June 2, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 40


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Under statements by members, we have the following statements: the hon. Member for Grand Bank, the hon. Member for Port au Port, the hon. Member for Bonavista North, and the hon. Member for Bonavista South.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lake Academy in Fortune which has received the Gold Quality Daily Physical Education School Recognition Award for providing quality programs contributing to healthy growth and development of young people. The Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance present the Gold School Recognition Award to schools providing all students with ninety to149 minutes per week of quality physical education, and for its continued commitment to develop a program with 150 minutes or more per week. The physical education program at Lake Academy is supervised by the physical education teacher Walt Forsey.

The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation spoke yesterday about recent statistics which indicate that the health of two-thirds of Canadian children is threatened by increased obesity rates caused in part by physical inactivity. Mr. Speaker, we should all be concerned about the negative consequences associated with physical inactivity. That is why I applaud the teachers, staff, parents and children at Lake Academy for taking seriously the importance of exercise and working together to ensure the students at Lake Academy are not included in the statistics referenced above.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating everyone at Lake Academy on receiving the Gold Quality Daily Physical Education Recognition Award and setting a fine example for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of members that the Stephenville Festival of the Arts will run this year from July 16 to August 22 and will feature six presentations. The presentations are: My Way - a tribute to Frank Sinatra; Domino Heart - a drama that tells the story of people affected by a heart transplant; The Bible - the complete word of God (Abridged) - it's a comedy; Dixie Chicks - Ready to Run, for those who enjoy country music; Vive La Rose - a unique look at the colourful musician: Émile Benoit ; and The Gala - which is near the end of the festival. This night has twenty-six years of tradition and showcases the talent of the company.

Mr. Speaker, we anticipate an audience of 10,000 this year. It attracts theatregoers from the Province, Canada and the U.S., and, as well, from other countries. It makes a substantial contribution to the development of theatre in the Province. It creates employment and attracts a large number of tourists to the Province as well.

Mr. Speaker, the festival is a theatrical miracle that gets better each year. It is New York Theatre surrounded by ocean scenery.

Come visit the Stephenville Festival. Come visit us on July 16 to August 22.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Friday of this past week, the residents of Carmanville had the unfortunate experience of watching their school, the Carmanville School Complex, incur major damage as a result of a fire. The older section of the school, the section that accommodated the high school students, was totally destroyed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the volunteer fire departments that responded to the call: the five departments from Carmanville, Main Point-Davidsville, Gander Bay, Musgrave Harbour and Gander. It was the gallant effort of these volunteers that prevented a serious situation from being much worse.

Many of these volunteer firefighters were on the scene, from just after the call was received at 8:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. the following morning. All to often, Mr. Speaker, we fail to really recognize and appreciate the dedication and effort provided by the volunteer fire departments throughout the Province.

I also want to acknowledge and thank the following: the members of the Carmanville United Church congregation who opened up their church hall and served coffee and sandwiches throughout the night; the RCMP and others who helped with the traffic flow and parking; the Pentecostal Church who has made a building available to accommodate the students to enable them to complete their school year; and the Carmanville Recreation Committee for providing their recreation centre for use as an office for the school administrative staff.

Mr. Speaker, I again commend all of the people of Carmanville and surrounding communities for their excellent display of community spirit and volunteerism. I look forward to working with them as they prepare for the future education of their children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Andrea Lodge, a native of Bonavista, on her recent performance at the provincial music festival. Andrea was chosen as the piano solo category winner at the festival held in Corner Brook just recently. At that time, she was also selected to go to the national music festival in Prince Edward Island in August.

Mr. Speaker, Andrea's success at the provincial competition did not guarantee her a place at the nationals. Rather, she was selected to move on by the adjudicators because they felt Andrea met the standard required for such a competition.

This is certainly a wonderful accomplishment, Mr. Speaker, and I ask all hon. members to join me in congratulating Andrea Lodge on her provincial win, and wish her every success at the national festival.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by ministers.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House this afternoon to inform hon. members that June 3 to June 12 is National Transportation Week. This year's theme is accessibility and innovation, reflecting the need to provide access for all Canadians to a reliable transportation network but at the same time ensuring that this is done in an innovative manner. This is very much in line with this government's philosophy on transportation in our Province.

The transportation industry is essential in serving as a necessary link both geographically as well as economically for Canadians as well as the people of our Province. It is a vital sector in the provincial economy, providing support to many industries and sectors in the transportation of their products, services and people.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation and Works is responsible for summer and winter maintenance of some 8,990 kilometres of primary and secondary highways, community access roads, as well as maintaining eight aircraft for air ambulance and water bomber services and managing twenty-one ferries in marine operations.

This week highlights the importance of professionals in our roads, marine and air services divisions in making the lives of Canadians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians safer and better. Government commends all of them, especially the transportation professionals in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty hard to understand how the minister could rise in his seat when yesterday the most isolated riding in this Province, where people requested to have freight pulled out of Lewisporte, the minister chose not to do that, and the second most isolated riding, the riding of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the minister, in his Budget, outlined they were going to stop doing winter maintenance. This does not sit very well with the people in Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question the people who provide these services are professionals and everyone on this side of the House would like to thank them for the wonderful job they do. Certainly, to the government people who sit over there and made such bad decisions regarding the North Coast of Labrador and the riding of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, then I say shame on you.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, congratulate the employees who work in the Transportation Department of the Province and, particularly, those in the Air Ambulance, Mr. Speaker, whom residents of my area depend on at a time when they need it most, and many times it means a difference of life and death to our people.

I would like to say to the minister, as well, that it is time for someone to get innovative and it is time for someone to provide us with accessibility -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: It is time to provide us with accessibility. We got a road now from Labrador West to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, for the last twenty years that it is has been open for people to travel on, it is in terrible condition most times. There is no pavement. The paving program has started. I say to the minister, it is time that the Province get together with the federal government and come up with a funding arrangement that will see a paving program begin and pave the road from start to finish as soon as possible.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My first question is for the Minister of Government Services and it concerns the bungled insurance plan and proposal that has been put forward in this House in the form of Bill 30. The minister stated that the deductible idea came from a select committee report done a number of years ago. I put it to the minister that nowhere in that report was a $2,500 deductible ever talked about. The minister also said that the deductible might have come from a meeting she had around her board table.

I ask the minister: Could she inform the House who was at such a meeting? Also - and I will keep asking this question until I, hopefully, will get an answer - where did the idiotic idea of a deductible come from? Could you inform the House and the people of this Province, the consumers, where you came up with this idea?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, this goes back to the select committee in 1998, and the hon. member across the way was a member of that committee. They recommended a $15,000 deducible and that would restrict compensation for the consumers. We have a survey done also with that committee with over 55 per cent of the people in this Province did not want to restrict compensation by taking those measures. The deductible is a fair and simple way to put in the regulations because, the fact of the matter is, it is $2,500 coming off a claim, but they do not have their rights restricted for compensation. They will receive the compensation. People who are injured in car accidents should receive compensation if they are hurt.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, it certainly was not this member who was on the select committee. I never came into the House until 1999. I suggest she get her facts right as to who was or was not a part of the committee.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the only reference in that select committee thing was to a $15,000 deductible, not $2,500; a $15,000 deductible, not $2,500. Again, she has not given a reason to this House to explain the logic of going with the deductible, other than I have heard it is simple and it is fair. I have not heard any explanation beyond why.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I brought to the attention of the House the fact that several large insurance companies are pulling out of the market because of this botched approach the government has taken. We now have confirmation from Dominion and Aviva - 35 per cent of the insurance industries - that they are leaving. There are many problems that will result from this, including the inability of other companies to fill the gaps, disruption, increased rates for many drivers and the loss of jobs. The largest local company in the Province announced this morning they cannot take on the new business, as the Premier had suggested, and will hurt from lack of competition and capital investment.

Minister, now that you and your government have been put on notice by these companies that they are closing up shop and moving out, are you prepared to reconsider this ill-conceived plan? If not, what contingency plan do you have in place to protect the consumers of this Province and the laid off employees?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the companies have served notice that they are leaving. They have made a business decision. They are not happy with the bill. That is their right to make that decision. We have not written those reforms for the automobile industry. We have written this for the consumer. The consumer has asked for those reforms and this is what we are debating here today.

I would say that the two companies that the hon. member is talking about, there are no local jobs here, they are a mainland company and their insurance is sold by brokers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Again, Mr. Speaker, the minister shows her lack of understanding and knowledge of this industry. These insurance companies may well be mainland companies but there are brokerage companies in this Province that have over 1,000 employees in this Province who depend upon this business. I am not concerned about the livelihood of the mainland insurance companies, I am concerned about the welfare and the well-being of the 1,000 employees in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I say to the minister, you stood in your place yesterday when you introduced this bill and you talked about, from your written prepared script, the great benefit that this Bill 30 would have for those now being discriminated against, based upon their age, sex or marital status. I am not sure why you think you are the hero for a twenty-two year old who will continue, under this bill -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to get to his question quickly.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- to have to pay $4,000 to $5,000 a year for basic insurance coverage.

Can the minister tell the House why these people will continue to pay double, triple, and sometimes more, for insurance when they haven't even had an accident or a traffic ticket in their life? Why is there nothing in this bill to protect these people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are going to address that issue in the public hearings.

The twenty-five year old driver -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: - right now would see an increase of 5 per cent to 6 per cent in their premiums, if we had put the age in as it stands. Also, the seniors would have lost some discounts. We have committed, in the public hearings, to address all of these issues and let the people tell us what is the fair thing and the right thing they would like us to do.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question for the minister - and this question is no doubt related to the fact that we find it very difficult, on this side, to accept their commitments to what they do or don't say, particularly when they tend to write letters after the fact. Minister, you committed several times, as recently as yesterday afternoon, to having public hearings, organized through the Public Utilities Board. Could you give the House and the people of the Province more details about these public hearings, today, here now, and also would you undertake to provide us, immediately, with copies of all correspondence, e-mails, directions and instructions that your department, or government, has, as of this moment and prior to that, given to the Public Utilities Board about such public meetings?

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, this issue by the hon. member has been dealt with by the past Administration for eight years. There is a lot of information compiled over it that I have had access to. The closed-claims study will take place this fall and after the closed-claims study is done we are going to commission a full public hearing and there will be ample opportunity for everybody to express their concerns through that public hearing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I had intended that to be my last question but, again, the minister did not give an answer and rather than dance around and skirt the issues, minister - it was simple question. Will you undertake, today, to table in this House immediately, all correspondence, directions and instructions that your department or this government has issued to the Public Utilities Board about the conduct of these public hearings that you continue to refer to? Yes or No?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member to be upset over this issue but he has had eight years to do absolutely nothing. They have shelved it. The same thing was applied here with the company threats. They put that propose on as soon as they were getting the threat that everybody was going to pull out, then they shelved it. Is that why they have done nothing? Were they afraid of the insurance companies? Well, this government is not afraid of insurance companies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, we are here for the consumer and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, the consumers of this Province have asked to have reduced premiums and when those reforms are over they will have reduced premiums. Also, the fact that we are looking at having achieved more real savings for them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, there is a health and safety issue brewing on the Burin Peninsula, which I understand the Minister of Environment and Conservation has been personally involved with. That is the placement of a sludge pond in the Marystown, Burin area. Minister, contrary to the information that is being used to approve a location for this sludge pond, the area is indeed full of wildlife. It is used extensively for winter recreation. It is a half kilometre from cabins, trailers and the beach, and the residents of Winterland road can see it from their windows.

I am asking the minister why you would proceed with such a development? Given the representation that I have had, it is obvious that you have not done the proper consultation. So I am going to ask you if you will in fact put the minds of the residents at ease and put a stop to the development?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no personal involvement in this particular proposal but the proposal is before my department, and my department will do due diligence to this proposal, as we will with any proposal that comes before my department. It goes through the environmental assessment process. That is the normal procedure. I am not going to use political interference to stand in front of any process. Our department will do due diligence to any process that comes before the department.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Minister, all I ask is that you, in fact, do due diligence to this because the representation that I have had clearly points out that what has happened to date shows that the facts have not been presented. In fact, from what I understand, is that it is on a go-forward basis. If there is an application before you, there has not been an application gone to the Town of Marystown in which boundaries the location is, in fact, located. So, what I am asking is that if it has come to you, that you adhere to whatever regulations you have to, to make sure that all the facts are approved and understood before you approve it.

On a different matter, Mr. Speaker, and a question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is generally accepted that when a supplementary question is asked it should flow from the previous question. In this particular matter, the questioner cannot change gears halfway through and then do a lengthy commentary and then go to a new question. I would the member, if she is going to ask a supplementary, it should be germane to the original question.

MS FOOTE: Not a problem, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask if the minister is aware whether or not the Town of Marystown has been engaged in this development at this point in time?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I do not sit on the Marystown Town Council. I am the Minister of Environment and Conservation. The proposal is before my department. We will assess the proposal based on its environmental merits. Whether or not it passes environmental assessment is yet to be determined. If it does pass environmental assessment, the political battles between the Town of Marystown and the Town of Burin will have to be solved on the Burin Peninsula.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

I am sure that I will get straight answers from him, unlike from his Premier, and I am pretty sure that he will do it without using the personal attacks.

Minister, in 2001, you said that government should not permit the sale of all, substantially all, or even a little part of, the assets of FPI, particularly the marketing arm of this company. Minister, will you stand and give that commitment in this House today?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for Twillingate & Fogo just indicated, I did make those comments back in 2001, I believe it was. Mr. Speaker, I still believe that. Any suggestion as to what FPI may or may not be doing is purely speculative at this point. We have had discussions with FPI and we have asked a lot of questions to which we hope we will get answers in the very near future, at which time we will determine our next action in line and consistent with the FPI Act.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister talks about speculation. Back in 2001 you were speculating, but you asked me to ensure that we would not sell those assets. I just asked you again; you did not respond. All I want you to do is stand and say that you will not permit the sale of the marketing division of FPI.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I did provide an answer to the question. I said I agreed with the statement that I made back then. I said it then, and I agree with it today. Mr. Speaker, as for what FPI may or may not be doing, he knows as well as everybody else who is informed about the Securities Commission, and laws relating to that, that there cannot be a discussion about that publicly until there is a decision made by FPI. Once FPI does whatever they decide to do, then we will do whatever we determine is appropriate to do in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the seafood industry in Newfoundland & Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Until that time, Mr. Speaker, I can only give the same answer. We are aware that FPI have some ideas about what they might do with their company. We have had discussions, we have asked a lot of questions, and when those answers are provided we will determine our next course of action.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I take it your answer is that you will not permit the sale of the marketing arms. Thank you very much, I say to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, we have legislation before this House today that would establish an auction system for shrimp. This is the minister's second attempt since January to do this. In light of the fact that no fishermen, no processor in the Province, want to buy into this system, why are you legislating it?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the member knows, the first attempt on the institution of an auction was pulled back by me because there was an agreement presented to me by the industry on a different approach. As the member knows, that approach went down the toilet some time in early April when the FFAW failed to accept the arbitrator's decision. We moved on for about a month where nothing happened. We decided at that time to reinstate some type of an auction in the shrimp fishery. What is before the House today, and what will be debated later today, Mr. Speaker, is enabling legislation. It is not legislation that will legislate an auction. It is not legislation that will legislate away collective bargaining. It is something that will enable the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to a conditional licence to implement an auction. That auction can be mandatory or it can be optional. At this time, with the engagement we have had with the industry, we are looking at an optional auction. It will not be dictated to the people. As for the assertion that no harvesters or processors are interested, there are many harvesters and processors who are interested in engaging in this process, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The more the people opposite talk, the more you know that they contradict themselves, because it is my understanding that up until around 10 o'clock this morning this was not an optional auction system, and I have talked to processors and harvesters all around the Province as late as 9 o'clock this morning. It was not optional then, so you changed it this morning.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that under this new auction system - and what you told the Estimates Committee in this very House - a harvester would be forced to sell to the highest bidder and not to a plant of his choice.

Under the legislation, a harvester who is a member of the co-op, a member-owner of a co-op, will not be permitted to sell his shrimp to the plant of his choice if somebody else offers him as little as one-tenth of one cent per pound more.

I ask the minister: How can your leader, the Premier, say that we have to be careful in interfering with a private company like FPI; yet, you can force a fisherman, an independent businessman, against his will, to sell his shrimp to a particular fish plant?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously the member needs to educate himself on what optional means and what auction means. When I talk to the people in the fishing industry -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, maybe if the member had asked me what we had been proposing to the processors and to the harvesters, he would have found out that what he heard, as late as nine o'clock this morning, is indeed false. He should know, and the industry knows, that what we discussed with them, about two weeks ago, was an auction whereby fisherman could elect to sell, under an negotiated price reached through a collective agreement, through binding arbitration or whatever format the industry decides to use - they can use that option or, Mr. Speaker, they can opt to fish under an auction.

Yes, he is right, once they decide to fish under an auction, whoever the highest bidder is, that is who gets the fish. That is how an auction works too, Mr. Speaker. Optional works in that you decide whether you will fish under a collective agreement or you will fish under an auction, and auction means you sell to the highest bidder.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador sold to Myles-Leger Ltd. a number of properties comprising the old General premises, some of which are significant heritage buildings. Mr. Speaker, there were a number of conditions attached to that, a number of which they have been in default for more than a year-and-a-half, with the right of the government at that time to take the buildings back.

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that Myles-Leger is apparently insolvent and before the court looking for protection, will the minister act quickly to regain those properties immediately so that others who may be interested in developing them can have access to them, and prevent endangering them being swallowed up in the potential insolvency or bankruptcy of Myles-Leger?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for his question.

Yes, the Province has moved quickly and, I think, efficiently and effectively, to ensure that the court is aware of the Province's interest in those properties, under the original conveyance, and also under a mortgage that is attached to the properties. We were in court this morning to make the court aware that the Province has an interest. A permanent receiver has now been established by the court and the Province will follow the process - and the hon. gentleman knows there are some legal matters that have to be taken care of here - but we will follow the process of making sure, through the court process, that the receiver is aware of our interest and that we will have the ability to act on that interest.

We are also aware that there are some other legitimate business interests in the property, and we are following up on those matters, so that if and when we do act, we have a kind of a fallback position, somebody else interested in the property.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Labour, Human Resources and Employment, and Responsible for the Status of Women, and it concerns previous workers for the Baie Verte asbestos mines.

I want to tell the minister that workers in these mines are suffering greatly. They have been exposed to asbestos at a rate of 14,000 times the normal rate that most of us are exposed to, and it has caused cancers. It is causing cancers today and will in the future because of the latency period that is connected with this disease. I want to ask the minister if she will agree to have a full-scale medical study conducted on former workers of the Baie Verte asbestos mine?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important issue with regards to workplace health and safety, which is quite a priority for the commission. We launched our WorkSafe Campaign last week.

It is my understanding that in 2002 a medical expert was commissioned to do a study on asbestos and from that study the Federation of Labour employers and the union developed a go-forward basis regarding compensation for people in the mining industry dealing with asbestos. It is also my understanding that there remains some concerns about the workers from the Baie Verte area and whether or not the scope of the study that was commissioned in 2002 actually addressed some of the needs that the hon. member is talking about.

What I would like to do is have a look at the study that was commissioned and the scope of that study and, as well, look at the issues that are coming forth with regard to the workers from the Baie Verte area. I would like to see if further study is needed and if it would be within the scope of the commission to do that type of study. At this point in time I would like to say that I am willing and open to consultation to have a look at the issue to see if these issues do remain outstanding and if we can address them.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The commission that the minister is referring to in 2002, I say to the minister, was one where the commission hired an expert who they knew was going to rule in their favour because he works for the asbestos industry in Quebec, and his reports and his findings are subject to review by medical journals. That did not cut the ice. There are 108 cases before the Workers' Compensation, I say to the minister, cancer related illnesses, of which they have only accepted thirty-two. All attempts to get justice for the workers' families, workers who have passed away and for future cases, is being frustrated by the attitude and by the policies that have been adopted by the Workers' Compensation. The only way around this, I say to the minister, is to have a study conducted that would do a proper medical audit to determine the extent to which workers were affected and thereby eligible for claims.

Again, I ask the minister, will she be more precise and give us a guarantee that the workers of Baie Verte, the former workers and their families, will have a medical audit preformed that they deserve?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say to the hon. member is that the issues for workers in Baie Verte and workers anywhere in this Province are certainly a priority. What I will continue to say is that I want to look at the former report, the scope of it, and did it address the issues that were meant to be developed. If I felt there was some bias in that report, which did not work fairly for the workers of Baie Verte, that I will look into having a further study done. But, at this time, I do want to go back and have a look at the report, the scope of the report, how it was commissioned and the issues that you have raised. If I feel that there is some unfairness to that process, I will expect a further review.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Is it true that some managers for health care boards were called into St. John's yesterday, only to be informed that boards, such as the one in Burin, Bonavista, Clarenville, Carbonear and St. John's, will now be rolled into one gigantic health board?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

First, I would like to say that the health care boards are autonomous organizations. With regard to the reorganization of the health care boards, I have told the hon. members in this House before -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: - that there has been no decision whatsoever made with regard to the amalgamation or otherwise of the health care boards in this Province. There has been no decision made at all. I am informing the hon. House of that and when I do have some information to relay to the members in this House, I will do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has also come to my attention that public health outreach services are being removed from certain board areas in the Province. Outreach offices are being closed and those people requiring public health services will now have to travel to their nearest health care centre. This is another case, minister, of people having to go where the service is and not government bringing the service to the people, especially in rural areas of the Province.

I ask the minister today, Mr. Speaker: How many areas in this Province will see their public health outreach services withdrawn?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

As I indicated to the hon. member, there has been no decision made whatsoever with regard to the amalgamation of boards. With regard to outreach services, I am not aware of any changes in those outreach services. There was an issue with regard -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: - to services in Grand Falls with regard to mental health services. I understand that the board was contemplating some changes. They had made an announcement that there would be some downgrading of services, which was questioned by myself given that this government has put an additional $1 million of additional funding into mental health services, and I understand that the board has now reissued a press release clarifying that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister was on public health services, not mental health services. I am aware that offices are closed and that services have been withdrawn. So, the minister may want to check with her officials.

Mr. Speaker, people of the Province are sickened with the thoughts of what will evolve from a public health review that is being undertaken by that government. I say to the minister, she should take advice from the Member for St. Barbe, who stood in the House yesterday with a petition from the people in his district to try and stop the closure of clinics in his area.

I ask the minister today if she can put some of these fears to rest and confirm that there will be no further withdrawal of services, no clinic closures in rural areas, and no downgrading of services being offered at health care centres in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

This government is committed to improving health care services, not to degrading health care services in this Province. With regard to the members question on public health, public health has almost been eradicated under the members opposite in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: As I indicated, this government is going back to repair the damage that was done by the members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We have time for a thirty second question and a thirty second answer.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, do not talk about what the previous Administration - we built hospitals and you are closing them. Listen, you wait until I ask you the question before you jump on your feet.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member now has time for a fifteen second question.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, last week I stood in this House and I asked the Minister of Health, what was her criteria in choosing the location of amalgamating hospital boards? Now, today, I am asking you the same question. We already know that Central-West is offering you free space, free accommodation and they can roll the two boards into one. Are you going to refuse that? What criteria are you going to use in making your decision?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the hon. member for the same question that she asked me last week because I will give her the same answer. When I have a decision made, I will inform the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

During Question Period today we had a circumstance where we had a member who asked a supplementary question that the Chair felt was not germane to the main question. As a general rule, supplementary questions should be very brief, should not require any explanatory commentary and should be very direct and should require one, carefully constructed sentence. Brevity is of the essence, particularly as it applies to supplementary questions. We have been very fortunate in this session thus far, before today, to have had 628 questions asked and 628 responses given, which is a record for this House given the number of days that we have been sitting.

I also remind members that when they are giving their questions, we should try to keep the time limit down to around forty to fifty seconds. Some exchanges today were longer than that, and some were yesterday.

I ask members for their co-operation. The essence of Question Period is to have a rapid exchange and to do so as quickly as we can, given the constraints of the time, the thirty minutes that we have available.

Presenting reports by standing and select committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table, for all hon. members, thirteen reports from agencies reporting to the Department of Education, namely, our eleven school boards: the Labrador School Board; the Northern Peninsula/Labrador South School Board; Corner Brook/Deer Lake/St. Barbe School Board; Cormack Trail School Board; the Baie Verte/Central/Connaigre School Board; the Lewisporte/Gander School Board; Burin School Board; Vista School Board; Avalon West School Board; Avalon East School Board; and Le Conseil scolaire francophone.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I also wish to table the Provincial Information and Library Resources Board Report and the Newfoundland and Labrador Education Investment Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table today the 2002-2003 Annual Reports for the Department of Youth Services and Post-Secondary Education, as well as reports from Memorial University of Newfoundland and the College of the North Atlantic.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, and myself, I am pleased to table today the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the Department of Labrador and Aboriginal Affairs.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I am tabling the Annual Report for the Department of Finance for the fiscal year April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2003. This report has been prepared under my direction. It is tabled in accordance with governments commitment to greater accountability and transparency.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the minister, in presenting his report, as he did yesterday in presenting the Treasury Board Secretariat Report, he is presenting a report for the period ending March 31, 2003, more than a year ago. He signs the report and the report, he says, is prepared under his direction.

I wonder how this minister has a year-old report, it is prepared under his direction, for events that took place six months before they were elected? Mr. Speaker, they are presented here. The Treasury Board Secretariat Report - I assume the same letter is at the beginning. Perhaps the minister can explain how he can present a report that is for events that took place before he was there.

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

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

The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raises an interesting point. In politics sometimes, I say to him, there are cruel ironies, and one of them is the fact that we, as a new government, have to present reports by the old government. The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or not, they failed to present them. We have to. We do not take much solace in all of that, but we do take our obligations very seriously, I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. There is a point of explanation and clarification, but there is no point of order.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the hon. member, I have indicated that it was prepared under my direction because -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has already ruled on that point of order. Commentary has to come before the ruling, not after.

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

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today, for your information, the 2002-2003 Annual Report for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: Presenting further reports? Notices of motion.

Notices of Motion

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

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Workplace, Health, Safety and Compensation Act, Bill 33.

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

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Petroleum Products Act, Bill 32.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of motion? Answers to questions for which notice has been given? Petitions.

Petitions

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents on the Burin Peninsula, particularly those who live in the Marystown-Burin area. It has to do with the idea of a sludge pond being created in the Marystown-Burin area.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in Question Period, there is a lot of concern being expressed. In fact, there is a concerned citizens' committee that has been put in place. While I am hearing from residents on the Burin Peninsula, particular in the area of Burin and Marystown, that border area, they are extremely concerned that there has been no public consultation taken place. The time lines associated with this development are such that they are giving very little time for anyone to voice an opinion. We are talking June 4 in terms of the time frame of actually getting some representation made on behalf of the residents.

For anyone to suggest that this is an area where wildlife will not be impacted, or residents will be not be impacted, clearly shows that the work has not been done. Now, I have been told today that the proponent, in fact, withdrew their proposal but, from the minister's response, he indicated that the proposal is still before him and under active consideration. So, I understand from the minister it has not been withdrawn.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Okay.

Then it is obviously of very serious concern. I had hoped, in fact, that the proposal had been withdrawn, but I am being told now by the minister that it has not been withdrawn, that the proponent is on a go-forward basis as of this moment, as far as the minister knows.

So, here we are in an area where we have schools. We have a recreation area. We have a walking trail. In fact, there has been federal money gone into a walking trail within close proximity to the location where it is being proposed to put the sludge pond. We also know that there has been more money applied for through ACOA. I understand, in fact, that the proponent may be looking for federal money to help with this particular initiative. So, it would seem that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing if, in fact, the federal government is being asked to, on one hand, approve something for recreational purposes within that area and, on the other hand, then approve what is a sludge pond for the same area.

There are residents who live within close proximity. They have expressed their concerns to me. They have expressed their concerns to other colleagues in the House of Assembly, and I appreciate that. I think we all have to stand and bring their concerns forward, speak on their behalf, make sure that this proposal is looked at in the way that it will ensure that everything is taken into consideration. We have health care facilities in that area. We have restaurants in that area. The school bus depot was in that area, so a lot of school children live in the area. Again, you have a beach not too far away. You have cabins. You have trailers. All of this within the area of where the proponent is proposing to put a sludge pond.

The residents are telling me that they did not know about this until recently when they became aware of it because someone started to ask some questions. It was only then that it became a public issue which, of course, is cause for concern as well, Mr. Speaker. Because, when you are going to initiate this type of activity, it is important that everybody have a chance to have a say, especially if they are going to be impacted by whatever level, whether it is noise or odour or whatever that will come as a result of having the sludge pond there. I am also told that, of course, the intent is not to cover the sludge pond and that when people are walking in the area, of course, it could be very dangerous for them as well. Any seepage, again, is an issue for the residents in the area.

I am told that when they got together as a concerned citizens' committee, I think about seventy of them turned up at this meeting and learned for the first time exactly what was involved. Of course, as the word spread that this is, in fact, a very active proposal, then they all became concerned and started to do some consulting on their own, asking if others had heard about this, and what their views were on it. I can tell you, there is a lot of concern in the Marystown-Burin area.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS FOOTE: Just to clue up, if I may, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS FOOTE: I am also told - and this is why I mention it to the minister - that when the Mayor of Marystown was asked whether or not they had approved this proposal, because it is within in the boundaries of Marystown, I am told that, in fact, the town has not even received an application to consider this proposal.

Thank you.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is regrettable and unfortunate that I have to rise in the House again today to present this petition on behalf of the people of my district, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Labrador Marine Services, a decision that government should not have made to move marine services to Lewisporte. Indeed, they should not have done that, Mr. Speaker, because it was in the best interests of the people of the Province and the service to the people of Labrador, to have maintained the service of the Sir Robert Bond in Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose Bay and not in Lewisporte.

You know, what is even more unfortunate about this entire situation, Mr. Speaker, is that the people in Northern Labrador had only one request of the government opposite. That was, that they have their own designated freight vessel that would distribute freight from a location of their preference to Northern Labrador. You know what, Mr. Speaker? One of the most isolated, most remote areas of our Province will not get what they want, despite the fact that money will be spent out of the Labrador Fund. They will not get what they want. That is rather unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what is unfortunate about it? It is because the Minister of Transportation and Works was more concerned with meeting his own obligations and his own commitments to his own district and not looking out for the best interests and the betterment of all the people in Labrador who depend upon this service. That is what is unfortunate about this, Mr. Speaker.

The people of Northen Labrador will not get their freight boat operating directly from Lewisporte to Nain with their goods and services. No, they will not, and the people of my district will not get the ferry service between Cartwright and Goose Bay that they so desperately lobbied for and wanted. It all will be done, and they will not get the service simply because the minister had to meet his own obligation; and his own obligation was this: that the ferry boat be put in Lewisporte and that the jobs be created in his own district and that the money from the Labrador Transportation Fund be used to make it happen.

Now, that is a crime, it is an injustice that is being done to people in Labrador. It is unfair that their voices are not being heard by that government and not being heard by the minister. Mr. Speaker, they have had little or no representation on this issue, as far as I can see, from other members opposite. Therefore, the Minister of Transportation and Works has done just what he thought he needed to do to suit his own needs.

Mr. Speaker, this is no joking matter here, this is a very serious, very important matter. We are only days away from having a marine service implemented in Labrador. It is a marine service that has been devised and created by the government opposite and is not being done in the best interests of the people of Labrador, and that is not fair.

Mr. Speaker, in a matter of days monies will be spent belonging to communities in Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS JONES: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up my petition on this very important matter?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: Thank you very much.

It is only a matter of days and these vessels will go into service.

Mr. Speaker, there is only one request that I make of the government opposite today, and that is to put the Sir Robert Bond on the ferry service between Cartwright and Goose Bay permanently for this season, and put the freight boat for Northern Labrador, the Trans Gulf, operating out of Lewisporte to the North Coast. They will save, Mr. Speaker, anywhere from $500,000 to $600,000 this year of money belonging to Labrador communities by doing that, and they will honour the request that has been made by the Labrador people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's leave has been withdrawn.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present to the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Legislative Session convened:

The Petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS the undersigned residents realize that Government is in the process of combining the Central East and Central West Hospital Institutional Boards and Community Health Central; and

WHEREAS the Central West Board has proven itself to be efficient and prudent in its spending;

WHEREFORE your petitioners are hereby asking government to consider locating the Board's administrative offices in Grand Falls-Windsor and call on our area elected representatives in Cabinet, the hon. Paul Shelley, the hon. Tom Rideout, myself, Opposition MHA Roger Grimes, and MHA Anna Thistle, to lobby on our behalf.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support the request of the people of Central Newfoundland, which is Grand Falls-Windsor, and also that the people of Central Newfoundland really lobbied the government in the last little while to have this decision considered.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans has been saying that I haven't been supporting and making my views known to the public, but I say to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, that I have been and I have done what the people in my district have asked me to do. I presented a petition today. I am very pleased and honoured to have to do that for the residents in my district and the Grand Falls-Windsor area, Mr. Speaker.

We realize that Grand Falls-Windsor is a location of choice of many specialists and health professionals. We realize that the groups in Central Newfoundland supporting this, the Chamber of Commerce and other groups, have done many things at a great cost to get a point across to the minister and to government that this is the place. If there is a change, that it should be located in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I say, too, Mr. Speaker, that my role as a Member for Grand Falls-Windsor area - which is my district, Windsor-Springdale - is a little different than the members in Opposition. I have an opportunity from time to time in caucus meetings and dealing with the minister, and other ministers and Cabinet ministers, of presenting the cases of the people in Central Newfoundland. I have done that. I have lobbied hard in the last while to make sure that what decision is made, is made based on the criteria set out by the people of Central Newfoundland, who really believe that the location should be in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that unlike the members in Opposition who have to lobby in a different way, they use tactics in lobbying that we used to use when we were in the Opposition, but now on the government side, as the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans knows -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HUNTER: Just one moment to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: A few moments to clue up.

MR. HUNTER: My lobbying is very important and is done in a different manner than it would be done by them.

I say, Mr. Speaker, no decisions have been made. Soon we will have decisions made, and hopefully it will be done in the favour of the residents of Grand Falls-Windsor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, today, I am standing representing the people of Grand Falls-Buchans and of Central Newfoundland and Labrador in their plight of trying to get the consolidation of health care boards located in Grand Falls-Windsor.

If I have shamed the Member for Windsor-Springdale into getting on his feet for the first time in this House, I have been successful. I want to say, if he is doing his lobbying in his own caucus - if you are lobbying in your own caucus for the cancer clinic, you have been unsuccessful. If you are lobbying for the consolidation of school boards, you have been unsuccessful. If you are going to start lobbying, which you should have been doing weeks and weeks and weeks ago on the consolidation of health boards, I hope you will have more success because I tell you, the people of Grand Falls-Windsor deserve it. The Central West Health Care Board deserves it. They are in the middle of the district -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Never you mind the questions I asked the minister. I have gotten no answers from that minister, and I have to make it known here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do not wish to take away from the member' time, but when we are dealing with petitions, Standing Order 92 reads, "Every Member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations it contains." Then it mentioned the time limit.

I would ask the member if she could confine herself to the prayer of petition in general terms.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And, of Course, I will lay this information on the table. Of course the Member for Windsor-Springdale espoused his opinion very loosely, but I will stick to the rules, as you have indicated.

What is quite clear, the Central West Health Care Board has a very valid case. Why should they go out at their expense and the Chamber of Commerce expense and take out an ad to prove to the world, to prove to this government, who never listens - they are making decisions on a whim when they say they are going to make evidence-based decisions.

We seen yesterday how the Minister of Education squirmed in his seat when he was asked to defend the decision they made on the school board situation. Here we have the Central West Health Care Board, with the best record within the entire government of fiscal and operational success, right in the middle of Baie Verte to Eastport district. They have the provisions to accommodate the two consolidated boards at no cost to government, no renovation, no rental money to be paid out. They have the best record of recruitment and retention of specialists. Why can't this Minister of Health and Community Services stand on her feet and give me the criteria that government will use to make that decision? Why can't we have some fairness here in this House? We cannot get any answers from this new government. That is the reason why we are frustrated here, we are standing and trying to speak for our constituents, the people that put us here. We cannot get an answer. All you want to do is tear down what we have put together for the people of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The last two petitions that we have heard I do believe contains some infringements on Standing Order 92. Members have taken time to comment on things that really, in the Chair's opinion, were not germane to the petition that was presented. I mention that for the last two petitions.

I ask members, again, to contain themselves to the statements that are made in petitions, the prayer of the petition and to comment on the allegations or the prayers that are there, and to represent the wishes of the people who signed the petition as contained in the prayers. Sometimes we do take advantage of petitions to say things across the House that probably are not very germane and I would ask members for their co-operation in that regard.

The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Marystown and Burin area, in line with the petition that was presented by the hon. Member for Grand Bank.

In particular, part of the petition reads: This area is not a suitable location for a sewage treatment facility because it is too close to the Burpen school bus depot, elementary and junior high schools, the Burin Peninsula hospital and homes and businesses in the area.

Mr. Speaker, I became aware of this issue over the past week with a number of phone calls, e-mails and letters pertaining to this particular issue. By far, the greater number of the calls are against the establishment of this sludge treatment facility. Over the past two weeks, it appears that the word has gotten around about this facility. The media release came out, I believe it was, on May 7. However, as things have progressed the topic has become, certainly, a contentious issue to a point where a public meeting was held and a formalized petition of protest was organized and presented here today. I have met with and discussed this matter with the minister and, as he has already pointed out, it is proceeding through its normal channels and, hopefully, there will be a resolution to it.

Mr. Speaker, the residents within the immediate area are certainly worried about the possible implications. As the Member for Grand Bank has alluded to, this area does hold wildlife and, because of its adjacency to this number of facilities, they are certainly opposed to it. I do anticipate more calls, e-mails and letters over the next few days, and I would like the residents to know that I will work on their behalf to see a resolution to this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition with a list of names from the community of Cartwright, from the community of Nain, and from the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Mr. Speaker, it is on the auditorium that is so badly needed in the Upper Lake Melville area.

Right now, students all across Labrador do not have the opportunity to travel to the Upper Lake Melville area to do different festivals. I just saw the Member for Lake Melville talking with the Minister of Education and I know that the Member for Lake Melville is dedicated to the program. I would say to the Minister of Education that such a facility is essential to the children in Labrador, and I say to the Minister of Education, there are three things that are about to happen: one, is that very shortly this hon. House is going to close for a summer break; two, that the construction season is very short in Labrador; three, and probably most important of all, is that in the next few weeks the school season is going to close, and students all across Labrador again will have to walk away from their school in every community knowing there is no commitment for an auditorium in the Upper Lake Melville area where so many of our students take so much pride in going. To know that the school season is about to close and that government has not made a commitment to the students in Labrador, certainly is a drawback to the education program all across Labrador.

I would say to the Minister of Education that this building is essential, is vital, and they need it. We need an auditorium built in the Upper Lake Melville area to help promote our young people, to promote their studies, their culture, their heritage, Mr. Speaker, and it is very important to them. I say to the minister again, go back and talk to your colleagues in Cabinet and tell them of the importance, of the magnitude, of this essential piece of structure that the children in Labrador so rightfully deserve. I would suggest that he talk to the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs, and that he talk to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs, because, as I said before, I know the Member for Lake Melville is dedicated to this and so is every student in all of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, again, I ask the Minister of Education to reconsider, please, the shortness of the year. Again, school is closing and students all across Labrador are going to walk out of their classrooms knowing that there is no plan in place for them to go into an auditorium. Mr. Speaker, if it is not started this year then we are looking at two years before these children are given the opportunity to have another term to perform - a place that students in every other part of the Province, I guess, take for granted.

I say to the Minister of Education, please -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. ANDERSEN: Ten seconds, Mr. Speaker?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. ANDERSEN: I say to the Minister of Education, please, on behalf of the children in Labrador, reconsider and give them this essential piece of structure that they need to complete their education.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to present on behalf of the people in Rocky Harbour and Norris Point. The prayer reads: To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, in legislative session convened: The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

WHEREAS a fully licensed recycling depot does not exist within Gros Morne National Park and surrounding communities; and

WHEREAS the expense involved in transporting recyclables to Deer Lake results in many recyclables being burned at a local dump site, contributing to an already overburdened waste management site and many community health issues;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge government to take action to make the recycling depot at Rocky Harbour a fully licensed recycling facility.

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have, on behalf of the people of the Gros Morne area, brought the concerns to the minister and, of those two concerns that I highlight, one was certainly the health concern which is right across the Province, from having those slow burning dump sites, having smoke smothering our communities when we have certain winds. Those concerns were certainly expressed, as we have all across this Province. It has been an ongoing concern.

The other point that I had made in pleading with the minister to take a second look at the recycling depot in Rocky Harbour was the fact that Rocky Harbour, in Gros Morne, has been certainly a leader in this Province when it comes to recycling and picking up new habits and new ways of moving into this new century, Mr. Speaker. A good example of that, that I highlighted, was that just last week the minister, himself, had presented an award to Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, when Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador had hosted the Canadian Adventure Tourism Industry conference in Rocky Harbour. It was a green event. It was the first time since this group has been formed, Mr. Speaker, and a lasting legacy from this was a Trash-ed, a solid waste education program targeted at elementary school children. This program will be delivered by children and Gros Morne staff this season. It is a first in this Province, Mr. Speaker, from what I understand. I have gone and encouraged the minister to take a second look at this particular depot to see if we cannot continue on being a leader in this Province when it comes to recycling and moving ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the day.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair, for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on certain bills?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

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

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act to Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act. (Bill 25)

CHAIR: Bill 25, "An Act to Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act." (Bill 25)

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say a few words on the Professional Fish Harvesters Act. I know that these are important amendments to that legislation and I will note that the session that we had late last night, some time after 10:30 or 11 o'clock, this bill was introduced at second reading - but it was not introduced. It went through at second reading and the Minister of Fisheries did not introduce the bill, so I am wondering today whether he is prepared to tell us a little bit about why this legislation is being brought in and why it is needed. I know the television was not on last night, so the people watching would have had the TV cut off 10 o'clock or thereabouts and did not hear the fact that it went through second reading. I know the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board has played a significant role in the development of a sense of professionalism amongst fish harvesters and trying to create a very positive view of fish harvesters in the Province.

I know that years ago, Mr. Chairman, it was a great debate. This was kind of before the fishermen's union. You know, being a fisherman in Newfoundland and Labrador was kind of like the job of last resort. If you could not get a real job, you would go in the fishing boat. That was the attitude that a lot of people had towards the fishermen and fish harvesters in this Province, but that has changed an awful lot in the last number of years. We compared it - years ago, I remember comparing it to Norway and Iceland, where the job of a fisherman would be regarded very highly, that to be a fisherman was a great thing. Well, it is becoming a great thing again today. I suppose all anyone needs to do is look to the fact that a fisherman such as Lester Petten, whose funeral is being held today in Port de Grave, is regarded as a substantial, successful, remarkable man, a fisherman from this Province, one of many who made a great reputation as being a fisherman, a person with great ability and had great success. We all mourn his passing, and I do not want to turn this into a eulogy but he is an example of the kind of people who we have seen coming from the fishing industry showing a great ability and great willingness to work hard to improve the fishery and caring about the Province in the future.

We have developed a sense in this Province, Mr. Chairman, of a fish harvester, the fishermen and women, as being professionals. That is the intention of the Fish Harvesters Board, to recognize that there are certain skills that go with being a fisherman, that recognize that there is a certification process, that recognition can be conferred on people, and with that would go certain access to the programs and benefits. Now, we have had some controversy. Very little progress is made without controversy, and I know in this particular area there has been some controversy. There have been a few growing pains in establishing the criteria and the role of the board. There have been court cases, one in particular, that recognized or discovered that some of the rules were not adequate to do the kind of things that were intended in the beginning. We are happy to see that some changes are being made here to accommodate that.

I would ask the Minister of Fisheries, since it is his legislation, if he would give us a little outline of the kind of changes that are necessary to be made, and why they are necessary, so that we can consider the clauses adequately and ensure ourselves that this legislation meets the need for which it is brought forward, and that in the future the Professional Fish Harvesters Board will be able to operate in a more satisfactory manner and hopefully avoid the kind of controversy and problems that there have been in the past.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just will give a few explanatory comments on why we are bringing forward Bill 25 right now, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act.

Mr. Chairman, as the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has indicated, this is one of many steps down the road towards professionalization of our fish harvesters in the Province - an initiative that was widely supported by those in the industry over the past probably close to fifteen, or probably over fifteen, years, actually, since I heard it first, the term and the concept of professionalization.

Mr. Chairman, what we are endeavoring to do in this bill today is to address a number of issues flowing out of Judge Orsborn's - I guess that is how you say it - ruling last year, about a year ago I guess it was, where one fish harvester in particular - maybe there were a couple of them who were involved - challenged the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board's ability to do some of the things that they were doing - or authority, I should say - to do some of the things they were doing.

Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the challenge was to the Certification Board's authority to certify fish harvesters based on economic dependency criteria. Number two was the Certification Board's ability - or authority, again, I should say - to discipline fish harvesters based on the Code of Ethics. Then there were a couple of other issues that were more or less housekeeping issues, Mr. Chairman, that this act deals with.

Mr. Chairman, specifically, the act will be amended so that the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board will be able to certify fish harvesters based on the economic dependency criteria. The reason for that is that in any other - this is unique to the fishing industry. Most other professional organizations, in other sectors of our economy, don't have that type of criterion. It is unique here, and the reason for it is that the vast majority of those in the industry have requested it. While other professions have a fairly substantial cost associated with education, formal education, institutional education, in order to be able to practice in that profession, the fishing industry has little in the way of those requirements. There are some, certainly, if you want to become the captain of a boat or need engineering expertise for some of the vessels that we run in our fishery. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the fishing industry thought that an economic dependancy criterion that they use for the grandfathering part of this, at 75 per cent, was appropriate. All criterion related to ongoing certification of fish harvesters, Mr. Chairman, will be subject to the approval of the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, as the criteria is developed. Mr. Chairman, in the act, we are giving authority for the board to implement such criteria, or to make decisions based on a criteria that will be approved by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

As well, Mr. Chairman, we want to address, in this, the issues related to how disciplinary action might be handled by the certification board, specifically as it relates to a disciplinary board. Previously, as I understood it, there was some dispute about the certification board's authority to enact disciplinary action. Judge Orsborne certainly found that the board was not authorized to do that. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody has acknowledged that there needs to be, and there will be, in the context of the Professional Fish Harvesters Act, a disciplinary board that will deal with those issues.

Mr. Chairman, the other item, as I recall - and I just have to check the note here now - the other one, and it is Clause 5, is related to the decision of the disciplinary board, or of the appeal board, I should say. The decision of the appeal board most apply. In this Act, under its previous rendition, the decision of the appeal board was only applicable to the appellant. Under this, Mr. Chairman, it is binding on both the certification board and the appellant. Mr. Chairman, that, in essence, is why this bill is before the House today. Those are, probably, the three major issues that flow out of this bill.

I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that this is widely supported by the industry. The board is comprised of fifteen members, who are appointed by the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, based on recommendations from various organizations and agencies, who are, in some way, directly or indirectly, affiliated with the fishing industry. As I said, Mr. Chairman, the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board and the Professional Fish Harvesters Act is widely supported by the industry and by the organizations around that.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my comments. If there are other questions, I will endeavour to answer them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to rise and have a few words on Bill 25 today, because when I was Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture I had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the Professional Fish Harvesters Certification Board in the Province. These were certainly - this bill contains some of the things that they brought forward at that time, some amendments that they would have liked to have seen in legislation coming before the House in the spring sitting. I have to say, I am pleased that the minister has put forward the amendments in Bill 25 because it was certainly important to the association and to members of the association within the Province.

Mr. Chairman, I guess a lot of the amendments that we are seeing today in the bill arose out of a court challenge that was launched in the Province against the Professional Fish Harvesters association with regard to their criteria for economic activity. There was a ruling from the courts and it was important that the proper amendments were made to protect the Professional Fish Harvesters in Newfoundland and Labrador, because people who have followed this particular board will know that the whole purpose and intent of the act, when it first came to the House of Assembly back some years ago, was to offer up a professionalization for fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador so that they too could have some protection, some direction within their career and occupational choices that they made.

Mr. Chairman, that was the initial purpose. So, that they could be a professional group, just like we see with nurses, like we see with teachers, like we see with home care workers out there now trying to establish a professional organization to represent home care workers in the Province. We have seen this with any number of occupational fields, so that was the original intent. Since then, what we have seen from this group is a great deal of development work and education work that has been done within the fishing industry profession.

I know from my experiences, I live in a fishing district and have a lot of people who work in the industry, a lot of fisherpeople who are on the water. One of the things that I have seen come out of this particular organization is the number of safety programs that are being offered to fishermen today, and fisherwomen. Mr. Chairman, almost on a regular basis we have courses going on in small rural communities all over this Province that are teaching people in the fishing industry what they need to know with regard to navigational aids, what they need to know for safety and protection of their fleet on the water, and all of these kinds of things. I know a great deal of people who have taken these courses and have found them to be very rewarding for the occupation that they are in.

The Professional Fish Harvesters association has done a lot of good work in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have certainly established themselves as a very credible, professional organization that brings forward, not just the views and perspectives of people in the fishing industry, but also offers up the opportunity for training, for education, for advancement within the industry itself. So the changes that are being brought forward in this legislation are good and are needed and have been asked for by the Professional Fish Harvesters association. As I said earlier, they are coming out of a court challenge that was launched in the Province in which we had a verdict on back last summer. What this will do is tighten up the legislation to ensure that they can carry on and carry forward as a professional organization and do exactly what they were intended to do.

Mr. Chairman, I have no problems with Bill 25, and I will certainly be supporting the minister's amendments that he has brought forward.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just a few quite words on Bill 25 that the minister has put before the floor today. It is my understanding that it deals with the Professional Fish Harvesters Board. If I am not mistaken, it was the late Walter Carter who originally, I think, brought that board about under a piece of legislation in this House. It happened back, I think, in the early years of the moratorium. The reason that he did it is because every other profession that we go into has - you have to exhibit a certain number of skills and we thought that fishermen have those skills, so why wouldn't they be treated the same way as everybody else, for example?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I say to my colleague across the floor, if it was Mr. Efford, the work was started and done by the late Walter Carter. We have a professional certification board, for example, for nurses. We have a professional certification board for teachers and doctors and everybody else, but we did not have one for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, I know that the work was done because I worked with the late minister at the time. We felt that where every other professional had a certification board that we needed one for fishermen as well. The fishery today is not like it was 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago, when anyone who wanted to go fishing could go fishing and thought that they were equipped to go fishing. We decided that it would be nice to have a professional harvesting board to certify fishermen at different levels, depending on their skills, and set forward a program whereby an individual could acquire those skills to move from Level I, II to III to become a professional fish harvester. I have no problem with it. I understand that there were some fishermen in the Province who were opposed to this board for a number of reasons - and they took it to court - and obviously their concerns were not felt to be significant by the judge and he ruled against them. The legislation that is put forward to the House today is just going to make some minor changes to the act to see that things like that will not happen again. I will be voting for this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Should clauses 1 to 7 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Clauses 1 to 7 are carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 7 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, the enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act to Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The title is carried.

On motion title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 25, An Act to Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 25 is carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chair, Order 5, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act. (Bill 27)

CHAIR: Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act.

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act."

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hesitate to repeat the speech that I made last night but I do want to say that the speech that I made last night was made at around 11:15 p.m or 11:30 p.m. or thereabouts. It did not get on TV and, given the family-friendly hours that the people opposite ran on last year, I do not know if my family was home watching it at 10:00 p.m. or 10:10 p.m. when the lights went off, when the TV cameras went off, but it was something that did come up last night. What I said then, I will just say it briefly again, was that this legislation talks about the provincial offences. What it does is, it imposes penalties for late payment of fines. Now, the fines that we are talking about here could be as low as $10 or $15, for a parking ticket or anything under the Provincial Offences Act, any kind of fine is involved here, but it increases late penalties on fines. You could have a fine of $10 and if it was not paid within thirty days, or the date on the ticket or whatever other regulation applies, all of a sudden you have to pay an extra $6. So, a $10 fine becomes a $16 fine. If your fine is more than $100, the penalty is $12. Mr. Chairman, what I said in terms of my concern about this legislation is that this is not involved in doing anything other than penalizing people who cannot afford to pay their fines in a timely manner. If somebody is fined $100 for failure to wear a seatbelt, or someone has a ticket for some provincial offence and they don't happen to have the $100, what this government is saying is, if you don't have the $100 we are going to charge you $112. That is what they are saying.

If somebody refused to pay and wasn't going to pay and all of that, maybe you could tack on court costs or something like that, but merely by waiting or being unable to pay within thirty days, which may be what the court says if you go to court, you get a fine of $100 or thirty days to pay - sometimes they say, in default of payment you get one day or two days or a week in jail. Sometimes that is the penalty. This government is just imposing this fee as another way of collecting money, and the money they are collecting is from the people who are least able to afford to pay it.

These are fines, and we all recognize that, Mr. Chairman, these are fines, these are penalties, for breaking the law, but we are talking about provincial offences here, we are talking about matters that have small fines. We are not talking about criminal matters, we are not talking about criminal offences that require significant deterrents and all of that. Mr. Chairman, we do have a lot of people in this Province who don't have the money to pay fines if they happen to incur them very quickly. If somebody is rich and has lots of money, all they do is simply write a cheque, write a cheque to the court on the way out the door. If you don't have any money, Mr. Chairman, this government is going to charge you an extra $12 on a $100 fine, which, if this were interest it would be up in the criminal rates of interest, up in 60 per cent, 70 per cent, 80 per cent. If you took $100 and said, okay, if you don't pay within thirty days we are going to give you an extra $12 fine, that would be the equivalent of charging 12 per cent interest for thirty days. That is an interest rate of 144 per cent, which is way above what is called the criminal interest rate under the Criminal Code.

Mr. Chairman, I find that offensive and I think that it is really a punitive measure. All it is going to do is put more money in the coffers of this government from ordinary people and, in particular, from people who cannot afford to pay their fines in a timely way.

That is what I have to say about this bill, Mr. Chairman. I am opposed to this type of legislation. It is punitive, it is unnecessary, it is regressive, and it hurts the people who can least afford to pay the kind of fines that we are talking about here, even if they are within the $50 or $100 or $150 range.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 1 is carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

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

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

The enacting clause is carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act.

CHAIR: Shall the title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The title is carried.

On motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, carried without amendment?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Bill 27 carried.

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

CHAIR: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Order 6, Committee of the Whole on a bill, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. (Bill 26)

CHAIR: Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

Shall clauses 1 to 8 carry?

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to pass a few comments on this act here this afternoon because, Mr. Chairman, it is, as was indicated last night, and quite rightly, by members opposite, this is a substantial piece - although it is not very thick - of legislation and it can have a significant impact on the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, what we are proposing here is to amend the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act to enable an auction to take place in the fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is essentially a reinstatement in the act of enabling legislation that it contained prior to 2000. At the time, in 2000, the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act was amended to remove the ability to have an auction in the fishery and to institute, permanently, Final Offer Selection as a form of arbitration in collective bargaining.

As we know, while that was probably an appropriate thing to do at the time, we find ourselves, over the past number of years - increasingly so, as we see problems in markets and changes in resource availability and those types of things - we have seen where Final Offer Selection arbitration has not worked at all to the end that we had all hoped it would back in 1998, 1999, and 2000. I think we really saw the wheels starting to come off Final Offer Selection probably in 2001; 2002 was a challenge; 2003 there were problems; and, again, this spring we saw problems again related to Final Offer Selection arbitration.

What we are proposing here, Mr. Chairman, is to enable the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture to require, as a condition of licence, that fish be bought or sold through an auction in the Province. There are two pieces to that enabling piece. What we envisage, Mr. Chairman, is that this could work in tandem with the collective bargaining regime that we currently have, or it could work in the absence of the collective bargaining regime that we presently have.

As many people know, Mr. Chairman, we have, over the past number of months, had some fairly extensive discussions with the industry on the possibility of implementing an auction in the shrimp fishery. We had embarked down that road back in February, pulled back off it in March because there was an agreement between the parts of the industry on a different approach. That approach went down the drain, as I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, back about April 9, as I recall. The fishery tied up - or did not untie, I suppose, is probably a better way of putting it - for about a month to five weeks, and only untied when I announced again that we would embark upon implementation of an auction for the shrimp fishery some time in June. Certainly, our target is to have it operational by June 24, when the current price schedule runs out.

What we would propose, Mr. Chairman, and what we have proposed to the industry, is that we would see an optional auction take place where the industry, the processors and the fishermen's union, would negotiate a price schedule that would apply if people so desired to fish under that arrangement. Also, Mr. Chairman, there would be an arrangement where people would, if they so desired, be able to fish under an auction as opposed to the collective agreement.

That is what we propose for this season, Mr. Chairman. This legislation enables us to do that. We have had quite a number of discussions with the fishing industry on this. Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure members opposite will allude to this later when they speak, it has not been received with open arms. Mr. Chairman, that is to be expected. Whenever you are talking about significant change in any industry, this is what we are confronted with, opposition and whatever.

Mr. Chairman, I just want, in my first comments here - I am sure there will be other opportunities for me to comment here, because I am sure there will be questions from the other side - to say briefly here now that an auction system is not new to the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been used in the past. In had been used in the late 1980s, when the Middle Distance Fleet was on the go, and the Resource Short Plant Program, and it worked very effectively, Mr. Chairman, in a very high volume fishery with quite a number of boats and a great availability of product. At that time, Mr. Chairman -

MS JONES: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: The Member for Cartwright L'Anse au Clair, I am sure, will have ample opportunity to pass her comments here this afternoon. If she has a question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: - and there was market demand for product, but there was, at that time, a fishery that was in excess of - for groundfish, for cod in Newfoundland and Labrador, probably up around 300,000 plus tons of cod available. Prices were, at that time, in the order of twenty-five to forty cents a pound, which is not radically different from what we see in shrimp. The amount of cod available in the world was not radically different from what we see in shrimp. The amount of cod that was available in the Province was about three times what we see in shrimp in the present day.

Mr. Chairman, we saw at that time where prices increased to the middle distance fleet, who sold under this system, and the quality of the product actually improved tremendously under this system. That is what we hope to be able to achieve here. Can I stand here today or on any day on this issue and guarantee that this is going to solve the problems that we have in the shrimp industry? No, Mr. Chairman, I cannot. Nor can anybody else propose something that will do the same.

As well, Mr. Chairman, there were a number of reports over the past seven or eight years that had recommended a pilot project on an auction in the Province, and that is essentially what you could call this. An optional pilot project in shrimp for this season. Mr. Chairman, we do intend to do optional because we want to do a gradual - move down this road gradually. We do not want to jump in over our heads. We want to see if this thing can work. I see no reason why it would not in the fishery of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are the only major fisheries jurisdiction in the world, to my knowledge, that does not have some form of an auction operating in it. We are the only place in the world where collective bargaining sets the prices for fish.

So, Mr. Chairman, those are my initial comments. Before I sit down, I will inform the House that we propose that section 35(4) of the act be amended from what we have proposed in Bill 26, and the Table has been presented with this, as I understand it. I think members have been presented with it also. It is not inconsistent with the theme and thrust of what we proposed initially anyway. It just further clarifies what we intended to do. As 35(4) says: when an auction is in place there would not be the opportunity for a strike or a lockout.

Mr. Chairman, our intension there was not to take away the right to strike or the right to lockout from the industry and the union. What we wanted to do is, where there is a compulsory auction - obviously, where there is a compulsory auction you cannot have a strike or a lockout. You have to be able to make individual decisions, whether you are a processor or a harvester. So, that is what is proposed there. In a compulsory auction or where the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture requires that the sale of fish, through an auction, that there will be no right to strike or lockout. Under the system that we are proposing for this season, which is an optional auction, we would propose that there would still be the ability of the fleet to strike and the processing sector to lockout. Thereby enabling them to achieve a collective agreement, a collectively agreed to price schedule on the one hand, that harvesters can fish under and processors can buy under and an auction on the other hand that both sides can choose, or choose not to engage in.

With those notes, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude now. I am sure there will be other questions and I will endeavour to answer them to the best of my ability.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have moved the amendment.

MR. TAYLOR: I am not sure - do I have to - I move that Bill 26 -

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't need to.

MR. TAYLOR: No, I don't need to. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise today, and I certainly do want to speak to Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act, because I have been sitting here in this House of Assembly for - this is my ninth year. I was Minister of Fisheries for two-and-a-half years and I have never seen a bill that has come before this House concerning the fishery that has been as important as this one, and we have a lot of questions and a lot of concerns.

I would like to tell the minister upfront that what I am about to say is no reflection on him as an individual, and I certainly do not want to make comments that he would take to be insulting or anything else. It is just that I know the situation the minister is in. I was there myself. It is a very difficult industry to try and regulate and be the minister of, and I understand the situation in which he finds himself everyday. As I told him the other day when he said that a plant closed in his district for reasons that he could not control, I said: It is your fault. He said: How can it be my fault? I said: Well, it will be before 6:00 tonight because you are going to be asked to solve it.

Mr. Chairman, what I am about to say does not concern the minister. It is not a personal attack on the minister because I have a fair amount of respect for him. I have to give you a little history on this. In January the processors and the harvesters of the Province were sitting down trying to negotiate a price for shrimp and negotiations were dragging out for quite some time. The minister at some point in January gave an ultimatum to the processors and the harvesters in the Province - in fact, all of the fishing industry - that if they did not reach an agreement on price for shrimp by January 1, he would enforce an agreement upon them, or legislate an agreement upon them. At that point, the harvesters and the processors moved away from the table and said: Well, let's sit back and see what he is going to do.

Then in January or early February he announced that he was going to implement an auction system. At that time I talked to a number of people in the processing sector, a number of fishermen and fisherwomen around the Province, and nobody could understand how this auction system could work. I could speak at great length here this afternoon on the reasons they said that it could not work. Anyway, at some time between then and April the minister withdrew the auction system and said that he was not going to enforce an auction system, or force an auction system upon the fishing industry, and they went back to negotiating again. At some point the harvesters and the processors came to another impasse and the minister said: That's it, I am going to implement - legislate I think the words were - I am going to legislate an auction system.

Mr. Chairman, I have been talking to people in the industry at great length since then and I have a number of concerns, especially with a number of clauses in this, because, as I said to the minister in the Estimates Committee - for those of you who do not know what the Estimates Committee is, it is something that we do after the regular hours of the House of Assembly, where we come in here and it gives me, as the Fisheries critic, an opportunity - me and some of my colleagues - to question the minister at length about his policies, his programs and his budget.

We were here, in fact, I think from 7:00 o'clock on one Wednesday night until 12:30, and we had a very good debate. I must admit, it was enlightening for both this side and the other side because we exchanged views on a number of issues, and the auction system came up. Because my constituents, as well as my colleagues constituents, my colleague for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, my colleague from the Bay of Islands also had a number of concerns about an auction system because of the negative impact that it may have on some of our constituents. In that debate I asked the minister if it were legal; if an auction system were legal. What I mean by that: Could the minister force a fisherman in this Province to sell to the highest bidder? Now sometimes you would think that everybody would sell to the highest bidder, but that is not necessarily the case. I will give you an example.

The fishermen, or some of the fishermen on Fogo Island are part owners of the Fogo Island Co-op; the fish plants on Fogo Island. They are part owners. Obviously, they would like to sell to their own plant. It not only benefits them but it benefits their relatives and the people who live in the communities out there with them because they are not only selling their fish and making a dollar off their fish, but they are also employing people in their district, in their hometowns; their friends and their relatives. They did not like the idea of having to be forced to sell to the highest bidder because what might happen is that a fisherman from the Fogo Island Co-op might have a load of shrimp onboard and he might be headed in. He might be headed down from St. Anthony basin somewhere with 50,000 tons of shrimp on. He is supposed to hail in and start the bidding. Well, all it would take was for some other processor in the Province to offer one one-thousandth of a cent more to that fisherman for his shrimp than the Fogo Island Co-op could pay, or wanted to pay, and he would be forced - I asked the minister and he said yes. He would have to sell to the highest bidder.

A fisherman who is part owner of the Co-op on Fogo Island would be forced to sell, for example, St. Anthony Seafoods, the shrimp plant in St. Anthony, simply because they offered them one-one-thousandth of a cent more a pound for shrimp. They did not want to be forced to do that, because one-one-thousandth of a cent on a pound of shrimp was not worth taking a job off Fogo Island. They did not like the idea of being forced to do it.

Another thing they did not like, without the auction system, it is common in the fishing industry today for a fisherman, when he is ready to go out and get his shrimp or crab, it is common for him to go to the plant where he sells his product, they ice him up, they give him the shrimp bags, and he goes catching shrimp and brings it back and lands it at this plant. Well, under this auction system there is no plant going to do that. There is no plant going to ice up a fisherman, there is no plant going to give him the bags, because they are not guaranteed that the shrimp is coming back to that plant. So, there are a number of problems inherent with a mandatory auction system.

Mr. Chairman, I raised a question today in the House of Assembly, because when I questioned the minister the other night in the Estimates Committee about having to sell to the highest bidder, the minister said: Yes, you have to. I said: Have you had legal advice on this? He said: Yes. I said: Do you have to change the legislation in order to do it? He said: Yes. I asked him the question in the House today about the Fogo Island Co Op, only I did not use their names, and the fishermen having to sell to somebody else, and he said: Oh, no, this is optional. This is an optional or a voluntary auction.

Well, that is the first time that I have heard of it, and it is the first time that any of the fishermen and the plant owners, that I know of, have heard of it. I had the occasion last night to be in the company of a number of processors and a number of fishermen, because I went to the wake of a well-known fisherman in this Province, Mr. Lester Petten, and at that, of course, there were a number - everyone there was related to the fishery. I talked to them all about this and other issues, and I could not find one person there and I have not found one person since January who wanted an auction system. It is the first I heard today, when I stood here in the House and talked about being forced to sell, and the minister says: Oh, no, never mind that. This is going to be an optional auction system. Well, I challenge the minister to show me anywhere in this legislation where it says voluntary or optional.

I also challenge the minister today - maybe he should write down some of these questions, Minister, because we are going to need the answers to these before we can vote on this bill. There is no doubt about it. We need the answers. I think that the people of the Province deserve the answers to these questions.

Where does it say in this bill that is before the House, that you expect us to vote on, that was brought in last night not by you but by the Minister of Labour, because it is her bill, under the law it is a labour issue, where does it say anywhere in this bill that we are talking about an optional system? Where does it say anywhere in this bill that we are talking about shrimp? Where does it say anywhere in this bill that this is a pilot project?

Mister Minister, you just got up and you said, basically - and here are your words: Basically, all this bill is going to permit us to do is give, outside of changing the legislation pertaining to strikes and lockouts - I agree with you, that needs to be changed, and I agree with that part of the bill. The first six clauses, I think, Mr. Minister, of the bill, I agree, that needs to be done, because you can't have people who have agreed to a system and then because it doesn't work in their way they are going to on strike or they are going to be locked out. That needs to be fixed.

Here is the words you used. You said: Basically all this bill is, is an optional pilot project for shrimp. Well, there are no optional words in the bill, there is no pilot project in the bill, and there is no shrimp in the bill. In our debate today, if you were to put optional pilot project for shrimp, I would have no trouble voting for that section of the bill, I would have no problem whatsoever. In fact, you wouldn't even need to have the legislation here, I say to the minister, if it were an optional pilot project for shrimp. It wouldn't need to be there.

What concerns me, Minister - and it is not because it is you because you might be gone tomorrow and, God help us, the individual there from Goose Bay behind you might be the Minister of Fisheries. Anything is possible. It is highly unlikely, but anything is possible. He might come along tomorrow and use this bill to force an auction system, not only for shrimp but all species, because if you look under Clause 35.2, this is what is says here, "The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture may establish an auction system for the sale of fish." May establish! For the people out there in television land, when it says, "The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture may establish...", it means that any time he want to do it, he can do it. Correct me if I am wrong when you get up, but in this particular sentence in this bill, Clause 35.2, it says, "The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture may establish an auction system for the sale of fish." That is any species. If you look in the original act, all it says under the definition of fish is salted fish; anything but. Cured fish, I think the exact words are; anything but cured fish.

If we pass this bill today, it is nothing for the minister to go out tomorrow and say, I am implemented an auction system for crab. Minister, you know as well as I do, that could have serious impacts for the small players in the industry, the small processors in the industry. You know what I am talking about and I certainly will get back to that later on today. I am sure that my colleagues along here want to have a few words. We want these questions answered.

The other thing is, you said today that it was optional, then under your own amendment that you just brought in, it says: Notwithstanding sections 26, 27 and 28 or another section of this Act, where the minister requires the sale of a fish species by auction; where the minister requires it. If we pass that clause, that means any time or wherever you feel like it, you can bring in an auction system for any species. That has serious implications.

The other problem I have with it, Minister, and it is no disrespect for you, but what I have been watching since this House opened - I know it is the first session of a new government. You have been in power though for seven or eight months. You have officials in your department, along with every other department that is in this government, who have been around for years. There are fellows in your department, working for your department for maybe thirty years. I was going to say that I can excuse you and your other ministers for the mistakes you have been making because you are new but that does not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I would say that, if your whole department was new, but unfortunately it is not and you should be getting better advice. The reason I am saying it is you brought in a bill, or your colleague introduced this bill last night at 12:30. We have not spoken to it yet in the House of Assembly. This is my first opportunity to speak to it and already you are amending your own act. You amended it before you even spoke to it, or you spoke for five minutes and said: I am bringing in an amendment to my own act.

If you were the only one who had done that in this session of this House, your first session of the House, you could overlook it, but that is happening here all the time. We have the Minister of Works - the individual who is bringing in the insurance bill, what is the name of the department? Because they keep changing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Government Services.

MR. REID: Government Services, who is already talking about all the changes that she is going to have into her bill and her act on insurance. She only brought it in yesterday or the day before. Oh, we are going to do that next year. We are going to do this. Well, you all promised the Legislature that you were going to bring in bills and acts to do something and now all of a sudden you are pushing them out.

I know the minister is getting angry because he does not like to hear this, but I keep saying to him: Minister, I am not criticizing you. I am more so criticizing the officials in your department for having you put a bill into the House that was not properly prepared. I say there is too much haste to ram this down our throats under the guise of an optional pilot project for shrimp. Well, I say minister: I tell you what, if this is an optional pilot project for shrimp, and shrimp only, it is a pilot project and it is an option, put that in the bill, tear up the rest of it and I will vote, and I am sure my colleagues will vote for it unanimously and instantaneously. But, if not, we are going to have to have further debate on this bill before it is enacted.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do give notice that I want to amend the act. I move to amend Bill 26, An Act To Amend The Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act as follows: In clause 7, section 35(2) be amended by deleting all words after establishing -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes there are a number of amendments coming forward in this particular bill. To avoid confusion, what we intend to do is call each clause of the bill separately. When that particular clause is called at that particular time, we will allow the introduction of amendments and it will be debated and voted on at that time. Other than that, we are going to have several amendments pertaining to the same clause and it would be certainly confusing.

So, if the member does not mind waiting until that particular clause is carried, then he will have ample time to make and bring forward his amendment, and to be debated and voted on.

MR. REID: No problem, Mr. Chairman.

I will just give notice that I will rise again to ask more questions later in the debate.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to speak on this bill. It is, as has been indicated, a very important piece of legislation because we have a pretty unique system in Newfoundland and Labrador for collective bargaining in the fishing industry. I say it is the only Province that has a comprehensive Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act where fish harvesters are treated as the equivalent of employees in labour relations terms and fish buyers or fish processors, people who buy fish, are treated as the equivalent of employers for the negotiation of the price of fish and other conditions of the harvesting and selling of fish. So, it is a unique situation. It was brought into this Province in the early 1970s. We have been up through lots of ups and downs over this collective bargaining and negotiating the price of fish. It has not been an easy road, Mr. Chairman, but we have been forging in this Province a relationship between the fishermen and fish harvesters and the plant owners and fish processors that we hope, and have hoped for many years, gives the fishermen and fish harvesters some independence.

We do not have to go back too far in history to understand that in many, many cases, in almost every community of this Province, the fishermen, the fish harvesters and the fishing families were at the mercy of, what we used to call, the fish merchants. They are still the fish merchants, but they are called fish processors now. They are called something else, but the fishing communities and the fishermen and their families were at the mercy of the fish merchant. We had something called the truck system where people did not have any cash. Confederation brought cash in people's pockets in many places of this Province where they never had it before because they were always indebted to the fish merchant to whom they sold their fish and from whom they got their supplies, their food and their gear for the fishery. That system has been decried by many people for many times, and it was one of the reasons why the Fishermen's Union was formed in the late 1960s to try to overcome that. A previous attempt by William Coaker back in the early part of the century was also a very important and significant event in fishermen and fish harvesters trying to overcome that unfair system that was in place.

So, we have done it and we have chosen to do it in this Province through the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. We have had problems over the years, as has been pointed out. We have been trying to ensure in the last number of years that there was some stability in the harvesting sector, particularly when we have species such as crab and shrimp, where a tie-up at a certain period of time would cause significant problems in the market, would cause significant problems in the ability of the fishing industry of this Province to deliver to the market and guarantee that they would have access to long-term contracts and other things that would keep the price of the product up, so we have tried a few things through this legislation to see if we could bring about changes to that.

We have had a number of studies, and we have tried a few experiments. One of the things that was settled on a few years ago, after a pilot project and a certain amount of good faith, and leaps of faith on the part of fishers and fish harvesters and plant operators, was this Final Offer Selection. It seems to have worked pretty good on the whole - on the whole. There have been exceptions where it has not panned out, but on the whole it has worked pretty good.

The auction system is something that is also on the horizon as a potential way of dealing with certain types of problems in the fishing industry, where the price slackens off, where the negotiated price does not necessarily have any significant meaning. There is an interest, and I have to say that. It is not an enthusiasm. There is very little enthusiasm at this point, but there is an interest in seeing whether or not the auction system, the auction at sea system, would have any place in the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery.

I want to say this: It is a very tentative type of interest, and I think we need to move very cautiously in giving government statutory authority in this area, because it can cause further havoc, it can create uncertainty, it can create unfairness, and have unintended results. We do not know what all of them are. If the government has total authority to have auction systems in every species of fish, that may inhabit collective bargaining. That is a potentially serious and significant problem that might result, if we have open season, as it were, on auctions for all species at the minister's say-so, if we do have that, and if the minister has that power, what concerns me is that this may inhibit the collective bargaining process. This may prevent agreements from taking place.

Now, we have a lot of tough customers in the fishing industry, on both sides of the bargaining table, Mr .Chairman. They know how to play hardball. They know the consequences. The stakes are very high. The stakes are very high, and they know how to play hardball, and a lot of things happen, but it is a private sector operation and at the end of the day the economic interests of both parties try to find a solution, and most of the time it works.

I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is going to be given, under this legislation, the power to have an auction system for any species - and that is what we have in the legislation - upon his decision, whether that is going to prevent the kind of tough bargaining, hard bargaining, and last-minute decisions, and late nights, and brinkmanship, and all of the things that go with tough collective bargaining, whether it is going to prevent that from taking place, or whether somebody is going to run off to the minister and say: We cannot make a deal. You are going to have to impose this system - because somebody might think it would work to their advantage one side or the other.

I think what we have right now, Mr. Chairman, is a concern that this year, towards the end of this month, we may get into a situation where the negotiated price does not work and there needs to be some type of mechanism in place to determine a price outside of negotiated price.

The Fishermen's Union and enough people are interested in seeing whether or not - I am saying it as a tentative matter, Mr. Chairman - an auction system, as proposed and discussed by the minister, might work. Nobody is signing on to this as a solution, but if we give wholehearted authority to the minister, I am worried that this could inhibit collective bargaining, that people will not go to make a deal because the minister will be waiting in the wings, ready to bring down the hammer. If somebody thought that it suited them, they might say: Well, we will hold off now. We will see what the minister is going to do.

I think we have to be very careful here. There is a willingness to test it and see if it might work in the shrimp industry, but we have a real problem in the fishing industry. Let's call it what people say behind their backs is collusion - the problem, the potential problem, of collusion - between the powerful interests, and there is only a handful of them. This government ran off to the Combines Investigation Act, the federal Competition Bureau, a few years ago, and they are still waiting for an investigation to be completed.

There are no easy solutions, no quick solutions, to the kind of competition diminishment that this government, this minister and his Premier, accuse the fishing industry of. There are no quick solutions to that, so let's not jump a long way down a road that might get us into another circumstance where collusion might take place and the mechanisms are not there to deal with it and we may have gone so far that it is hard to turn back.

What I am suggesting - and I guess it is along the lines of what the previous speaker is suggesting. I have not seen his amendment but I gather he wants to limit the authority to deal with single species of shrimp because that is what we are talking about for the summer, see if it works, see what happens, see what the experience is, see whether the rules can have some application, and then look and see whether or not there is a place for this auction at sea system.

You know, it is very easy to go off to some other country and see something at work that looks good and say: Hey, we should take this one piece -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi that his time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

If you want to speak, I will go back again.

CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. HARRIS: Just by leave for a moment, Mr. Chairman. I think there are going to be a few exchanges this afternoon, other speakers.

It is easy to take something from another country and pluck it out and put it down here and say: Hey, let's try this, or let's import this - but, you know, sometimes things that work in one country work because of the whole structure of the industry, the nature of the capital investment, the kind of alliances that people have, the history and the nature of dealings between parties over decades, and it works for those reasons. So, if we are importing something from another country and saying: Hey, let's try this on, then let's do it in a very cautious way. If we are going to try it on as a pilot project, let's ensure the legislation does not go so far as to leave it open for the players to change their strategies totally so that the rules of the game get out of control.

So, I would advise a little bit of caution here. I am interested in the debate and I want to hear what the Member for Twillingate & Fogo has to say, and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, who knows a fair deal about what happens in her district, as previous Minister of Fisheries, and see if we can make sure that the legislation that is being presented this afternoon can be the best legislation that it can and not overdo it, not leave the door open for things that we need to be cautious about, because we do not really want to disrupt the fairly precarious relationship between fish harvesters and companies that exists. We do not want to shift the balance in one favour or the other. We want to ensure that there is real bargaining between parties for a fair price for fish, and that, if there is an auction system, there will be some true competition; because if it turns out not to be, then the losers are going to be the fish harvesters who may be out there at sea, having spent all the money required to catch the fish, having the inventory on board, and being at the mercy of someone who now has the right to set a price that could bankrupt them or could cause them to lose money. That is the concern that I have, Mr. Chairman, and we need to have some assurances that cannot happen and that will not happen.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise now to try and, I suppose, clarify some matters related to Bill 26, and maybe try and answer some questions, Mr. Chairman.

Let me start off, first of all, by clarifying some issues or straightening out the Member for Twillingate & Fogo on the chronology of events over the past six months as it relates to shrimp in particular.

He is quite right, Mr. Chairman. In late January, I did issue an ultimatum to the industry, to the processors and the harvesters, through their union, on getting their act together and dealing with the fundamental problems that are in the shrimp industry. I think everybody in this House, who has any knowledge whatsoever of the shrimp industry, must recognize that there are some very serious challenges confronting our shrimp industry, globally, in the market, in currency issues and, as well, in our own industry here on the ground and on the water in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are a variety of challenges, and I am not going to go into them all, but there have been a number of reports over the past couple of years, mostly commissioned, with the exception of - well, all participated in and/or commissioned by the previous Administration on the matters related to shrimp. That is not a criticism, Mr. Chairman. That is an acknowledgment that there were problems and that the previous Administration tried to see if there was some way of addressing those problems.

Mr. Chairman, starting in 1997, we all remember what is commonly referred to in the industry as the pepper-spray summit over in Mundy Pond, St. Teresa's Parish Hall, as I recall. Anyway, the fishermen met. Mr. Efford went in, in the middle of a very long strike by harvesters over the price for crab, and we did not get our industry going until late July of that year, blah, blah, blah. We all know the problems associated with that. Final Offer Selection came out of that.

Let me set the record straight, Mr. Chairman. I have some quotes from the Vardy report that the Administration of the day commissioned. They commissioned Mr. Dave Vardy and a couple of other individuals to have a look at our industry, in crab, and have a look at the industry worldwide, and come back with some recommendations on how we might change our approach to collective bargaining, price setting, whatever.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to see where it is here now, the quote that I had. Anyway, I will just get to the point. The bottom line is that Mr. Vardy recommended that we move to Final Offer Selection arbitration in collective bargaining. He recommended that, Mr. Chairman, as an interim measure. His recommendation was, that would be done in the interim and that we would move from that to a pilot project on an auction. He recommended at the time that we try a pilot project auction on cod in 3Ps and cod in 4RS+3Pn. It was not acted upon. It was not done, so we essentially do not know how an auction might work in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is that.

I will give you some quotes from the Vardy report, Mr. Chairman, because change is a formidable obstacle. People fear change probably more than any other thing, because change is not a thing. It is whatever. It is an abstract thing. It is just not something that you can point to. People fear change, even though they do not know necessarily what they fear about that change.

There are lots of people in the industry today, Mr. Chairman, and I hear the same comments that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo has alluded to by harvesters and processors on how an auction might or might not work. There are a lot of people out there in the industry who, because of their lack of information about how an auction works or might work, are concerned. There are those out in the industry who, because of how an auction might work, are proposing that we do not go there because it might hurt them individually or - maybe I should rephrase that - that it does not fit the agenda that they currently operate under.

We all know that there is a large section of the industry that is controlled by individuals in the industry. The question is: Why would they want an auction which would essentially free up the hands of those who are tied to them? That is an issue. It would, in theory. As the Member for Twillingate & Fogo suggested in the Estimates Committee meeting, an auction would, theoretically, lead to more competition and higher prices; but, you know, that is only in theory. I recognize that, and that is why we want the protection of a collective bargaining regime in an optional auction, and an auction to try it.

Mr. Chairman, Vardy said, "The key feature of an auction system is that it will achieve the highest possible price for the commodity by allowing for the full interplay of market forces. The maximum value is achieved as a result of forces which bring supply and demand for the particular commodity into balance. The resulting price is a function of the amount of competition among buyers, the size of the lot being sold, and its quality." All of the issues that are important in the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

He went on to say, "The implementation of an auction system should result in an improvement in quality of raw material, since the price paid is truly reflective of the quality delivered, and an increase in the prices received for fish."

That is something that we have to address. Fifty per cent of the shrimp that we land will not meet the standards for the European market, the biggest shrimp market in the world, and we cannot get into it with 50 per cent of our shrimp. That has to be addressed.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go on with all of this. I will deal with it afterwards, but I will say this: Vardy is consistent with, I think, my views and the views of many here. "The implementation of an auction system would represent a radical change in the structure of the Newfoundland fishery..." - I guess he meant the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery - "...changes in the control and influence of the fishery by incumbent vested interests. It is human nature to resist change, particularly when the unknown consequences are predicted to have major impacts on the status quo."

The unknown impacts, Mr. Chairman, the unknown impacts. Now, I believe they will be positive impacts. There are those who believe they may be negative impacts, but it will have a major impact on the status quo. For a lot of people in the industry, they want the status quo. I do not think it has served our industry overall. It has not served our industry's best overall interest, the status quo. The status quo has led to tie-up after tie-up after tie-up after tie-up in our shrimp fishery, ever since I can remember. When the Gulf fishery was on its own, there were tie-ups. When the Northern shrimp fishery started in 1997, there has not been a year since 1997, to my knowledge, that there has not been a partial or a full tie-up in that fishery.

Mr. Chairman, that is something that we have to address. It has affected our ability to land all of our shrimp, it has affected the quality of our shrimp, and it has affected our ability to market ourselves in the marketplace.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, "Therefore, it is unlikely that an auction system will be readily accepted by the industry at large. It would only be achievable..." - and this is important, Mr. Chairman; these are Mr. Vardy's comments - "...through legislation or gradual acceptance. The former process is driven by societal will and/or need. In this case such a will cannot be identified." Well, Mr. Chairman, there is some will to do that now. "Therefore the only perceived route is through gradual acceptance."

That, Mr. Chairman, is what we are endeavouring to try and bring about right now with an optional auction that we engage the industry in, that gives them the comfort of the old system where there is collective bargaining, where people can opt to fish under that and buy under that, or they can opt to fish under and buy under an auction. "This may be achievable through the introduction of a pilot scale auction, which would enable the realizable benefits to be demonstrated in real terms. The co-existence of an auction, along with other price settlement mechanisms, is seen as an advantage to the industry, providing flexible options for the exercise of choice by both buyers and sellers."

That, Mr. Chairman, is what Mr. Vardy said, and that is what we are trying to achieve. He said that in 1997-1998. We are here now, in 2004, trying to move down that road.

As for the concern of the Member for Twillingate & Fogo about the Fogo Island Co-op, I have talked to the Fogo Island Co-op. I cannot say whether they are euphoric about where we are going, or anything like that. I do not think there is anybody in the industry euphoric about where we are going. I am not, that is for sure. We are trying to make a change in this industry to provide stability, to increase quality, and to increase, therefore, the market price and therefore the incomes and returns to the fishermen and the processors in this Province.

The Fogo Island Co-op, Mr. Chairman, under this scenario that we are proposing here today, that we have proposed to the industry, I should say, and that this legislation enables us to do, will be able to have their members fish for the Fogo Island Co-op, if they so desire, or if they desire to not do so, they can fish under the auction system and let the interplay of the market determine where their fish goes.

As for the member's concern about ice and bags, and those types of things, those are operational issues that need not obviously be dealt with in legislation. I am not suggesting that the member is suggesting that, but these things are operational issues that we had identified back in February, in the very first discussions that we had with the industry. It was suggested at that time that the easiest way to do it, as I indicated to the member in the Estimates Committee the other night, the easiest way to deal with that is as a condition of the sale of the fish, once the fish is bought, the processor is responsible for putting ice and bags back aboard the vessel. It is not rocket science, Mr. Chairman, it is not something that is radically different.

To the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, no, we need not go traipsing off around the world to try to find out what everybody else is doing and come back, and just because somebody else is doing it, we impose it on our industry and think that it is going to be the answer to everything. Neither, Mr. Chairman, do we need to reinvent the wheel all the time. Mr. Chairman, these are the issues that are here.

As for collective bargaining, this enables collective bargaining to continue. Mr. Chairman, as Vardy alluded -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. minister that his time has elapsed.

MR. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If I could just have thirty seconds to conclude, because I know there will be other opportunities.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I will say this in conclusion, that - I have lost my train of thought there now. Anyway, on collective bargaining, this enables it to continue.

Mr. Chairman, we have to have the legislation. To answer the member's question, do we need the legislation for an optional voluntary auction, yes, Mr. Chairman, we do need the legislation for an optional voluntary auction. As the Member for Twillingate & Fogo knows, and the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair knows - I was reminded this afternoon, there are three former Fisheries Ministers and a Fisheries Minister in this House this afternoon. Everybody knows, or they should know, that you don't go around like a mouse talking to the people in the fishing industry, because if you do you are going to get tramped on. You have to have the ability to hold a stick and a carrot up to them. Those are the facts of the matter. That might sound cruel and it might sound cocky or something like that, and that is not what I mean. Mr. Chairman, you do have to have the ability to push these people to change. If we don't have that ability, then, Mr. Chairman, we will never have change in this industry.

Final offer selection was done in this Legislature, to impose it on the industry for a two-year term. Mr. Chairman, this is, as I said, a reintroduction of legislation that was on the books prior to 2000. That is what we are looking for today, the authority to reinstitute that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am going to have a few words on Bill 26, to follow up to some comments that my colleague, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, made earlier. Before I do, I say to the minister that I agree with one comment he made, at the very least, and that is that you are right, you cannot be a mouse if you are the Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland and Labrador. For sure, if you say one thing on the Northern Peninsula, it is on the Burin Peninsula within minutes, not hours.

The other side of that, of course, is that in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador you have to realize that there are lot more experts out there in that industry than the knowledge that is contained in the House of Assembly here; I can guarantee you that. When you have that kind of expertise and that kind of knowledge in the industry, you have to know what you are talking about and ensuring that you have all the information and all the facts, because you can be sure that someone who is listening does have it.

Mr. Chairman, the minister talked about the Vardy Task Force Report, and he was right when he said that Vardy did pave the way for Final Offer Selection in the Province. Vardy did recommend, as well, that we should do an experiment - and I stress the word experiment - on an auction system or a hail-at-sea system within the fishery. At the time, he did suggest that it be done on 3PS cod. Mr. Chairman, what the minister did not go on to say is that in the last year, there was a report commissioned, A Framework For Stability, that has been done by David Jones, who was the legal counsel who did the review on this particular act, and there was a couple of things that he did. One of the things he did was, he looked at the recommendations that were put forward by Vardy in the Task Force Report on shrimp. He said, the reason that it did not get implemented, the reason the auction system did not come to fruition in 1998, 1999 and 2000, at the time that the pilot was recommended, was because there was resistence on the part of people in the industry in the Province. That was the reason, and the minister alluded not to say that today, Mr. Chairman, but that was the fact and that was true. The reason it was not done is because there was resistence and there is still resistence today.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing was that, what David Jones quoted in his report that was released, actually in October of this year, was that there was also an inability on behalf of the parties to collective bargaining, on what terms and conditions should surround an auction system in the Province. We have two problems: One was the fact that there was resistance in the industry; secondly, there was no consensus on how the conditions and rules of an auction system should work.; and thirdly, there was also the fact at that time that the current process of Final Offer Selection model was in place, it was working at that time, and it was not seen, I guess, as a big priority.

The two important points that I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the reasons why Vardy's attempt at a pilot at that time was not implemented was because of the resistance in the Province by the industry and because of the fact that they could not agree on the terms and conditions of an auction. I say to the minister, I see that those two things are still the circumstances that exist in the Province today, and I do not see how either one of those things have changed.

Mr.Chairman, there has been, I guess, some debate out there in the public. As I said earlier, I have a lot of people in the fishing industry in my own district. I have travelled through the Northern Peninsula in the last couple of weeks, actually been into a couple of stages and talked to some fishermen up there on my way. Mr. Chairman, there is not a great deal of understanding about how a shrimp auction would work and what they would be required to do under this particular system. Mr. Chairman, that may lead to some of the skepticism, I say to the minister, around this whole process, but I think there is more to it than that. I think there is also a fear that this could be the underlining means by which government would look at auctions in other fish species in the Province. That is where the biggest fear is.

I was on the West Coast of the Island two weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, I was on the Northern Peninsula, and I was in my own district, all within the last two weeks, talking to fishermen. Mr. Chairman, there is a fear that by granting this legislation to the government the minister will have, at his discretion, the power to implement an auction on any species of fish that is landed in Newfoundland and Labrador, at any time that he feels that he needs to do so, to fix any particular problem, or even if no problem exists in the industry. I think that is where a lot of the fear is. This goes beyond shrimp, it goes beyond a pilot project, because I have not seen one thing in this bill, in Bill 26, that talked about a pilot project. I have seen nothing in this bill that talked about it being voluntary or being optional, Mr. Chairman.

When you look at the recommendations that the minister received from, what I consider to be, experts in the field, in the fishery in this Province, who did all the reviews, scrutinized the legislation, conducted consultations, people like Mr. Vardy, people like Mr. Jones - both of them recommended that this be pilot projects and that it be done in one restricted region of the Province. I think, under David Jones's recommendations, it was that it be done on the West Coast of the Island with the lobster fishery, to see if that could possibly work.

MR. TAYLOR: That makes no sense whatsoever.

MS JONES: Well, the minister thinks that that makes absolutely no sense and he is certainly entitled to his opinion. I will not pass opinion, Mr. Chairman, one way or the other. I am just saying to the minister, that every recommendation from every study that was conducted, that he has quoted today, recommended that this be a pilot project, and nowhere in this bill does it say it is a pilot, nowhere in the bill does it say it is optional, nowhere in the bill does it say it is voluntary, and, Mr. Chairman, nowhere in the bill does it say shrimp. That is where the problem is. If you are going to have fishermen and fisherwomen in this Province buy into this legislation, you have to give them some guarantees that this is not an open book, an open policy, that a minister, not just you, but any minister that comes in, in future years in this Province, can, at a whim, implement a process of a fish auction on any species at all.

I would say to the minister that you need to tighten the legislation to met the announcement that you made and the project or the program that you are trying to implement in the Province. Honour the recommendations that were given to you and amend the legislation to do that. I think that you will see it much well received, because if the fishing industry looks at it and believes it to be a pilot project, they will probably be more encouraged and more open to participate to see if it can work, to see if it will, indeed, bring prices up to them at landed value, to see if it will, indeed, improve the quality of product being landed in the Province, and, most importantly, Mr. Chairman, they will probably try it to see if it will secure them a better position in the North American and European marketplace. That is very important, because right now we are up against some very tough competition, especially in the EU.

Mr. Chairman, nowhere in this bill does it address any of those things, and that is why I feel this legislation needs to be given further consideration. It needs to be adapted to meet the current need out there in the Province, and that is the need to be able to try a new option to see if it is going to work. If it is not going to work, then it doesn't have to be mandatory and we won't be tied to it. We can have some stability and security in knowing that it is not going to apply to caplin, Mr. Chairman, in July, that it is not going to apply to cod next year, that it is not going to apply to crab by the end of 2005. At least it will give them a guarantee, from the minister and from the government, that before they can come in and implement a process like that in any other species, at least they have to come back and talk to us, as fishing people in the industry, or they have to talk to the unions that are the collective bargaining agency for fishermen in the Province, and get some consent, get some feedback from these groups first.

Mr. Chairman, I have only one shrimp plant in my district and my district's plant is owned by the fishermen themselves, as 50 per cent shareholders, and there is a private investor in that plant as well. Mr. Chairman, they want to sell to their own shrimp facility. They invested money, they are the people who are shareholders of the company, and they want to make sure that they can sell their product to their own plant. I don't know if there is any guarantee under this auction system that will actually allow them to do that. Mr. Chairman, they are aware that they will hail in from sea at 100 kilometers off or something and try and obtain some information from the desk as to where they can sell and at what price they can sell.

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the fact that in my own district this company is supported by fishermen in that area, and I know, from knowing these people personally and individually all my life, that they want to sell to their company, the company that they founded and built up over the past twenty-five years. I need to make sure that there are some guarantees, some assurances, in this that will allow them to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister to, please, reconsider the clauses that he has in this bill that allow it to be a full, open, auction system for all fish species in the Province. As the minister stood and said already today, in this House of Assembly there are three former Ministers of Fisheries and Aquaculture and one current Minister.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The member's has expired.

MS JONES: By leave, just to clue up that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

CHAIR: By leave.

MS JONES: As he has already said, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of people in this House who have already held that portfolio. When he leaves office there may be other ministers who will come in and occupy that portfolio.

Mr. Chairman, we need to ensure that there is protection, not only under the current leadership of the minister who is there now, but under future leaderships who may occupy that office within the Province. Right now, there is a free, open system - that is what this bill says - for any government, any minister to launch any auction system, on any fish species, at any time that they require it. That was the amendment by the minister: when they require it, when he requires it.

Mr. Chairman, I disagree with that. I do not agree that we should be that flexible. I think we should take the guidance from the recommendations that were given to us, that this be a pilot project, that we attempt to use it in one species to see if it will work, if there is buy in. I ask the minister to please give that consideration and to tighten the regulations to allow it for shrimp and to allow it as a pilot project in the Province. Then we can have some further discussion.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and the Minister Responsible for Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very quickly, I just want to make a few comments because I see the clock.

Mr. Chairman, we want to be able to implement an auction for shrimp in the Province this year. The legislation enables us to do it in any species. Yes, that is correct. Do we want to do it in any species? No, Mr. Chairman, we do not.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure - I need to have, obviously, a talk with the members opposite on a couple of issues, and that is fine, but I can assure that there is no - I hear the Member for Bay of Islands - hidden agenda on this. What we are trying to do is allow for an open and competitive buying and selling of fish, whatever kind of fish, in this Province. What the members opposite have failed to point out is that in the reports that have been commissioned on the fishery in the very recent past, the one issue, the one common recurring theme that is in everyone of those reports is a recommendation for plant production quotas.

Mr. Chairman, I understand, I believe I do anyway, that members opposite are fairly well opposed to that notion.

MR. JOYCE: Not all.

MR. TAYLOR: Well, not all. Okay, I hear the Member for Bay of Islands say: Not all.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I am not fundamentally opposed to it. I will say that. However, you heard me say it before, thousands of times. However, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that an auction can work.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have to say this, that there are - and let members know - deliberations taking place between members in the industry involved with the cod on the South Coast about a voluntary auction for cod in the late fall down there. If we restrict this to shrimp, for example, in a voluntary nature, it presents two problems. One, we will not be able to do it with cod, if they want to do it. Two, how do we make sure that we get there if we do not have some way of forcing it there?

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I just say to the members opposite, I am open to suggestions on how to protect peoples interest in this. I can certainly have a discussion with members on that, but we have come, June 24 - we have to have an opportunity for the fishery to continue on in this - this shrimp fishery to continue on in this Province. I, having looked at all of the options that have been presented to me, can only see one option that is able to get us there, and that is an auction. I believe there is a growing body of opinion within the industry that agrees with me on that.

On that point, Mr. Chairman, I will leave it for now.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bills 25 and 27 pass, without amendments, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall these reports be received? Now.

When shall these reports be read a third time?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted, bills ordered read a third time presently by leave, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move third reading of a bill, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act, Bill 25, be read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt a motion that Bill 25, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act, Bill 25.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Professional Fish Harvesters Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 25)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I move that An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 27, now be read a third time.

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

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 27, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, be now read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act, Bill 27.

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

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Provincial Offences Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 27)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 11, I move that the House not adjourn at 5:30 o'clock tomorrow on Thursday, June 3, nor at 10:00 o'clock tomorrow, Thursday, June 3, 2004.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe that the member intends to give notice of the motion.

MR. RIDEOUT: Notice. Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is fully what I intend to do.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank members opposite in particular, because this was Private Members' Day, for their co-operation in allowing government business to proceed today. I think we made significant progress and we will be back here again tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I move that this House now adjourn until tomorrow, Thursday, at 1:30 of the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: This being Wednesday, the Chair declares that this House is now adjourned and that we will sit tomorrow at 1:30 of the clock on Thursday, June 3.