for all to see.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further tabling of documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

 

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

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

I present another petition today on behalf of the residents of Pouch Cove, Torbay, Flatrock and Middle Cove in relation to the new proposed Torbay Bypass Road.

As I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, those people have expressed concerns about the route of the bypass road through two kilometres of the Town of Torbay, the community of Torbay. They are asking if the minister and the government officials would consider an alternate route to bypass that area.

The concern that they have raised, Mr. Speaker is that the congestion in that particular area, the livyers who live there - there are quite a few families – they believe that the highway, once constructed in that area, will be a major problem for those who live there.

Some of the issues that have been passed along to them, why this route cannot be reconsidered, was due to the watershed area and also the property that may be used, or plans to be used in the future for an airport.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the minister about this and I know the minister agreed to meet with them whenever the need arises, but I do present this petition, Mr. Speaker, and urge government to have this route reconsidered, as was planned to them at a public meeting held in their community.

Mr. Speaker, I will present that petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions.

Orders of the Day

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to go back to Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has leave.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government Services Committee have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report they have passed, without amendment, the Estimates of Expenditure of the following departments: the Department of Finance; the Public Service Commission; the Department of Government Services; the Department of Transportation and Works; the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs; the Department of Labrador Affairs; and, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, respectively submitted by yours truly.

I would like to thank the Committee members: the Member for Port de Grave; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Topsail; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; the Member for Kilbride; the Member for Exploits; and, the Member for St. John's East.

I move that the report of the Government Services Committee be concurred by this House of Assembly.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call, from the Order Paper, Motion 6, a motion put forward by the hon. Member for the District of Lewisporte.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to take a minute just to read the motion back into the record. It says:

WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada provides for fair and equitable treatment of all citizens; and

WHEREAS Revenue Canada is charged with the responsibility of providing fair income tax treatment to all taxpayers; and

WHEREAS many Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen participated in the Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program; and

WHEREAS participants in the 1999 licence retirement program paid a disproportionate and an unfair share of income tax on their licence retirement payout as compared to those participants in the 1996 and the 2002 Atlantic Groundfish Retirement Program; and

WHEREAS this inequity has cost fisher people who participated in the 1999 buy back program undue financial hardship;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the Government of Canada to immediately require Revenue Canada to review and correct the unfair financial income tax burden placed on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who participated in the 1999 Atlantic Groundfish Retirement Program.

Mr. Speaker, I do count it a privilege and an honour to be able to introduce this motion today. The tenor of the motion is one that I relate to very well.

I grew up in a small town, Beachside out in Central Newfoundland, and I know all too well the activities that are related to the fishing industry. I, myself, came from a family of mostly miners and loggers, but many of the people in the town that I grew up in – a town of only 200 or so people – were actually related to the fishery. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I even tried it for a while. When I graduated from high school some of my friends were driving around in fast and fancy cars. They were tied to the crab fishery at the time for a while. I was looking at them and I was battling in my own mind whether or not I would actually try and get a job in the fishery or maybe go to university and further my education. Well, I did not take to the fishery very well. As a matter of fact, everyday I was out there I got seasick and at the end of the summer weighing just 113 pounds, I headed off to university, but my respect for fishermen and the daily activities that they have been engaged in is tremendous.

I want to take each point of this resolution in the opening here, and I will speak to it probably a little bit more broadly in the closing, but when I look at the first Whereas, the Constitution of Canada provides for fair and equitable treatment for all of its citizens. Then you ask, what does that mean? I think it is a basic right, something that we take for granted everyday. We all expect that we will be treated fairly and equally.

Then if I look at the next Whereas, Revenue Canada is charged with the responsibility of collecting income tax in a fair and equitable manner. I look at that and I say: Well, while I do realize that income tax laws change periodically, and from year to year, we all expect when we file our taxes that we are going to be treated fairly in comparison to the rest of the citizens in this country. We expect it. It is a right under the income tax law.

Then if I look at it and it says, Whereas many Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen participated in the Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program. If I expand on that a bit, I look back in the spring of 1992, Mr. Speaker. We are looking at sixteen years ago. The then Minister of Fisheries, John C. Crosbie announced - what did he announce? He announced a two-year moratorium, two years on the Northern Cod fishery. The moratorium was to take effect immediately and continue until the spring of 1994, but we all know that that moratorium went on for much longer than two years. In fact, for all intents and purposes, it is still going on in some regards. Measures were taken in subsequent years to permanently remove some Newfoundland fishermen from the fishery. This was done to make the fishery more sustainable into the future.

In 1998, a $250 million Groundfish Licence Retirement Program was announced as part of the federal government's then $730 million Canadian Fisheries Adjustment and Restructuring Program for the Atlantic groundfish industry. This retirement program was guided by three factors, three principles. Number one, it was voluntary. Number two, it was targeted primarily to TAGS-eligible licence holders and number three, it required a permanent exit from the fishery. In other words, these fishermen fully expected that once they gave up their licence, their chances of a livelihood connected to the fishery were gone.

Now, if I look at the next Whereas, in the 1999 licence retirement program. Those participants paid a disproportionate and an unfair share of income tax on their licence retirement payout as compared to other years. Particularly, the motion talks about 1996 and 2002. Again, to expand on that a bit, I have been doing some research on this for awhile and, Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, I do not claim to be one but I do think and I believe I have garnered an understanding of what has happened here. While some of the details may not be 100 per cent correct or because the literature sort of gives you different stories, I am confident that I do accurately understand the spirit of the injustice that has taken place. You see, a significant number of fishermen participated in a buyout or a retirement program in 1996. They were being encouraged to permanently exit the fishery and to either retire or look for some other source of income. Monies they would get from retiring their licence was money that was intended to either support their retirement, sort of get them to retirement age where they would collect some other funds or support some other type of work, maybe some work where they would not make quite as much money as they did in the fishery.

Well, they agreed on a purchase price for their licence. We are talking 1996. They sold it and what happened was they got to keep the lion's share of the money, practically all of it. In 1996 people sold their licence, they kept the money. It was because of some capital gains exemption that was there under the income tax at the time. The money they got, for all intents and purposes, was treated the same as if it was ruled to be a future loss of earnings. The money they got was the money that they applied to their future income.

Well, what happened in 2002? I am going to jump from 1996 now up to 2002. It was much the same situation. There was a bidding process. There was a payout. There was a capital gains exemption. The people in 2002, again, kept the lion's share of the payout; paid very little, if any, taxes.

Now, I want to go back to the people that are squeezed in the middle in 1999. These fishermen sold their licences through a very similar procedure. In fact, DFO, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans provided tax advice, in writing, to fishers advising them that the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will treat their licence retirement income as capital gains. So, basically, they were advised to file it as capital gains, which their different accountants did. The problem though is that the capital gains exemption was disallowed for the fishing licence in that year and this group of fishermen had to pay taxes. The 1999 group paid taxes on their buyout. What kind of money are we talking about here? We are talking a lot of money. Most of the people got in the vicinity of $120,000 to $130,000 for their licence and they paid between $30,000 to $40,000, not only in taxes, but they also had to pay back some of their TAGS money or some of their EI for that year. In total, you are looking at $30,000 to $40,000 per fisherperson. There are about 1,000 of them. We are looking at $30 million to $40 million that should have come to the coffers of this Province through these people who were entitled to it that they did not receive.

Now that is a terrible injustice, but it does not stop there. Of those approximately 1,000 people who sold their licence in 1999 and had to pay the taxes, whereas no one else did, about a little over 100 of them sought some legal recourse. When they did, rather than go to court, Revenue Canada settled in some sort of a private secret deal with them. This group of people, this 100-plus, actually had their tax bill reduced by somewhere in the vicinity of 75 per cent of the original. There are some calculations that were done. So, what happens now with the other people in 1999 who feel like they have been ripped off? Now they have 100 or so people that, through a private deal, get a settlement that looks pretty good, so they say well, we will file the same. So they file an appeal with Revenue Canada, but Revenue Canada comes back and says, uh-uh, sorry, you are too late; the appeal deadline is gone.

The whole thing, in my mind, stinks, Mr. Speaker. The whole thing wraps up to a bad deal and what I would call a rip-off. If I were one of those fisherpeople squeezed in the middle there, I would be feeling plenty frustrated.

That brings me to the resolution which says, BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the Government of Canada to require Revenue Canada to do a review of this situation to fix the wrong that has been placed upon this group of people.

You see, Mr. Speaker, we have a conundrum of frustrations. The 1999 group indeed are ripped off. They are the only group - the only group - that did not have their licence payout qualify for a capital gains exemption. They are the only group saddled with the tax burden.

Part of the 1999 group gets a settlement - they are told not to talk about it - and 80 per cent or approximately 850 people are feeling totally, totally, left out and feeling like there is no justice for them. They have been singing out to the federal government for years, but they cannot get the justice rectified. Forty million dollars, approximately, is owed. Surely, somebody up in Ottawa can cause this terrible injustice to be reviewed and something can be done.

Thank you for these words, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to close debate at the end of the session.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to rise and speak to the motion that has been put forward by the Member for Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has been of concern for us for quite some time now. In fact, going back to almost a year ago, I guess, we started being approached by fisherpeople in the Province as it related to this issue, and took some time to actually meet with them to document their history. In fact, I think I have written no less than dozens and dozens of letters, myself, for individuals in terms of bringing the issue forward to the federal government and also raising it with their legal counsel whom they had retained in the name of Mr. Eli Baker.

Mr. Speaker, over that period of time, I guess, this is an issue that continued to grow. It continued to grow because it was founded on very good evidence that individuals in this Province were remitting under a tax regime program, during the licence buyout phases, that was unprecedented in history by any other phases of the buyout program and therefore, Mr. Speaker, felt they had not only been wrongly taxed but had been wrongly informed as to how those taxes should be paid out on their particular programs.

Mr. Speaker, we all remember the issue because it goes right back to the Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program. That was a program that was launched in this Province in conjunction with the closure of the cod fishery, which was in the years of 1990 to about 2000, I guess, the periods of time in which people were given options under the federal government to either retire their licences or to sell their licences back for a lump sum of money.

Mr. Speaker, the first program that was launched under this was the Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program. What that did was allow people to sell back their licences, but it also restricted them in terms of the amount of taxes they had to pay on that money; because, as you know, many of these people, at that time, had already worked thirty to forty years in this industry. They had given yeoman service in an industry that was plagued with challenges over many, many years, and an industry that oftentimes did not derive a great deal of wealth for the fishing families that depended upon it. It provided no security. It was a job and an industry that provided no security whatsoever. In fact, it is only in recent years that fishermen and women have actually contributed to things like the Canada Pension Plan, because in the earlier years they were not even required to do that, so many of them were left with no security whatsoever in the cases of disability or sickness or retirement.

When the industry shut down, and it shut down at the peril, I guess, Mr. Speaker, of declining stocks and changing environmental circumstances of the fishery at the time, as a result people were given an option, graciously by the federal government, to have that sense of security that they never before had. They were given an opportunity to be able to sell back, to get some money.

Mr. Speaker, in was in the programs that followed that - in 1996 it seemed like the program went off without a hitch and, in fact, a lot of people who sold their licences back did so receiving almost the full amount without paying taxes, and there was no problem, no complaints, during that year.

It was in 1999 that we started seeing some problems with the program. They were taxed more because the capital gains section was abolished. Then later we saw that introduced back into federal legislation. At this time in 1999 that had been abolished and therefore they were required to pay some taxes on it.

Mr. Speaker, back in the time when they were selling back their licences, many of them feel that they were misinformed by the Department of the Fisheries and Oceans. At that time the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was giving tax advise in writing to fisher people, not just in this Province but in the other Atlantic Provinces and in Quebec, all of those who were able to participate in the groundfish retirement and buyback program. Mr. Speaker, they were being given advise in writing from DFO, and it was four years after they received that advise, that they had concluded their buyback, they had already remitted all these taxes to the federal government that had not been done by previous fishers who took part in the program, it was four years after when they realized that they may have been given incorrect advise. Therefore, they took their issue up with Revenue Canada, they took it up with DFO and they took it up with legal counsel which they have now retained to file an appeal in the courts on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 850 fishers who are impacted by this tax battle that they have ongoing. We know that there are some of them who have deceased over the period of time that this action has been taken. Mr. Speaker, nevertheless their families have lost the benefit of that royalty as well.

We feel, Mr. Speaker, that this issue needs to be elevated to the top of the agenda for the federal government. We feel that if these people had owed money to Revenue Canada or to the federal government that the taxman would come collecting. I think we have all had experiences with that, Mr. Speaker, some of us more than others I can tell you.

Now we see a situation where people are owed revenue and tax money that they feel is owed to them by the federal government and through Revenue Canada, and they want to be able to claim back that money. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a legitimate request. In fact, if you look at the amount of money they are owed, I think collectively if you add it up we are looking at somewhere between $20 million to $25 million that is owed to people who sold back their licences and remitted taxes under unprecedented tax laws, being misinformed by a federal government department like DFO, that really had no right to be providing information to fisherpeople anyway on their tax exemption and laws. That is the job of the Revenue Canada, not the job of DFO.

So, Mr. Speaker, they have a very legitimate issue. These are people, as I said, who have worked in a profession all their lives that provided very little security. In fact, over the course of a thirty or forty year career, many of these people in the fishing industry have often faced and battled things like declining stocks, low prices, market conditions, hampered by ice and climatic factors.

In fact, you only have to look today down in the area around Pacquet, in that area. We have heard from people down there. It is something like thirteen or fifteen communities along that coastline that are impacted this year by ice conditions, where they have had their EI benefits now cut off since April of this year. They have had no income for the last two months. They have severe ice conditions in that area, and their industry is shut down. It does not matter if all the gear is on the stagehead ready to go, it does not matter if the bait is in the boat, it does not matter if the crew is dressed. The reality is that even if they wanted to do their job today and work in the fishing industry and go out and harvest, they cannot do it because of the ice conditions that are plaguing that coast and this community.

Mr. Speaker, they have asked for compensation from the federal government and they have asked that they be given some extension of EI programs, which we have seen on many occasions in this Province when it has been warranted. This is another case where these people feel it is warranted and that they should be considered for some kind of extension of benefits until they are able to take to the water and to start harvesting the stock. This is typical of the kind of conditions that fisherpeople in this Province have endured their entire lives. It is very typical. Once their industry was shut down, when their livelihood was taken from them because of declining fish stocks and mismanagement practices of the federal government, and the interventions of NAFO, and the control of foreign fisheries over the years, we have seen a complete shutdown in that industry, going back in the 1990s. As a result of it, they were given an offer, but that offer fell on different conditions and different terms over the periods of time.

For example, those who would have sold in 1996 had an ideal program, a program which did not claw back their taxes, a program which allowed them to sell, free and willingly, being able to keep their money and invest their money for their long-term retirement in this industry. Fisherpeople are unlike most people who work in a profession. You have to remember, it is not just about getting up in the morning and showing up for work. It is about building up investments over the years, and I think we have all seen it.

I live in an area where going back a decade ago, all the fishing industry was based on outside communities we called it. They lived in one community in the wintertime and in the summer they all relocated to a summer fishing grounds that was closer to where the resource was, closer to the actual fishing grounds themselves. So with their profession came a lot of expenses, and that meant maintaining their extra houses, extra sheds, maintaining boats and vessels and gear. So, it was a lifetime of investment into a profession. Therefore, the government at the time recognized this when they offered them buyback programs and early retirement programs, but what they failed to do was they failed to provide the same precedented terms under the tax laws in 1999 that they had allowed for in 1996. That is where this issue is really coming from with a lot of these individuals.

They have received a number of letters. I know in 2000, fishermen received letters from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency saying that the licence retirement payments were treated as capital gains from the disposition of capital property. In essence, the department was instructing the fishermen on how to file out their tax returns, which appears now to be a mistake, and one that the department realizes was a mistake and that they should not have been doing.

Mr. Speaker, there is a number of correspondence that I have copies of here around this issue. I think to date - I had someone check in my office today and I think we are just a little short of after receiving 200 letters on this very issue in the Province today, from 200 different fishing families that have been affected by these tax laws. I think in Newfoundland and Labrador, while the numbers for the entire program is up around 850, I think that something like 80 per cent of them at least would be in this Province. Of the couple of hundred letters that I am after getting and receiving from people, I am sure there are many others out there who are still affected.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is strong enough to just bring a resolution to the floor of the House of Assembly, to ask all members to support this, because I do not know of any member here who would not want to support a fair and reasonable tax regime for the people that they represent, if they are owed money, to ensure that their money is collected. What I would like to see is government take it a step further. I would like to see them take it a step further, and I asked this of the Minister of Fisheries, actually on several occasion. On May 6, in the Estimates Committee for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, I asked the minister at that time to strike an all-party committee of the House of Assembly to discuss the issue and to provide support to these people and to advocate on their behalf with the federal government jointly as a committee of the House to strengthen the argument. Again, on May 7, I requested government to do the same and again on May 8, because I felt it was very important that government be involved and that we do something substantial.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I am moving an amendment to the motion that was put forward by the Member for Lewisporte. I am moving the amendment in an effort to strengthen the actions of this House, to strengthen the call to the federal government, to act on behalf of those 850 families in this Province that are impacted. I think it is important that we not only say we support you and we want to ensure that you get your proper due in terms of taxation and you get the money that you are owed, I think we need to take action. As parliamentarians in Newfoundland and Labrador, we can work collectively together as all parities to strengthen the arguments and the advocacy work around this issue. That is why today, Mr. Speaker, I move, and seconded by my colleague the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, that this motion be amended by adding the following to the end of motion:

Be It Further Resolved that this House of Assembly urge the provincial government to strike an all-party committee to pursue the resolution of this issue with the federal government.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the amendment that I am tendering to the motion. I hope there will be support for the amendment in the House of Assembly because it will strengthen the work that we can do on behalf of the fishing families in Newfoundland and Labrador to try and bring resolution to this on their behalf.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House will take a few moments to review the amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition to determine whether the amendment is in order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Osborne): Order please!

Are the House Leaders ready?

Having reviewed the amendment as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition the Chair finds the amendment in order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today and have a few words on the private member's resolution that is in front of us.

I have had some experience with it over the years, of course, in previous lives. I think it is important, when we discuss this - of course, I have had a lot of representation over the past number of years from constituents in my district and from people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly when I was in as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.


I think it is important, before we get too far into discussing this, that it be put in context why these licence buyout programs were put in place. The resolution only speaks to the 1996, 1999 and 2002 rounds of TAGS buyout. There were actually a couple of other buyouts prior to that that some people may have forgotten by now. The whole works of them came about because the federal government, who were ultimately the guardians of the resource, mismanaged the ground fishery in Atlantic Canada. They allocated too many licences and allocated too much fish, and as a result of that we saw the collapse of the fishery in Eastern Canada.

Their response to that, in the initial round, was an $800 million NCARP program, Northern Cod Adjustment Recovery Program. Then, in the second round I think it was $1.2 billion that was allocated under TAGS. Then there was another round called FRAM-ED, and for the life of me it escapes me how much money was associated with that. It is somewhere in the order of $3 or $3.5 billion that was associated with adjustment and recovery, licence buyout, early retirement programs and what have you over the course of about a twelve-year period.

All of it, Mr. Speaker, came about as a result of the collapse of the fishery, and it collapsed because of federal mismanagement. We all had our fingers in the pie, in the pot, so to speak, and we all have to share some responsibility for it, but I compare it something akin to a bank manager saying that there are a bunch of tellers who are taking money and they are the ones who are the problem. Well, ultimately the bank manager has to take responsibility for what goes on in the bank. The bank manager is the person who is supposed to be looking after that stuff. In this case the bank manager is the federal government. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, given the volume of money that they spent at the time, although all of it was not spent appropriately, that they assumed that responsibility and accepted that responsibility.

What we see here in front of us right now is another example of how the federal government has mismanaged the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, in the way in which they have applied the capital gains exemption, over the course of a ten-year period, to people who sold their licences at their request, in response to the collapse of the cod fishery in Atlantic Canada.

Mr. Speaker, some people might say, and I have heard people say it, that anybody who sold out under this licence retirement program knew what the rules were. Well, with all due respect, I am sure that a lot of people did not completely understand what the rules were. Secondly, in some cases the rules were explained to them by, as the member for Cartwright–L'Anse au Claire pointed out earlier when she read an excerpt from a letter that came out from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency back in 1999 - they were certainly of the understanding and made aware that this licence retirement program was eligible under the capital gains exemption. As a result of that, some people undoubtedly made their decision and signed the letter accepting the federal government's offer for their licence and walked away from the fishing industry. Why wouldn't they? They had a letter from Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and they also had, Mr. Speaker, the benefit, up to that point, of three different rounds of licence retirements in the Newfoundland fishery or the Atlantic Canadian fishery.

As I said, some people might not remember, but in 1991 there was a salmon licence retirement program. The salmon licences were bought out along the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland, with the exception of on the Coast of Labrador. Along the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland, the salmon licences were bought out under a licence retirement program and, Mr. Speaker, the people were exempted from capital gains rules. In 1992-1994, under NCARP, there was another licence retirement program and there were two phases, two aspects of that one. You could take $30,000 and remain in the industry or you could take $50,000 and get completely out of the industry. Again, Mr. Speaker, the people who sold out under that regime, at that time, under that program, were exempt from capital gains. Because the capital gains exemption applied up to $100,000, and for everything that you received over $100,000 then you fell into the category of paying taxes, but before $100,000 you were essentially tax free.

You can take that and then move into 1996. The same thing happened. People sold out their licences for $100,000 or $110,000. Take for example the person who sold out a licence in Griquet in 1996 for $110,000, $100,000 of it was tax free and $10,000 was taxable. Their tax bill at the end of the day, what was it? Two or three thousand dollars, maximum, three or four thousand dollars - not even probably.

You turn that around and you compare it to the person who sold out in 1999 with $110,000 as the bid - because it was a reverse auction that took place at the time where the fisherman or fisherwoman who held the licence made an offer to the federal government, to a panel that was established by the federal government, and the panel looked at the person's history, looked at what their licences were and said, yes, we believe that this is a fair offer for this set of licences and we are going to buy this person's licence out. They came back and said, yes, we accept your bid of $110,000. The person who accepted it, well what did they do? He looks at Joe down the road who sold out, a couple of years previously, for $110,000. He knows that Joe had to pay $3,000 in taxes. Well, what is he going to do? I am going to do the same thing. I am going to accept the federal government's offer to me and sign off for $110,000. Lo and behold, because they were maybe on TAGS or maybe drawing EI for that intervening period of time, they did not understand that because of the changes in taxation and because of other things as it related to TAGS and EI and what have you, that all of a sudden, that $110,000 was immediately 100 per cent taxable. On top of that, the EI that they had received was now to be clawed back, or the TAGS that they had received, if they had received any of that, was going to be clawed back too. All of a sudden, $107,000 that their buddy Joe received became $50,000 or $40,000. By the time it was all said and done, and because they had signed off on it, they did not find out all of this until they filed their income tax a year later.

Here they are now, everything gone, licence gone, no ability to go back into the fishing industry in any way, shape or form. Not just that they could not go back into the fishery as a licence holder and as the head of an enterprise, they could not go back in the fishery as a crew member, they could not go back in the fishery as a cook aboard of a fishing boat, they could not go back into the industry as a crab worker in a crab plant or an inspection worker on the shrimp line. Mr. Speaker, they had everything gone under a bunch of rules that were not, in the first instance, articulated to them in a way that was accurate.

Number two, everything that had happened previous to that, in three previous rounds of licence retirement, had been under a different set of rules. The rules changed in midstream and then, as my colleague from Lewisporte pointed out, you go beyond that and, to add insult to injury, I suppose the federal government recognized that this was not going to work, that they were not going to get the uptake in the Licence Retirement Program, because this program was supposed to end around 1999 or 2000, but because of what happened and because there was, if my memory serves me correctly, probably $50 million or something like that, I think, allocated for licence retirement under the TAGS Program, but I could be wrong on that, it was expected to go in two or three rounds, the fact of the matter is it dragged on and dragged on because people were not so eager to sell out, as the federal government might have thought they were.

Giving up their livelihood is not the easiest thing for anybody to do, and, as a result of that, it dragged on and dragged on until you get into 2002. You get into 2002, the last round of buyout under the TAGS program, the last amount of money that was left to be utilized in order to buy out a few more licences - because the federal government still recognized that there were too many licences in the industry, still recognized that something had to be done, the capacity had to be taken out - so what did the federal government do? Reversed the ruling on the capital gains exemption, re-established it in tax law at the time, so one little group of people stuck in the middle essentially sold out their licences, lost their licences, with no real compensation at the end of the day; because, if you look at it, what is your livelihood worth?

I don't know about anybody else, but there are lots of days that this place frustrates me; but I don't think you are going to buy me out for $40,000. Somebody might kick me out. Any number of people can kick me out of here, and there might be a day that I walk away with an option to come back if anybody is foolish enough to re-elect me, but the fact of the matter is I am not going to walk away from here for $40,000 and sign a paper saying I am never allowed back in this place again.

That is what was done to the people in the fishing industry who are impacted by this decision. They walked away for as little as nothing and can never go back in the industry in any way, shape or form. They can hardly go on the wharf and catch a tomcod. I suppose you can't, because you are not allowed to do that either.

Take a fifty-year-old person, now, who has spent their life in the industry, to have to choke that down and be told, then, on top of that, that 100 people or so who decided to challenge this in court ended up getting an out-of-court settlement and essentially got some shut-up money, for lack of a better way of putting it, and they cannot get it.

Now, this is the dilemma that we have, and I really have to ask – I only have four minutes left, Mr. Speaker, so I am going to clue up shortly – but I have to ask. I remember in this House, when I was Minister of Fisheries, going through some fairly rough times, and I remember being criticized for some of the decisions that I made, and one of the people who criticized me most was a person who now sits in the federal Conservative caucus. He was a champion, supposedly, of the fishing industry at the time, and of fishermen, and I don't know why, with his close association – one Fabian Manning – with his close association with the federal government, and with the federal Prime Minister, and with the federal caucus and federal Cabinet, supposedly, why the three members that we have in the federal government right now are not standing up and demanding that this injustice be corrected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: I do not understand it; because, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, three years ago, about this time, one Fabian Manning had no trouble, supposedly, standing up then and defending the interests of the fishermen and fisherwomen of Newfoundland and Labrador, when he walked out of our caucus – or he got kicked out of our caucus - for the way that he was getting on.

Apparently he is after quieting down an awful lot since then. The champion of the fishing industry is after being silenced.

I say to the people who contact me: Yes, the provincial government has a responsibility to lobby on your behalf. We have a responsibility, and the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of Fisheries, and every member of this House has a responsibility and a right to lobby on behalf of their constituents on a matter of such important as this, but ultimately the federal government are the people who have the only opportunity to correct this mistake. We have three people in the caucus of the Conservative government right now in Ottawa, and two of them – I am not going to speak about the other fellow, but two of them – are supposedly great friends of the fishing industry in Newfoundland Labrador, and I would like to know what they are going to do about this injustice, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, I want to speak – because I only have a little over a minute-and-a-half left – to the Leader of the Opposition's proposed amendment. I understand why she would make that amendment, Mr. Speaker, for an all-party committee, but I am just going to say this: We have had all-party committees under their Administration, when myself and the now Premier and the now Leader of the Opposition, and what have you – a number of others, a former Minister of Fisheries - went off to Ottawa lobbying on various topics; and, Mr. Speaker, I have to say, in all honesty, it was just as well if we stayed home. There was nothing gained out of it. We spent $40,000 or $50,000, I suspect, or probably more, and there was nothing gained from it. Inasmuch as we should have something from an all-party perspective, I would hope today, when we conclude debate, we will have unanimous support amongst all parties and all members of this House on the motion that was put forward by the Member for Lewisporte.

I, for one, will definitely be supporting that motion. I have to say, with all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition, I understand why she would suggest an all-party committee but given our experience a couple of times, a couple of rounds for me anyway being a member of the all-party committee led by the former government, there wasn't a whole lot accomplished. We had a nice trip to Ottawa and we had a great evening chatting amongst ourselves on Parliament Hill, but at the end of the day there wasn't much gained, there wasn't much fruit for our labors.

Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that we not move down the road of an all-party committee, but we certainly have all-party support for this. We ask the Minister of IGA and the Minister of Fisheries and all members of this House to work on behalf of their constituents and call upon our three, in particular, conservative members to stand up and do the right thing by the fishermen and fisherwomen they have as constituents in their districts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am delighted this afternoon to stand and speak to both the motion and the amendment, both of which I support. I support the amended motion.

I thank the hon. Member for Lewisporte for having put this motion on the floor. This is an extremely important issue and I don't guess there is anybody in this hon. House – there may be some but if you don't know about Elizabeth Harvey, you certainly have met with her as well. Of course, Elizabeth Harvey is the individual from Isle aux Morts who has really been coordinating the effort to see that the fishing people who have been affected by the actions of the federal government get redressed. This is so unjust that it almost goes without saying; how unjust this situation is.

I want to note: in the motion that the Member for Lewisporte has put on the floor the whereases are important, because it talks about the Constitution of Canada providing for fair and equitable treatment of all citizens, and it talks about Revenue Canada being charged with the responsibility of collecting income tax in a fair and equitable manner. Those two words, fair and equitable, are words that are supposed to be the hallmark of who we are in Canada, words that are supposed to be the hallmark of who we are as a people. The very basis of what we are, our constitution uses that language.

The whole notion of equalization, the equalization system, the equalization formula, payments to provinces who do not do as well as other provinces, that is based on the whole notion of fair and equitable. It goes without saying that if there is any group in this Province in particular who deserves fair and equitable treatment, it is the fishing people of this Province.

I will not get into a history lesson, but it is good for us to remember on what the fishing industry was based, for centuries actually. That for centuries we had fishing people who got very little for their work; fishing people who were controlled actually by merchants. Fishing people who did not even get cash for the work that they did, who bartered in order to get payment back for the work that they did. That is the history of our Province. It is good for us to remember it because the families who are still fishing, families who live mainly in the outports of this Province, families who maybe no longer are fishing because of what happened to our cod stock, they all come from that history. They all come from a history where our fishing people did not get treated equitably and fairly and justly. That is the reality.

Here we are, in 2008, and we see our own federal government using its own laws to treat unjustly and unfairly a group of people who have been and are the backbone of this Province. Now it is not unusual that you see this kind of thing happen, especially with the revenue agency, I hate to say.

It is only quite recently, actually in the last couple of weeks I have been dealing with a young woman, a recent mother. She has only worked for minimum wage all her life, although she has worked in the retail industry as a waitress. So, she has made more money than minimum wage because of tips. As a young mother, somebody who should be able to get maternity leave because of EI - she has worked ever since she left high school, somebody who has not earned a lot of money and because of the system not working for her, because EI and the Canadian Revenue Agency and the Child Tax, because all of those do not work together in any kind of cohesive way, she is being penalized beyond anything with regard to benefits that she should be receiving as a young mother eligible for maternity benefits.

When I read what is in the motion that the hon. member has put on the floor, I become a bit discouraged because I know that Revenue Canada is charged with the responsibility of collecting income tax in a fair and equitable manner but I really do not believe that our system works for the people at the lower end of the scale. For them, it is not fair and equitable. They end up being the ones who suffer. They end up being the ones who do not get what they deserve and paying back.

I know this is not the fishery but it is a good example. So I am going to continue with it for a minute. For example, with this young woman that I am talking about, because she was honest in her tax return and gave information about EI and was honest with EI, she has ended up now having money being clawed back because of her honesty; because of the two systems working one against the other, the EI system and the taxation system working in conflict with one another. That is unacceptable. That is exactly the same kind of thing that we have happening here, that we have systems working against each other.

It is unbelievable that this government could put in place the plan for the buybacks. That is happening at one level, in one department, DFO. The buybacks were a wonderful idea, and I am sure there are people who are saying: Wow, they were getting $100,000, $110,000 but they were getting that money based on years of work, based on years of hard labour. So we get DFO doing this with one hand over here, and then over here with the Canadian Revenue Agency we get the taxation happening. It just amazes me with government how we can do that kind of thing and people get caught in the middle and suffer and ne'er the twain will meet.

We have it happen in our own system provincially. We have these kinds of things happening where programs in one department conflict with another and it is the people who suffer in the middle, and that is what we have happening here with the fishing people. It upsets me so much and I am sure it upsets everybody in this room. That is why I am really glad that we can discuss this together and all of us together show the people in this Province, especially the people who are

fighting this situation, the people who are hoping to get their money back, to show them that we are all united in supporting them. I hope that we will move forward with that sign of being united, that we will do more than just stand here in the House today and speak to this, that we will do something concrete to show these people that we are fighting for them. That is why I do like the amendment to the motion.

I can understand what my hon. colleague said a few minutes ago, but you cannot give up because one time it did not work. This could be the time it could work. This could be the time by having an all-party committee, and we sit down those people who are in the Cabinet in Ottawa, who say they are part of the fishery here in Newfoundland and Labrador and a friend of the fishers, and we make them sit and talk to all of us together. This could be the time that it would work, because something has to be done to show real solidarity with these fishing people who have been treated so unjustly, and continue to be treated unjustly.

There is a whole issue around claw backs, and it is such a part of our system that we accept claw backs. I think there should be real restrictions on claw backs because this is the other part of what happened. Besides the fact of the non-taxable buyback and the fact that they ended up being taxed, they also were not told that they would also have amounts of money clawed back. For example, payments under the Northern Cod Adjustment Program, the payments under TAGS, previous salmon licence buybacks, Child Tax Benefits, GST credits, that all these claw backs were going to happen as well. This is part of our system and I really think we have to have a serious look at claw backs because we claw back without any thought to what the overall income of the people is. What is the overall income of the person who is having money clawed back? It is unacceptable. Just as what is happening here with regard to the buyback is unacceptable.

What concerns me is that these people are retired. This was the whole idea of the buyback. This was to allow them to be able to retire, to have the equivalent of a pension. These people do not have pensions. This is money they can put into RRSPs so that they have money to continue living on, that when they are in their seventies that money can be part of a RRIF that they will continue to get money from. This is real life, so we do have an obligation to stand here and to be concerned about them, and to speak to their situation, just like we have to be concerned about other people in the fishery as well. I know that the men and women who are affected by this situation with the Canadian government are also concerned about other workers in the fishery. For example, we have 30 per cent of plant workers who are fifty years of age and older, and it is mainly women.

Many of us, I am sure, have stood at the gates of the plants. Maybe some in the room have even worked in the plants. I have not, but I have seen the workers, some of these workers over fifty, walking into the plant at 6:00 o'clock in the morning going to work. They are tired of standing in that plant, and standing in cold, and being on their feet all day long doing that plant work.

When we talk about retirement, we have to look at the condition of people's work. Maybe that is another resolution that could go on this floor. Maybe that is something else that we can talk about together as three parties: our concern for plant workers over fifty who should be able to take early retirement.

We have so much around our fishery that we have to be concerned about, that we are not doing enough about. Our fishery continues to be the backbone. I know there are people who do not believe that. I would like to think that all of us here in this room do believe that. I, myself, did not grow up with somebody in the fishery in my family; however, my mother's family came from Heart's Content and was rooted in the fishery. There is a section over in Heart's Content called Rockwood Room, and that was where my mother's family was.

I grew up with a notion of how important the fishery was to the history of this Province, and that is what I hope this discussion today is doing for anybody who is watching; that people who are watching, who are not part of the fishery, are getting a sense of how important this issue is, and how and why we should be speaking to it, and why we should be putting effort into it.

There are so many ways in which our fishery can grow. Our fishery can grow – one way is through aquaculture. I know the government is doing that. Another way is through restocking. Another way is through marine protected areas. There is so much that we can do to make sure that, when oil and gas is gone, our fishery – just as it was in day one – will continue to be a strong industry that is serving the people of this Province.

We will never get the same number of people in the fishery again as we had. We know we are down almost 50 per cent in terms of the people who are working in the fishery, but those 50 per cent who are left in the fishery have a good life right now, and it can be made better, and that is what we are about here in this House: to find the ways to make that happen.

Our responsibility is to those who are still in the industry, to make sure that we are coming up with ideas, with ways in which that industry can be strengthened, so that they will continue in the industry, their children will continue in the industry, their grandchildren will continue in the industry, but we also have a responsibility, too, for those who were so badly affected by the changes in our fishery, those who were affected by the whole disaster with regard to our cod stock, those who have taken part in the buyout and who are retired, that we have a responsibility to them as well.

I hope that we will do more than stand here today and speak to this issue. I hope we will do more, as a House of Assembly, than just talk.

As I said a few minutes ago and I will repeat again, I will be voting for the amended motion. I would really hope that the whole House would vote for the amended motion so that we can take efforts together, as a House of Assembly, showing that we have a united voice, and pointing out to the federal government how unjust it is what is happening, that it is a grave injustice, an injustice that cannot continue, and that we, as a House of Assembly, see it that way, we name it that way, and that we are calling upon our federal government to bring justice to the people who have been affected by this decision.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to hearing others of my colleagues.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for The Isles of Notre Dame.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is certainly a privilege today to stand and second the motion made by my good friend, the hon. colleague from the District of Lewisporte, a motion that calls upon the federal government to intercede and to require Revenue Canada to correct the unfair tax burden that has been placed on some Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who participated in the 1999 Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program.

It is a special honour as well for me, as I do represent a number of constituents who have certainly been impacted by this decision. I represent a fishing district, some thirty-seven communities all born of the fishery and all very much dependent on the fishery today.

I will say, as well, there have been a number of speakers today on this issue and certainly, for the listening audience, I want to assure people, from the discussions I have had with my colleagues here in this House, there is a great unwavering support for this motion; for they, too, have received letters and calls and are eager to support their constituents in this long, long, battle for fairness and justice.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if I could start, I would like to perhaps take a chronological look at this whole issue and try to put in perspective what this small group of fishermen and fisherwomen has gone through over the years.

There are hundreds of people and families that have been impacted by this unfair tax burden, to the tune of $20,000 to $40,000 for some individuals. This amount, these figures - it has been suggested - have an impact on our Province of $30 million to $40 million that would be put into the economy of this Province.

I would like to, as well, as I go through this, take a look at the federal government's responsibility to do what is right in this situation. Perhaps, to start, we could go back to the history. We all recall that devastating and shocking day, July 1, 1992, with the ringing announcement of a shutdown, the cod moratorium, the shutdown of a fishery that had a devastating impact on individuals, families and communities. We all recall the anger, the protests, the fear, the anxiety, and indeed the grief, that echoed throughout every bay and every cove in Newfoundland and Labrador. The largest single mass layoff in Canadian history; 40,000 people were directly impacted by that announcement.

Mr. Speaker, that was the start of the issue which we are dealing with today but the reality of that announcement is that we lost the fishery that defined the character and spirit of Newfoundland and Labrador. We lost the fishery that shaped our identity, our economy, our culture; and, for many people directly involved in the fishery, with that announcement they lost their independence and their means to make a living.

From admission of responsibility and recognition of the hardships, the federal government committed to support the displaced fishers and plant workers in this Province. To do so, they came up with a number of strategies - strategies with specific goals: goals to restructure the fishery, goals to reduce capacity, and goals to provide adjustment programs to the people directly affected. We can recall some of those strategies: income support; retraining programs; counselling; mobility support; economic development funds; retirement for older fishers; and specifically, the licence retirement program.

In hindsight, it is certainly arguable that while the intentions were obviously very supportive to the people at the time, and very supportive to the economy of the Province, it may not have truly achieved its objective. The TAGS program, in fact, cost a lot more than was intended. The groundfish stocks did not recover as was expected, and the reality was, as my hon. colleague from The Straights & White Bay North indicated, with too many people and too many licences, the fishery was just not sustainable. So, there had to be some incentive, some way, of reducing the capacity in the industry.

That way, Mr. Speaker, was the licence retirement program, a voluntary program that provided people who have gone through undue hardship to sell back to the federal government their licence in return for an income. The process of licence retirement is similar to a reverse auction, where fishers had to bid on the value of their licences based on vessel size, based on historic catches, their age and their age towards retirement. All of these factors were considered, no doubt, and a board had to decide then the value and the worth of the licence.

At that time, the consideration of licence retirement was obviously impacted by a capital gains exemption which would allow fishers who sold back their licences to have an increased net income that obviously would enable them to retire and certainly move towards the age of sixty-five.

Mr. Speaker, for many of us who are not involved, it is easy to dismiss that whole decision, but undoubtedly, many fishers and their families struggled with a very difficult decision. They struggled with the idea of giving up a way of life, perhaps a way of life from generation to generation, from their grandfathers to their fathers. They had to make that decision with so much uncertainty. For many of them it came down to: can we afford not to?

With the licence retirement program, as my colleague alluded to earlier, there were a number of programs and licence buyouts over the years. With specific reference to this fishery, in the mid-1990s there was a buyout, a licence retirement program, which was supported with a $100,000 capital gains exemption. This was a good deal. Some 850 fishers availed of that opportunity and, as a result, got out of the fishery and were able to make a claim for the true value of their licence and what they held to make a living.

In 1999 - I guess the issue that we are faced with today - fishers were older and the reality was that the cod stocks were not being replenished. The issue of retraining and relocation was really not an option for many of the older fishers out there in our smaller communities. In 1999 they were not fortunate enough to have the leadership, the vision and the opportunities that are in this Province today. Retraining and relocation was not an option for many, so they opted for the licence retirement.

It is my understanding that at that time DFO sent out letters to fishermen and accountants to indicate that the income would be considered capital gains, income received from their licence retirement. Fishermen submitted bids with the expectation that their net income from their licence retirement buyout was what they could use for their retirement. Insignificant capital gains exemptions meant that their income, their TAGS income, and other factors severely reduced their net income and, in essence, reduced the value of what they owned and what they used to make a living all of their lives. As a result, many fishers in this Province were faced with an incredible tax bill at retirement stage, some up to $40,000. Many found life to be very difficult and certainly a difficult outlook for the future.

Mr. Speaker, that is where it gets complicated. It is my understanding that certain groups who were engaged in the 1999 licence retirement program sought legal counsel, appealed to Revenue Canada, and, as a result, were given a more significant exemption under capital gains. They were either reimbursed or given back some money clawed back from the licence retirement income. Apparently, it has been suggested that they were advised to keep it quiet.

When the current group that we are talking about today, some 800 to 1000 people in this Province, learned of this deal and sought legal counsel and again appealed to the Canada Revenue Agency, they were denied. They were denied on a technicality, saying they had passed the deadline. Here is a group of fishermen, similar to their neighbour, similar circumstances, faced with the similar decision, but they were being denied on a technicality.

Through some of my research I read a letter from a tax company dated March 31, 2004, long after the 1999 buyout. In that letter it was suggested that the tax company had negotiated a new arrangement. They had negotiated a new deal to which their client would be very happy and pleased, and that there would be a cheque issued come the fall of 2004. Mr. Speaker, that cheque has not arrived, to my understanding.

I have to say, if one group is given an exemption, increased money, and another group is not, on a technicality, and then we find out a tax company is negotiating and making arrangements on behalf of their clients, it certainly casts a shadow of doubt on fairness and equality and treatment for these fishermen when it comes to the Canada Revenue Agency and what they went through in 1999.

We have fishermen who, from generation to generation, kept the economy of our small communities alive. We have fishermen, many of whom are up in age and ready for retirement but denied on a technicality, while others were given deals, backroom deals, and asked to keep quiet about it. Mr. Speaker, I say that is not good enough. That is not good enough for the people of this Province, it is not good enough for the fishermen who were tormented and tortured to make that decision, and made plans with their families to retire, and who were given conflicting information along the way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: That is the issue, and that is why the resolve of this group of people continues to this day, sixteen years after their livelihood was lost. Eight years after they had filed for the licence retirement program, they still to this day are arguing and making their points. We today, as a group of representatives for the people of this Province, are considering a motion, a motion to support this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I feel the federal government is responsible for the Licence Retirement Program. When we look at the big picture, I may be wrong on this figure but it was one figure I saw in my research, some 6,000 people in this Province, some 6,000 fishers took advantage of the Licence Retirement Program. Yet, here we are today, several years later, dealing with 800 or 900 fishers who have been denied what 4,000 or 5,000 other fishers in this Province readily took available and prospered because of it. We have a small group of fishers who have been unfairly treated. We have another group from the 1999 Licence Retirement Program who were given a sweetheart deal, a backroom deal, asked to keep quiet about. If that is not an admission of wrongdoing, than I do not know what is.

Mr. Speaker, some of these fishermen with the changes in our economy today are struggling and finding it difficult. They are struggling not only financially but they are struggling with the unfair and unjust treatment that they have received. That is why I am pleased to support the motion introduced by the Member for Lewisporte today.

I want to say in closing, it is unfortunate with respect to this issue that the Canada Revenue Agency appears willing and prepared to hang their hat on a technicality and deny these fishermen their income. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say today, and certainly say on behalf of the people of the Isles of Notre Dame, I am very proud and I am proud that the members sitting in this House today are quite prepared to hang our hat on the side of fairness and respect for the fishermen of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DALLEY: Mr. Speaker, just a final statement. Personally, I think there are too many unanswered questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, leave.

MR. DALLEY: I will be a second, Mr. Speaker.

I think in reviewing this matter, I feel there are certainly too many unanswered questions and I call on Minister Hearn, the federal government and the Canada Revenue Agency, to review this file and do what is fair and right for all of the participants in the 1999 Atlantic Groundfish Licence Retirement Program.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to have an opportunity to have a few comments here, just a few preliminary comments.

First of all, on the motion put forward on Private Members' Day here by the Member for Lewisporte, I certainly will be voting in favour of that particular resolution that is here. Technically, I think it might be a little incorrect in the sense that it only refers to the 1999 Atlantic groundfish retirement program. I believe there were actually successive buyout programs that are impacted by this.

Just for the record, or those who do not know, there were 850 people impacted by this tax battle. Of those 850 fishers, fifty-two are now deceased since the battle started in 1999-2000. In terms of dollars, we are talking about approximately $1.6 million that those fishermen do not have right now but is in the federal government coffers as a result of what the federal government has done. That is for the facts.

The history of this thing, for anybody who has listened to Open Line shows, listened to resolutions in this House before and speeches that us, as members have given in this House, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the Leader of the Opposition and myself, is well-known. In fact, I am pleased, albeit surprised, to see a government member move the resolution. Because at the end of the day, anybody in this Province who has been listening, and certainly the media, they know who started this issue. I am going to give credit, first of all, where credit is due.

The person who deserves the most credit, the single individual who deserves the most credit for putting this issue on the radar is none other than a lady named Elizabeth Harvey, who lives in the Town of Isle aux Morts, and that happens to be in my District of Burgeo & LaPoile. Nobody deserves more credit than her, and I do not know if her name has been mentioned here today. If there is any lady and person who deserves credit for taking an issue and ramping it up and brining it to the concern of all the parties that might be able to help her, she is certainly the lady who did that. Of course, they have their lawyer, Mr. Eli Baker, who has been intimately involved in this matter through the legal route and the various appeal processes that have been ongoing. So, the history is well-known.

The federal government are dealing unfairly with this group of people who had the licence buyouts. All she is asking for and all of these 850 people are asking for, is to be treated fairly by the Canadian tax system. You had a certain select group, approximately 100 of them, who managed to cut a deal. They cut a deal and they walked away with minimal tax consequences as a result of the buyout. Yet, we end up with this 850 people who instead of paying out an average of $6,800 as a result of a buyout, they are out $40,000 each. That is how unfair this is. How can you take a group of people, apply the same regulations to them, and one group walks away paying $6,800 - a hundred of them, because they cut a deal with the tax department - and the other 850 has $40,000 gone out of their coffers and their pockets. I will not even go to the fact that they need it. Everybody knows they need it. That is why the issue is of such urgency.

So, we know who started this. We know who has been promoting this - and I am pleased to see that the Member for Lewisporte took it upon himself to bring it here today, but I want to see, more importantly as well, rather than just having a Private Member's Resolution here that government members are going to stand up on and say: yea, we agree to talk to the tax department. I am going to see how principled they are. Let's see the government members put their money where their mouth is when it comes to voting on the amendment, because everybody - Elizabeth Harvey will be the first one to tell you, their lawyer, Mr. Baker, will be the first one to tell you, and the 850 people impacted by this will be the first one to tell you, that just passing a resolution here in the House saying: Let's encourage the federal government to be fair with these people and encourage the tax department to be fair with these people. That just does not cut it. You need more than that.

Now, I noticed the former Minister of Fisheries, the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, former Minister of Fisheries, got up here today and pooh-poohed the idea of an all-party committee. Well, you talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. That is the same member, by the way, that is the same member - the former Minister of Fisheries, when he was in Opposition a few years ago, sat on an all-party committee. Maybe all he did was go to Ottawa, as he said, and have a chit-chat, but I would like to think - maybe he should go back and read his notes as to what he thought of it then. He stood up in this House and what he thought of the all-party committee, of which he formed a part. I did not hear him then saying it was a waste of time. I did not hear him saying then it was a waste of time. By the way, maybe he needs to be reminded, I do believe at the time a certain company that existed in this Province, called FPI, was about to gut certain communities, that these members of the government now represent.

The Member for Fortune Bay-Cape La Hune, a place called Harbour Breton was going to be gutted by FPI in that particular year; 2003, by the way. Going to be gutted. Another place called Bonavista, of which there are a couple of members here represent. A place called Triton was going to be gutted.

Now, you do not need to go back very far in history to see what happened once the all-party committee was struck and they applied some pressure. That did not happen, folks. I would call that pretty successful. Maybe the former Minister of Fisheries calls it a waste of time. I would like to think it was very important that three, four, five communities did not have everybody laid off. Some of them had the guts tore out of them later on this government's watch, in how they dealt with FPI, sad to say, but it did not happen fortunately back then.

That is the purpose of an all-party committee. It gives purpose, it gives some strength in numbers, it gives some unity, and I am telling you, quite frankly, we need it. We need it because I have had the personal experience on this issue of meeting with the federal representative, Minister Hearn, the current Minister of Fisheries, as recently as three weeks ago. I met him in Port aux Basques. Ms Harvey came in. He was in town to announce the new ferry. Minister Hearn strolls into town with his EAs and his communications people and announces the new ferry, but unbeknownst to him Ms Harvey and her entourage were waiting in the hotel. They had another big issue that they needed to talk to him about.

By the way, it is not an issue that he did not know about, because I have a copy here of a letter that the same Minister Hearn, also the MP for St. John's West, wrote on September 19, 2000 when he was in Opposition to the then Minister Responsible for Canada Customs and Revenue saying, help these people. He described an issue, spoke on behalf of an individual who was in his constituency and said, do something about this. Well, that is another fine one. He must have a memory like the Member for The Straits & White Bay North. He forgets things when it is convenient. Minister Hearn forgot all about it, showed up at the meeting and said, well, I am not familiar with all of the details, you will have to refresh my memory. He left the meeting saying, thank you very much, that you have just given me some further information. Now I can go back to Ottawa and we will get this thing back on track. We will check this out again.

He asked Ms Harvey: what do you want to do? What is best for you? She said: we would like to have a meeting. You arrange a meeting with the tax people with our lawyer, take all of the information and let's get another chance to talk about this. No problem, it will be done, he said. I have the information, I will go off and read it. A meeting was arranged ten days later, going to take place between all of these parties including Minister Hearn. Ms Harvey was told that it would take place in St. Christopher's Hotel in Port aux Basques. She was given the time. She called people and told them, out of these 850. People came from as far away as St. Anthony for the meeting, got in Port aux Basques and it was cancelled. Now, that is Minister Hearn, another man of his word. This was like two weeks ago, folks.

Just encouraging the federal government to go talk to CRA is not going to cut it. If you are going to bring any substance and any status to this issue, we need to put some teeth into it, and you are not going to put the teeth into it, with all due respect to the member for Lewisporte – he had all good intentions and we acknowledge that, but you have to give it some teeth by having a committee who is going to go up and bang on their door and say, thank you very much, it is not on.

It is like the former Minister of Fisheries, before I forget, because there just was not one precedent, by the way, for all-party committees, there is another one of which I think he was a member and I do think it had to do with the cod stocks in the Gulf back in 2003. What happened there? The federal government was going to close down the cod stocks. In 2003 the all-party committee gets struck in this House of Assembly and they go off and have meetings in Ottawa. Lo and behold, guess what happens? They did not close down the Gulf quota at all. Pressure was brought to bear. The quota stayed open, and guess what, folks? In the five years since that decision was made to keep it open, that quota in the Gulf has been increased.

Do not talk to me, I say to the member for The Straits and White Bay North. All-party committees do work. He was a part of it, he knows it works. Anyway, we are anxious to see the vote, because maybe this is a sham. Maybe these government members is a sham. Maybe the Premier does not want it.

I am going to vote for their resolution because, yes, you should talk to them. My suggestion and the suggestion put forward in this amendment is that, let's do our talking through an all-party committee because it gives it more strength. Lo and behold, the member said, well, it is a bunch of money, you got to do this. You might want a trip to Ottawa. I am sure any of us here are entitled if we have to go on business. We can all go as individuals to Ottawa. That is allowed, that is allowed under our constituency allowances to do that, but that is not the point. The point is, if we go as a unified force it has that much more weight. Let's not talk about cost. We all have the ability to get there from a cost point of view.

Maybe it is a case that you do not want to take the time. If that is the case, that is indicative of how serious you are taking this issue. Maybe it is not important enough to do it. I have gone to Ottawa on a lot of things. The seal fishery back years ago, we went up - they were going to cut the quotas again. Yes, it worked then too, back in John Efford's day. Yes, it actually worked. The federal government actually did not bring in a quota cut as substantial as they wanted to. So, there are three incidents where it worked. If it works and if we have the precedence that it worked, and we can do it and we have the ability to get there, it is a matter of do you want to take the time to go there or do you not believe in what you are going to vote for.

MS JONES: They have been instructed by the Premier.

MR. PARSONS: Maybe that is the case. You do not have the guidance, obviously, of the former minister of Fisheries anymore after today. I wonder where he would have stood on it, because he does not mind speaking out for himself. That is quite obvious. Anyway, I am going to see where they stand, particularly the member for Lewisporte, because the Member for Lewisporte has dealt with this lady, Ms Harvey, he has dealt with the lawyers and he understands the issue. I am interested to see, and we will find out in division – we are going to call a division on this because I would like to see again and document every single one of the government members. Let's see where their gumptions are then. Let's see then if they are prepared to stand up and have an all-party committee go up and talk to the big boys in Ottawa, or do you just want to hide behind a letter, write a letter and put your signature on it? Is that what we are going to see? We are going to find out soon enough, because we are going to call a division on the amendment, and every single one of you – by the way, these 850 people do not live in one district, they are all over the Province. We will send a copy to everyone affected. They will know, they are watching. Ms Harvey is watching this right at this moment. She will make sure that everyone of those 850 people know where you all stood as members and whether you backed an all-party resolution. She will know that.

We have over 200 letters in our office now from these people who are interested. Let's see where they stand. I do not think anybody is exempt from having somebody in their district. The Member for Humber Valley has people up in Jackson's Arm and places affected by this. The Member for Twillingate has people impacted. The Member for Grand Bank has people impacted, all kinds of people. The Member for Ferryland has people impacted by this. The Member for Windsor-Springdale has them. The Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune has them. Some do not have them, Mount Pearl or whatever, but the rest of them do. We are going to see very shortly now. The Member for Lewisporte is going to round off the discussions today.

Anyway, Ms Harvey knows and the 850 people know where the Opposition stand. We stand behind them, we stand for an all-party committee, because they have exhausted talking one on one. They have exhausted writing letters to the federal government. We have exhausted talking to the Minister of Fisheries federally. It is time that some pressure was brought to bear and the proper way to bring pressure to bear at this stage is through an all-party committee.

I would like to see how the Member for Lewisporte is going to wiggle out of this. He is either going to stand up and be a man of principle and say, yes, I am voting for the all-party committee, I brought in the resolution why wouldn't I have the gumption to go one step forward - let's see if he is prepared to stand up and vote for it. It is going to be very interesting to see because I will say right here and now that if he does not have the gumption to do it he should not have brought the resolution in, in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I look forward to the closing of the debate by the Member for Lewisporte, to see the vote on this and where the government members all stand.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today, as well, to stand here and speak in support of the resolution as put forward by my colleague from Lewisporte. I am not here to put off a show or anything. I will give my vote in support of the resolution. I believe that voting in favour of the resolution is far more important than what could be accomplished by going to Ottawa with eight or ten all-party members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: I remember first when I got elected to this House of Assembly, back in 2002, and there was an all-party committee put in place then by the previous government. I think the Liberal members made a trip to Ottawa without even calling the people from the Progressive Conservative Party - never even got a call. The Liberals, three or four of them, went to Ottawa on their own, so that was the all-party committee that they had in place just a few years ago.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am quite pleased to speak in favour of this resolution, to speak to this travesty of injustice that has been bestowed upon some of our fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians by the federal government.

We all recall that, following the moratorium in 1992, the federal government did consider it a moral obligation to provide some form of funding, some form of financial assistance, to the fisherpeople and the fish plant workers who were negatively impacted by the closure of the Northern cod fishery. So, between 1992 and 2001 the federal government delivered four major restructuring initiatives in Atlantic Canada.

As you will recall, or some people will recall anyway, in 1992 the Northern Cod Adjustment and Recovery Program, or NCARP as it was called, was put in place. Then the following year, in 1993, the Atlantic Groundfish Adjustment Program was put in place. Following that, in 1994, the TAGS program, or The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, was put there for displaced plant workers and fishers in the Province; and then, between 1998 and 2001, the Canadian Fisheries Adjustment and Restructuring Program, another program that was put there to help these people.

Mr. Speaker, it was under these programs that the fishers could take advantage of licence retirement or early retirement, or several other options that they had put in place. For the older fishers in the Province in particular, Mr. Speaker, after losing their jobs, after having their livelihood taken away from them by the federal government, they saw an opportunity to receive some financial assistance to sort of tie them over until they were ready for retirement, Old Age Security or whatever.

Mr. Speaker, I come from a fishing district myself, a fishing community, and even before I got into politics I dealt with a number of cases with respect to this same issue. When I worked with Beothic Fish in Valleyfield, dozens of fishermen, not only from district but from outside of the district, approached me and asked me to help in their situation, and I did. I made calls and, as the Opposition House Leader just mentioned, Mrs. Harvey, I spoke to her earlier on, on a number of occasions, and I agree that she is certainly the one who spearheaded this issue on behalf of the people who have been affected.

Mr. Speaker, the question here is about fairness, as the other speakers have said before me, fairness to the people who were displaced and got caught up in the situation back in 1998 and 1999. The argument about it all centres around the fact of the capital gains exemption tax, and the changes that the federal government made between 1998 and 2001. So, Mr. Speaker, when the first group of fishers went out in 1993, as my colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development said earlier, they went out with financial assistance from the federal government to the tune of $30,000 to $50,000 and, because of that, all of these people were exempt. Because, back at that time every Canadian, when they sold capital gains, they were exempt for up to $100,000, so these people were the ones who took advantage of that situation. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, those people paid no income tax at all.

Between 1998 and 2001 the federal government changed the capital gains exemption policy. So, instead of getting the full benefit of the $100,000 they changed the rates. I think in 1998 the capital gains exemption went to 75 per cent; on the first $75,000 that people would have, they were exempt. Over that, they would have to pay tax. Then, I think, a year or so after, the tax rate again was changed to 50 per cent, so they only got the benefit of the first $50,000 on their income, and after that they had to pay income tax. That is why, over that period, different people who went out at different times between 1998 and 2001 ended up paying different rates and different amounts of taxes.

So, Mr. Speaker, in that period I believe there was somewhere around 1,800 fishers who went out of the fishing industry. Some took early retirement. Some took licence retirement. Some, their income was under the $50,000 or $75,000 and therefore got exempted, but for the most part, and it has been mentioned here today, there ended up somewhere around 850 people who got stuck with the higher income tax – and there is more than that, Mr. Speaker, for those people who got caught up in that situation. Not only did they get caught having to pay the high income tax, but the lump sum payment that they received put them into a higher tax bracket and, as a result, some of those fishers who happened to fish that summer – because some did – some of the fishers who were fishing that summer ended up paying higher taxes than what they normally would. Besides that, Mr. Speaker, because of their higher income, some ended up having to repay their child tax credits, their HST refunds, and a lot of them ended up having to pay the TAGS that they had received, the TAGS income that they had received two or three years earlier.

So, Mr. Speaker, people who thought that they had a certain amount of money to retire on soon found out – but after the fact, which was to make this even worse. It was after the fact, in 1999, when they filed their 1998 income tax return; that is when these people found out that they were going to be caught in this situation of having to pay those income taxes.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about good, hardworking Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who spent a lifetime in the fishery and before they made their decisions, they were looking at their fellow fishers who had gone out previously, gone out without paying any kind of income tax whatsoever. So, based on that, they took their buyout as well back in 1998-1999 and, unfortunately, got caught with having to pay income tax.

To make matters worse, I guess, Mr. Speaker, and the Official Opposition party leader just mentioned, a few years ago a group of people, 150 or so, I think they were from the North West coast over there of the Province, down the Northern Peninsula, that they engaged a chartered accountant. It was not a lawyer, from what I understand. They engaged a chartered accountant who worked on their behalf and, as a result, they reached a settlement. I think they had to pay something like half of the income tax that the other people ended up paying. I say to those people, Mr. Speaker, and I mention that, not because I begrudge them. I would say more power to them. In fact, I think they should have gotten the same benefits as the fishers who went out years ago.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I again would like to say that I am very proud to stand here today and speak in support of my colleague from Lewisporte who brought this resolution forward. I would also say to the federal government, that in the essence of fairness, in the essence of equality and in the essence of consistency, give these people the respect and the dignity which they so earned over the years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Contrary to what the Member for Bonavista North said in his opening comments, I think it is important to point out that the all-party committee to which he refers was asked for and supported by the Tory party when they were in Opposition in the House of Assembly. Participating in that all-party committee was, at the time, the Leader of the Opposition who today is the current Premier, along with other members of the Opposition. I wanted to point that out for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition moved on a point of clarification, not a point of order, I say to hon. members.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank all the speakers who spoke to this motion today. When I look back, I thank the Acting Minister of Fisheries for his comments. With his history in the fishery and the perspective that he brought to it, in saying that ninety-nine people - they had two other examples to go by and they accepted their offer in good faith.

The Leader of the Opposition, I also thank her for her comments in saying that the issue needs to be elevated. That is what we are doing here today, we are elevating the issue. The amendment that she put forward calling on the House of Assembly, the provincial government, to strike an all-party committee to pursue the resolution of this issue with the federal government was spoken in favour of by the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, which leads me to some of the comments made by the Member for the District of Burgeo & LaPoile.

I was surprised that the member mentioned that the total dollar figure we are looking at here is about $1.2 million. Everybody else here talked in the vicinity of $30 million to $40 million, and he was emphatic when he said that is the facts. Then he went on to say that there are 800 people affected with about $40,000 each. That comes up to $32 million. There is something about his facts that do not add up, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order here.

The facts are, as I stated. There are fifty-eight of the 850 persons who died and the amount of money that impacted them was $1.6 million. That was the comment made. If we are going to speak, Mr. Speaker, we should -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is certainly no point of order; again, a point of clarification.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I say it as I heard it, to the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile.

Also, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile and the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, they talked about how much they are concerned about the injustice that has been done. Still, after eight years we have this injustice, and what do they want to do? They want to strike a committee. How long have we heard that, Mr. Speaker? How often have we heard that? After eight years now the people over there want to strike a committee and have a look at it. Well, I say what we are doing here today is we have struck a committee. We have had all members of this House sit across here and we have talked about the issues. We have a committee struck.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. VERGE: We are asking that if forty-eight members have debated this for two hours, how much more of a committee do you want? Do you want it to drag on for another few years?

Anyway, what we are going to do is we are going to ask the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Department of Fisheries to now, once we pass this resolution today - I will be watching, just like he is going to watch, to see if he stands up on the amendment, to put his money where his mouth is, see how much he is concerned. We will see!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: So, Mr. Speaker, he can watch where I am going to take my stand, yes. I am not going to vote for the silly committee, no. What I am going to do is, I am going to ask people to pass this motion today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. the Member for Lewisporte. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is good to know that only a few days ago the people from the other side there got up and talked about the racket in the House. They can certainly join in when they want.

I am going to clue up by just saying that I will not be voting for the amendment. I would also like to recognize the lady that the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile mentioned, a lady in his district that did champion this cause, Elizabeth Harvey. I have heard her on Open Line. Again, if the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile - when he got up he said that nobody mentioned her, but if he was listening to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi he would have heard that she had already mentioned her and thanked her, and I had certainly planned to do the same thing in my closing remarks. I thank her for the work that she has put into it.

In closing, I am going to relate just a little thought I had actually last night. I have a couple of minutes there and it will not take long. I was trying to bring some sort of a picture to this whole frustrated event and I thought about it like this. I said, if there were ten of us today that went to a car dealership and we were going to go as a group and negotiate a deal, and there is a car there that is worth $40,000 and together we negotiate a deal and we get the car for $30,000, so we walk away and we are feeling pretty good, only to find out a week or so later there was a group that went in a day before and the car that we paid $40,000 for, thinking we had a pretty good deal, they got for $25,000. A group, the next day, also went in after us and they got the same car for $25,000. Then, on top of all of that, Mr. Speaker, we find out that two of our group went back to the dealership and they were refunded $12,000 or so, while the eight of us in the middle who paid the most money, and we couldn't get dealt with by the dealer, we would be feeling ripped off. That is exactly the way these fisher people feel, the people who are affected by that 1999 buyout.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

Is the House ready for the question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the amendment as put forward by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition carry?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is lost.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division.

Call in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

Is the House ready for the vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

All those in favour of the amendment as put forward by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, please rise.

CLERK: Ms Jones, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Ms Michael.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the amendment as put forward by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, please stand.

CLERK: Ms Burke, Mr. Kennedy, Ms Dunderdale, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Ridgley, Ms Johnson, Mr. Skinner, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Oram, Mr. Denine, Mr. Dinn, Mr. Kent, Mr. Baker, Mr. Hunter, Ms Perry, Mr. Collins, Dr. King, Ms Sullivan, Mr. Dalley, Mr. Peach, Mr. Verge, Mr. Hutchings, Mr. Harding, Mr. French, Mr. Young, Mr. Forsey, Mr. Loder, Mr. Cornect, Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Speaker, the ayes four, the nays thirty-three.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair deems the amendment to be lost.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the resolution as put forward by the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte?

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

The motion is carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This House now stands adjourned.