May 27, 2010                        HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                  Vol. XLVI  No. 28


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome twenty students from Levels II and III from MSB Academy from the District of Baie Verte-Springdale. The students are accompanied today by their principal, Ms Sandra Young-Robinson, Mr. David Snow, Ms Chantelle Bowers and their bus driver, Charlie Bursey.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Today the following members' statements will be heard: the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the hon. the Member for the District of Baie Verte-Springdale; the hon. the Member for the District of Exploits; and the hon. the Member for the District of Lewisporte.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to stand in the House and recognize Jessica Grant and Tom Dawe, two wonderful authors who recently won prizes in this year's Newfoundland and Labrador Book Awards sponsored by the Writers Alliance of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Jessica Grant took home the 2010 Downhome Fiction Award today for her novel, Come, Thou Tortoise.

Tom Dawe was awarded the 2010 Bruneau Family Children's/Young Adult Literature Award for his children's picture book, Moocher in the Lun, illustrated by C. Anne MacLeod.

These awards were presented at Government House in St. John's recently. Both authors each received $1,500.

Each of these writers has added greatly to the canon of literature in Newfoundland and Labrador. Jessica Grant has had an amazing year, Mr. Speaker. This award puts another exclamation mark on a banner year for Ms Grant, who also took home the Winterset Award for the same novel in March. Not bad, Mr. Speaker, for her first novel.

Tom Dawe is the author of several collections of poetry and a co-founder of the literary journal TickleAce and was recently suggested as Newfoundland and Labrador's next poet laureate. As a long-time professor of English at Memorial University, Mr. Speaker, Tom Dawe has inspired his students by impressing upon them his own passion for literature.

I ask the members of this House to join me in congratulating Jessica Grant and Tom Dawe on their awards.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pride and pleasure that I rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the MSB Regional Academy Wildcats of Middle Arm for capturing the 3A Boys Ball Hockey provincial title that was held on April 29 to May 1.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. POLLARD: Not only was MSB Academy the host school for this provincial tournament that saw ten teams converge upon Middle Arm, but it also marked the first time that the school has won a school sports provincial title.

Principal Sandra Robinson, the teaching staff, students, parents and the people of surrounding communities are to be applauded for welcoming the teams and for volunteering their efforts to make the tournament such a huge success. We are all proud of their outstanding achievement.

Some of the team members include: Jonathan Dawe, Jasper Dicks, Jordan Edgar, Zack Goudie, Marcus Martin, Quentin Newbury, Zach Penney, Kyle Prowse, Brett Robinson, Jordan Robinson, Miguel Saunders, Corey Shiner, Austin Welshman, and coaches Adam Matthews and Stephen Earle.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all colleagues in this hon. House to join me in congratulating MSB Regional Academy Wildcats of Middle Arm for winning their first provincial championship. We wish them every success in their future endeavours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FORSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to recognize the accomplishment of Mr. Woodrow Hibbs for his forty-five years of active service with the Peterview Volunteer Fire Department.

Mr. Speaker, Woodrow is the type of dedicated individual we hope inspires not only those around him, but all of us in the Province as an example of the personal satisfaction gained and the many friends earned through service to one's community.

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 7, I had the privilege to attend the annual volunteer firefighters' dinner and awards presentation in Peterview, at which time, Woodrow was recognized for reaching this milestone, and was also named Firefighter of the Year for 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members in this House to join me in congratulating Mr. Woodrow Hibbs on his forty-five years of active service with the Peterview Volunteer Fire Department.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this hon. House today to recognize a resident of Campbellton, Mr. Cordell Hillier. Cordell was recently honoured with the Crime Stoppers Volunteer of the Year Award.

Mr. Hillier, acting president of the local branch of Crime Stoppers, has been an active member of this organization for twelve years.

Like all our volunteers, Mr. Hillier volunteers his time without personal gain, and for the sole purpose of making his community and area a better and a safer place to live. Through Cordell's efforts, and also through the efforts of other dedicated members, our local Crime Stoppers group has been one of the most active groups in the entire Province.

Members of the House of Assembly, please join with me in recognizing and thanking Mr. Cordell Hillier of Campbellton for his tremendous volunteer spirit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, consensus-building, shared-understanding, problem solving and, most importantly, co-operation serve as the guiding principles for The Strategic Partnership.

It is the commitment to these principles that enables leaders from business, labour, and the provincial government to participate in ongoing dialogue and collaboration that addresses both the challenges and opportunities impacting Newfoundland and Labrador.

Glen Hodgson of the Conference Board of Canada described the partnership as "building relationships and developing cohesive policies and practices" through a process "that is unparalleled right now in North America." Armine Yalnizyan from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives indicated that it is an initiative "the rest of Canada could do well to learn from."

As a government, we are very pleased to hear this commentary. We are very proud of the partnership's work and the open relationship that it has created. It has emerged as a pipeline where there is a free-flow of communication exchanged on the Province's social and economic development.

Relationships developed through the partnership, for example, helped advance our work with local union officials last May when the decision was made to make the unprecedented investment of $43 million in severance to the more than 800 people abandoned by AbitibiBowater. It allowed for a collective, united approach to supporting displaced workers.

Lana Payne of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, was highly supportive of our action and viewed our approach as being the right one for the region.

Currently, through a series of committees, the partnership is examining a wide range of issues related to labour market development, innovation, and employment relations. It is also helping to facilitate research on social and economic development issues in collaboration with Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Denis Mahoney. Over the last five years, Mr. Mahoney has worked tirelessly in his position as Chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Business Coalition and was an important conduit in championing the interests of the business community while respecting the views of his peers.

A constant in his approach was his willingness to recognize the merits of specific issues and finding common ground. I am pleased to report that he will remain a part of the partnership through the Employment Relations Committee.

In the wake of Mr. Mahoney's departure, I would like to welcome Mr. Roger Flood to the Strategic Partnership as the new Chair of the Business Coalition. Mr. Flood has a long history of working with labour, business, and government that will benefit the partnership for many years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

It is certainly good to see the positive feedback from partnerships and organizations such as the Conference Board of Canada. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Mahoney in his position as chair and wish his successor all the best.

Of course, on this side of the House we are very keen on the Strategic Partnership because it was something that started back in January, 2002, I believe, under Premier Roger Grimes' government at that time and it was designed to foster a new collaborative consensus building approach to advancing the social and economic interests of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Certainly, we need to hear more of that in these times. It is all about collaboration, as you say, and dialogue and the philosophy that we can, together, do what we cannot do separately. So it is good to have this statement today and to just be able to make a comment or two.

Thank you.

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

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

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

There is no doubt that the Strategic Partnership is an important initiative and that dialogue is important. It is important that government, business, and labour sit together at this table and listen to one another. Communication is a two-way street and it is not enough to listen, people have to speak together. The dialogue is essential, we know that is true.

I find it interesting that the minister quoted Armine Yalnizyan from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. She certainly recognizes how good this initiative is. I would like to point out though, that she is also an economist who works on the alternative federal budget that the CCPA puts out every year. I encourage the minister, and the other members of government, to look at the approach of the alternative federal budget when they put their budget together next year, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing I look forward to is the issue of anti-scab legislation being resolved inside of the Strategic Partnership. I have heard government refer to labour and business together, but government is at that table too. I would like government to make sure that we eventually, some time before very long, finally get some anti-scab legislation in this Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, everyone is aware of the financial storm that existed in the last year and the challenges it provided to many different groups and sectors across the board and across the globe. However, Mr. Speaker, one group in the Province met those challenges head on. I am speaking of the credit union system of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am very pleased to stand in this hon. House today and announce that credit union assets grew by 9 per cent or $63 million in 2009 and this was also the first year in history that all Newfoundland and Labrador credit unions were profitable.

Mr. Speaker, this success can be directly attributed to the hard work of volunteer directors, management and staff of credit unions. The Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation also had a role to play in this success through the policies and procedures it has implemented over the years. It is also reflective of the right decisions that the Williams government have made since 2003 to grow the economy in this Province.

With over 55,000 customer-owners and $763 million in assets, credit unions provide a full range of financial services to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They are the only financial service provider in some rural areas of the Province and compete head-on with large banks in other areas. They are locally owned and controlled, meaning profits stay in this Province. Also, lending decisions are made locally, unlike some financial institutions where they are made outside the Province.

Mr. Speaker, the credit union system is a key service provider in rural areas and an employer of choice. Currently, there are eleven credit unions with forty locations across the Province of which thirty-one are located outside the Northeast Avalon. Those rural locations employ 203 employees earning total salaries and benefits of over $8 million for an average of almost $40,000 per employee. Provincially, they employ 317 people earning more than $15 million.

As the Minister responsible for the Credit Union Deposit Guarantee Corporation, I am continually impressed with how in tune credit unions are to the needs of their owner-operators. Mr. Speaker, it is because of their initiatives that credit unions are a viable and attractive alternative for banking.

I congratulate all credit unions on their achievements in 2009 and I look forward to 2010 being another successful year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

We too want to pay tribute to the credit union system here in Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess tremendous recognition should be paid because they all started out through volunteer groups. I know in the northern part of our Province and also the Labrador Coast, in one particular area where the banks pulled out, the people came together and they formed the Eagle River Credit Union. That has been a tremendous success story and I think there are six branches now throughout Labrador and on the Northern Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, it was just last year, we brought forward a piece of legislation modernizing the Credit Union Act here in the Province. I can assure you that we supported that at the time, the credit unions could sell insurance to their members but it had to be done through a subsidiary. By passing that piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, now it can be done right through their own branches. The group, my understanding is, has grown by some 4,000 members and by $130 million since 2008. So it just goes to show what the volunteers can do when they put their minds together, not only on the Coast of Labrador and the Northern Peninsula but right throughout this great Province of ours.

So, Mr. Speaker, we want to commend them and say keep up the great work because much of this is taking place in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I too thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement.

I am not quite sure why he chose today to recognize the credit union movement but at least I am very glad that he is doing so because credit unions of course are part of the whole co-operative spirit, a separate arm of the co-operative movement but strongly rooted in the community and in community working together. Right across this country, credit unions are a lynchpin for local economies in particular and they also make sure that money gets invested here in our Province. They played a very important role in strengthening communities everywhere in Canada but also here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

My colleague has already mentioned what happened in Southern Labrador when the Eagle River Credit Union picked up the lack of what happened when the banks pulled out. The role of the Eagle River Credit Union, along with the fishing industry in Southern Labrador, has been extremely important for maintaining strong local economies.

I am glad the minister recognizes the work of the credit unions. I really hope it continues to play a very strong role, and I really hope it will find new and innovative and creative ways to help rural businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: 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, yesterday the Minister of Finance indicated that government had reduced the number of VLTs in the Province by 26 per cent. This morning he noted that the Atlantic Lottery Corporation has declining revenues partially because of these moves and are looking for new ways to make money. They see the future as getting into on-line casino gambling. So on one hand the minister is promoting the reduction of VLTs, on the other hand he has allowed himself to be open to creating a whole new problem with on-line casino gambling.

I ask the minister: If you are committing to addressing gambling addictions in the Province, why would you even entertain the idea of introducing on-line casino gambling through the Atlantic Lottery Corporation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the ALC has indicated, the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, which is owned by the four Atlantic Provinces, has indicated an interest in getting into on-line gambling because of the fact there are over 2,000 sites, 2,000 illegal sites that people can access right now, and they want to do it to offer more responsible gambling. Our government has not made any decision on whether we are going to support that initiative or not. That is something that we will consider at some time in the future. The only people that I know, who are actually supporting on-line gambling, are the Liberal Party in Prince Edward Island and the Liberal Party in New Brunswick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the Liberal Party does in other provinces has no reflection on us, I say to the minister. You have certainly liked to distance yourself from your federal cousins in Ottawa on many occasions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister did state that on-line casino gambling is happening anyway, so it would be better to have it regulated and make money from it. He stated this morning on the Open Line show that government can hide in the sand or they can get into it.

I say to the minister: If you are committed to reducing the number of addictions and the number of VLTs in this Province, why would you even consider going into on-line gambling? Why isn't the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador saying no today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, what I did today, is I pointed out the various arguments that are being made pro and con. One of the things involved when we deal with gambling, there are very strong views on all of the issues that come up - very strong views.

I will just note that Jeff Derevensky, who is co-director of McGill University's International Centre for Youth Gambling, referred to the on-line industry's arsenal of technology saying, "You have the opportunity to do (consumer protection) better than other forms of gambling." So there are very strong arguments in favour of it, Mr. Speaker, and there are arguments against it. Government will consider the evidence from all sources and in due course we will come to a consensus as to how we are going to move forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, if we were to legalize drugs, such as cocaine in the Province, we would make money off it and we would be able to regulate it as well, but it does not dismiss the impact that it has on people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why would the Province even consider introducing a new legal form of gambling that will most likely target and affect younger people in this Province, creating addictions for them at a much younger age?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, again, this government has not made a decision as to how it is going to go. We are going to consider all options.

When you talk about youth gambling, I note that the study that the Leader of the NDP referred to yesterday said that young people had engaged in one gambling activity of eight of them and the least common reported activity is with Internet gambling.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are arguments pro and con. Why don't we banish alcohol? That argument comes up as well. We are going to consider the evidence that each group puts forward and we will make a decision in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the minister stated that he did not know how much the Province would potentially make in revenues from this type of gambling. However, we do know that the Atlantic Lottery Corporation has already done a lot of the work on this initiative in completing the cost estimates.

I ask the minister: What were the preliminary estimates that have been supplied to your government from the Atlantic Lotto Corporation?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: I cannot recall the total right now. We have to remember, there are 2,000 sites out there worldwide that people in this Province can access. That is totally unregulated. They can do it from their homes. I believe the number, and I will have to check this, is that they feel we can make a potential $55 million from on-line gambling revenue, if it were introduced.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On April 10, 2008, the former Minister of Education informed the House of Assembly that the government had no plans to close the School for the Deaf. I ask the minister today, if that is still the case?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, our intentions for the School for the Deaf have not changed since the previous minister spoke in this House. The School for the Deaf still operates and we still offer governmental support to the same degree that we have in the past couple of years. There are no changes at this point in time from government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government has announced its intentions to build a new school for the west end of St. John's.

I ask the minister: Will the School for the Deaf and the adjacent properties be the site of this new school, and if so, will the current buildings be renovated or incorporated into the new school design?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is asking me to draw a lot of conclusions and make a lot of assumptions. The future of the School for the Deaf – as I said before, we have no intentions and have not laid any plans to do anything with that school at this point in time. The member opposite knows full well that as demographics change and student enrolments change and parent choices change, we will react accordingly. I am not going to speculate on where that will be at any time in the future.

With respect to the announcement for the new west end high school, we have done just that. We have announced a commitment, as a government, to the people of the west end of this region that we will build a new facility. There is a long established process in place, Mr. Speaker, that engages school councils and school boards to identify possible sites for the construction of new schools and through that process a list of possibilities will be brought forward to the Department of Education for consideration. Mr. Speaker, that is a long ways out, so pretty well everything that has been asked by the member opposite is purely speculative.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, maybe the minister can tell me where we are in the process of site selection for the new west end school, and if he can table in the House of Assembly or indicate to the public what sites are being considered?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, what I can say to the member opposite is we are not much more than two months beyond a Budget announcement of a commitment. We are in a process of trying to spend $121 million on infrastructure and maintenance work in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and that project –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: - will proceed as we can turn our attention to it. What we have done is we have notified the school board of our commitment and we have also indicated to the school board that we want them to start giving consideration to sites. At some point in time, we will appoint a consultant who will do a review for that as will be done for any new school construction projects, Mr. Speaker.

Everything else that the member opposite is asking is assuming that I am going to speculate and make assumptions here, which I am not prepared to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also know that government is building two new K-6 schools in Paradise because of the growing population of children and young families in the community. Once these children enter junior high and high school they will be forced to travel to Mount Pearl or Conception Bay South and overcrowding will certainly become an issue.

I ask the minister: With a demonstrated need for a junior high and high school facilities in Paradise, has government initiated any plans at this stage to build those schools?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, let me share with the House what we have done in instances where there has been a demonstrated need.

Out in Torbay, Mr. Speaker, there was a demonstrated need because of population growth, what did we do? We announced a new school for that area. Mr. Speaker, out in Placentia there was a demonstrated need for a new facility because of ongoing maintenance and repair issues, what did we do? We built a new facility.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has asked about Paradise, I was in a former job at that the time that that discussion was initiated and we encountered a number of problems out there, one of which was population growth. What has this government done? We are building two new K-6 schools, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I submit to the member opposite the record of this government is that we will work co-operatively with the school board and with the communities and the people out there. We act when it is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, but we are not in the process, nor in the habit, of building schools based on what-ifs five and ten years down the road.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister is saying that there is no demonstrated need for a school for junior high and high school in the Paradise area.

Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, the Minister of Natural Resources stated that an oil spill off our coast would not be of great concern because we had an oil spill in 2004 on the Terra Nova. That oil dispersed, broke up and went away was her quote. Well the oil spill in 2004 was only 200 barrels versus the 70,000 per day barrels that we are seeing currently taking place of the coast of Louisiana. It is like comparing an eye dropper, Mr. Speaker, to a fire hose and it shows the minister's lack of understanding of what is happening.

I ask the minister today: Besides the 2004 incident of an oil spill, what other examples are available to show how a major spill off our coast would react?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my answer, earlier in the week, was to a question directed to me by the Leader of the Opposition as to what happened to oil in an oil spill. I answered in terms of our own direct experience with an oil spill that we had in 2004 when wind and wave action had dispersed and help vaporize the oil, and subsequent studies of the sea floor showed that there had been no settlement of oil on the sea floor or no damage to the environment that was able to be observed.

Mr. Speaker, if she is going to twist that into a comparison to what is happening in the Gulf, there is not much I can do about it, but that is not the question that was asked, and that is not the question that was answered.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister might want to read her own response in Hansard, but certainly the 2004 incident is not even comparable to what we are looking at in the world today.

Mr. Speaker, government, through Nalcor, owns equity stakes in our oil and gas projects, yet they are also responsible for providing environmental regulations to the industry. We know that adhering to environmental best practices is not always the priority to stakeholders who are trying to make money. Government also makes political appointments to the C-NLOPB to ensure the Province's interests are represented.

So I ask the minister, now that you are a developer and an equity owner in the oil industry, why would you not support the concept of independent monitors on rigs to remove any perception of conflict?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me say it is very difficult to have a discussion with the Leader of the Opposition about responsibility for the environment when she demonstrated in the House earlier the week she does not even understand what level of government environmental responsibility for the offshore comes under. She was attributing to the Minister of Environment and Conservation, who has no responsibility beyond the high water mark.

It is really disturbing, Mr. Speaker, when it comes from a former Minister of Fisheries for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador who should have understood that her responsibility did not go any further than that either as far as the offshore was concerned.

Mr. Speaker, science has shown that independent monitoring on the rig is not the best way to do oil spill surveillance. The best way to do it is from the air. That is what is being done on a regular basis in our offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All we ever hear from the minister opposite is rhetoric and insults. Of course, we continue to hear her trying to defend the Minister of Environment, who really has no handle on the environment, but that is beside the point, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister could tell me why, as a developer and an interest earner in the oil and gas industry –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: - that they are not prepared to put independent monitors and observers on these platforms, but yet support independent observers on fishing vessels in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, one of those persons, one of those inspectors is inspecting, counting fish and measuring fish coming on a vessel. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to do that from 20,000 feet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, to spot an oil spill on our ocean, the most effective way to do that is from 20,000 feet or less.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister knows that you cannot monitor what is happening on the rig and on the platform from thousands of feet in the air. The minister knows that, Mr. Speaker. She is making light of a very serious issue in this Province today that could cost us, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, down the road.

I say to the minister: In light of what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico today, and how the ecosystem and the environment is being destroyed because of a spill in this industry, why will you, as a government, not take a proactive role and put a task force in place to monitor the environmental regulations in the oil industry in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we had a discussion earlier in Question Period about gambling, and I am going to indulge myself at the moment, Mr. Speaker, because I am willing to lay money that the Leader of the Opposition knows no more about what the regulation is in the United States with regard to drilling than the man in the moon.

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB is having a technical briefing on Monday of next week to talk about oil spill prevention and oil spill response. I suggest very strongly that members of the Opposition take advantage of that briefing and try to find out a little more about what they are asking questions about, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, we have an independent review ongoing in this Province. When that review is completed and recommendations are made we will consider them and then I will talk to the federal minister who shares responsibility in this to see if we need to do further work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month in this House I highlighted the need for a community voice in the MOU process. The Minister of Fisheries responded by saying that community representation is a key to the evolution of the fishery, as he termed it, and it was encouraging to hear him acknowledge this.

Based on that recognition, I ask the minister today: Will he commit to formally including community representation in the MOU process, specifically by modifying the agreement itself, so that communities will have a direct voice in the industry as it undergoes the many changes required in the months and years ahead?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly important that communities have a say in where the future of the fishery is going to be in this Province. Right now, the MOU process, Mr. Speaker, we have working groups within that and progress is being made. The group met last week and those discussions are ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, when we feel and the process feels there is a place for community input, then we will be seeking it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated in a press release on March 18, there was an analysis of marketing issues facing the industry and he expected this report in a couple of months. It has now been over two months since that release.

While the minister indicated in his MOU, a progress report yesterday, that the marketing group is actively engaged in this task, I ask the minister today: Will he indicate to this House when this important work is now expected to be completed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that came out of the talks this year around establishing a price and so forth, was an acknowledgement and an agreement between both sides in that discussion that there is a need for a marketing strategy here.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly hoping that both sides will remain true to that commitment. Mr. Speaker, if that is indeed the case, for the next coming fishing season we should see something in place that will allow us to market our products in a much more reasonable and strategic way. As a result, Mr. Speaker, have better results for prices for harvesters and processors.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, during the crab dispute the government was reluctant to step in and help resolve the impasse with any investments, citing the risk of a NAFTA challenge. As the minister admits, the MOU process will certainly entail some sort of rationalization and therefore financial assistance.

I ask the minister: Will the government consider commissioning a report that would investigate investments that are possible under NAFTA as the MOU process unfolds? Clearly, on this issue it will be critical to the success of any recommended changes to the fishery.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: I swear, Mr. Speaker, I swear that these people – the Opposition wants another report. I swear to God, they are sounding like they want another report.

Mr. Speaker, the plan; we have an MOU process in place, Mr. Speaker, and we will let that MOU process unfold. We expect and we anticipate that there will be good results coming from that.

Mr. Speaker, the people who can make a difference in the fishery of this Province are sitting at the table: the union, the processors and government, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you one thing, that we as a government will do what we can to support that process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, they must be giving out funny pills across the House today or something or other.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DEAN: Yes, I know.

Mr. Speaker, you got to have funny questions for funny people. In the two sittings of the House that I have been here, Mr. Speaker, I have never heard an answer to a question, so you might as well ask something that will get a funny response.

Earlier this month, I also questioned the minister on the status of the New Ferolle plant on the Northern Peninsula. I understand a meeting was held a couple of weeks ago with the owner, Greg Mullowney, who again promised the residents of the plant that it would reopen. Other than a few pieces of old furniture and dated equipment going into the facility, the plant remains idle and it is increasingly frustrating for the residents.

I would again ask the minister: What is the status of the plant today in terms of operating this season and why is the owner not being more accountable to the people of New Ferolle and the area?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing funny about the questions that the member opposite is asking - I do not think there is.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the New Ferolle plant, as he indicated, Mr. Mullowney still, as far as we have been informed, intends to open that plant. We have a number of plants on the Northern Peninsula that opened this week. The Member for St. Barbe has met with the group, he has met with me, and we will continue to monitor that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to monitor that, and the frustrations that the people have, Mr. Speaker, we will hopefully find a resolution to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Well, the member has met, Mr. Speaker, I guess the problem is resolved, we will leave it there. Mr. Speaker, I will just wait for -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

They met last year, as well, and of course we all know how much work they had last season. Given the uncertainty that has plagued this plant in the past several years, the plant committee in that community has sent a letter to the Minister of Fisheries requesting that the processing licence be transferred back to the community.

I ask the minister today: Will he grant this request, and indeed, will he commit to sitting down with those concerned citizens to discuss this matter and help them bring stability to their community?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, more than willing to sit with any group at any time. Secondly, when the letter comes forward, we will give it consideration at that time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Conservation. Mr. Speaker, I double-checked my questions, they are all above the high-water mark so hopefully she will be able to answer them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the minister about a tender that was recently advertised in The Telegram for a turnkey operation for the compaction and redistribution of the tires stored in Dunville. The minister stated that they have a proposal that will hopefully come on stream and this tender will make it easier to ship the tires.

I ask the minister: We have heard similar speculation from this government over the past seven years, Mr. Speaker, what is the nature of this proposal and when can we expect to see something concrete announced?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition was so concerned about the environment and offshore she should have asked me a question where jurisdiction does fall under my department and that is when the oil reaches the land, Mr. Speaker. The reason that she did not do that, Mr. Speaker, is because the fourteen years that they were in power when there was a very active oil industry, not one policy, not one procedure, not one person hired to develop policies to put in place when the oil should reach land. That is why she has not asked me a question, Mr. Speaker.

To the question of the hon. member opposite about tires, we have been actively involved with trying to find resolutions to the tires. In the interim, we are trying to find ways to cut costs. That is why we put out the recent tender in terms of baling. It is also a safer method, in terms of the hydraulic compression of the tires, there is less opportunity for air to get in, and there are less trucks that will be required once the final plan is in place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the 2007 Student Drug Use Survey commissioned by the governments of the Atlantic Provinces reported that 23 per cent of students in Grades 7, 9, 10, and 12 had played on an Internet gambling site with money or points, and 5.1 per cent had played for money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to say that government has not made any decisions on allowing on-line poker, which is being promoted by Atlantic Lottery Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance: Has the Atlantic Lottery Corporation given the Department of Finance any risk assessment reports documenting the potential risk of on-line poker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that her time has been allotted earlier to ask questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Every time that the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi stands to ask a question in this House, she is drowned out by members shouting back and forth. I ask members for their co-operation and respect for the members that are asking questions.

Who is the question directed to, I ask the hon. –

MR. MARSHALL: Me.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I had a chance to take a look at that study last night and there has been information sent by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation, but they can make their own arguments, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we are not necessarily an advocate for the position they have espoused. We have reduced the number of VLT machines by over 25 per cent in this Province – 25.1 I think is the actual number. Another seventy-three machines were removed on April 1.

The best argument in favour of on-line gambling is the fact that you can control things that are not controlled right now. They mention, for example, that their PlaySphere, their Web site, has been called by Mark Griffiths, Professor of Gambling Studies at Nottingham Trent University in the U.K., as the most responsible gambling site in the world. I mentioned earlier that report from McGill University which talks about that the on-line industry's arsenal of technology gives you an opportunity for some consumer protection (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

Maybe the minister did not hear my question. Does the minister have risk assessment reports on on-line gambling and would he make those – now I add – risk assessment reports, if he has them, available to this House?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: I am only aware of the prevalence studies that we spoke about yesterday. I am sure the hon. member has that, but if there are any such studies I would be happy to make them available. I will consult with my colleague, the Minister of Health. If we have any studies that can add help to the debate that is going to go on, then I will be happy to share them.

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.

The minister has made much reference today, and he just did again, to holding consultations and there will be ongoing discussions and consultations. I would like to know from the minister if he is willing to hold province-wide consultations regarding governments' dependence on VLTs and the potential for on-line gambling to hear what the people of the Province have to say?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I have not committed to any consultations. All I said is that our government, because of the fact that our VLT action plan is now coming to an end, this is the final year of a five-year plan, that we will now determine which way the government is going to go forward. When we do that, I will be happy to announce that here in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for Oral Questions has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Tabling of Documents

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to section 10 of the Public Tender Act, I hereby table the report of Public Tender Act Exceptions for April 2010 as presented by the Chief Operating Officer of the Government Purchasing Agency.

Further tabling of documents?

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will call from the Order Paper, order 2, under Orders of the Day, Concurrence Motion for the Resource Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the report of the Resource Committee be concurred.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to rise and begin the Concurrence debate on the Estimates that were considered by the Resource Committee.

Over the past three or four weeks or so the committee met on a number of occasions and discussed the Estimates for the following departments: Department of Business; Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, which also included the Newfoundland and Labrador Research Development Council and the Rural Secretariat; the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; Department of Environment and Conservation; Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; and the Department of Natural Resources, which also included the Status of Women and the Women's Policy Office.

The total estimates, Mr. Speaker, for these six departments for 2010-2011 is approximately $587 million. This is an increased expenditure of $175 million over the previous year.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Resource Committee I would like to take a few minutes to review some of the debate that occurred in the meetings that we held. Some of the meetings took as much as three hours, so there were lots of questioned asked by the committee members and lots of great information given out by the different ministers and their officials.

The first department that I want to look at, Mr. Speaker, is the Department of Business. That department is responsible for providing leadership and co-ordination across government departments. It is mainly concerned with attracting and promoting the Province for new business from outside of the country and worldwide.

The Department of Business, this year, has a budget of just over $39 million; $8 million of that, Mr. Speaker, will be used in the form of grants and subsidies for strategic business supports, which will improve the investment community in the Province. It has also helped to attract viable business prospects and promote business opportunities by the government worldwide.

There is another $25 million allocated in that department, Mr. Speaker, available for large-scale, strategic investments to attract businesses to the Province. That would be businesses such as the aerospace and defence industry, as well as the oil and gas industry.

The second department we considered the Estimates for, Mr. Speaker, was the Department of Environment and Conservation. That department is responsible mainly for the protection and enhancement of the environment in the Province, the management of our biodiversity, endangered species, wildlife, inland fish, water, climate change, and Crown land resources. They also have regulatory protection for wildlife and inland fish, our provincial parks, ecological and wilderness reserves, our natural areas around the Province, Canadian Heritage Rivers and Crown lands. The Department of Environment and Conservation estimates for this year, Mr. Speaker, the gross expenditure is anticipated to be in excess of $63 million.

During our meetings, some of the expenditures or large expenditures that were put forward by the minister and her officials were the remediation of the Buchans area, $4 million, remediation of the Hopedale area, $1 million. There were also provisions in the budget this year for capital expenditure of $1 million in upgrading the Salmonier Nature Park. This is an allocation of year one of a master plan for the Salmonier Nature Park, and this expenditure this coming year will include the construction of a visitor centre at the park and upgrades to the existing buildings and trail infrastructure.

There is also provision in the budget of the Department of Environment and Conservation of $3.6 million to replace the Crabbes River bridge. The Crabbes River bridge is part of the provincial T'Railway system throughout the Province.

There is also an allocation of $1.5 million for the Lower Churchill Project. While it has not started yet -any construction or anything – nevertheless, there is ongoing work with that project and there is $1.5 million there this year to continue with some of the initiatives that already have started.

There is also a grant there this year in this budget of $500,000 for the Aboriginal groups. This is monies that will help the Aboriginals to participate in any environmental assessment processes that are part of constructing the Labrador hydro link line between Labrador and the Island. It will give these people an opportunity to participate in any of the environmental assessment that is done with that project.

There is also $10.5 million in their budget this year for the extension of the EcoTrust. This is available to businesses, to groups and organizations, in the form of grants - businesses and organizations that can demonstrate in their proposals how they will reduce greenhouse gases.

We also considered Estimates for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture. This is a department, Mr. Speaker, that means so much to our Province. It has over the years, and it will continue. The problem with all of this with respect to fisheries is the fact that the Province has very little control over the management of that industry.

The department does promote the ongoing development of our fisheries, and also in recent years the aquaculture industry. In support of this mandate, Mr. Speaker, the policies and programs are related to culturing, to harvesting to some degree, processing mainly, and marketing.

Budget 2010 contains $14.4 million in new monies for initiatives in the department, for a total budget this year of just over $44 million. While that may not seem like a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, in comparison to the other Atlantic Provinces our budget for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture is more than all of the other three Atlantic Provinces combined. It is more than Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, their budgets combined.

Since 2003 the budget for the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture has increased five-fold. Back in 2003 the budget for that department then was less than $9 million a year. This year, Mr. Speaker, it is almost $45 million.

Some of the items contained in the Fisheries and Aquaculture budget for this year include the provision of $1 million for the Canadian Centre for Fisheries Innovation. That centre will engage the expertise and the facilities of Memorial University and the Marine Institute in its work on applied fisheries and aquaculture research.

Also in the area of research and development, the department is providing $2 million to be allocated for the Fisheries Technology and New Opportunities Program under the Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy. There is $450,000 allocated for fisheries science and a cod recovery initiative. Again this year, there is $100,000 being provided again for the sealing industry communications.

Safety, Mr. Speaker, is also a main part of the department's spending, and this year is no exception; $250,000 has been allocated for a Fishing Industry Safety Council initiative. This is also part of the new Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy. It was only a week or so ago that the Minister of Fisheries took part in the release of a new video called, Getting Back Home. That video, Mr. Speaker, is to help eliminate fatalities and injuries in the fishing industry in this Province. It is my understanding that the video will be distributed to all of the fishers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Province's aquaculture industry reached record levels of production in 2009. The market value of the aquaculture industry increased to $92 million in 2009. This represents an increase of 45.9 per cent over the previous year. So aquaculture is certainly becoming a growing industry in the Province, and certainly supplementing what we have lost from the conventional fishery.

Budget 2010 also invests significantly in aquaculture infrastructure and in research; $7.5 million has been allocated toward the construction of an $8.8 million Centre for Aquatic Animal Health and Development. This is located in St. Alban's, and construction on this site has already begun. There is also an allocation of $500,000 this year on laboratory equipment for that facility in St. Alban's.

Nine million dollars has been allocated for aquaculture wharf infrastructure as part of the Biosecure Wharves Initiative with our aquaculture industry, and $6.6 million has been allocated for the Aquaculture Capital Equity Program. This program assists in increasing production of commercial aquaculture products, resulting in increased employment and spinoff opportunities in processing, in manufacturing, and in supply and service sectors.

There is also a provision in this year's Budget, Mr. Speaker, for market intelligence and market development in support of the fishing industry. That is, again, going to be a main part of the new fisheries policy that will be implemented over the next year or so. As a result of consultations and the initiative of the current Fisheries Minister, marketing will be one of the main planks in the new fishery. As of a few weeks ago now, indications are that all sectors of the industry are in favour of some kind of new marketing strategy for the fishing industry.

The committee also reviewed the Estimates for the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. That department is responsible for making improvements to our tourism infrastructure. Also, major emphasis over the past few years has been spent on arts, culture, and the recreation part of that department.

For the information of people viewing this, Mr. Speaker, to give you some indication of what the tourism industry means to the Province. Last year, direct and indirect employment in the tourism industry averaged 22,700 people. That is an increase of 1,800 employees over the previous year. That department, Mr. Speaker, has a budget this year, a gross expenditure anticipated of more than $67 million.

The tourism industry – to give you some idea of the contribution to the economy; last year in our Province, the tourism industry contributed about $850 million to the economy of our Province. Last year also, there was an increase in tourism visitation to the Province of about 1 per cent. Considering the declines in most of the other provinces in Canada, that looks very favourable for what we are doing in this Province.

Our Province has increased the tourism marketing budget from $6 million in 2003 to $13 million this year again, Mr. Speaker. During that period, 2003-2009, the non-resident visitation to this Province has grown by 14 per cent. We are ahead of the Atlantic Provinces for that period. When we think of P.E.I. in particular, we normally think of that as one of the largest and most prosperous areas in terms of tourism, but during that period, visitation to P.E.I. was down by 20 per cent. Nova Scotia was down by 5 per cent. New Brunswick visitation was down by 23 per cent. Like I said before, Mr. Speaker, during that period of 2003-2009 our tourism in-Province visitations increased by 14 per cent.

This year, Mr. Speaker, there will be in the Budget provisions for marketing the Cupids 400 celebrations coming up in August. There is a new Labrador advertisement which is generating interest in all of the Province now as a travel destination for visitors. Also, there is a marketing campaign giving rave reviews and awards. Our Province, over the past two or three years, has received something like seventy awards, both nationally and internationally.

In terms of the arts and culture, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland is one of the most vibrant cultural communities in the country. We are continuing with our investments into our arts and culture. Since 2006, we have more than tripled our annual budget for the Arts and Culture Centre, going from $3 million to $9 million.

I would like to say that only recently I talked with the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, and this year again there is going to be in excess of $100,000 allocated to the Barbour site in Newtown in my District of Bonavista North. I encourage all the members in the House, Mr. Speaker, to come to Newtown this year and just see the tremendous job that they are doing with respect to our arts and culture, and tourism in general.

We are also spending, in this year's Budget, $1.2 million in upgrading the Colonial Building here in St. John's.

With respect to the Cupids celebrations coming up in August, our government committed $5.3 million to that overall project and this year almost $3.6 million will be spent in the Cupids Legacy Centre and year-long celebrations to include performances of seventeenth century English music, theatre and dance. That project alone, Mr. Speaker, is expected to generate to the Province approximately $15 million in revenue.

I only have a little over a minute left, Mr. Speaker. We also reviewed the Estimates for the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. That department has a number of programs to encourage investment in the Province. One of these is the Regional/Sectoral Diversification Fund which supports development and contributes to the development of stronger, more diversified communities in the Province. There is $11 million in that fund in itself, and a lot of that money is spent in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are also grants through the Innovation Enhancement Program, $1 million; grants and subsidies through the export and trade division which is supporting local businesses, industry organizations and in the educational institutions. There is a program also, the Business Retention and Expansion program. Over the past few years that department has met one-on-one with approximately 100 businesses per year to identify new business opportunities and to address any challenges impacting on their operations.

Mr. Speaker, we also reviewed the Department of Natural Resources. That is one of the largest departments in government. Under that department we looked at the Estimates for forestry, agrifoods, mining, energy. In addition to that, we also considered the Estimates for the Women's Policy Office and the Status of Women, since these agencies come under the purview of the Minister of Natural Resources as well.

Mr. Speaker, my time has elapsed for now. So I will sit and look forward to the debate throughout the afternoon. After the last speaker, I will rise and move the motion for the Concurrence debate in the Natural Resources Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

It is a pleasure again today to be able to stand and have a few comments with regard to the work that has been carried out through the Resource Committee. As my hon. colleague mentioned earlier, which include the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the Department of Business; the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and the Department of Environment and Conservation.

I had the opportunity to attend one of those meetings because I am critic for the Department of Environment and Conservation. I guess, as my time goes on, that is where I will be placing most of the emphasis on is that particular department, but there are a couple of other departments that I do want to touch on and one would be the Department of Natural Resources when it comes to the agriculture end of that department. Not that any other portion of it is important, but agriculture is an industry that is in my district and I just want to touch on that for a few minutes. The other one would be the Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture and just some brief comments there.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Department of Natural Resources, as I said, covers off on the department of agriculture. We see from time to time the tremendous amount of work that is done throughout this Province. I do not know what the percentage is of the products grown in my area, but I know there are several farms there that grow various types of vegetables. There are also blueberry farms there. Mr. Speaker, from time to time they do have good and bad years. I believe that they have to, from time to time, make a tremendous impact upon the department in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I noticed in the outlook that came under the booklet, The Economy 2010, that we get from time to time – and I have to say that I noticed that there were some reductions that were noticed. The total farm receipts declined by 4.5 per cent in the first three quarters of 2009 as compared to 2008, but still, that accounted for some $78.9 million.

The fur production was also down by 58.5 per cent which accounted for $3.2 million. Egg production was down 0.7 per cent, Mr. Speaker, for some $9.9 million. There are quite a few people in this Province that are involved in the agriculture. There are some 6,000 and 7,000 direct jobs employed in the system. It is my understanding that Canada imports about 54 per cent of all of its vegetables and most of that would be in the – and a tremendous amount also would be included for fruit.

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues, I guess, I heard a young gentleman, I will not use his name but I know he comes from the hon. member's District of Trinity-Bay de Verde, and I think he is involved in the farming industry and he made a comment recently in one of the local medias where he said we need to focus on food security, food safety and food sovereignty. He said: If we do this, we have the cornerstone upon which to build a resurgent agriculture and agrifoods industry that can offer a real future for many young people and solve the crisis facing some of the communities in rural Newfoundland. How true that is, Mr. Speaker, because agriculture is very important. The industry consists of some 558 farmers and over 100 food and beverage manufacturers. The agriculture industry is valued at - I think it is somewhere over $500 million.

Mr. Speaker, one of the programs that has been introduced in recent years is what they call the eat local program. Mr. Speaker, in my area, I think in the district alone there are approximately seven to eight vegetable stands that are set up on the sides of the road as the new produce comes on stream. I can tell you it is very important and many of the people use that rather than probably some of the products that are brought in, when the local vegetables are in season.

Mr. Speaker, another issue, and I have discussed this with the minister from time to time, has to do with what has been classified as Class 4 roads but not with regard from the transportation point of view because those roads, some of them, are looked after by that particular department of agriculture. It is the roads that go into the farms, and many of the people there want to make sure that the road is kept up to a standard so that they can get in to their farms and do the work that has to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on some of the issues with regard to the Department of Environment and Conservation. I guess I would be remiss if I did not stand with regard to the issue that surfaced this year right throughout this Province and encompassed many people, and that is in regard to the gravel pit campers. I know government took a stand on this issue, but I have to say since the petitions came forward in this House I have had so many calls from around this Province about issues. The one, I guess, that comes first and foremost is the one at the Whiskey Pit because that was the one that was mentioned in the Auditor General's report and showed some unsightly buses that were there. From there, Mr. Speaker, it began to snowball; however, every gravel pit in this Province has not been dealt with the way some of them have, and some of them have been allowed to go back this weekend. I have not heard any reports but hopefully everything worked out for all concerned.

Mr. Speaker, why people go to those areas is because of the cultural uniqueness and the historical meaning to it where they go out and enjoy the great outdoors. I can assure you, the people I have been involved with, the people who send in the petitions, they are not all for going out and being un-environmentally friendly or unfriendly with the environment – whatever you want to call it, Mr. Speaker – because they want to make sure that what they are doing is above board so that they can continue to do the things that they always did.

I have had calls from people in the area that they call Mings Pit. They came there and they told them: Look, get out or else. There were no alternatives, no discussions with them. I had calls from people in the – there was another area in Notre Dame Junction, some 100 campers, people who were there for many years. I have had seniors call me who were very upset; they could not believe the way they were treated, the way this unfolded.

It is not in regard to coming in and sitting down and saying: Look, we do not think is right what is going on there. Maybe there are only two or three out of 100 that are there that is doing something wrong. Some people have even cried because they had to leave, where they were there for so long.

The same thing, some ninety campers in the Greenspond Road area who have been there for some thirty-plus years, they had no option but just to get out – no consultation saying that this can happen.

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of days ago when I presented one of the petitions, I mentioned about a trapper who had a small place right up in the country that he used to use for security reasons, safety reasons, if he had to go in and had to stay overnight because of weather conditions or if he wanted to stay overnight to check his traps the next day. This gentleman called me the other day and he said: Look, I am not a gravel pit camper, but I am calling supporting those individuals.

He said: There is another story I want to tell you. He told me the story about this trapper; he was the trapper. Lo and behold, it was the same incident that I relayed here to the House of Assembly. He told me that back quite a few years ago – I think it was back in the 1970s – one particular year while he was trapping, he made an excess of $10,000 for himself. He said: At the time, when the notice was put on my little cabin that I had far back in the country – and he said: I was not near any ponds or doing anything environmentally unfriendly because I was not living there. He said: At the same time, there were ten to fifteen Quebec Inuit who had cabins similar to his in Labrador constructed. He said: When they put the notification on mine, they also received their notification. They came in, they burned mine down, and theirs are still standing. He said: That is what I am against - why are those people still allowed to have those cabins that they had there? He felt that this was totally discrimination against him.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated before, many of those people – and I think they have a strong, legitimate reason to state the issues that they do state – it was a cost to them. They have been told: look, you do not own the land - and they know they do not own the land, they know that. They do not think they are doing anything environmentally unfriendly for the greater portion of it. They were told that they have improper sewerage systems. We know from checking with them - maybe some people have gone wrong when it comes to that issue, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, the greater percentage are doing things right and proper.

Mr. Speaker, another issue, we hear so much about Abitibi those days. It has been up for debate many times here in the House of Assembly. I just want to relay an issue that I had a call about. It is not the greater part about the mill or anything or any of the major sites in Grand Falls-Windsor or surrounding area. It has to do with an area off the Bay d'Espoir Highway, and it is called Wince Holletts Road. On that road, about seven or eight kilometres in, there was a - I will call it a bunkhouse there that the company had with fifty rooms in it. When Abitibi were finished cutting the wood in that area, they just went away and left it. They left it to be destroyed by the weather.

There are individuals there, several of them, who have legitimate cabins, built by regulations, they have their permits. Plus, there are three hunting lodges in that area. That is when people travel in from outside the Province and they do their hunting. Mr. Speaker, what they are saying, it is deplorable the conditions that you find in that area. There is oil leaking from old equipment there. There are oil cans being kicked around on the ground. Insulation and asbestos are thrown all over the area. Anything that was left in there, whether it is the old toilets or what have you, it is all out around the woods.

What those people are saying, when you get a chance, bring this up to government. We are talking about the people in the gravel pit, gravel pit campers who are doing, they think, nothing wrong. Here we have a company - and we know the situation government is in with this company, we hear it each and every day. Surely, what was done there, there should be more emphasis put on by government to get that site cleaned up because it also affects the tourists who are coming to our Province, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we thought about waste management. All too often we get calls in the Official Opposition, and I am sure other members do as well. I know there is a tremendous program ongoing. I have seen the tremendous work that is being done in Robin Hood Bay. I know the plans that are being put in place by the various levels of government throughout our Province; people from the local municipalities are members. Only this week we heard about new members being appointed to those committees.

Mr. Speaker, what a lot of the smaller communities are saying, we agree with this, but – there is a big but - we are unable to afford what is being put our way. It is only this past week we heard the Mayor of the City of St. John's turn around and say that it is going to cost the people in here, by the time they get the full system in place, that it will cost an additional $250 per household. Mr. Speaker, many of those small communities, as much as they want to become involved, they are unable to afford it and they will not be able to afford it. So they are calling on governments, at various levels, to be able to assist them. They want to carry out what government is asking them, to be environmentally friendly.

Mr. Speaker, I know I mentioned this one before, and I know the Minister of Environment and Conservation has had this one on her plate for quite some time, that is - and I will call it by its proper name today - the New Harbour landfill, because all to often I use the word dump. That place has been closed down, but – and I know government are waiting. I think this has gone - there is some division within the federal government now that is looking into it on behalf of some of the residents. That site has been closed. I know government, I think it was the Estimates probably two or three years ago, where the minister made it very clear that they did have a membrane that had been purchased, that they were going to cover this site.

The longer this goes on, and why I am bringing this up, hopefully - and I know the minister said one day that, well this is probably with the courts in the federal system. Mr. Speaker, the longer this is going on, and the longer the rain can fall and fall on this site where the PCBs are – and government knows that. They have taken many tons out of it and taken it to other sites to get the soil cured, but that site is still there, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully, they will deal with this issue and they will force the federal government to come down with a decision faster; sooner rather than later, Mr. Speaker, because this is an issue that is going on.

The other one I want to touch on, and I guess it is an issue that has been ongoing for some time. I know the past three or four years, during Estimates, I bring it up. That is the used tires and the recycling program. I know that there was an issue with regard to – Mr. Speaker, I have a job to see now, there are so many people trying on their sunglasses, but –

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Lake Melville, the Minister of Labrador Affairs, said he had to wear his sunglasses because of the top of my head. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is more than one issue. I have a job to look on that side with him.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say, with regard to the recycling program. When it comes to the storage of the used tires, I know there were tires stored at the Bull Arm site, those tires have been moved. Some of them were shipped out of the Province but approximately one million of them were put on a site in Dunville. We hear that those tires are stored by - one million, that is what I have in the Estimates anyway. Another minister, when you were off Madam Minister, stated that there were about one million of them moved to Dunville.

MS JOHNSON: (Inaudible).

MR. BUTLER: No? She is saying that is incorrect. Well, I am going to have to check the Estimates numbers again.

Mr. Speaker, I know there were tires taken there –

MS JOHNSON: (Inaudible) Quebec.

MR. BUTLER: All of them went to Quebec, okay, my apologies.

I know in the Dunville area there is somewhere in excess of two million tires now, and I know government has a program. Over the next couple of days we will find out exactly what the program is that is coming down, and that is good to see because I am going to tell you, this program cannot move fast enough to get those tires off that site. I say that for a reason, because the people are really concerned out there. I know they are stored properly by fire regulations, the Fire Commissioner went out, but, Mr. Speaker, they are not stored in a protected area.

With all due respect to government, with all due respect to the contractor, the property that they are stored on - they are stored on a site that is a heavy equipment site, and there is only just one little swinging gate there. I had calls from the area, as early as this morning, telling me that that site is not protected. There is twenty-four hour coverage there by a security guard but that gentleman is unable to do any foot patrols. He is not allowed. In the daytime that is fine, you can probably see people coming and going, but the site is not fenced with a proper fence to keep anybody out. It is just a swinging gate to go in, and after hours there is no foot patrol. He is not allowed to leave the little shed that he stays in there.

There are many avenues where you can go into that site, and God forbid, hopefully nobody will go there, hopefully this program - and I know the minister has an ad in the paper where they are calling for tenders. Hopefully, this can be all cleaned up before something should happen, but the people do have concerns. I know some of them were wondering if the departments would go out and meet with them and so on. I know they are stored properly according to the Fire Commissioner but the people are saying the fire protection that is there is another issue. There is no firefighting equipment on that site. The nearest truck is in Freshwater, that is not all that far away and I admit that, but once that truck goes and offloads, if there should be a fire that truck has to leave the site again. There is no means to hook up like we can in the cities or smaller towns. On that site, that truck has to go to another pond or to a stream and refill again. We all know what can happen if a fire ever got going with those tires. God forbid if it should happen, and hopefully it is going to be cleared up before that time.

The other issue I just want to touch on, and I know the minister said she was going to check this out – and her officials – during the Estimates, is an issue that has been coming forward to us, and that is the site at Bay Bulls. I know there is a site there, and that it was to be, more or less, just for storage for different items, whether it be vehicles or metal - a facility, I should say, where it is just stored for shipment.

We have had calls, and I know the department was going to check this out again, because we found out that dismantling was taking place on that site. There were individuals who sent pictures to advise us of that. I know the minister or her officials were going to visit the site again. I am sure she will speak today with her department in this Resource Committee and maybe they can give us a report on what happened. Maybe everything is there, but from the reports that we have that has been the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is running out. I want to say it has been a pleasure to be able to say those few words within my time frame and to say that I believe the system, with the various committees, where we meet with the departments, the ministers and their officials, is a process that is really worthwhile. I want to thank the committee Chair and all members on the committee for the work that they do. It is a long and strenuous situation, a lot of it taking place after the House sits for the day, but it is a process that I believe is worthwhile and we should continue. It gives us the opportunity to bring forward issues that we think have not been dealt with properly and that hopefully government will take a second look.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the Resource Committee Estimates today. I just heard the hon. member speak, and there is one thing I agree on, and that is his comment at the end that the Estimates process is a very worthwhile process and one that we should continue with. I think it was very valuable. I would like to thank the members opposite for asking the questions and having the conversations that we had on both sides of the House, and also thank my staff members who attended. It is a really good process.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into some of the items that the hon. member mentioned, I do want to take a moment to discuss the fact that the Leader of the Opposition says that she has not heard a word from me on the issue with the spill in the Gulf. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue. It is one that I have been watching very closely, and my condolences go out to the eleven people who have had their lives lost. This is a serious issue, so if the Leader of the Opposition would let me put out my condolences to these people I would certainly appreciate that.

We do not often hear about that. It seems like – and rightly so – the environment is a big issue with this, but I have not heard a whole lot on the eleven lives that were lost. This is certainly all too familiar for us with the incident we had with Cougar in the last year or so here, so my condolences go out to the families of those eleven people.

Mr. Speaker, to say that she has not heard a word from me, we debated in this House on May 12, actually, a motion about the oil spill preparedness and so on in relation to the incident in the Gulf. Mr. Speaker, this was a motion that was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition herself, so I would certainly expect that the mover of a motion would listen to the speakers in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I spoke on that issue during that day for fifteen or twenty minutes, and spoke about the environmental implications, spoke about the environmental assessment process.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that is very obvious, that the Leader of the Opposition does not realize, is that I do not have jurisdiction for the offshore. The jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and Conservation only deals with should the oil reach the land. As we know from the environmental assessment work that was done, it is very unlikely, due to the wind and the water currents, that it would reach land; but, should it reach land, that is where the jurisdiction would lie with me. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why I have not heard a question from the Leader of the Opposition: the reason being because she does not want to hear the answer.

For the fourteen years that they were in government, Mr. Speaker, there was not one policy put in place, not one plan put in place, not one person hired to be responsible for: What do we do should the oil hit land? When we formed government, Mr. Speaker, we soon realized that there was nothing in place such as this, and that is why we immediately did consultations; we did work with other jurisdictions and other governments throughout Canada and beyond. We hired somebody dedicated to work on this, Mr. Speaker, so that we can have the proper policies and procedures in place.

So, Mr. Speaker, to say that she has not heard me speak on it is not fair; I have not been asked a question on it that is in relation to my department. Certainly, the Minister of Natural Resources is responsible for the offshore and she very eloquently answers her questions when asked about the offshore.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I spoke in this House for fifteen or twenty minutes on the motion put forward by the member herself, so if she does not listen to the speakers to the motion that she put forward, perhaps she can haul out Hansard and see that I did speak to it. It is an issue that concerns all of us here in the Province. It certainly concerns everybody in the country and throughout the world, as the world is certainly watching what is happening there.

Mr. Speaker, there is also one other thing that I would like to clarify while I have the opportunity to speak on the Resource Committee, and that is on questions that were put forward in this House on May 17. Mr. Speaker, it was in relation to the human health risk assessment that was done for Buchans back in 2007. At the time, the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question and she referred to the human health risk assessment and said that it was done back in 2007 but the information was not disclosed by my department until 2009, Mr. Speaker. I pointed out that –

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: It is right here in Hansard. It says, "…yet the information was not disclosed by her department publicly until the fall of 2009." It is right there in Hansard for you to read.

Mr. Speaker, CBC did carry an incorrect story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: CBC did carry an incorrect story, and CBC did follow up the following day with an apology, Mr. Speaker. That was May 17; this is May 27, ten days, and we have not heard one word about an apology about the misinformation that she used in the House. So I would like to take the opportunity to clear up that information, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, now I would like to move on to some of the issues that the member opposite just mentioned, who was up before me. One of the items that the member opposite talked about was gravel pit campers. Mr. Speaker, I just want to state for the record that we have said publicly, we have no issue with anybody who wants to do short-term camping to enjoy our great outdoors on a short-term basis. Mr. Speaker, the issue becomes when people set down roots, set up permanently; they put structures, outhouses, decks and so on.

Mr. Speaker, this is all about fair and equal access to all. I do not even think the member opposite disagrees with that, because if somebody wants to occupy a place for a week or two for moose hunting or whatever, then maybe his buddy or a relative might want to go in that same place a couple of weeks later.

Mr. Speaker, some of the postings - and I would like to speak specifically to Howley, because Howley was an area that the mayor and the councillors of Howley, and the residents of Howley, have been asking government for some time to deal with the issue. The over 200 structures in Howley were sitting right on the water supply, Mr. Speaker. I know you know full well, Mr. Speaker, about this, being from your district. This had serious implications from a health perspective, an environmental perspective and so on, so government did the right thing and posted those trailers.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if we had not, the Opposition would be up on their feet saying why are you not posting these trailers? You have sewer going into a water supply; what are you going to do about it? So, Mr. Speaker, it goes to show that you just cannot win.

Mr. Speaker, since we have posted some of these trailers, we have had many of them come to government. We have said that all they have to do is form an association, go through the proper channels, through Government Services for the proper septic and so on.

We have a most recent example in the area of Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune where they have come together. They now will own the land. They purchased the land at a very fair price and they will own that forever and a day, but, Mr. Speaker, it is all done in accordance to life and safety and environmental control. That is what is so important here, because what we see – and I listened to CBC the day that the member opposite was on. One of the things that you heard loud and clear is that people want organized sites because when the mess is left behind, there is nobody to call upon to see who left the mess there. One example I heard was if somebody started a fire, if you are in an organized site such as a park, a private or provincial park, you know who to go to if issues arise such as a fire or leaving a mess behind and so on.

Mr. Speaker, it is all about fairness, it is all about safety, it is all about the environment, and there are opportunities. The member opposite mentioned we post them, and the words he used was get out or else. Mr. Speaker, we post them for sixty days and if they then come forward and tell us that they are forming an association; I have on numerous occasions extended that sixty days. In fact, I have extended it until they resolved the Crown lands issues, found their piece of land and gone through the Government Services process for the septic, Mr. Speaker. So we have been very co-operative with these groups.

It seems like this issue that the member has been raising in numerous petitions in the House in the past, it seems like it is only something that he has taken an interest in recently, but I would like to remind the member opposite - I have gone through the notes - that this is not something that this government started. In fact, I have gone through the notes, and I only went back as far as 1995, so that was the last eight years that they were in government. Mr. Speaker, they posted numerous, numerous trailers, numerous cottages. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they burned several dozen structures.

It seems like it is a revelation on his part in this past couple of months but, Mr. Speaker, this is a practice - and rightly so, that the Opposition did it because it goes against the Lands Act, which is an act that we make in this House of Assembly. It is the law of the land and we have to follow the law of the land. So the fact that they did burn dozens and dozens of cabins was the right thing to do - if we are not following the laws of the House. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, this is not something new that this government has been doing. This has been going on for years and years, and I can show the member opposite because they even took pictures of the cabins that they burned when they were in at the time.

Mr. Speaker, he also mentioned a trapper who has contacted him. Mr. Speaker, trappers can have cabins. There is absolutely no issue with trappers having cabins. What they have to do is they have to supply us with three years of the receipts from their trapping revenue. That proves to us that they are a trapper, because anybody can say they are a trapper and put a cabin out there and say it is for trapping. Again, we have rules that are in place to ensure fairness. If that person had done that, there would not have been an issue. I suspect I know the case he is talking about, and in that case there were no receipts provided of trapping revenue for the three years of sales and there were numerous, numerous opportunities to provide that information.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the tires for a moment. I know it has been an issue. It has not been an easy issue to deal with, and I will be the first person to admit that. Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should also know that, because when they were in government they had two failed attempts at finding a solution for tires. At the end of the day, a mess was left behind and had to be cleaned up and in a lot of cases the tires went to Quebec. So it isn't an easy topic to deal with, as they would know, but we want to make sure we do it right. While we are not ready to finalize the plans yet, there are things that we can do in the interim.

One of the things that I mentioned during Estimates is that any ongoing generation of tires now are going off to Quebec because we have, as the member opposite mentioned, about 1.9 million tires in Placentia, and yes, he did mention all of the Bull Arm tires are gone. They were shipped to Quebec, but we believe that is enough tires for the proposal we have before us to last them about five years. Once we have signed off on the proposal, then any new ongoing generation of tires would then be used for that proposal. In the interim, that is one of the things we are doing to keep down on the space, is to ship them to Quebec.

The other thing that we are doing, which the member referred to, is the tender we put out this weekend, and that is for the baling of the tires. In effect, this is hydraulic compression of 100 tires or so that is compacted down and then caged in with five steel wires. Mr. Speaker, this was done, not to make it safer, this was done primarily for economics. It will cut down on our space requirements by 80 per cent. When you pay a cost per hectare of land, cutting down by 80 per cent would certainly reduce the cost that is required.

Once we get the plan signed off on, it also has those tires ready, baled and ready to move. So they can move more quickly when the plan is in place. Also with the reduced space requirements, there is going to be a reduced need for trucks to ship these to the desired place for the final plan, which obviously cuts down on the amount of carbon that is emitted and so on.

Mr. Speaker, while it was done for economic reasons, there are some safety benefits. We hire security there based on a twenty-four-seven basis. It is about $750,000 for the space, but also for the security, Mr. Speaker. The member talks about issues with security and people accessing the site. We have called out there to see if there have been any concerns and we have been assured that there are no concerns.

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like what the member opposite is asking for is security for the security. We pay a private company and we expect them to provide us with a service. If there should be an issue, Mr. Speaker, we will certainly deal with it in the future because they are providing us with a service and we expect them to live up to our expectations, but it sounds like what the member is asking for is security for security. Mr. Speaker, it is just not something that is necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the member also mentioned Abitibi. I would like to point out that when we expropriated Abitibi, which is the best move this government has ever made, we got back land about three times the size of P.E.I. As a result, Mr. Speaker, in this year's Budget we hired two people in the Grand Falls-Windsor area to deal with lands issues. So I would certainly like to take this opportunity to tell the listening public that if they currently have grants or leases that were with Abitibi, by all means, come forward to the department and we will do the proper transfer of those documents. So, you can continue to have ownership. It is just a different landlord now, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to point out that we did hire people for that.

On the whole issue of Abitibi as a whole, Mr. Speaker, when we ran in 2003 our main platform was no more giveaways. That is exactly why we expropriated the land from Abitibi, the timber rights from Abitibi, the hydro assets. We did that so that there would be no more giveaways and we would not be giving these natural resources away to some company that was going to sell them off anyway to make money. Had we not had the foresight, and the Premier had not had the foresight to expropriate those lands, Mr. Speaker, where we would be today, we would be in a bigger mess than what we are in now and we would still have the environmental mess but we would not have the assets.

Now we see interest. As the Minister of Natural Resources said, it is early days, but we have interest and we are able to use the resources that we took back because we had the foresight to take them back.

Mr. Speaker, we hear the Leader of the Opposition opposite go on and on about the expropriation of the mill. While it was not intended to do so, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if Abitibi did have that mill, as I read in some headlines just recently that they are selling off four mills, two of them in New Brunswick, one in Nova Scotia and one in Quebec. So they are selling them off. They are selling the equipment that is in the mills for scrap, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to the Opposition, where would that mill be today if we had not expropriated? It all would have been sold off and gone, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just to get back a little bit about the whole process here, when we expropriated the Abitibi lands, the company was a solvent company. The Environmental Protection Act had provisions in it for a company or a person responsible who releases contaminants into the environment to be responsible. Mr. Speaker, to even further strengthen that, when we put Bill 75 through this House in December of 2008, we even added an extra level of protection to ensure that the environmental liabilities still remained with Abitibi, and that was in section 13 of the act..

Mr. Speaker, then when the company filed through the CCAA process, we went before the courts to state: Just be reminded that while you are going through this restructuring process, we have these regulatory orders and they are not monetary in nature. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government sided with the restructuring of Abitibi. Mr. Speaker, we believe that the environmental liabilities should not be trumped by any restructuring process. I think this a serious concern not only for this Province, but for every single province in the country, including the federal government, and that is why I will be sending a letter over the next day or two to the Ministers of Environment across the country because this has serious implications.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to get in now a little bit of the department. With May 24 weekend just beyond us I would like to speak about some of the work that we have been doing with our provincial parks. Over the last four years, we have spent a little over $4 million in the provincial parks and we are going to continue spending money to do upgrades, but it is important to note that these parks are in rural Newfoundland. They are generating economic spinoffs for many of the businesses and so on in rural Newfoundland. Our $4 million investment went into rural Newfoundland and went into contractors and suppliers in rural Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker.

Just to give you some examples of what we have done to improve the services for the people who use these parks, it includes things like: hot and cold running water, showers and washbasins, cookhouses and kitchen shelters. We have done boardwalk and trail improvements. We have had dumping stations. Mr. Speaker, we have made some of the campsites bigger, and of course, we have done a lot of work when it comes to electrical hookups, which is something that the modern day camper looks to.

More specifically, in La Manche, J.T. Cheeseman, Sir Richard Squires Memorial, and Pinware Park, we have put dumping stations in there. We have put comfort stations in Squires Memorial, Butterpot, La Manche, and Pinware. We have put playgrounds in some sites. Electrical services are now available in some parks including: Notre Dame, Dildo Run, Frenchman's Cove, J.T. Cheeseman, and La Manche.

So I know that this impacts a lot of the members around this House in rural Newfoundland. It is an investment into our provincial park system, it is an investment into our tourism and it is certainly an investment into the economic stimulus overall.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will be continuing with these upgrades again this year. Specifically, one of the things that the chair of the committee mentioned was the investment into Salmonier Nature Park. I will not go into that one a whole lot because the last time I was on my feet I did speak of that.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other items that the member opposite mentioned was New Harbour. I really want to send out congratulations to the committee in New Harbour, the seven communities who worked together to close down that site. They have been very progressive in their thinking.

To date, Mr. Speaker, we have spent nearly $1 million on the New Harbour site. We are continuing to do work there. We have removed about 140 tonnes of PCBs. We have purchased a liner. We have installed monitoring wells. We have been checking those monitoring wells and everything is within standard for the environment, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the Estimates. I certainly support this. I will take my seat so somebody else can have an opportunity.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased to be able to stand this afternoon and take part in our last Concurrence discussion with regard to our Budget. Today the Concurrence that we are seeking has to do with the Resource Committee that met during the time of Estimates. It met with the different departments that come under the Resource Committee: Natural Resources, forestry, agriculture and agrifoods, oil and gas; Fisheries and Aquaculture; Innovation, Trade and Rural Development; Environment and Conservation; Tourism, Culture and Recreation; and Business.

It is always an interesting time when we sit on the Estimates Committee. I do find it very interesting, the carrying on of the question and answers that we carry on with the ministers and with their staff. It is extremely interesting.

I am happy today in particular to be able to stand with regard to the natural resource sector and to reflect a bit with us on what is happening in this sector and some of the concerns that I have. I just have to find my notes here now. I had notes that I am now missing. They are in my hands here and I do not want to start without them, so here we go.

We are very blessed in this Province, as we all know, with rich resources. The natural resource sector, of course, is where we deal with how we spend our money and how we make money from those resources. So whether our resources are mining, from mining, which is such a traditional industry in this Province, from the forestry and forestry products, from fishery, which is, of course, the most traditional in our Province, the fishery, because that is what our whole province became based on. That is what occupation of the land by Europeans was based on, was the fishery. Of course, in more frequent times, we have oil and gas.

So our Province is rich, like all parts of Canada. We are blessed because we have not just the resources on land, but also the resources in our ocean. Of course, while that is a richness and while that is a wealth, it also has a tension involved with it, especially the resources in the ocean, because we have the potential of the resources in our ocean being in competition with one another, because of the potential with the development of oil and gas, for example, of contamination of the very environment in which the other resources, our fish and seafood, exists and lives.

So, we have quite a challenge – as some other places do, we are not the only place in the world that have this challenge – to see if we can get at both of these resources, to maintain both of these resources in a way that benefits the Province. Of course, the other interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the nature of these two resources is quite different because, one, fishery and seafood, of course, is a renewable resource, and oil and gas is not a renewable resource, as we all know. As we use up oil and gas, it does not replace itself. It is a single source that can come and will come to an end; whereas, we have the potential with the life in our oceans, with the fish and seafood to be able to help them continue to renew themselves so that as long as we want that resource to go on, the resource can go on.

So, this is why, Mr. Speaker, we have to be very, very cautious as we move ahead, particularly with the oil and gas industry. An industry that, right now, is certainly benefiting us immensely and I recognize that. Over $1 billion a year coming in from oil is certainly important for us here in this Province. The billions of dollars that we will continue to reap from that industry are extremely important, so we cannot turn up our nose at that industry. We are now in a position in this Province where things are much better than they have ever been before, because of that industry. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have to make sure that we are using and getting at that resource in a responsible way, in a way that does not hurt the other resource that is in our waters: the resource of the fishery, the resource of our fish and of our seafood, that we do not in any way want to contaminate that resource.

I know that we all know about this, and we think about it, but we have a worldwide thing going on right now that should really be causing us to become more cautious in the speed with which we are moving ahead in exploring the seabed off our coast in the pursuit of oil and gas. We have to be concerned because of what is going on in the Gulf of Mexico.

In the Gulf of Mexico right now we all know that for the past thirty-five days - I think we may be into thirty-six days now - we have oil that is just spewing out from the bed of the Gulf of Mexico, from the bottom of that ocean, just spewing out, thousands and thousands of barrels of oil a day, and I do not think we even know at this moment how many barrels a day it really is that is coming out from the bed of the Gulf of Mexico. That oil is not only contaminating what is on the bottom of the ocean, as the oil is coming up; it is also contaminating the shorelines of where that water goes. Not only is it contaminating the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico; there is great concern that the contamination from that oil is going to go up the Eastern Seaboard. This terrible state of oil spewing out into the ocean without any ability to stop it is really very concerning.

One of the reasons why it cannot be stopped is because of the depth at which this well exists: 1.5 kilometres down on the bed of the Gulf of Mexico. The technologies that exist for dealing with blowouts, which is what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, those technologies have worked pretty well at more shallow levels of water; however, with the well in the Gulf of Mexico, the depth of water is such that the known technologies are not working.

Mr. Speaker, this really brings us to the point of the situation we have here in Newfoundland right now off the coast of the Island where we have a well being dug at 2.6 kilometres depth. That has to beg the question: What happens if we get a blowout down at that depth?

Now, I know there are all kinds of people saying, well, the chances of getting a blowout are pretty nil. Well, I am sure they said that about the Gulf of Mexico. I know they did, actually; I know BP did say that. We are also told that all kinds of safeguards are in place, that if there were a blowout at that level safeguards are in place to actually prevent a blowout from happening; but they thought that about the rig in the Gulf of Mexico as well.

We do not know, and this is why I am bringing it up, we do not know why the safeguards did not work with the well in the Gulf of Mexico. They were in place, but we do not know. We are waiting to find out, and we do not know how long we are going to have to wait to find out why the safeguards did not work. In the meantime, we have allowed a well to be dug; we have allowed the Orphan Basin well to go ahead, the Lona O-55, to go ahead - a great project, I am sure - but without answers as to why the blowout happened in the Gulf of Mexico and why the safeguards did not work.

This is very disturbing, Mr. Speaker. The oil at the bottom of the ocean is going to remain there; it is not going anywhere, and we could slow down our process of drilling until we can be sure that we can deal with an accident, if it happens, at the depth of the Lona O-55 project. If we had more answers then I would say yes, let's go ahead; but we do not have the answers, Mr. Speaker. We have to take more seriously what drilling at those depths is all about, and what exploratory drilling is all about. Industry, you know, on their own, are not going to be as careful as they are when government puts regulations in place; and we have proof all over the world of that, Mr. Speaker, that industry does what government demands of them.

One of the concerning things about drilling, and maybe a lot of people do not know this, is that once upon a time it would be demanded that if a company was going to do an exploratory drill in the bottom of the ocean, looking for oil, that they would have to do an environmental assessment of the actual exploratory drill. Back in November 2005 the federal government relaxed the environmental assessment rules for offshore projects, eliminating the need for a comprehensive study at the exploratory drilling stage.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: I think they did, Minister, they did. So we do not have adequate answers about what is happening during an exploratory stage, and we are allowing it to go ahead –

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Premier, on a point of order.

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government did not relax the drilling regulations in our offshore. Mr. Speaker, they took a different approach; they are goal-orientated rules that are out there now, and goal-oriented regulations which allow new technology and best practices to be applied directly and in a timely fashion in the offshore, Mr. Speaker, to prevent the kind of things that the Leader of the NDP is talking about. They certainly did not relax their regulations.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

MS MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the environmental assessment process for drilling is not the same as the environmental assessment process for the production stage, and that is what I am talking about. There is a difference in the demand for environmental assessment. So, Mr. Speaker, I will continue.

We could put the drilling on hold until we have further answers. There is nothing to stop that, for putting the drilling on hold, and we should make sure that when we enter into agreements with companies, we should make sure we have all the bases covered – and we do not have all the bases covered.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many issues that it really bothers me to think about the way in which we are going to continue allowing drilling out there in the ocean in a way that can affect our fishing industry, that can affect our ongoing, our renewable resource. Mr. Speaker, we just have to take more caution when it comes to putting these two industries together. Mr. Speaker, that is one of the issues that concerns me with regard to our natural resources sector. We absolutely have to make sure that both of those industries can move together.

The other part of that, Mr. Speaker, is the way in which we have put so many eggs in the basket of the aquaculture in the Province. I have no problem with that; the aquaculture industry looks like a very good industry. There are environmental concerns that are continually being looked at. There is also more science around the environmental concerns of aquaculture, but we are starting to put more money into the basket of aquaculture than we are into that of our traditional fishery, our natural fishery, the fishery out there in the ocean. Mr. Speaker, this is something that is not acceptable. It is something that we have to really look at. We cannot let one suffer for the other. That is the point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker.

Whether we are talking about oil and gas and our deep sea fishery, or whether we are talking about aquaculture and our natural fishery, our wild fishery, one cannot suffer for the other, neither in terms of the resource itself and neither in terms of workers. This is something, Mr. Speaker, that I find going on, that we are getting sort of starry-eyed over new things and letting older and more traditional things drop. This is something that I ask this government to start looking at, the way in which the new, instead of existing side by side with the old, is almost seen as replacing the old. This is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker, and it will always be something that I will be concerned about and will keep speaking about and hope that this government is going to continue to listen and do something about because we cannot have one suffer for the other.

Another area, Mr. Speaker, where I would like to see this government more proactive, and that I was not happy with as we had our discussions, is in the whole area of our agriculture and agrifoods. We are doing some good things there as well, there is no doubt, but what concerns me is that we really are not doing serious research into the whole area of organic farming in this Province.

There are so many dimensions to the organic farming. There are the environmental dimensions, of course. There is the whole question of organic farming existing in semi-urban settings. We have a case right here going on in the St. John's region right now of somebody who wants to put in an organic farm. I think basically because of full knowledge from some of the people, the decision makers involved, this person not being able to get this organic farm in place, and I think it is because we do not have enough common knowledge in the Province and we do not have enough research done around organic farming. It is not the same to do organic farming as it is do traditional farming because no pesticides are used, for example. It is a totally different way of doing farming. I really would like to see much more money going into research with regard to organic farming. It is something, of course, that could involve both the Department of Natural Resources as well as well as the Department of Environment. They could do research together around organic farming; the benefits of organic farming; risk assessments, are there risks, what are they; and how to put money into helping people get more into organic farming.

As much as is happening around farming, there is so much more that could be happening, Mr. Speaker, because there are so many ways in which we could become self-sufficient, especially with regard to our root crops in Newfoundland and Labrador because we have such a potential for much more to be grown.

We could become more self-sufficient which would help people be healthier. It would also help them economically, both through the perspective of those who are working in the agriculture industry as well as from the perspective of people who are buying their foods locally. We would get more farmers who would have more people buying from them. We would have an all around better economy, Mr. Speaker, if we could get more of that happening.

Mr. Speaker, there are many areas that we talked about when we were in the Estimates Committees. I just have one or two more that I want to raise. I am really looking forward to seeing what is going to happen with the MOU between industries and unions. Government, of course, is involved in that as well. I think that government has to be there. I think government knows that. Giving leadership is extremely important. What I want to see more of which is talked about, and I have heard the minister talk about the whole thing of the seafood marketing, therefore, while it was big on the burner, it was up front and now it seems to be silent again. I am hoping - and I think I have heard that yes, indeed it is a fact. I am hoping that we are going to see that the seafood marketing is going to be a part of the MOU and that in the agreement that gets reached between industry and labour with government that we are going to see an agreement that there should be a marketing arm as was tried once before but which failed. I think the process then was not a good one. I think the process that is happening now - I do have hope around the MOU process. I am waiting to see that come to fruition, as most of us are. I am hoping that the whole issue of a seafood marketing arm is part of the MOU that results from the meetings that are ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, we have a tremendously rich Province in terms of our resources. Those resources are not just the natural resources but the resources of our people as well who mine, who farm, who fish, who work in the offshore. I have great confidence that we are going to continue to benefit from these resources, but as I am used to saying, and I will say again, we have to make sure that the money that we are getting from those resources is money that is being used to benefit all of the people of the Province, not just some of the people of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS MICHAEL: Yes, I am being told that I need to clue up and I am going to clue up.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to make my final points.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take a few minutes to speak to a couple of issues related to my department, specifically as it relates to the Resource Committee. Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to hear the Leader of the NDP speak on the issue today of the MOU. I was wondering when she was going to raise the issue. We have been here a while and I have not heard her talk much about the fisheries. It is, as she said, the MOU is a very, very important process that we have undergoing.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was in Deer Lake and I presented to a Standing Committee on Fisheries related to the crab in particular. I went more than just to speak to the crab issue. I brought a rather lengthy document with me and I presented it to the panel members. I specifically said on two or three occasions, I hope that you will read this, because contained in that document was a chronology as to, I think, how we have kind of arrived at where we are in the fisheries and the decisions that were made by some folks along the way, certainly governments along the way, that have brought us to a stage where we do need to rationalize the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, in 2006 I believe it was, there was a Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy developed. There were seven items that were outlined in that strategy. Of course, one was the acceptance and the agreement that we had too many plants and we had too many harvesters, but of the seven items, Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to you the things that we, as a government, have done within that.

One of the issues identified was around marketing. We have committed on two occasions to do some work and support the industry in marketing. Now, I have to say that the MOU this year, and the discussions in that and discussions around setting the price that the marketing issue did come up. We had an agreement from the ASP that they see merits to it now, and we are certainly hoping that they will hold firm on what they said and that we will get something off the ground around marketing this year.

Another point was around safety. Just over a week ago, I was very pleased to take part in a launch of a video that will go to all fishermen in this Province, and fisherwomen, speaking specifically to safety as it relates to the fishing industry and stability as it relates to ship construction and ship weight. R&D, and we have our FTNOP which allows harvesters and processors to get monies to look at innovative ways in which they can improve the industry. Then there is a program around workers adjustment and plant closures, Mr. Speaker. These are strategies that we entered into and we were very pleased to do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is all I wanted, to rise for a few minutes just to speak to the MOU and to speak to where we have gone with the Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, let me say that it was good to participate in the Estimates Committee and the process, and I would like to acknowledge the support of the Chair and the other committee members. Indeed, it was enlightening to be able to sit and go through that process for the time that we did and to follow the Minister of Fisheries this afternoon, as he has taken his time to speak to some of the issues; and just so many important issues in the fishery as we went through the Estimates review and the committee.

We have heard a lot in recent days about rationalizing the fishery and, no doubt, we all agree that rationalization is necessary, but understanding how that process will unfold and the impact that it will have on our communities around Newfoundland and Labrador is very important. It is certainly a concern of ours as we watch this rationalization take place.

The concern, obviously, is that the fishery is so important to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and while we hope for good things like the announcement yesterday about the find of gas and so on, we realize that if all the communities in Newfoundland and Labrador are going to remain viable and have a future, that it has to be attached to the fishery. As we rationalize it, we make major decisions about plants that would remain open and plants that would close and so on, then it is important that we have our input and that the decisions are the right decisions.

When we consider the crab fishery, for example, we know that the fishery got off to another dismal year again this year, starting wise, as it did last year. Three or four weeks away from the target date of April 1, before it finally got underway. The failure of the stakeholders involved in that fishery to reach a compromise and for government really to be, I believe, a stronger player in that whole process, at least - we cannot look back but it should help us understand what the issue would be for next year. The minister indicated, as the fishery began, that he would get to work pretty much right away in terms of the 2011 season by calling the two sides together to get started on 2011 discussions. We want to see that happen, and I am sure that we would.

The minister also indicated in April, and we discussed it in the Estimates as well, the need to answer the question: Why is it that the price of crab in this Province seems to be lower than other jurisdictions? There has been a lot of dialogue about that in the House and in different forums, the Fisheries Broadcast and the unions and so on. No one really seems to be able to really understand why there is a difference. I would hope that will be one of the things that government will study, that would provide insight that will aid the whole MOU process that the minister spoke to a moment ago.

I raised the issue of the NAFTA reports and their requirements in the House earlier in the afternoon. I believe that we need to understand - whether we call it a report or a study, I do not think that is the important thing. I think the important thing is that we need to understand the types of investments that we are allowed to make that would not violate the NAFTA agreement and so on, because as the rationalization takes place and as the MOU becomes a reality then there is no question at all there will have to be financial input into that whole process. So, understanding what we can and cannot do certainly should be a part of the MOU.

There are two issues, I believe, that are important that we will need to see. They are the licence buyback and early retirement. They are vital to our industry as we head down that path. If we are going to rationalize or if people are going to come out of the industry, if licences are going to go by the wayside, so to speak, then there has to be something in place that looks after those who would be impacted by that.

One of the things we talked about as well in the committee exercise was the Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy. On the government's Web site and the department's Web site it stated in 2007 that the department launched a suite of programs under the Fishing Industry Renewal Strategy intended to revitalize the fishing industry. Considering that it is three years later, I think we all agree that the industry is far from being revitalized. In fact, it is still in a steep decline being down 20 per cent last year and not anticipating any growth this year. It would appear this program, at this point in time at least, is not achieving its mandate and needs to be re-evaluated and the strength that is there, the tools that they are taking to help move our fishery program forward.

Another program that we talked about is the review of the Cod Recovery Strategy. Again, the rebuilding of our cod after the moratorium of the early 1990s, nearly twenty years ago now, basically it is an absolute must that somehow this species rebuilds and that it can be a part of the fishing industry for some years to come in Newfoundland and Labrador. If not, then it will be a very sad day. Yet, despite all the years that have come and gone, plus a cod recovery action team and the Cod Recovery Strategy and so on, there seems to be little or no progress on this critical matter. This year in our Budget we did not see any investment, or it was not itemized at least, in terms of funding towards this strategy. Again, we wonder, as an Opposition, why the government does not see this as an important, vital component in keeping rural Newfoundland and Labrador alive and well.

We know that the COSEWIC report just came out recently and recommended that cod be listed as an endangered species. That is a significant recommendation and one that would have significant impact in our communities and on the people of our Province. So, understanding that species, knowing where it is and paying attention to it and funding it as necessary is important.

The MOU, as the Minister of Fisheries mentioned a few moments ago - there has been a lot of dialogue about the MOU. There is a lot of anticipation around the success of it and so on. I would hope, and the Opposition would certainly hope, that it would attain its purpose in really coming to an agreement and solution that takes our industry forward, and that rationalization can take place, and that the industry can be a driving force in our economy. We all know that the fishing industry is a renewable industry, and it has been our lifeline for some centuries, and we know that it will continue to do that. The MOU is kind of hailed as the solution to our fishing industry.

So, some things that we believe that are important. Certainly we need to have a timeline, there has to be some accountability to it. I know the minister said again a while ago that by the time the first anniversary came that they hoped there would be some activity and something there. We are nearing that, so hopefully we will see that as time goes on. We share the concern about the fact that the minister refused to release the feasibility studies that were done by Grant Thornton – the results being so critical to the information needed for progress to the industry and so on.

Again, we do not see an allocation of funding, necessarily, for the MOU in the Budget 2010, and certainly important to it. We look at as a long-term solution, and long term can be obviously years before we really get it to where it needs to go. While we understand that a long-term solution is necessary, at the same time, I think we also need to understand that there is a short term, there is year to year, there is season to season that has to take place and that has to unfold until that long-term solution is rolled out. So to focus strictly on a long term and not understand the consequences and the significance of the short term, then it would be certainly the wrong thing to do.

Again, we would recommend to the minister and to strongly suggest to the government that the short term is very important to those that are involved in the industry. It is important to understand that we have an evaluation done as the MOU process comes forward that is carried out on the impact on communities of any planned restructuring. Again, as we close plants, as we amalgamate, as we streamline, as we transfer licences, as we do all those kinds of things, the impact is significant. I have seen it in my district, and I am sure others have seen it in their districts. I use Englee as an example of a community where a licence was taken out of the community, transferred down the road, whatever the case might be. The consequences are alarming. The fact that this community is fighting to survive, is fighting to have an identity, is fighting to understand where its future is, so to speak and so on, and all because of the ability to process fish which it has done for decades and generations was suddenly taken away by this government and taken somewhere else, so that leaves that community in that situation. That is a part of rationalization, it is a part that we need to understand, it is a part that needs to evaluated, and it is a part that needs to be done in the best interest of the communities and so on.

Marketing is a large component of the MOU process. Given how critical marketing is, the government needs to consider, I believe, establishing its own marketing agency to start a major marketing campaign so that we can get a jump start on that whole process which seems like, as I said, the MOU may take years to finalize. So, rather than waiting for that process to unfold, we certainly need to understand where we want to go in terms of our marketing.

One of the things that we saw problems with this spring in terms of the crab fishery starting was the dispute and the disagreement between members of the price setting panel and the Standing Fish Price Setting Panel. Last year the Minister of HRLE stated that government was reviewing a request by one of the party members to examine the role of the panel. I do not know where that is exactly right now, but certainly I believe that government needs to consider any changes to the panel to accommodate the criticisms that have been levelled at it in this particular year. Obviously, when groups do not come to really fulfill the mandate of the panel then there is obviously something wrong. We need to understand that. We need to take a look at it and we certainly need to try and do all that we can to get through it.

One of the things that we understand about the fishery today as well and the enterprises that are involved, the harvesters and the people who have invested large sums of money to put these vessels on the water every year, the fishers have been stating that one of the problems they have is that have to come to rely on the processors as being their bankers. It is a major issue for them. It undermines their independence. It takes away their ability to go out, be able to negotiate with every buyer that might be out, whether it is one, two or three, whatever the case may be, simply because they are tied into a particular processor. The solution to that is very obvious.

I know we had a Fisheries Loan Board at one time in the Province, but whether it is that or it is a line of credit or whatever it is, it is a process of these people having some independence and government, I guess, providing that independence, that financial ability for them to really go and buy the things they need to make the investments they need in their enterprises outside of having to use the processors as their bankers.

The positive side of the fishery this year in the annual report is aquaculture. We have heard many statements on aquaculture. It is good to see that that part of the industry is doing well and that it is increasing and that we know that it will be a positive piece of the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador for some time to come. We also realize that it is very localized, it is not something that we are going to see all around the Province as we would the natural fishery, if you will. It is a bright spot in the industry. Despite the fact that there have been difficulties and so on, it seems to be doing relatively well. We would certainly hope that it will continue to go that way and that those that are involved in aquaculture would be given the necessary tools and support of government to get through the hurdles of experimentation, of developing, of doing things that really has never been done before and so on and to get them to a point where they just are able to be a sustainable industry.

A great concern this spring in my district and other districts around the Province, and particularly the Northeast Coast, was the sealing industry. We know where that has gone in terms of the ban by the EU and the import of pelts and so on. Yet again, as we look in our budget there is no funding for the sealing industry sector. If it is going to rebound, if there is going to be a marketing campaign, if it is going to be sustainable in years to come, then there obviously has to be a financial piece to help support the redevelopment of that particular industry. That was not there and so that would be something that would cause concern for us. Many of the people that I have spoken to that have been involved in the industry, they depended on it for years, they understand the collapse, they understand what has happened with the price and so on; yet, they are looking to government to work with them to find some solutions, to offer different things that might be necessary to help them through that particular time. So we certainly would ask government that they would consider that.

Of course, just recently, the biggest piece of news for us has been the Northern stock decline and the cuts in quotas in Area 6 of the Northeast Coast, and again it impacts the Northern Peninsula in a very particular way. The decision by the federal government, by the federal Minister of Fisheries, to have the last-in first-out clause as being the way that they would distribute that cut is not one that is agreed with by very many parties. Most parties believe that it is across the board, that it should be shared, that there is a better way to deal with a cut in the industry that allows people to remain viable and so on.

So, obviously, the job of the minister and the challenge to this government is to get on board with the feds and to establish that protocol, if you will, or that relationship whereby before these decisions come down that probably we could have more input into them, that there could be more dialogue, that it can be further researched and so on. Because we know that when we make decisions, and we do not have the proper information and we do not have the proper consultation and all the other things, then what we do is we make the wrong the decisions. This would appear to be one that is not in the best interest of our Province and obviously we need to be a part of that.

The fish plants on the Northern Peninsula, we still have two that are supposed to be opening. I am not sure if they are open yet, I do not believe they are. I had a call today, that I need to return a little later, from a gentleman on the Northern Peninsula who is concerned about the plant in Anchor Point, New Ferolle, as I mentioned in Question Period, and have brought that to the House of Assembly floor in recent days and will continue to do so. It has been a very viable operation for a lot of years. The resource is there, the plant has done well, the workers are there, they are ready to work, and yet we have given that to a particular operator. We have given him a time frame, basically, to make it operational. As we go into the second year of a two-year agreement we are looking at today the same as we looked at in the first year, which is nothing, and that is very disappointing. I believe that we need to bring pressure to bear, whatever pressure we can bring within the restrictions and the ability of that agreement, we need to bring it so that people can get to work, so that product can be processed in the local plants.

We talk about all of the shrimp that is coming off the Northern Peninsula. I believe that by now there has been probably a couple of million pounds that have been trucked out that normally would have been done in those two particular plants. So there has to be a solution found to that. These people do not have a lot of options. They are looking to government; they are looking to the department of fisheries, looking to the minister in particular, to find a way to bring that through.

Mr. Speaker, those are some of the things that we could talk about on the fishery. There are lots of other things of course, but my time has gone and I would not want to ask for leave because that would be a difficult thing. Again, it is good to be able to speak and bring those things.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of comments made about this, as we talked about in committee today. We have listened to members on both sides; the NDP and the Liberal Party get up and make pronouncements.

For those listening, this is the stage of the Budget Debate where members opposite and members on this side of the House get up and comment about the committee stage of the debate around the Budget. I am not going to add very much to that debate, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said and there is a lot more to be said. Given the negative comments that have been made by the members opposite in this process, I think it is important to reflect on history. One thing about this House, Mr. Speaker, as we all know, everything we say and hear gets recorded in Hansard.

I want to go back to 2002 when the Opposition House Leader was the Minister of Innovation and Industry. I want to read from Hansard on April 24, 2002. The current Opposition House Leader was recorded in Hansard as having said, "Instead of preaching doom and gloom and being defeatists, this Administration's role is we want to be positive because if you do not believe in yourself, like we do, and if you have a negative attitude, like the Opposition has, we are never going to get anywhere if we don't believe in ourselves first. We do, and we believe in this Province and the people of…" Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, that is the man who sits opposite today who never stands in this House and says anything positive. He is probably going to stand in a few minutes and have another twenty minutes of negative comments about Newfoundland and Labrador. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, how this twenty feet across the floor of the House of Assembly from the government side to the Opposition side changes totally the attitudes of members opposite.

We have now been in the debate around the Budget for about some three weeks now and I have yet to hear anybody on the opposite side of the House stand and make any comment of any substance that congratulates government, or that talks about the positive things that are happening in Newfoundland and Labrador, or to talk about the opportunities that exist in Newfoundland and Labrador. The members opposite get up day after day after day and talk about what is not happening. Yet, Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite was in government, he reminded everybody that we had to believe in ourselves because we have opportunities as a Province. He is going to stand in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker – just watch this, he is going to stand in a few minutes and he is going to take twenty minutes. All we are going to hear from his mouth is negative comments about Newfoundland and Labrador and negative comments about government. In fact, he may even be critical of me when he stands, Mr. Speaker.

So that is what the member opposite might – so, Mr. Speaker, I just thought I would interject this, not to contribute much to the debate, but just to let the listening audience out there know what is actually going on here. We see a lot of politics being played by the Opposition in this part of the debate for the Budget, Mr. Speaker.

So with that, I will take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity now to close off debate. I would like to take the opportunity as well to thank all of the members who participated today in the discussion, as well as the members on the committee, and also the House of Assembly staff, the ministers, and officials who took part in debate during the Resource Committee Estimates meetings.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I move, as per Standing Order 76, the report on the Estimates of the Resource Committee be concurred in by the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the report of the Resource Committee be concurred.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

On motion, report of the Resource Estimates Committee carried.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, we will not be doing any more government business or Budget business today, but before I do a motion to adjourn, I would be asking the House for leave to do a notice of motion that I did not do earlier today. So, with leave, I would like to do a notice of motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Government House Leader have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, by leave.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 31, 2010.

Further, I give notice under Standing Order 11, I shall move that this House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. on Monday, May 31, 2010.

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier, that this House now adjourn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have three motions on the floor.

There is a motion that the House do not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock on Monday.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Furthermore, there is a motion that the House do not adjourn at 10:00 o'clock on Monday.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, being Monday, May 31.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.